Creativity or rules_standards

[Ronnoco]

Just playing around, so I throw this one out for discussion. Which is more important the so-called intentional creativity or the rules of technique that it ignores and to a small few, I would like to hear some positive, well thought out suggestions, if you don't like it.

Ronnoco

By the way, always feel free to edit, to demonstrate a point or suggestion.

[Greg McCary]

I do like it Ron, it's different and creative. My three critiques are that it seems to be tilted left slightly and the shadow beside the left headstone seems out of place. I don't see anything that creates the shadow also the refection looks odd torwards the back where the reflection of the mountain range is?
Greg

[Ronnoco]

I do like it Ron, it's different and creative. My three critiques are that it seems to be tilted left slightly and the shadow beside the left headstone seems out of place. I don't see anything that creates the shadow also the refection looks odd torwards the back where the reflection of the mountain range is?
Greg

You are right, Greg. It does look slightly tilted. The shadow certainly does look out of place, but I did nothing that would have caused that. I will have to take another look at my original. The reflection certainly does look odd as well, again not intentionally done, so I will check on that as well.

Good eye. Thank you

Ronnoco

[Greg McCary]

I do like the concept, I like the fact that there is no info on the headstones and the colors almost looks like you are looking into another world. Please post an edit when you get one...
Greg

[Ronnoco]

OK, Greg. The weird shadow that you noticed was actually another gravestone right on the ground. I cloned it out. I tried to correct the tilt but I discovered it was extremely close. The reflection problem was actually a cloud that needed to be "adjusted". Does this look better?

Ronnoco

[Greg McCary]

That looks much better, I do see some clone stamp trails, but wouldn't notice them if I wasn't looking. Sometimes I run the healing brush over a cloned area to help hide the trails, nice work though...
Greg

[payn817]

Neither, both of them are equally important. Both areas have their flaws, including the cut and paste looking headstones, and the "created" looking mountain in the background. I think what bothers me most is the lineup of the objects in the foreground, especially the overlap of the headstones.

Then again, what do I know?

[Mr Yuck]

the whitness at the horizon bugs me, everything else I understand but what is that? If that transition was softened you might see some improvement.

Overall, a very interesting image.

[Ronnoco]

Neither, both of them are equally important. Both areas have their flaws, including the cut and paste looking headstones, and the "created" looking mountain in the background. I think what bothers me most is the lineup of the objects in the foreground, especially the overlap of the headstones.

Then again, what do I know?

Well, I guess you don't know cut and paste, since none was done. I guess you also do not know about the "created" looking mountain in the background, since it was not "created" and not a mountain. As to the headstones, I don't think the priest would have appreciated me, rearranging them.

Ronnoco

[payn817]

They may not be "cut and paste", but in the first version, it is obvious that something was done around the edges. Read as it says I believe it was "cut and paste looking" looking being the key word in the sentence. No matter how you came across the effect, I stated why I did not find it particularly pleasing. That is my opinion, and I am entitled to such.

As I've always said, if you like it, print it big and hang it...
As long as you and your client/buyer are happy, congrats!

peace, love and hairgrease!

[Austriana]

I really like the background of the image...it looks interesting. The gravestones do look a little odd...I can see why he'd say they have a 'cut and paste look' because they appear kind of flat (mostly the one on the left).

However, like I said...I really like the water, the trees and the sky.

[MarcusK]

My likes and Dislikes,

1- The blown out feel of the tombstones or headstones is a bit too much for me... alhtough, i too like the fact that there is no writing on them, a feeling of texture on them i would have liked...

2- The white top on the trees to the right, is giving me the feeling of a washed out top as opposed to the rest of the tree...

3- I have mixed feelings about the whiteness in the horizon, but after careful scrutiny i like it, specifically because it breaks between the darkness and the lightness of the image....

4- The composition and general feel of the image would definitely have improved without the tilt...but oh well...

5- The headstone at the right seems to melt into the bush... removing it or adding more "pop" to it would be better...

6- The clone trails do need fixing (keeping in mind many have been waiting for such an opportunity to critique your photos ) but they are not that obvious, giving the over-saturated elements of the foreground pretty much cover it....

Yep...that being said, i am not a big fan of this style of images.... but that has nothing to do here...

Marc

[Overbeyond]

I feel I am commenting on an image that once was a photograph in a previous life.
Grave yards and headstones are synonomous with feelings and thought. I would imagine that whatever mood or atmosphere, that may have been in the original has now been lost along the way to this end result.
I am not knowledgeable enough on individual computer manipulations that may have been used here but inmo the end result is unnattractive.
It's a good example to use for discussing the pros and cons of this type of work but it does nothing at all for me.
Tom

[trog100]

my thoughts kinda go along with overbeyond.. i will comment confidently on a "photograph".. but i like overbeyonds "image that once was a photograph in a previous life".. description.. if its "art" its "art" i do not like..

if its "art".. its poorly done.. if i can see the poor attempt at removing the gravestone in the bottom left corner at this small image size it leaves me with no confidence as to the quality of the rest of the work..

but where "art" is concerned all i know is that there is plenty of it i do not like.. there is some i do like.. why.. i really dont know..

but ron.. u being u especially.. take a big slap on the wrist for your poor clone brush work.. he he

and i see plenty of what i personally consider poorly done "art" presented on this forum.. but where "art" is concerned i am totally lost.. all i know about is photography.. which is why i have tried not to comment on this piece of "art".. i do not feel qualfied to do so..

photogrpahy has rules.. "art" does not have rules.. which kinda leaves anything other than "i like it" or " dont like it" somewhat meaningless..

trog

[molaselake]

Trog - if art has no boundaries (and you have classified this as such) then why would you then point out that this was "poorly done" or had "bad clone work"? You completely contradict yourself, and in effect, are saying your critique is meaningless. Oy.

Ron - For me, it would take more than just a quick change of color/polarity/lighting to define this as creative. But again, that's me. To tell you the truth, I'd like to see what it looked like before it was fooled around with. I think if you cut off the bottom 3/4 containing the gravestones and grass, you might have something.

[trog100]

"Trog - if art has no boundaries (and you have classified this as such) then why would you then point out that this was "poorly done" or had "bad clone work"? You completely contradict yourself, and in effect, are saying your critique is meaningless. Oy."

i thought i tried to say pretty much that molaselake.. everything must have "some" rules thow.. i just have no idea of what they are.. so i am not qualified to pass comment even to say "poorly" done.. but i know poorly done clone brushing when i see it.. and based on the simple assumption it wasnt intentional on rons part.. i think i am correct in saying poorly done..

but if any thing is really wrong with my statement its the "art does not have rules" bit.. everything must work to some rules otherwise its undefinable as anything even "art"..

i think this entire forum is treading on dodgy undefinable ground.. it needs to redefine what the word "photo" means before it gets completely lost..

trog

[GB1]

Well, I have no issues with photo manipulation. I'm neither for or against. So let's look at the results:

The photo has a serious PP'd look to it. The gravestones are way too bright and look like they're not part of the original image (hence the probable reason some folks mentioned "cut and paste"). I see some artifacts inside them also, as I do throughout the photo. Perhaps you over sharpened the image?

The reflections of the trees in the graduated blue water is neat to me. Looks a little unreal, but neat. I find this the best part of the photo.

The very dark sky in the background and what DOES appear to be a mountain looks very unreal. Now this idea isn't nec. a bad thing - a dark sky against a light foreground can really look erie, wild, and/or threatening, esp with graves in the foreground. Was this the idea of the photo ....? Sort of a scary, horrific scene? I can see that forming here.

The grass and mid-area bushes look seriously oversharpened and unreal to me. Nothing wrong with trying a technique, but it looks like it might have been taken a bit too far - unless, that is, you were trying to cross that line into abstract art. But either way the grass looks wrong. So I'd say dump the grass technique, replace it with another.

Overall, I think the idea is worth pursuing. The implementation needs some adjustments and the twists on the original photo should be toned down (more discrete).

As Marc has in his footer, "Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep." Sounds perfect to me.

[trog100]

so basically GB1 u have no idea of what u are critiquing.. none of it looks "real".. i assume its not intended to.. how is one supposed to know when the bounds have been intentionally crossed between reality and abstract..

i assume ron is also tring to bring this kinda thing into discussion.. perhaps i am wrong..

trog

[GB1]

so basically GB1 u have no idea of what u are critiquing.. none of it looks "real".. i assume its not intended to.. how is one supposed to know when the bounds have been intentionally crossed between reality and abstract..

i assume ron is also tring to bring this kinda thing into discussion.. perhaps i am wrong..

trog

Well actually Trog, I have little idea what YOU are talking about. All elements in the photo are real, just manipulated. I chose to critique the different aspects of it from a photography standpoint, since it is a photograph...

From a 'surreal' art perspective, it looks somewhat crudely overprocessed. Again, I like the idea, just not the implementation (result). I guess I prefer not make abstract statements about art and boundaries... all that usually does is push all conclusions off downstream until everyone gives up. But such discussions do have their place.

[gahspidy]

Trog, please use this forum to provide a constructive critique of whatever photo/image a member has posted for such. I understand you are a "purist" when it comes to photography, and I respect that, but not everyone else holds those views and most of us like to engage in post processing after the capture. You have started a thread on such a debate in the Viewfinder, appropriately, and you may continue to argue your views in that thread.
Ron, my first impression when looking at this image was "somebody was messing around in Photoshop" It looks like there is a solarizing effect going on there, but I do not feel it works well. The picture, even without the effects, looks to me like it is too busy with it's shadows, reflections, layers of foreground land, water, background land, more water, and then sky. I think though, it would look far better in it's unmanipulated state than it does presently. I also notice the first post is sharpened quite a bit while the second edit is very soft and looking compressed. Intentional? The basic rules of composition seem to be met here, but as we know that does not guarantee results. Did you do this because you felt the original picture needed something more to be intriguing, or was this mainly for discussion?

[trog100]

"I chose to critique the different aspects of it from a photography standpoint, since it is a photograph."

thats where we differ GB!.. i dont think it is still a "photograph".. and gary i am certainly not a "purist" and u must know by now that i am not against pp as such..

i cant critique the presented image as a photograph because i no longer think it is.. and i cant critique it validly as a work of art because i lack the expertise and neccessary knowledge of the subject....

my mistake was to make any comment at all in this thread.. and gary if rons intent was disussion i am just following his lead.. discussion seemingly is not allowed in this forum.. which is something i should aready know..

trog

[afdlips]

Hmmm.. thats a very tricky question. I think when someone is aiming at making a creative piece, they have to know where to draw the lines. In this work I can see a great deal of possibilities for a succesful photograph before photomanipulation comes in. I can asume that it is a beatiful landscape, but what the PP did was cross over into the absurd boundaries and you have created a completely different product than what you initially had. I am going to go ahead and agree with Trog that it really isnt a "photograph" anymore because all I can see is a very PP'ed image that appears to have come from a lack of experience in PS (not that im saying youre inexperienced). I know you are a talented artist, but the "creativity" part of this just isnt there for me.
I guess what im trying to say is that creativity and standards pretty much need to be balanced.

[Ronnoco]

Thank you everyone. A very interesting discussion. To mention a few comments. One person said it was not their style of shot. The truth is that it is not my type of shot either.
The interesting struggle was the question: How do you look at a different, experimental, or creative shot, and of course all of those terms are open to interpretation as was shown.

To the suggestion that I added a "mountain", gravestone, or anything else which was an interesting criticism, the answer is NO. However, if some addition was done, WHY is that a problem? Does someone think that nothing can be added to a photograph? Also mentioned was that the gravestones were blank with no names or engravings as if I did that on purpose. Uh, NO, that was the state of the original gravestones. The "mountain" by the way was not added. It is an island and part of the original photo. No cut and paste was done either and no sharpening. Interesting however, that some are looking for photoshopping procedures as a criticism, even when they are not there.!!!!!

The colours are appropriately "funereal" with black and white contrast and a somewhat bleak use of colour and light. There are technical issues and problems but IF I said like many others have in this forum, that I ignored technical quality issues on purpose and with intention, would that be acceptable??? It seems that it would be,...considering some of the photos chosen for attention by the moderators. I tend to disagree and say NO. Technical and compositional problems balance on the negative side whatever may be seen as creative or different on the positive side.

Another point to be made in this discussion is that somehow, some seem to think that post processing or Photoshopping is a "criticism" and look for anything that they can interpret in that light. I think that is stretched too far, when people are looking for cut and paste, sharpening, adding or changing position of items that has NOT even been done.
Even if it has been done, the point is whether it has improved the photo or not. It is even more silly when some who criticize postprocessing have done very little of it themselves and are criticizing a process that they have limited or no experience with.

I think that everyone needs to reassess their approaches to photography at times, which is why I played around with filter and presented a mildly interesting photo for discussion.
I can understand older photographers having a limited view or perspective but I can certainly not understand it when the restricted, partially or totally purist viewpoint seems to come from younger ones.

Ronnoco

[payn817]

ummm... wrong thread, sorry.

[Ronnoco]

Oh, by the way, I checked with a line straightening tool and the horizon was totally straight although I have to agree that it does look a smidgen off visually. I am not sure why.

Ronnoco