The shot

...;it's just another sports photograph...like the moment....
The "just" here is the problem, and the dichotomy of opinion, I think.
It bespeaks a contempt for the genre, which, in MY opinion (and I suspect others' as well) lowers the credibility of the speaker.
The timing is superb and as others have mentioned is a credit to the photographer, not the equipment , as those have used continuous shooting know. The concentration of the athlete is the essence of the photo and is well captured and expressed in the environmental portrait. As such is a success. Capture of such concentration is one of the appeals of the genre.
Having said that, it's not a perfect photo in that the background is (like most photos in a sport setting), problematic. The depth of field somewhat delineates the subject from the background, but the contrast and shapes remain. IMO the photographer did an admirable job with the circumstances. Perhaps contrast and saturation could have been reduced on the b/g in post processing, but as we all know, it's a slippery slope to navigate without falling over somebody's cliff of tolerance. As it is it conveys the athlete's effort and necessity to retain concentration under the pressure.

Well, Wayne,I suppose you're talking to me and about me. Since you're quoting me directly, you could at least have the balls to refer to me by name.

I expressed no contempt for the genre at all, and if that's what you read into my comment, that's your opinion, not mine. The photograph might not interest me. I might not be impressed by it. But I did not express contempt for it or the genre.

What I did express is that there's nothing special about the shot for me. I could say the same thing about a photo being "just another landscape shot", and have even referred to some of my own work as "just another nude". All sports shots aren't special, just as all landscapes aren't special, all nudes aren't special, and so on and so forth. Of course, that's only my opinion...it might not be "credible" to you.

The POTW is a place for photographers to express their opinions about a photograph. I expressed mine, but apparently my opinion doesn't suit you since it "lowers the credibility of the speaker", and gives you the opportunity to use cute words like "dichotomy" and "bespeaks". You even go so far as to suggest my comments lower my credibility to other photographers. Hey, I even had to look "dichotomy" up in the dictionary...I'm obviously not as intelligent as you are.

Everyone isn't going to have the same opinion of a photograph, a concept that seems hard for you to grasp. You accomplish nothing by insulting my credibility other than lowering your own.

Gosh, I will never understand women's taste in men, anymore than I will understand people's taste in photos.

--Lannie

Well, Lanny, he is kind of a good looking guy. There's a rough hewn look to him that tells me he probably isn't a corporate lackey, might work outside for a living, and the aging counter culture look has always appealed to me, although I'm not sure the term contrapposto applies to him in this photograph as another critiquer says. He's someone I'd be interested in photographing, but without the renaissance costume. Street clothes in a casual or working man's setting would be more to my taste...and he'd also look good photographed in some arty settings I know of around here.

Even though the photograph, itself, doesn't really turn my crank, I should've mentioned in my original comments that I do like the character shown in the archer's face and hands, particularly the hands. Plus, his glasses look to be almost exactly the same kind as mine, so that's another point in his favor as far as I'm concerned.

@Jim Adams
I was wrong and I apologize.

I quite like the photo, except for that brown spot just at the arrow's tip - quite annoying considering the arrow is so central to the photo's attention.

The only thing I find detracting from the shot is that this is an organized event and there is an audience in attendance. I would do what I could to lessen the impact of the background, mute the colours, render it more out of focus to help create the illusion of a bygone era. This because of the archer's intentional use of traditional equipment and garb.
What I do admire about the shot is the archer's concentration, his use of the traditional equipment and clothing, the way his bow is positioned on a diagonal enclosing him in a perfect right angle triangle in the lower left third of the frame allowing the arrow the other two thirds. The way the arrow is on an upward trajectory. And, of course, the timing. I have struggled to catch similar events and I know the difficulty. I still shoot one-at-a-time and always will. Congratulations, Miguel, even if it comes a few years late ;)
(Yes, the archer is a handsome man which doesn't hurt at all, but I would prefer he not trim his beard and instead allow it the freedom his other hair enjoys. Let your freak flag fly, Sir Longbow).

If it generates a good weekly discussion, it's the perfect POTW. It remains to be seen if it will do this, although it seems to be off to a pretty good start.

Agreed. I'm biased so I was curious to hear what other photographers thought about this photo.

I've been a fan of this particular photo for a few years because it impressed me as an "everyperson" photo - the sort of photo any amateur enthusiast might aspire to. These renaissance fairs are very popular, and generally very accessible events for the amateur enthusiast. Miguel was using equipment that was affordable and accessible to the amateur enthusiast - not a pro level dSLR and f/2.8 zoom or tele accessible only to the well heeled birder, wildlife or sports photographer. It's the sort of photo we used to see in the weekend features guide of our daily newspapers. It's the sort of photo I tried, and usually failed, to get.

And considering the POTW is not an award (and in some cases may seem to be a curse), but rather a focal point for discussion, it is, as Stephen noted, the perfect POTW.

I admire, no special edits and so simple as to exactly matched the time blurred effect. I'm a photographer with experience, to be honest, after this photo I started to get involved in seryoz similar style, some of my work you can see in my blog http://radaris.com/, maybe not as high quality, but I'm working on it

Lex, when the 20D came out in '04, the body listed for around $1600, but was in such high demand dealers were selling it for hundreds more. I know because I bought one then, and paid close to $2K for the thing. Then again, that was with the vertical grip adapter, so maybe that's why it cost more...I honestly can't remember. But if I remember correctly, it was Canon's top prosumer camera before you got into the 1D series.

And the 100-400mm f/5.6L IS USM lens still sells for $1700 new...not particularly easily accessible to every amateur or prosumer shooter. So Miguel's shot this with about $2600-$2700 worth of equipment...not exactly chickenfeed. But maybe he bought the stuff used, I don't know. I still have my 20D, though I seldom use it, having reverted to my old faithful 1Ds for digital work. My 20D has always been quirky. Their early vertical grips were defective, Canon knew it, but shipped them anyway. I'm pretty sure I got one of them, and Canon ended giving me a new one which really wasn't/isn't much better than the original. Although I've managed to make some decent photos with it, I've never really enjoyed using it.

Still have my 100-400, too. I use it, but have never been all that fond of its push-pull zoom system, but its image quality makes up for that a good bit. The IS function is pretty much a necessity at 400mm, and even more so if you stick a 2X converter between the lens and the camera.

But as you say, the photo is the sort we used to see in the weekend features guide of our daily newspapers. It's the type of shot we're all used to seeing, so again, it just doesn't seem all that special to me. Frankly, the discussion of the photo has been more interesting to me than the actual photo.

Wayne, your apology is accepted. We can be friends. I'm quite sure there are people who feel I didn't deserve an apology, but that's their problem, not mine. You're a gentleman for offering it, and I genuinely appreciate it.

I may owe some people some apologies, myself...but I'm getting so old, I have difficulty remembering who they are, or what I might be supposed to apologize for.

Wait...here's one. Landrum Kelly, I apologize for spelling your first name wrong in my reply to one of your more recent comments on this POTW. The fact that you're a fellow North Carolinian and a Southerner makes the snafu even more egregious. Your pardon, sir.

It's a damned good thing, too, cause I've sure made my share of stinkers over the past 30 years, and there's certainly been some clunkers chosen as POTW as well. That one with the lady wading through the water looking for her lost necklace comes immediately to mind. That's over and done with though. Photo.net marches on at a steady pace towards mediocrity.

A lucky sport shot ,where timing is perfect to show the bow and the arrow ,with a nice composition and a fine looking sportsman with the style of an archer .
My only notes is about the saying of ( done with very ordinary equipment. ) ,I do not think of 1/5000 sce is an ordinary equipment even in the standards of today equipments ,and without this equipment this image in this particular apperance would never be produced .

"Every photo doesn't have to be a masterpiece..."
Now come on Jim, if you are going to quote something, quote it all--I'd hate to cause a situation where an apology was due ;)) !

Seriously though, the rest of it suggested the alternative is NOT just stinkers. There are very competent and well done images that fall way short of a masterpiece (seriously, if we are honest about it, very very few ever reach that level, although you might think differently with the way people rate things!).

In fact, it isn't unusual for the "worst" shot of a submission to be chosen by a commercial or editorial client. They aren't looking for art, they are looking for an image that does what they want, and need, it to do. I suppose we often know that and so include that "worst" shot, because it does tell something different than the others.

By the way, on the crop of the man, I think it is actually really well seen. There are not odd tangencies but all three upper points, ends of bow and the arm, all are cut off in non-awkward ways. I think this really makes it work even better than having more--eg all--of the arm.

If I let my imagination step back a few steps, I can get the archer's elbow and both end of the bow in the photo. But in so doing, I have a more distant view, and I lose some emphasis that's been give to one of the main subjects, that of the arrow caught in mid-flight. I agree with John A in that I think the relatively benign crops make the overall image work better than if crops of the elbows and bow had been avoided.

Fred, I am confident that your expertise far exceeds mine. Can you please enlighten me on how the break in the elbow adds dynamism to the image? To me, not seeing the entirety of the archer's right arm means I'm missing a key component to the act of archery. Then again, am I taking this too literally?

For me, it leaves that shape and the edge of the frame less complete, more open-ended, sends my eye moving toward the moving arrow. The complete shape of the arm would create a more finished and static geometry, IMO, in this case. It would be a strong and complete triangular shape, a fairly determined-looking compositional element for this picture. It would also be in the corner of the frame, pointing out of the frame, away from the arrow and the action.

The current framing also suggests a more fluid vision of what was happening. Not everything is seen, not everything is visualized as if staged. It's the glimpse of a moment happening in the moment and glimpses usually leave something out. I like that sense of spontaneity being made visual through a bit of incompleteness.

I have certainly seen limbs cut off by framing or cropping that don't work for me. I take it on a case by case basis, depending on what's going on in the rest of the photo, the context, the content, and the rest of what the framing seems to be accomplishing. In this case, I think it's a plus, and I say that not having a clue as to how intentional or accidental it may have been. It works for me.

Archery is to some extent about physical and emotional tension, as are many good photos. There is a certain type of tension that is created with a crop or framing such as this.

If this were in an archer's guidebook and specifically were about body form in shooting an arrow, I'd likely find the exclusion of the elbow objectionable. That's an extreme example, of course. There could be many good reasons for including the elbow, but this particular shot doesn't seem to demand it and I don't think this photo would benefit from it, given what I'm getting from the shot overall.

Very different type of shot, but I could easily imagine complaints about the heal of the foot being chopped off here. If not complaints, I can imagine many, many people including the whole foot in the shot if it were theirs. I'm glad Bill Brandt saw it and handled it THIS WAY.

[CAUTION: Nudity, only in this one example:] WESTON

It's a little jarring, but should LEIBOVITZ have included Scarlett Johanssen's feet?

Does chopping off Bannister's legs give this KAUFFMAN photo more a sense of movement and action? For me, yes.

None of these examples are quite the same as the POTW and legitimate reasons could be given for having the elbow complete (or it could be an unexplainable matter of taste to want the elbow complete, which I'd also understand). I wouldn't mind hearing some thoughtful comments to the contrary of what I'm saying. I'm just giving my own reasons for liking it the way it is and some examples of other instances where I think chopping off limbs works.

Fred, do you think Weston meant to cut off that elbow? He made some mistakes on his nudes, especially the one with the shadow that made the upper arm look weird.

--Lannie

"He made some mistakes on his nudes"

I know the nude you're referring to.

"Fred, do you think Weston meant to cut off that elbow?"

Yes, probably he did, but I don't know. I like it cut off. What about you?

The framing on the nude I linked to looks more obvious and easier to avoid than the shadow on the other photo, so I'd be surprised if Weston wouldn't have avoided it if he'd wanted to.

____________________________________________________

It's possible that Miguel might consider the missing elbow a mistake, though that would surprise me. It wouldn't surprise me if it just happened and wasn't an intentional decision, though that wouldn't much matter to me. Regardless of what Miguel might think of it, unless he was able to get me to see this differently, I'd probably continue to see it as a plus regardless of his own opinion.

I don't think it would be the case for the Weston shadow, but I suspect there are many photos that contain what the photographer may have originally considered a mistake which upon further viewing and consideration turned out to be for the best.

I know as I've been learning, some very trusted photographers with pretty good eyes talked to me about some things in my photos I didn't like and showed me various ways in which they were actually assets rather than flaws. Their observations didn't always ring true for me, but overall opening myself up to my own so-called "mistakes" has helped me develop my eye in some less traditional ways of seeing. I'm constantly battling even my own previously developed sense of taste, and that sometimes means that what feels like a mistake may be telling me something very important and may be worth keeping around.

Fred:

To me, the key element of the image is not the arrow; it's the archer. I suspect that Miguel would have taken the photograph differently (perhaps a slower shutter speed) to emphasize the arrow. If so, I stand by my earlier comments. But I certainly see your point about how the image's elements direct your eyes.

I am grateful for the examples you posted. Having looked at all of them, here goes.
Brandt: The feet are the subject of the photograph. As a result, the missing heels add to its somewhat mysterious flavor.
Weston and Leibovitz: Women are the subjects of these images. My somewhat uneducated interpretation leads me to think that they lose nothing by virtue of the missing feet.
Kauffman: I agree that Bannister's missing legs can amplify the sense of motion one gets viewing the image. But that's because the rest of the runners' bodies are intact. Would you think that the image would be just as good if Kauffman had cropped out all of the feet?

"Would you think that the image would be just as good if Kauffman had cropped out all of the feet?"

Michael, that photo, probably not. Other photos of multiple runners with feet chopped off could easily work well.

I probably made too much of my point. The main reason I like the cropped elbow better than I would like a non-cropped elbow here is probably just as simple as . . . because that's the way it is. It's less about my liking the cropped better than the non-cropped and more about my not feeling that it would benefit by being changed to include all the elbow. What Weston's shot in particular suggests (not the one with the regretted shadow, but the one I linked to) is that our eye seamlessly finishes what he, himself, started. To me, it also suggests the power of peripheral vision and our easy adjustment to seeing something as continuous and accepting as there what our eye doesn't always necessarily see. There's obviously more deliberateness and time for compositional intention in the Weston photo than in a sports photo.

Cropping is one of the things we easily latch onto. It's often a pretty obvious element in a photo. Once we tune into it, it's pretty easy to find flaws in another's framing decision, because there are always alternatives. I tend to default to standing by the framing decision of the photographer unless something really compels me to want to see it differently. This photo just doesn't make me go there.

Fred, this dialogue has been enormously valuable to me. It has reinforced something I've known already, i.e., that each image ultimately should stand on its own merits. You and I can shoot the same subject on the same date and time, with even the same camera settings, and yet each of us can have different intentions when it comes to the finished product. Or . . . we coincidentally shoot identical images of the same subject, but because a viewer is familiar with your body of work, your image is found to have more impact.

In the present case, I realize that a missing appendage can be a boon to one's appreciating an image, and then again, it can be a serious deficiency to another. Sometimes it's a matter of interpretation, likes or dislikes, or of other background considerations (e.g., cultural differences). Sometimes, as you stated, it just is, and no explanation is needed.

Did Weston make a mistake? Probably several of them but I doubt you have ever seen them. We have to be careful, I think, when we look at a master's work and remember THEY didn't "post" everything they shot. It took time and patience to create a masterful print and they didn't waste time on mistakes--and certainly didn't show them! If the nude you're referring to is the one I think, it is integral to the content of the image.

In this case, I think the truncated elbow actually adds to the action but also stabilizes the archer. Otherwise, he might have just been hanging in that corner and twirling around (figuratively) his bow. Containing the elbow would also, IMO, have contained the energy of his pull, with the edge of the frame being a false limit.

Just some thoughts...

John, if my post sounded like Weston's image contained a mistake, then my words were ill chosen. I simply meant to say that a missing body part did not constitute a deficiency in the image and, in fact, added to my appreciation of it.

In considering the POTW again, having read your comments, I see your point. I'm still not sure, though. Personally, if Miguel had titled the image "The Archer," I think my points may be more convincing. Maybe not . . .