DSLRUsers.com

French artist Philippe Ramette captures surreal self-portraits in which he appears to be defying gravity. Rather than use digital trickery, Ramette — who started his career as a sculptor — builds metal support structures that allow him to stand or sit at impossible angles.

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/01/16/mind-bending-portraits-that-defy-gravity/

and for more good stuff..

http://xippas.com/en/i/artiste/philippe_ramette

What he does with metal supports could also be easily done simply by cutting and pasting in Photoshop. Does that make a difference? Does how it is done add creedance or value to the image? I often said to my students, "I don't care how you took the image....I just want to look at it!" My fear was that they would value an image for the amount of difficulty it took to create it....rather than value the image purely on its aesthetic merits. Was that a fair and reasonable approach?
Comments?

Taking planking to a whole different level and dimension!

Matt - I agree that at the end of the day, it's the end image that matters. For this guy, maybe Photoshop wasn't an option as he didn't have the know-how or time to work on taking the separate images then composite them for the end image. Maybe his aim was to do the one shot. Like you said, doesn't matter how the image was taken, you just want to look at it. If a student wants to create a complicated approach and end up with a bad image, then that's their choice and lesson to be learnt.

Wow these are great as are the BTS information! He must really love making these pictures. [Maybe that's why he doesn't shop them]

Matt. K wrote:What he does with metal supports could also be easily done simply by cutting and pasting in Photoshop. Does that make a difference? Does how it is done add creedance or value to the image? I often said to my students, "I don't care how you took the image....I just want to look at it!" My fear was that they would value an image for the amount of difficulty it took to create it....rather than value the image purely on its aesthetic merits. Was that a fair and reasonable approach?
Comments?

now thats a good topic for discussion!

in my books this guy has a large amount of creedance and respect knowing that the shot is basically as he saw it on the day, the actual act of photography is easy, its getting to the subject or making the subject or finding the subject where alot of respect is formed.

take for example the famous picture of the wolf jumping over the gate which was apparently baited/tame, alot of the 'wow' factor is lost knowing that it was not a real 'wild' scene.

so I think the journey in making the image is often as crucial as the final delivery. At the end of the day for me, the enjoyment of photography is in the act of doing it, getting there, finding that bug, setting the shot up etc, the final processing and web posting is only but a small part of the process and journey.

ok, let the naysayers and tyre kickers in.

But instead of using digital trickery, he is using scaffolding or structural trickery.

So when does the act of 'doing' start and stop? Is it once the shutter is released or once the image is saved/printed? I am not sure there is much difference between an artificially created image, however the artificialness came about.

It sort of reminds me of "Terminator 2: Judgement Day". Cameron used a lot of CGI for the T-1000 but for a few scenes made use of twins or look-alikes. I really liked the use of very low tech effects even though high tech effects were available.

While this guy is using mechanical trickery, the low techness of it appeals to me more than the relatively high tech of Photoshop. Yes, it is all trickery in the end but I like the idea.

There is also a higher degree of integrity in the final image even if the subject itself was faked. For example, the lighting of the subject and the background will be perfectly in sync. You won't be able to find any discrepancies through pixel peeping (unless one of the structures is visible).

ATJ wrote:There is also a higher degree of integrity in the final image even if the subject itself was faked. For example, the lighting of the subject and the background will be perfectly in sync. You won't be able to find any discrepancies through pixel peeping (unless one of the structures is visible).

Agree although he could photoshop out the structures....

What I enjoy is the thinking process before, during and after the picture is taken. I particularly enjoy the 'before' part. I guess this fellow enjoys the 'during' part. Some others may enjoy the 'after' part.

Some pictures have these 3 factors balanced; some skewed.

Does it matter in general? For the photographer, it will probably matter. I think the general public will also be impressed depending on the degree of difficulty and improbability. Photoshop would rank lower in respect/wow factor in the heads of the general public as it's got bad press with celebrities and magazine covers. Besides, I reckon, the commoners believe that photochop is easy.

Does it matter if the final product looks the same? It would, depending on who is looking at the image, and how much each of those factors mattered to them.

Interesting comments Gentlemen.

I think that if we allow that photography is ART, then we can also allow that it doesn't matter whether the art happens on the set, in the camera or on the computer.

I am amused that some would consider that there is some sort of pecking order of what is kosher and what is not.

That (to me anyway) is like saying that a painter can't use a stick or a fingernail in addition to a brush; or that a real artist only uses oils or water colours, not charcoal or pencil, (or horror! a marking pen!).

But, it is our differences that make us different!

surely this comes under the aegis of Gary's oft cited maxim:
Get it right in camera & you don't have to muck about with Post.

Thanks for the links...great stuff!