Photo Of The Week

[rashed]

<p>Good Evening every one , my friends.<br />Last 5 or six weeks we been seeing images of POW which are all been manuplated digitally or by some other sources, why don't we see original images which are not been manuplated and left for discussion where as the real photography measures are concerned, like exposure valus, composition, DOF, perspective, tones and so one.</p>

<p>I am not against manuplation work, I do a lot of it my self, but for biggerners it is nice to guide them through the basic princibles of photography before getting them into mauplation work or even conversional dark room work, isnt that how should the begginers start to improve their talent and skill ?</p>

<p>There are so many whom posting their images orignals as been shot and they also deserve to have their images posted fot discussions, or am I wrong ?</p>

<p>Thank you my friends and wishing you all of the best.</p>

[cmitchell]

<p>You are not wrong Rashed but this has been discussed many, many times and it's not likely to change.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Photograph of the Week (<em>POW</em>) is chosen by a group of photo.net members called the Elves, <strong>based on their personal views, tastes and standards</strong>. <em>You should not expect that you will always agree with the choice or the reasons given.</em> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>The choices are subjective based solely on the Elves personal views, tastes and standards. Unfortunately for many of us, <a href="personal views, tastes and standards">they prefer manipulated photos</a>. Learn Photoshop.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Over the years I seem to recall some complaints that the POW supposedly favored b&w photos, boring realistic photos, photos that didn't represent the best work in the selected photographers' portfolios, etc.</p>

<p>That's why the mysterious creatures behind the selection process are called elves. Nobody really understands their impish ways. And they hide stale cookies in my shoes at night. Or is that brownies?</p>

[rcsenn]

<p>Lex,<br>

Was the cookie or brownie stale before it went in your shoe? How would you know without seeing the elves?<br>

Richard</p>

<p> </p>

[rashed]

<p>I did this input here because I see the original photography for some people loosing its quality, ok we modernize and live into the world we are in today, this is very human and I have no complain with his but I still love to see the world of photography maintaining its originality and those who do not have the faith to work digital while still and will continue to shoot images with their cameras , specially those whom are still shooting films, those people shall be given the same attention, attention given to the digital world.</p>

<p>It is clear now a days, that an image which is not digitalized hardly been look at by most people here, but those people I do not look at as being attached to the Art Of Photography, that why who ever do the picking and posting of the POW should been different and should have been photographers and not just digital world programmers or so on.</p>

<p>My all respect still mantained for every one .</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>You never heard of the darkroom? People did plenty of manipulation in there, they just used different ways to describe it, like "making a print." Nobody had to show their negatives. </p>

[rashed]

<p>I did my friend Jeff, I been brought up working in a dark room with my father, I did all sort of work in a dark room, thats still remain within the original photography process, I have my own full equiped conversioanl dark room.</p>

<p>My friend thank you for your input and please except my respect for your person and my best regards and wish's for the new year.</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>And they hide stale cookies in my shoes at night. Or is that brownies?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They hide brownies in your shoes at night? Never heard of it!</p>

[mriganka]

<p>I suggest we could start a voting system. Let the Elves screen out, say 100 eligible photos from all categories and then leave it to the Photo.net members to vote the POW image.<br>

DEMOCRATIC Solution / Suggestion !<br>

Regards<br>

Mriganka</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>That's called "Ratings" and there are far more complaints about ratings than about POW selection.</p>

[rashed]

<p>I was always refering to non rating images, at the moment there is no POW without rating, even this is out of what is more important which is the real photography which I been aiming at, still the POW could well be 2 instead of 1.</p>

<p>I have sugessted this before as matter of a personnel interest no more, one rised by the elvis and other left for the members to choise from 3 images , this way we have POW a week, and it is also why not a photo without rating, many here now a days do not let the rating option open because of the rating un controlled procedure.<br>

This is just my personnel ideas, might sound crazy and not exceptable to my friends here but why not me and other feel free to express our selve while living in what suposed to be a free world.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I'm not at all concerned about matters of manipulation or walking through that minefield of chatter even for one footstep. I'm more concerned about the lack of aesthetic variability in the choices of the elves. Go through the photos of the week for the last couple of years. When I do, I see a very limited aesthetic vision and approach. I could describe it in great detail, but if I were to have to choose one word, it would be "clean," perhaps even "sterile." The lack of range of "visions" is one thing when it comes from the popularity contest known as PN ratings that determine the all-too-familiar and consistent types of photos in the Top-Rated-Photos section. That same lack of range of vision is much more deplorable (and preventable) when it comes from people who are supposed to be choosing photos with an eye toward learning and expanding horizons.</p>

[mark_chartrand]

<p>Yes, JDM, the younger elves hide brownies in your shoes. The older elves hide girl scouts. You've hit the jackpot when you receive an Ambassador Girl Scout!</p>

[jgalyon]

<p>I agree with Fred.</p>

[rashed]

<p>My friend Mark , I will approciate it if you could explain to me what is a girl scouts and the Ambassador Girl Scout, please</p>

<p>Thank you my friend.</p>

[charles_stobbs3]

How did you find out they were stale?

[iancoxleigh]

<p>I also agree with Fred.<br>

There is a remarkably narrow aesthetic range in the POW choices.</p>

 

[gordonjb]

<p>Rashed:</p>

<p>Looking at this past weeks pow I do not see it as being manipulated. I will attach a scan of a photo of mine taken over 30 years ago with film and developed in a darkroom as a school assignment. The image is not very good and the scan is awful but the image is no more or less manipulated than the past weeks pow example. High key is high key regardless of how you get there.</p>

<p>As for Fred's comment I agree , see my comment or Rashed's last forum posting on the pow : <a href="00VOWU">POW - Photo.net Casual Photo Conversations Forum</a></p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Gordon--</p>

<p>Maybe if we keep harping on it, some administrator will listen.</p>

<p>Call me an optimist!</p>

[rashed]

<p>My friend Gordon, thank you and your image done in the conversional dark room the way it is, superb my friend and to me it is not the same, 2 major elemets here are far different than the one on the first page with my full reespect to every one, the eyes and the lips makes the high key her stand up in its full form.<br>

Thank you my friend and wishing you all of the best.</p>

[rashed]

<p>My friend <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=3770455">Gordon </a>, I am so sorry to trouble you, your image is very powerful with its lauout, just for my understanding, if I let more tone and details in the head hair, will that changes the chractiristic of the high key, or still will be high key image ?</p>

<p>Thank you my friend .</p>

[gordonjb]

<p>Fred;<br /> There is no harm in hoping or harping I suppose. My feeling is that the trend since I arrived has been toward more safe and sterile choices. The elves are developing shorter, stouter necks. Perhaps they are morphing into trolls.</p>

<p>Rashed;</p>

<p>In the print I posted as an example, the eyes and the mouth were burned in during the exposure of the print in order to darken them. Other areas were dodged. My point was that a combination of lighting and exposure in the original shot and adjustments during development and printing collectively resulted in this effect. The same holds true, albeit with different technologies, for this week's pow.<br /> As for your second question I am not sure if there is any sort of specific definition for high key, there may well be such a definition but I am not aware if it. My own opinions is that a high key image is one were the great majority of the tones fall between 17% gray and white. For my taste I generally want at least some small area of black and some small amount of dark tones. The hair in this jpeg is blown out more than it is in the original print due to my cheap flat bed scanner along with my own ineptitude in using the device. More detail in the hair would be fine. I think high key is a personal thing like most of photography, strict definitions are best steered away from IMO.</p>

<p> </p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>Fred, you've made a great, and even more importantly a very valid point. There is an important paradox though I think:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>This image has been selected for discussion. It is not necessarily the "best" picture the Elves have seen this week, nor is it a contest.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>this is a key sentence one can find under any "chosen" POW and yet it is seen by most it seems as indeed the best photo of the week. This is further reinforced by handing out that famous gold cup (that originally was supposed to vanish after 12 months although this decision was redrawn after a lot of protest). The phrase "not necessarily" is therefore probably nothing more than a safeguard to prevent further protest.<br>

Of course, one can only guess but it sure looks like they choose on the safe side. Sure, every choice made will be debatable but for discussion purposes a bit more variety in that choice would most likely stimulate more discussion. Although, as I understand it it can be a two-edged sword for the photographer in question ;-)))</p>

[ernest-b]

<p><em>"...it is seen by most it seems as indeed the best photo of the week. This is further reinforced by handing out that famous gold cup (that originally was supposed to vanish after 12 months although this decision was redrawn after a lot of protest)."</em></p>

<p>If current perceptions are wrong, the "gold cup" could be changed--for future selections--to a "gold spotlight", leaving the trophy icon for those who already have it. That might help change perceptions, with no harm done to anyone....</p>

[mark_chartrand]

<p>Rashed,</p>

<p>The Girl Scouts is an organization for girls in the US and in many other countries throughout the world. One of the ways they raise money is by selling cookies. Here is a website that will help explain more about them.</p>

<p>http://www.girlscouts.org/program/gs_central/what_is_gs/</p>

<p>Mark</p>