Untitled

Agree with Marc about marks' lines... and other re-marcs! I've a poor scanner and I observed that phenomenon too!! ... but that doesn't explain all... things are strange here ... but ... still the result is not that bad... ahope for people with poor scanner at least!

:o)()()

I would have to agree with others here that the digital artifacts are somewhat distracting, and thus imo detract from the image. I find nothing wrong with the Tri-X film grain, in fact, I feel the image would be too "perfect" without it. The film grain adds a pleasant, though rustic, feeling to the image - enhancing the rugged and harsh landscape depicted.

Compositionally outstanding. The placement of the man of course is spot-on, and, surprisingly, the arrangement of the cattle within-frame is equally effective.

I love the atmosphere (literal) - the fog, clouds, grey mood and tones ? even the rock from which the man surveys his herd.

The erratic, almost fearful, grouping of the cattle; and the posture of the herdsman, in combination with the atmosphere; gives me a feeling of unrest ? even danger. I feel as though the man is ready to lead, protect, and care for his animals.

Wonderful, though controversial POW image. Regards,

I think this photo shows clearly the discussion between what is a good photo and what is not. For me this is a great photo course it shows feelings, moods, and it shows it in an artistic way..the discussion here on POW clearly shows me that its (unfortunately)still a difference in peoples opinions regarding handcraft,as in that a photo only has a value if its tecnical good(depht,in focus and so on) and those who think that a photo is or can be artistic no matter how it is made.. surely these two can be mixed. but to tell a good story or to show people a feeling or a mood..that is art..no matter how its done. or should it be just a good handycraft??? this is in my opinion both..because the photographer has chosen it this way and because of this discussion... --willy--

thank u photo.net for selecting this as POW. And thank u all who have commented on the picture.

 

Now some clarifications. The reticulation pattern seen in the larger picture was due to the scanner which was a commercial scanner as I dont have any personal scanner. The actual print does not show this pattern and only shows the natuaral grain inherent in Tri-X. Actually the thumbnail shows the actual print quality though with a slight loss of contrast. The original print is far far better and there was absolutely no digital manipulation, I just scanned the original 12

x 15 print, compressed it slightly and uploaded it.

 

As to the actual picture it was taken at Araku which is a hillstation in south india. The cowherd was posed but the cattle were as they were and the fog was actually smoke from burning grass which was actually set on fire by the cowherd as the smoke drives away mosuitos from the cattle giving them much needed relief from mosuitobites.

 

Thank once more for POW

 

ramaiah

Great job Ramaiah!

U don't give a damn to all the humbug about grain.

The pix is good becoz of the grain.

CONGRATS for getting into POW!!

I don?t think this is plain, the fact that the image is easily understood by the brain doesn?t make it plain and simple, sometimes it is quite the oposite.

Many thanks Ramaiah for clarifying things. Could you please upload the newer scan here as an attachment?

 

Even with all of the reticulation from the poor scan, the outstanding subject matter simply plows through the mess here in many peoples eyes. I just cannot join in and agree with those that see this reticulation artifacting as anything other than what it is, a distraction to the highest degree on an otherwise excellent image.

 

On a side note: We in Hawaii have been dealing with an influx mosquitos recently due to an abundance of heavy rains. However, if making these fires/smoke brings actual *relief* to the animals here, we in Hawaii have nothing to complain about!! I can only begin to imagine how bad they must be.

I think it is a wonderful shot and I have no doubts that the original print is a true gem. The sidetracking discussion of the probable causes of the "grain" (jpeg artefacts in my opinion) is a good illustration of what this technical imperfection does for the appreciation of the photo. It is very difficult to overcome the initial negative impression and as a result the photo fails to realize its potential.

Ramaiah, I'm surprised, and pleased, that you've joined the thread. From your comment history, I had little hope. Thanks.

 

What do you mean by "posed." Did you direct the positioning of his body, or just tell him to go stand over there and hold still. Would you be able to post outtakes? Now that the grain issue has been ground into dust, it would be very interesting to see other frames. I can't imagine a better composition.

Marc,

You are living in ancient times. Millions of people have scanner in india.

This picture is timeless. This shows that india is still preserved in it's rural state. Only the metropolitan cities have succumbed to western culture. But deep inside India is still alive. Just like rural italy i would say. Despite it;s compression issues or what not, this picture brings out the mythical stories of Krishna and his childhood takes. I early morning tranquility is just an amazing feeling. the smoke arising from the wooden stoves give that foggy feeling. the acrid smoke and the farm animals in the villages is just spectacular. great capture overall.

The extra grains caused by poor scanning, imho (and I am humored by the ubiquity of this expression at P.net), does take away from the photo. It would be nice to see the actual print, as it is a lovely image. As commonly the case, however, I am more impressed by other photographs in the POW winner's portfolio than the actual POW selection. I personally prefer "one for me", "going home", "homebound", and "dawn", for example, to the POW. What I find to be most affective in these photographs is the uniqueness with which the photographer sees the things in this land which I assume is where he calls home. I say this because there is an abundance of photographs taken of India by people from elsewhere, and most often from the west. I find Ramaiah's photographs to be refreshing because there is something different about it. I don't know how to describe it really, except to say that I get the feeling that he seems familiar with the place and its culture, and that there's something of a deficiency of exaggeration that is pleasing. Perhaps, to relate all this to the whole debate about technical issues and approach the question of graininess, technical concerns are sometimes less important than things such as the uniqueness of the poetry contained in the image. I have seen images elsewhere that were technically flawless and very well composed and yet ultimately struck me as being hollow and some what generic, and thus of less value. I guess what I'm getting at is the visceral power of a photograph. I'm curious to know what others might have to say about this.

 

Congratulations on the POW. I enjoyed looking at your photographs.

Like Marc G. opined, if it fits some beliefs, ofcourse it adds to the mystique. Perhaps, not. Should he be publishing any book in the future, it is most likely that it will be typeset and printed in India. Professional photo critics, IMHO, are well served by sticking to what they are good at. If he or anyone finds this a contradictory statement, I would simply suggest to them to go visit the country to find out for themselves. They may well be presented with plenty of photographic opportunities as well.

 

Here we have a photo which presents itself well inspite of the (unintended) added artifacts (the opposite of some of the photoshopped images featured here, like a building shot where the photographer even lost track of all the PS manipulations he did to arrive at the final image, that had an added "oomph", for example).

 

Tri-X is not the cheapest B/W film one can buy in India. A while ago, I remember finding a re-spooled B/W cine film rated at 640 ASA. I printed them at home on Agfa paper. There was literally no budget to speak of. They worked and it was a great learning experience as well.

 

Vivek.

The only thing I like about this picture is the grain pattern; it carries it halfway there to being self-conscious about its kitschy, Bouguereau-esque subject matter. But only halfway.

Walter, because like some I can't see past it. What a photographer presents to us is all we have to go by. Now, I could probably try to look past it but that really isn't my job here. I can only view what the photographer puts up. He can say the print looks infinitely better and I am happy for him, but since I can't see it the point is moot.

 

I think all the talk about the grain (and even more so IMO the streaking) is telling to the real problem with the image. It's not up to us to remove problems in our mind. If that were the viewers job every image ever taken would be hanging in a gallery somewhere.

the grain made dreamy effect. if it is fully toned it would give a classical image.

 

everything is fine grain, fog, flok, shepered

 

excelent

When i saw that picture, my initial reaction was 'Sebastiao Salgado'; it's that good, and it would not be out of place in any of his books.

 

When people whine about not getting enough ratings for their zillionth flower/baby/dog/supersaturated postcard shot, point them to this picture.

 

Grain does not bother me at all. It's like comparing a '54 recording of Beethoven's 9th by Furtwangler versus the latest slick production of Britney Spears. Grab a copy of Salgado's 'Exodus' or Klein's 'New York 54-55' and you'll see pictures much more grainy than this.

 

Heck, look at Capa's picture at D-Day. Unfocused and blurry. Not worthy of even consideration by some of the posters above. Why, oh why he didn't go to the beach with a spot meter and stood still to focus properly?

 

What taked most of the appeal of the picture for me is that the boy was posed, and in some way, it was reduced to a pretty postcard to be produced on demand instead of a slice of life.

I have to agree with the majority here... too much grain. Tri-X is certainly not going to produce this kind of grittiness (unless it was tortured in processing, and even then this amount looks excessive). I would really like to see this photo unmanipulated, just to see what it would look like as it was when the photog looked through the lens.

I took a close look at the grain and it reminds me of the patterns I see in Video Wavlet compression, This is a fine picture and I like the mood and all. I would like to hear from R. Gidda on the methods of getting the picture to Photo Net. It is a small picture and I am not sure if the artifact I see is from Photo Net compression or some other device.

As far a composition, how come all of you 'Oh, but I love the center of interest it in the middle' beginners have not cried out about this lousy composition? Maybe because it IS BETTER to have the center of interest out of the middle, maybe? Notice not a lot of comments about the 'poor composition', in fact none. I rest my case.

 

Having been through all this about grain since I was a kid in the 60's, I guess I'm over that hump too. And as a painter also, I appreciate this work of art in that you could see it as a painting with the canvas structure showing, as most do, especially if you apply the oils lightly.

 

I can tell the beginning photographers that come into my gallery because they never get back and see what the art looks like, they are too busy putting their nose on the image to check the grain pattern. Now that's ok in the final analysis, but not in the beginning, why?

 

As I mentioned before, technical quality in a competition amounts to ONLY 10% of the rating, composition 35-40%, Visual Impact 35-40% (first impression) with mounting and matting adding the last 10%. Seems like many people try to rate it 90% technical, which means you have a lot of growth to accomplish, which will reflect in you own creating abilities down the line, believe me. (You can cry how this is not so, blah blah blah, but facts IS facts.) You'll come around someday, I did. We all go through it, that's what this site is all about.

 

Congrats on this image Ramaiah, it truly has the impact to impress everyone here, even if they get stuck on the un-important issues. I also don't need to go and see if they picked your 'best image', because that has never been the issue here, as far as I can tell. We are to critique THIS image, are we not? (Who's to say what it would be anyway- too subjective.)

 

Kudos to those of you who have graduated to just appreciating this for the great image it is. Great sense of time and place, depth, balance, etc.. A real award winner.

Blessings,

Judge, Award Winner, Artist,

MS

So well said Michael! Now I don't need to verbalise my feelings on this image because at last somebody else thought as I did, and I can just say "ditto". :)

The problem as I see it Michael, is while it is as you say "Looks like an oil canvass actually".. is that it's NOT an oil canvass. It's a J-peg. A j-peg that looks like a canvass has serious problems in my opinion... and as I read above, in the opinion of most others as well.

 

The photographer has joined in on the discussion claiming that what we see here was not intentional. He said: ...."The reticulation pattern seen in the larger picture was due to the scanner which was a commercial scanner as I dont have any personal scanner. The actual print does not show this pattern and only shows the natuaral grain inherent in Tri-X."

 

So then, this is a quality issue, and a significant one at that. We're not just talking about a fair amount of grain here. There are lines, horizontal stripes/noise or wharever you want to call it. Simply looking past that as if it does not even exist is foolish if not impossible! Perhaps I should keep my blown-out, blurry, dark etc. images from now on. "C-mon ladies and gents, just look past the obvious technical problems wrong here. Can't you people see how great my subject matter is". I'd also like to see how many technically flawed images like this you have hanging up in your gallery. Most everybody here agrees that the content is very special. The presentation however is far below standard. With all due respect, what part of this equation do you not quite get??

Lovely image, in spite of the digital artifacts, and a great entre into a portfolio one can visit again and again. It is refreshing, once in a while, to get a break from the pathologically trendy, feigned "attitude", self-absorbed angst so ubiquitous in popular art, particularly in the West. Romance and positivism aren't everyone's cup of tea, but there is an audience for which this is the beverage of choice. To enjoy such an image doesn't mean kitsch or a naive perception of the modern world; it is a conscious choice to look for beauty amid the ruins, because the beauty is still worth seeing. Perhaps this image, or something similar, has been done before, but many of the things NOT done before were NOT done for a very good reason.

 

As for the image's technical faults, I would have to side with Juun Ea above in that given a choice I'd take "poetry" over technical perfection. The latter can be taught; the former comes from within. A technically perfect image, at best, holds the attention for a brief period if it isn't also backed up by artistic vision. "Poetry" (I use Juun Ea's term) has staying power, even if it has a few warts. I'll look at this work five years hence, and I'll still take pleasure in it. Where I would respectfully take exception to some comments (pardon me if I am misinterpreting) is that I do not believe it would be necessary for Ramaiah Gidda to be from the culture in order to produce this work. Give a thousand Indian people a thousand cameras, and I doubt more than a handful would choose this scene to capture. Similarly, give a thousand French a thousand cameras, and few would come back with the same scenes as HCB. Sensitivity...maybe visual empathy is a better term... is a rare commodity, in any culture, but it is a prerequisite for finding such a scene photo-worthy. Most of us would miss it, ignore it, or never go there in the first place and thus never have the opportunity. Even more rare is the skill to properly record it. I would bet that Ramaiah Gidda could capture the equivalent image in any country, any culture, or any place he chose to visit.

So many comments, so I may be repeating what another has said. It looks to me like it was diffused in printing. Whatever, I think the image is fantastic. Wish I could say it was mine. What a great image, in my opinion.

does anyone else think this picture has a Lost Boys/Peter Pan quality to it??? I dont know if there were ever cows in Neverneverland, but it really gives that feel to me. Great shot, keep up the good work in creating magical photographs.

Simply superb. Like many, I have no qualms with the so called grain.

In fact, it looks more like a crop of a small area from a much larger frame amd just on the verge of starting to break up. Still, it's of no cosequence, as our friend knew precisely what he/she wanted,

and has done an admirable job.

Punch up the contrast in your editor and see what conclusion you come to.