Young monk at study, Kalimpong

Well, what to say...

 

 

To start with, it is s wonderful photograph, and I admire it.....

 

 

 

But it isn't breathtaking, bold, daring, original. It definetely pulls some minus points there.

 

 

 

Now, I'll get off of what it isn't and start to figure out what it is, and why I like it (because I do) I like the red color, the exotic flavor of it, the style (Traditional Portrait) It does however not speak to me as a photograph that was all that difficult to take, don't get me wrong, often the best photographs are serendipitus, and this one is nice....

 

 

Original??

 

 

 

I'll just leave it at that.

Very smooth and non-confusing presentation of the object. I wonder what the result would be if we introduce a modest level of reflective light coming from the lower front...

The strong geometry of the image adds to the boys expression of peace. The warm and dark colors adds to that impression.

 

Very well seen and captured.

 

I guess you didn't carry around reflection screens and assistants... and maybe his expression would have been surprise and disbelif had you started to 'improve' on the technicals (adding a little soft light from the right, but hey - not important!)

 

Very good picture!

 

Nice photo, but monk's face looks like "OK make that photo and let me to continue read my book. You did not have to interupt me in reading".

I might have moved in tighter on the boy, but I still like it.

 

Bart

 

 

It's a nice photo, and I do like the expression of the kid. It's more one of surprise rather than irritation for having been interrupted. I just wish that shadow in the back wasn't there...it seems to draw my eye away from the composition more than an array of flesh-eating flies on a rottening picnic lunch (now, that's a peculiar image you could have probably done without...)

Only thing I can say: The wright time at the wright place..

Congratiulations to your luck

Sorry about this, but I don't rate this picture. It is not 'bad' only it isn't good.

 

Technically okay I think - hard to tell with web images but it doesn't really do much as a photo. Yep the colours are okay, but the light is rather flat. Not an easy subject to do well since these guys have been photographed heaps in the past.

 

Close shot of his face may have been better and detail shot of his young hands on the book he has on his lap would have been good too. Or using his whole body in the context of his surroundings.

 

A good record shot but not a great photo.

It may have been that at the time this was all that was possible to get, in which case well done but I see from your other stuff that you've got a good eye for composition so that is why I'm a bit down on this one.

 

Sorry :-(

 

(Now lets wait for the heavens to open!)

I love the eye contact and the contrast of the white pages against the red background.

I agree, Rich. This is getting ridiculous. It appears that the way to get a photo selected for POW is to travel to some exotic location, find just about the only bland subject in the place, then expose it poorly with an inappropriate film.

 

I'm beginning to think that the double-vision of the last standing elf may negatively affect his/her (elves are actually only male, aren't they? Maybe that's the problem!) judgement on this matter...

hmm...do I smell sour grapes here? i bet i wouldn't read anything negative from these people if their photo has been selected as POW...i read these 'complaints' every week...give it a rest please.

 

'nuff said.

Does photography attract pompous assholes, or does it make pompous assholes? You see, I always find a certain shitty attitude by people who have knowledge (or they perceive themselves as knowledgeable) in certain fields. Photography is one, and sailing is the other that I have come across. When you ask one of these people something and don't use the "correct" terminology, they go into some sort of fit where they sigh and look at you as if you were an idiot. They forget that some people just do photography (or sailing) for the sheer enjoyment of it. I've found that it is typically the weakest people who make the most cynical critical remarks. Good constructive criticism comes from those who have a genuine joy of their chosen field or hobby and want to HELP others. The comments on this photo span that range. The weak know who they are, and the strong, and joyful photographers also know who they are. Let's refrain from making photography unenjoyable for anyone. I think the photograph is beautiful. Perhaps that is because I am such an amateur and haven't yet "learned" to ignore the beauty and feeling in ALL pictures (whether made with a Polaroid Instamatic Shit-camera, or the $10,000 outfits that the pompous windbags typically use). I hope I never lose the joy.

You two seem to be the most pompous. I went to see if you had any pictures in your folders. Rich had some, but Samuel didn't. Rich's pictures are beautiful, but I wonder if he enjoys taking them, or if it has just become an exercise in technical application of photographic knowledge. I don't know, maybe Rich can respond. As for Samuel, I didn't see any pictures in his folder. Perhaps he is uncomfortable with them. That's a shame, because you should enjoy them and share them, especially if you are going to give such negative criticism. Perhaps your pictures would highlight the "correct" way to take a picture for the rest of us morons. Please respond. I'm curious.

1.) This site is free, IMO, when you're not paying for the service, the least you'd do is to be courteous, criticism or praise. Criticism is a necessity, but in this circumstance, please be nice.

 

2.) There are always more than one facets of any subjective thing; technique, content, merit...to name a few. I don't see people framing and hanging pictures in dept. store catalogs; most of them are technically well taken.

 

3.) Wouldn't you think taking this photograph is already disruptive to the boy enough? Would you want the photograph taker to lug in reflectors, umbrellas, flash & stands...etc to take a...eh more technically "right" picture? Some times, a flashing moment would be all one could have.

 

4.) I wish to thank Phillip & the people who've made this web-page a nice place to go to. I personally used a lot of information available here, again, my appreciation for those nice people.

 

Tien.

 

P.S. I wrote this before seeing M.S.' post

i have a suggestion to end this (paging photo.net maintainers):

 

the photo of the week should AT LEAST have a caption which states WHY it was chosen...so people glancing at them wouldn't have to leave comments like "why da hel did they choose dis pic?" or "i don't get it" or "it's overexposed/blurry/crappy; was this pic chosen because of its artistic or technical merits?"

 

While I think this POW can definitely be improved upon (especially the scan / Photoshop work), I still like it very much. A bigger version of this image would certainly be appreciated. The colours and composition give the image a sense of serenity and I think that works very well. I hope I will remember this photograph when (if) Iam doing portraits in a similar context.

I do not agree with the statement that the POW is so consistly a poor technical example if not a basic, bland or common photo. In my opinion, not all POWs have been great, but I found most POWsinteresting images. Granted, the term Picture of the Week seems tosuggest that we only get to see the very best images, technicallyperfect, compositionally flawless. However, the "lesser"images can still be educational to many photographers who are visiting this site.

There are 5500 photo uploads every month to this site (or so claimsthe About page), so one can imagine that it's a tough job examiningthem all. I do agree with Dexter's suggestion for adding a small caption or somesuch to clarify the reason for a particular image to be chosen POW. The POW section is a bit too much "here it is, have fun" (which may be intentional).

I certainly like to see criticism being posted on Pictures of theWeek; I think it can help both the owner of the POW and othervisitors. Upload other (better?) examples if you have them. Starta little discussion about the subject, post links to sites withmore information. But please, let's not get so upset about thechoice of a picture and let's certainly not get into name-callingand personal bashing.

Attached: my quick-and-dirty Photoshop work on this week's picture.Not intended to be perfect, just a suggestion for improvement.

I'm sorry that monkey-shit hasn't the guts to put his name next to his words, because he is pretty much on the money. It

seems the same group of Bozos® have the same bitch and whine every week. One or two will drop out on the

occasion when a picture is chosen that falls within their very narrow scope of understanding. I would recommend that

the POW is neither shit nor gold. I would also think that unless you've been dropped on your head often and hard, that

by now, you would have realized this. If you don't like the fact that you don't understand or agree with the POW, ignore

it - go take some pictures, go fondle some new hardware, or just get over it.

Personally, I'd rather that the Picture of the Week not be perfect. As someone trying to improve his own skills, it is much nicer to have discussion along the lines of "these aspects of the picture are very good, but these things could use improvement" rather than "wow! this picture is phenomonal."

 

Anyways, I like this picture, though it is generic. That shadow is the only thing that really bugs me (and the poor scan). As for supposed over-exposure or color-shift, on my (correctly calibrated) monitors the colors look great. In contrast, in Patrick's edit the colors are garish, the shadow is accentuated and the artifacts of the Photoshop filter(s) do violence to the boy's face and hands.

My immediate response to this image was much like Patrick's- nice composition and colors, but not enough highlight on the face. I don't know if it was in the translation to digital, the way it was printed, or if the negative couldn't have used some fill flash or maybe a reflector, but the contrast range is just much too low. Patrick's rework, while grainy and lacking resolution because he didn't have a high quality original to work with, does a good job of showing the latent image that's there but needs to be brought out. I feel like I am seeing a totally different photograph.

The light isn't particularly good here. Without good light, it's hard to make a good photograph.

 

Also, some people have commented on the expression, but he has a "deer in the headlights" look, which makes it painfully obvious it's a tourist shot.

Would someone please explain to me why a "studio-perfect" quality should enhance what seems to me a good atmospheric shot? I wouldn't probably expect to see a young studying monk in any other place but a shadowy one, and the luminous contrast provided by the book seems quite appropriate in this sense. Thanks.

No-one has suggested "studio quality" light. But photography is about light, how light makes things look, and this is just not particularly good light for a photo. It doesn't matter where monks study, because that doesn't make photographs good or bad. But quality of light does.

i could take a better picture with a 1 time use camera. this is just horrible. maby if there wasnt a shadow it would be less gayer but there is a shadow so it is a really bad picture

 

 

Jeez - you guys are just plain mean. I like the picture becaues it provokes an emotion in me - and isn't that what photos are supposed to do? What was the photographer supposed to do - ask the monk to move to better lighting and ruin his expression?

 

Mean people suck.

Well done. Lovely photo. It would have been improved, if you had got slightly clocer to show more detail.