photo sharing and upload picture albums photo forums search pictures popular photos photography help login
Type your message and click Add Comment
It is best to login or register first but you may post as a guest.
Enter an optional name and contact email address. Name
Name Email
help private comment
Phil Douglis | all galleries >> Galleries >> Gallery Thirteen: Bringing Fresh Visions to Tired Clichés > Overlooking Sagaing, Myanmar, 2005
previous | next

Overlooking Sagaing, Myanmar, 2005

Pictures of vistas, made from high hills or tall buildings, are a staple of travel photography. They are made so often, they have become travel clichés. Most are literal descriptions, and are not able to replicate the experience of being there. I usually avoid making such pictures, and hesitated making this one – until I saw the three monks on the rooftop in the foreground. The monks add expressive meaning to the picture, because of their scale incongruity and symbolic presence. Sagaing is a center of Burmese Buddhism, the temples that fill the picture are Buddhist temples, and what better way to humanize the image and make it speak than including three Buddhist monks on the temple roof in the foreground? A few moments later, they were gone. The opportunity to turn a cliché into a fresh vision was fleeting, and I was fortunate to have been there when those monks were walking on that roof.

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ20
1/1000th sec. at f/5.6 iso100 hide exif
Full EXIF Info
Date/Time
MakePanasonic
ModelDMC-FZ20
Flash UsedNo
Focal Length
Exposure Time
Aperture
ISO Equivalent100
Exposure Bias
White Balance (10)
Metering Modemulti spot (3)
JPEG Quality (6)
Exposure Programprogram (2)
Focus Distance

other sizes: small medium large original auto
share
Phil Douglis24-Feb-2008 02:50
I am delighted that my explanation of the ethics involved in photographic manipulation was of interest to you, Vera. Although this explanation is now three years old, I believe in the points I raised back then even more so today. The reason is simple. More and more people, including those here on pbase, are now using Photoshop effects to change the facts of their photographs, even photographs that rely on those facts for their meaning. And they are often doing it without telling their viewers that they are looking at a digitally manipulated image. I consider this, as I explain below, to be unethical. I think most of this is done out of well meaning ignorance. They don't mean to be unethical -- they just don't realize the implications of what they are doing. To borrow a moon, for example, from another image, and put it into the sky of travel photograph, is just not right -- unless we tell our viewers they are looking at a composite image. To do the same thing in a work of personal art, a work of fantasy, will not matter, because we are dealing there with fiction, not fact. In other words, it all comes down to the particular intent and nature of the photograph and the viewer's context for that image.
Guest 24-Feb-2008 01:05
What an excellent discussion here on cloning. I have learned a great deal from reading it. Thank you!
Phil Douglis04-Apr-2007 21:59
Thanks, Ruthie, for underscoring the key point that without reality, there can be no fantasy. The most expressive travel photographs walk a narrow line -- they often ask us to consider where reality ends and fantasy begins. In this case, I contrast the tension between the real details, such as the much discussed string of lights, and the fairytale-like forest of spires that, as you put it, appear to be something out of a dream. The monks are very real, yet in their mystical red robes here appear to be spiritual symbols wandering among the iconic structures that define their beliefs. Actually, they are visitors just like myself. And no doubt just as much in awe as I was. Your point about habitation is at the core of travel photography itself. We travel so we can learn how others live and have lived. Our images interpret those lives and express their meaning as we see it.
ruthemily04-Apr-2007 21:36
How strange, that following my previous comment and musing about reality and false Utopia I come to this picture, scan through the previous comments and notice the discussion about the possible cloning out of the wires in the top right corner of this picture! I think it can be simpler than a discussion of ethical photography. Travel photography is about photographing the world - and the world is inhabited! If it wasn't, there would be no photography at all! Perhaps a painter wouldn't have included the wire, but I think photographers have a different purpose with this sort of scene.
It IS a very painterly image, to me it appears like something out of a fairytale, something only to be found in imagination and dreams. It is the realistic details, the evidence of dwelling, that remind me that such beauty does actally exist in the world.
Phil Douglis17-Apr-2006 06:55
By all means visit Myanmar, Jeremy. It is one of the most mysterious, atmospheric places on earth.
Jeremy31-Mar-2006 12:58
Somehow, I am particulary attracted by this photo in your galleries. Certainly, the three monks in red robes have added a touch of reality and life to the photo, but with or without them, I find the photo to exude a mesmerizing quality, a mystical atmosphere, from the white spires and golden padogo in sharp focus in the foreground to the temples in the blurry background. I must visit the place one day.
Phil Douglis24-Jan-2006 00:32
Thanks, Azlin, for diagraming this image for us. I like the way your eye moves through this image. It would be nice if I could tell you that I planned it that way, but I didn't. It was instinctual -- I organize my images intuitively. But in retrospect, the zig zag path your eye took here was certainly a productive one.
Azlin Ahmad28-Dec-2005 21:01
Aside from all the comments below, I find that my eyes automatically travel in a zig zag, starting from the bottom right hand corner and eventually ending on the top left hand corner. The monks only emerged at a second look and gave a whole new perspective to the image, making me want to look at the photo yet again... and again. Every time I start again on the zig zag path, new details keep emerging. It's a bit like unwrapping a present!
Phil Douglis08-Oct-2005 01:37
Thank you, Guest, for this pertinent comment. This is an un-manicured landscape, a post-card view made real by the attitudes of the monks, and the string of lights on the building. And yes, there is something altogether mystical about a skyline full of pointed spires.
Guest 05-Oct-2005 21:27
This is such a fascinating picture Phil and I like the lights there. It makes the picture more real. It is a bit like taking kids spontaneous pictures versus pictures where they are dressed clean, with hair nicely combed, smiling for the camera. A young child with the face full of food in a picture has a more "real human" look. This is the same thing here - it may not look as manicured as a picture without the lights, but it gives us another dimension of that world. I also like the pointed triangles in the distance. There is something mystical and yet so realistic about this picture.
Phil Douglis13-May-2005 22:38
Thanks, Tim, for looking at the image with fresh eyes! I instinctively grasped the elements you speak of here -- the zig zag flow carrying the eye through the image and the vertical line created by liking the monks to the golden stupa just above them -- but never consciously acknowledged it until you pointed it out here. You give us a lesson not in composition itself, but rather in the very nature of the medium. The more we shoot, we tend to intuitively recognize scenes that are not only interesting and meaningful to look at, but will also work coherently as an image. Such instinctive grasp of composition becomes almost a sixth sense, and arises from understanding the principles and sheer practice.

Thanks, too, for noting the importance of the juxtaposition of those lights and monks as symbolic of Asian life. You are so right -- to make a travel image pretty for the sake of prettiness alone, is a huge mistake. We may gain a cleaner image, but do it at the expense of a sense of place.
Tim May13-May-2005 19:04
Echoes and Realities - in trying to analyze why I want to linger at this image I come to the use of line, echoes, and color. Not only do the triangles of the temple march across the image, they march in a "zee" which is punctuated by the faint gold roof in the far distance and the red of the robes in the foreground. I also notice that the monks and the mid-ground and back ground temples create a straight line, so both the zig-zag and that vertical line pull me to the pay-off of the monks. The other element of this image which has caused comment is the wire on the roof in the foreground. If you had cloned that out you would have made an image that is almost, merely beautiful. I say "almost" because the monks move it beyond. But for me the lesson of Asia is that the beauty has a worn - lived in aspect which makes it a deeper beauty - it also show in the worn look of the pink wall.
Guest 04-Mar-2005 11:58
Yes, I think I get it, as long as you are not changing the meaning of the image, some techniques can be applied to enhance the image while maintain the ethical of image.
Phil Douglis01-Mar-2005 03:57
Dandan, you have just asked one of the most difficult questions in photography. Where do we draw the line when it comes to manipulating an image? And what is the difference between manipulating an image, or enhancing it?

I will try to simplify matters by referring first to picture usage. If an image is to be used as public information, such as in an educational or editorial context, we are ethically obligated to stick to the facts. To say publicly that this structure is not festooned in lights at night by cloning out that light string is, in my view, unethical. We may not be changing the meaning itself here, but we would certainly be changing the factual context for the image. On the other hand, if we are using this picture as a personal travel picture, made for our own benefit, or as a work of personal art, it does not matter what we choose to do, because facts are not at issue in images made for personal use or purely personal expression, such as art photography.

I define manipulation as changing the basic facts. Cloning out the lights is manipulation as far as I am concerned. I define ehancment as a variant of what we used to do in the chemical darkroom. Lighten or darken pictures, intensify light and shadow, correct color, improve contrast, sharpen if necessary, retouch technical flaws, or crop as needed. When we enhance, we are not changing facts, only fixing minor technica problems and emphasizing or de-emphasizing content as needed.

Of course all of this sounds so simple, but its not. There are times where we all find ourselves in a gray area. I face this all the time. My images are created as personal expression, so by my own definition, I am free do whatever I want with the facts, right? I could, if I choose to do so, clone out that string of lights, right? Wrong! It would be unethical because my own personal imagery also just happens to be travel photography, which is based on fact. I am displaying my travel images as educational usage, publicly here on pbase, so anyone in the world can see it. So I owe it to all of my viewers to keep the facts as close as i can to what they are.

Is there room for compromise? Of course. If I have a lovely picture marred by a stray twig intruding into the frame, I am free to clone out that twig without feeling guilty. I have not really changed the important facts, have I? And my clone is actually accomplishing the same thing I might have also been able to accomplish through cropping, which I have never considered to be unethical.

So keep an open mind, but also remember that we owe our viewer as much of the truth as possible if we are in the public arena. I would correct, for example, a washed out sky, by inserting a slightly blue tint (assuming, of course that there was indeed blue sky that day, but it just failed to show up in the picture.) All I am doing with that tint is putting the blue that was once there back in my sky. On the other hand, I would never replace an entire sky with a sky taken from another picture at another time and place. At least not in an image purporting to be factual.

There are no laws, thank God, on this stuff. Only common sense, trust, honor, and truth to go by. Hope this helps clarify a very, very sticky but important issue. In the end, you must come to your own conclusions, Dandan. Let me know how this sits with you.
Guest 28-Feb-2005 15:47
Phil, I totally understood that you chose the best vantage point to shoot this one. I wasn’t criticizing the composition, in fact I love it. I was referring to clone it out. Now your answer brings another brander question:
How do you define the ethicality in travel photography? At what level, you could retouch an image that is still ethical? Ok, I think the answer to this one would be “it depends…” Now let me ask differently; for example, in this image, if the wire was clone out, would it really change the meaning of the image? I felt like I am running in a circle here… :), but you know what I mean, right?
Phil Douglis28-Feb-2005 05:04
Dandan, I agree with all you say. The wire at upper right, which holds a string of lights, does bring a heavenly scene back to reality, which is not what you want to see. Yet we always must deal with reality in life, and this is just a small reminder of that. The monks are still the key to the story here. As for that wire, a skilled Photoshopper could clone it out, but that would, in my view, a bit unethical in a travel images. Those lights are part of the temple, like it or not. And there was no other vantage point to take, either. This was it. So live with wire, with reality, yet enjoy the point of the image, which is made by the monks themselves.
Phil Douglis27-Feb-2005 21:04
That's the key to the picture, Mo. The monks come into our vision after we see all of those pointed triangles. The monks bring them, and the picture, to life. I disagree that this image would work as expression without the monks in it. It would be an exotic postcard, little more. It is the presence of the monks that add the incongruity and human values that give this image its expressive qualities.
Guest 27-Feb-2005 18:41
I think the monks bring life to this image, especially with vivid colour of their robes. If I have to criticize it, the wire at the right upper cornet is a distraction to me. It brings this surreal and heavenly scene back to reality, which is not what I WANT to see…
monique jansen27-Feb-2005 09:48
At first I did not even notice the monks, but instead noticed the endless collection of pointed triangles, one after the other, stretching all the way into the horizon of your image, I think it would have worked even without the monks, because of that.
Type your message and click Add Comment
It is best to login or register first but you may post as a guest.
Enter an optional name and contact email address. Name
Name Email
help private comment