toystory Untitled

Not comment on the image. Just to congratulate the managers for the election of the image. Undoubtedly ideal to engage in a discussion. What is art?

I'll say right from the start that my opinion is heavily biased. I've been an admirer of Christopher Falcman's work since I first discovered it back in 2006. I'll also admit that he has influenced some of my own work.

I'm glad to have been invited in to have a look around.

My friend Jim Adams, thank you very much for your technical input to this image where you did serve the purpose of having it on the first page very nicely, I must admit that today I did learn a wonderful method of respect to the photographer, how could being to me and how I should be good to him, with my great respect to both.

Thank you my friend and wishing you all of the best.

I have read most of the comments above and glazed over the rest. I have an untrained eye(or at the least minimal training). I would like to comment mostly on the composition and how I feel about it as a very new "student" to this art. My initial feeling fromt the picture was like most have stated, childhood. What the picture first made me want to do was to walk right up to that trike and get on it. Very strong feeling of that in fact. If the trike were to have been placed in the left side of the frame that feeling goes away.

I don't see a need for the trike to have "room to move" which is what some are saying. Also witht he trike where it is there is also a sense of wanting to walk past the bike and down the path to further investigate what the surroundings may bring. Is there someone waiting just outisde the shot? Did the child stop to lok something over and is just outside the frame? Etc..

Just my thoughts

This critique makes me wonder if this is why we like art so much. It allows us the opportunity to say anything we want about an image. We can wax lyrical, profess great and deep insight, discover the meaning of life, herald ourselves as the discover of artistic truths and never be proven wrong.

IMO, there has to be something more to it than our own idiosyncratic emotional response. This is why the critiques that mention both emotional reaction and technique are, to me, much more relevant. From an emotional point of view, this image leaves me wishing for more context. I feel "Nearly, but a little empty in theme, story, etc." From a technical point of view it's fine but I am disturbed by the photoshop work in the foreground.

Overall, perhaps my childhood was not troubled enough (or maybe too troubled...denial and repression are powerful forces) to read enough in to this image to make it deeply meaningful. I'm sorry but it's only good, not great IMO.

 

Not sure what I think of this one. It's a photo of a doll's tricycle, apparently intended to look full-sized, because of the selection of the background. It has the appearance of a photo of a miniature, resembling photos of miniature soldiers, or model trains, that I have seen, plus blurring of the background in post-processing (for a comparison between this background and true bokeh, see the photo in the same folder of this tricycle with a doll, both photos having used the same lens). The choice of subject matter is intended to convey a sense of....??? If it were a real tricycle, I would say loss of a child, or loss of childhood, or passage of time. Does this photo represent loss of a doll? Maybe I'm too concrete, but it's not speaking to me.
The composition has an unplanned look, and it reminds me of a lot of antique photos I've seen. The post-processing seems intended to produce an antique look, so that all works together. The photo just needs better subject matter, and a better story. Christopher is undoubtedly a good story teller. See his suitcase and train tracks ("childhood") folder.

To Fred Goldsmith, I agree that my statement ("But if a viewer gets nothing out of this photo, it's because that viewer has forgotten or never learned in the first place how to see in the deepest sense of the act of seeing.") was over the top, inappropriate, much too strong and too sweeping, and I retract it. In thinking about it further, my question now boils down to how do we criticize art (i.e., give positive as well as negative comments). I have two thoughts about that. On the one hand, I find it helpful to know the goal or purpose of the photograph in making the photograph, both in-camera and in post-processing. I've sometimes made a critical comment on a photo, the photographer has replied why a particular element was shown in that manner, and that changed my whole perception of and reaction to the photograph. With the knowledge of the purpose of the photograph, I can then comment on whether, in my opinion, the photographer achieved his or her goal, or whether in my opinion the elements detract from the goal or could be changed to better achieve the goal. Second, we don't often have the luxury of knowing the photographer or the purpose in the photograph, and we simply have a photograph staring us in the face. Then we make comments on the photograph at whatever level we choose: technical aspects, emotional interpretations, etc. I often feel in the latter case we are discussing aspects of ourselves more than the photograph itself, but that's just my opinion, and it's often a good discussion. So I'm back to my original question: is it best for my comments on a photograph to take into account the reasons the photographer made the photograph, and to then see the elements in the photograph through his or her own eyes and evaluate how those elements did or did not contribute to the photographer's purpose? After I've done that, I also like to state how the photographer may have unwittingly struck a different chord in me, and I can then describe perhaps a very different way of seeing the photograph. In my mind, that's an ideal way of offering a critique -- knowing why the shutter was pressed and the sliders were moved during postprocessing. I have a feeling that if viewers considered Christopher's intention with this photograph, it might change their view of the photograph, perhaps just a little bit. The discussion, I think, would also be enhanced: rather than saying the trike is facing the wrong way for this photograph, we could talk about what difference this makes relative to the photographer's goal and relative to our own reaction or interpretation of the photograph, just as you suggested.

this special pic. has strong expression and open door for imagination...what's els?

Stephen, I don't think there was anything wrong with your statement except that you didn't include the escape clause! Not everyone has the same reference point to an image or what it represents and so even when someone has learned to see deeply, they may not relate to a particular image--at least not immediately.

i don't know that we know the intent of this image really, maybe you do or others here, but all I can do is to infer meaning and intent by the other images I see in the photo stream. Also, because I read what he says about his approach, I can also acknowledge that although maybe there was photoshop used here,that much of what I see is possibly just latent camera defects/characteristics--the left side density issue as well as that in the foreground/bottom of the image. And certainly, anyone who has used the blur tool would have to admire the lack of artifact around the dark trike that would be there if in fact it was done or done in the hands of a novice.

If we were to see this image and then go to the rest of the photographs in the photo stream and they were all perfectly exposed and produced landscapes alla Ansel Adams or the works of someone like Peter Turner, we would all have to be scratching our heads. If this was in the photostream of someone who was obviously just learning the basics, we would be all probably be talking about it in different terms.

I think that to approach an image like this, you have to have context and take the time to go look for it. Once you do, and find what can be found in Christopher's photostream and words, you have to suspend certain technical considerations and view the image as purposeful in the way it looks and is finished. Then you confront it for what it is and realize, or at least assume, that everything is intentional. In fact, you have to do that with any work by a mature photographer and suspend those judgements and look to what the image communicates--or doesn't in your opinion. And in many cases, what it communicates is not in the frame.

Stephen, I appreciate your response and discussing how we look seems so important.

Stephen and John, I tend to wear two hats. This being a photo critique site and the purpose of the POW being to learn and critique, I approach it on one level as a critiquer and on another level as I would something I came across in a gallery. I don't critique in the same way I respond to photos I see in galleries.

For a good critique, I do find it helpful to know or try to imagine the intent of the photographer and suspend what I may want out of the photo and look for ways to help the photographer achieve what he wants out of the photo. Though much about our photos is intentional, I've made some very intentional photographic decisions that I've thought better about when someone pointed something out to me that just wasn't coming through. Being photographer and being viewer are somewhat different approaches and sometimes it's hard for me as photographer to step back and really view.

So, for example, while I think the blur itself was obviously intentional, I'm not quite sure it serves the emotional purpose of the photographer and would need to have a discussion with him about it to see that. He might well convince me he wanted the consistency, heaviness, and flatness of the blur I'm perceiving and, then, I would respect his decision. I would not, however, like the photo any better. The blur would still not work for me.

I think we can separate our taste (what we like) from our critiques to at least a great extent. I often critique quite positively and constructively photos I do not like at all. I see where the photographer is going, appreciate that for what it is (though I may not like it) and offer suggestions, if I have them, on how he might refine or further his vision.

Jim Adams suggests that the photo makes us think and that that's what it's all about. Not for me. Since photography is a visual medium/art, it very much matters what it looks like. The dialogue between one's chosen technique and the story or the image itself is very crucial to my experience of a photo. I don't often separate the two. The technique is often what conveys the emotion. Imagine this photo without any blur at all. Would it make you feel the same? Well, if not, and it certainly wouldn't make me feel the same, then the way the blur is handled, what the blur looks like, matters.

I'm with Jeremy on the need for both emotional and visual/technical responses. When in a gallery, I usually respond first with my gut but even that response is very much dictated by the techniques employed which, to me, establishes the image. Sometimes, on the other hand, I run into a work so emotionally powerful and well seen that a poor technique will be beside the point. In this photo, the technique is so much a part of the total experience, that I don't separate it out.

Kind of reminds me of another version (b&w rather than color) of William Eggleston's "Tricycle in Memphis - 1969-1971.

I hope this doesn't get me an off topic email or something, but I do agree with you basically Fred. The thing is that I believe the importance is to notice what was done, but not to "judge" it in terms of good or bad, but rather to describe its effect on us. When looking at a novice' work, judgments make more sense in this regard. Looking at more mature workers, your opinion isn't relevant (don't mean that personally, of course) but how you feel about it might be. Splitting hairs maybe, but critique in its pure form is about description and analysis so that we can meet an image where it is. We do, because of the nature of this site and this thread, fall into the more tech crit here, but sometimes, in a case like this, it is better to revert to a more classic use of the critique. I think it might actually be a better learning device on occasion than always rehashing the more technical oriented verbage.

So, how the blur was handled certainly matters, but not technically, but how it affects the communication or message of the image, not whether one thinks it should be done differently.

Beautiful!

The tricycle is obviously an antique of sorts. The soft background and foreground add to the feeling of yester-year. The lines of the trike are fabulous and Christopher has brought it to life. I feel this is a wonderful photo!!!

The blur created by the photographer along with the B/W picture and position of the tricycle are excellent reminders of a long past childhood which is like a dream nowadays!
This is a most powerful sentimental photo. Good work by Christopher Falcman. Congratulations!

 

Overall I like it; I like the mood, but...
Black and white pics make me think of old cameras, like view cameras and such, that have movement which would have allowed the whole scene to be in focus. I realize this was a Kiev which may not have afforded the photog that option. Anyway I wonder if having the whole scene in sharp focus might have been better, or at least the trees only slightly out of focus. Perhaps a tripod would have been needed for that, and perhaps there was not the option of setting one up. The selective focus looks almost like it was done in computo. Looking at it more closely, I see that it wasn't (I think), but it does seem clear that the focus was deliberately made as "selective" as possible, which might not have been the best option. I don't know if the shooter had the option of placing the trike however he wanted; if so, it might have been better to have it pointing in the general direction of the distant trees - provided those could have been brought more into focus, that is. OTOH if this was a grab shot, which I doubt it was, but perhaps it could have been, then I would say Very Good Indeed.

There is something strange about this image that adds to the mood of the image, The depth of feild implies macro, the texture of th eground implies that it is not real background in the sense of feilds or paths. I think this adds to the mystery of the image, i am not sure we are talking about manipulation here, in the photoshop sense. To me the image gives a real sense of times gone by, a simpler life left behind, i dont know if that was the photographers message but that comes through load and clear to me, the way the image is presents implies not of now, but alsmost a distant memory of childhood. If the artists was meant to convey this and i have interpreted it orrectly then he/she has realy really captured something, if this was not the intent, then the fact that it has invoked this feeling to me also says the artist has captured something really really go.
I love it! it took me a while but then again a good image should, like a good wine improve with time.

Mmmm! Seems to be a lot of dicussion here. If you have so much time on your hands you should be out taking pictures.
did we hear from the photographer? What's his story? And I don't mean how did he take the picture but what was happening to lead up to that point?
Then, I ask, what's happening to you when you view it? when I first saw the picture I was sitting in my office after signing up to Photo.net. It flicked across the screen for an instant. I was reminded of some cool days as a child when the fog rolled in and left me isolated from the world and I felt fearful and wanting the protection of my family. All of that followed from a text I received from my sister who I have not heard from in 22 years. See what I mean?
Today I ook at the image and think about how it might have been taken. I don't think it is an exceptionally good photograph today but last week it brought tears to an old man's eyes. Tomorrow I will look at it again and maybe it will bring something else.
Judge the image by whatever criteria you like. Differ in your opinions as to its worth. For those who have good feelings about it; that's great. For those who don't; that's tough. Try another picture. If you persevere with this one you will find your own story. It may not be that which the photographer intended. That's OK. He didn't do it for you; he took the picture for himself. If he put the image in a box and dropped it to the bottom of the ocean for no-one to see it would not change the image or his story.
What we can do is to 'see' with our own 'self'. If you want to compare your responses to that of the artist (and you did notice, I used the word 'artist') that's OK as well. You might want to make some suggestions as to how to make it different. But the key: different. Second time around will produce a different story for both the photographer and the viewer.
We chose to express ourselves through photography. The photograph is the interface between that expression and the perception. As a photographer I work hard at learning to use the tools of trade, use the best materials for the job and eliminating the influences of others in the creative process. I don't always succeed. Sometimes I make a connection with someone out there and they buy my picture. Nice! It all becomes part of the story I tell when someone says 'how did you do that?' 'Where would you like me to start?' is my first question. The second is 'what's going on with you when you look at that?' You get some great stories that way.

Great Picture I love it...

very nice image .....very nice 'score' but the 'performance' does not work for me . the left margin with a vertical line into the sky ! and the same in horizontal , in front of and behind the tricycle . a bit of soften to these and a better performance .......other wise very nice !

Good Morning my friend tom dinning and very nice to meet you on photo.net, it is a pleasure of mine.

I do not agree with your statment where you say the photographer had taken the image for him self, if it so then it is better to keep in a safe box and show it to no one, this image is on the first page of photo.net , a site dealing with millions of people from all over the world and for every one of them his own opinion about what get posted here, that why when you post an image for the community you shall have the garage to receive what comes from the others, I also did not see what the photographer think of his image story wise although as I heard he is a good story teller, this image posted without and a title, so there is not way I would know what he have in mind about it neither it do contain the sort of stories some people here added to this image, they made the title for the photographer which is not a correct thing to do .

I personnel did not find anything photographic in this image and again it is my personnel opinion as I have stated earlier and not to be influnced by any one else, nice to see every one makes how good or bad this image on his own way and in according to his own taste.

Personnely I do not post successful images each time there are always weak points and I have to except them when they pointed out for me by the cmoounity here or any where else, this is of course if I do have in mind to improve my skill, If my images are just captured for me I would keep them for my self and show them to no one.

Thank you again my friend for your open heart and except please my best regards.

Thank you my friend and wishing you all of the best.

It reminds me of a poem by W. Wordsworth. Our memories are always with us, and, in spite of being a link in a long chain, they appear as flashbacks, like this narrow DOF beautiful image. Beautiful and painful in a remote way.

I like the surreality of this image but the position of the tricycle (interested to know how big it is - 5cm high, something like that?) seems a little random and the sand it's posed on is unconvincing.

sorry doubled input by mistake, very sorry.

Isn't it nice to let the image tell its story instead of making a story which is not withing the image itself ?

When I saw the thumbnail of this image on the homepage, I thought 'Ah! this looks interesting, this might speak to me about lost childhood - I must take a closer look'.
Sadly I was disappointed. The post processing blur is heavily applied and poorly executed, which makes me feel this is a highly contrived image and is therefore not 'honest'. It reminds me of 'tear jerker' movies, usually containing a formula of elements which contrive to elicit an emotional response. The previous comments about 'old cameras' and 'shot on film' all add to the mix - we convince ourselves that something is more 'worthy' than it is because we want to believe it has meaning.
The photo is interesting in the sense that it contributes to the discussion about the nature of photography, but on the level of an emotional response, I don't buy it.