Untitled

Jeremy, I suppose what I am suggesting by "self imposed restrictions" can be looked at in two ways. First, it can be a way you adopt for yourself and then, second, the way you look at or evaluate someone else's work.

I suppose the most clear cut example in this respect might be photojournalism, where nothing can be changed. If you work in that genre there are certain restrictions that apply to what is consider acceptable or appropriate. But the photojournalist doesn't have to look at someone else's "street" photograph and judge it in the same way even though it might be similar in nature to what they do as a journalist. If they do judge it in the same way, they are self imposing those restrictions and limiting their view. It isn't a failure of any sort, but it is certainly limiting.

Again, I am not trying to convince you to accept this tree, that isn't the point. But the fact that it is as it is here may not be any failing on the part of Evgeni at all, but a purposeful presentation--it might be a bit of both--or even a failure that allowed Evgeni to see a possibility not recognized before. I know that if you were looking at one of my photos that had this sort of effect, it would be purposeful or you wouldn't be looking at it. But my point is that if you don't like something because it doesn't fit your criteria(restrictions) then maybe you need to figure out if it is because you can't let your criteria go or it is because it really doesn't work in the absolute.

You might even review your image here and see how all this applies http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=10542422 --maybe it is just how it fits our own purposes, but I think it better to push through and attempt to understand how others work and present things that might really be the same, but different.

Mikhail, people disagreeing about the value of a photograph has nothing to do with its being a work of art. The number of comments has nothing to do with that either. The first has to do with people disagreeing. The second has to do with Internet access and random statistics. People disagree about which cars are better than others, whether Republicans are better than Democrats, which highway to take to the same destination. None of that is artistic.

Over all a very good work.But the right side of the the photograph looks artificial leaves and does not gel with the rest and the centre of focus of this shot i.e the cut tree.

Sanjay

While I'm not crazy about this week's Photo of the Week I can't say that I dislike it either. If I view this submission with an eye to critiquing it as a photograph, it fails my "acid test." All the weaknesses have been mentioned many times before by greater photographers than I. If I gaze at it without a technicals yardstick, I find it kind of pleasant to look at. I'm sure I could obtain the same results with a box of crayons and some nice paper. I'm thinking it's the result, not the process, that we critique at Photo.net. And I find this result sort of eye-pleasing. Sort of.

I agree with some of the comments that make critical notice of a reoccuring theme regarding digital manipulation, but I like this image because it is both unusual and striking. I think it makes an otherwise very nice well-timed and noticeable static event in the woods, into a striking bit of art. There are purists who for whatever reasons believe that digital after effects should not be used.
Likewise, it both delights and wrankles me that one of my more-acclaimed images--a "moon-cloud", made over fifty years ago, which required a great deal of set-up, special equipment, knowledge, timing and darkroom work, was easily matched by my wife through her car window on the way home from choir practice in about two seconds--using a cheap no-name digital camera set on automatic. Kinda funny isn't it.
I like the image this artist has MADE. He didn't just TAKE it. It is indeed and example of post space-age digitalphotographic art. ART. An artist uses all tools at his disposal. Further, that several of the artists images have a similar slant, is evidence of a developed, or emerging signature style--also evident in any great artists work.

? I don't get it. Lots of decisions have been made and I don't appreciate why. It's a monochrome....but not quite.  It's subtle but graphic making each unconfortable. Naturalistic with an artificial frame. Obviousily composed with elements wandering in and out of the frame. I get it now. I hate it.........but what do I know? Shalom, Tim

Dear friends, thank you for the discussions.
I only want to clarify a little the theme about the level of the PhotoShop manipulations of this image. I do not remember what exactly I have done 3 years ago. I do not have any photographic education and usually do not have clear idea what to do with my photos – I mean, kind of standard approach. Looking at my portfolio I see a lot of stupidly pretentious photos and many, many mistakes.
So, I treated again the ROW image and the result is:
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=11905098
What I have done this time was: cropping, clearing some branches by cloning stamp, contrast, very little amount of lightening at the bottom, little amount of desaturation also at the bottom (by replace color) and smart blur. The result is not exactly the same, but very close. To answer some of the discussions: the tree trunk again is black because I like it this way and I can not image this photo without the small tree.
Thank you again for the very useful for me discussions.

Evegeni,
What I gather from reading your replies here as well as from looking through your portfolio a few times this week is that you are a humble and honest seeker of beauty in nature and a person eager to learn, to experiment and to hone your craft. We all make mistakes in our captures and post processing as we progress with our vision and skill, that is on ongoing reality which never changes. The big question becomes, are we frank enough with ourselves to recognize our missteps , learn from our mistakes and move forward? When I looked back through more than 30 years of of my own images I am, in some instances, horrified by what I at times presented as representing good work.
The fact that you have returned to the original and presented , a much improved in my opinion, photo after following this weeks discussion indicates that you have that ability to step back and analyze your work. That you steadfastly hold on to your vision for the composition, regarding the dark tree trunk and small tree, ( which I happen to agree with) tells me that you are a person of conviction and not easily swayed. To my way of thinking, a healthy dose of both qualities are required to follow ones own path while learning from those around us, achieving that balance is the cornerstone of progress in any endeavor. I wish you all the best on your journey.

I'm with Alberta P. on this one. It certainly is not my favorite. But it gives me the cold, stark feeling of moving into winter. Autumn's beauty has passed. I like the stark feeling of it desite it's technical flaws. All of which have been mentioned

As soon as I looked at the new rendition, I knew I liked it more right away. Although I recognized the loss of the orphaned leaves immediately, there was something else about the image that seemed more substantially to me, more elegant--it was something we hadn't discussed anywhere else in this thread. It was the return to, or shift towards, a more expected coolness in the image. For me this almost seems to free the image and stretch it, if that makes any sense. I could almost feel a release between the two images and increased depth in the newer version. (it might also be partially due to the loss of the odd frame in the first version--which helps immensely)

Even though I might still look to eliminate some of the other items mentioned, I think we can see here how working incrementally can improve an image and our original thoughts might be modified. I could live more comfortably with the big leaf and stick in this version, just removing the orphaned leaves makes such a huge difference in the balance of the image.

John, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that the basis for the judgement of an image should not be personal criteria because these are restrictive. Rather, the basis for determining the success of an image should be whether or not it "work in the absolute". So, for instance, criteria like:

a) If the image is not authentic, it's not good
b) If the photographic technique is poor, it's not good
c) If the image does not tell a story or communicate a message of some kind, it's not good
d) If the image is not consistent with a unique vision that the photographer has, it's not good
e) And so on

should not be used because they are personal criteria for judging an image and are, therefore, restrictive or limiting. What we should be doing, you say, is determining whether the image "works in the absolute". Could you please tell us what this means. To be honest, as it stands, I think it is at best a meaningless phrase.

On the subject of my image. The image you cite makes my point very well. My image depicts a high contrast situation with a dark subject that is a significant distance from the camera. When the light is contrasty and the subject is distant from the camera the subject should look relatively dark and, therefore, my image does appear authentic. Obvious in its approach, unartistic, not unique, etc., I'm sure, but authentic. This issue is pertinent to the modern HDR approach to sunsets where distant hillsides look like they would in broad daylight. It looks inauthentic and that's why so many people complain about it.

In the POW, the light is low contrast and the subject is close to the camera. When the subject is close and the light is low contrast, the subject should not typically look featureless black (especially when the subject does have detail, there is detail in the other elements of the image and the photographer has chosen a relatively bright exposure). That's why the featureless black trunk is inauthentic looking to me. But Evegeni, you and others like this. I have no objection to that. We are free to like and dislike what we wish. Best, JJ

I was hoping that my example of the photojournalist thing would be clarity enough. But I think it has to do with the underlying visual criteria by which all things are judged, which includes the principles of design and elements of art for one.

But, again, there is always going to be personal opinion, I just feel you, in an earlier post, were overlaying some artificial restrictions, being "bound by" on this image, which is only bound by them if the person wishes to be bound by them. I feel such an approach is limiting.

I am not going to go into it here, but if you like we could do it through e-mail, but I find this image much more approachable and natural than I do the one I referenced of yours. I guess I felt that this image did not reconcile well with your words here regarding unnatural blackness (nor my own sense of how things appear in such situations) other than how it fit with your own vision, just as this image apparently does with Evgeni's. Bottom line, it does and will come down to subjective criteria, however, I think it is good to look at things more objectively on our way to the final conclusion.

rereading here, I used "this" too many times to refer to different things, hope it is clear enough what "this" I was referring to where!

So many words have been said about this that there is precious little need for any more hyperbole. I like the starkness. There is something very 'zen' that makes the composition at once calming, contemplating and mournful at the same time.

This is a most striking poetry of hope.
The fog obsecures all besdies the stark monotonous callous reality of frozen nature that is only broken by the surprising bright yellow leaves of the fragile birch tree, as if hope is born in a place where can be none.
And photographically all elements are in beautiful balance to convey this rare feeling of something positive coming or staying alive despite all the odds.
A beautiful image!

The picture itself is interesting. No doubt about it. It is well taken and therefore it gets the viewer through the mood into an early fall forest. Good job.
On the other hand, I find it a bit distracting because of the weird colors on the left tree trunk.
The frame is something what I really do not like though!
Tom

I suppose the correct way of stating a opinion of a photo you did not take is.. If I were Evgeni I would have converted this to a B and W with those beautiful tones......
That said lovely picture evokes that sense of nature playing out silently at its own pace. Well done.
BR
Raj

For me this photo depicts hints of time/season changes.  it might seem to an eye that it was methodically desaturated, but i think not.  there was a storm... it's the morning after and its balmy, hence the fog and what Evgeni has captured here is the last hint of what was once winter.  the dark before the dawn of spring even with the hints/remnants of the last growing season still visible.

Nice time capture.

The mist caused a wonderful natural shallow DOF and the contrast is high emerging the foreground.Almost B&W , a little yellow, Autumn gone, Winter's coming.Very nice work Evgeni.

Nice  Photo , and Frame !

Beautiful image! The dark corners of the frame distract attention. The frame should be as simple as possible - it will accentuate the picture's beauty and mood. Well done, Evegeni. Love your landscapes a lot. Tamara