We will always have Paris...

The point is beauty, Michael. The technology is irrelevant if it gets you what you want. I like the effect myself, but, frankly, with this model, it wouldn't matter much. She can also be seen in other shots in the same folder, with a completely different treatment.

 

--Lannie

I think Michael brings up an interesting point in some ways. What does this photo add to

the genre? How is this photo relevant to the world we live in? Unfortunately, most of us

would probably need to lay our cameras down if those were the only two criteria for a

photo today.

 

Although photography is a great medium for social documentation or political statement,

it has been used far more for capturing beauty and a moment. There are many photos

that don't necessarily break new ground, but they still are rich and full of content. What

makes this photo more than just another portrait, for me, is that it has content. This

photo isn't just about the girl. Somehow a story has been created and it may be different

to each and may change with time. What I like is the fact that I really can't just "see" the

one story. The bane of too many photos is that they have no story and become visual

wallpaper very quickly. If I hang something on my wall, I want it to reveal something new

to me and engage me everytime I see it--I think this photo has the potential to do that.

Perfect lighting and composition, which contribute to the overall powerful effect of the picture. This certainly deserves its POW status. Congratulations. As a relatively new member of Photo.net I look forward to seeing more of your work. Bradd

I can't quite put my finger on it, but something seems out of kilter and just a bit fake.

Since no one has bothered to mention it yet, why not our usual ubiquitous cropping suggestion? I think it should be rotated as well (so much for the previous out-of-kilter comment).

 

This is a nice photo and I would be pretty happy if I had taken it. I am not a fan of the toning but that is no doubt because I can never seem to get it right when I try the same thing myself. I liked the thought (expressed in a prior comment) that we are often really commenting on ourselves and not the subject at hand. Thanks for making me think about that for a while.

 

If you want to find exceptions to perfection (i.e. defects) then I would have to say that the out of focus foreground on the lower right is a big distraction for me. That is the primary reason I would suggest cropping this frame. I am not sure what to think about the title (a purely subjective reaction). There is nothing here that strongly suggests (to me) anything about Paris other than the title. There does seem to be a certain missing element here which in a way adds a sense of mystery and intrigue. I have to wonder who the statement contained in the title is directed towards. Hopefully it is directed at us, at least in a vicarious sense.

 

I am lucky enough to have been to Paris and to me it is an almost like an alternate universe where a person can live in a temporary fantasy of new experiences and discovery. In fact that is what photography does for me in general. It lets me see the world in a different way. Sometimes I am lucky enough to capture an image that reminds me of those particular states of mind and thought. Here is to wishing we will always have photography (and Paris).

Cropped version (hopfully).

I like it, Dennis. She is no longer competing with the seam in the concrete, nor with the birds. The rotation also lets her lean back in a more relaxed posture.

 

As for the title, I see nothing particularly wistful in her expression suggesting reflections about past joys. She simply looks as if she might be looking around to see who might be coming or what might have made a noise.

 

The beautiful sky is not visible here, but, as I said, it is about the model, and to that end it should be only about her. Everything else is a distraction from that face.

 

--Lannie

I don't really like "romantic" or flowery titles on photos as they generally seem to want to

push the

viewer in a direction desired by the maker, rather than allowing the photo to create the

viewer's own experience. Here, as in Dennis' comment, I really don't find any connection

with Paris in the photo and really forgot all about it until he mentioned it.

 

As to the crop, I think this is a case similar to most crops that are presented, it really

changes what was presented-and not just physically. It is the vacant space to the right

that makes this photo more than just a portrait. The crop renders the photo more of a

portrait, although the girl's expression still makes it more than the ordinary faire. I

understand that the out of focus in the lower right could be a problem, but, as I stated in

an earlier comment, I think it being darker, along with the strength of the girl's

expression, rendered it of little consequence for me. If I was to pick one thing that did

bother me, it would be the land behind the wall. It looks like it was shot, out of focus and

through a wet window. But again, the girl, and the overall mood, are so strong that I can

live with it, but if it has been added, I think I would see if I could make it better.

Dennis, your crop killed it for me ... totally.

Thank you very much for your comments! I'm about to leave for a few days (Merry Christmas!) and won't be able to read your notes.

 

Please keep in mind that I'm not responsible for the choice of this photo and if I had to pick up one from my portfolio, it wouldn't be this one for sure (as I don't consider it to be flawless).

 

Now, going back to this cropping: you might have a different view on the image, you might prefer a different toning, you might dislike the birds... whatever it is: it's yours and not mine. It is very interesting to discuss it but I would prefer you not to modify the image and respect my vision, even when it is not yours. Discussion is great and shares your feeling about the image - photo-retouching goes beyond this in my humble opinion and it's just that I'm not posting images to see them modified in another way.

 

Please, don't take it personnaly Dennis, I hope that I didn't offened you and didn't sounded too pretentious :) I just wanted to stop it before people started to remove the birds or do other manipulations.

 

English isn't my birth language and it's not always easy to express artistic things for me :)

 

Take care and a Merry Christmas to you all!

PS: Again Dennis, it's certainly not that I'm completely upset by your cropping - I just wanted to stop people retouching before it goes any further :)

 

I'm leaving now... Happy Hollidays!

Think of the pictorial elements in the mona lisa.........notice how stable it all seems, how it is balanced? despite the fact that if you look closely the horizon of the landscape in the background - on either side of the figure - doesn't even match up!!!!!

 

In this picture the balance is all over the place, seems stagey. Whether it is cropped or not it doesn't matter, as the thinking is all wrong in the first place.

 

m

With respect to the crop by Dennis and Michael's comments - I actually like the see-saw balance between the woman and the sky, and think the cropping makes the photograph too stable. If the focus of the photograph is solely on the woman, as in Dennis' crop, this becomes a fairly traditional portrait. The trade off for stability seems too great to me.

 

Jean-Sebastian, You'll see people making cropping suggestions in many discussions on the site, and that the terms of use of the site specifically permit modifications to be made for discussion. I think it is one of the things that helps make this more of a "discussion" site rather than a presentation site.

 

I also think you have a number of great compositions in your portfolio, but while it took a while for the discussion to get going, this is one worthy of a good discussion. Particularly on its composition.

Her glance is too askew. A look at the camera would have elicited more viewer involvement. The birds are too many and distracting. The picture loses detail at the corners. Ugly frame. Good tonality and colour.

Jean-Sebastien, when posting here you agree to the terms of use:

 

"Furthermore, when commenting on photos in the photo Gallery, you may include a version of the photo under discussion in your comment, altered or marked up to illustrate your comments. By uploading photos to the photo Gallery, you grant to other photo.net members permission to copy the photo, to make such alterations and markups for the purpose of commentary as they see fit, and to attach tthe modified photo to their comments on the photo."

 

This is a critique forum, and to that end constructive critiques of any kind--including crops of the sort that Dennis offered--have been offered in the past and will continue to be offered in the future.

 

One may or may not like the suggested crop(s), of course, but there is no disrespect intended in offering them here. This forum is a working site, not a gallery of distinguished works.

 

Thanks, and again congratulations on having your photo selected for critique.

 

--Lannie

Mona and Landrum discussed the title of this picture and this brings up a really important point: how much of the image and the mood that we associate with this picture comes from the title? A title like this automatically brings to mind Bogart and Bergmann, thwarted love, loneliness, and all the feelings that we associate with a film like Casablanca. The title implies a mood but is the mood there in the photo? As someone noted, her expression just looks like someone looking around in curiosity at a sound. But, once you've heard the title then that set of impressions is inserted in your head and it becomes difficult to disassociate the image from the comment. That's why I normally hate titles. Nothing is worse than some simple snapshot of a dancing feet with a title like "Poetry in Motion" or some other nonsense.

 

This, however, is none of that. The title is brillant because it does actually enhance the work and become part of the experience of seeing the picture. I wonder though: for those of you who because of age or language or whatever didn't get the reference, does the photo have the same weight?

 

As for the crop ... it ruins the point of the picture for me. This is a picture about thinking, remembering. It requires space and sky and - yes - birds. They give it emotional depth. The crop is a nice picture of a nice girl but it has no emotional weight.

it's a very good photo, focus and exposure are exactly in place. I don't agree in the cropping of the photo, the birds and leading line give the whole photo integrety, it give is a set up. The photo is not of the girl but the girl in the city. The birds show that there is a 'world' out there ! things are happening. She is peeing on that world which is divided by that line (the wall).

 

I don't know if the title is in place, I have never been to paris, but the style of the building and dress suggest somewhere european. The hat is typically french :P

 

I am not a fan of tones either, but i must admit that it truly resonates the feel of the photo, and is much in place. Technically (personally) i can't find any flaws. only thing i personally would have reconcidered is the color of the outer border.

 

This is a well deserved photo of the week, clearly this is just one of many great photos, exellent work!

Timeless shot!

Jean-Sebastien is correct, when you significantly alter the photographers work it is no longer his vision but your own that is being presented. I had some reservations about suggesting a crop at all but it is usually inevitable that someone does and many times the composition is refined and strengthened in the process.

 

Going back to what Lannie said, who or what is the primary subject here? Sometimes you either have to make a choice between multiple subjects or come up with a better composition that conforms to the limitations of photography. I agree that the square crop is more of a straight portrait than the original. I also tend to miss the background details and the feeling of spaciousness that are lost by the crop. The fact is that if you want the details of the original you would probably have to re-shoot the scene from a different angle or do lots and lots of post production work.

 

I will also admit that if I had a better set of tools at my disposal yesterday, I would have gone even further and yes (gasp) I would have removed the birds from the cropped version along with some other minor tweaks. I even considered a rectangular crop for a true portrait orientation. End result? Probably a fairly static looking photo of young women with no emotional content. Perfect for fashion advertising where the models are really just human mannequins.

 

It seems as though for the purposes of discussion there are really only a few choices. You can either talk about how the photograph makes you feel and think, or how it could be improved technically and aesthetically. I could have just as easily made my point with a marked up version showing where I would crop and what I would clone out instead of altering the photograph itself. That might even be the preferred method except that I imagine some people less familiar with photo editing terminology may have trouble visualizing those changes.

 

The photographer shared with us the fact that this image included elements added during post-processing, so on this occasion showing a modified version seemed appropriate (to me at least). There is no offense intended (or taken) and I am more than happy to respect the photographers wishes. At the same time, we should remember that this forum is not for the photographers sole benefit and that hopefully others will get something out of the discussion as well.

Dennis, I was actually impressed that cropped versions didn't start popping up a lot

earlier. Most of the time this seems to be the first thing people want to do. And as you

said, it is to make the photo more comfortable for them--and mostly they are

incongruous with the presenter's intention and rarely even improve the composition(in my

opinion).

There are people who are looking for that type of assistance, and I think then it might be

appropriate, regardless of the rules of engagement on this site.

 

The alternative to cropping is just trying to see what the presenter was trying to convey.

Sometimes the things we like least are the things that we are struggling with in our own

work and haven't yet reconciled one way or the other. Just talking about the issues that

one finds difficult or bothersome allows the presenter and others to look and evaluate for

themselves if the problem really exists and/or what might be done to improve the photo.

Cropping isn't always the best way to solve a "problem", but is so final when done. i also

think that talking about things allows more of a give and take exchange.

 

As to the subject, I really never have seen any competing elements here. What I do think is

that the image transcends the subject and becomes more than just a photo of a girl. It is

some of the elements that bother some others that are what makes this such a rich photo

for me.

Fortunately, Mona, cropping is not so "final" if one saves the original digitized file!

 

In addition, I am not sure that the presenter's intentions or what the presenter is trying to convey is so sacrosanct on a working critique forum. Persons read many things into photos regardless of what the photographer saw, and these interpretations can be respected as well.

 

I caught the allusion to _Casablanca_ immediately, but I did not feel that the model pulled off the expression of an Ingrid Bergman--she was simply too blase to be either agonizing over or cherishing the past, or at least such was my interpretation. The issue of whether or not the birds were shopped was irrelevant to me, but the metaphor of memories and the past flying away was a bit forced for my blood. I felt that I was being bludgeoned with a cheap trick. Combine that with the right foreground, and I think that the crop is a viable experiment and worthy of consideration and discussion. It is yet a separate photo in its own right.

 

Is it better? That presumes some objective criterion of better or worse. I would not presume to say. I can only say what I like, and what I like is both versions, but they are indeed very, very different images, and they evoke quite different emotions.

 

I still respect what Jean-Sebastien was trying to do, and I appreciate it as a very worthy effort.

 

--Lannie

The reason it was not done early on, unlike the past few POW's, is because it was not necessary. It's necessary when it takes out distracting elements or to better balance the image, for the most part.

 

To think folks do it just because they can, and will (as was the case in the sample above, which did nothing to improve the piece without completely altering it) is just plain wrong. At least from those that know what they are doing with that important tool that is. You want to make sure you don't lose the sense of time and place when you do crop; taking care you don't lose the 'story'.

A sensitive, fine and beautiful phot you made there... I wished I had made

it:-))))

regards, ben

Wow! Beautiful and romantic. Congratulations!

The movie:

 

"This is easily one of the greatest films of all time. The story is timeless and meaningful, full of heart and should endure for another fifty years with no problems. A true masterpiece and the benchmark by which all other films should be measured. If you haven't seen it, you are at a profound loss. If you have then you know the greatness of this film." --Shane Hayes, IMDB Movie Database

 

The photo:

 

I don't blame Jean-Sebastien for trying to recreate the mood of such a powerful story, nor for using the classic line from the movie for the title. But is the story here in this particular image that we see on our screens? I would say that it was a worthy effort to recapture the sense of poignancy of the story in the movie _Casablanca_, but that it ultimately fails if that was the goal.

 

If that was the goal, then maybe a reshoot is in order. If what one wants is the recreation of the poignancy of the storyline in the movie, then perhaps one needs a model who can give us that sad look that Ingrid Bergman did so well. It is lacking here.

 

Another possibility is that the movie came to mind after the shot was made. So, did the photographer have a story to tell or not? Does this photo tell it?

 

Does it matter, or should the photo stand on its own? If the latter, then what to do with it is a reasonable question to ask. If one thinks that it does not quite stand on its own, should one toss it or see if there is something there worth saving? I don't mind cropping to see what one might find, even if it is someone else's picture, if I think that the photographer failed in his stated purpose.

 

As I said earlier, there is nothing sacrosanct about an image submitted to a working critique forum. This is not a gallery of distinguished fine art, and the purpose of POTW is not necessarily to post the "best" photo, but one that is interesting and that stimulates discussion.

 

This IS an interesting picture, and it raises interesting questions, and its selection was certainly justified. As for Dennis' crop, well, it shows what might be done with the model, but it is an entirely different work.

 

--Lannie