Balance in confinement

Color limited choice is often nice. I would like to see this with just a touch of pale red or pink nail lacquer on the dancer's fingertips. Why? I have no idea, but I like a little glint of something bright in what is a monochromatic style photo. It makes it pop I think. Even a pale red hair tie would do, Scott. (trying to be constructive in a smallish way. I mean it costs little to nitipic. Whole idea. Incidentally, if it were not pretty nice and agreeable to view, one would not even take trouble to nitpic,- says I who don't comment much on POWs.)

"It has to be an improvement of vision project" --Gerry

It does? Why can't it be a get out of ourselves and open ourselves up to an alternative vision project?

Gerry, I find several assumptions in your comments that I hope you don't mind discussing. And nothing I say should suggest in any way that people should like something they don't like. Taste is one thing. Critiquing a photo is another. Being able to say "I respect your intent and understand your wanting to keep something the way it is and, also, I don't like it, is not as easy as it may sound. It requires some empathy on the viewer's part, at least the photographer-viewer who is trying to improve a vision. The crucial question is "Whose vision are we concerned with?" Ours, or the photographer's? They are often not similar nor should they be.

The only way, as far as I'm concerned, to improve Scott's vision is to ask Scott what he wants and what his vision is. Otherwise, we're just turning it into the photo we would make, which is pointless. I come here to experience the visions and visual insights of others, not to recreate others' photos in my own image. That's not to say I don't sometimes offer suggestions, but they are often not meant to suit my own taste but rather to further the objectives of the photographer who may not quite have achieved what he seemed to want. In his statements, Scott has emphasized "originality," "tension." So then it baffles me why Rashed, I'm sure with the best and most honorable intentions, comes along and creates a more balanced composition.

Scott didn't mention "appealing," and it would be a stretch to say his main goal was for the image to be appealing (in any sort of universal or rule book way). "Original" and "tense" are often not appealing.

I think Gordon makes a compelling point. The crop feels to him awkward and done out of an attempt to be clever. If that rings true for Scott, the challenge would not be to make a more "appealing" or "balanced" composition, it would be to make a less awkward tense and original composition. So Gordon left a spark here, that might be picked up on.

But instead, the thread then reverted to the tried and true. Let's make a good composition, as if there's some universal answer to that question. What's needed here is some letting go of our own desires and vision and putting ourselves into Scott's shoes. It requires not the easy solution of making the picture look universally more "balanced" or more "appealing" because we assume that's better, but instead coming up with creative and non-awkward ways of maintaining tension and originality. I have a strong doubt that Scott will prefer the offered composition. And in the absence of knowing whether or not Scott feels Gordon is onto something with the awkwardness of the particular imbalance he's created, I would hesitate offering "solutions," even ones I felt were more in tune with Scott's vision and motivation.

I find Rashed's composition much more typical and I can see why some would find it more appealing. As a matter of my own taste, Rashed's reworking doesn't work for me. There's no charge to it, the energy feels zapped. For me, even an awkward kind of energy is better than what I consider to be merely "appealing."

Do we just pay lip service to thinking outside the box? It seems most people applaud that but then when they're actually confronted with it, they shrink away from it, preferring what they're used to and what their own taste tells them is "an improvement." Scott was thinking outside the box. That's clear from his composition and from what he's said. Can our suggestions (if we want to make them) help him refine that goal rather than our own?

I don't think Scott was 'thinking outside the box' since he confessed he's had no training, and does not know what the box is! He said those 'in the know' have sent him cropped work, for improvement- I believe for his website, and it sounds like he accepted those. Also stated he wanted a class. Rules are rules because they work, for those that know them, and poor art is generally the rule for those that don't ("Oh, I did not like the image but it's growing on me" state many- give me a break). They are called rules for a reason, same reason you don't land a plane backwards, works better. They were not made up just to appease a few artists... "Hey guys, mathematicians have rules, so lets make a few up from thin air so we have some OK? Let's say tension on the edge of a frame is bad (not that it is, locking a persons eye on the edge is cool, it stops the viewer from looking at the art any longer, and who wants anyone looking at their art for very long?)- case in point.

Rashed Abdulla, thank you for your hard work. The piece still conveys everything strong about it except for the poor balance, which drove most of us crazy, in the know or not!

Fred, helping the artist (photog) reach their goal is cool, but Scott's goal seems to be also making a strong piece of art, he's just a bit lost on how to accomplish it, and if he looks at Rashad's image with an open mind, he'll learn from this one.

This may be heading into Philosophy of Photography, but if the moderator will indulge us I think it is a relevant quesiton about commentary on POWs. To a point anyway, as it feeds the nature of discussion of an image by..And could inhibit graphic displays of how someone would show how they would like to see something "fixed," without being presumptuous.

You have a fair point in that line, of course, Fred. It is a position that is more abstract- or farther reaching maybe- than I can engage with, at the moment. I see what I see. And I am still open to an author or artists expression of their goal. I don't feel obliged to buy in to it either. It is a public entity. Public entities get lots of commentary.
Let's try a cinema analogy ,best I can conjure up at the moment. At 1968 release of the movie "2001, A Space Odyssey, there was critical praise for the artistry but doubt as to the meaning and intent of Kubrick and Clarke. All kinds of metaphysical interpretations floated to suggest meaning and- inevitably- inherent value as a piece of cinema arty.

At the time I commented to an English major friend. " Doug, you really need to read the Arthur Clarke novel to get the symbolism and the short cuts with no dialogue about Moongazer (Dawn of Man) and the transmogrification of humans into a higher form (Starchild). Doug, a polished, urbane fellow from SFO gent said, " Sorry, Gerry, it has to stand on its own." I take a pedestrian view on things in that light now. It has to stand on its own.
Thinking inside the box is not always to be dismissed. At least in popular culture. Photography to me is part of popular culture. It can transcend that, but starts that way.. Aloha, gs

Michael and Gerry--

Thanks for your responses. It's good to offer different perspectives. I doubt this discussion isn't appropriate for photo of the week and am glad to participate at this level. Critiquing styles, tastes, and photographic styles all vary and it's good for each of us to provide what we can and what we want. I appreciate your challenges of my statements as I hope you do mine. It's part of the learning process.

A striking image!

This is a very unusual photograph - one that makes you wonder. That's the first merit of this piece of art.

By all means it is unacceptable by the rules and to one's habitual taste also. But like Gerry, my first reaction was emotional - I felt uncomfortable and wanted to stay away from it. Then it grew into me and I came back to it. On first view and before reading the title I thought - here is a person with catatonic schizophrenia - one who is so engrossed in her inner thoughts and so withdrawn that she forgets to move her limbs. Her unusual placement also grows into me, though it initially just repelled me. I read her confinement not within four walls, but inside her own bizarre thoughts. Her expression is not of pain, but a bleak bland mood - probably the result of her painful position coupled with Scott's instruction to stay cool. That's what makes me think of her as a person with a different system of thinking and this feeling makes me like her position, the incongruence between her dress and expression, her unadorned nails and lips. She does not come 'in' the photo, or our space , she is physically here, but actually moving out of our space.

But then the frame distracts me - with the sea of self contained pain, the structure looks too imposed. I like a frameless and bw version better suited to my reading of this photograph. Michael is right - rules are there to remind you what is time tested, but in this case, the change in position (as Rashed does) makes it a very mundane image, since the emotion is lost.

That said, this one is definitely not the perfect image to do justice to its meaning, even the meaning that I read. When one is breaking rules in one aspect, one has to be extra perfect on other dimensions. I agree with the criticisms of light pointed out by many above. There are some serious problem with the shadows on the left (do I see a vignetting effect also?). Of course, when one uploads a photo, one doesn't know it is going to be PoW, and leaves many flaws unaddressed.

Scott, I have been coming back to this photo for the last two days. Also, I liked your entire portfolio - I had missed them so far. Thanks and congratulation.

Interesting take on ithe subject , Jayanti. Now I can visualize motion. Ballerina just hopped on her toes,hop hop to the right of the frame. Cool.) And is on her way to a hot bath,massage, and hamstring stretch.
Seriously, Scott, Michael , Fred,... the black and white conversion affirms my earlier comment about the monochramatic nature of the orginal. Hard then and still hard to see an en pointe(sp?) toe stand as static ...it takes the balance of a Blondin on a taut wire to hold the body that way even on flat arches.

I agree, J. , the unframing is an improvement somehow. It gives her and us mental space and lack of confinement. So that the right side placement is less bounded...Her bonds of taut muscled will need unraveling,soon.) And last thought, personal one. I like the pert nose in profile. Gets me every time. aloha,gs

I think this is an excellent piece of work, and it "works." It is also, based on the comments I have read, a fruitful choice by the Elves to stimulate discussion.

First, technically it is excellent: excellent gradation of light from pale to very dark. Lovely intentional highlightings-- her concentrating forehead; cheekbones, toes/ankles. Even with the dark of the flank or ribs, the ribbon on the shoes still comes out cleanly. Likewise, the bit of llight going from right to left between the 2 feet,.

Second, it is surprising. The eccentric composition at once removes you from the high school art class --'the face has to lead into the picture'. Yes, the face leads away; but the empty space behind her accentuates the tension of her pose, and does it better than the more conventionally-centered revision Scott posted below.

Third, it makes one think about her, her life and her work. Of all the fine arts, ballet is the cruelest -- it takes its devotees, gobbles ballerinas up young, and spits back the remains of nearly all of them. [Full disclosure: I loved one, once.] That said, I see no bathos nor maudlin traits in this photo.

One peculiarity: the relative size, muscularity, and prominence of her left hand. A bit jarring-- but that is just the way she is built.

No, I think this is a fine piece of work, well thought-out, well executed. Pictures lilke this don't just happen. 'Luck favors the well-prepared.' I think Scott was very well-prepared.

Fred, reading your post has me looking into myself. -Not sure if thats good or bad. I am still wondering if this just something coming from a right brained person that make a left brained person go "doh! What was he thinking!"
Rashed, I have a 16x20 print very similar to what you have edited hanging in the studio. I have a request for a print that will also be produced very similar. The POW edit is just how my sub-conscious felt it should be at that time. I do remember briefly trying some crops at the time of the edit. This was shot horizontal and I had room on the left. I am not sure if that ad anything to do with my decision. Like Fred, that seems normal and lacking a bit. Does the dancer hold her own?
Jayanti, the PS vignetting is interacting with the shadow. The area above with the abrupt transition is the bad photoshop. The 32" of softbox is straight on and just out of the frame. I am sure that her hips and upper body's shadow fell out of the frame with the light so close. The B&W makes the image timeless but I rarely go there these days. I prefer the warmth of that old mono-light. I remember how frustrated I was with what should have been a simple photoshop edit at that time. Now I would have painted sampled color rather than use the stamp tool. This whole thing is bringing up bad memories of leaky roofs and drafty walls in my old studio. Its funny that I did not try crop out the crinkled paper on the left and instead frustratingly trying to fix it.
Michael, the rules that I am familiar with give sympathy to the viewer. We've all seen a plane land, but when a plane lands backward, that is something to take notice of.

 

Dear Scott, I did like this image for its dynamic move and also this is the sort of lighting I do like and do practise a lot.
The first thing I did learn when I joined this site years back is the cropping from a person I do have a lot of respect for and still do " Michael Seewald " , may be the framing for such an image is not necessary but thats not within the technical espect of photography but a personnel taste only and I added it as you did have a frame in your image.

I have seen your last 3 dancers images and I enjoyed viewing them a lot as I wish you all of the best and Mabrook for the POW, you deserve it by all means.

forgive me for my poor English, plesae.

Rashed

Let's get rid of the frame and the space to the left. Is it better? I like it better, but I like it a lot as Scott has presented it. Black and white might be even better with a different crop and no frame.

--Lannie

A bit more space to the right would still be nice, in my opinion. I think Rashed and Jayanti have the right idea, although I am not sure that it needs as much space on the right as Rashed has given it. There is a certain force to the B&W version, I believe.

If the intent of the elves was to promote discussion, then they succeeded. It was a good choice for Photo of the Week for precisely that reason: it does promote discussion. Cropping is almost always a worthy topic of consideration and discussion, although some do not like to hear it.

--Lannie

If one is going to speak of "confinement" in the title, then a tight crop makes sense--although a tiny bit more space above the head would be nice.
 
Let's see it again in black and white. . . .
 
--Lannie

Excellent shot.....:)

lovely photo! lots of technical details to take into consideration when shooting this. I expect you had a battle with the light direction etc.. i love the form of the model..the pose ect and the lighting on the backwall contrast lovely with the body.
I think even the floor lighting is lovely not much to point out. I notice things through other posters..
Congrats!

great photo with a beautiful light. a Beautiful pose with a soft lighting that in my opinion gave a beautiful and delicate expression of the body. Great Work!!! Friendly Regards.

At last a decent POW. Lovely composition and light. The model is superb.

Scott.... Leave it as is. I've followed the comments for a few days and while many have excellent points about lighting and composition, all the changes I've seen remove the human element. What I saw in the original post and continue to think as the main theme is an athlete preparing for performance. Have you ever noticed the intensity on a kicker's face just before a game winning field goal? I see this ballerina in a self absorbed, withdrawn state of mental preparation; physical stretching and shutting the world out as she goes over her entire recital. In that view, the photograph exceeds the bounds of conventional rules and becomes, in part, a reflection of emotion.... Mike

 

All is good in this image except the comp the left of the frame don´t said nothing, i´m agree with the crop. and still bad even croped when there is no space for the looking of the model, Rashed Abdulla is absolutty right with his version and coment
f.

Ahhh! Just leave it alone! You CAN'T crop to the right because that's where the light is! You can't add space where there are already objects in the way, especially if that object is the light source. You also can't just remove the color and Voila! it's fixed. The color is an essential part of this photograph. You also can't just crop out the space on the left because her shadow runs off in that direction. If you crop right, or add space to the right, you ruin the light, and the light is what makes this picture. Also, there is no sharpness problem. The picture is perfectly sharp: just look at her eyes! The rest of the picture lacks detail because there isn't any detail there! It's shadows and shapes, not textures and details.

The problem is more of an 'instant recognition' of the subject matter, nothing left to the imagination. Of course, the balance being off does not help, MOST notice and agree to that. So, we can not crop from the right, that's the light source (not only that, it becomes more problematic as it get tighter, one problem we don't need over there. So, what's left? (No pun intended- not much). Saying you can't crop there is being locked into loving something that you should not -'there is a shadow there!' (see rule 43, never fall in love with any one thing, it may have to go) - love rules, they help make masterpieces, believe it or not. So, as I don't love anything, then I'll let the left go, more than any that dared as a matter of fact.
PS There is no rule 43 per se, I make them up as I go along (the numbers that is, the rules are plentiful, and the longer I live, the more there seems to be!!?).

could go even tighter really

About the way the photo was taken, there is no much to say: it was made in excellent way.
The controversial point is related to the position of the subject, eccentric and near the right border, looking outside.
It is out of the "classical" rules, but that doesn't mean that is wrong: depends on what the author had in mind when completed the picture.
In this version, he has created a great tension toward the right margin: from a common artistic shot, it becomed more disturbing, but at the same time more interesting. Tension and lack of balance make your eyes wandering from the subject and the empty space: you are forced to look and look again the composition since you find it less satisfactory; but for the same reason it is more interesting.
Confront the original version with the others attached to the comment (lack of margin deacreses the tension).
Another important subject is the oval shape of the subject; I remarks also the light tha comes from the right side, increasing the tension created.

Scott,

Working with dance groups as a photographer for quite some years now, with some of them for a long period of time, I would like to start with applause for the dancer. Being witness of the energy, effort and and skills, a dancer needs, using her/his body as a tool for expression, this pose is an achievement from a dancer technical point.

There are two important elements here ,the dancer and photographer. I agree with Michael that rules are important, I agree as well that to think"out of the box" can be very rewarding,In both cases there must be some logic in the content.

Even though the pose is special technically,it is very static, (I understand from your explanation that you asked her to do it) closed and don't work for me as a dance movement, it still stays on the technical side.

And than there is you as a photographer, and many of the comments about the awkward composition, too close the the right edge, all her back body too shadowed vs. the thin light on the R .. I see also a bizarre proportion of her body in this pose.

For me dance is the movement it expresses, there is no real one here. I looked at your dance folder, I think that you have much better works expressing this world. We talked in different threads about a photo after being uploaded has its own life, and as PN is a learning site , it is a good example for learning.