"Portrait of an Eloquent Chair" A study in lines and 'color black & whites'.

Very nice shadow!

I like the irregular lines and confusing shadow.

Really superior composition. A slightly wider angle -- dramatizing the foreground -- would have helped, but the fact is you saw this and captured the image. Again, someone with an eye for the unusual moment -- terrific effort!

Fantastic composition. It almost becomes difficult to tell where the chair ends and the shadow begins... I love this photo!

Great image, and great eye you have!

What's wrong with the color version? Can you show us the color version?

shows the photographers creative eye and constant readiness for anything that comes his way.

Nonsense. Permit to take issue with that statement. And with this photograph, which to me looks like a rehash, yet another, of a concept that appears in innumerable photography books and magazines from the 1940s and 50s. Popular Photography circa 1952. Some might call it classic. I call it cliche.

Is it interesting? Not really. Most of us have at least one photo like this somewhere in our past. Usually shot during student days. Is it a horrible image? No. Just boring. And the broken up lines do nothing to enhance that. Perhaps if there were a series of chairs, in some sort of interesting combo - the way successful shots like this were done in the 40s or 50s (or now, for God's sake) - that might hold our interest. Or perhaps if the entire shadow were in critical focus, even that might redeem it. But old ideas rehashed (look in this photographer's folder to find Ernst Haas' gasoline stain on the ground); old ideas rehashed are much harder to pull off than are new ideas done new. If you're going to re-do the old, whether in irony or in theft outright, you'd better be able to do it at least as well as those who came before - otherwise nobody wants to see it again.

There isn't anything particularly creative about stealing ideas. And this chair with its shadow certainly didn't "come his way" - it wasn't a moving target. Rather, it is the photographer, his head swimming with the tried and trite, who came the way of the chair. The chair is innocent.

If the moderators start from here and each week work their way forward in time, we should be back to 2002 by, oh, about 2052. Hopefully by then we'll have learned something. Cheers.

That reminds me my last visit to the botanic garden, where I shot kind of stone path. This particular one evokes a feeling that evrything is transparent or semitransparent. That transparency attracted my attention not shape alone.

I think this works, pace the comments by Doug. It's the curves that do the trick, those lovely arabesques that confuse themselves with the crazy paving. To such an extent that it's not immediately obvious what is shadow and what is crack. So in this case, multiple chairs would undermine the effect: the chairs would then disentangle themselves from the paving by virture of regular repetition.

I don't think it's a very original idea... I understand the concept, I have some doubts about the implementation. For instance I don't like the fact that the shadow just touches the chair, the composition would probably benefit of a lower angle of view, so that the chair and the shadow are separated. The high point of view also makes the chair a confused bag of lines in its left side.

Beautiful hardcore black and white photography (yes, I know shot in color). Beautiful example of seeing the black and white potential of a scene and capturing it. Placement of elements is thankfully simple and easy to digest. I think a closer view would have made things too abstract and a view from further away would have lost the laciness and importance of the chair's shadows. The way the lines in the stone and those in the chair meet it seems compressed, but the seat and the two large shadows create a triple layer of depth. The jagged lines of the stones and the sweeping lines of the chair create a nice overall scene that isn't too much of either.

The various marks on the stones are a little distracting, especially that one at about 11:30, just because they look more like smudges than natural imperfections, but this may be because of the jpeg compression.

 

Terrific and deceptively simple. Congratulations.

I honestly like the photo of the week picture better than the Guarionex picture posted above. I also think it's unfair to compare every photo of the week to another photo thats been done. Just about anything you see will have a resembelance to something else thats been done. It's fine if you want to mention what it reminds you of, but to say that this photo doesn't compare to the one you have in mind I think is a bit pointless. In my opinion, the POW is way better then the above Guarionex picture, which doesn't impress me at all.

Nice use of light and the broken curves give a great effect to the photo. Congratulations on POW !!

 

If somebody thinks this has been done before by Popular photography then he should substantiate it be giving a few photos here.

hmm. The composition is well balanced here giving it a very illustrated look with the networks of cracks in the ground. It would work well upside down.

I love this picture. Beautiful lines, well-deserving of POW. I liked it when I first saw it a week ago. You have a lot of other nice pictures in your portfolio as well. Congratulations.

Some here be accusin' you of robbin' Guarionex. I think this is better. A very smart shot.

I also prefer this to the Guarionex. Chairs and their shadows are a classic subject, but I haven't seen one before with such interesting play between the chair, its shadow, and the pavement stones.

 

Originality is in the eye of the beholder. One person sees "just a chair". The photographer looks more closely and records the beauty of a particular chair in particular light.

Stark originality isn't the point, nor should it be. It's almost impossible -- and certainly uninteresting, if not unlistenable -- to compose music without reference, both technical and artistic, to others. Same goes for photography.

 

Something I see a lot of on this site is this: people accusing others of being derivative. I say, more power to them! First of all, to learn a medium, the best place to start is in gaining a workmanlike knowledge of the basics...and that almost invariably means trying older techniques. Second, this is a site mostly of amateur photographers, although quite a few professionals (not me) and semi-professionals (me) creep around. So, first of all, we should encourage strong and promising work. This is a strong and promising image. Second, comparisons to Cartier-Bresson, etc., etc., are not only boring, they reflect poorly upon the critic who both a) can't come up with a more incisive critique and b) doubtless isn't in that league himself.

 

So back to the picture: regardless it's aesthetic provenance, conscious or not, the photographer made an effort, he balanced the composition smartly, used light and shadow effectively and produced a de facto pleasing image. It's not groundbreaking. But it's a very good effort and that deserves recognition. And that's all we really need to think about.

 

And then there's this: what a popular image! This shot has remained in the "top ten," more or less, since upload. People *like* it.

 

As for the glare: I think it's a bit unfair to critique some aspects of lighting too harshly, given the nature of scans. An examples -- two scans, a brief period of time apart. Both scanned at 72dpi. Both with contrast adjust in photoshop, neither anywhere close to the original:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=756357

 

and

 

http://www.photo.net/general-comments/image-attachment?comment_id=431947&return_url=%2fphotodb%2fphoto%3fphoto%5fid%3d756357

 

Anyway, kudos to the photographer for a strong, appealing image.

Indeed a cliche image, "tried and trite", well said. This high contrast lineal composition appealed to me when I first saw one of Rene Burri's photos taken in the Summer Palace, Beijing. Then my interest in them wears away after having seen dozens and dozens more, similar concept with albeit different executions. The slanted shooting angle seems more contrived, some may call interesting, to me, compared with the one by Guarionex. That's my construction of Mr. Thacher's comment "it is the photographer, his head swimming with the tried and trite, who came the way of the chair." Contrived doesn't seem to count toward creative, not even in an otherwise fairly banal image.

FWIW, I strongly prefer the Guarionex image. More chairs in a less formal arrangement results in much more to hold my interest. Unfortunately, I don't find the POW nearly as interesting.

 

However, that's not to say that I have a problem with contrived shots. Just about everything I shoot is contrived, but I still enjoy shooting it. I know I am no exception in that regard; most of the shots here at photo.net are derived from or inspired by someone else's work.

 

Also, I am not saying I dislike the shot. I like most graphic shots, and the POW is no exception. Too bad the Guarionex image had to be shown, though -- it spoils me for this one.

I have shot this subject several times in recent years and will probably shoot it again. I think this is a good example of how to shoot this. The irregularity of the stones adds to the rhythmic symmetry of the chair. This may not be hugely original, but a lot of good pictures aren't. What counts is that Ricardo made a good rendition of this subject.

Its one of those I wish I had taken. The lines on the floor are of the same character as the chair. It may not be original, but it is beautiful and well crafted. There are all sorts of qualities of light in it, you camn look at it again and again and spot something more each time. Keep em coming!

Yet another example of the ongoing lack of artistic discernment on the part of the editors. One would hope that an entry in a photo contest for a botanical garden would at least attempt to add some botanical interest, but the complete opposite-- a harsh line study of stone and steel-- completely loses the point of the contest, doesn't it? The image itself is visually interesting, not at all original (what is these days?) but could have been a lot more compelling with some creativity added beyond standing on a chair to take the photo. Perhaps the bare feet and shins of a model standing in the upper left corner, even with a flower or flowers just visible in lowered hand, with only the skin and flowers in color? There is so much that could have been done but wasn't.

I took the liberty of viewing this POW as a chance to look at the artist's portfolio before passing judgement on this picture. The artist is definitely experimental and enjoying taking pictures and I enjoy the results.

 

This picture is a great exploration into BW with hard lighting and regular/irregular geometry. I think it shows a good eye for putting together a pleasing pattern, whether or not he has previously studied the classic works mentioned above.

I view that similar to cliche landscape shots. Why not take your own picture of el cap? Just because something isn't completely original doesn't mean that we, as photographers, shouldn't try to get our own interpretation of it.

 

Granted, as some of you have mentioned, there might be a 'higher standard' for POW, but this IS a learning website and so I think it is instructive to include illustrative photos even if they happen to be unoriginal.

 

Cheers,

Regas

I think this photo is overrated, rating wise, but also believe the harsh criticism is underserved. True, it wouldn't be my pick for a POW, but that doesn't make it a bad photo.

 

Strong points are the form of the chair, it's silhouette and the mosaic on the ground. But I also see some weak points. The outline of the silhouette is partly hidden by the chair - a lower viewpoint would fix this. Also, the silhouette is almost as strong as the chair itself - blurring together the chair and it's shadow. Again, a lower viewpoint would improve this situation, but I would have preferred a weaker silhouette. Finally, the jumble of lines that come together around the chair - chair, silhouette and cracked ground mosaic, make for a messy subject. Moving the chair over one of the nice, big flat areas, like the one just to the left of the chair, would improve this situation.

Regardless of whether this is tried and trite, it is still pleasing and simplistic to the eye. The ground surface is complex, however to my eye does not detract from the chair or its shadow. It's well done, regardless of how many have been made in the past.