Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,566   Posts: 1,545,395   Online: 1087
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23
  1. #11
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,738
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by c6h6o3 View Post
    Nice photograph, no matter how it was done, but I can't help wishing that it were tack sharp from corner to corner. Surely with so much lighting she could've arranged for that. Another 2 stops down is all it would've taken.
    She was specifically trying to get a painterly effect.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  2. #12
    Worker 11811's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,620
    With lighting and effects aside, I think the image should either be very soft or very sharp to the point of hyper realism. It should be soft and mystic or it should be so sharp you could shave with it. If it was my decision, I would have gone for super sharp.

    Like Som says, it has to evoke the feeling of having a vision or seeing an illusion. It has to be simultaneously real and unreal.
    If you have ever had one of those moments of emotional and spiritual clarity where you feel like you can see every, minute detail of everything around you all at the same time, this is the kind of hyper reality I'm talking about. I think that is what Som is talking about when he says that the image of the diety is simultaneously inside the image and outside the image.

    I would really like to see the first or second generation of the image. I think the NPR site has compressed, adjusted or otherwise adulterated that image in order to display it on their website. I think too many website designers lack an understanding of photography, digital or traditional, and many of them are incapable of doing anything better than putting up flashy graphics and using tricks to gussy up a page. We need more website designers who have good knowledge of "image making" who can put up a true representation of a picture when it is artistically necessary.

    In this case, where they are sort of bragging that the image was produced on film, I think it is artistically necessary to produce a true representation of the original, film image. If that representation fails, the image fails but I suppose my previous criticisms hinge on this.

    The image could be a good one but the website might not be displaying it well. If that's the case, my criticisms go out the window.
    Randy S.

    In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni.

    -----

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/randystankey/

  3. #13
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    The Error Level Analysis mentioned wouldn't help if the manipulation isn't made using several images, each saved a different amount of times, and each saved as JPEG every time. If you save images as TIFF for instance there is no kind of deterioration between each time you save it.

    The very basic difference between painting and photography is that the idea of depth of field is unknown to painting. Take this famous portrait of a woman on a balcony:

    http://www.theartwolf.com/imagenestA..._Mona_Lisa.jpg

    the model is in focus just as the background is in perfect focus. There is no idea of an out-of-focus background. You can have mist or haze in the background, but never "out of focus" background. This is something that mankind discovered with photography.

    The photographer of the picture posted in the original post claims she wants to reach a painterly effect, and somehow duplicate in a picture the typical devotional painting that adorns houses and temples, but she fails at rule n.1, which is that in paintings all is in focus by definition.

    So we have a picture which is supposed to look like a painting, but it shows an out-of-focus background, and some clipped highlights, and IMV obvious signs of post-production manipulations. In a word, it sucks from beginning to end. If the premises were different, I think it would suck just the same, but that's just my opinion. But the premises being what they are, I think it really stinks.

    It's true that the original photographer never asked for my opinion, (or wouldn't care) but frankly, there too much bullstuff in the article to like the photographic outcome.

    One feels like being malign and suspect the photographer doesn't even know that with a LF camera she can actually have all in focus without even closing the aperture that much. Or that she was posing with a LF camera as a marketing expedient, but did the work with a digital camera, to save postprocessing time.
    Last edited by Diapositivo; 07-29-2011 at 12:47 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by Worker 11811 View Post
    I think that is what Som is talking about when he says that the image of the diety is simultaneously inside the image and outside the image.
    Randy,

    In the interest of clarity [lest people mistake me for a good photo critic ]
    What I meant by my comment is that in Hindu philosophy, Gods are detached from their surrounding, and definitely never bogged down by it.

    For instance, Lakshmi may be sitting in a lotus, coins spilling out of her hands but hey, she's a Goddess. You won't expect her to be curious or confused by all that.

    Vishnu, her husband is a God who is described as living in Kshir Sagar (Ocean of Milk) lying on top of a multi-headed serpent with a lotus growing out of his navel on which sits Brahma (the creator).

    Now if you see a painting of this scene, Vishnu is least aware or bothered about the whole surrounding. Even his gaze is set in infinity with a serene expression.
    That is what I meant by being both present and detached from their surroundings.

    http://lh4.ggpht.com/_-QCFUFzE_C8/S1...hnu%5B5%5D.jpg

    If that expression can be brought out of a model in a similar scene the image would work for me because then I'd be looking at Vishnu not some model posing like Vishnu.

    This is similar to a sports mascot I believe. If you know the person under the outfit, the effect of the mascot is somewhat ruined.

    Cheers,
    Som

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    London, UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    410
    If you check out the video on her blog and website, the main set and model is shot by diffused daylight.
    http://manjarisharma.wordpress.com/

  6. #16
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,738
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Diapositivo,

    There are lots of arty things that I find nothing in also. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and you are entitled to your opinion.

    I think though that with the following statement you are stretching things a bit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diapositivo View Post
    The very basic difference between painting and photography is that the idea of depth of field is unknown to painting. Take this famous portrait of a woman on a balcony:

    http://www.theartwolf.com/imagenestA..._Mona_Lisa.jpg

    the model is in focus just as the background is in perfect focus. There is no idea of an out-of-focus background. You can have mist or haze in the background, but never "out of focus" background. This is something that mankind discovered with photography.
    What I mean by that is that painters are unrestricted in where they can place detail (have things sharp/in focus) and where they don't (where things are out of focus/hold fuzzy detail).

    The brush strokes in Mona Lisa's sky may be sharp, but that doesn't mean each stroke holds detail of a higher scale than good bokeh that supplies context to a portrait.

    There are times that I'm jealous of painting for that ability.

    Large format cameras do have the ability to manipulate the plane of sharp focus and with creative composition and posing/placement in the scene.

    http://www.apug.org/forums/groups/to...4937-jury.html

    In this shot done a few years ago, Per up front, and Chauncey in back are selectively in focus, at happy accident and a fun lesson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diapositivo View Post
    One feels like being malign and suspect the photographer doesn't even know that with a LF camera she can actually have all in focus without even closing the aperture that much. Or that she was posing with a LF camera as a marketing expedient, but did the work with a digital camera, to save postprocessing time.
    Actually, as with my example above, aperture is still in charge of DOF. My shot has a very narrow/shallow DOF.

    Camera "Movements" control the plane of sharp focus allowing more open apertures but it still requires stopping down. In a landscape shot the "plane" is tilted to lay flat across the ground, in my shot the plane was twisted along a vertical axis.

    Had I stopped down more I could have included the rest of the subjects, right and left of the plane, "in focus".

    Regardless these are simply artistic choices with technical skills.

    With regard posing with the LF camera as a marketing gimmick, I'm cool with that. I brag about the equipment I use when my photos hang publicly. I want people to know they aren't push-button copies.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  7. #17
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    Mark, what I mean is that you never see "out of focus" details in a painting. You can see details which are not detailed, but they are not out-of-focus. The effect is different from bokeh. If you take the Lakshmi image, the elephants are definitely near the goddess and definitely out-of-focus, and so are the flowers in the background. Besides, the flowers project a clear shadow over the background.

    In the kind of religious illustration that the photographer wants to reproduce the cyan background is actually the sky, and the goddess is actually floating in the sky, no shadow is supposed to be there. The elephants in said Indian illustrations would be as detailed as the goddess. But I accept they might be less detailed. Out-of-focus is a different thing. (Overexposed as they are is even worse).

    This kind of illustration is not by chance made by illustration (in every religion). A photographic rendering of, let's say, the martyrdom of Saint Sebastian would not just be quite complicated to stage, but would lose all the saintity to just look like a sadistic scene. Not to mention Saint Lawrence's "traditional" martyrdom (the smoke!), or Saint Paul's, who was decapitated, imagine the blood springing high. A Mary floating in the clouds is not easy to reproduce in photography and frankly it would be less interesting "devotionally speaking" because it would not suggest an ideal entity, but just a well-faked reality in the better of hypothesis. Hollywood matter.

    I don't personally like the work of this photographer for the way it is realized. I also personally think it's a strange endeavour in itself, (realization apart). An illustration comes out much better when it is illustrated.

    Imagine something reproducing photographically the illustrations of Gustave Doré for the Divine Comedy. After all the fuss, would you manage to like it?

    Illustrations are never realistic. Krishna (or Shiva? Moment of confusion) is represented with a blue skin to hint to his divine, celestial nature. If you take a model and paint him blue, you just see a blue man, you don't see Shiva. You get out of the "illustrative fiction", go down to the realm of portrait, and it all doesn't work any more.
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  8. #18
    zsas's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,962
    Images
    74
    Adding image to thread so we can read the critiques without having to toggle to a different screen...


  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    148
    I don't know why she is insisting on making these "straight". Her other work is pretty heavily manipulated. (http://kopeikingallery.com/artists/view/manjari-sharma) Take a look at the "Water" images. In this example image there are all kinds of problems that could have been solved in the computer. The expression on the models face is bizarre, the arms are missing above the elbows, the hand is partially obscured which closes off the body among other things. To me this image is a flop but I guarantee that she will get the money and people will be making a big deal about them since she is backed by a heavy-hitter gallery. That is how it works folks.

    It basically looks like she is trying to cash in on her somewhat recent success with large expensive prints and wants others to pay for the production.

  10. #20
    c6h6o3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    3,179
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    She was specifically trying to get a painterly effect.
    Rendering parts of the image out of focus does not make it painterly. Quite the opposite, in fact, it brands it as a photograph.
    Jim

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin