toystory Untitled

I would like to hear from the author about this image, I personally dont think it is either heavily manipulated of in fact what we think it is, I think it is staged, and i would love to know what the author gets out of it, What i get out of it is posted above in a previous comment. The issue about heavy manipulation, this goes for so many images in this site, i am still trying to come to terms with this.. i am on the fence as to what i think of it yet.

nice composition and mood . i think there is something missing in this image and this could be a child , human face or something else relating to this bicycle . i dont know, but its my feeling about this image .the foreground is much out of focus and the background is too and focusing on a bicycle in this mood is like a focusing on a human portrait , cuz of this i think this way and i suggest to add more DOF to this image to solving this problem . best regards<<<amir49>>>

Everybody keep in mind that it's a photograph of a miniature tricycle, not a full-sized one. That explains why it looks like a macro photograph - it is! See Christopher's folder that contains this photo and you'll see another photo of the same trike, together with a doll.

I like the feel of the photograph and the sense of 'simple times." I believe the depth of field is too artificial looking and contrived, obviously done using Photoshop or other software to selectively blur all but the tricycle. It would have worked better if the focus fell away more gradually and subtly.

I find some of the comments above strange - It's a photograph, either you like it or you don't - I don't - I find it grey and dull to look at, and not very well photographed. I can see the fine art angle and why the author found the time to photograph it. Taken on FP4 film, if it was mine I would be looking at my developing technique as it looks as if it has suffered due to uneven development. If it's suppose it look this way then that part was a success. Yes I can see it on wall in a fine art studio, I would prefer to look at a high quality landscape or art nude any time

I love mood of this picture, it is so mysterious.

On 19th Eric Adams is the most accurate in his concise critical appraisal of this image, including the compliment to Christopher's story-telling portfolio. I hope classic camera lovers will for some time to come be able to use convenient commercial services for this high quality best of both worlds approach, using vintage high qualty optical/mechanical tools to have neg's developed and scanned. Regards

I love this photo also. If I didn't know better, I'd say it's an original old photo, found in some old trunk in the attic. I don't agree that the horizon could or should be cropped. That's what gives the dream the distance between itself and the here and now. Yes, I do feel it's very much like a dream-about a childhood. And I think viewing art is so tough for us because we never have been instructed to think about what the artist may have felt, or been going through at the moment of conception, as it were. Where, exactly, did this image come from? What unique energy was in the synapses of the photographer when he saw this? Memory? Sadness? Loss? Of what? Or whom? All that stuff is in there and I like it a lot. I could lose the left side that looks like a film processing error, but that also hints at its authenticity. Cheers.

A bi too artsy-ly contrived for my taste. It's a trike on a road. A dreamy treatment with lots of blurring in Photoshop doesn't change that.

Just Amazing!

Like many of Chris' other posts, leaving room for interpretation seems to be the theme here. Obviously interesting and worthy of discussion. The "mirage effect" causes me to imagine and feel things which may not really be there. Not noticing lack of pedals, or if it is indeed a toy. I fixate on dimensions, space, and a symbol as the anchor....or hook. A frozen moment, which moves in a strange way. I've seen this done before. What it means to me I still cannot say.

Hey Rashed. Nice to meet you too.
It's great to see such diverse opinions and points of view stimulated by a picture. It seems the discussion may no longer be about the picture. That's a good thing. Challenging our thinking and testing our ideas provides us with the means to develop, both as photographers and as people. Some may see that photography is their life but they do a lot of other things as well, like eat, drink and be merry. They may believe in a whole lot of stuff as well, like God, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. All that stuff influences the way we think and our photographs will be reflective of that. We may not be aware of it at times but perceptive people will recognise it in themselves and others and it becomes part of the understanding of who we are, what we do and why we do it.
Photography is a means of expression, a means to communicate. But what does it communicate? Part of ourselves of cause.
So, when I say the photographer takes the picture for him/herself I mean just that. They will have their own reasons and use their own skills, judgement and beliefs to produce it. If they believe they are taking it for someone else then something will be missing. Anyone could take the picture. The photographer drives the bus otherwise they will finish up in a different place and that would be less that satisfactory to the photographer.
Now you may thing that a professional photographer takes pictures for someone else. On the surface that might seem the case. But a photographer will still have control and decide what the process is. And if we want to be clinical, the reason might simply be: for the money or kudos. Whatever it is, its their reason. And that will influence how they take the picture and what the final product looks like.
Now, what they do with the picture is up to them. I have thousands of images I have shown no-one. Does that detract from the image in any way? It does in a sense. It takes away the story that you will tell when you see it. But it doesn't detract from the photographers story. That remains unaltered.
I'll post an image on the critique that has never seen the light of day. You can say what you like and I will be most interested. But can you tell me if it changes my story or the image in any way? What it might do is to provide a basis for future photographs I take as I'm sure your criticism will be constructive. Keep in mind, there is a difference between criticism connected to technique and that connected to your feelings. I can't do a lot about your feelings but I can change my technique if I see the value in it.
Learn your skills, know your equipment, be observent, challenge yourself, be a child, experiment, be yourself, take pictures for yourself, share them with others, play with the light, dance to the tune inside your head, do it for yourself first, do it all to excess. These are some of the things that make a photographer good at taking pictures. The rest is in the hands of the viewer. Keep in mind one thing:
"There are only 2 truths: there are atoms and there is space; the rest is mere conjecture" Lord Kelvin
I'll also post another picture in my photo folder that might interest you. I took it as part of a client request for images around my city. They hated it. I love it. It's the one I treasure most from all the shots I took that day. You can possibly tell me why in both instances.

Good Morning my friend tom dinning, I am so sorry being late to make a come back, and it is just 05:10hrs in the morning at this par of the world my friend.

Thank you a lot for the photo you have posted which by no means I can compare it with the other photo of the week.
Yours is a very well balanced photograph with a lot of interest which leeds the viewer into a world of human Expansion and extension against the beauty of the nature, sort of things I always hate when I see , but here in your image those elements of nature and human made structures are connecting each each other so well , possibly for the best of men kind.

As photograph technically, the image is well balanced, light, composition, DOF, details, contrast and tone are working for each other so nicely, what is not nice here is my English which do not assist a lot to do drain out whats inside me, I like this image by all means and if such an image been a photo of a week I will not hazotate to give the 7/7.

Thank you my friend, I understand photo.net, did teach me a lot and I every day learn some thing new here, infact I was so shi and so scared when I first joined here to add any commint on the POW but with the sort of inputs done by many of the members, I did learn and received the garage to participate in these events.

Please have have my best regards my friend and I will go now and look at the photo you have posted in your working place.

My best regards to every one also.

My first camera was a Leica IIIc that my father 'got' during the war. I broke it, and had to send it out for repair. (I was maybe 9 yrs old at the time.) While it was away, I used a 620 box camera. One shutter speed, one aperture. This images reminds me, in a very haunting and beautiful way, of the pictures I took with that box camera. I don't care if it was photoshoped (sic). It is the 'primitive' quality that draws me to it. I can't imagine applying a bunch of techno-babble to it. I want to know to whom it belonged. I want to know why it makes me sad. I want to know why it acts somewhat like Proust's famous madeleine, in that it evokes this flood of memory. It looks as though it were in a box of prints for years, and the left side became sun-faded. Where was it, who took it, why is there no one with the little tricycle? Are the other images from that day lost, and this only a lucky survivor? Was it the last shot on the roll?

Tom, I haven't been around a long time here, but I have to say that the biggest thing I feel from your rather large photo here is that it comes across as a bit of grandstanding. I am not trying to be rude to you, but I personally see no relevance in posting it to this thread except a pretty convoluted rationale you developed. I like what you say in general, but I wonder if respecting the POW and letting it be the image of focus is not a more polite approach to things.

Love this photo.

 

 

Pasha Belman Photography

I agree John A, I think he saw Rashed's added image, which was not quite done in the same vein. I’d appreciated his commentary to that point also.
Someone said this image breaks all the rules, actually, it follows many of them.

As Przemyslaw Paszkowski said on, January 20, 2010; 01:05 P.M.

“I love mood of this picture, it is so mysterious.”

I agree.

The poor d.o.f., the development problems (or not), the tone, the light, the balance, all work to create an image that makes you think. For those that think, and there are many, that sharpness makes the best photos you might be surprised to learn that it’s only 10% of the judging in a competition, it's the least important factor. More importantly is the feeling of the piece, and the overall balance of the elements. Sometimes the simplest are the most complex; this image has garnered a lot of attention.

As someone who is still very new to this, I don't really feel qualified to comment too much on the technical aspects of the photo. as a person viewing the photo and getting an emotional response from it I don't really care wether the trike is facing the wrong way, or positioned correctly in the frame, even though i am aware of the guidelines that dictate these things. My response is very much based on my life experience, having lost a sister at a very young age there is a powerful feeling of emptiness and loneliness evoked. Not sure if the feeling would have been quite as strong had the frame been cropped closer as some are suggesting, but again this is an individuals point of view based on individual emotional reaction. the only thing I will say is that because of the involuntary emotional response (or perhaps despite it) I was immediately drawn to the picture and loved it. It was only after studying it for some time that the excessive blurring effects started to worry me. If the point of a photograph is to evoke emotion then this is a great photo. if the point of a photo is to tick off some technical boxes then perhaps not so much. I love it though....despite being someone who doesn't overdo the photoshop.

Dawno tu nie zaglądałem, gratuluję Krzychu! Bardzo lubię to zdjęcie.

You're right, John. I was born on a soap box. Any opportunity to air my views, either in print or picture. Oh! Excue me. Is this a forum? Isn't that what a forum is for? I'm sure your intention is not to censor or censure me in any way. If there is a rule about the content of a forum or the direction it should lead, let me know and I'll be a good boy in the future. After all, I wouldn't want to do or say anthing that offends you. And I'll be careful in the future not to post an image to explain a point (even a little one).
As far as the original image is concerned. I like it. What more do I need to say? Maybe that's what I should have said in the first place and it wouldn't have caused you so much consternation.

I do not think Tom has done any thing harmful, he was refering to my statment with his posted image here and was defending this POW from the start, may I am the person to be plamed as I have said my opinion, the way I thought off, I have nothing against the image photographer and I did say in my first comment that I wish the photographer all of the best and he did have some very nice images in his portifello.

""

Rashed Abdulla http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub4.gifhttp://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif, Jan 19, 2010; 04:15 a.m.

So much space to the left not been utilized and thats where the cycle should be and should be hidding to the right not the opposite way around, there are baisc elements in photography should been always conceded, never mind the miss of DOF which is also very distractive in this image and do not add anything pleasant.
I am sorry but thats how I see this POW, so sorry for the photographer he do have much more better images than this which do deserve been selected for discussion, other wise my compliments for his image been on the first page and wish him all of the best always.""

If there is some to be plamed, let it be me not Tom.

Thank you

Rashed, I am not really sure if I totally understand what you are saying here. You say: "there are baisc elements in photography should been always conceded" and I am reading that as if there is a basic premise as to where the trike should be? But beyond that, I am not sure I could agree with the statement in any case.

Anyone who knows me knows I hate rules and find things like the rule of thirds a crutch (with many not really understanding why it is a rule or what is behind it), but here, the trike might have been placed in this spot by Chris using a ruler in the field--it is placed so perfectly within that rule. The other thing, had it been switched to the other side, there would have been no "access" to the path, which I believe is one of the strongest metaphors in the image.

I really find little relevance as to what the tricycle really is in terms of the power of the image. It either works for us or it doesn't. I can understand that what it is does affect the characteristics of the image like the depth of field and such and because of those things, considered all together, does affect how one might read the image.

But I also think we have to remember that how we feel about an image is as much about us as it is about the image. Our biases about what photography or art should be, as well as our own cultural experiences play into what we think, the secret is to try to move beyond these, especially the former, when we approach others work.

I believe Tom referred to it, that Play, the suspension of our concerns and rules, is integral to our expressing ourselves, I think that approaching work outside our comfort zone requires a little bit of that play as well, suspension of what we think is right and instead reacting to what just happens to come along!

Thank you my friend John , you know for sure how much respect I have for you and I always been taken your words seriousely and applying into my work all of them.

For this image, the difference are legil , I would not say I do not like it just for the sake of saying so, I did have my own abservations about it and of course my opinion and taste and feelings, the image did not work for me and I made it clear number of time.

I can not see that any image posted here will take its quality through my personnel opinion because of its photographer, to me they both are not connected at all, the photographer is having my full respect to him but the image is here for every one of us to say what he think of it and in a civilized manner, this is how I started and maintained this attitute.

How other look at this image and I do not mean here, specifically the POW but all the images we come accross will always depend on our method of configuring those essential elements in an image and how they been layed out, will only then every one of us will say his word.

Some painters did not work with any rules , just spay paint on a canvas and they think that they made a great painting, many will like that work and other will not like it.
When I look at the man who cut his ear to give it to a lady as a present for her birth day, well, I do not find that man painting interesting to me but there are many around the world whom they like his painting, here at home , my sister is a painter and teaching fine art at the UV. she like his painting, well, this is how it goes, one will like it and another will not, this is life and this is human nature.

My friend John, please also bare in mind, that it is not always possible for me to write things in English they way I like to write, that itself might make my writting not good to some people, for me I do not and never ment any harm to any one, I am just not Yes Sir Person and I do not look at an image and give it he 7/7 because of his capturer, I wish the POW never had a photographer name on it.

Thank you again my friend John, thank you a lot as you are one great example for my work.

For the sake of this image, I would request a moderator or an admin to delete my post here and so all of the un necessary ones, we can write and disuss these issue some where else on the forums and leave this image alone.

Emotionally, the image has a visceral punch to it. It raised in my mind the idea of lost childhood, abandonment, days gone by. I tended to think of it in terms of time and this was reinforced by the narrow in focus band of dirt with a good part of the tricycle. As I gazed closer, I thought the overall grayness of the image detracted for me a bit.

Admittedly this could be seen as an 'effect' where it gives a sense of fog or an old-time feel, but my eyes enjoy more contrast. I thought the buildings and trees in the background provided some context or setting for the tricycle, we're not left totally out of the middle of no man's land.

In the end, as I looked longer and more critically at this image, focusing on specific areas, I found myself asking does this add to or detract from the emotional force of this image. Why did it hit me so strongly at first and does the focus, the contrast, the blurring, did in reinforce that feeling or would the image be better with a more technically correct approach.

Admittedly, I enjoyed the fact that this photographer works with older cameras. If I had taken this image twenty some years ago and developed it in black and white, I'd be thrilled. Today, regardless of technical issues, I still thoroughly enjoy this shot. It's a good one in my opinion.

John A, now that we are old mates I might help you out with the 'Rule of Thirds' thing. Like all 'rule' they can be a crutch if they are limiting in what we do in out efforts to be creative. Creativity does require some risk taking and breaking rules of tradition is a significant risk. But if we treat 'rules' as guidelines we have a better opportunity to expand our knowledge base so when we chose to experiment we do so with the knowledge that some things already work. We can now ask ourselves: 'what have we not tried yet that might work?'
Many of our 'rules' for visual aethetics have a cultural base. Being brought up in a world of jazz and Monet I have a particular bent towards those things and it often reflects in my work. My wife was inflicted with 70's pop and Blackpool culture (poor thing). We agree to disagree on what we consider pleasing to the ear and eye. Never-the-less, we do find some common ground. When we apply 'rule of thirds' and many of the other rules for composition in our work (she's a watercolour artist) we find the resulting images from each other's work pleasing. That's because there are some base features of composition which filter through our culture and have been with us so long we assume (sub-consciously) they are 'right'. You may have heard the expression 'have an ear/eye' for the music/painting etc. It's because our brain responds to familiar things in a different way to unfamiliar things - but that's another story.
I spend a lot of time in Indonesia. When I first went there the paintings/music/food was difficult to come to grips with. I didn't like it. But with time and exposure I have come to enjoy it much more even to the point where I have some of the artwork in my home and eat their food often. But I don't drink their arak. Ech!! They can't get that right. I'm sure you might feel the same about, say, Chinese music or Swiss architecture or Eskimo clothing or Rap music. Its all about knowing the 'rules' and getting used to them.
Rule of Thirds is like that. traditionally, artists in western culture place objects in given space within a frame. The thirds thing dates back to 14th century art. The purpose was to remove the static positioning of objects in a frame from centre to one side and then 'balance' it with something on the other side. The 'something' might be another object (usually smaller and less conspicuous) or empty space. The effect is purely physiological. The eye will then move spontaneously from the subject to the other space and back in an effort to 'complete' the picture in the mind. This is what we call 'dynamic' positioning. The effect is a pleasing one for us because we expect it. When it first appeared on the artists canvas it was considered a travesty; radical in its approach. But what we have hear is creativity. Someone willing to try something new. and look where it took us?
So, John, by all means, go against the grain. Ignore the 'rules', experiment, be creative. But be aware that those who view your images will be expecting 'normality'. It's what they know they like. They may not yet be ready for your new approach. But persist. Innovation comes not just from new ideas but persistance and hard work. As you do this you will move from 'imitating' to what we recognise as 'having your own style'; a combination of 'rule' application with innovation that is uniquely yours. It is your signature in photography, so to speak. If you have been taking pictures for a while you may well have a 'signature'. Find the elements in that 'signature which are 'rules' and 'creativity'. It's a great exercise for any artist at any point in their career. If you are still doing the same things you did 20 years ago you may need to break a few 'rules' today.
Some days I say to myself: '#@%$ the rules'. Then duck.
I look forward to viewing your creativity.