Daniella's NPN "cover" shot

[Jim Erhardt]

Hello to all, this is my first post in these forums. I tried posting to the original thread, but evidently it is now closed.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Daniella for allowing us to use her photo this month. Regardless of the "ingredients" or how long it was "baked," it is IMO a stunning image. And since I have to pick 'em every month, I get the final say!

In case you need it, here is a link to Daniella's image on NPN - http://www.naturephotographers.net

To comment on a few of the questions posed in the previous thread -

Why was the image selected? Because I think it's a stunning image, a pleasant and refreshing departure from the norm. It presents the common in an uncommon fashion, which I believe helps us to appreciate the beauty of "every day" scenes.

Why the image with the coyote? I guess because I'm with the other 99%! The inquisitive posture of the coyote compliments the image really well - even though the coyote was not really there (at least not when Daniella was there with her camera).

A quick story. A landscape photographer is out in the woods in the fall, and comes across a beautiful stream. In the stream is a rock, wet and glistening from the water rushing past it. The photographer decides to pick up a blazing red maple leaf from the ground and place it perfectly on the rock. He proceeds to take an image of this picturesque scene.

A real scene from nature, or a manipulated one?

A short time later, another photographer comes upon the scene. He sees the beautiful leaf posed perfectly on the rock, and takes his shot of it.

This, of course, was totally natural, completely unmanipulated - just as he found it. Right?

On to another question raised -

Should "composite" images be used on the "cover" of a "nature photography" website? Why not? Daniella's image was not the first composite we ever used, and I'm willing to bet it won't be the last. We label such images as "digital composites" in our "About the cover..." blurb, regardless of how obvious we think it is. I think what may have stirred the debate in the previous thread was that we had inadvertantly left out the "digital composite" verbiage (my mistake) for the first day or so it was online. It was pointed out to us in an email, and I edited the cover blurb accordingly. FWIW, I always appreciate when such mistakes are pointed out. God knows I make my share of them...

IMO, the final product is entirely up to the photographer. Some folks enjoy creating stunning images using filters, composites, etc. They are still stunning images. Others, like Andy Rouse and the late Bill Silliker, Jr. "hunt" their subjects in the wild and produce extraordinary images of the life and behavior of these animals. Is one any better or more valid than the other? That, my friends, is an endless debate with no universal answer.

For those of us who "publish" the work of others, it's now so much "what it is" as "how it's labeled." This is especially true of images that use "photos from the camera" as the raw material, to be crafted into a final work in the digital (or conventional) darkroom. For us, truth in labeling is the paramount concern, regardless of how "real" or "fake" the image appears to an individual viewer. As the viewers of other people's work, as long as we do not feel deceived, we are free to enjoy the image for what it is.

Thanks for taking the time to listen.

 

[Bill in Brooklyn]

I just wanted to give a thanks for publishing that photo. With the speed in which the threads of this forum move on to oblivion, I managed to miss other posts showcasing the image before it appeared on your website. It's a truly stunning photo and I've stared at it for hours. Thanks again.

Bill in Brooklyn

 

[ShirleyKat]

It's wonderful to hear from the person who chose the picture. It's very stunning to me too and I love telling others about your site, which I just heard about because of this image.

Shirley

Hello to all, this is my first post in these forums. I tried
posting to the original thread, but evidently it is now closed.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Daniella for
allowing us to use her photo this month. Regardless of the
"ingredients" or how long it was "baked," it is IMO a stunning
image. And since I have to pick 'em every month, I get the final
say!

 

[malcolmmacintyre]

Shirley

Hello to all, this is my first post in these forums. I tried
posting to the original thread, but evidently it is now closed.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Daniella for
allowing us to use her photo this month. Regardless of the
"ingredients" or how long it was "baked," it is IMO a stunning
image. And since I have to pick 'em every month, I get the final
say!

--
http://www.pbase.com/malmac
What's worth a thousand words? Well, it's in the eye of the beholder.

 

[dspmax]

In my opinion the wolf's position or stance seem a little fake / unnatural. I didn't realize this was a composite 'photo' until I saw the thread. At first I thought this was a drawn image.

Either way, great peace of work Daniella!

-serge

 

[kathgarveyuk]

Very well said ...thank you !!!

I am also sure Daniella, wil appreciate this .
Regards

Kath Garvey UK

 

[RiverEyes]

Hi Jim...

I can see why you chose it... its unique and spectacular, just because its created does not mean its not visually awesome... I guess I can see where a purist who pursues shots such as this and uses no manipulation might see the method as cheap... but results are what are the bottom line.... I think theres room for awesome images like this along with unmanipulated images... as long as they are labeled as such.....

thanks for the post... I needed to get over to your magazine and check it out....
Ken

 

[Doug Kerr]

Doug

 

[Richard300]

Seems you are trying to justify your selection. Photography means different things to different people and what bothers me more than "fake" photos are people trying to convince me they are OK.

To comment on a few of the questions posed in the previous thread -

Why was the image selected? Because I think it's a stunning image,
a pleasant and refreshing departure from the norm. It presents the
common in an uncommon fashion, which I believe helps us to
appreciate the beauty of "every day" scenes.

What are you talking about? Unless you are wearing funny glasses, this is not an "every day" scene.

Why the image with the coyote? I guess because I'm with the other
99%! The inquisitive posture of the coyote compliments the image
really well - even though the coyote was not really there (at
least not when Daniella was there with her camera).

99%- Where did you get that number from? Better to put that back in the hat.

A quick story. A landscape photographer is out in the woods in the
fall, and comes across a beautiful stream. In the stream is a
rock, wet and glistening from the water rushing past it. The
photographer decides to pick up a blazing red maple leaf from the
ground and place it perfectly on the rock. He proceeds to take an
image of this picturesque scene.

Give me a break. If you want to sit there and attract a real wild animal that could possibly kill you and be close enough to smell his breath as you take the shot, than the story works for me.

A real scene from nature, or a manipulated one?

See above. What happened to "earning a shot".

Should "composite" images be used on the "cover" of a "nature
photography" website? Why not? Daniella's image was not the first
composite we ever used, and I'm willing to bet it won't be the
last. We label such images as "digital composites" in our "About
the cover..." blurb, regardless of how obvious we think it is. I
think what may have stirred the debate in the previous thread was
that we had inadvertantly left out the "digital composite" verbiage
(my mistake) for the first day or so it was online. It was pointed
out to us in an email, and I edited the cover blurb accordingly.
FWIW, I always appreciate when such mistakes are pointed out. God
knows I make my share of them...

I have a feeling you got caught with your pants down and are now back peddling. Maybe you should not consider yourself a photography site.

IMO, the final product is entirely up to the photographer. Some
folks enjoy creating stunning images using filters, composites,
etc. They are still stunning images. Others, like Andy Rouse and
the late Bill Silliker, Jr. "hunt" their subjects in the wild and
produce extraordinary images of the life and behavior of these
animals. Is one any better or more valid than the other? That, my
friends, is an endless debate with no universal answer.

Yes, one is better than the other. One is real and the other is fiction.

For those of us who "publish" the work of others, it's now so much
"what it is" as "how it's labeled." This is especially true of
images that use "photos from the camera" as the raw material, to be
crafted into a final work in the digital (or conventional)
darkroom. For us, truth in labeling is the paramount concern,
regardless of how "real" or "fake" the image appears to an
individual viewer. As the viewers of other people's work, as long
as we do not feel deceived, we are free to enjoy the image for what
it is.

Thanks for taking the time to listen.

Flame on!!!!!!!

--

Richard300

 

[Andy Somnifacient]

It's good to see that civilized, constructive discussion is alive and well on DPReview...

Flame on!!!!!!!

--

Richard300

--
Andy
http://www.somnifacient.us

I'm not vain enough to think that people care what equipment I use or that my equipment makes me who I am.

 

[charles schuler]

Gee, this is an emotional issue. Daniella is an unfettered artist, as all real artists are. She uses the tools at her disposal and her imagination to communicate (and does so very effectively).

Digital manipulation is only harmful if it's for deceitful profit or if it compromises someone else. If I alter my voice to scam someone, that's not nice. It seems that many of the objections play on the concept of digital deception. Every adult that I know would recognize that scene as being manipulated.

As we move on to more clever tools, this whole mess is going to get worse. Folks won't know what to believe! But for artistic endeavors, it's been that way for a long, long time.

 

[Richard300]

Gee, this is an emotional issue. Daniella is an unfettered artist,
as all real artists are. She uses the tools at her disposal and
her imagination to communicate (and does so very effectively).

You can use all the tools you want, but don't call it a photo.

Digital manipulation is only harmful if it's for deceitful profit
or if it compromises someone else. If I alter my voice to scam
someone, that's not nice. It seems that many of the objections
play on the concept of digital deception. Every adult that I know
would recognize that scene as being manipulated.

That is your opinion and I will not attempt to change it.

As we move on to more clever tools, this whole mess is going to get
worse. Folks won't know what to believe! But for artistic
endeavors, it's been that way for a long, long time.

I know what I expect out of photography and why I do it so it will not get worse for me. Some people are more about technology than they are about photography.

--

Richard300

 

[bluesfan1]

I'm guessing you never use any filters when you take photographs. Cause from you're tone I would think you'd see that as manipulation.

 

[canonuser123]

Gee, this is an emotional issue. Daniella is an unfettered artist,
as all real artists are. She uses the tools at her disposal and
her imagination to communicate (and does so very effectively).

You can use all the tools you want, but don't call it a photo.

You are imposing your opinion on someone else. You can call it whatever you want but it is a composite photo. even the great ones from the past have manipulated their creations in the darkroom or using doublexposure. nobody complained it was not a photo - maybe from the competition who envied their work. When you start your own successful website and hold a contest you can force your rules then - guess what it is not your web site.

Digital manipulation is only harmful if it's for deceitful profit
or if it compromises someone else. If I alter my voice to scam
someone, that's not nice. It seems that many of the objections
play on the concept of digital deception. Every adult that I know
would recognize that scene as being manipulated.

That is your opinion and I will not attempt to change it.

As you have your opnion

As we move on to more clever tools, this whole mess is going to get
worse. Folks won't know what to believe! But for artistic
endeavors, it's been that way for a long, long time.

I know what I expect out of photography and why I do it so it will
not get worse for me. Some people are more about technology than
they are about photography.

--

Richard300

 

[Richard300]

the only filters I use are UV filters. You know nothing about me so I would appreciate if you would not make assumptions as to what my tone is or what it means.

I'm guessing you never use any filters when you take photographs.
Cause from you're tone I would think you'd see that as manipulation.

--

Richard300

 

[-jeffB]

the only filters I use are UV filters. You know nothing about me
so I would appreciate if you would not make assumptions as to what
my tone is or what it means.

Gee, if we're not allowed to try to interpret the tone of your message, are we allowed to interpret anything else about it? Are we allowed to read it?

When your last line is "flame on!", I'm not sure what "assumptions" need to be made about your tone anyhow...

 

[hebruiser]

Gee, this is an emotional issue. Daniella is an unfettered artist,
as all real artists are. She uses the tools at her disposal and
her imagination to communicate (and does so very effectively).

You can use all the tools you want, but don't call it a photo.

Digital manipulation is only harmful if it's for deceitful profit
or if it compromises someone else. If I alter my voice to scam
someone, that's not nice. It seems that many of the objections
play on the concept of digital deception. Every adult that I know
would recognize that scene as being manipulated.

That is your opinion and I will not attempt to change it.

As we move on to more clever tools, this whole mess is going to get
worse. Folks won't know what to believe! But for artistic
endeavors, it's been that way for a long, long time.

I know what I expect out of photography and why I do it so it will
not get worse for me. Some people are more about technology than
they are about photography.

--

Richard300

and oddly, i'm sure that the early daguerre (sp?) followers got just as much flack from the painters and sculptors of the time. technology IS art. art provides a method and medium for expression of emotion and view. technology both springs from and feeds art. i myself have misgivings about photo alteration, but then i remember back when i was in a darkroom for 10 hours a day...it's all the same, just different tools.

 

[canonuser123]

Seems you are trying to justify your selection. Photography means
different things to different people and what bothers me more than
"fake" photos are people trying to convince me they are OK.

Is this not what you are trying to do? You say photography means different things to different people so what is the problem then? Who is trying to convince YOU it is ok? This is not your website or your contest or your pick and when you hold one you can pick then. Remember your first statement - photography means different things to different people and you are just one person.

To comment on a few of the questions posed in the previous thread -

Why was the image selected? Because I think it's a stunning image,
a pleasant and refreshing departure from the norm. It presents the
common in an uncommon fashion, which I believe helps us to
appreciate the beauty of "every day" scenes.

What are you talking about? Unless you are wearing funny glasses,
this is not an "every day" scene.

You skipped past all the good stuff so you can pick on a few words. It does speaks volumes of you and where you are coming from. I got what he is saying but you only wanted to see how you could score a negative comment.

Why the image with the coyote? I guess because I'm with the other
99%! The inquisitive posture of the coyote compliments the image
really well - even though the coyote was not really there (at
least not when Daniella was there with her camera).

99%- Where did you get that number from? Better to put that back
in the hat.

The people who protest seem very much in the minority. Can you prove it is not 99%? What hat???

A quick story. A landscape photographer is out in the woods in the
fall, and comes across a beautiful stream. In the stream is a
rock, wet and glistening from the water rushing past it. The
photographer decides to pick up a blazing red maple leaf from the
ground and place it perfectly on the rock. He proceeds to take an
image of this picturesque scene.

Give me a break. If you want to sit there and attract a real wild
animal that could possibly kill you and be close enough to smell
his breath as you take the shot, than the story works for me.

We know what your story is.

A real scene from nature, or a manipulated one?

See above. What happened to "earning a shot".

What happened to not being narrowminded? Who are you to say anything about an image being "earned"? When you hold your contest you can make up the rules until then it is just sour milk.

Should "composite" images be used on the "cover" of a "nature
photography" website? Why not? Daniella's image was not the first
composite we ever used, and I'm willing to bet it won't be the
last. We label such images as "digital composites" in our "About
the cover..." blurb, regardless of how obvious we think it is. I
think what may have stirred the debate in the previous thread was
that we had inadvertantly left out the "digital composite" verbiage
(my mistake) for the first day or so it was online. It was pointed
out to us in an email, and I edited the cover blurb accordingly.
FWIW, I always appreciate when such mistakes are pointed out. God
knows I make my share of them...

I have a feeling you got caught with your pants down and are now
back peddling. Maybe you should not consider yourself a
photography site.

The only one with their pamts down or foot in the mouth is you bud. So much sour milk and whining.

IMO, the final product is entirely up to the photographer. Some
folks enjoy creating stunning images using filters, composites,
etc. They are still stunning images. Others, like Andy Rouse and
the late Bill Silliker, Jr. "hunt" their subjects in the wild and
produce extraordinary images of the life and behavior of these
animals. Is one any better or more valid than the other? That, my
friends, is an endless debate with no universal answer.

Yes, one is better than the other. One is real and the other is
fiction.

Only one thing counts - the facts - that Daniella photo made it to the cover and you are one big whiner.

For those of us who "publish" the work of others, it's now so much
"what it is" as "how it's labeled." This is especially true of
images that use "photos from the camera" as the raw material, to be
crafted into a final work in the digital (or conventional)
darkroom. For us, truth in labeling is the paramount concern,
regardless of how "real" or "fake" the image appears to an
individual viewer. As the viewers of other people's work, as long
as we do not feel deceived, we are free to enjoy the image for what
it is.

Thanks for taking the time to listen.

Flame on!!!!!!!

--

Richard300

 

[canonuser123]

We know too much about him already. Very transparent, no need to 'figure' out.

the only filters I use are UV filters. You know nothing about me
so I would appreciate if you would not make assumptions as to what
my tone is or what it means.

Gee, if we're not allowed to try to interpret the tone of your
message, are we allowed to interpret anything else about it? Are
we allowed to read it?

When your last line is "flame on!", I'm not sure what "assumptions"
need to be made about your tone anyhow...

 

[bluesfan1]

And by that response I can clearly tell that I don't want to know you.

However let me tell you a little about myself. When it comes to photography, I'm the biggest idiot to ever post to this forum. Most people here have forgotten more about it than I'll ever hope to know. But I do know that asking if you use filters was a deliberate attempt to compare apples to oranges. Obviously using filters is no where near the same level of manipulation as what had taken place in Daniella's photo (yes I did call it a photo). The point I was trying to make is that you nor I get to decide how much is too much. That peson made the decision that she hadn't done too much. Clearly Daniella did a wonderful job. Why can you not let her enjoy her minute in the sun?

One last thing, you say that some people are more about technology than they are about photography. Well the last time I checked technology led to photography. If it hadn't we'd all be visiting each others caves and see who drew the nicest picture on the wall.

Thank you and more importantly, thank you to everyone else who is out there making this forum an inspiring place to visit. Not to mention educational.

Oh yeah and I believe technology also led to this forum.