Lily

It's looks Like an out of focus picture of I don't know what. Not alot to comment on.

 

This is really more than a comment. It's a long post. Beware!

 

Okay, sorry if I hurt peoples feelings. Really, I think people might have over-reacted to my posting. I just think that the POW should be a photo that is applicable to photography in general, so that people like me can have something to aspire to, and I think that out of x photos per week, something more appropriate just might have turned up. (I wont be processing Astia in wrong chemicals for a while yet, if you see what I mean... Astia is renowned for it true colour fidelity, so to me at least, processing for weird colour effects is kind of like using a mountain bike for a road race, or lightweight Reebok running shoes for a mountain hike (to use a couple of recent Photonet comparisons), or... you get the picture.)

 

Obviously, you (everyone who thinks this is a good POW choice) and I have a radically different idea of what constitutes a good photo - I am not going to press my views upon you any longer. However, I thought that maybe the knowledge that the image was cross-processed was affecting peoples judgement of the photograph. So I did a little experiment.

 

Art photography is really about communication, isnt it? The photographer wants to convey, with the aid of the photograph, a particular mood, idea, etc. to whoever is viewing the projected slide, print, ink-jet print... even computer screen. But a prerequisite to communication is understanding, right? Nothing can be communed without the recipient (the viewer, in this case) understanding the message. And I thought this POW was not coping so well with getting the observer to understand what was going on. I personally feel there are too many conflicting images in the picture all competing for priority in the viewers mind. The responses from posters has reflected that, I think, in that some people commented on the lilies, some on the colours, some on the avant-garde feeling, and some even on the methods used to obtain the image (myself included). Either the photographer had many different messages, or he was being misunderstood! Photographs, in my opinion (which is evidently not universal, I am learning that, at least!), should impart the photographers message equally well to the photographically uninitiated of the world. My experiment was quite simple really. I took the photo at the large setting, saved it to a file, opened it on a blank screen (at the same size as large setting), without the title Lily, and asked various people to comment on it. I didnt give any more details, and didnt press a view upon them by asking, for example, Dont you think this is a bad photo?

 

These people are all non-photographers. They dont care (or understand) if the chrome was cross-processed, whether or not it is contemporary, or how long it took to take or how difficult it was to take. Some comments were, quoting word perfectly:

 

I love the reflections in the water! My eleven year old sister. (Begs the question, Are children better suited to understanding art than adults?)

 

I like the colours in it, its like something Richard would take up the Amazon. Is it meant to be blurred? This ladys husband is called Richard, has been in the Amazon, knows *nothing* about photography, and uses a point and shoot to take colour prints.

 

I dont like photos without people. When pressed for an opinion: I dont know what its meant to represent, so how can I say if I like it or not? When I explained that this photo was chosen as POW from among hundreds, perhaps thousands of other photos, she declared that she could do better myself!

 

Can you make it any bigger? I cant see the red things.

 

Those were the only tolerable comments received. The other five were along the lines of Whats that?!?!? or repeats of the negative criticism of those above, e.g. blurry. I was amazed to find that the above commentators viewed characteristics as faults, that we who are knowledgeable about photography are able to accept as creative license.

 

I wish I knew why the photographer took this photo, why he chose the method he did to develop it, and what he was trying to get across to the viewer.

 

I remain, alas, mystified.

 

I already said I was sorry!

Has a sort of William Blake atmosphere about it.

Regarding some of the criticism and then the criticism of that criticism that has been here over the past few weeks in POW.....

 

I guess it all comes down to some kind of balance.

 

".....Photographers who know that to get good images one has to master the craft while at the same time find enjoyment in what they are doing. If you don't enjoy it, why are you doing it?"

 

From this article: http://www.photowisdom.com/digest/2000-10.html

 

Sure, we all want to enjoy our craft, our hobby, our past time. But to think that to get technically precise imagery on film somehow one has to stop enjoying oneself is ludicrous. And more than a few have implied or outrightly said such here.

 

I have old cameras, I have new cameras, I have cheap cameras with no AF, rangefinders or exposure meters, and I have a brand new Nikon F80D (although I've yet to ever pay over $300 for a lens!). I use and enjoy each and every one. And I strive with each to produce a photo I am proud of while still immensely enjoying the hobby. My goal is a photo that is interesting, fun or challenging IN ADDITION to being technically precise in sharpness, color balance and exposure. To me I find it a failure of the image if the exposure is off, if the image is blurry because of camera shake or from using too slow a shutter speed. I have loads of those! And it's a shame because many would have been quite nice otherwise. But I accept that. It happens. But I then try to figure out how not to "ruin" my next images by such easily corrected mistakes. Because if I HAD used a tripod or monopod, or watched my shutter speed a little more carefully then that photo which is now considered a "cull" would have made me beam with pride and encouraged me even more next time! And that makes me a better photographer. And I enjoy people's comments here and share mine with that goal in mind.

 

This article I reference above is a good read. Check it out.

I hear this all the time, and I don't believe it. Abstraction obscures communication. Challenging the viewer obscures communication.

The last photo class I took, it was clear from the critiques that the viewer will virtually always perceive a different message than what the artist intended (assuming he wanted to communicate a specific message in the first place). The successful pieces admitted a great variety of interpretations. They spoke strongly to the viewer, because the viewer could "find" a meaning that resonated with him.

Communicating a message is best accomplished by limiting yourself to concrete, easily understood, even clichéd images. They will challenge nobody. The viewer will instantly get your point, and waste no time exploring your image.

Urgh!

Ed did you ask for and get help with that comment or did you compose it all by yourself?

I didn't really appreciate the picture until I closed my eyes, put some Roni Size on with the headphones on, and imagined a huge LightJet print of the image on the wall (I have 15' ceilings in my office, so we're talking a huge print).

 

 

Abstract works, whether they are paintings or photos, in my estimation at least, tend to not do well in small sizes (how many $15,000 three-color wonders do you see on 8x10 canvases?), because instead of something that invites study, an abstract work is something that needs to be experienced (if you can't make it good make it big...whoops that shows my abstract bias). Anyhow, as a small graphic, the photo is a disservice to a good photographer who has enjoyable photos on his website (especially the Kermit Project). As an installation work, it wouldn't be half bad, as I do like the colors and the wierd effects of the water.

this looks like a regular image that had a simple photoshop filter apllied to it to blur it out...

Don't you *get* it Uri?! This is an awesome expression of modern art! Shame on you!

 

Hey, join the club of the dazed and confused.

"Art photography is really about communication, isnt it?"

 

No, not necessarily. Photography *can* be about communication - it's a good medium to communicate in - but it doesn't *have* to be. Art photography can use the same reasons - or excuses - as other art forms (after all, it's just painting with light on film). Tell me a Jackson Pollock communicates something.

 

What's wrong with looking nice? Or, if you refuse to accept that art can "just look nice", what's wrong with challenging the viewer to make something of the picture? To produce a story behind the photo for yourself is part of the joy of looking at something.

 

Besides, you *can* learn from it: you can learn that cross-processing produces weird colour; that focus isn't everything; clarity is optional. All good things to learn :)

There've been some comments about how there's nothing to learn from this picture, however in my limited experience I had no idea E6 film could be processed in C41. Unfortunately this composition is too abstract for me to understand from it exactly what the expected results of doing so are. Anyone care to enlighten me on that...

i like this photo because of it's dream-like

quality.. and the well-balanced composition.

i wouldn't want to focus more on the lilies.

 

First of all let me say that I didn't plan on such a debate over my work when I began the simple project of mine with cross-processing. I guess that is a sign of progress when you can get so many people to discuss so passionately about a specific piece of work. Let me set a few questions to rest: despite the lack of creativity on my part with the selection of a title, the subject of the image is not the lilies. There is not a specific subject of this print per se. The only intrinsicly avowed (an oxymoron in itself) meaning or communication that was instilled in this image is the meaning and mood I had when I took it. I suppose that is why I like this image of mine as much as I do, because it gives me back the feeling that I had when I took it. As far as what it is "communicating" as you put it, I leave that up to the individual perspective. The beauty of photography is that 100 people can view the same image and each person can take something completely different away with them. I hope each of you absorbed at least one feeling or emotion from the image. I apologize for the size of the image on this site... that was a problem with the scan which was mended on my personal site. If you enjoyed this image please drop by my site at www.RyanNotch.com ... even if you didn't like this particular image please drop by and check out my other work as it is pretty eclectic. Thank you to everyone who put their 2 cents in! =o)

Us vultures are already awaiting the next POW... Boy, this better be good!

You know I found out an interesting thing about you Samuel... checked your bio and it seems that you bitch about every POW and put down all of the photographers every week yet you don't have a single photo on this site. Hmmmm.... whatever opinion I might have had about you before is nothing compared to the one I have now. It is easy for one to put down others' work when one has no work themselves.

What's up Mike? First I'm jealous that none of my photos is a POW, then I don't *have* any photos?!!

 

There's just no way I would feed my work to you wolves!

 

No, actually, I don't have a scanner. (Kinda handy, eh?) Someday, when somebody donates me the money for one, I'll upload some of my images and blow your mind!

 

Seriously though, I've only criticised the last two images. And only because I didn't think they deserve praise. For example, I think the 1st Oct POW is truly awesome. But I wasn't yet a member when that image was selected...

I like the composition, subject matter and the effect of cross-processing the film. Personally, I would have cropped a bit off the bottom, say just below the reflection of the branch and about the same amount from the top. I think that would help define the goemetry of the shapes and better emphasize the lilies.

It is easy for one to put down others' work when one has no work themselves.

I see this accusation regularly in critique forums. The odd thing is that it is totally misplaced, because viewing is very different from doing. Some photographers are terrible at critiquing. Great critics often don't do the work themselves. Analysis and artistic vision require very different skills. Do you talk about movies/books/etc without making them?

Oddly enough, this criticism should be raised on the equipment and technique forums, where plenty of incompetent photographers who don't show their photographs can talk non-stop about how to take a photo/what equipment to buy/etc etc. Yet no-one takes them to task when they should.

I would not call it a picture, and by no chance a photograph.

I love the shot. The linear critics think in absolutes and that has no place in the evolution of photography. Monet it is and who can truly dis Monet. The colors and blurr make this photo move, my eyes move--so it works.

It moves MY eyes to tears... a consequence of my linear thinking, no doubt.

Most of you guys are severe a**holes. You guys know who I'm talking to all those of you who completly tore apart this picture. If any of your pictures had been chosen for photo of the week and people had responded they way you all have you would feel terrible.

 

This is a nice picture. Period. So what if it is not a Pulitzer. Those of us who use photo.net regularly are all secretly hopeful that the next photo we upload will win POW. It's like winning an award, for a week thousands of people see your photo first when they log on. When someone "wins" POW they should be congratulated. Nothing is wrong with negative criticism but do it the way you would a picture that hadn't won POW: mention all the things right before the 1 or 2 things wrong. No one can take a picture that is perfect in everyone's eyes so dont expect POW to be the most amazing pic you've ever seen.

 

It's not just this photo either, all POWs get torn to shreds by people who can't do it themselves. I don't know how long ago this was chosen as POW but I congratulate the photographer, Good Job.

 

p.s. sorry about the spelling, I'm a photographer.

I thought this image was like an impressionist painting. As Don has observed, reminiscent of Monet's Lily series. Regarding art/photography being about communication, I think the statement is true. Whether or not it is a blatantly clear message, more subtle, challenging the viewer, or just a happy memory for the photographer, it is still an experience shared. Not the actual experience, but an interpreted one. All experience & communication is interpreted. Even typed text in B&W is not exempt from this, but it is communication nevertheless.

 

Sometimes hot debate is interesting, sometimes even necessary, but since beauty is in the eye of the beholder, it seems to me that posts invite viewers to say whether they like an image or not, & maybe expand on how they interpret it, or how they would have improved it for themselves. Rules don't come into it for me. It is a subjective experience.

Personally, the only thing I would change about the picture is the angle from camera to object(s), to move the reflection so that the blooms would be easier to see.