a video is still a video, godamnit. Doesn’t it belong in video magazines? Haven’t photographers been hopping between mediums for years? Why is it a big deal now?

I guess maybe because many mainstream magazines seem to have huge ad contracts with photography equipment manufacturers.

PS. Let it Pee is totally legal as parody. And bands win awards for cover songs all the time.

hah. I really really really try to be more eloquent and polite about things, but I have to admit, my first thoughts went along those lines exactly. Doorknob retarded.

Nice! I was going to say the same thing……

There doesn’t seem to be any way to upload JPEGs to this thread, or I’d be happy to let you see it. I should probably have someone like you peering over my shoulder when I do these things – I don’t know the first thing about surfing (although authenticity is not my higest priority, obviously…)

Would be interesting to see before and after images.

The action looks more like a kick out than a floater.
What is deceiving is the bit of spray starting just back from the tip of the nose, and along the outside rail. It’s rare to see that carry over in that manner without any contact with the wave.

Yes, John shared it with me at the time.
He also had a series -and I saw several study/WIP images- with models jumping/midair.

Both the splashing and “midair” are represented in Halsman’s work. Subjectively they are different. Cognitively they may share something. While I’m not suggesting John “borrowed”, I’m sure he was aware of the earlier work. Interesting coincidence. Was Halsman the first to use these visual treatments in a studio shot? I don’t know.

Clang did a series of images involving “splashing” a dry medium for an Hermes campaign a few years ago. Those were pretty spectacular. I wish I had a link of it.

And yet another art salesman justifies his existence. What a surprise.

I never said photoshop didn’t have a place in fine art. In fact, it is by far the most powerful tool artists have ever had at their disposal.

“I have long been of the belief that it is digital manipulation that would be responsible for elevating photography to fine art status.”

You can’t possibly be serious – elevating?

No one in the real art world bats an eye at digital manipulation. In fact, I have long been of the belief that it is digital manipulation that would be responsible for elevating photography to fine art status. If it mattered, the work of Ruud Van Empel, Loretta Lux, Maggie Taylor and others would be unable to garner the thousands upon thousands of dollars their images sell for. To paraphrase a comment made by Rick Wester, former Director of Photography at Phillips DuPury and now owner of Rick Wester Fine Art, ” If anyone has a problem with Photoshop, they need to get over it. The train has left the station.” He made that comment during a curatorial walkthrough about 3 or 4 years ago and the train is not about to go in reverse.

Thanks for the compliment but I would never refer to myself as an “art expert”.

Did you guys know he shot a video with his 5D?? You can read about it for the 1000000 time on page 40. Man, how does PDN come up with such original content?

Yawn.

p.s. Anybody who thinks straight photography is true to life has obviously never seen my driver’s license picture…

ok.

the arrogant, condescending nature of some ‘art experts’ never ceases to amaze me. so much for having an intellectual discussion about ‘art.’

I think the original series is better though. More emotion and life especially in the two right pictures of Meg Watcher.

The real scandal is that PDN gave an award to a series which uses an advertising aesthetic which I would even find unbearable for microstock.

Also in terms of freshness 80% of the stuff doesn’t deserve an award anyway.

But hey – Stephen Shore got one too. Did he submit the book himself?

Beat me to it :P
Find more @ Ai-Ap
That series spawned other rip-offs earlier in the decade as well.

Of course Halsman was one (or two) jumps ahead of John Clang 50 years earlier: http://www.flickr.com/photos/monkeyc/95165918/

@Debra Weiss
On the “surf shot”: communication is best understood when one has implicit knowledge of the subject matter.
A lack of that knowledge is why you don’t fully comprehend this image, the context, or the lack of significance. (Why it has no bearing on what is portrayed).

You too are under the misconception that this image has anything to do with sports.

If anyone viewing this image can’t tell that the photographer didn’t document a real moment then a) if they are photographers they should think about another line of work, and b) they should see a good eye doctor.

“…photoshopped halfway to death, as are all my pictures.”

Your honesty is refreshing. And it takes guts to apply your ‘fine art’ label to a photoillustration that passes as a photograph, artist statement or no.

Thanks for responding and congrats on the PDN nod.