Stands Out

Time-out. Sorry. I give up.

Pls let children go out and play. This is one of many photos presented in this forum with a child as a model. All of them do not taste well.

I like this picture. Note I always use the term "picture" when discussing images. It's simply a more inclusive term, I think. This appears to be a heavily processed photo illustration based on a photograph. Since the processing is so obvious and so uniform across the image, I accept it as a creative choice by the artist. While some photographers have difficulty accepting themselves as artists, clearly Emanuel has no problem. It takes boldness and creative risk to leave the safe haven of the traditional. The long horizontal cropping with the child peaking through is a beautiful study with unusual, painterly skin tone and color. The sensation of hyper reality is engaging.

The only place were the image falls down for me is the child's eye. The overall processing used is so extreme that the delicacy of tone that comprise the eye has been crushed into a disconcerting "Shark Eye" appearance that even a well placed highlight cannot remedy . Being the center of interest, this deflates the quality of the image for me. If the processing were pulled back, just in this area, to a more naturalistic rendering it would make this image really sing for me. Like all processing efforts, a judicious, well-controlled hand is often best.

<<<While some photographers have difficulty accepting themselves as artists, clearly Emanuel has no problem.>>>

Huh? Does it really take these kinds of antics to suggest that someone "accepts themselves as [an] artist"? There are many photographers who think of themselves as artists and actually are artists who don't need to scream it to the heights, and be so off key in doing so. Art is not some sort of extra layer of makeup, whether realistic or fantastical or illustrative, whether digital or otherwise.

Louis, I respect your opinion. I cannot understand, however, how you consider the eye to be overly processed but not the skin of this young person. IMO, they have received the same degree of processing, and each is far removed from reality as a result of this processing. My guess is that you accept (or like) the processing that has been applied to the skin, but you don't like the processing that has been applied to the eye. What this gets down to, as in all critiques, is the preferences of the individual doing the critique. Clearly, some of us like all or part of this processing, while other do not, all for various reasons.

for me it's eye catching but the lighting is a little too strong imo...the skin looks waxed and the image a bit staged but it is a very good image imo...i also believe a little taken off the left side would be appropriate...Emanuel has done some good work here and I hope we have helped him a bit with these critiques....David

That's right Stephen. I rather like the processed look of the image. It's more illustrative than real. My thinking is by leaving the eye more natural it would be a nice counter to the heavy processing of the whole and add a bit of "zing" or whatever you want to call it, to the picture. Otherwise, it looks like just an overall filter effect applied.

Fred, I don't don't see the image representative of "antics". I see risk taking in moving an image out of acceptable norms to a heightened reality. Sometimes these attempts fail sometimes they are successful. I think here is a good attempt if some more thoughtful application and finesse were used. There is a line between crude and heavy handed application of processing tools, which look clearly over cooked, and the the creative use of them to push the envelope if used with skill and artistic thought. It's a matter of degree, taste and creative intent. I don't dismiss their use out of hand in this case and it was my thinking that if used in a more selective manner this picture would be viewed as more interesting although many would still see any "processed looking" image as unacceptable. That's perfectly OK but then again, as I said. I do like the picture. I see the use of processing tools like filters as just that...tools.

Fred, to this point, there certainly are. But my experience is there are just as many if not more that struggle with that concept particularly in the amateur and novice ranks. I can't say I've felt that way but the fact I come across it regularly is undeniable. The very act to call oneself an artist, and mean it, takes a huge leap faith and confidence. Whether someone experimenting with images and struggling to find their artistic voice wants to risk screaming a bit I think is OK. Scream! Go Overboard! Go Crazy! Eventually one finds their way to an approach that works for them. Nothing is set in stone. If this image goes too far, the lessons learned will show better results on the next. Better to take the risk. IMHO, it's fear that is the enemy. Fear of looking foolish, fear of not being accepted, fear of recrimination from respected and accomplished elders that constrains many photographers I have known from using the word, artist, in relation to themselves.

Stephen notes: 'and many people describe it using terms such as "outstanding," "fantastic," "masterpiece," "magic," "gorgeous," and "superb.' What he was getting at I think is that this is a formula photograph. It is the sort of formula photograph that wins contests, is highlighted in our Gallery, ends up in Explore on Flickr and is awarded virtual and real trophies. We see this formula photograph often here. It is not, however, the sort of photograph that is hung in museums or curated or taken seriously outside the places I have mentioned. I think if we consider this photograph in that like, as a formula photograph can better appreciate it on its own limited merits. It is working toward an effect. One sense a child looking through a separation in the curtain at something unfamiliar or forbidden. (The title throws up off.) But the trouble is that though it seems to all it needs to to do to rack up photo contest points it is in the end not interesting. It is staged but the drama is somehow missing. What is missing is originality. There has been done before and better.

<<<I see risk taking in moving an image out of acceptable norms to a heightened reality.>>>

Actually, it's funny, but it seems quite safe to me. Because if you look through the most popular photos here on PN you will see these images that are moved "out of acceptable norms to a heightened reality" over and over again . . . the same waxen look, the same color scheme, the same lack of connection of processing to content, the same lack of emotional output. To me, it comes off as formulaic and just plain silly.

IMO, it's not heightened reality, it's kitschified reality.

_______________________________________

As far as artists being afraid of elders who are tough on them, thick skin is often part of an artist's temperament. Tough critiques, if someone is truly an artist, will either be resisted, ignored, or learned from, but not looked down upon. I love the story of Tchaikovsky, whose teacher accused him of graceless and ugly pounding on the piano. Tchaikovsky looked him in the eye and told him he wouldn't change one note. His Piano Concerto No. 1 is one of the most beloved pieces of Romantic music ever written. Tchaikovsky was truly an artist and a musical genius and his teacher wasn't quite up to understanding him. Unfortunately, this is an excuse many young photographers use. They think of themselves as Tchaikovsky. Most, though, are "artists" of the caliber of all of Tchaikovsky's much lesser contemporaries who no one has ever heard of and who've moved no one with their so-called "art." (Many unknown composers did create good art, of course, but many did not.) Many of them would probably have done well to take some advice from their elders. We all have to reach a balance of risk taking and not caring what others say and at the same time be willing to grow, learn, and be taught.

Giving critiques is also a risk. Provide a really negative critique and you risk others telling you you're trying to stifle art.

There's no easy answer.

Yea, someone might accuse you of patronizing! ;)) Just kidding Fred.

But seriously, the problem, I think, is that we have to remember that there are elements of taste involved as well as various applications of a photograph that can influence an image's success. I have seen wonderful commercial images that did what they needed to do extremely well but they aren't going to be hung on anyone's wall--other than the photographer's/client's or ad agency's. Over the years, I have, unfortunately, created images for client's that I thought were great and cutting edge--big clients like Hewlett Packard--and look at them now as something I would line only the bird's cage with. I never thought they were great art but I did feel they were unusual and eye catching--as did the designer and client--and that was the reason we went that way rather than another.

I don't personally think this technique is all that sophisticated but it is one that, as I said above, is/has been very popular in more "retail" applications--and for several years now. How long it will continue to be popular, I don't know, these things tend to circulate for years. But still, the way the image is presented, its compositional structure and overall use of light is really not bad. I don't think the "idea" is all that original but it has been well executed. There are a lot of nice things here that one can appreciate even if one doesn't like the technique or the final presentation due to that.

As to the eye, I think the "shark" quality can be seen as a good or bad thing, depending on how you wish to "read" the image.

Minor semantics, and Fred already beat me to it in a way, but it's something that's important enough to me that I want to mention it. I wouldn't use the word "heightened" but rather "alternative" in this sentence. It's just hard for me to imagine anything "higher" than reality itself, although I can see reality interpreted differently, especially in artistic expressions, in which case the term "alternative" seems more appropriate. If one wants to also include an opinion about a created alternative, then a adjective like "kitschified" might be used if the opinion is negative, or maybe "idealized" (for example) if the opinion tends to be positive and the created image is manipulated to accentuate the ideal in the image. IMO, of course.

"Unusual and eye catching." Thanks to John A, I think that qualification is also an appropriate way to describe the present POW photo-derived-graphics, and much of the imagery that is out there and waiting to capture brief attention, whether in a TV commercial advertisement, an on-line site, or an ad in a glossy magazine. The immediate impression is important and any further communication of the image is often of lesser importance ("let's not complicate things too much for the audience").

We see this in some juried competitions where some photographs are designed to illicit that quick reaction but wear off rapidly when less can be extracted from the image on further viewing. Without emotion or convincing aesthetics, or other qualities of visual communication, the photo is quickly consumed, and its page turned.

It is not just a question of the tool of post processing or not, although poor use of that tool provides the many examples we are accustomed too, but simply one of whether the photographer can create a work that illicits a profound response or not in the viewer, immediately or in a few years from now. And if enough viewers apply sensitive and critical energies to its appreciation, the photo sometimes can qualify as art. But it needs a photographer who is attuned to both his subject matter and to the ways in which it can be artfully or meaningfully perceived and interpreted or recreated.

On the other side of Arthur's coin are those images I sometimes see here on PN that have a quiet, subtle aspect of light or composition (or both) or processing that seem to require longer and closer consideration to see and appreciate their qualities. Sometimes these photographs receive few comments, and they tend to fare especially poorly in ratings. Now, perhaps this is just my bias coming through for some photographs that appeal to me (after closer consideration) that have been fully considered and then rejected by most viewers -- I'm open to that possibility. But I don't think that's usually the case. It's an aspect of American culture, something that is widely recognized by the advertising industry, that an image should be like a sound bite and grab hard and fast or it will lose it connection with a public that can too often be characterized as fast-paced and having a short attention span. Images with a "wow" factor will get noticed. Those with a "hmmm" factor (I'm defining "hmmm" as great appreciation that develops with thought over time) may get passed by only because that "hmmm" takes longer and requires more energy to form. IMO.

Stephen, you describe two independent concepts. One is what I refer to as "curb appeal" and the other is one's level of sophistication--here sophistication in reading photographs. People tend to think of that word, "sophisticated", as being snobbish but it really just describes a level of refined experienced. (The definition: having a refined knowledge of the ways of the world cultivated especially through wide experience or another: (of a person or their thoughts, reactions, and understanding) Aware of and able to interpret complex issues; subtle.)

It is nice when an image can accomplish both of these things, but often there are situations where any trade-off between the two will end up in favor of the former. Certainly, as one begins any endeavor--science, business, wine tasting, creating art etc-- one's level of knowledge and appreciation is going to be weighted towards easier (less sophisticated) to approach/appreciate elements of those endeavors--the "candy" or "curb appeal" level, if you will. As we pursue our knowledge, we tend to move towards the appreciation of more complex and subtle elements of our endeavor. In photography, that is why there is such a large gap between most photo sharing sites and what the high end museums decide to show. It's the reason there are threads lambasting the latest, highest priced photo ever at auction as "emperor's clothes" or "ivory tower" in forums on these pages. It is just human nature, not everyone pursues all that they do with the same intensity and desire to push forward. Sometimes it is difficult to see where we are in the continuum and accept it for what it is. But it isn't always either or, I know that over the last 40 years my taste has changed dramatically. I have abandoned a lot of the "art" I bought in the early years but, then, some of it is still wonderful.


Several years ago, the way one could look at recently posted images on this site was different. I would generally start at the lowest rated photos and found many more gems there than ever at the top end of the ratings. I think these sites are great for learning, but I always wondered how many doing unique and complex work (naturally) were "defeated" by those low ratings.

Two quick things:

I've always told people to take low ratings on PN as a badge of honor. It likely means you are not over-saturating or hyperventilating.

There are other alternatives between photos having a Wow factor or "curb appeal" and photos that are sophisticated and require more time to absorb. I'd probably say that most photos are neither.

I think the vast majority of people on this site view an image for a second or two, possibly give it a rating and move on to the next...at one point there were two categories, one for aesthetics and the other for originality...my understanding is that pn went to one overall rating to encourage greater activity...in my opinion that was a mistake as it promotes a "hit and run" mentality imo...it also encourages photographers to create an initial "wow" response without going further into the image but let's face it, many people would still resort to fast paced ratings but using a two category approach allows for slightly more contemplation...i was hoping that pn would allow members the option of voting on the current system or the older one but I assume that would confuse things further...

I'm inclined to agree with David. The present one note rating system is not the most conducive to extracting considered thoughts about an image, although I am sure there are still some who do spend sufficient time with a viewed image to enable a more in-depth personal evaluation. Camera clubs are not always noted for their judging rigour, but those I have been previously involved in do create 3 or 4 criteria that are used. These often include parameters such as (1) creativity or originality, (2) technical quality, (3) effectiveness of composition and/or aesthetics and (4) impact or emotional or other subjective perception.

The request for critique is to my mind a better communication with the photographer, even though simple superlatives have to be waded through to get to the more analytical and descriptive comments.

I remember back in art school one of the discussions was along the line of what we are having here. The ultimate consensus was that success was defined by how well you executed the vision you had before you started. However, there is an entirely different discussion about whether or not others shared your vision after you were done and whether or not it mattered.

I'm a bit confused by "vision," and let me use Emanuel's image to illustrate. Do you think Emanuel was thinking about aspects of children in his neighborhood, or even of his own family, spent some time considering how that thought might be expressed in a photograph with extensive editing applied, found a youngster and placed him behind some lace (because the lace was integral as well to his thought he had about children), made the photograph, and then set about the real work of smoothing the skin, applying a particular color to it (one that he already had in mind), and modifying the eyes in a manner he had intended even before making the original photograph, all done to achieve the goal he had in his mind that was formed prior to ever picking up the camera? Or is is also possible that Emanuel, perhaps (and only perhaps; this part isn't essential) having seen some photographs altered in a way that he found pleasing, photographed the child behind the lace (this lace appears in other images Emanuel has made, so it's evidently either important to him or he simply likes the look), and then set about using software at his disposal to alter the look significantly and decided he really like the appearance of smooth skin with a different color, a golden-wax kind of look, and worked it until the look simply pleased him? This doesn't require an a priori vision to achieve a concept that he had worked out before picking up the camera, but he worked and stopped when the aesthetics he had achieved pleased him.

Really, I don't know if "vision" means implementing or expressing an idea that one had conceived before picking up the camera, or if it means (or can also mean) creating something that the photographer simply finds visually pleasing (perhaps as the result of past experimentation, or perhaps as the result of experimenting on the fly and stopping when it feels right to stop).

I suspect "vision" can be applied to either of these two alternatives, and there's probably no way to know what Emanuel was doing other than by asking him. The cynic in me thinks this term "vision" is used way too often and much too loosely to indicate visual or aesthetic preferences rather than artistic implementation or expression of an concept a photographer had mentally developed when thinking about parts of his or her world that seemed puzzling or fascinating.

Stephen, I don't know what Emanuel might have done, but what about the element of discovery along the way. One might have a vision of an image but, at least in most cases, photography is more a process than a result. We shoot to get the information we want and we set out to realize our vision. Along the way, because the process is fluid, we might do this or that, intuitively or even by mistake, and we see something we had not been able to envision before. Do we ignore it because it was not our original vision or do we embrace it because it extends our "vision"?

Yeah, I think that happens a lot. But you assume one had a vision to begin with, and I question the extent to which that guides many photographers (at least non-professionals). Alterations to a process along the way, or even mistakes, can be great, but those may or may not be an alteration of a vision. To the extent that the photographer likes the alteration or mistake, it has been successful in helping him/her to create a photograph that, for whatever reason, he/she likes and is pleased with.

I still feel that most of the images posted here were taken or created without the goal of implementing a vision. But I'm open to the (likely?) possibility that my definition of "implementing a vision" is too narrow or out of synch with the definition that most others would give to those words. We don't ignore anything in the process of creating an image if we like it; we embrace it because we like it. Vision may or may not have anything to do with this.

John (or anyone else), do you think "vision" is synonymous with "goal" in this context?

I am glad that Stephen didn't accept the word "vision" too easily, and is curious (intellectually honest) about the meaning that may be attributed to this rather imposing term. In its widest sense, I think vision is rather like the mission statement of an organisation that may embrace a number of specific objectives that are related to some specific goals. If a photographer thinks in that manner, one might expect him or her to state clearly that vision and any objectives and goals that may be related to it. Otherwise, I think that the photographer must accept that he is working in rather muddy waters, and that anything that he might create may be related to his perception of the subject matter, to his experience or approach and less so to some globally defined vision. Taken to extremes, vision can be a rather pompous declaration of intent that may or may not have anything to do with what the photographer is actually doing or achieving. A goal, a specific outcrop of an objective, is to me a more specific target that a photographer may have.

In regard to the specific POW, I have not read a vision statement of the photographer, or have I noted traces of this in any of his work that might elucidate such a vision, nor have I seen any reference to his specific goal or goals.

I have a few goals that I pursue and have acknowledged. One of these is to show the presence and impact of man through the traces he leaves in the environment of his activities, another is to relate the remaining agricultural architecture of our community to the traditions of former years and those of present, and a third is to picture the countryside here in a manner that our founding explorer, Samuel Champlain, might have perceived it some 400+ years ago, during his numerous visits from the old world. These are goals, albeit unfinished, but not visions.