Untitled

"I would bet that Ramaiah Gidda could capture the equivalent image in any country, any culture, or any place he chose to visit."

-Andrew McGrath

 

Well said, Andrew! I fully agree with that.

 

As to Taylor, Nietsche and others (similar) comments about very poor presentation: Yes, there is a problem with it. This has never stopped any photo being chosen as POW. More notably, it has not stopped some of you saying something like, "well, I KNOW how good a photographer you are... so, it must have been due to this and that".

I wonder in which gallery some of the photoshopped window pane shots with added "oomp" hang now?

To Vincent and others that are bothered with the presentation, I would like to point out that not every photographer is fully versant with photoshop, or even computers come to that. IMO it is the content that is of most importance. According to Ramaiah the actual print is far superior to this jpg. POW is not about technical perfection of digitisation, that is the deptartment for digital imagers. Although of course it would be good to see a more accurate representation of the print, I don't think the lack of it ought to equate to a 'non-deserving' POW.

This picture speaks to me in pure mystery, yet is so very real. The mood is set, the subject so solemn, a beautiful composition. Something to be very proud of.

the amazing thing is the just ONE critic has bothered to make even a vague reference to the ONE thing that ruins this composition, and i quote: "The foreground is murky and busy, both in detail and tonality, and the eye has to nearly pole vault over it. A higher viewpoint would have been essential to do justice to this image." yes the foreground scrub brush is part of the scene, but it merges with the subject to the point of distracting intrusion. a higher viewpoint would have solved that problem. and if a higher viewpoint (or one in front of the scrub brush) wasnt feasible well then thats just TOO BAD because position of the camera is one of the most basic things that actually DOES MATTER in photography. just because the image has a so-called fairy-tale or other exotic blah blah blah look to inexperienced eyes (really no different than the pretty sunset syndrome of novices) doesnt make it a very good photograph if its got major BASIC problems that other photographers seem to solve by using good technique, good judgment, and good presentation skills

I kind of like the foreground... is there a reason that there is something wrong with it other than that there is supposed to be?

spaghetti western,

As there are so many professionals, as well as very advanced artists here, the fact that no one has mentioned the 'problem' is because maybe there is not much of one! Don't you think that may be why? We all seem well versed to be able to run the slightest problem into the ground on this particular POW forum, it seems to me, even if I am fairly new here.

 

There are no line mergers nor tonal mergers with the bushes, and I personally think it's a nice touch to add a sense of time and place to the scene. The softness of the overall scene makes it tough to really know if they are 'softer' than any other part anyway. And besides, a higher angle would not have worked if the bushers are at the same distance as the kid-which we can't tell anyway in this 2-D presentation. But one man's meat is another man's poision!

I am pleased at the simplicity of this image and yet, because the herder is somewhat in the forground as compared to the flock, the impact is great.

As for the multitude of comments for and against the graininess of this image... I think it would work with or without it... poetic license is the tool of the creator and the way Ramaiah chose to present this stark and mystical image is to me, a compliment to his style.

Would it be better if it were more contrasty or less grainy?... does it matter? Photography is an expression that requires three elements to be successful. First, it has obviously gotten the attention of the viewer in all the replies and criticisms... that alone contributes to its success. Secondly, this image is composed VERY well and no one can deny that it tells a story... the third element is met.

Bravo Ramaiah for seeing and capturing this moment.

G.Alan Fink

I'm sorry Spaghetti Man, but I agree with Michael on this one. The foreground element works here. It adds a measure of atmospehere in my opinion. If you really want to take up a less lonely cause, pick on the grain/reticulation/artifacting mess. Aloha.

The foreground is integral to the image, not a distraction. In my opinion, it adds layering and enhances the mood. It is the transition point between the viewers' clear-eyed reality and the dreamlike background where the animals graze. I assume it's inclusion and tonality are a conscious choice.

 

Not to get too testy, but I think it is a bit presumptuous to out of hand dismiss those who find exotic appeal in the image as "inexperienced eyes". Tastes and opinions vary, even among the so-called experienced. Allow for that difference of opinion. As one who has spent more than a decade in rural and developing Asia, and having yet to become inured to such scenes, I think my appreciation for Ramaiah Gidda's work goes well beyond wide-eyed naivete. I would guess that many others who find this photograph exotic and ethereal have years of "inexperience" similar to my own.

It looks very like ancient rock paintings. Great picture.