Sadness

Oh my goodness, Cem! You're too close the Van Gogh!

Did you have to alter each dropping flower?. I see there's one still smiling, so that's the girl I'll ask out!

Asher

I see that many sunflowers here where I live but have never seen a image like this, really good photo.

Very nice Cem. This is the sort of image that immediately grabs your eye.

The image is great Cem.

But the emotional response I get by looking at it is not great.

The image thus has served its purpose admirably. I would not ask more of it.

Regards.

Thanks all for stopping by.

@Asher: actually not a single flower was altered.

Absolutely stunning.
One of the true gems that keep me lurking here.

Van Gogh indeed! The sky looks so like his brush strokes. Great capture full of feeling.

Seeing past seemingly grim matters!

fahim mohammed said:

The image is great Cem.

But the emotional response I get by looking at it is not great.

The image thus has served its purpose admirably. I would not ask more of it.

Click to expand...

Ahah, Fahim,

There's often good in what seems like a disaster. Imagine all the sunflower seeds that will be harvested! Delicious. One can caress and arm and it can be perceived as unwanted "rubbing" or as something so delightful. It's how it's received that makes it either grim or comforting.

Seeing past the perfunctory skins and patina of events, things and people distinguishes contemplative wisdom from impulsiveness. An example is the immediate attraction of beauty and grace, contrasted with our discovering heaps of those same qualities, but inside a less immediately attractive matter, person or thing.

So, here also, even with flowers withered all the way to the horizon, one has the choice of seeing past such superficial melancholy to see the positive.

Asher

Ben Rubinstein said:

Van Gogh indeed! The sky looks so like his brush strokes. Great capture full of feeling.

Click to expand...

I was gonna write that. So instead i'll summarize: BRILLIANT!

thanks Winston, Ben and Tracy. I honestly did not think myself that this would receive such a warm welcome, you have made me blush.

Cheers,

Cem, what a powerful image, bravo!

Ruben

Hi, Cem,

Cem_Usakligil said:

​

Click to expand...

This is lovely, a brilliant concept and composition, very well delivered.

Thanks.

Best regards,

Doug

Cem,

How was the sky out of the camera? Was it really that grey and ominous?

Asher

Dear Asher,u

Asher Kelman said:

Cem,

How was the sky out of the camera? Was it really that grey and ominous?

Click to expand...

I honestly believe that this question is invalid. As a (digital) photographer, I have been fighting to eradicate the misconception that an image exists which can be objectively labelled as "out of camera". Especially when one shoots raw like I do. Not to mention how subjective the "reality of our fleeting memory" can be. But you know all that very well.

Totally agree Cem! You're not a photojournalist!

Cem_Usakligil said:

Dear Asher,u


I honestly believe that this question is invalid. As a (digital) photographer, I have been fighting to eradicate the misconception that an image exists which can be objectively labelled as "out of camera". Especially when one shoots raw like I do. Not to mention how subjective the "reality of our fleeting memory" can be. But you know all that very well.

Click to expand...

Well, Cem,

The question is related to my fascination with your artistry, not any critqiue or assertion of how things should be.

I was trying to approach the question of "Would most others at the scene have noted such an oppressive almost colorless sky? That is an observer-indepndant approach, (we might loosely label as "factive"). This contrasts with a looser, "fictive" expression which is more individual, observer-dependant, emotional, imaginative, interpretive and even visceral communication of what was objectively there.

So, imagining the camera as very roughly replacing the crowd of independent observers, I asked, What did the camera record. I do not need to know this to enjoy your work. However, it is interesting and illuminating to learn of the creative path you took.

So that's why I wanted to know of the original!

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

Well, Cem,

The question is related to my fascination with your artistry, not any critqiue or assertion of how things should be.

I was trying to approach the question of "Would most others at the scene have noted such an oppressive almost colorless sky? That is an observer-indepndant approach, (we might loosely label as "factive"). This contrasts with a looser, "fictive" expression which is more individual, observer-dependant, emotional, imaginative, interpretive and even visceral communication of what was objectively there.

So, imagining the camera as very roughly replacing the crowd of independent observers, I asked, What did the camera record. I do not need to know this to enjoy your work. However, it is interesting and illuminating to learn of te creative path you took.

So that's why I wanted to know of the original!

Asher

Click to expand...

There was no original. We only have cems information. Unless the universe is infinite.

Mark Hampton said:

There was no original. We only have cems information. Unless the universe is infinite.

Click to expand...

Mark,

You must be in a parallel universe, LOL! In this one, we have cameras and Cem has one too. They tskr pictures in one moment and they bear a close resemblance to the same scene taken by others with similarly capable cameras or folk just looking with their eyes.

Exporting that to a picture to share, is another matter.

So I do not fathom what you are referring to, LOL! How can you say there was no original. Of course there was an original picture recorded in the camera, observable through routine processing. It would be pretty close to what you or I would observe with our own eyes, but not what we might imagine. Therein is the distinction I seek here. Just the path to the picture.

Cem already informed me that the flowers were not modified to artificially look withered. We still don not know about the sky.

It's of no relevance to how good the picture is, just an interesting part of the pictures background and Cem's mind.

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

Mark,

You must be in a parallel universe, LOL! In this one, we have cameras and Cem has one too. They tskr pictures in one moment and they bear a close resemblance to the same scene taken by others with similarly capable cameras or folk just looking with their eyes.

Exporting that to a picture to share, is another matter.

So I do not fathom what you are referring to, LOL! How can you say there was no original. Of course there was an original picture recorded in the camera, observable through routine processing. It would be pretty close to what you or I would observe with our own eyes, but not what we might imagine. Therein is the distinction I seek here. Just the path to the picture.

Cem already informed me that the flowers were not modified to artificially look withered. We still don not know about the sky.

It's of no relevance to how good the picture is, just an interesting part of the pictures background and Cem's mind.

Asher

Click to expand...

Asher,

no - Cem has measured the data in a way..... we see it as information ... there really was no real or place or space...

it's just the measure ... the 2d model through his setup... this space never existed ... it is as he has interprated it....

this is not about good bad etc... there is no real only a model..

this does not make sense.. sorry

Mark Hampton said:

Asher,

no - Cem has measured the data in a way..... we see it as information ... there really was no real or place or space...

it's just the measure ... the 2d model through his setup... this space never existed ... it is as he has interprated it....

this is not about good bad etc... there is no real only a model..

this does not make sense.. sorry

Click to expand...

Mark,

I never brought in the qualities of "good or bad", so that idea is dismissed from the start. Next, it makes sense that Cem's work can be seen as merely an "unreal 2D model" only if Cem just imagined it. However, it was not just that! Cem recorded the scene.

It does not need to be shared, but the nature of the scene at the time of the picture becomes interesting in that the flowers were pretty well as shown.

Asher

Asher

Hi Asher and Mark,

Firstly, I really enjoy reading your thoughts on this, please feel free to discuss further if you wish to. My own thoughts are more aligned with Mark's fwiw. That is the reason why I made my objection to start with. I have not for one second interpreted Asher's question as a critique (in the negative sense of the word) nor as a dictate of how it should be. One can say that I am being quite pedantic by disputing the validity of Asher's original question, perhaps I am! Because I essentially understood what was being asked. I was simply not happy about how the question was formulated. So let me try and give some answers eventually.

Asher Kelman said:

...I was trying to approach the question of "Would most others at the scene have noted such an oppressive almost colorless sky? That is an observer-indepndant approach, (we might loosely label as "factive"). This contrasts with a looser, "fictive" expression which is more individual, observer-dependant, emotional, imaginative, interpretive and even visceral communication of what was objectively there.

So, imagining the camera as very roughly replacing the crowd of independent observers, I asked, What did the camera record. I do not need to know this to enjoy your work. However, it is interesting and illuminating to learn of the creative path you took.

So that's why I wanted to know of the original!

Asher

Click to expand...

Considering the fact that this was taken in Catalunya, Spain in July where it is normally sunny and 30 degrees centigrade, one can safely assume that anybody in the vicinity at that time with heavy rain and some 18 degrees centigrade would have thought that the sky was colourless and oppressive. But not everybody passing by that field of sunflowers in the middle of nowhere would have stopped their car, get out in the pouring rain, compose and take the picture like this and process and present as seen here.

Asher Kelman said:

...Of course there was an original picture recorded in the camera, observable through routine processing. It would be pretty close to what you or I would observe with our own eyes, but not what we might imagine. Therein is the distinction I seek here. Just the path to the picture.

Cem already informed me that the flowers were not modified to artificially look withered. We still don not know about the sky.

It's of no relevance to how good the picture is, just an interesting part of the pictures background and Cem's mind.

Click to expand...

Asher let's call a spade a spade, what you want to know is whether I have done any extreme post processing on the picture. Such as retouching or repainting the sunflowers or replacing the sky with a more dramatic one from another picture, etc. The answer is easy: no I did not do any such postprocessing. The only parameters I have manipulated relate to sharpening, local contrast enhancements, enhancing micro details, setting the WB, noise reduction, etc. while converting from raw to the jpg you see. The drama in the sky was embedded in the pixels recorded by the camera, I just have enhanced the contrast to emphasise it. I did not selectively desaturate to make it gray.

The image as presented is a result of my artistic vision, it may or may not have any resemblance to any fictional reality which may or may not have existed.

Cem_Usakligil said:

Hi Asher and Mark,



The image as presented is a result of my artistic vision, it may or may not have any resemblance to any fictional reality which may or may not have existed.

Click to expand...

I love this ! I want this on my grave stone

I love this forum! A two page response to the simple question of how did the sky looked as recorded in RAW! LOL, love it!

Do you mind if I ask what type of medium this scene was recorded with?


"The image as presented is a result of my artistic vision, it may or may not have any resemblance to any fictional reality which may or may not have existed."

Love this statement. SOOC to me is an un-modified raw file or film. But as fellow shutter pushers, we always need to know more! Learning, discussing, and understanding others techniques is just fascinating to us. It's not enough for us to see the final artist vision you present but also seeing and understanding your visions process from A to B.



On to the phtograph you presented, stunning. I've noticed the thread for a few days, but did not click on it till today. I felt sadness as soon as I viewed it, definite success!

I never for once thought that you stole the sky!


Cem,

At last! We have an epitaph. "It is what it is, since you did what you did!"

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

Cem Usakligil: Sadness


​

Cem,

At last! We have an epitaph. "It is what it is, since you did what you did!"

Asher

Click to expand...

thats the back of my head stone

Mark Hampton said:

I love this ! I want this on my grave stone

Click to expand...

Epitaph (King Crimson)

Confusion will be my epitaph
As I crawl a cracked and broken path
If we make it we can all sit back and laugh
But I fear tomorrow I'll be crying
Yes I fear tomorrow I'll be crying.

jake klein said:

...
Do you mind if I ask what type of medium this scene was recorded with?

Click to expand...

It was recorded on a cmos sensor Jake.

Thanks for your kind comments.

Asher Kelman said:

Cem,

At last! We have an epitaph. "It is what it is, since you did what you did!"

Asher

Click to expand...

Guilty as charged

To my pleasant surprise I just saw that Jerome has taken a very similar picture around the same date as mine (actually, mine was taken barely two weeks earlier). I think the picture is is really worth mentioning here and also to demonstrate the fact that individual photographers can and do come up with very similar ideas.

@Jerome: I hope that you shall excuse me for showing this link to your picture. If you don't want me to, please let me know and I'll remove the link.