smokin-0798 ---(for John Galyon)

Moderator note: Just a reminder that the POW is a critique-only forum. Notes of congratulations or "I like it" or "I don't like it" should be accompanied by an actual well thought out critique please. As the guidelines state - short negative or short congratulatory remarks that are not backed up with some description of why the image works or does not work - will be removed. This is because the POW is a learning forum. Though some comments will be seen that are of that nature prior to obtaining POW status - they will not be in the archived version of the POW. Thanks ;-)

I find the full frame, un-enhanced from the camera version the best of all. Much better than the close-up in POW. It is somehow more convincing, more real, not so overworked as was said above and therefore more valuable for me in this type of photograph. The background with its light/shadow contrast is IMHO necessary and the color cast is also better (the POW seems to be too reddish). On the other hand the close-up for POW has more initial ("disgusting") impact for viewer and could be used in some anti-smoking campain.

The right side is a little over-burned, isn't it. You are right. Lucky for all of us, this photo was not intended to save the whales, cure cancer, or stop global warming, so we shouldn't lose any sleep over it, and I, for one, am not too concerned.

 

Cropping it to a 625x500 pixel format for photonet, the right corner felt too light to me. There is no detail in that brightness, it's all burned out. As I pondered my options, it seemed that toning it down was a go-for-broke proposition and I elected the full vignette effect, aiming for an increase in drama and impact, thereby making this a wee bit of a departure from my usually more subtle work. Photonet, after all, pushes us all towards higher impact images because, admit it, who has time to spend more than a few seconds on any one photo when there are a million more just waiting to be seen.

 

Honestly, I appreciate all those who have pointed out its overworked nature, but I still think it would look wonderful hanging in your den, near your computer, or in your bedroom. Trust me.

Nothing. I like this latest iteration far better than the others. The blue reads more clearly (at least on my monitor), the red triangle now actually reads as a neck and the red from the cigar rounds out the balance of these prominent elements. What I found intriguing initially besides the focus on the burning cigar was the black hole surrounded by a uniform, yet textured, smoke which obscures the subject, yet doesn't prevent us from defining it. Most smoke portraits that I've seen tend to be elements that support the more dominant portrait. This was obviously never intended to be read that way, and to force it into that more common presentation is to commit the worst possible fault in interpreting a photograph or any other art, for that matter - If it were mine, this is what I would have done.

 

It ain't yours, and any advice should be in the context of making every effort to determine what the maker intended.

What works in this photo for me has nothing to do with execution, but with the mood it evokes. When I first saw the photo, I thought it was a picture of the famous "Tony Soprano." The photo evokes a sense of seedy backroom dealings, unsavory acts, etc., and can be applicable to mobsters, politicians,... I can't get beyond the feeling of "what are these characters up to now?" to suggest slight darkening here or cropping there. I think I would have liked to see a bit of the "associates" in the image, but them Doug would have to kill me. Great shot!

Interesting study which reminds me of Rene Magritte's "State of Grace" (the bicycle and the cigar).

Also it reminds me of Bach's famous poem "Edifying Thoughts of a Tobacco Smoker".

Here I'll quote from the book of Douglas Hofstadter: "Goedel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid": "...Thus over my pipe, in contemplation of such thing, I can constantly indulge in fruitful meditation, and so, puffing contentedly, on land, on sea, at home, abroad, I smoke my pipe and worship God."

 

I think it misses artistic expression because this photo is about an ordinary day. It misses more light infront, and the light from the floor has overexposed the right side. It would be nice without it. ISO 400 is fine.

I must say here that when I was working on mine self-portrait, I was prepairing it for a couple of weeks, using a natural source of light from the right side, playing with shadows in a high key tones. Have a look on my PN site.

Hey Doug, congrats on the DD. This might just be the best damn self portrait I've ever seen.

 

I do like the mood it shows and it gives me an idea of what your like. Blurry, cloudy and on fire.

 

Nice image man.

I enjoyed your comentary on cropping, and am glad you did crop it down, and feel the way you do about such things. I almost stated in my original comments that the cropping is about the only thing I liked about the photo. Having heard from you and a number of other good photographers, I guess I should have toned dowm my displeasure of this image. Maybe I will hang you in my family room after all. Well, maybe not... Actually the colors in the final image just above improve the photograph in my estimation.

 

Willie the Cropper

Fool that I am, I do prefer the uncropped version, (but darkened, maybe) mainly because of the space and the background which adds a rather startling effect to the image.

 

And, BTW, I was a TV studio cameraman for several years, and I had to learn how to compose within a specific frame, nothing else was possible. It carried over to using 35mm cameras, as it was during that time that I began to photograph.

Atta boy, Ian. Stick to your guns. I sometimes feel sorry for movie makers when faced with a vertical shot while shooting in that movie theater widescreen format. Sometimes 3/4's of the screen is wasted. Great comments. Thanks to everyone.

Hi Doug. Congrats with POW on your photo. I like it indeed (very atmospheric and earthy), but really I prefer this one . It's kinda 'Naughty-Nicholson-Like'. Some pictures are not easy to describe or verbalise the interpretation, or express the feelings evoked. That's so often why we use visual imagery to speak .... this series does it so well. No words or explanations necessary (as so many of your pictures they speak for themselves). No way intended to be a cop-out I assure you.....

I bet you never imagined landing a POW with this picture. Of course it's the perfect self-portrait, you show what you want us to see, no more, no less, success. It's ridiculous to point out any technical detaility or to give you a tip to look at someone else's portrait work. I enjoyed the discussion.

Came late to that photo of yours Doug. It is an unusual presentation of a self portrait.The smoke gives half of the face a kind of deformation, while the other half gives a clue of how you look( not shaved....or bearded)the only eye available is closed , so no clue of youre gaze. The focal point is the cigar, heavy smoke and two red spots. It looks like a good camouflage of yourself.

Doug, it seems to me that the idea behind this shot is good, but the execution is unsuccessful. I appreciate the difficulties of execution and the time you took to explain them, but ultimately this shot does not work for me; it's not the crop, the red triangle on the throat, or even the light. It's just that the combination of elements is not balanced to produce what one might broadly describe as an 'aesthetically pleasing' image.

 

Of course, this is a contentious meter of judgement; aesthetic taste is culture dependant and this is a site, which embraces the work and views of people across the globe, but clearly most of us share a sense of what is aesthetically pleasing or else no one image, would ever reach world-wide appreciation, and many do.

 

I agree with you that mood may legitimately come at the expense of detail, but the two are far from mutually exclusively; indeed countless images establish mood through detail. Conversely, this picture seems to fail to establish a mood despite using that most evocative of elements: smoke.

 

Lennie argues that the photograph is "a curious kind of artistic creation, perhaps even anti-artistic in the sense of its repudiation of the usual criteria for what makes good photography" and reminds us to consider it in the context of your humorous take. Certainly much good art, photographic and other, is based on the up turning of expectations, but I don't see anything in this photo that indicates that you've deliberately subverted certain criteria.

 

For Kristina "it misses artistic expression because this photo is about an ordinary day" yet turning the ordinary into the extraordinary is perhaps art's greatest calling.

 

I hope you'll permit me to close on a humorous note. The picture does not work for me, but it does help me make sense of some of your most daring interpretative efforts (E.g. lately, "this photograph makes the horse look stupid"!) Only joking of course! I love some of your other shots, and always enjoy your comments. Thanks for sharing.

Belated thanks to Pnina, Andrea and G. Thanks for commenting.

 

Edmond, your observations are interesting. Thanks for posting them as they will certainly spur me on to better works in the future.

 

I wonder, though, if I could challenge you to give me a better sense of your experience by rating the photograph's lack of successful execution, perhaps on a scale of one to ten. I'm not trying to dismiss your rationale, nor am I asking for a photonet rating on aesthetics and originality, rather, for the sake of perspective, I'm trying to pinpoint your sense of how far it's fallen short. Do you see it as a complete flop? or did it just miss by a little bit?

 

And then, would you be able to suggest where those areas of failure might be improved upon? Do you think it needs more illuminated shadows, for example? Or more (or less) sharpness, etc.

 

Again, just trying to fully understand your frame of reference.

 

But first, I wonder, Lannie, if you could expand on what you meant by "repudiation of the usual criteria" and then, Edmund, if you could follow that with how you feel those criteria were NOT subverted. I'm wondering how far apart our standards are, and if we're talking about the same things.

 

Shortly after making the "stupid horse" comment, I went out photographing cows, finding one in particular who shares a paddock with a brown horse. I discovered rather quickly that it was not at all difficult to make my own stupid horse shot, inspired, but not as creative, as Christopher Pethick's POW of July 9th.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply Doug. You are absolutely right in wanting to establish a rationale unit; yet I am loathe to giving any picture a mark - on whatever scale - because I think that whilst you can rate tangible aspects - such as exposure, or even composition - the total is more than the sum of its parts. (Thus, the typical long arguments generated by images which are technically faultless, but somehow miss the mark.)

 

I also feel that number ratings smack a little of that critical sin that Carl above, describes as "if this were my picture, I would have done this". Carl is right, that's as blunt a critical measure as one can apply.

 

What I was suggesting in my original comments is that the picture as a whole does not work for me at an aesthetic level. However, I can see that for the sake of furthering this argument, clearer parameters need to be established. I can't bring myself to quantify this in mumbers, but I'll try to pinpoint what does not work for me in this picture.

 

I think what breaks the potential magic in this image is the texture of the wall behind you, and the fleece on the right. Those textures seem to break the atmosphere established by the swirl of the smoke. I don't have a problem with the face covering the smoke more, or less; as I said, I think the idea is good and it could work as a portrait very effectively, perhaps precisely because it might suggest a blurring between projected and perceived self, something which I think you touched upon somewhere in the discussion.

 

The light bouncing off the wall is distracting but the light would probably work if you had a black background. Then the light would be only on your face; at the moment, the wall is almost the brightest area in the image, thus the eye is irresistably drawn to it. But you, or the atmosphere, is the subject - so you might say that the execution betrays the aim. I think black might also strengthen the hazy, den-like atmosphere. It might even introduce a slightly menacing note, but would that be inappropiate?

 

Black would 'push' the key elements forward - the spliff would burn brighter and considering the size of it, indeed it deserves almost centre stage. All joking aside - how you would ensure that the 'suspension of disbelief' is not broken by the wall, or other is up to you. What I mean is that 'execution' is part of the creative process, not a separate 'filter' to be applied after you've crafted the image in your mind. That's why I feel uncomfortable giving you 'pointers'! But I hope this has put a little more meat on the skeleton of my comments.

Too bad... Not the picture, no... Just too bad I completely missed this picture as well as this entire POW discussion... Still no time to read this discussion, but I will - as soon as I can... As for my first impression, I like this picture. I don't think it's an easy thing to achieve. It's probably not perfect, and I guess I'd like to see an eye somewhere perhaps - although that's of course not a must... On the other hand, I think perfection is not what such pictures are about anyway... It's mostly about the mood, imo. It works ok, here. I'll read all the above and will think about possible ways to streghten the mood for this picture, and will get back to you after that - in a few weeks, I guess. Good to see you are still around...

For Edmond Besan.

I like how you replenished me. Turning an ordinary into an extraordinary is achievement in the work of art.

 

How to strenghten the mood here: To take selfportrait near the window in a way that Doug's face is looking through the window. The cigar smoke would be more pleasent if it would pour forth in a less quantity. The cigar should be placed between the fingers. In that way the gentle mood will create a manful expression.

Thanks, Edmond, it has. I appreciate what you've said and it has clarified my understanding of your thoughts. Criticizing an image without sounding like you hate it is a fine art.

 

The walls basic function is to provide separation from the background. Other than that, we might consider it a non-contributor. I agree with you that it would have been better if it were darker, but I wonder if black might be going too much in the dark direction with respect for the lighting: with essentially one light source, the whole left side of the photograph would disappear. But, your point is taken: if everything else remained the same, a darker wall would have helped. It certainly might have prevented that heavy burning on the right, at any rate. Perhaps if I had twisted the lamp a bit to get it off the wall? Or moved forward a bit, couch and all, and then twisted the light. These ideas would have complicated the shooting, but I do agree they would contributed to a more positive visual effect.

 

I?m sure everyone would agree that all such messing around, correcting this or that, would have produced a more "perfect" image. Refining the light, refining the background--yes, the result would be better, but I wonder when, where, or if, it would become so dissimilar to the above effort that it would be too different of a picture, having lost some unquantifiable portion of its character? This shot is messy, and that's part of its appeal, I think, at least to some. It's not quite a portrait as it is a statement, perhaps, and we might be trying to examine it under the light of standard portraiture. Maybe this is what Lannie was hinting at.

 

I agree this shot could have been executed more professionally, with better lighting, better attention to detail, composition and environment, but that would have been impossible, given the circumstances of its creation. To better the light it would have required lights, strobes, stands. To perfect the background, furniture would have to have been moved, background material suspended from the ceiling, etc. I don?t normally think of myself as a journalist, but there is a strong journalistic aspect to the photograph that might disappear with too much improvement.

 

I understand what you are saying, though, that in a perfect photo world, all these points would be in place: the wall would have been the correct zone of gray, the light would have been just right, etc. Obviously, there is a point where the academic discussion of a photograph has to yield to the actual field conditions at hand and we have to accept what we have as our best effort given the circumstances. Whether that results works for us as individuals is another matter. You?re saying this result doesn?t work for you, which is ok because there are many ways to make manful expressions, are there not? I, too, am unhappy with parts of it, but am still glad I made the effort to capture it nonetheless. I wish I were more often so adventurous with my camerawork.

is that the gas chamber? :)

I don't get this picture, sorry

wow, people have written a lot about this. first of all, i didn't take the time to read every word of it but i noticed a lot of people just being real asses. i think people should put a little bit more effort into thinking about the way they say stuff. you dont have to be rude just to say you dont like a photo, or that you would do something differently in it. or maybe i'm just interpreting it all wrong from everybody.

 

anyway, i like this photo. i think most of the people that responded negatively to this are just over analizing it and cant appreciate it for what it is.

 

i'd also like to add (for the people complaining that the smoke covers too much of the face) that i think the smoke acts nicely as a mask sort of. it adds to the mystery of the shot. you see that there is a man smoking a cigar(or blunt?) but you dont see who the man is. is it your boss? is it tommy chong? you dont really know.

 

i often pack up a blunt (or joint, or hookah) along with my camera when i'm goin on a hike up in the mountains or something. its a nice way to stroll through nature. you should try getting some good shots of smoke outdoors. i think its something i'll try a little harder at now.

Hi again, Doug. Back on this page - after finally reading this thread... A very interesting page... I loved this post of yours: "Yes, the result is messy, but that's because my life is messy, and therefore the picture is a success. Not all of us ride around in suits of gleaming armor, even in our imaginations.

I also loved to read Ian McEachern's posts - as usual, so straight to the main point, and all so true.

 

My personal opinion: I think this picture has grown on me since the first time I saw it, meaning I like it much more now, after seeing the different variations you posted here. I can say that I am certain this particular frame was the best within the series posted on this page, but I do agree both with Carl Root and Ian McEachern, I think. Meaning: the POW was quite clearly over-processed, mostly on the background. I don't quite like the overdone colors of the POWed version. I like the colors of the original raw file, like Ian. I also understand why Ian likes the horizontal, uncropped frame, and I think I can explain why: because it shows the arms falling the lower side of the pic, whereby the arms appear over-extended all around due to pose and distortion. For me, these arms suggest the man is ruling the entire world. His clouded face suggests he's not a healthy man - may even be a gangster or such. So I end up with a gangsta rap buddy ruling the world - which is very scary !! :-) So, the original format and framing was indeed great, but technically, I really have a problem with the very white area at right... So, what to do...? To each his own belief...

 

On the other hand, I also like the cropped version that Carl prefered. I think it's very different. I mean: it FEELS VERY DIFFERENT. First, the technically problematic area at right is now gone - good ridance ! But I feel this is now more about the man's INVISIBILITY. He's ruling a bit less because he lost his arms...:-) Works fine, I think.

 

Best clouds to you and say hi to your lungs for me.

hate the watermark. the rest is really cool

Sorry about that, Dan. It sucks for me, too.