Dancing Girl

Body heat does not contribute to the exposure of infrared film.

I am of a like mind with Frank May "i like the photo. i think a photography does not need to be technically perfect to be a good photo. atmosphere, the right moment, composition and a very human attitude of the photographer give much more to a photo than technical perfection."

I do have some compositional criticisms concerning the lack of body language inside the photographer's frame. The movement of a dancer's hands are like a melody playing on the body's expressions of rythm. And to omit the legs from a picture that is supposed to illustrate dancing, just ain't right.

The photographer has been distracted from her larger possibilities as an archetypal image of a dancer. This archetype is what the photo.net curator wants us to find in this image, but it's really an adequate picture of a beautiful woman, in good light, dressed in an alluring manner... t

Well, I am not native english spocker, but french, I will try to make myself clear enough.

First, The photo by itself, the first impression is a good one, for the first time since I am here on that site (nearly 10 days), I see a 'natural' shot, by natural, I mean a shot expressing sensation and felling (opposite to cold perfection). I feel intime with the model in the photo who is dancing, the black and white is a perfect choice here as it drives more feeling, sensations, drama... I know that the hand is croped, also that the left harm is dodge, but it is ok, because it drives more feelings, you cannot concentrate on the picture by itself but on the sensation, also the grain here is really apropriate, because it contribute to give life to that shot.

Second, the question, I do think that, as far as I am able to give comments, is 100% ok, Because it is written :"well communicates the world-within-a-world feeling of dancing".

• "Communicates" yes, because of the black and white, the grain, the exposure...

• "world within a world" even more yes, because the model looks like she was in HER world, but there are a lot of people around her, I think that it describe very well the sensation of dancing, because when you dance (supposed that you dance) you create a world inside your mind and body, you let you driven by the music and you create something on your own. But you are still part of the world, the world of the other, that shot is good in the way it express that feeling in a perfect way... Like the shot of George Fueredi, which describe well the sensation of being a man, alone in the middle of a race...

Well, I want to thanks A Kochanowski for that shot, I hope I could make one like this one day ;-) congratulation for the POW !

I think grain is a matter of taste. To me, grain often gives a photojournalistic or artistic feel to a photo. I happen to love grainy film and will often use 3200 film to create a mood and artsy effect. Some people love it - and some hate it. These days - it is often used in up-scale commercial books (fashion, art, food, home) and is often sepia-toned. In this image I think it works -- except for the area above the hip which seems a bit blotchy.

Compositionally I have a problem with the image due to the hands being cut off. I'd have pulled back a bit to include her hands - especially as she is dancing and hands should be a part of the movement. I also find the blown out area on the floor to be distracting. Perhaps waiting for her to move to a better spot would have been in order. I do, however, like the lighting on her hair.

There is a mood here that for me has been captured effectively. Introspective - involved and somewhat sensous. Would I say it is one of the best images I ever saw? No -- but it has something compelling that moved me enough to comment and I have a feeling it is one of those images that will grow on me. Interesting image and worthy of discussion.

As I view the photograph more, I like it more. It breaks a few "rules" and defies some expectations, and it works. It is true to the street shooting aesthetic, has a spontatneous feeling and captures the moment. It's a staight ahead photo, and for me, a welcome relief to some of the recent tarted up studio shots. This is more of what I find great about photography, and it's nice to see it as POW.

First, just a final not anout the model release issue...

The important part of what Brian wrote above is the end of his paragraph: "in connection with editorial content that is of public interest". What was NOT of public interest is what ever connection was made, as far as I understand English, with drugs. It is NOT of public interest to write that a person takes drug and to show her face. I have worked long enough with SIPA to know where exactly is the limit. Showing somebody dancing - except indeed for commercial use - certainly needs no model release. But it becomes a totally different story if the words commenting on the picture infer that the person is on drugs. Then it becomes a violation of somebody's privacy and a defamation. Now that Brian edited the comment, this page is legal.

As for the picture itself, Imo, this one serves as an example of what I feel should never become a POW.

1) The dancer is indeed in her own world. Do we see what this world looks like ? No. Her eyes are absent. No legs, cropped hands. What's left ? A movement ? Not really. Rather a frozen pose that happens to suggest strictly nothing to me. Great pictures of dancers in action can be heard and can be felt. This one might have 5% of that required energy, as far as my heart can tell.

The composition makes me feel that we are looking at a cuttlefish with cropped tentacules... Basically, the essence of a movement is what moves - hands and legs mostly in this case. And it's all gone.

2) Technique: Does IR work for this kind of shot ? Well, imo, not unless you are really smart with the usage you make of the film. Blown and diffused highlights here are a real problem to me, simply because they are not at all in harmony with the action presented.

Basically, nothing wrong with technically "imperfect" pictures at all. But aesthetics, to me, is the art of matching the form with the content, and this is in that sense a complete failure in my view. The essence of a movement isn't a grainy IR glow. The essence of an inner world isn't an ombilic. And if there is no window for us to see what her little world looks like, how are we to ever enter this world and to FEEL anything. If you ask me, this is the coldest dance picture I have seen in a long time... I feel no energy and no rythm at all, and I hear no music, and I don't know who she is or what she may feel.

This is not POW quality, because:

Traditional techniques include spotting!Traditional techniques utilize the correct film/exposure for the subject!Traditional techniques include a real composition!

This is not a horrible Photo.net photo (4/4 or 4/5?), but it certainly isn't worthy of POW. The composition isn't good--chopped off arms and legs don't dance well. If this is supposed to depict a drug induced, sensual, self-absorbed dance, it fails. I think we've all witnessed this type of state (or perhaps we've been there) at music events, where someone has ingested just the right chemicals and is in just the right emotional state to become lost in the music. This photo just doesn't succeed in showing that very well.

 

The nose ring is a problem--the infrared does make it look snotty. Also the overall lighting isn't good. No eyes, hot arm: dodging and burning may have helped, but probably would improve it tremendously.

 

A. Kochanowski has better photos in his/her portfolio (yes, this is said about every week). One can see why the photo was taken: attractive girl, interesting situation. However, this was an unfortunate POW choice--it's not the type of shot that's going to engender much interesting discussion, nor is it good enough to warrant our attention for seven days. And worst of all, the photo's selection will subject the photographer more criticism than he/she desires.

I like the shot in its essence, it captures an interesting moment and she has an interesting (to me) expression on her face, nic pics aside. Sometimes good, even great photographs, even famous ones are not perfect "fine art" photographs. I think this is a good photo. As to the question Andrew initially asked about use of infared. I would say it doesn't show infared to its best as there is not a lot of halation going on in this type of scene and all that translates through is the grain. Its basically a mismatch marrying the film to this kind of picture,you just don't take advantage of the film. Nonetheless, I kinda like the sort of "sloppy" look it gives, but its an expensive technique eh? What about 12 bucks a roll? Also, it tends to neutralize the wonderful resolving power of your Sonner.

I suppose all this discussion centers around differeing opinions on this photo and POWs should look. So much for originality. Congratualtions Andy on trying something different and making it work. The film choice gives it different tonal characteristics than are traditionally associated with street scenes.

In my first foray into photo of the week discussion, I hope my comments won't be deleted or that I'll become some sort of sacrifice chicken. I feel that people who discuss why this or any photo isn't photo of the week material are essentially commiting what my italian friends call mental masturbation...there is no point to the discussion, the photo is where it is, and instead of bitching about it, just talk about the photo itself, and not its greater place in the world. I'm sure there's some of you who would take some of the greatest works of Rembrandt or Rothko and say they're not good enough for the Met or Louvre.....Let's discuss the work itself, and don't mud sling at the photographer! Also, the discussion of why the photo now sucks because there are no hands or that there are some "snot-bubbles" seems a little childish to me.... Have you thought of the fact that the photographer may have only been able to take such a photo because of the absence of a zoom lens? When one shoots quickly, one commits mistakes that can sometimes make the photo better, sometimes worse...now let's discuss it in that vein maybe? Anyway, my three and a half cents.... I like the photo....

Lawrence

I haven't seen any mud slinging at the photographer here, just thoughts and opinions on this particular piece of work, and BTW, offering up negative opinions does not constitute mud slinging.

 

Why does pointing out flaws (cropped off hands and the thing under her nose) seem childish? what woul more legitimate criticisms be?

 

The absence of a zoom lens? So all he had was a prime? Then move your feet to frame, don't be lazy and and rely on a zoom lens to do your framing for you.

 

Yes, when someone shoots quickly, mistakes can be made, but should they be ignored because he was shooting quickly? that doesn't make too much sense.

 

Thanks for the 3 1/2 cents.

Maybe I wasn't clear, I appologize for that...negative opinions are not what I'm trying to avoid, rather if one has a negative opinion, then that opinion should (like a positive one, etc.) be well-founded, with some thorough explanation....when someone criticises me without explaining, I can't learn from the critiscism....pointing out flaws is not a problem, rather not understanding or ignoring that those "flaws" may be intended is childish...if the photographer had shown the woman's feet, then she would be too small in the frame, and people would be bitching about that as well...I also don't think he was being lazy with his feet, rather that he only had a second to shoot, and that's just how it came out of the camera....I won't add too much text to this discussion, other people should have room to speak..Lawrence

"Well communicates the world-within-a-world feeling of

dancing."

 

I'm not seeing it. If the photographer hadn't mentioned it was

shot at a music festival, the model could just as well be

communicating the "world-within-a-world feeling of making sure

ones shoe is not untied". However, I learned something from

this POW (especially the ensuing intellectual food fight) as I do

from virtually everything on this site and the people that make it

work.

I like some of this photographer's photos, but this strikes me as pretty average. Dancing? If the title wasn't there, I'd sooner have thought she just dropped her cellphone on the ground and was looking for it.

 

The people in the background aren't dancing. Nobody around her is. Between the ambiguous surroundings and the tight framing, all I really get from this is that she's reasonably calm and content. No indication that she's moving much or that there's music inside or out.

 

The subject is photogenic, and the shot was competently taken, so I guess it would be an okay snap for local news coverage of the event, but i don't see more than that.

 

And technically, apart from saying the tonal range is fine and the composition is balanced and pleasing to the eye, what else is there to say about a low-quality, splotchy JPEG like this? A lot of the tonal subtlety that obviously made it to film got obliterated.

It's a fine picture, but POW? It would be a good picture as part of a series, but as a stand alone stunner? It's a little unusual in that it's taken with IR film and it works, something which I haven't tried.

I don't mean to knock Mr Kochanowski, as it is a fine picture, but at the end of the day, I think POW has gradually gone to the dogs.

 

Hey, the only good thing I can say now about POW is that I'm now in with a real chance of winning it. Oh dear.

I don't like the choice of IR film. Where's the point? You can havwe almost the same result with a 3200 film...

 

However I do like this street-photo by itself. Yes we doo se this girl is dancing and does not care if she is being photographed. And once again, yes we do see the grain which is just distracting.

 

Maybe if I just could see a little more background?

I concur with the majority of the comments already posted about this photo.

Without explanation the picture means very little and not a lot more after learning she is dancing. If she was looking up so to see her eyes it may have been a decent portrait.

wow, i am a new member to photo.net, initially excited about posting my work and getting feedback from people who are passionate about photography, like myself.but after reading the many snobbish and just plain rude postings re: kochanowski's "dancing girl" i now feel quite reticent to submit.

 

while the picture has it's less than stellar elements, calling it a "loser" picture (and who uses a term like snot-bubbles anyway?) fails to acknowledge that art is completely subjective and stamping it with a label like that does nothing to communicate to the photographer what he or she might do next time to create a more universal appeal -- if that is even what the photographer wants to do. there is nothing wrong with art being personal. someone somewhere will be able to connect with it.

 

i appreciate this shot for a couple of specific reasons. first, being an ex-raver, i feel the cropping in this picture works to communicate the way i would go inside myself when i was dancing -- being in a smaller place. second, the way people dance to electronic music varies greatly, and this girl appears to me to be in a meditative state, moving slowly and deliberately. the position of her arms and the angle of her head suggests this to me.lastly, i agree with some of the people who have said that grain is a personal preference. in this shot the grainy-ness of the shot falls in line with the dreamlike state of the dancer, slightly out of focus and floaty.

Photography itself is grain whether are shot In IR or not. So all the elements are there. Great Picture.

Wow.. I love this photo!

People had complaints about the grain, but I think it really adds

to the whole effect of the picture. Hand positions? Feels good to me.

This picture might not be technically perfect (the white glare at the

low right...) but the "feel" is really good imho.

It's a nice photograph, but my first thought was "She's dancing? I thought she was looking for something she dropped on the ground."

 

Looks a bit too static for me. Sorry.

 

BTW I'm not commenting like this because of it being the choice of POW and "sourgrapes." I just think that much of the artist's work is superior to this shot, although it is a nice shot.

 

Have a great day, don't take anything I said personally. :(

One of many fine photos in your portfolio. Congratulations. Glad to see your work getting some proper recognition.

Long strand. Lotsa passion. So in that way it's a successful Pic of the Week. I agree that it's a waste of time to go down the "Why Was This Selected?" avenue. Also, I think, ironically, it might have been better received without a title. There'd have been a whole sidebar on what the girl was doing/thinking/smoking; because it isn't abundantly clear that she's dancing.

Certainly the photo succeeds in showing a self absorbed young person feeling the "vibes." Although on a subjective level I don't like the grainy texture or the over-exposed arm, those characteristics contribute to the photo's feeling of being a hastily caught intrusion upon the girl's private space. Whatever else we feel about the photo it succeeds on those important levels and has stimulated and excellent and spirited discussion. It also succeeds in being an excellent subject for debate!

First of all, as a relative beginner I find photo.net's gallery an extremely valuable learning resource and one of its best feature. In general, I tend to agree with the rating system.

WRT this week's POW, I immediately noticed something missing from the composition to let the viewer know that the subject is dancing. My question is how would one improve this picture? Wide cropping to include arms&legs? Including more dancing people in the background?

Aside from the above comment, I think the picture has successfully captured the woman in her trancy state, something I have observed but yet able to record. Congrat.