Dancing Girl

I'm curious if others who shoot at public events like this. What do

you think of the choice of IR film? This was done at the Detroit

Electronic Music Festival. All comments appreciated.

I like very much photos, posed or not, that tell a history, give you something real, you get this very well in this photo. Neverheless I think that an extremely grainy film does not help you in this case. I should leave grainy films for very dramatic situations.

what instrument does she play?

I like the girl and the expression.

Yes, it is a fine portrait. But it contributes to my bewilderment at the criteria for POW choosing. Is the grain of this picture not the result of badly applied Photoshop? Is not the right hand in a awkward position? Isn't the left arm overexposed? Is the story being told so interesting that we can overview this aspects? Does the explanation given by the elves make any sense (I admit that my English is not very fluent).

You're kidding me! I like Andrew's photos but I think this is far from his best work. I'm sure even he would agree.

Oh oh. I love the picture myself... the lighting, the subject isolation through use of DOF (and think the IR choice was a very good one), but I sense a lot of "not worthy of POW" comments coming. Brace yourselves, I hope I'm wrong.

I don't think my voice will be needed to the soon-to-be-deafening call of "What?" (I'll add the obligatory -- and true -- qualification that the photographer appears to have some much better and more interesting stuff in his/her portfolio.)

 

It'll be interesting to periodically check this discussion for blood loss -- it's going to be messy.

Not a bad shot at all, but it really doesn't do much for me

I think that part of the problem is the comment left by the elf who chose this. It doesn't make any sense. It's an interesting image, and captures some emotion, but not particularly well done technically. I don't feel like the grain works here. The composition and exposure are off. It's a decent snap, but not near POW material, unless POW has been changed to just provoke discussion instead of recognizing good work.

Moderator: Let's get right to the chase here. Scott this is not directed at you -- but at the comments to come. Let's elevate this forum. What works - what does not work -how can it be improved. Please refrain from mud-slinging at photo.net, elves or the photographer. Go start a thread about POW choices if you are not in agreement with the elves. Again - volunteer if you don't like the choices. Be part of the solution - not the problem. Edits and deletions will be made from here on when there are useless rants and I'm not even going to put "moderator edit" because the amount of work and time is getting ridiculous. Perfectly ok to state that it doesn't meet your standards for POW -- but explain why and give constructive and informative critiques. Please!

If it's a grainy black and white, it's art. I'm not knocking the photographer, or the photograph. But then again, with a certain number of posted comments, it becomes a successful choice. I forget that that is seemingly the priority for selecting the POW: will it generate traffic.

From my albeit slanted perspective (I'm slogging thru a wack of scratched and dusty tri-x, with healing/history/clone brushes), it looks like there's a lot of specks and water marks on this picture. Unless you intentionally wanted this, why not take the time to clean before posting?

I would like to see the "snot-bubbles" photoshopped out (ok, I know that isn't what they are, but that's what it looks like). Nice-looking gal anyway, and the shot is made more interesting in knowing that it was shot with IR film (though, having never used it, perhaps it isn't as difficult as I perceive). Congratulation on POW AK.

 

Bill

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 like this photo for several reasons, but i think on this site or many other pictures i would select pow before.

A photo comes up short when a title - and an

explanation by an elf - is needed for the viewer to understand what

the image is about. I see a girl with a cropped hand raised and her

head bowed, but I have no idea what she is thinking or doing. If the

image is really about dancing, you need to be able to see the feet,

regardless of style. If the world-within-a-world is part of the

message, then we need to see other people and be able to determine how

they are - or are not - interacting. We are being told how we should see the image and end

up discussing the description. How many needless Ansel Adams

references were there last week? Please, pick an image and show us how

you think the specific details of the image contribute to it's

effectiveness. Forget the title. . . . and leave us some room to make

our own connections. .

There's nothing exceptional about this image to qualify it for POW. The composition is awkward, hand positions distracting, its grainy and simply unintersting. Philosophical words doesn't make it a prize winner.

A few people seemed confused as to why the photo looked sunlit, while

in a club. IR film captures light in the infrared spectrum. She's in a

hot club, surrounded by fellow clubbers putting out body heat.

Personally, I like the effect - it makes her seem that much more 'in

public'.

 

Like others, the graininess of the photo bothers me, although not

enough to ruin the photo for me. A Kochanowski asked if anyone else

was interested in IR film - I've been tempted. My brother took some

shots with it and they looked awfully good. IR in sunlight gives the

subject an otherworldly glow. The only problem with it is that most

cameras don't have an IR feature, so you'd have to do things the old

fash

Perhaps Mr. Kochanowski would care to clarify if this was a club or a street photo - I'm pretty sure the people behind her are walking by, not dancing; and the confusion is another reason as to why this would have worked better in landscape with a wider view.

I don't recall this outcry for model releases for the August 25 and September 8 POWs. They were also photographs of individuals out in public. I think the elves comment on ecstasy, which I took to refer to the feeling, not the drug, has put people on alert, so to speak. I need to learn more about the necessity for model releases and how to keep your subject calm and cooperative when you request one.

The Photographs of the Week are chosen by a rotating group of individual members or "elves", not by the editorial staff of photo.net. The comments are also written by the elves.

 

However, this week, exceptionally, I have edited the elf's explanatory comment, because it seemed to me that it read in a great deal more than is supported by the photo, was potentially embarassing to the anonymous subject, and was apt to become the topic of discussion this week rather than the photograph itself. I have also deleted a fair number of comments which related to the elf's now-edited comment.

I don't like too much this photo because I can't feel exactly what the others guys on this site say they are feeling when looking at it. From aesthetical point of view the hands 'cut' is a big loss. In addition the overexposed part is another problem. The overall balance is not bad but I saw better pics showing 'dancing people' in different moments. The grain: hope to be a wrong used PS filter.

Conclusion: ratings 4 and 5.

If you want to know where the picture was taken, see: http://www.electronicmusicfest.com/information/ (It appears that this venue includes both outdoor and indoor areas, but it looks unlikely that this was a pure street shot.).

 

As for the model release issue, I'm a lawyer who is shockingly ignorant about it. But I recall from law school that the tort of "appropriation of name or likeness" required commercial exploitation of a person's image. Posting a shot on a website with no commercial purpose would not constitute this tort. This rule might be modified by statute under state law; I don't know.

 

Also, there is surely a "newsworthiness" privilege, which permits photography for news-recording purposes without risk of liability. I doubt this picture would fit within that privilege, but depending on the purposes for which it was shot or the uses to which it was put, it might.

Just as I was about to comment on Marc's absurd and over-the-top reply on lawsuits and drugged out kids it get's deleted. Oh well.

 

As for the photograph. I think it captures well the feeling of being alone with ones self in a crowd without being in-your-face literal. The woman is clearly lost in thought and music without caring for her surroundings. The grain adds, for me, a more "raw" feel to it, but I'd be interested to see a more "clean" version as well.

A model release isn't needed when the purpose of the photo is

editorial. If you needed a model release everytime you published a

photo of a person, George W. Bush wouldn't have time to do anything

other than sign MR forms.

 

I'd say this photo falls under the fair use copy doctrine, as it's

being used to educate, not to promote anyth

The elf's comment was edited for the reasons stated, not because of legal issues related to model releases. Editorial uses of photographs do not require model releases.

 

For example, in the case of Arrington vs. New York Times, the Times published a picture of Arrington, an African-American man, in the street wearing a business suit. The picture illustrated an article about African Americans entering the "middle class" in increasing numbers. Arrington objected to being characterized as middle class and sued, arguing that he hadn't given his permission for the use of the photograph and that his privacy had been invaded. He lost on the grounds that an exception to privacy laws has been carved out for newspapers, magazines, books, and electronic media to publish photographs of people without permission in connection with editorial content that is of public interest.

 

Based on this and many similar cases, photo.net does not believe that model releases are required for the photographs that are exhibited here. However, that said, we don't intend to gratuitously embarass people either.