Canon EF 35-80mm, 1:4-5.6 (for the original image)
Uploaded
5/2/2009
Film / Memory Type
Fuji Superia 200 (for the original image)
ISO / Film Speed
Views
2000
Shutter
Favorites
0
Aperture
f/
Critiques
32
Rating
6.21
/ 7 Ratings
Location
City - Lucerne State - Country - Switzerland
About
Just as a small deviation from my usual attitude of "only camara and lens", and just as a big *thanks* to Gustavo for all the nice talks and all the mind exchange about photoshopography. I dedicate this to him.
Still wanting to remain absolutely critical with my own self, I also attach the original, which is already a hint towards the fact that photoshopography is easy but photography is hard! Any bad image can be used to make "something". That's piece of cake.
I would like very much to read comments and thoughts on that.
ah Nick, I love this composition, normally a camera and lens man only (this get's me into enough trouble without attempting to digitally alter an image with photoshop or whatever!!) it is fun to deviate from time to time.
Your about opens up a can of worms and in response I offer a passage from my artisit's statement, itself infused with ideas collected randomly from other contributors to this site....here 'tis:
Making some sense of images, in terms of a theme or a personal style and explaining, to myself, why I went there, has become a preoccupation in recent years. I am sometimes not sure that I know why I am doing any of this.
Stumbling on, I have tried to minimise the amount of ‘information’ included in my shots, attempting to keep the precept simple and ask the image to tell a story.
This has become very important and almost simultaneously, abstract has started to take over from it’s antonym and become the ‘studio’ for delivering a message centred on the now and being, rather than having.
I have borrowed heavily from the comprehensive Japanese aesthetic, that if an object or expression, or an image, can bring about, within me, a sense of serene melancholy and a spiritual longing, then that image could be said to be ‘wabi-sabi’.
Wabi-sabi, which does not translate easily, it is said by some, nurtures all that is authentic by acknowledging three simple realities: nothing lasts, nothing is finished, and nothing is perfect.
Wabi originally referred to the loneliness of living in nature, remote from society; sabi meant "chill", "lean" or "withered"
Within the preceding paragraphs lies hidden, my objective. What is my objective as a photographer? I don’t know, it is just a feeling to be explored some more.
.....bit long but there you go. My advice, keep deviating!! your work is very good. cheers, david.
Thanks a lot for the nice comment and depth of thought, Roby! And excuse my long delayed answer, please.
You indirectly spotted something that I (try to) talk about when it comes to "post-productions". And this is the usage of any available method but a usage for producing... what? Herein I see a big potential that gets wasted, completely wasted, by all that overload of using hundreds of filters without really constructing the reality of something that priorly exists in mind. We see tones of flat images, images that were taken horribly, like this one for example. But this is only the beginning. Many too many here will then try to "salvage" the unsuccessful image by applying some distortive filters and then being unsincere with their own selves, and saying that they do "arts". Which of course cannot be subject to any serious discussion.
The construction of some artificial "reality" is certainly something else, for it demands a vision prior to "production". It demands having a statement, having something to reveal, some kind of image in mind, which then is turned to a real existing one by well aimed construction. It could be thought of as a photography of the own thoughts.
And this is what I also tried to not neglect here, though the main reason for posting it was to make a very ironic statement about all wannabe "artists" that never cared to even understand what the word "art" means. Even less they cared to understand why it is so easy to "post-produce" "artistic images" out of horrible shots. It is only because of the forgiving nature of visual sense, which "sees" some kind of pattern in any possible dilettantic image. For if we transfer their ways for example to music (audio sense) and we take some instrument and play by incident like they do with their filters and effects, then we end up with cacophony that doesn't even deserve to be discussed. Or even better, let's use letters by incident and expect that we write a good story - this would be then their interpretation of literature as artistic work. ;-)
So, some more of this kind of ironic statements will follow, but always in the same wavelength of demonstrating the zero-value of much too much "artistic" work by all those vacuum minded people who reduce culture to incident.
my dera nick.. sincerely i appreciate the extravagance of this step, although it is subject to post-production. my friend you are always very critical with yourself and that is good. perhaps not a perfect step in the original, but originality is certainly well. I think that the category is chosen right, and also in the "art" could go, .. I think it's ok, .. but now I have seen your new series and soon will come to visit! ciao
For Gursky (example): http://images.google.ch/images?hl=de&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:defficial&hs=JxK&ei=HnQBSoa7IIaE_Abru9yxBw&resnum=0&q=Gursky&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=I3QBSqqNIMvdsgbmsYD0Dg&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&resnum=1&ct=title
Do you know how long it takes to make a single ine of those images using PS? It is not shoot, smudge and ready. It is hard hard work of days or sometimes even more. The fact that the tools changed does not mean at all that "now it is all so easy".
About philosophy: Of course we can drink coffee and smoke pipes with that. This was certainly not what I meant but the rather naive impression that philosophy is just sitting there and telling of what one dreams. Philosophy is *lucid* thinking. It dioesn't have to do with ad hoc statements that contradict each other.
And this is exactly why you should go publish that. You would get a list of logical contradictions and ad hoc statements that you then must correct. Or else it is not philosophy but fairy tales. And if you yourself say that you are not a philosopher leave that work for people that understand their metier.
You can of course tell me about "fancy dreams" and "lines in a big book" and "beautiful pens", but you don't speak about philosophy with that, no matter what you believe. Or else I could also say that I speak about medicine and surgery when I say whatever jumps into my mind.
It is really useless to argue about such things with people that state something and think that a statement without a proof is already philosophy, and that philosophy works like that. There is logic that has to be fulfilled, Saad. This is not a matter of just saying something and postulating its a priory truth without even defining what the elements are which built up the statement.
Now, leave me in peace with such "philosophic statements". I don't work my whole life for that, neglecting my own self, in order to argue about already proven things with each and everybody around. Do you mean that your statements are philosophic? OK, as you wish. Go publish them, if they are.
Right, Jim! Photoshop software is used to create images of the mind but only if:
1) There *has* been some image in mind at all. (Vision.)
2) One *does* take the time to work consiously for transforming the image in mind into a real existing one.
For the first we need vision and we need also sincerity. When I see that PS-images (most of the time here) are generated by "playing around at good luck" then I cannot accept any of the "artistic statements" at all. There is ni arts without vision, but the average wannabe doesn't seem to get that.
For the second we need knowledge, exact knowledge of the offered tools of PS, exactly as we needd exact knowledge and mastering of camera and optics. Again most wannabes will rather think "oh, I am an artist, I don't need to know, I don't need to work, I just 'create'". And they don't understand that results of incidence and without vision are *not* artistic. They are dilletantic.
This is what I wanted to show with this image. The unsincere way that images are presented here many times, without vision, without work for converting vision to reality. And then, I can of course smudge around with PS and of the result is "liked" then I am an artist, ey? If it were all so easy...
The sincerity, which is also an absolute necessity in artistic work, dictates to admit, when a result is not a result of the own work but rather a result of incidence. This one is exactly that. It belongs therefore into the dustbin. And though I said that in the about box, everybody was doing as if this one was soooo good.
Which means to me that lack of knowledge of the basics is evident. This experiment proves it absolutely. Which means that it is understandable then, why we have forum threads with questions like "How do I resize an image with PS?". (Not a joke, it really happened.)
I am glad if you like it, but the 7 is too much for that. Again, I copy and paste for you my anser to other people, since it is about pseudo-arts here.
****************Copy start**************** But the thing is that this image was never intented. It doesn't represent anything I had in mind while shooting. And even worse, the ugly discolorations and noise of the left side are still there. This is what I want to show with this too: You can have the best amps and gear of this world, but if you can't play they will not "salvage" the noise you produce. Or you can also have Word but it will not turn any bad tale to a good one.
It is only the quite "elastic" property of vision that makes us take all possible things as "good photography". We may like them too, but this "liking" is not to be identified with good photography and even less with artistic work, since artistic work *demands* the presence of vision *before* translating it to real existing work. And so it demands also absolute sincerity from the artist to reject all those results that are perhaps "liked" but were never envisioned.
Not to speak about technical problems. ****************Copy end****************
And the technical problems of the original shot are still there and they are terrible.
Philosophy is not a "pleasant" discussion during coffee! but most of it have made with a cup of tea or coffee,and for the present times,with a pipe or a cigarette. for me philosophy is not pleasant discussion over the net and moreover in the English language. And certain philosophy is nothing but the mere result of those who believe in it as a mind outcome,conclusion,result, or product. the proof of that is that for every philosophy there is a counter one,that contradict that philosophy on a basis of other argue or other experiences,or knowledge. there is no proof what so ever for any given philosophy,say for an example the philosophy of law,or the philosophy of beauty,or even the philosophy of the existence. For the existence one,some says the existence is for a purpose,and those apposing them says the existence is nothing,and for nothing. And for publishing my opinions as an article in whatever,why I should do that ? I am not a philosopher,and never claimed that,and if I did it and they laugh at me ,there will be no shame in that for me,cause I will laugh at them so much in my fancy dreams. one line of a philosophy that I believe Nick, All of us Nick are lines in a big book ,written with with a beautiful pen,having an ink made just from pure water. thank you for sharing me your thoughts,though it is very difficult for me to follow you in you thoughts with the English language barrier. cheers and have a good time. Saad.
Hi Nick, I will try to be more clear. about PS,I haven't say even for a single time the word company,or software manufacture,or the the media,all I am referring to is that it is a program of great help,reducing effort,give you extra time for sleeping ,reading or whatever,enhances good shots,correct cameras faults,and some times it turns bad photos into a good one. as your example of Gurski,I know nothing about him for now.
"There is no reality dear nick,reality is relative for everyone,except for the infinite,and I guess everyone has his own infinite,"
Shows quite clearly that you read some things gere, some things there, you mixed them up in a good salad, and here we are "philosophy". Any philosopher of this world would take the red pen and make the following notes on your statement:
There is no reality - proof??? reality is relative for everyone - oh, he heard about relativity but he dodn't read that the essence of the theory is absoluteness! The well informed knows that the name of Einsteins theory doens't represent its essence and that it was introduced as a quick and dirty title only by those who didn't take the time to read the paper about it.
reality is relative for everyone,except for the infinite - proof? What is infinity? How do you relate reality and infinity? Do you really know what is infinity?
I guess everyone has his own infinite - what you guess or not guess is not subject of philosophy and in general of any science at all!
Sorry, I don't take such statements as philosophical statements. Not Saad's statements are my leading lines but the whole range of real philosophers starting with ancient Greece schools and ending with contemporary universities, OK? They put the basics down, and not each and every naive five-minutes-wannabe-philosopher on this planet.
And the contradiction between your own two statements is really *not* philosophy! Either you state that reality is a fancy dream *and* you practice that too. Or you tell me about the real bills, and the real holes in pipes for oil export, and all the rest which *negates* the statement about reality as a dream. You can't introduce both things at the same time. Any kind of statement in the sense of "A and not(A)" as a result of axioms and logical inference only shows that the whole building is rotten. It can't be that way. This is a basic part in *any* philosophy.
If you think that "opinions" are philosophy then it makes absolutely no sense to discuss about that with you. I neither have the time nor the will to repeat the necessary basics to each and every amateur who thinks that philosophy is made the easy way out of "dreams and personal beliefs". Just take all that statements you made, write them down in an article, and try to publish them in Acta Philosophica. See then what the scientific world of philosophy has to say about such that mess of statements you produce. Good luck and don't tell me then that they laugh about it!
Before continuing this extremely interesting online talk, I have to say, please, use fullstops now and then, because else it gets hard to underdstand what you say. Having said that, let's continue.
It doesn't have to do with "liking", but you don't seem to get it. It has to do with the very *defintion* of any artistic work. And exactly what you say about the monkey confirms even more strongly what I described in my previous message. Don't speak to me about "correct" and "fair" statements, since I don't care a bit about that kind of "fairness" that was constructed by companies for their own profits. Software companies like Adobe do *not* make good programs because they "love arts" but because they love money! I work too long for them and I know what I am talking about. So, they do give as things that are of help, but these things are not themselves the "warrants of arts", even if the companies will never fail to present them as if they were. I didn't say that PS is not efficient. I said that it isn't a magic stick that will turn any image to a good one, and *this* is what it is taken for by most wannabes. Go ask a profi about that, and listen carefully to what he/she says. Read what Gurski writes about his PS-made images, and then think once again before presenting me such an amateuric kind of argumentation. Do you know how long somebody like Gurksi needs for assembling one single good image with PS? So, don't tell me about the possibility of "quick generation of good images". It still takes much work and hard efforts, except of course for those who naively think that photography is made by just sliding sime knobes of some software.
On to "reality" and dream. So you think that just because you believe that reality is a fancy dream, this is also true and philosophical? Philosophical statements are neither personal beliefs nor personal opinions. They do not have to do anything at all with personal convinctions,and you can believe whatever you want. The mathematical reality of which you speak about doesn't have to do with that too. You really seem to take one for the other. A proof of a statements is not necessarily "mathematics". If you had paid attention to philosophocal statements you would have known that none of them is stated just because the philosopher "likes" or "believes" it. Such statements have to be *proven*, do you understand that? Philosophy is not a "pleasant" discussion during coffee!
Photoshop software is used to create images of the mind... regular photos are shown to represent images of the heart. I agree with you... if one needs software to make their image interesting then they have failed as a photographer. Just saying... Jim
yes dear Nick,philosophy is what we do when we say our own opinions, and if this not philosophy,then there was no philosophy at all, may be mine is not philosophy,but for the philosophers ,it is just their opinions. and I really live in a fancy dreams dear Nick,cause I have never imagine for a moment to live this life as I live it today. there is no reality dear nick,reality is relative for everyone,except for the infinite,and I guess everyone has his own infinite, cheers ,with best wishes, Saad.
reality is a huge fancy dream ,Yes ,that is true . I believe in that,for the reality is relative to every one,may be it is only the mathematical realty is considered reality and only for those who understand mathematics . you have to expect everything to occurs in dreams,and so in reality,that may help understanding the motion, but not for me Nick,there are a lot who do not pay the telephone bill,moreover the insubordination that occurs here ,does not occurs at any place else but Iraq,you know the pipes lines that export oil to the so called civilized world,some people have just makes a holes in them,attaching a smaller pipes ,and pull those smaller pipes to their houses where they establish a private oils companies,but again not me,I am a little bit high creature in the Darwinian theory,I know it took some thirty or more religions,and thousands of thinkers and even a scientists to invent something called rules,and laws,yes they are not infinite like the mathematical ones,but they are good for their own time to make our lives more organized,and more safer, sorry Nick,I have to stop here,just to continue later on,I can not express what I want to say in other language, to be continued for your third paragraph.
Again I will say that this is a complete overrating! I copy a part of my message to Dave for you here, since it gets too much to write it all over again.
****************Copy start**************** But the thing is that this image was never intented. It doesn't represent anything I had in mind while shooting. And even worse, the ugly discolorations and noise of the left side are still there. This is what I want to show with this too: You can have the best amps and gear of this world, but if you can't play they will not "salvage" the noise you produce. Or you can also have Word but it will not turn any bad tale to a good one.
It is only the quite "elastic" property of vision that makes us take all possible things as "good photography". We may like them too, but this "liking" is not to be identified with good photography and even less with artistic work, since artistic work *demands* the presence of vision *before* translating it to real existing work. And so it demands also absolute sincerity from the artist to reject all those results that are perhaps "liked" but were never envisioned.
Not to speak about technical problems. ****************Copy end****************
But you overrate this one, really. Because I get too tired of repeating the same things, I just copy a part of my message to Dave.
****************Copy start**************** But the thing is that this image was never intented. It doesn't represent anything I had in mind while shooting. And even worse, the ugly discolorations and noise of the left side are still there. This is what I want to show with this too: You can have the best amps and gear of this world, but if you can't play they will not "salvage" the noise you produce. Or you can also have Word but it will not turn any bad tale to a good one.
It is only the quite "elastic" property of vision that makes us take all possible things as "good photography". We may like them too, but this "liking" is not to be identified with good photography and even less with artistic work, since artistic work *demands* the presence of vision *before* translating it to real existing work. And so it demands also absolute sincerity from the artist to reject all those results that are perhaps "liked" but were never envisioned.
Not to speak about technical problems. ****************Copy end****************
But the thing is that this image was never intented. It doesn't represent anything I had in mind while shooting. And even worse, the ugly discolorations and noise of the left side are still there. This is what I want to show with this too: You can have the best amps and gear of this world, but if you can't play they will not "salvage" the noise you produce. Or you can also have Word but it will not turn any bad tale to a good one.
It is only the quite "elastic" property of vision that makes us take all possible things as "good photography". We may like them too, but this "liking" is not to be identified with good photography and even less with artistic work, since artistic work *demands* the presence of vision *before* translating it to real existing work. And so it demands also absolute sincerity from the artist to reject all those results that are perhaps "liked" but were never envisioned.
Oh yes, "I can fix that with PS", and of course I can also fix a bad novel with Word. ;-) What else are we going to hear on this world!!
The thing is, that I really expected what is goind on here. Nobody speaks about the terrible noise and discoloration at the left and nobidy seems to mention the fact that this was... not really my image. Simply because I didn't have any intention, any vision for that. The original was my image, and that was... terrible. Any artificial alteration of that just remains photographically terrible, even if it is "pleasant" to look at as photoshopography. And here is where a main ingredient of any artistic work comes to play. Sincerity! The capability to accept that most of the time we fail to reproduce what we envisioned. But in times of PS ofcourse we are all the natural born photographers, ey? ;-)
The question is then... what are we doing here? Why do we pretend to be here for getting better if we are already perfect? ;-)
Nick ,for the first three paragraph of your argue ,I have understand that you do not like the programs and software that enhances shots,that is OK ,for me and I could understand that,but I could tell you also that a monkey can not produce a simple kid story even if we allow him to mix words for say a million year,that is so very well understood too, but what I have said about the program is the true and very fair and correct statement,and it is exactly like saying it took hundred years of more than thousand man continuous work and effort to reach the perfection of your camera that you use now,to its present state compared to the first model of Canon, Photoshop is a very efficient program for correcting shots,for production of artistic shots,for mending badly shot photos to an acceptable one, photoshop for me is the tool that the old professionals equivalent of one month work in the dark room,and 10 to 15 exposure ,and then blending their negatives to produce one shot,with say two or three coworker and assistant, to be continued
2) On the content now. The image doesn't tell anything at all by itself. Stop believing that an image "says" something specific by itself, which you then have to "find out". You don't find that on the image but in your own mind. Only your own interpretation invents what an image "says". This has to do with the "fitability" of vision as a sense. There is no intrinsic "message" in any image at all. (And this is a mathematical theorem, so there is *no* discussion about it.)
But I find it very interesting that you talk about "reality being in fact just a fancy dream". Wasn't that exactly you, Saad, that told me that insubordination is not possible in Iraq? If reality is such a fancy dream, then what makes you saying that "insubordination is not possible in Iraq"? Hey, it is only a fancy dream, the bombarded houses are also a fancy dream, the men with the guns are also a fancy dream, and the dead people are also a fancy dream, so what are you waiting for? There is no danger if you don't pay taxes because it is a fancy dream... or isn't it?
I hope you understand what I try to say. I had enough, really enough of that conglomerate of inconsequent pseudo-philosophical statements that are negated by the own actions and the own life. This is "philosophy on the soft couch" and as such no philosophy at all. Philosophy is not "the own opinion", and again there is *no* discussion about that for it belongs to the very definition of philosophy. Philosophy is not what we do when we say our opinions. It has to be absolutely logically free from any discrepancies. And thus, if reality is such a "fancy dream" why don't you follow your own statement and practice your own real life as if it were a fancy dream? You know, we can't state the non-existence of reality and then exclude our own life from that statement. Either the one or the other, but not both.
1) The statement about the program is nothing more than typical commercial of such companies that try to sell as much as possible. They injected that laughable ignorance into the world. Translated to literature it would mean: It took more than hundred years of hard works of at least some ten thousand people to develop the means that turn a bad novel into a good one so easily as a piece of cake.
Again, are we serious, Saad? Or do we inherit such flatminded statements without thinking? In the domains of literature, do we expect some person with no knoweledge of the language to be able to write a good novel only because he/she can use Word? Or, let's jump into music. Do we expect that somebody with no knowledge of music theory would turn a cacophonous mixture of sounds into a symphony just because of the availability of Garage Band? It is only that vision is the most "forgiving" or say "fitable" sense, that fools one to believe that each and every bad shot is transformable to a "good emotive one". This is nonsense.
Take for example this one. You see the terrible noise at the shadows on the left. Or the discoloration of the the whole left side. And if the photographer didn't have any intention to use such artefacts as elements of expression, then the image is to be torn in pieces and one has to try again! And again, and again, until it is the image that one had in mind.
There is no arts without vision, even if Adobe or anybody else would advertise the opposite. And we don't need software companies for telling us about that, since there are much more competent people in such subjects, the publications of whom stand for free in each library of the world. That was really what we missed, to have programmers and software companies telling us about artistic work! Software and programming companies should stay at their metier.
Very interesting effects here, Nick! Good post processing work! I know sometimes you can salvage a bad image to make something, but for truly good photography, we still have to strive to make the best original image possible, that will result in something even better with proper processing, as it's always been. Dave.
Interesting abstract from a basic snapshot... I MUST agree with your description... I think I hear it more often today..."oh I can fix that in photoshop", enhancing or moving beyond the norm has become too easy... I think today the computer tricks somewhat out weigh the talent in some cases. Thanx for sharing... I enjoyed many in your portfolio. Cheers Dan
I liked it Nick. I think of it as follows, It took more than twenty years of hard works of at least some two thousand people to develop a program that turns a bad shot into an emotive good shot so easily as a piece of cake, and I like the shot cause it tells how reality is in fact just a fancy dream, cheers, Saad.
0 
fficial&hs=JxK&ei=HnQBSoa7IIaE_Abru9yxBw&resnum=0&q=Gursky&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=I3QBSqqNIMvdsgbmsYD0Dg&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&resnum=1&ct=title 
Nick ,for the first three paragraph of your argue ,I have understand that you do not like the programs and software that enhances shots,that is OK ,for me and I could understand that,but I could tell you also that a monkey can not produce a simple kid story even if we allow him to mix words for say a million year,that is so very well understood too, 
