Hey, all suggestions aside, it was a fantasik photo, fantastik effort. it's up to you entirely to put up what you think is best. I wasn't there to see you develop it...I think that this was yet another hard round, so please know that I think highly of your shot, even though I didn't put it into my top 11....
I find several steps to strengthen you message:
1. a bit more outer glow worked
2. toning the hands down also helped
3. but the slightly darker church facade is also an additional step
Well done...
Joe
[FONT="]As You Think, So Shall You BE... Rumi, 13th Century Persian Poet
In my experience, in commercial photography it is the graphic designer and/or art director who comes up with the concept and asks the photographer to shoot something fairly specific that will meet their needs. The composite work is not typically performed by the photographer.
But here's the kicker for me... "Last Photographer Standing". I have always wanted to do photography, just never had the camera. Last October I got the camera, was referred to dgrin and came into this forum thinking photography - not graphic design. If I wanted to participate in a graphic design contest then I would've Googled "Last Photographer/Graphic Designer Standing" and see what I could find. Failure is feedback? I am most definitely failing, but at times I feel I'm failing to a great piece of graphic art. If failure is feedback then the feedback is telling me to get smart, apply for a student loan, ask my parents for lunch money and take up some graphic design classes cause the contest here seems to be leaning towards that more and more. My single image photographs of weeds, sprinklers and exhaust-stained tunnels can't compete with other great photographs, let alone eye-popping composite images of men falling from buildings, grand teton road stripe painters or stitched up eyes. I don't have graphic design skills like that. Thats one reason I came to dgrin's challenges - level playing field?
But here's the kicker for me... "Last Photographer Standing". I have always wanted to do photography, just never had the camera. Last October I got the camera, was referred to dgrin and came into this forum thinking photography - not graphic design. If I wanted to participate in a graphic design contest then I would've Googled "Last Photographer/Graphic Designer Standing" and see what I could find. Failure is feedback? I am most definitely failing, but at times I feel I'm failing to a great piece of graphic art. If failure is feedback then the feedback is telling me to get smart, apply for a student loan, ask my parents for lunch money and take up some graphic design classes cause the contest here seems to be leaning towards that more and more. My single image photographs of weeds, sprinklers and exhaust-stained tunnels can't compete with other great photographs, let alone eye-popping composite images of men falling from buildings, grand teton road stripe painters or stitched up eyes. I don't have graphic design skills like that. Thats one reason I came to dgrin's challenges - level playing field?
While the composites seem to get a lot of the attention, if you look at the photos that made it into the Semifinal from LPS #12, EIGHT of them were NOT composites. They were "straight" photographs. In LPS #11, 7 of the 10 Semifinalists were "straight" photographs. Actually, Gary's "Measure of a Man" could also be termed "straight" photograph because it's just one shot, not a composite. In SF#2, only ONE shot was a composite. The other 9 were "straight" photographs. I think the facts should stand for themselves. This is a PHOTOGRAPHER'S contest. It's not a Graphic Designer's contest. If it were a Graphic Designer's contest, the winning shots would be mostly Graphic Design masterpieces.
"Just because no one understands you doesn't mean you're an artist."
But here's the kicker for me... "Last Photographer Standing". I have always wanted to do photography, just never had the camera. Last October I got the camera, was referred to dgrin and came into this forum thinking photography - not graphic design. If I wanted to participate in a graphic design contest then I would've Googled "Last Photographer/Graphic Designer Standing" and see what I could find. Failure is feedback? I am most definitely failing, but at times I feel I'm failing to a great piece of graphic art. If failure is feedback then the feedback is telling me to get smart, apply for a student loan, ask my parents for lunch money and take up some graphic design classes cause the contest here seems to be leaning towards that more and more. My single image photographs of weeds, sprinklers and exhaust-stained tunnels can't compete with other great photographs, let alone eye-popping composite images of men falling from buildings, grand teton road stripe painters or stitched up eyes. I don't have graphic design skills like that. Thats one reason I came to dgrin's challenges - level playing field?
Before I started participating in LPS, I had never done anything fancier than curves and simple cloning of spots in Photshop and I don't have any training at all in graphic design. I did do some moderately fancy darkroom work when I was in college, but nothing like the kinds of things that are possible today in Photshop. This shot is the first and only composite image I have ever made and all I know about putting them together I learned by reading the book Photoshop Masking and Compositing by Katrin Eismann.
As I see it, a competition is all about pushing yourself. If you start with the "I can't do that" attitude you have already lost. When I started work on "All that Glitters" I knew it could easily turn out to be a disaster, but I figured that's OK, I have failed in rounds before this one so the experience isn't new. Getting from where I started in LPS#1 to where I am today has been difficult and frustrating, but it has also been rewarding. The entries I am submitting now would have been both beyond my imagination and technically way out of my reach 6 months ago.
The way I push myself in this competition is to let the image drive the skills. I come up with an idea for the theme that I would like to create and then I figure out how to do it. Each entry is an idea, a puzzle, and a lesson. None of my entries are perfect becase for each one I am exercising new skills on a short time schedule. I try not to worry about that and look forward to the next round as soon as the last one has ended. When there is always a new image around the corner, the failures of the old ones don't seem as important.
How do you know what you can do before you have tried?
...Thats one reason I came to dgrin's challenges - level playing field?
I still think so. Keep in mind the other comments Shay always says (aside from the failure/feedback): this is a digital photographER competition, not just digital photographY. Therefore, there can be no restrictions on techniques.
Don't take out those loans just yet. Look at LiquidAir's comments, on everything that he's learned from dgrin and this competition.
While I am at it, there is something else I should mention. There is a subtle distincion in photography between caputring images and creating them and it took me nearly 30 years of shooting before I really undestood the difference. Becoming a good (or great) photographer is all about learing to exercise the power you have behind the lens. Part of that is skill with light, timing and the camera, but part of that is knowing what you want before you shoot. If there is one skill I have learned from LPS, it is to have an image in mind before I shoot. It is only after I have a clear vision of what I want that start deciding how to get there. Photography is much more than just pressing the shutter button. Sometimes is means opening a curtain or waiting for the right time of day. Sometimes it means setting up a backdrop, 3 strobes, a softobox, a scrim and a reflector. Sometimes it means capturing mutiple images and merging them in Photoshop.
To be honest, outside of photojournalisim, most serious photographers these days use Photoshop (or an equivalent) to some degree and certainly in the realm of commerical photography, the sky is the limit. I think what makes a photographer and a graphic designer different is not the use of image manupulation but rather the library they work from. A graphic designer has a big library of stock images, scanned textures, and the like (all of which are off limits in LPS). A photographer has a library of shooting locations and lighting diagrams. When I needed a shot of a coin, I didn't pull it out of a stock library. Rather, I bought one at a candy store, set up the lights in my garage and took a couple dozen different shots of it from different angles and different light setups.
If there is one skill I have learned from LPS, it is to have an image in mind before I shoot. It is only after I have a clear vision of what I want that start deciding how to get there..... A photographer has a library of shooting locations and lighting diagrams,,,,
This is certainly true for me. Each LPS has made me try to put an image in my mind. If I've not had any image, then at the very minimum, it has made me go out "shooting" while looking for things outside of what I would normally notice. Then also perhaps the larger the library we as photographers can grow, the more opportunities we can notice when we are out there!
Hoof and Liquid, you guys make really good points about what digital photography is and continues to evolve to be. I'm with you, Liquid, I had relatively NO experience with Photoshop. I bought CS3 around the same time I got my DSLR. I still have no idea what people are talking about when they discuss some of their Photoshop technique.
When I began taking digital photography classes last March, I didn't have a clue about photography basics. I knew what type of images I wanted to produce but didn't know how to get there. Photoshop has helped me delvelop images more in line with what I would like them to be. It's my digital dark room. Yet, it's so much more than that. It's also a great tool to expand my creativity.
As to the LPS, I was actually encouraged by my photography teacher to enter as many contests as I could because that would be a way to push myself to learn new techniques, understand my camera better, and push myself to be more creative. It's worked so far. Like you, Ken, I've come up with work I had no idea I could produce. Of course I would like one of my photos to make it into the top 10 of the qualifying rounds. One can always dream... (sigh) But I'm a realist. I've still got a ways to go skills-wise, be it composite or "straight" photography. In the meantime, I'm enjoying the frustrating, disappointing, exhilirating ride. I encourage you, too, Nelsonstuff. Use the LPS to challenge yourself. You'll be pleasantly surprised at the brilliance you can produce.
"Just because no one understands you doesn't mean you're an artist."
I'd like to claim that I don't use photoshop for pure and lofty artistic reasons.
The reason I don't use it is simple. Ca$h. I have $600 and I am heading off for Montana. Do I buy CS3, or replace my crap 17-55 kit lens with a 10-20 sigma? Hmmm.
for now, I'm like the last dork on the planet still using Microsoft digital image.
I'd like to claim that I don't use photoshop for pure and lofty artistic reasons.
The reason I don't use it is simple. Ca$h. I have $600 and I am heading off for Montana. Do I buy CS3, or replace my crap 17-55 kit lens with a 10-20 sigma? Hmmm.
for now, I'm like the last dork on the planet still using Microsoft digital image.
Get the lens and bring them both. I think you'll want something in your bag longer than 20mm
As for Photoshop, you don't need the full version. As least for competition photos, elements is just fine.
I'd like to claim that I don't use photoshop for pure and lofty artistic reasons.
The reason I don't use it is simple. Ca$h. I have $600 and I am heading off for Montana. Do I buy CS3, or replace my crap 17-55 kit lens with a 10-20 sigma? Hmmm.
for now, I'm like the last dork on the planet still using Microsoft digital image.
I think there are free versions of image editors, like GIMP and others that you might want to consider. I barely know anything about post processing, but I recall reading that there are free or very cheap alternatives to Photoshop.
And that one composite won the SF.
And 2 of the top 3 vote getters in LPS 11 were composites
And 2 of the top 5 vote getters in LPS 12 were composites
All I'm saying is there's an emerging pattern here. I can't put my finger on it, but there's something great (to me) about seeing a photograph and knowing that it's a single image. Don't get me wrong, I think composites have their place in the art field but I kinda see composites as photographs on steroids in a photography contest - that’s what I mean by level playing field. I understand what the rules are (illustrations are allowed). I knew that at the beginning. Didn't stop me from trying to enter each round.
It's more of the "I don't want to do that" attitude. I don't really have the desire to get into graphic design.
I don't have any real sense of where you draw the line between photography and graphic design. How would you classify this image?
Do you need to know how it was created to know whether it is a photograph or not?
For me, in the realm of art photography, an image stands on its own. How it was made doesn't change its value. Either I buy into the story it has to tell or I don't. I don't consider staging a scene for a single exposure or compositing multiple exposures to be any different. They are equally fake and either has to be done well enough for me to suspend my disbelief or else the image loses any impact it might have had.
When I work, my goal is to create images that I believe in. Sometime I succeed and somtimes I fail, but that is always the goal. For a particular image, I'll use whatever techniques I need to get a convincing end result. Sometimes that means trickery in front of the camera. Sometimes that means trickery in the computer. Often it means a little bit of both.
Comments
www.HoofClix.com / Personal Facebook / Facebook Page
and I do believe its true.. that there are roads left in both of our shoes..
Ken,
I find several steps to strengthen you message:
1. a bit more outer glow worked
2. toning the hands down also helped
3. but the slightly darker church facade is also an additional step
Well done...
[FONT="]As You Think, So Shall You BE... Rumi, 13th Century Persian Poet
Award-Winning Photography, Workshop Instructor, Storyteller, Writer
[/FONT][FONT="]Blog: [/FONT][FONT="]Pathways of Light[/FONT]
[FONT="] Workshops: Creating Fine Art Magic[/FONT][FONT="]
Book: Paths of Light [/FONT]
[FONT="]Workshops: 2011 Lightroom 3 Workshops
[/FONT][FONT="]Galleries, Bisti Art
[/FONT]
But here's the kicker for me... "Last Photographer Standing". I have always wanted to do photography, just never had the camera. Last October I got the camera, was referred to dgrin and came into this forum thinking photography - not graphic design. If I wanted to participate in a graphic design contest then I would've Googled "Last Photographer/Graphic Designer Standing" and see what I could find. Failure is feedback? I am most definitely failing, but at times I feel I'm failing to a great piece of graphic art. If failure is feedback then the feedback is telling me to get smart, apply for a student loan, ask my parents for lunch money and take up some graphic design classes cause the contest here seems to be leaning towards that more and more. My single image photographs of weeds, sprinklers and exhaust-stained tunnels can't compete with other great photographs, let alone eye-popping composite images of men falling from buildings, grand teton road stripe painters or stitched up eyes. I don't have graphic design skills like that. Thats one reason I came to dgrin's challenges - level playing field?
While the composites seem to get a lot of the attention, if you look at the photos that made it into the Semifinal from LPS #12, EIGHT of them were NOT composites. They were "straight" photographs. In LPS #11, 7 of the 10 Semifinalists were "straight" photographs. Actually, Gary's "Measure of a Man" could also be termed "straight" photograph because it's just one shot, not a composite. In SF#2, only ONE shot was a composite. The other 9 were "straight" photographs. I think the facts should stand for themselves. This is a PHOTOGRAPHER'S contest. It's not a Graphic Designer's contest. If it were a Graphic Designer's contest, the winning shots would be mostly Graphic Design masterpieces.
www.feliciabphotography.com
Before I started participating in LPS, I had never done anything fancier than curves and simple cloning of spots in Photshop and I don't have any training at all in graphic design. I did do some moderately fancy darkroom work when I was in college, but nothing like the kinds of things that are possible today in Photshop. This shot is the first and only composite image I have ever made and all I know about putting them together I learned by reading the book Photoshop Masking and Compositing by Katrin Eismann.
As I see it, a competition is all about pushing yourself. If you start with the "I can't do that" attitude you have already lost. When I started work on "All that Glitters" I knew it could easily turn out to be a disaster, but I figured that's OK, I have failed in rounds before this one so the experience isn't new. Getting from where I started in LPS#1 to where I am today has been difficult and frustrating, but it has also been rewarding. The entries I am submitting now would have been both beyond my imagination and technically way out of my reach 6 months ago.
The way I push myself in this competition is to let the image drive the skills. I come up with an idea for the theme that I would like to create and then I figure out how to do it. Each entry is an idea, a puzzle, and a lesson. None of my entries are perfect becase for each one I am exercising new skills on a short time schedule. I try not to worry about that and look forward to the next round as soon as the last one has ended. When there is always a new image around the corner, the failures of the old ones don't seem as important.
How do you know what you can do before you have tried?
Don't take out those loans just yet. Look at LiquidAir's comments, on everything that he's learned from dgrin and this competition.
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
To be honest, outside of photojournalisim, most serious photographers these days use Photoshop (or an equivalent) to some degree and certainly in the realm of commerical photography, the sky is the limit. I think what makes a photographer and a graphic designer different is not the use of image manupulation but rather the library they work from. A graphic designer has a big library of stock images, scanned textures, and the like (all of which are off limits in LPS). A photographer has a library of shooting locations and lighting diagrams. When I needed a shot of a coin, I didn't pull it out of a stock library. Rather, I bought one at a candy store, set up the lights in my garage and took a couple dozen different shots of it from different angles and different light setups.
This is certainly true for me. Each LPS has made me try to put an image in my mind. If I've not had any image, then at the very minimum, it has made me go out "shooting" while looking for things outside of what I would normally notice. Then also perhaps the larger the library we as photographers can grow, the more opportunities we can notice when we are out there!
www.HoofClix.com / Personal Facebook / Facebook Page
and I do believe its true.. that there are roads left in both of our shoes..
When I began taking digital photography classes last March, I didn't have a clue about photography basics. I knew what type of images I wanted to produce but didn't know how to get there. Photoshop has helped me delvelop images more in line with what I would like them to be. It's my digital dark room. Yet, it's so much more than that. It's also a great tool to expand my creativity.
As to the LPS, I was actually encouraged by my photography teacher to enter as many contests as I could because that would be a way to push myself to learn new techniques, understand my camera better, and push myself to be more creative. It's worked so far. Like you, Ken, I've come up with work I had no idea I could produce. Of course I would like one of my photos to make it into the top 10 of the qualifying rounds. One can always dream... (sigh) But I'm a realist. I've still got a ways to go skills-wise, be it composite or "straight" photography. In the meantime, I'm enjoying the frustrating, disappointing, exhilirating ride. I encourage you, too, Nelsonstuff. Use the LPS to challenge yourself. You'll be pleasantly surprised at the brilliance you can produce.
www.feliciabphotography.com
The reason I don't use it is simple. Ca$h. I have $600 and I am heading off for Montana. Do I buy CS3, or replace my crap 17-55 kit lens with a 10-20 sigma? Hmmm.
for now, I'm like the last dork on the planet still using Microsoft digital image.
Get the lens and bring them both. I think you'll want something in your bag longer than 20mm
As for Photoshop, you don't need the full version. As least for competition photos, elements is just fine.
I think there are free versions of image editors, like GIMP and others that you might want to consider. I barely know anything about post processing, but I recall reading that there are free or very cheap alternatives to Photoshop.
And that one composite won the SF.
And 2 of the top 3 vote getters in LPS 11 were composites
And 2 of the top 5 vote getters in LPS 12 were composites
All I'm saying is there's an emerging pattern here. I can't put my finger on it, but there's something great (to me) about seeing a photograph and knowing that it's a single image. Don't get me wrong, I think composites have their place in the art field but I kinda see composites as photographs on steroids in a photography contest - that’s what I mean by level playing field. I understand what the rules are (illustrations are allowed). I knew that at the beginning. Didn't stop me from trying to enter each round.
Cheers,
Barry Bonds
I don't have any real sense of where you draw the line between photography and graphic design. How would you classify this image?
Do you need to know how it was created to know whether it is a photograph or not?
For me, in the realm of art photography, an image stands on its own. How it was made doesn't change its value. Either I buy into the story it has to tell or I don't. I don't consider staging a scene for a single exposure or compositing multiple exposures to be any different. They are equally fake and either has to be done well enough for me to suspend my disbelief or else the image loses any impact it might have had.
When I work, my goal is to create images that I believe in. Sometime I succeed and somtimes I fail, but that is always the goal. For a particular image, I'll use whatever techniques I need to get a convincing end result. Sometimes that means trickery in front of the camera. Sometimes that means trickery in the computer. Often it means a little bit of both.