Comments on: 1138 – The Man That Got Away

By: Robert

Robert — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 11:10:08 +0000

There is definitely place for both photography and photo illustration, but the criteria to judge them cannot be the same, e.g. the composition of a still life or any kind of photo illustration have to be to the point whereas for an unmanipulated street scene, I would rather be less stringent on that point.
So, yes I would like to know whether something has been added or removed from the composition.
One can argue that a flash is some kind of manipulation as well. That’s true but however it doesn’t bother me as much as this kind of manipulation is ‘visible’ by looking at the photography.

By: Rich

Rich — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:10:01 +0000

It would only matter if you were a photojournalist and your picture was meant to be an accurate record of events and you were presenting it as an accurate record of events. Anything else doesn’t matter – do what you want. If it stands up as a picture and you can’t see the photoshopping, then that’s fine. There’s too much precious crap talked about photography. No one asks a painter if he considered putting a figure in here or altering a perspective there.

By: Earl

Earl — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:17:49 +0000

” And I have another question: If – due to a disclosure from my side – you see an image as less of a “photograph”, how does this influence your judgment about it as a “photo illustration”? Is it only about the word? Or is it less because it is a “photo illustration”? Are all “photo illustrations” less than “photographs”? ”

So is there a hierarchy of artistic work…best if photographic, second best if photographic illustration, third best if a derivative of a photography such as work rendered as paintings, etc? I hope not!

I rather judge each work on it own artistic merits.

By: andreas

andreas — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:46:42 +0000

Interesting. So far we have six “don’t cares” and Paul Maxim. Paul, you seem to be in your usual role

Thanks to you all, I’m not really ready to answer yet. For once I am really interested in YOUR opinions, and I’d like to hear as many of them before I voice mine, and then I am not yet sure where I really stand anyway

Paul, you stress your independence as a viewer. How does this match with the fact that you make your judgment depend upon what I disclose? Isn’t there kind of a contradiction? I know, it’s about “photography” vs “photo illustration”, but where does this leave the actual work? Does this mean that the importance of a work as an artifact, is less than the importance of how it came into being?

And I have another question: If – due to a disclosure from my side – you see an image as less of a “photograph”, how does this influence your judgment about it as a “photo illustration”? Is it only about the word? Or is it less because it is a “photo illustration”? Are all “photo illustrations” less than “photographs”?

By: Micheline deJordy

Micheline deJordy — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:23:03 +0000

I agree with Ove: “To me, photography is an art.” Moreover I admire the way you set the whole picture. As a technician you know to manipulate an image, as an artist you know why esthetically you do it.

By: Paul Maxim

Paul Maxim — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:17:18 +0000

As always, what any photographer does with his or her images is up to them. No one else has any say in that whatsoever.

On the other hand, how I – as the viewer – respond to a given image is my business. Once you put it out there to be viewed, the only vote that counts is mine. The same “rule” applies to every other viewer. It’s a very personal thing.

Having stated both disclaimers, I would add that knowing you had “manipulated” an image would almost certainly affect my response. Negatively. It might depend on the degree of manipulation, but if you tell me that you’ve added people that weren’t actually there or changed backgrounds by adding a building or changing a cloudy sky to a sunny sky, then I definitely have a problem with that. My personal definition of the word “photograph” is admittedly a very narrow one. And adding or removing elements means that the original photograph has become some kind of “photo illustration”. It’s no longer a photograph. So that is how I’ll judge it.

So yes, I’d want to know that you had created some kind of composite. In fact, I’ll go even further and say that I think the photographer, if they’re honest, should disclose such information. Some people won’t care; others will. But at least it’s out there.

By: Esther Emma

Esther Emma — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:15:53 +0000

It doesn’t disturb me at all.
what counts for me is the image you show to us.

i love the man and how he has his feet
the angle you got the picture
the angle the man has with the street
it all makes that the image works
love the title as well
it connect the man even more to the bike

yes, i really love this street scene
or how you created it
good one to me

have a nice day, andreas

By: Earl

Earl — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:49:26 +0000

Not at all and I wouldn’t care if you told or not. I like your results!

By: April

April — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:12:34 +0000

I do like this image, and the man particularly makes it work for me.

As a viewer, I would rather not know it’s a composite because that robs some of the magic from my experience of the image.

But as a photographer, I like to know because it helps me learn how better to re-create that magic for the viewer from an actual experience.

By: Ove

Ove — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:26:43 +0000

Oh, no, not the least. To me, photography is an art. You change colours, add darkness and light, even making composites if that’s what you envision. A very nice composition, this one. I think it’s the wheel, which makes everything that seemingly rest at its axis to tip over to the left, if not balanced by the man that came to rescue. Well made!