Untitled

This is a brilliant shot, IMHO. Reading all those comments, especially the ones questioning the choice of this picture as POW, I really cannot see anything mediocre about this work. Nice thought and an "off-the-beaten-path" execution of it.

Also, I strongly prefer the original over various versions done by several viewers. Although they represent their appreciation of the work, they do not improve anything by changing the location of the frog or by cropping.

As always, it comes to personal preference.

 

The wooden strips, the frog, and the woman create a harmonious composition, although the strip of separated forehead is a bit of a distraction as is the confusion about the shape of her head caused by the shadow or maybe even a silhouette (an ear?) to her right which suggests another (male?) figure. The light on the lower left leads the eye away from the subject, but is perhaps more than compensated for by the bright red lipstick.

 

Perhaps that's as far as any of us should go . . . a dry technical analysis of how we think the eye moves through the picture space and how it interprets what it sees. Perhaps that's all we have a right to. We have no context, no idea why this photo was taken. As Doug points out, we don't even have a title, although sometimes I think that's good because it gives the viewer freedom to discover the image without preconception.

 

I do think that an image which appears to be a setup is a candidate for an explanation more than, say, a landscape. Why did he go to the trouble? If it is a setup designed to refer to the frog princess story, it accomplishes this, even though many of us feel that it might be more effective if her eyes were open.

 

Do I like the image? What do you mean, exactly? Is that relevant? More importantly, does the photographer care?

 

Only if he's into popularity contests.

I'd seen this earlier and made a mental note to comment and now I see it is the POTW. Congrats. This image is well worthy of this honor.

I like Doug's original cropping job. I agree with Carl that the extra forehead plus silhouette is distracting. Also, cropping out the top and right makes the photo feel less symmetrical and contrived.

I thought I was rather clear in my original post, I do not like this photo not because the photographer did anything wrong- for all I know this was taken to be an illustration for a book- but because the committee that chose it as POW imbued the photo with some deeper and more important meaning than it possesses. Another critic pointed out the tendency recently in POW towards glorifying kitsch. I agree with that observation. Taken as an art form, as dramaturgy, the photo fails because the symbolism of the woman, glass, and frog is trite. No amount of fiddling with the crop will save it. As symbolic, allusive art it simply isn't rich enough to satisfy me. Better?

I havent posted anything here for months and now this.

Its just a visual metaphor, nothing more, nothing else. An attempt to execute a concept; the eternal and often futile search for happiness.

Not a landscape, not a warm and fuzzy portrait that is a direct depiction of reality.

Who cares how it is done and how some of you crop it.

Does it say anything to you? Fine.

It doesnt? OK, move on to a perfectly executed country shot, a clear macro of an insect, maybe a flower in its glory. How about that model in your local photo club who needs some head or boob shots.

Photography is a way of expressing yourself as you please, not only a set of tools and rules to capture another sunset.

You see millions of images perfectly photoshoped, well balanced, cropped, framed, printed, web prepared and touched up to unbelievable high standards. They have everything: Perfect exposure, saturation, tonal range, look-and-feel, you name it. Except one thing:

An idea. There is none.

This is an attempt to execute an idea. I could have easily chosen poetry, illustration or sculpture. It happens that I like to shoot some times, trying to nail some photo fantamentals.Im not a professional, not that I aspire to be one. Im honored that the editors of this site have chosen this image for POW. I am also honored that Photo.net has actually understood what this image is all about.

But as flattering as it may be, it really doesnt mean anything else to me, besides impressing the model (my wife).

_______________________

Production notes:There are three separate shots here. Two slides and a digital shot.

My wife (Its 10 p.m., and I made her put an intensely red lipstick on). Shes holding - with both hands - a piece of frosted glass pressed against her forehead for balance. Light comes from a tungsten sourse (250W, Home Depot) diffused by a piece of a bed sheet, folded twice. Be careful with this brutal set up. The bulb is extremely hot and can cause a fire. The frame is actually an old photo frame that I took apart and assembled as seen. It was shot in the exact way as the first image. The frog is from my photo database. It was the frog image that dictated the light direction of the entire shot. There is light density discrepancy of the frog and the glass/model. It should be.

The images become three layers in PS. With a fourth layer in a form of shadows underneath the frog and the wooden frame. The images are all adjusted slightly with very little photo editing. Some colour balance and sharpness, really.The film is Provia 100F. The lens a Nikkor 35-70 AF 2.8 D.

________________________________

Other notes:

Thanks for your comments.

Photographers who took this for what it is, good for you. Photography is a tool for expressing your creativity. Not the other way around.

________________________________

For people who cropped, reworked and modified the image, thank you for your suggestions, but I have one thing to say:Why dont you work on your own images instead?

______________________________

If this image created such a stir already, you should see my Little Red Ridinghood shot(Just kidding)

Yannis, whether this is staged or not, it's quite an unusual shot and one that I seem to 'get' the more I look at.

 

There's something slightly disturbing about the girl. I don't think she's even aware of the frog and I don't see any connection between them. If you like, she almost seems to have been captured at a moment when she's closed her eyes and is far away. The frosted glass is what makes this image for me. It puts an element of uncertainty to the image and I like the asthetic it produces.

 

I used to think that photography was all about capturing a moment but now think that it is many things to many people.

 

Not the kind of photo that I usually go for, but I admire it for it's asthetics and though provoking imagery, even if it is staged.

 

I wrote something a couple of days ago, but the site flaked out on me when I hit "confirm" and when I hit "back" my post was gone, alas. Anyhow, here I go again:

 

I don't think the attempts to move the frog help this at all. My eyes are made happy by the triangle that Brian insightfully identified. It's what grounds the image. I don't care for the radical crops, either. The crossbar helps more than it hurts and if anything I think it should have dipped a little further into the interior of the frame, which I think would relax the composition. I think Tony's attempt to extend the image to the top and right improves it for this reason.

 

The frog and frame look a little overexposed relative to the scene behind the glass. Yes, there would be a different level of light inside and outside, but the degree of difference is what made me pretty sure this was a composite when I first saw it. The color temperature feels right, but the intensities seem mismatched.

 

It's good, it's creative, it was resourcefully done. The fairytale allusion is well-done, and putting the frog within easy "kissing" distance is important to that end. Not every symbolic move has to be "high art" to be successful.

 

Yannis, I do find your thin-skinned reaction to the critiques and especially the crops kind of disappointing, though. I think many of the suggestions in this case were pretty bad ones, but that's all they are. You don't have to agree.

 

The image is cool. The photoshop work is quite good, sandwiching images into a coherent whole. The coherence is challenged with the lighting on the frog and the sharpness of the frame, but overall it's very well done.

 

But what of the IDEA. Well, it's a fantasy shot, and I like it for what it is. The element in the image that I keep coming back to is the eyes. It means a very different thing to me that the eyes are closed than it would if we could see her regarding the frog. Right now, the frog could be watching her, or it could just be hanging out. But, and this is important, that's just how *I* read the image, and we're all a little different. [Ok, some of us are more different than others...] At any rate, there is something creative here.

 

Enjoy.

Doug:

 

I had assumed Tony's upload was the same image, too, but as I was writing up my thoughts re: eextending the image upward and rightward I took another look and it looked like Tony did something along those lines. Looking again and being too lazy to download the two images and measure the regions, hell if I know. I think it's the blurry leak of the background into the frame caused by the high compression of Tony's JPEG that made it look extended.

Get a short platform, maybe 6 inches high. Lay dark material on it. Have the girl lie down on it. Set a light on the floor, or on a low stand behind her head and to her right. Get a large sheet of black cardboard, put it either between two stands, or on a boom. Lower it in front of the light to shield the camera. Get a bunch of cinder blocks, or four more stands and set the glass on top of them at an elevation that gets it very near the woman's body. She will feel a little claustrophobic, but that's what model's are paid for. Lay the strips of wood over the glass and either clamp them into place with light-weight clamps, or use hot-wax to secure them in position. Place a second light to illuminate the wood strips, and the frog (may need a third light for frog) Have someone place a dry live frog on the glass where you want it. Have them move away quickly. Make the exposure. Find the frog, which has by now hopped away, and do it again. If using a 35mm, the photographer sitting or laying on a board suspended between two ladders could get the same angle. Other lights on the girl's left to light the frog, or wherever you wanted them, depending on the light you wanted. For variations, have the girl look at the frog, show surprise, love, longing, shock, anger, etc, whatever.

 

You could set it up vertically by hanging the glass from a rod secured to two stands, then placing the model behind the glass, sticking a fake frog and the wood on the glass with wax or putty. Camera on a tripod.

 

 

Technically, this is not such a complicated set up for professionals who do this kind of work daily. The materials already in the studio: lights and stands; cinder blocks; clamps; putty; two ladders and a board, or a tripod; some dark material or a dark floor or wall; an assistant, or a couple of friends. Then a model who with some self control and a frog, live or toy; and the wood strips. That would about do it. The hardest thing would be the frog if you were going live you'd have to catch it, or pay some kids to catch some for you. If it were winter in your neck of the woods, or if you live in the desert, you might have some trouble. Even so, the frog would have to be the right size and shade. A fake one would be a little less of a challenge, but still possible.

 

At first glance this shot makes me want to look at it a bit more. Upon closer inspection I am drawn, no I am strongly pulled, into that fake penciled in eybrow and it doesn't work for me. It makes her whole eye look distorted.

 

The idea is excellent, but I'd try with a different model. I can accept the frog lighting.

 

E

I find your 'recipe' fascinating. It makes the point that it is possible to create a setup without using photoshop.

 

Now the maker can check SETUPS and we can look at it technically from that vantage point and maybe learn some tricks which we can apply to our own setup challenges.

 

 

Now somebody is going to say, "why go to all the trouble? It's a setup - in whole or in part - it's not real life either way." And my response would be, 'You're absolutely right . . . . but please give me the choice because while the techniques may or may not be important ot you, they are to me. . . . just as the distinction between captured and setup is important. If you're doing commercial, time is money. Here it's a matter of courtesy . . . and hopefully will be required soon.

Folks, you know who you are, doesn't it ever occur to you not to head off into the "Yes PS" and "No PS" argument? Hasn't it all been said? This photo's merits have very little to do with the use or disuse of PS, a point even made by the now-dumped on Mr.Souris. What I'm getting at, hopefully in a way that will cause the least amount of finger wagging, is that it is getting increasingly difficult for casual members of this site to participate in a discussion on this board, when a few of the same people insist every week on using up a ton of bandwidth arguing the same damn PS-no Ps point over and over. Really, these interminable discussions do suck all the oxygen out of the room.

This comment is being left despite being as off-topic as many of the others that have been deleted because it captures the sentiments of the moderator. To Photoshop or not to Photoshop, that is the question. But not in photo discussion threads, especially the POW, endlessly, every week. Many of the contributions that remain should have been deleted, but your moderator grew weary. -- the Moderator.

I feel that the composition in this one is off balance; the frog has been placed too closely to the womans face and the two objects are competing with one another. The frogs coloration isnt harmonious with the rest of the picture; its color is neither in the same range as the earthier colors in the rest of the photo, nor is it at contrast enough to set off the rest of picture. The texture of the wooden crossframe is too sharp and doesnt complement the softer, more grainy texture of the rest of the picture (for example, the frogs texture matches, seeming to be a silkier gradient of the rest of the photo). The concept the black frame is good, but the solid color of it, merely blurred slightly onto the rest of the photo, is a little too elementary.

 

 

Yannis, I like this shot a lot. They way the frog and the woman are so close and yet so far away creates a sense longing for a love that cannot be. Very well done. I look forward to seeing more of your work in the future.

Since I didn't see a crop like this, and this seems to be the way I remember the image...(Yannis, I do work on my own images).

 

BTW, nothing compromises our ability to CAPTURE, except ouselves.

For me, a successful image appears either as clearly processed in some way (whether painting with light or Photoshopped or montaged or toned or whatever) or as a conventional "realistic" photograph (even if it is a departure from reality as all photographs are or it's been edited in PS). Ones that provoke the question of "hmm, has this been digitally modified?" suffer at the moment because that question gets in the way of our being able to appreciate the image for what it is. (Do I hear a collective yawn?)

 

Anyway, I concur that, while it's fun and a good learning experience for everyone to play photo sleuth regarding how a shot was done, it would be good for POWs to have technical notes posted (perhaps after a day of displaying it?). But, I think excellent images (POWs?) shouldn't really need to be noted as real or altered. Last weeks POW (the fire / birthday cake) was a tough call -- but, I think what makes it a clear success is that the only reason we questioned it is because the situation seemed just too perfect to have actually happened -- not because the image appeared altered in any way.

 

There also wasn't much discussion about cropping of last weeks POW -- the image didn't invite it. Likewise, there is a good reason why people are talking about cropping and PS with regards to this image. It's not because they're the only things anyone cares about -- it's because the image is provoking them! And, no, I don't have a problem with PS. On the contrary, it's a wonderful tool when used well.

 

On that note, I must say I like David's crop -- the composition is clean and the image feels more intimate and direct.

 

Oh, and thanks for the recipes, Doug! Incidentally, I wouldn't mind seeing this concept treated in super-kitsch style via an inflatable woman and a ridiculous rubber frog. However, I don't think Yannis would approve! ;-)

Is the frog on the inside or the outside? Vivid colour and textures on my monitor. Nice shot, interesting comments, controversy. What more could one ask for?

I am getting the feeling that the frog is fake and that the setup is posed. I don't like the window frame going across the woman's forehead.

This is a good attempt at staging a strange photograph.

Doug, as usual your visual acuity is on the ball: my posted image was the original, unchanged except for reducing it in size. The point was: Yannis is a grown-up, let him take the brickbats or the bouquets as they are pitched at him.

As I've often said (he says, quoting himself), "ideas" are great, but "ideas plus execution" is better. Everyone has a lot of ideas. If everything any of us dreamed up came to fruition we'd all be millionaires and have one-man shows at the MOMA or the Louvre, but we don't. Getting down to particulars, this is my way of saying that the wooden window frame looks not... quite... real to me. Deduct one brownie point from the "execution" score.

The other point I tried to make above was that if you take your time to get something perfect by using a computer program to post-produce the shot, then I believe the standards of evaluating the execution should be higher. This is not an expressionistic piece of work, not a few daubs of paint splashed on a canvas (a la Jackson Pollock). It's a deliberate exercise in precision and should be critiqued with this in mind.

The exposure seems pretty good in all three original elements and some have quibbled regarding the use of empty space. I think just cutting it off (i.e. cropping, effectively truncating the image) doesn't work. I was more interested in those examples that moved the frog. Ultimately, though, it's up to Yannis to decide that and we should let him have his way. He obviously took his time doing it. It was a deliberate decision on his part.

Was anybody really fooled into thinking this was an homogenous single image? Perhaps some were. In that case, some tech notes outlining the process (which we eventually received after a few days) might have been in order.

Would Yannis have chosen this image as his POW? I don't know, but when, a long, long time ago I was told I had won POW the image chosen wasn't the one I would have picked. It's on the wall in my kitchen, a big 30 inch print and looks fantastic (to me) but demands close-up inspection. For web purposes I would have chosen something punchier without so much small detail. I think this might apply to a lot of POW winners. They should have some input to the final choice.

Now to "ideas"... it's difficult to critique an idea, especially in a way that virtually forces the photographer to defend him or herself against all comers (I mean: have YOU ever seen a POW winner say, "I think this was a lousy concept. I'm buggered if I know why the elves picked it,"?) So I won't critique this idea. I am prepared to reiterate though, that "ideas" really aren't enough.

We've all got a million of 'em.

it is plain that the final geometry (and many specifics of detail... t) 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? hmmm, I know what you mean Tony.

Here we have visually defined the difference between a classic image and a cliche'. We are handed our hats along with the image.

The metaphorical possibilities of Princess/Frog imagery are endless. With a little suggestion of an alternate take, all technical issues might take a distant role. But here we are handed the straight story, with no underlying contradiction nor any motive to even think of one. If an idea was supposed to be the motivation, this one runs out of gas pretty quick. It's bland and static even for a childrens book of illustrated fairy tales. All the cropping discussion is probably motivated by a desire for some intensity. This tale is one of passion denied, and that's not in this image. It just needs some dynamic, a subtle hint of emotion, some tension or conflict or... something... something... t

I do not like this photo as it has the Jesus on a cross feel to it, technical composition is fine but there are better ones in your folder.

I love the idea. The portrait has a really great feeling of peaceful tiredness, with the glass creating the impression of looking in on a private scene. I don't care it it's posed: in fact I hope it's not, it would be an invasion of privacy.

The frog is a nice touch of whimsy which I want to like, but just at the moment it feels just a little too obvious. Tomorrow I might feel differently.

 

Best regards,

Graham

This image provokes cropping suggestions, unlike the one from last week (fire cake), and the week before (religious masses). Each image is different, each thread, each vision, and each provokes different responses. David's memory aided cropping is a good idea. If that's all you remember, maybe that's all that's necessary. Not in every case, of course, but in this one, the point might be: What's the frame doing, anyway? Is it needed? Is it a nice touch? Does it add?