Random Excellence: Rosario Civello

Rosario Civello, Signs #20

Rosario Civello of Italy is presented as the "Discovery of the Year" at something called the Neutral Density Photography Awards for 2016, about which I know nothing. This beautiful thing earned a prize of $1,300.

Funny, though...it used to be that if a photograph looked like nothing I had ever seen before, that was a point in its favor. Now, it just makes me suspect that it might be manipulated. I have to say this looks like a Photoshop creation to me. (I've invited the photographer to comment.) But I don't know, and does it matter? A cursory look around the ND website reveals no rules about manipulation. Either way, it's still an interesting idea and good to look at. Second-guessing the veracity of artistic creations is like guessing if someone colors their hair: these days it just doesn't matter to anyone.

Here's his website.

Mike
(Thanks to Hernan Zenteno)

Original contents copyright 2016 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Like what you read?
Join our support campaign or buy something

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Fulvio Senore: "It might be a real thing. It looks like a ski slope cut in a beech wood. Beeches grow at lower altitudes so usually there are no ski slopes in those woods. I live near the Alps and our slopes cut fir woods or they are above the trees. I suspect that in central Italy, where mountains have much lower altitudes, many slopes cut beech woods."

ShadZee: "Wow...I love his style. As we've discussed here (too many times), it's artistic expression, and he's got talent and expresses his vision very creatively."

Roger Overall: "Something odd happened to me when I saw this photograph. My first reaction was, 'That's wonderful. How well observed and executed. A marvel.' Then I read your comment that you suspected it was manipulated on a computer. Immediately, my impression of the photograph changed. 'Meh. Nothing special here.' Bonkers! Without any evidence, my opinion changed. The mere suggestion that it might be manipulated photograph was enough for my high opinion of it to come clattering down around my feet. Let's face it, manipulated or not, it's still a very striking and beautiful image—the product of a good deal of creative talent. Maybe my disappointment stems from my hasty assumption at first glance that it was a photograph. If I'd known from the outset it wasn't, maybe I'd still gaze upon it in wonder. 'What a clever thing to imagine and create,' I would say. Silly me for assuming it was a photograph. Much better to appreciate it as an image, without basing its value on how it was created? Or does that undermine the fundamental enjoyment of appreciating a photograph: that it is, in fact, a photograph? Oh dear. I seem to be digging quite a hole."

Mike replies: I think what you describe is a big part of looking at photographs now—namely, that you don't know exactly what you're looking at. It's similar to the confusions between news and propaganda—which exactly are you listening to? My 12-year-old niece mentioned in passing (when she was 11) that she assumes all photographs are manipulated. Maybe that solves the issue.

Curiously, I noticed this phenomenon first because I realized that I know exactly what is happening in one person's photographs—my own. With mine, I know what's up. With other peoples', I have to wonder.

I need to work on just accepting the possibility of manipulation and incorporating it non-judgmentally into my assumptions when I look at pictures.

Jim Bullard: "From the 'About' page on his site (which includes the above image): 'these are not abstract constructions but photographs of actual places and objects.' It appears to me to be a photo looking down a mountainside in winter. I did not take it as a construction or 'Photoshopped' when I first saw it except that he has clearly heightened the contrast to the extreme."

Nick Hunt: "Yes, this is fabricated, or a montage—there are duplicate tree groups in the top and bottom halves, above and below the treeless middle part. For me, this means I am somehow less delighted by the image, while still admiring the craft technique and imagination involved."

[Ed. Note: Jim's and Nick's comments came in one after the other, in the above order. Together they do seem to illustrate Roger's and my point just above that.]

John Camp: "I don't like manipulated photographs and the more that manipulated photos appear to be not-manipulated, the less I like them. Most manipulated photos are simply inane, but some are not. And usually, those take their power from their closeness to reality, and through the photographer's willingness for people to believe they are real. In other words, they are usually dishonest. And when the photographer (graphic artist would be a better word) is honest, and tells us the photo isn't real, my interest usually falls precipitously."

TBannor: "The problem with the cloning is once you see it, you can't unsee it."

Comments

[Hernan Zenteno]

He has one: http://www.rosariocivello.it/

[John Krumm]

On the computer is does look like some kind of illustration. Maybe a print version is different. This is certainly a photo that might give one impression at a few inches across on a screen, and another one completely on paper, larger. I do like it. whatever the case.

[Chester Williams]

Some of his BW work has a "Michael Kenna" feel...

[scott kirkpatrick]

It looks like an intermediate ski trail to me. Nothing strange about it, except the high contrast treatment that makes it a nicer graphic object. Nice picture. What makes you think it was photoshopped? To me the different tree densities and the prominence of the white background are familiar.

scott

[John]

A friend of mine calls her photos "collage" when she has combined elements from different photos; she calls her photos "photos". It makes the artist's intention clear. To me, different skill sets are involved. I personally would be more excited if Crivello's setting were real rather than frabicated.

[I'm not saying it's not real, just reporting my impressions. I've asked him; maybe he'll answer. --Mike]

[Daniel]

Not necessarily a photoshop creation. Winter trees without leaves and ski run printed with a bit of extra contrast.
He may have manipulated things but this can be done in camera.

[Nigel]

Looks like an aerial view of a ski slope to me.
Much clearer at the link.

[Bob Cook]

I like this photo very much. If it is the result of some type of manipulation it is well done, IMHO. The shadows are correct, the contrast of similar objects seems to be the same. If you glance quickly it has the appearance of a print made from a piece of Kodalith. Uh oh, revealed my approximate age once again.

[Christopher Crawford]

I think its real. The 'pen and ink' look comes from the shadows and tree trunks interacting, and the fact that it was printed at a very high contrast level.

[hugh crawford]

at first glance it looks exactly like film to me. More specifically it looks exactly like medium format using an old style thick emulsion slow film in a high acutance developer. I used to use Panatomic-X in D19 diluted 1 to 1 and the adjacency effect of the exhausted developer would make trees and snow look just like this.

Actually, if someone showed this to me as a 10x10 inch print, the first thing I would think of is Harry Callahan.

Of course after looking at is for a minute I see that there is at least one section that is cloned.

Not that I have any particular problem with that other than the fact that it is so obvious.

[Kevin Purcell]

It's a pay to play competition (perhaps another TOP business idea?) for professionals and non-professionals with multiple categories. Rosario Civello won in the Non-Professional side.

http://ndawards.net/page/about-competition/faq/

Q: Do you accept digitally manipulated images?
A: Digitally manipulated images are accepted, although within reason and taste.

Some of the images are "heavily processed" if not actually manipulated (which I presume means cut/paste/heal/clone).

http://ndawards.net/winners-gallery/nd-awards-2016/professional/conceptual/376/gold-award

And this one has mirror reflected half-buildings is copy and pasted ... so that's allowed. With a oddly unreal background too.

http://ndawards.net/winners-gallery/nd-awards-2016/professional/buildings/377/silver-award

So the manipulation limit is quite high (collaging a few skiers would be small compared to that).

[Anthony Shaughnessy]

Looks well within the bounds of normal lightroom processing to me and I think I like it.
Anthony

[Allan Graham]

These photographs are very elegantly designed. Didn't you recently enquire whether any photographers were using long focal length lenses to produce a body of fine art photography? There seem to be a few such images here at least.

[Nigel]

I presume this picture was taken in Italy.

I have taken a similar sort of picture using the beech woods ("faggeti") that grow in our mountains to create an abstract effect like this.
http://nigelvoak.blogspot.it/2015/04/monte-cavalbianco.html

So I think it is just a high contrast shot.

Very nice picture BTW.

[Omer]

Why is it that Ansel Adams, Gene Smith and others created photographs (very manipulated) but now we create images. The thing is, many knew exactly what Adams and Smith were doing in the darkroom, but we all accepted the results as photographs.

I think there's an assumption of ease today which we, oddly, discriminate against. If Mr. Crivello's photograph was made with film, will that change your perception?

[Michael Tallman]

When you take a look at the series this photograph is part of, "Signs", it's pretty clear that these are skiers/snowboarders on a ski slope - not a lot of manipulation needed other than tone.

[Yonatan K]

I agree with your niece - every photograph is manipulated. The only difference is the extent (and method) of manipulation. This is easy to see with digital photography, but no less true for film. Given that the composition and the timing of a photograph are both under the photographer's control from the outset (together with all of the exposure variables, including the decision to use or not to use artificial light of some sort), photographs are being manipulated from the moment the shutters are activated. To say nothing of all the darkroom manipulations (digital or otherwise) that take place after the moment (decisive or not) is captured.

In my view, we don't take pictures - we make them - and I think that M. Crivello has made a very nice one.

[JG]

"I need to work on just accepting the possibility of manipulation and incorporating it non-judgmentally into my assumptions when I look at pictures."

Why do you feel you must be non-judgmental about manipulated photos? I have no issues with being judgmental about them.

[Kenneth Tanaka]

I really don't care how this image was created. It's a nice visual concept that I've never seen. That's really all that matters to me. And, yes, I would probably buy a print.

I'll leave it to others to snarl over its digital manipulation probability. I just don't care.

[Paul]

Mario Giacomelli is clearly a big influence on Rosario Crivello's work. Oh and by the way, those who are moaning about digital manipulation being the ruin of photography will be equally shocked if they knew Giacomelli was manipulating his own images in the darkroom in the sixties.

[Gilberto]

Please correct the name of the photographer: it's Civello, not Crivello.

[Oh, dear. I'm sorry. I try hard to get names right. I think my confusion arose from the fact that my local camera store back in Wisconsin was called Mike Crivello's. I saw Rosario's name and jumped to "Ah, same as Mike's."

Fixed now, and thanks for noticing. --Mike]

[Trecento]

TBannor and hugh crawford have it right: it's the cloning. If you know to look - and if you've cloned, you know - you can't help but to look. It's still a great photograph to me.

I can't engage in high minded critiques of authenticity vs manipulation. It doesn't feel right to be philosophical about it. I think I'm just not as comfortable with cloning, because it is so detectable by my relatively low level processes in my visual system. Pattern recognition is way above edge detection, but still way below the level where semantic meaning is assigned. Cloning creates pattern repetition artifacts very similar to naturally occurring camouflage. And camouflage is the sign of a threat or opportunity in the natural world - something to be regarded with suspicion. So it is distracting, and therefore not in the best interest of the image.

If he had hand painted in trees from scratch in the trouble spot, it wouldn't have been more accurate to the scene (would it?) , but it would have been more "real". We'd see real decisions by the real artist, based on his real seeing. I'd find that valuable.

And my visual system might complain that it doesn't look quite right, or maybe it would like it, even if it recognized it. Would a compsite from another photograph just outside of the scene work better than a straight clone? Maybe.

[Bobby Salmon]

Nice image, but it's a photo illustration, not a photograph.