Light my fire

In most cases, the oversaturation found in this shot would be the antithesis of what I would typically find appealing but, for some reason I can't fully articulate, it works for me here. In fact, it works very well for me. The only caveat to this endorsement would be the purple pants... that element definitely clashes.

 

But the subject and mood is superlative. The clutter that so many disparage is, in fact, an essential element of the shot. Semi-posed or not, what I read into the photo is a young woman caught in a moment of inner reflection and who has, for a fleeting moment at least, managed to shut out the hustle and bustle (reflected by the so-called "clutter") of our overly busy modern world. I love it.

I like it much better if is unposed rather than posed. If it was not staged it shows a young woman caught in a moment of silent reflection, but if it was staged it shows the photgraphers vision of such. Would be nice to see labels such as "photo" and "photo illustration" on such images.

I love the busy-ness of it and all the saturated color. I think it's just great. I like it just as the

photographer has submitted it. It just doesn't look like the kind to try and change or "fix", to

me. Doesn't need fixing, in my opinion. It's already fixed.

I was too lazy to read all the comments above, but did notice some less colourful, and less "cluttered" versions suggested. I think that what makes this photo so appealing is the natural "cluttered" look of the environment and colours. I think the light is beautiful and the background is very nice. I like the way we get to see the girl in an everyday environment. Very good photo!

Let's throw this in the mix, why does it matter if set up or not?? If the photograph is good, it

is good, if not, it's not--at least to my thinking. I think you would be surprised at how many

"street" photographers take over the street if they can. so is it set up or not and does it really

matter?

 

i originally came into the POW to see why this photo was picked as it seemed, overall, quite

average from the thumbnail. As I looked at it I saw some wonderful elements, but, as I said

earlier, I don't think "the" moment was caught in the model's face. Someone called this

image banal, I think it is the expression on the model that earned this photo such a label.

Somehow the black and white version makes the image a tad less clustered.

When I am a wedding photographer, I have wedding photographer concerns. When I am an artist with a camera, making images just to please myself, I do not have the same concerns as I do when I'm a wedding photographer, or a commercial photographer. I may, in fact, quite happily produce images that I would reject as complete failures when working as a commercial photographer. There are different concerns for different genres. Sharpness, tonal gradations and "accuracy" of color are all of subjective value.

To assess this image under the criteria of a successful wedding portrait is inappropriate. Certainly you would not criticise Bob Marley's Redemption Song for not employing a contrapuntal melody with violins. In fact, to assess this photograph based on it's attributes as a singular image is almost pointless as well. It's like criticising an author based on one sentence, or a musician on one stanza. I mean here to point out that certain posted criticisms of this image are totally irrelevant to the success (or failures) of this image.

One of the problems I have with this type of single image criticism is that it occurs in a contextual vacuum, or worse, it is isolated in the mind of a host of amateur critics. While some photo.net critics may actually look at the other images by the photographer, and some photographers may actually have other images available to view... most people create their own impressions and criticisms based entirely on their archaic, hyper-conservative, myopic and egocentric viewing of this single image without even considering the intent, desire, style or creative history of the photographer. It's self oriented, techo-centric, re-constructing of another persons art by photographic proselytes who think nothing of taking another person's work and totally screwing it up on a public forum. (I am NOT talking about you, excellent-wedding-photographer-Mary ("wedding photographer" is not an insult!), or Marc G, the only person who had the manners to ask permission (twice) before altering the work.)... t

"One of the problems I have with this type of single image criticism is that it occurs in a contextual vacuum, or worse, it is isolated in the mind of a host of amateur critics.

While I "hear" you tom... I must remind you and everyone that this is not a forum that critiques - critics....but a forum that is a critique of the current image.

What's the alternative, Tom? Are we meant to assume that everyone who uploads an image knows exactly what they are doing? Have they given careful consideration to every element in the frame? This is NOT a street shot. She is a model who has received instructions, yet it looks like a casual snapshot with all the detritus that's associated with it. If you agree that one element - the purple pants - don't work, than how can you defend, for example, the bright green leaves on the edge of the frame? Either you understand the effect that these elements have on the human visual system or you don't. I agree that the standards and priorities are different depending on the subject matter, the importance of the 'moment' and purpose of the maker, and for that reason I am interested in what Jochen has had to say about his picture, just as I am interested in looking at his portfolio to get a sense of continuity.

 

It appears to me that the contemplative mood and the space at the top are only reinforced by the surrounding chaos as a rationalization when the image is looked at more closely after the fact. Better to define what you want before taking the picture.

It's always a pleasure for me to read your prose, Tom... and I mean it, and I'm smiling at my desk for this wonderful plead...:-)

 

If Mary Ball had not reminded us what this forum is supposed to be, to be honest, I'd gladly discuss your entire post. And in a way, I will try. The moderator may of course feel free to clean my mess if I'm off-topic at some point, but it seems to me, in a case like this, we can learn as much from what we read in a comment and the discussion that will follow, as we can learrn from discussing the picture. Or to put it another way, indirectly, I feel Tom is talking quite a bit about the picture. To summarize, I think he says: this picture is to be judged within its context, it has its own rules. Fair enough. It makes sense to me.

 

As far as I could tell, this picture's colors were actually to be regarded as a cousin of the cross-processing trend, and so, there is a trend for this KIND of work.

 

But... What nobody seemed to discuss yet is this: WHY should this picture be this way in terms of colors ? What do these colors ADD to the picture ? What do they lose ? That's the real question. Dennis Dixson phrased well HIS reasons for liking the colors and even went further - adding even wilder colors.

 

I just couldn't see here a justification for the present creative choice. So, imo, we are here straying away from the norm for reasons that I can't grasp. I feel we are actually straying away from the essence of the subject.

 

I'd add this: a good creative choice, IN MY OPINION, is a choice that matches form and content in a way or another, so that they are in harmony, and that we get the full impact and/or emotion that its content may convey.

If the form ENHANCES OR EMPHASIZES the essence of the subject (as this essence is perceived by the photographer), then it's fine. And if the form goes left while the content was heading another direction, that's not too good - again, just my opinion.

 

Based on my own understanding of this image, I thought that, besides not looking too good, the color choice seemed to put the emphasis everywhere but not on the main dish - which I thought was her expression. Now to be honest, I did not rate this image at all, because I'd be embarrassed rating it. I like the content very much, and I respect the trend this picture belongs to, but I still can't see how this creative choice helps the content to stand out. That's what I'd like to read here somewhere, from those who like it as it is.

 

Why is it better like this, than in bw or than normal or subdued colors ? I don't think I'm too much of a traditionnalist, and yet, I simply fail to see the point for these colors. Just help me to understand: I'll gladly hear it. Regards.

Carl, I think what you wrote is the alternative. i do assume that the photographer who

posts does know what he/she is doing unless, like I see many times, they indicate in some

form that they don't. I also assume that they have edited their work and presented what

they feel is finished and right in their eyes. you and I agree, I think, that this photo

doesn't work in the final analysis, and we have some similar and some different reasons--

Jochen, I am sure has his own opinion, as do a lot of others.

 

Marc, I think I tried to talk about the colors and the mood they create in an earlier post--

After reading your recent post, while writing my note in response to Carl's, I went back

and looked at the photo again and have a hard time understanding why the color is even

an issue, but I like saturated color and I don't see the subject being diminished by it. In

fact, I think the colors are, aside from being pumped up a bit, not that far from what they

actually were. i don't look at this image and think cross processed, but rather see the

mixed lighting and some contrast boost--but not near as far as cross processing. As I

mentioned before, I think the girl's expression fails the mood the photographer created by

his choice of color. If the colors were brought back to a "normal" and less saturated,

maybe to go the way of the subject, as you put it, I think it would lose anything it might

have going for it.

This is good color? The boom/battering ram is well-placed?

 

Gimme a break. I like the subject very much. I even like the overall treatment. Heck, I even like the overall context of the folder, etc.

 

I still don't like the picture, and I can tell you why. As a candid shot, I could live with it. As a set-up, it stinks.

 

No amount of "context" is going to change that fact.

 

As for the judgments of "pros," I frankly don't care who offers the critique, be it amateur or pro. The question is whether the critique offered is worth reading. I don't care who takes the picture, be it amateur or pro. The question is whether it is worth looking at.

 

This photo has some problems. They will not be resolved by looking at it in context or rationalizing the choice of color treatment. I still applaud Jochen for the effort, but it is a long way from being his best. I suspect that he knows that.

 

As for "marking up" or offering alternative croppings, no apology is needed. No rape and no vandalism have been committed. The Photo.net rules allow for precisely that kind of approach to critique, and some of the best critiques are not merely the ones that tell one what is wrong with a photo, but which also SHOW one an alternative treatment.

 

 

 

Again, Jochen, I like the picture. I think that you could have done better.

 

--Lannie

You wrote: "In fact, I think the colors are, aside from being pumped up a bit, not that far from what they actually were. i don't look at this image and think cross processed, but rather see the mixed lighting and some contrast boost--but not near as far as cross processing."

Indeed, a strong contrast boost, which was probably performed via a "density plus" option in PS. As for cross-processings, there are heavy ones and very mild ones. The advantage I would personally see in using cross-proccessing rather than PS in the present case is: it would not generate these dividinglines between red an yellow, that Mary showed in an earlier close-up. This is just my opinion.

 

You wrote: "As I mentioned before, I think the girl's expression fails the mood the photographer created by his choice of color. If the colors were brought back to a "normal" and less saturated, maybe to go the way of the subject, as you put it, I think it would lose anything it might have going for it."

 

Here again, we got to agree to disagree. I don't find the expression as weak as you do. So, to me, assuming the colors actually detract from her face - and I think they do -, I wouldn't call it a good thing. It so happens that this expression was anyway the main center of interest of this image. The photographer posed her like this and decided it was his subject matter for that moment, so if the expression fails, all fails. Fortunately, I happen to believe that the expression was interesting. Regards.

After considering the issue more (and in reply to Marc):

 

I think the saturation/contrast works in this photo because it emphasizes the dichotomy between the look of contemplation on the face of the model vs. the more hectic surrounding she finds herself in. In other words, we have a model caught in a posed moment of self-isolation while all around her is busy... and the busy world is enhanced by the busy colours.

Makes sense, Nick. Maybe the busy world appears more busy because of its busy colors. I think that's true. Now up do the colors make the world *too* busy around her, so that she gets somehow lost in the process, or does she hold her place in this busy image ? That's for each of us to evaluate, I guess.

Then, the other major issue may be: does the effect need to be as strong on her skin as it is around her ? Or should the post-processing keep her a little more separate from the color wildness we see around ?

Interesting points.

 

"Let's throw this in the mix, why does it matter if set up or not??"

 

Well to respond to Mary's point above, it matters to a lot of us in the realm of photojournalism these days. If it a model or commercial shot then it's different. Staged art is one thing, staged photojournalism is another. It's a question of ethics, and in my opinion someone doing staged street photography is discrediting the profession.

 

After looking at the link and the guys portfolio and website I see it is a model shot, and he is not showing it as a street shot. So the setup part is OK and does not bother me.

 

As far as the discussions on whether or not the clutter and the uneven tones are preferable, it's a matter of opinion. To me this really works. Then again I am a more of a journalistic shooter than anything else. For someone with the PPA mindset perhaps this image would not work, but a more modern photographer is going to see it differently. It's all a matter of where you are coming from. The last time I attended a judging for a PPA photo contest I was amazed at how the images were all so technically perfect, yet so lifeless and boring. For me, this is a great image. Like many I see here I wish there was more information included. I could care less about technical details, if you take photos for a living you know how to do it(I might think different with other types of work though, IR, pinhole and such). I would like to know what the assignment was, or perhaps just some general info regarding usage, etc. Cutlines ought to be featured if it's photojournalism.

I like the picture - it catches my attention - and I prefer it in color. I however find the model's expression more droopy than contemplative. And I agree with Lannie's "battering ram" as being a bit distractive the longer I look at the picture.

lovely ight and good composition

I would not change a bit

ohhh my........... ;)

 

 

 

she needs space, she needs air to breath, she needs her sourounding...she needs all around her. just like it is.... great colours, intense expression, good use of space ...

"Removing the most distracting elements gives you an idea of what it might have looked like with a slightly different camera angle."

 

 

 

there is nothing to remove in that picture... our daily life is full "distracting elements", theses elements are bringing life and tension into photographs.

"Skin flaws - Just my lowly opinion"

 

 

 

guys, we are looking at a picture on a screen!

You could bring "life and tension" by creating a busy scene in a more aesthetically pleasing way photographically. You're asking me to assume that the photographer intentionally placed the battering ram, purple pants, and green leaves just so in order to accomplish this distraction that would offset her serenity. It's possible, but I doubt it.

 

If we're really trying to present a context of chaos, the source that conveys the message most effectively would be sound. For example, there could be lots of people in the background, all engrossed in conversation. Maybe a juke box . . . . .

I really love this shot- in terms of color, model's expression and positioning, light, and "clutter". It reminds me of something I'd see in a fashion piece for Conde Naste. Great work Jochen.

This total de-structuring of the shot is a bit overwhelming for us mere mortals. I had to run away and return to comment with a cool head...I like this shot more than I like many POWs. I understand why many people find it guilty of "triviality" or "trendyness" or "lifestyling" but somehow these aspects don't bother me here. It meant to be a candit shot and for a candit shot it has a certain mood and it generates warm feelings. As for its technical completeness, who cares. Its too spontaneous a shot to bother with curves...