Untitled

A really wonderful and clever image to me.

To crop or not to crop seems to be the question. Well, if one wants to crop at the top and on the right, make sure it is soooooooo little that it almost doesn't change anything...:-) Basically, a very little crop, maybe, but not necessary at all in my view.

PS or no PS ? A weekly debate it seems. Well, for last week's POW, I actually cared to know, because the picture was incredible as a real photo, and would have been a lot less incredible as a PS work. This week, I don't care all that much, and this is why: this image is NOT INCREDIBLE, NOR CREDIBLE - it just doesn't address reality. It has its own life, an artistic life, a symbolic life, and nobody, I suppose, would actually like it more nor like it less, depending whether it was or wasn't taken in a real bathroom, with a real lady reflected in real tiles or in a real window. Well, at least it makes no difference for me, in this particular case.

What I see here is a symbolical image. Something that tells me a tale about a beauty and a beast... A frog is known as ugly. This woman wears lipstick, and we can reasonably assume that she's in the bathroom taking care of her Beauty. THAT is the story to me - and a nice story about beauty and ugliness.

Once happy, why wonder about reality ?

As for the frog being too bright, I'd like to know: too bright FOR WHAT ? As opposed to the rest of the image ? Well, that's just fine by me. That's how it stands out. Like a real frog would stand out on a "really unreal" reflection in the real world...:-)

So, no complaints of any kind besides what I already wrote above - long ago - and which I see as truly minor.

I'm glad to see a symbolic image has got the title this week... I personally like this kind of imagery very much. Well deserved, Yannis.

This looks like a job for the PCS, Photonet Cropping Society.

 

Let's just say it's a given that this is a composite. In the old days, Yannis would have used two photographs, some scissors and a copy stand, or about 25 hours of tedious and careful printing, using litho negatives, contrast masks, etc. Ask Jerry Uelsman. He, will verify this to be true.

 

So, we have an idea to use a woman, a window and a frog. Where do we put each of them?

 

Assuming we have control over where the woman is in the composition, how about we drop her down a couple inches so the pane doesn't split too much of her head. At least have it break through her hair, not her skin.

 

Next, how 'bout we move the frog over to the other side of the pane where he lends purpose to it being there in the first place, and increases the separation between the two of them. I think this increases the mystery of the set up, and makes it look a little more believable, if that were Yannis' goal.

 

Yes? No?

Symbolism? Not for me. Just a funny picture, with the 'princess' nicely framed (I like the original much better than Doug's versions, sorry Doug). I guess the frog is just waiting for her to become a frog again? Congratulations with PoW, BTW. In the old days I'd have rated it 8/9. WJ

Congrats on a good photo - as it is.

The framing is excellent and cropping to remove the window frame completely changes (for the worse) the balance and dynamics of the image.

My 2c with (hopefully) no offence to Doug and others who support his opinion.

Cheers

I much prefer Doug's changes (Version 2). He isnt splitting the bright forehead and I think moving the frog helps.

Regarding the can of worms I've opened. I agree that PS is simply a replacement for an old tedious darkroom skill-set. But just as I would expect Ansel Adams to acknowledge he created many of his photos with the zone system; I believe we should acknowledge the tools we use for creating the image. We don't need to reveal our proprietary magic in using those tools. While a number of the viewers can recognize PhotoShop magic many others on this site cannot. Marc states it was more of an issue with last weeks POW, because for him it was more difficult to decide. I believe we all judge a photographic version of reality versus PS by a different set of rules.

Now as to the issue of sloppy PS versus really clever work, that's another avenue to discuss

If the goal at photo.net is to educate than why by coy?

Dont hesitate to take these comments as rubbish or helpful as you see fit.

I think this is a clever idea, and well executed from a technical standpoint. It's a "realistic" depiction of the old "Prince who was turned into a frog" tale, as it looks to me like the girl is dreaming that the frog could be her handsome prince, but she regretfully can't get to him. I really like the use of the frosted glass to portray the separation and dreamy atmosphere. I would like to see the frog staring into the girls eyes rather than at her lips/chin, and would also like to see how the shot looks with the girl staring at the frog longingly rather than having her eyes closed, perhaps even with her hand up to the glass. Nonetheless, clever shot regardless of the technique used, and congratulations on POW.

 

Bill

The light on the woman is from the left, on the frog it is from the right. In the real world, you wouldn't expect interior and exterior lighting to be like that, but it is slightly distracting in this shot.

Actually, the light on the woman is a diffuse source directly in front of her (the window) with the intensity falling off as her body is angled away from the light source. The light on the frog is a diffuse, directional light from the right (what you'd get in a shaded area on an overcast day). The lighting is entirely consistent with what you'd find in the real world.

While I am fully-paid-up member of the Photo.net Cropping Society, this time I feel the various proposed crops don't improve the photo. Those window mullions are needed to ground the photo, Also the crossing point of the two create a tertiary focal point which, with the frog and the woman's left eye, create a strong compositional triangle.

Very strange, but I like it.

I agree with others above who would not crop this picture. It is a nicely done image with effective composition. This type of picture makes a good magazine illustration because it gets your attention right away. Good for print media. Perfect for advertising. I could not look at it day after day on the wall, however. There's just not enough there for my brain to be enchanted for more than a few seconds.

As the inventor of the term, "Photo.Net Cropping Society" (but not a member of that august body), I feel I must throw my two-bob's worth in here and ask the following, deceptively simple question:Why do otherwise mature, sensible and skilled photographers believe that other mature, sensible and skilled photographers do not have the ability to compose their images in the most effective manner possible?

The picture has a frame and a copyright notice at the bottom. It is of a girl behind a stippled pane of glass with a fun frog (her Prince Charming?) burping sweet-nothings through the glass at her. These are obviously deliberate inclusions. Ergo, it is plain that the final geometry of the finished image is clearly deliberate and is what was intended by the photographer. No amount of rewriting pictorial history will change that decision. The image stands or falls....oh, why do I bother?

On the other hand, the frog, if a Photoshop inclusion, is more of a candidate for criticism.

Firstly, criticising its placement does not necessarily involve cropping, only realignment of elements within the image.

Secondly, if Photoshopped-in, then it was a deliberate decision of the photographer, made in sober fashion and with plenty of time for deliberation. These decisions are candidates for the most minute examination and micro manipulation. They must be stood by. To maul an old phrase, "What Photoshoppeth together, can be renteth asunder". This is my version of how the picture should look. Magic, eh?

Note: "Photo.Net Cropping Society" copyright Tony Dummett, February 2002. "Fun" is a trademark of Eastman Kodak Inc.

hehe If you gong to move the guys frog then at least give the poor frog both his front legs! hehe. I like the image. It doesnt look real.. The frog looks like an addition but that helps it too .. nice

the variance in subject lighting/shading doesn't bother me. I'd be inclined to have her eyes half open, looking at the frog, though.

 

 

just curious, ~what if~, this was not shot behind frosted glass, but shot using normal glass and then PS filtered. would that change anyone's perception of this photo?

Tony, I'm surprised at you. Are you trying to stir up trouble again? Maybe I'm missing something in the translation from Aussie to English, but I thought the whole idea of photonet was to take a photo and imagine it better. How else could that be done, but by cropping, color shifting, burning, dodging, and reshooting, and the occasional mad photoshopping.

 

Note to self: So as not to infringe on any copyrights maybe I should start a spin off group, the Club for the Re-assessment Of Posted Photographs, or CROPP. I guess I could call it CRAPP, too.

 

 

It really doesn't work for me. It's not appealing. I really can't explain why, as it must be an inconscience aspect. Any clues?

 

ah! Anyway, very creative. A pity that the aesthetics didn't work. It's a veeeeery clever idea.

hope that it will be taken in the right sense! I feel that there is a little more of touching done for this photo on computer. It doesn't have that kind of natural feel. lemme tell u that this is jus' a comment of a novice photographer! On that other hand if i'm wrong in concluding the digital manipulation, then this is an excellent piece...

Yannis, I find your creation richly woven with symbolism : transformation, separation, unfulfilled dreams, the unattainable.

 

Compositionally I wouldn't crop. I might play a little leap frog and have Prince closer to the vertical. Princess doesn't seem asleep to me, dreaming certainly - but not in and about the mundane and phenomenal land of Nod. Frosted glass brings to mind the "veil of forgetfulness."

 

Congratulations on POW, may your week be filled with the requisite fortitude.

 

 

It's an interesting shot at first glance but I cannot imagine why a woman would have this expression and stance behind a window so the whole thing looks like another of those wanna-be artsy shots. It does not appear she's looking at the frog but that her eyes are closed. Why did the elf conjure this silly princess and frog connection? It's like a bad pun, too easy and obvious to considered the result of an acute deduction and unfortunately and irritatingly adds to kitsch. That's got to be one of the worse "Why this was chosen as Photograph of the Week" explanation in a long time. So many words that really say nothing. It was nice when this "why..." actually told us why.

What's with this "kitschy" kick lately in the POW? First a couple of "artsy" light-paintings, now princesses and frogs? I'm all for originality but IMO cuteness and garrishness is being mistaken for cleverness.

I don't mind the criticism and re-cropping of this photo that are being done. For me, the original photo is strong, and discussing possible variations can help us to appreciate the various details of the original.

 

However, there is a lot more than composition here. The woman is facing the frog, but her closed eyes hide keep her from seeing it. The diffuseness of the light inside and of her image with her eyes closed seem to put her into a dreamy, other-worldly realm. On our side, we find the crisply lighted frog with the sharply textured wood, suggesting reality. It is as if we have been transported from the world of humans to the world of the frog. The real subject here seems to be the frog looking through the window at the timeless, motionless image of a woman's face.

 

Then again, the real subject could be myself.

A very clever idea that was well carried out. The idea of the princess and the frog. Of course there are the nit pickers who jab at it, complaining of lighting and God knows what. The point is the image is good. Leave it at that

Doug, please, for once, just DON'T crop, and call the frog back in the picture, please: the princess needs it, and so do we if we are going for another round of dissections...:-))

Please, next time, also certify that the frog wasn't injured in the making of this amended version. Thank you.

More seriously now...

Bill Jordan, I think, has so far the most interesting interpretation of the symbols used in this image. The fact that the frog is close to the lady's lips is, to me, part of the message. Therefore, IF the frog had to be moved, it could only imo be moved a tad to the right and half a tad to the bottom. Anything else fails in my view. But if moved, it should be so little that I don't see a reason to argue too stronly about it.

Last but not least, let me say that I'm quite amazed to see, week after week, the same people trashing light painting and now this as "Kitsch". I think it is about time that some people realize that the kind of photograph they like IS NOT the ONLY kind of photography acceptable in the world today.

The symbols in an image may not talk to some, but it doesn't mean that they are meaningless or silly or whatever. I don't like waterfall shots and flower shots very much, but that has, at least I hope, no consequences on my opinion to judge such images, and to differenciate good flower shots from bad flower shots as I see them. And sometimes, I honestly have no opinion, and I don't think that's a bad thing.

This POW is OBVIOUSLY built and designed to tell us something. Is there anybody ready to deny that ? Assuming this is right, one has 2 choices:

a) either try understanding the message and then liking it or not and explain WHY.

b) either call it a stupid shot without explaining why, and possibly without even trying to understand it.

One of the latest things I've learned on this site is that "navel gazing" was a Gallic thing. Well, maybe so. But until proven otherwise, I see a meaning in this image, and I will continue to see it. Regards.

I agree with Brian. I prefer the original placement of the frog over the moves.

 

However interesting the comment on photoshop is, I still like the idea and the result. The only, and the only thing I would change is the splotchyness around the frog. To me, if this were photoshopped (not saying it is or isn't) that to me looks like it might be a bad photoshopping job. And if it were photoshopped, that could be in the original photo, not a result of bad PS technique. I just have no way to know without being told by the artist. Regardless, I'd try to even up some of the tones there, it just looks a muddy/splotchy.

 

As far as PS goes, I have nothing against it. Jerry Uelsmann is a fascinating artist and I wish i had attended his seminar when he visited RIT as a part of the alumni seminars. PS is another tool, but unlike doing these things in the darkroom, any fool can do it on PS. But not many people can do it well, and to do it well takes HOURS upon HOURS of careful work. Just like what Jerry Uelsmann or others would do.

To crop or not to crop, that is the question. I guess I'm going over to the "uncropped" photo.net team. I think the window framing improves the image, as does the frog being in close proximity to the woman's (yes, she looks more woman than girl to this observer) lips. The obvious frog/princess symbolism is mildly amusing, but it really isn't very complicated (symbolism with already established one-to-one corresondences is really dead symbolism and ceases to work symbolically at all) or in fact emotionally or intellectually compelling. This is compounded by an expression on the woman's face that is neither alluring nor wistful: to me, it looks like she's trying to catch a catnap while washing the dishes.

 

One thing I haven't liked about a number of the recent POW's is that they seem overly-processed in ways that make them lose their vitality. While I have no way to know for sure about this image, it seems to be a composite that has had color saturation and balance heavily manipulated. I could be completely wrong and this could be a straight shot captured on film (and I'll admit it's silly, but I would admire the image more).

 

As you can note from my post, I prefer less-manipulated images, images that look less like something some graphic designer overworked on a slow day. I also prefer images where the meaning of shot is more elusive.

 

Still, this is well-above average photo.net image--it is clearly competent. While I never would have chosen this POW, it's certainly worthy of discussion.

Sometimes when cropping and otherwise reworking an image I end up back where I started. To me, it's not only an exercise in finding what's wrong, it's sometimes a confirmation of what's right.

 

Perhaps I'm self-deluded, but I don't think I offer comments with the intent on trashing an image. I hope no one thinks that I do because I understand fully what it is to invest time, effort and money into an image only to have some nitwit saunter by and condemn it out of hand, and out of ignorance. We don't live in a one flavor world and if there is anyone out here who can find one image that EVERYONE thinks is a 10/10, I'd like to see it.

 

The trend appears to be that the POW photographer becomes a spectator when his image is posted as POW. As I understand it, the POW photographer is notified regarding the selection of an image from their folders. I feel that if the originator of the image had objections to people making comments and otherwise dissecting their work that they would have stepped up by now, after 55 comments, and made some sort of defense.

 

Maybe the POW should include two items: One, the note the elves tag explaining why they picked it, and Two, a note from the photographer explaining what the picture is about, or what the goal was in making it.

 

For example, if such a item were tagged onto this picture we might read from Yannis: "I was trying to show a frog wanting to snatch a fly from the woman's mouth." Upon reading that I don't think anyone would have thought to move the frog because its proximity would have been integral to the intent of the photograph. We would instead be talking about the separation of the glass, for instance. Past POW threads have unraveled in all sorts of directions until about Wednesday, when the photographer steps up and says a few words (if the photographer contributes at all) and everyone goes, oh, yes, of course, and then it goes somewhere else.

 

We've been talking about moving the frog. We've been talking about the idea behind this piece of work, about the window frame, the glass, etc, etc, but we don't really know, for a fact, what Yannis was trying to accomplish, do we? The elves directed it, but look at the input we have from Yannis.

 

Did you see it? Not even a title.

 

All we have is the photo and we are running in circles trying to figure out what's better, what's right, what's this, what's that.

 

But wait! Shouldn't the photo "stand on its own?" That is apparently the intent here, and the process is underway to test the strength of this image, and the vision of its creator. Those who believe an image should "stand on its own" should perhaps busy themselves with some other web site for a few days and return on Sunday night to see if it is indeed still standing. The rest of us, meanwhile, are in the midst of determining that very thing with what little we have to go on.