clouds

Well, its a good job most of you prefer the lighting of the balloon as it is, rather than that which Bob suggested, because his suggestion would not work. For all we know, the burners may be blazing flat out - this shot was taken in *very* bright backlit conditions, and the burners would be invisible against such glare. Theres just no way they could light up the bag against that sky... In any case, I presume the photographer wasnt in RT communication with the balloons pilot, so he had no other options anyway.

 

Peter Voerman is obviously one of those photographers who arent particularly ethically challenged. He leaves the Technical details section blank in all of the photos in his gallery, presumably because it would require a page of explanation on Photoshop manipulation. He uses black and white film a good bit, but ruthlessly alters colour, contrast, framing and composition, while adding special effects and removing or reducing technical errors. I suppose artistically he has some idea of what he wants, but Peter seems to have a bit of a problem in getting this on film. I mean, would *you* use Superia for close-ups of colour saturated flowers? Even if you were forced to use print film for some reason? The colours are blocked up beyond what I would have thought possible! Smooth tonal transition doesnt exist in his flower and mushroom images. And exposure does seem to be a bit of a hit and miss affair, with overexposure raising its ugly head more than the odd time. With the clouds (008) picture, it would be difficult to get the exposure wrong with one shot, and impossible with bracketing. So exposure is dead-on, of course.

 

Having said that, the best picture in his gallery, in my opinion (which is apparently very different from the norm!), *is* the one that was chosen for POW. The rest are modified so much as to encroach on what the photographer might have been trying to get across to the viewer. Check out the comments people have put up about the individual photos. Nearly everyone asks a question like was it colorized? or states something like I can see the doging (sic) (although I doubt he can; I somehow dont think this guy does his own printing! - except with an Epson, of course), rather than commenting about the actual photograph. Though, if you take out the fancy effects, I suppose theres not much photograph left in many cases...

 

I can see why the more easily impressed think this photo to be the best thing since Velvia - it has all the characteristics of the calendar and cook book photos that we were discussing on the un-moderated forum a day or two ago. It is flashy, but shallow. Just like so many of the comments about it. Why dont people elaborate on just why it is fantastic or ethereal, or why they perceive the center of gravity to be in the middle? I may not like the photo, but at least I give reasons for my dislike. Your comments, as they stand, are empty praise.

 

Of the two crops that John Marsden inserted, both of which I prefer to the original, I like the *first* one better (cloudsedit1.JPG). The second one attempts to be too symmetrical about the horizontal axis, which doesnt work as the clouds are anything but symmetrical. The first one shows just how much cropping can improve an image. The balance is dramatically improved, and the soft patch of sky above the balloon contrasts nicely with the turbulent sky to the right. In the original, my eye spent more time searching the upper part of the frame for meaning, than examining the subject.

 

I long for the day when good portraiture will feature on POW...

Sweet photo, but who's picking these things? Haven't we seen enough picturesque landscape-type Photos-of-the-Week?

Alright, This picture might not have the depth and character of a great portrait, but it still brings emotions of its own. Do any 'pretty' landscape's tell the story of something as emotional as human life itself? i'v yet to see one, and i dont expect them to be on the same level, but 'pretty' shots will have to 'do' until something like an incredibly great portrait comes along! otherwise.. I think the lighting on the balloon in this shot is perfect the way it is, otherwise it wouldnt stand out enough to be the dominant, contrasting subject, which it is.

I think the picture is fine without a crop.. the large amount of sky (and + because its mysteriously dark sky) makes the subject even more important, by showing how small it is.. yet how adventurous. The beautiful gold clouds seem like a safe and bright, 'happy' place to be.. somewhere that would be nice to slip back down to earth when it was time, while the surounding darkness emphasizes how wonderfull the light is, and how much more there is out there..

To me, its a pretty, simple, uncluttered and happy, picture.

its not a portrait, but they all give just what you get from them.

Personaly, i dont like to change an image with photoshop beyond removing dust from the scan and adjusting the color back to the original, but for artistic reasons,.... is it all that terrible? I guess it is, if you judge things by the neg or the pos, photography isnt just documentary, its also art isnt it?

Sam, i know how you feel and i get your point, but hey.. are you just trying to continue your routine for the sake of sticking with it? are you just trying to be noticed in photo.net?

relax :) if you want.

otherwise.. its interesting and amusing to listen.

why dont you go out and take a great portrait and get it elected as Pow, instead of whining that there isnt one?

if anybody wants to see some Great photography, (especialy human life) check out Wee Keng Hor 's portfolio's here on photo.net Or Steve Mccurry 's and many others. (which is not on photo.net i believe)

mata ne,

Brian.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I just love the way everyone rips the POW to shreds. Sounds like a lot of people can't appreciate a good picture for what it is: just a damn good shot, and possible a work of art.

 

This pic was my wallpaper as soon as it was posted in the regular daily gallery. I think it is perfect just as it is. I am not so insecure with my own work that I have tear up someone else's and say some insipid thing like " The balloon burners should have been burning" or "The center of gravity is off center" or some other nonsense. I mean, what was the photographer supposed to do? Scream his lungs out to the people in the balloon asking if they would please turn on the burners to satisfy some fool's sense of balance?

 

If the shot makes me say "WOW" as soon as I see it, then it's a great shot. This is, without a doubt, a great shot.

"It is flashy, but shallow." 6 paragraphs of unrelated tirade, and this is the only criticism you could apply directly to this photograph. That doesn't give the photographer much to go on, does it? Most of us welcome contructive criticism--"too cluttered, uncertain subject, peripheral distraction, too symmetrical", etc. --in other words, what could have made the photograph better. You seem to be offering a sort of philosophical critique of the photographer's portfolio, which appears elsewhere on this site. Do you have any suggestions for CLOUDS--what could have made this a better(?) photograph?

I remember seeing books where the great works of art were analysed and it was demonstrated that all the items in the picture were linked. I.e. a rider on a horse held a crop that pointed to a bird in the sky as he was looking at someone standing by. This sort of set up was repeated all over the picture and the effect was to draw the eye in a path that the painter designed. I have added lines to this picture where I think the components of this picture line up. If this has been manipulated I can't say, but I appreciate the authors final presentation.

With photography up to fairly recently we have not been able easily to construct images that follow the same rules that painters could use but with the coming of digital processing it is now possible.

I would argue that manipulation is perfectly valid if it achieves a more artistic result. A picture is a picture whether it occurred spontaneously or was created in the mind of the author.

I regularly remove distracting objects from my pictures and insert e.g. more appropriate skies.

 

Well, the balloon's burner would not bring anything more to this picture Bob. The only reason for showing the burner would be for advertising purposes which isn't what this picture is about.

What a fabulous photo!!! Bravo! Keep it up man.

I find this picture insightful. Having a huge open sky, with firey sunset, makes for a beautiful shot, but adding the balloon, gives me a sense of wonder and solice...

Great photo, I love the feel and color. Crop it to enlarge the balloon.

Love the photo! If h.a.balloons are your thing, be at the Bath Festival of Ballooning, England, in August this year. Fantastic West Country of England, combined with as many balloons as you can imagine. Be there early. Last year they were all nicely launched by 7 - 7.30am. (lots of early morning atmospheric photo ops!)

This is an original photo with the original colors. I took it just before a thunder storm (I was surprised that the balloon took off in these conditions !!) on a hot summers evening. I never use my computer too make digital changes. But I think those who do are masters of art sometimes.

 

Peter Voerman.

Stunning shot! It stopped me in my tracks.

Overall I think it's a nice image. Lots of sky above is effective, I think, so compositionally it's fine. There _is_ something funny going on in the red gradations in the sky - that speckledy blotch effect isn't nice, but I guess this is a problem in the scanning somewhere.

 

I'm always irritated somehow by the slash-and-burn croppers - doesn't matter what you show them, they always want to hack bits off. Personally the only aspect I would change is the bottom: it looks as though we're *almost* seeing the horizon, but not quite. Given how flat it is, I'd feel less unsettled if a wafer line of land were visible. (Course, I've no idea how wide angle a lens it is, and whether there would be uncomfortable geometric distortion.) So rather than crop, I'd like to add a little on.

 

 

Leave the balloon small, it is a simple sillhouette and I don't think there is any point filling up the frame with a black hole. I also think that the smallness of the balloon is part of the effect.

As for photoshoping... this picture is a piece of art. Art is about expression. There are no rules, and therefore you can't cheat.

great shot.

Beautiful!

Ditto all positive comments above. It's simply an eye pleasing shot. Best, LM

This photo is simply breathtaking. If there is a photo worth a 10 and 10, this is it.

Did you edit the image digitally? If the answer is yes, good job. If you didn't, God! I wish I was there with your camera, film and had the same concept of composition as you did!

I was trying to figure out why I disagreed with those who wanted to crop this picture differently - trying to put into words why I liked the strong composition of the original - when I came across Ernest Minns comment. I agree exactly Ernest. The alternative crops produce a completely different image that destroy the balance of the original.

Of the negative comments about this image, I like this one best:

 

 

Sounds almost like what everyone does in the darkroom with B&W film and burn & dodge tools. Lame comment aimed to degrade digital photography just because it's digital. Ever use selenium or contrast filters?

a shame that the balloon is flat and black

I think that your photo is wonderful both technicaly and astheticaly. I think that Dilworth is a moron for going on and on about a picture when he has nothing to show for himself. I haven't uploaded any pictures yet either but I also don't go around degrading other peoples hard work without giving them the same opportunity. Thanks for the shot.

Adam