Hi everybody...

I'd like some opinions on artistic (ie: not "straight photography") nature images.

This image is similar to what you might get with a diffusion filter (i.e. a Softar), although it was done in very high res (a 65 MB scan).

The advantage is I can use the technique on any image and not have to carry filters into the field (I have enough problems losing lens caps ;>). Also, with the digital process there is a GREAT degree of control over the final effect. Much more so than with one piece of glass. ;>

Let's please NOT discuss the old "if it's digital it's not real" thing. That's not the point...and the new 6x7 negative can be enlarged quite a bit, so output quality is not an issue either.

I'd like critiques on the aesthetic appeal, or lack thereof (;>) in the image...

This is intended to create a dreamy mood, suggest a fantasy place, that sort of thing. Give people something different to hang on the wall besides the "straight" nature photo.

Comments?

Cheers!

Keith Clark http://www.spiritone.com/~kclark

-- Keith Clark (ClarkPhotography@spiritone.com), July 13, 1998

Answers

Keith,

There are somethings I like about this image and some things I dislike very much. First what I dislike. The waterfall seems "plastic" or "saran wrap" like. The composition in general, I think is nice. The diffused fern at the 9 o'clock position I think is about right. The others seem too diffused for my taste.The diffusing effect seems a little "spotty" to me also.

-- Paul Lenson (lenson@pci.on.ca), July 13, 1998.

The shot's quite nice, but I really don't like the "special effects". I'm sure such effects have their place (advertising photography for example?), but it does nothing for me.

BTW I'm not really inclined to let too much "special effects" work creep into this forum. This shot is probably about the upper limit of what will get by. This is a nature photography image critiqe forum, not a "digital nature art" image critique forum.

-- Bob Atkins (bobatkins@hotmail.com), July 13, 1998.

I think the uneven diffusion is a distraction. Was this done by choice or a result of the digital effect being applied? I keep feeling like I am looking at the shot through a dirty window. I think I have an idea of what you wanted to accomplish but this shot doesn't have the fantasy feel to me.

-- Cory Christensen (scc@idcnet.com), July 13, 1998.

This image would be great for a shampoo bottle label.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@alaska.net), July 13, 1998.

Thanks to everyone who responed publicly and privately. I knew I would take flack for this one, and the comments have been helpfull and enlightening.

The "uneven" dissusion was deliberate although perhaps it was overdone in some areas. I'm still perfecting the technique...

My target audience for <>B>this image is not other photographers, but rather the "high-end art market", although I think the comments about "advertising photography" and "shampoo bottle label" were compliments... ;>

Any thoughts?

Keith

-- Keith Clark (ClarkPhotography@spiritone.com), July 13, 1998.

I think it's a beautiful image, and the soft focus effect makes it look even better, since it gives it a dreamy quality the original would have lacked.

Frankly, I think the digital aspect is irrelevant. Clearly this effect could have been accomplished by any number of in the field or darkroom mechanisms. It's the final outcome that counts.

-- David W. Griffin (reddrake@aol.com), July 13, 1998.

Hi Keith,

I hate diffused photographs! I think it is strange to spend big bucks on a lens and put an old silk stocking in front of it. I really like your picture, though. I think it I like it best for the uneven diffusion. That leaves room for my eyes to wander between sharp and diffused areas. I also like the composition. What I like most is the fact that you did not only take a good picture, but you spent some time to get it even closer to your artistic vision. Well done.

Maybe it would be interesting for this forum to see your undiffused original. Give us the URL if you have one. It might be, that after seeing it I like the original better, but seeing the above picture as is I have to congratulate you on a great job.

-- Volker Stiller (vstiller@duke.edu), July 13, 1998.

Thanks Volker!

My immediate response was to zero in on the first sentence, (;>) but when I read the rest of your message I was impressed with the fact that you made a point of weighing both the good and bad points.

If I'm not banned from the forum for causing this stir, I'll post the un-altered original at a (much) later time. ;>

Actually, in all honesty, I kind of thought this was one of my more "lame" waterfall shots and was trying to make it more appealing, when I decided to go for the fantasy effect. I printed a very quick proof on an inkjet and hung it up in my office...when someone else went "ape-nuts" over the proof I decided to post it for a critique. ;>

I hope all this will spark people's creativity...digital doesn't -have- to imply a one-button tasteless effect. I don't even like most of the "obviously digital" images myself.

Personally, I feel our greatest benefit from digital is to get back slides from once in a lifetime type trips and FIX marginal exposures or cropping or a slight unsharpness to end up with a print that resembles what we saw with our eyes instead of what the film was capable of recording...except for waterfalls. ;>

Thanks again to -everyone- for your comments. :>

Best regards, Keith

-- Keith Clark (ClarkPhotography@spiritone.com), July 13, 1998.

well, you submitted the image and asked for opinions. so, these are mine. in a forum where we are often graced by the beauty of a few truly beautiful images, and where almost always the effort of the photographer is innocently sincere, this production is simply trash. the appropriate location to hang this print is in the closest 10 by 40 mobile home, where the occupants can marvel at how you got that water to look lak thayt. a. wayne harrison

-- a. wayne harrison (wayno@netmcr.com), July 13, 1998.

To: a. wayne

People with much more class and better typing skills than you have asked me how I got the water to look like that.

You know, everyone has a right to their opinions. But if you're going to be negative, be tastefull about it. I have no problems accepting critisim, tasefully done.

Why don't YOU post something creative besides your foul mouth?

Best regards, Keith Clark http://www.spiritone.com/~kclark/

-- Keith Clark (ClarkPhotography@spiritone.com), July 13, 1998.

I really like your intent with this photo. The diffusion adds the 'fantasy' effect you are going after. However, I think a more uniform diffusion would be more pleasing than the spotty effect you have used. If you coose to stick with the spots of diffusion, I would like to see them a little less pronounced. I like the center of the water fall, however the top of the fall does look a little 'saran wrappy' as stated above. Try to duplicate what you to the center of the fall over the whole fall.

Great effort. Please post the URL of the untouched original so we can compare the two. You don't have to post the image, just the URL.

-- Darren Almeida (darren@lexicomm.com), July 13, 1998.

I really like it. You took a boring image and made it quite interesting.

I also would like a page where people can get a critique for whatever type of image (digital or otherwise) could post to. If phil would allow it perhaps it would just be an additional critique forum. Im sure we could elect a moderator without causing a whole big mess.

-- Altaf Shaikh (nissar@idt.net), July 13, 1998.

Altaf,

You can have a look at the Photo Critique Page: http://sunrise.scu.edu/photo/

Hope it helps. L.P.

-- Louis-Philippe Masse (phisa@generation.net), July 13, 1998.

I agree with the shampoo bottle label analogy...and that's a bit of a compliment.

For other purposes, the scene seems a little too "processed."

I wonder if some tighter cropping would make the image a bit more interesting. Perhaps not, but it would be worth a try.

-- Dick Ginkowski (dickg@execpc.com), July 13, 1998.

Good work Keith.

You mentioned that you're still perfecting your technique...might I suggest you try my technique that I wrote up in the comments section on Phil's tutorial on "How to hand color photographs using Photoshop" on photo.net.

I like your image, but you may have taken your technique a little too far. Try going a little more subtle.

Good luck

-- Scott Gant (sgant@interaccess.com), July 14, 1998.

Keith, I like the greens but not the water part. I know that I would like the original.

-- Tom Applegate (tapple@surfnetusa.com), July 14, 1998.

I guess this might have been quite a nice picture, but the so called "artsy" proceeding makes it a shampoo label. (Or Kellog cornflakes - "I achieve nirvana by having a walk in the forest and then a bowl of cornflakes at home.")

I view every picture in this forum, because I like nature photography. This one is off topic and I hope there won't be many more here.

-- Jana Mullerova (jam@terma.com), July 14, 1998.

Keith,

I am also very disappointed by Wayne's "hostile" comments. I personally try to evaluate a picture as if it were my own. It takes some courage to put ones work up for critique, and therefore I think it only fair that the reviewers provide a degree of professionalism by seeking out both what is both good and bad about the composition, technique, etc. Wayne's comments to me demonstrate only his lack of maturity.

-- Paul Lenson (lenson@pci.on.ca), July 14, 1998.

Although I do not find this image unappealing, I do think it is more of a critique of digital manipulation than it is a critique of photography. I hope that Bob will keep this forum more focused on the photography side (and I suspect he will, from his comments). I suspect that most regular users of this site are most interested in critiquing an image as it pertains to the skills of the photographer in seeing the subject, composing and taking the picture, etc. - not in critiquing what can be done to an image once we have it. I personally see digital manipulation as being more of a computer skill than a photographic skill.

-- Rod Sorensen (sorenser@mfldclin.edu), July 14, 1998.

estan muy bien sus fotos mandar mas gracias beutiful fothograf tank you

-- humberto garcia flores (hgarcia@campus.cem.itesm.mx), July 14, 1998.

Not bad - the uneven diffusion looks a bit too artificial to me. Like any effects filter (whether optical or digital), it gets boring fast. You can use it for one or two images, then move on to something different. I am really curious what kind of quality you'd get if you have this one printed. Is it possible to get a decent 8x10 print (i.e. same resolution and detail as if you had printed your original directly without going through digital maipulation)? Thanks.

-- (andreas@physio.unr.edu), July 20, 1998.