Dancing Girl

I think the photographer is actually quite talented. There are *much* better photographs in the portfolio. Seems like anything taken with real b&w gets 100 additional points :)

First, I disagree with the complaint that this photo lacks any kinetic quality. The woman's left arm and left leg jut outward and upward in a way that unifies and animates the composition. I would like the leg to be a little more distinct, but whatever, it still works.

 

I suspect that the POW selection process has changed. Previously, the winner was generally a picture that demonstrated a lot of labor --the kinds of images that, at a glance, you imagined the setting up of studio lights, the hiking up to some remote place with a view camera, or the hours hunched over a Photoshop terminal. I think the selections were done that way to generate a more uniform response, i.e. who can fault an image that shows such commitment by the photographer (even if it is yet another boring picture of El Capitan or an apparent outtake from an advertising shoot). Recently, though, POWs have been more modest pictures that depend more on the viewer's own tastes and preferences. So of course people who don't like it, and/or those who demand the "labor," get all offended.

 

Personally, I think the new selection process is better (and I suspect it's now one elf instead of a committee). I like to think one can make meaningful pictures without a ton of effort, technical know-how, expense, etc. I like to think I can make meaningful images even if I don't expose the negative perfectly or buy a Leica or whatever. Anyhow, to me this photo represents a variation on what "good" photography can be, so I'm glad it was picked as POW.

I thought it was interesting, caught my attention. -- as a side thought however I think I will be forever discouraged from entering a photo here. No matter what, they really get picked apart.

I see my previous comment has been deleted.I think I have said nothing offensive to the photographer. I only said that I often came to this page sure to find the best photos of the site that could inspire me. I wrote that to me this is like a lot of other snapshots everyone could take.If not for the beautiful girl portraited think nobody would look at it twice. The background is blurred, one can not understand what is happening. No intersting expression on the girl's face to allow us to understand her feelings, no movement to justify the title. I said this photo was not POW worthy.

Moderator comment: All are entitled to their "opinions" and that is not why it was deleted. At least here you have expanded your thought and toned down the complaint about the "pick". In your first post, you made only one comment related to the photograph...which was that it was a bad snapshot or something like that. The rest of your comment was rantings about the POW choice. While this forum is now expanded to allow more off-topic discussions that are inspired by the photograph -It is not a complaint department. Direct your complaints to administration or start a thread in an appropriate forum. Please respect the right of any elf, or any member to disagree. With the varied tastes on this site - I promise you - it is normal for some to think this image deserves POW status and others do not. Harsh, blunt and nasty complaining comments will be edited or deleted. "Constructive negative observations or positive observations are always welcome".

Thanks to the photographer for stepping in and answering a few questions about the photo's technical details. I think your analogy about law school was apropos.

 

Also, Samuel Dilworth's critique/defense of the photo seems reasonable enough, even if I don't agree with him. He's articulated what many other supporters of the photo have been trying to say. Like him, I think the first title, with its dual meaning, works better for this.

Andy,

 

It doesn't appear you took any offense, but for the benefit of some of the other posters, just wanted to clarify that my "snot-bubble" reference was not in any manner meant as a slam on the photographer. As the father of three, I see a lot of kids television, and I must have seen something recently that put the reference fresh in my mind. I was well aware the "bubble" was a nose ring(s), and my insult was really directed toward the subject, as I find nose rings totally ridiculous looking (though I wore a symbolic one myself for years when I was married). If the girl could see herself in this photo, she might reconsider her choice of accessories.

 

Merely defending my choice of terms here, not trying to digress to a conversation on the merits of body-piercing (though it might be fun - the conversation, not the piercing).

 

Bill

I am not a big expert, and probably it is a matter of taste, anyway I think this POW is not a great shot. My concern is on the posure and expression - the girl does not say much to me. And IMHO this shot would be better if the left hand and the right arm were not left out.

I know american photo style is VERY different from european ( i'm european, portuguese ). I know that my opinion can be different from everybody, and opinions must be respected. But i have serious doubts about about this particular picture. With all respect for the photographer this photo is very poor...

This particular forum illustrates why I spend significantly less time here than I used to. The member puts up a shot to see how others feel about it, gets afew responses, and thats that. Then lo and behold, POW. Now he is basically blasted by all those overlooked. Get over it. He himself has mentioned it isn't necessarily deserving. I remember putting up my first image here, and it immediately hit the top row of the front page and that was pretty cool. I now am hesitant to put up images, because the bitterness displayed is amazing. I've seen a ton of images overlooked and a ton of over-rated crap on the front page. Why don't you all go out and self-police the site, or come up with a new and wonderful method of choosing the POW. Be constructive for a change.

I agree 100% with Scot, Robert and others who have taken great pains to grade the actual quality of this photograph, although it should be of utmost importance to everyone, that no ones feelings are hurt in this discussion. Certainly, the photographer shouldnt be blamed and not his work too. For the eyes of an artist, everything that he creates is top level art. But I surely disagree that this photograph should be POW.

The reasons as I think;

1) the composition is inocmplete, dancing girl is not at all in any way dancing.

2) Grains on the photograph dont add to the aesthetic value of the photograph in this case

3) On the bottom right part, you can easily see the overexposed part, its white, you can hardly see the other hand

4) right hand is totally cut, so are the legs, hence the the relevance of the caption doesnt come into picture, I am afraid but the caption is way too ordinary.

5) The form of dance is not clear, nor is the pose of the model6) In any dance form, eyes play a very important role, eyes are not seen, nor are the facial expressions

I hope, I have tried in everyway to express my concerns on this topic in a constructive way. Whichever photograph is seen the most rated the most and rated the highest, take an average of that and it should automatically become the POW. I hope my voice is heard, thanks

Moderator comment: Edited the many sentances about the POW choice - controversy. As stated many times on this forum this week... Please take your "complaints" and "opinions" and start a thread if you have a problem with other's tastes. The POW is not the complaint department. Nor is it a feedback forum on photo.net policies. Please start a thread. That is where changes and ideas come from. Not here. Jay Dixon - by the way - in the comment below is exactly correct as to why "top rated" images are not the way to pick POWs.

Rajiv, that is one of the worst ways to determine POW. I think the idea of

curators has far more merit. Using the most rated or highest rated results in

much of what hits the front page regularly. We have seen how that works out.

Clique driven........

I thought she dropped something. I guess if you remove the stone lion then this guy - www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=636964 - is doing a Russian folk dance.

I will have to assume that this picture was chosen so that it would be very easy for anybody to add some constructive criticism. I think they intend this to be a learning forum, go figure. Otherwise it would be called accolades.com

I dont care about the grain but it isnt working for me one way or the other. There has to be something for it to enhance first.

I dont care if limbs are chopped off either but these are just cut off at the wrong place. There is just enough of her left hand to distract and the angle at which the right arm exits and re-enters the frame isnt distinct enough. Maybe a less oblique angle would help the termination.

Her blown out arm on the right wouldnt be a problem for me either if it werent for the equally bright background. There is nothing to set them apart.

The DOF helps but it still didnt eliminate the distracting high contrast of the background that is virtually the same as the foreground. So I guess it doesnt help since the mans black pants stand out more then her arm on the right.

Introspective? Perhaps. But in the end it is a single person portrait with no eyes. That just doesnt leave a whole lot IMO.

Kyle

This is a very provocative photo, but I guess I am dense. How does this picture convey any information to get a clue what it's all about?

If you want to see an excellent photograph by the same photographer, see: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1043630

 

The finger, "not the index or pinky or the ring or the thumb it's the one you put up When you don't give a..." is a bit camouflaged, but this is an outstanding photojournalism shot if I've ever seen one. The camouflage adds to the photograph.

 

This POW is an interesting photograph, but this other photo I reference is much better, IMO, and I respect the photographer for letting people interpret his photos as they want.

This girl is dancing? Well she could be. She also might of just dropped her ice cream cone or realized she was about to step in doggie-doo. The background subjects give no real point of reference either.

The critics that suggest they understand this photograph outside of an accompanying explanation seem to be missing a fundamental point of good photography. The inherent challenge in photography is translating a 3 dimensional sensory experience into a 2 dimensional angle of view while maintaining the spirit and inspiration that moved the photographer to raise the camera in the first place. This image got lost in that rather important translation...

Very difficult to critique this photo without being redundant of all the comments given... however, exposure is beyond latitude of film, composition doesn't communicate or enhance shot, I don't find anything interesting to hold attention, as far as artistic quality, I think it falls short, photographic style is not even evident. The positive thing is that the photographer has a wealth of information through the comments, that can be used to go out and do this type of photography more effectively...and so do I! Congratulations on POW.

Something about the cropping provides a sense of mystery. No doubt there should be more of the photograph visible, but I think the choice of a "lesser" photo has provided some invigorating discussion. Instead of looking at a near perfect photograph and comparing it to Ansel Adams, we're looking at something that's completely subjective (beauty), and aside from the detractors that are insulting photo.net and its moderators and elves, I think there are pretty strong opinions about this photograph.

 

Kudos to the staff of photo.net for picking an obviously flawed but somehow beautiful photograph for us to look over.

POW?? does that mean picked to be one of the best pictures? or just something to talk about for the week. I was supprised actually that this was shot with IR. There's nothing special about the image that would make me think... oooh etherial. It just looks like grainy slightly to heavily overexposed high speed film. Not a horrible picture, but not a horribly interesting shot...

I think that the photo would have been a better one if it was a little "larger" (excuse my english...) i mean, you should have been more able to see legs and arms but anyway i definitely like snapshots and prefere the meaning of photos rather than estetic perfection, well this is just a personal way of thinking....

 

Gabriele Lopez

If I had to summerize the reasons I see in this thread put forward by those who liked this picture, I would get the following list of reasons:

1) I like Black and white

2) I like grain

3) I like imperfect pictures

4) I like snapshot-looking pictures (just above).

5) I like pictures that break the rules

6) I like pictures that suggest something to me.

Fair enough. Those are all opinions that are allowed and make sense.

If I forgot something in this list, add a # 7, a # 8) and so on. Then please, try this. Take all these criteria, and go through photo.net and try to find a few pictures that do meet all the criteria, and that may be better than this picture. If you find such better images in the same genre, maybe add them to this thread.

I think you should find quite a number of better images in the same genre - even probably in the photographer's own portfolio.

As for "breaking rules", one needs reasons to break them. The reason never is to precisely break the rules. And honestly, I do not see here in what sense this picture breaks, nor obeys, to any rule.

Breaking rules is to replace them with new, different, and personal rules. I can't see what are these new rules in the present image. What I see is that the "normal" idea of keeping hand within the frame for example has not been applied. Fair enough - it's not a MUST... But is that a good enough reason to say that this is good ?Where's the new organization of this image ? Where is the creative part ? Just in not applying conventional rules ? Creativity is a positive thing. It negates the past only for a brighter different future in mind. Read again what the photographer himself wrote about this shot.

Look around for such pictures and you'll find plenty that convey a lot more than this one does. And such images will always be reorganized based on self-edicted rules that you will be able to trace - they will never be "rule-less". If there is no clear and traceable intention in a photograph, the message is never conveyed as strongly as it could be. Againm analyze other images if you wish to verify this opinion of mine. So much for the idea that EVERYTHING in arts is subjective. 90% of an image's appreciation are probably subjective indeed, but if you do not believe in the 10% exception, why would you ever want to improve your photography ? Improve towards which goal if there's nothing better than somrething else ?

I think that this POW is actually doing a lot more good to the site at this point than I thought it would. It seems to raise the following question: if this is great, then what isn't ?

what is IMO, IHMO, and BTW ?

please, help the non-english speakers, like the newbies...

Thank to help me...

In My Opinion, In My Humble Opinion, By The Way

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1049691

Well, yes, Scott... Here is another one... Here I'm not too keen on the colors, but imagine it in Black and white... I love the composition...

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1126187

Scott, interesting image you point to, but I would have to disagree about it being a better "dancing" image. There is an orange blur which is presumeably the dancer, but no obvious human bits! Lots of motion but the image focuses more on the musician. In the image here, despite the potential multiple interpretations of any movement, at least you can see the person and get hints of personality ... this is perhaps more of a portrait than a dance image.