Return of Light

[canonrebel]

It was suggested in another forum that I submit the image below to this forum for critique. So...comments anyone?

I remember seeing this submission before. I couldn't stop admiring it. I believe I saw it displayed on pbase-not sure. I remember thinking to myself how the purists would react to this as photography. Maybe it was even me that suggested that you post it here.

Gordan W, You de Man! This is what Art is truely about.

 

[Alison]

Amazing photo and PS work!

 

[canonrebel]

:shock: What happened to all the PURISTS? I can't believe you're letting this submission slide :smileys:

 

[Gordon W]

What happened to all the PURISTS? I can't believe you're letting this submission slide

Perhaps they noted I refer to it as an image, not a photograph. I think of what was done to the original photograph in this case as art since I'm changing what the camera recorded to match how I saw the scene in my mind's eye. Doing this is little different than painting, just uses a different tool.

But I have to agree, the purists have been surprisingly quiet on this one.

 

[Gordon W]

I remember seeing this submission before. I couldn't stop admiring it. I believe I saw it displayed on pbase-not sure. I remember thinking to myself how the purists would react to this as photography. Maybe it was even me that suggested that you post it here.

Gordan W, You de Man! This is what Art is truely about.

Thanks very much for the admiration, CR!

I posted it in four forums altogether, two on dpreview, one on pBase, and this one. The person who suggested this forum used the name 'midnitejam'.

Surprisingly, out of all the comments I received, only one was negative and that person thought it was overprocessed. I can see his point but any less processing and it loses its impact. Several thought it should be cropped differently, but they still thought it was a noteworthy image.

But yeah, I was expecting a purist firestorm over this so I'm pleasantly surprised. Maybe they're starting to learn the difference between archival photography and artistic photography.

 

[canonrebel]

I think of what was done to the original photograph in this case as art since I'm changing what the camera recorded to match how I saw the scene in my mind's eye. Doing this is little different than painting, just uses a different tool.

Ansel Adams did the exact same thing.

difference between archival photography and artistic photography.

Best I've ever heard it described.

 

[HogHunter]

Maybe they're starting to learn the difference between archival photography and artistic photography.

Gordon,

Mind if I use this definition? It is clear and concise.

I am in awe of your art, both this and the marina shot. You capture such emotion. I am generally pretty dim at seeing what others are impressed with but your work is vivid. Keep posting.

PigMan

 

[Gordon W]

Maybe they're starting to learn the difference between archival photography and artistic photography.

Mind if I use this definition? It is clear and concise.

I am in awe of your art, both this and the marina shot. You capture such emotion. I am generally pretty dim at seeing what others are impressed with but your work is vivid. Keep posting.

I don't mind at all if you use that definition, PigMan. I'd be flattered and perhaps it would get the point across to a few more people.

And thanks for the kind words regarding the imagery I've posted here.

 

[vonnagy]

I can see how they might be a bit distracting to some people although only a few people have mentioned noticing them. I should at least desaturate the blue from that 'mist' and darken it a bit maybe.

Anyway, thanks very much for your comments, Mark.

no worries matey, i really admire this work - and of course see more of what you do!

Nope not distracting at all - I would have never able to tell it was photoshopped if you had not of mentioned it so it made me inspect the image alot more carefully than i usually do; it is a critique forum so I did have to pull something out me arse to criticise :LOL:

Anyways i hope you'll post some more stuff here soon

 

[Digital Matt]

The colors are wierd in some places, specifically above barn, and there are places, like in the tops of the trees, where the lighting is off because of curves adjustments I suppose. The tops of the trees are bright and then there is a sudden fall off to dark shadows.

It's a very nice composition, and has potential with this look, but right now, to me at least, it looks very obviously manipulated.

 

[canonrebel]

It's a very nice composition, and has potential with this look, but right now, to me at least, it looks very obviously manipulated.

DM, do you object to manipulation?

 

[HogHunter]

It's a very nice composition, and has potential with this look, but right now, to me at least, it looks very obviously manipulated.

Matt,

Perhaps I'm naive but I was surprised to hear it was manipulated. Therefore I would conclude that the manipulations were less obvious than a trained eye like yours would presume.

 

[Sk8man]

all i can say is WOW.

and all i can ask is HOW?

 

[DanielK]

My personal issue with manipulation is that it usually makes the piece very hard to pull off as a medium to large scale print. Since my primary goal with photography is to get 8x10 or larger prints, I try to keep any PS manipulation to an absolute minimum.

While this piece works fairly well at 800x309 pixels, I doubt it could be pulled off at twice or three times that size without looking noisy and weird.

But that's just me. If your intent is to show it to people on the internet, then it's a nice peice of art. If you want to blow it up and show it in a gallery in hopes that someone will purchase it, then I think it might be a problem. I'd like to see a large sized version or print of it to see if I'm right or if I'm talking out my butt, though.


Daniel

 

[canonrebel]

But that's just me. If your intent is to show it to people on the internet, then it's a nice peice of art. If you want to blow it up and show it in a gallery in hopes that someone will purchase it, then I think it might be a problem. I'd like to see a large sized version or print of it to see if I'm right or if I'm talking out my butt, though.


Daniel

Daniel, there is a plug-in for photoshop by Extensis that will increase a file by a factor of 15 without any added noise.

If you have the bandwidth and if you are interrested, I could download this file, increase the resolution to 50k or larger, and then email it to you. You would only notice the extra noise picked up through an extra generation of jpg.

But my question is....why would you want to pull off files from the forum to print?