Duck Man, LiJiang, Yunnan Provence, China

Yes, indeed, it is a kitchen and not a studio. It is indeed harder to keep all the elements together when shooting in the big bad world outside the studio. But you have to do it. I am writing as a street photographer.

Importantly. this is posed photograph, not a candid. The photographer had more time than a street photographer to arrange his elements. Thus, though this is a kitchen it also somewhat like a studio. A different perspective very likely would have mitigated the problem of the dead left.

I have suggested that had the image--the performance in Ansel Adams's words--been better rendered here there might have been only a little problem with the left top.

I shake my head at some of the critiques. This is a wonderful, casual, environment included portrait. The colors, tones and comp work well for my eyes. Well done.

The first impression I got was "the tone makes the kitchen look very dirty and country-like" - in a way I would imagine how kitchens in the country side of my home country - South Korea.
The left space doesn't come across as "dead". There really is no captivating element in that area, but it shows the type of environment he works in, and the unique kitchen element in China.
It's funny how the cook's hat is crooked, makes me wonder if he's like an apprentice.

Two Points ...reading the comments I saw a lot more in this expose of a duck factory than at first ... thankyou for showing me what I should but I doubt if I ever look for, but may in the future.
Second point relates to some of the niggles such as the leaning left cabinet and the buckets below. It seems to me to illustrate the difference between a film and digital photographer.
That the original is a WOW merely relates to image quality rather than composition and detail and that it is not here passes me by. The left hand side edge is untidy and draws attention to the camera angle. Less so is the righthand edge. But it makes the point to me that the photograph was post-processed in a darkroom rather than a computer where those niggling little things could have more easilly have been attended to in a matter of seconds. I could and likely am quite wrong in how it was post-processed. but that is the impression I get. A good photograph well taken but lost it in the PP.

Michael, I've followed your work for 25 yrs. Haven't viewed your work in a long time. I see evolution in your work. Great 20 years ago, awesome today. It's inspiring, and comforting to know, the Art in us is alive and evolving. Thanks.

Wow, lots of good input/critiques, thanks all. My fav-
"John Rowsell - If the intent was to create an atmosphere that is more motor oil than cooking oil, Michael hit the nail on the head. It expresses process rather than the usual pride and joy associated with preparing food. Great subject matter very nicely treated.
Regards, John"

John R., you ht the nail on the head buddy, as most of you did. I had a young communist on a boat in China complain to me back in 1987 when he saw me shooting an old boat in the harbor- 'hey, you are trying to make our country look bad, shoot those new ships over there' he commanded. I could not try to start to explain to him that for me the new ships were boring, and had no soul, whereas these old tugs had been weathered, and had a lot of 'story' in them.

John A. went over my head this time, he's way above 'my pay grade' in his PS skills, as are many of you- thanks John. I'll try to figure out more of what you covered when I have more time. This rendition is a bit muted over the end print for exhibition, but I love understated color, it's been my forte for a few decades now. That is not what gets uploaded here much, and I'm getting dragged into that somewhat myself (gag me with a saturation filter).

One said top right was dead, while another the top left, one changed mind on which side was dead!!? I see detail on both sides, as a few also agreed with. And actually, I thought all the dead was cool, that's why I got the camera out of the bag in the first place :/).

By the way, the top were dead, very long dead- and dried. And the 'looks too gritty, should be cleaned up'...'Don't like the pots', and 'don't like the wires'... well, I shoot straight images, I don't change them in the scene (if it's not perfect I 'walk'), nor 'fix' them in PS (not that I think it's bad, or wrong, it's just not my style), thus I average only taking 1.5 photos in 18 hours of work (not 1.5 good ones, but 1.5 'compositions' per day- in a months work per trip I make about 50 photos, thus the average), but they are usually pretty good. If I did rearrange the scene, I could certainly find more than 1.5 to shoot.

I liked 'I did not see the bad frame until it was pointed out'. I did laugh pretty hard- how bad could it be then?

Which brings me to this point, I do suggest to any of you new folks, that if you get a tough critique from someone you don't know, visit their portfolio. You can tell in looking at a few of their images real quick if they really know what they are talking about (like someone saying the frame job was 'bad', then seeing they don't even use them at all). Instead of saying, maybe it's too wide, or too thin, or the color clashes, that sort of thing.

I'm not saying someone that does not know how to make strong art can't add their two cents and point out something that might indeed need work on, it's just that you can see how much weight to give a critique. They may have most of their 'centers of interest' dead center in the frame too, a beginners mistake, and thus realize they may not be able to help you on your design elements too much.

Anyways, one thing that did not get mentioned, if so sorry I missed it, and which I thought was a strong point here, was the balance of light vs dark across the image- balanced fairly well no? Guess I'm the only one concerned with this aspect, but I preach/teach balance trumps placement of center of interest across the board, and helps determine where the C.o.I. goes. That and strong eye movement, never let there be a place for the eye to 'escape'. Takes years of practice to stand back and watch your eye move around the image, so you can then FIX it through a varied amount of 'tricks', compositionally. This gets deep, thus my workshops.

Thanks to all for any input, it's how we all improve- nothing is perfect until we get to heaven, but there is nothing wrong as getting as close to it as possible.

Yes, Michael, you stand tall among the giants.[end sarcasm]

I come late, but here it goes.
Apart from the frame, which is simply ugly, I think the height of the viewpoint has been chosen in a sloppy way. I really can't see a reason for having main vertical lines in the frame converging towards the bottom, caused by the lens pointing downwards.
The deformed glass and steel box on the left becomes extremely dominant in the picture and in my opinion it should be perfectly square.
The colours as well as the lighting might be marvellous on the original, but are nothing special on this version. In fact the tones are monochrome-ish.
An unusual scene, and I think unusual scenes attract us in any case.

Michael, I find your comment regarding the balance of light vs dark an interesting one. I think it would be interesting to hear what you teach regarding this--serious statement, not sarcasm.

From my point of view, I don't know of any balance that is "correct" except the one that fits the image and one's intent (i.e. a balance that works!)--essentially the same goes for any of the compositional devices.

In any case, I think we tend to notice when something seems to be off and we can't figure out where or how that thing, as it is, is supporting any reading of the image. Something that wasn't the case with this image.

On your technique, I was a little bit lost here. When I hear words like the original was a WOW, I think to a chrome sitting on a light table compared to a printed piece. Here, we have a negative, so I was trying to understand what the original might have been--especially when the "scan" was referred to here as being less than the original. The image looks like there was digital post work (not aware of analog work that can create this look or desaturate an image), so are you just referring to the fact that the final print looks better than the uploaded version of the file or am I in the wrong ballpark here altogether?

As to many of the comments regarding the environment of this shot, I was scratching my head a bit. If there is anything that I have learned over time it is that it is those little things, the odd wires, pots, windows, grit etc that make a shot worth looking at--the subject is just the muse for discovery. When we stop to notice these things, we get a true sense of the place we are looking at even if that is sometimes disbelief or shock--we see what is real not idealized or what we want to see.

John A. "As to many of the comments regarding the environment of this shot, I was scratching my head a bit. If there is anything that I have learned over time it is that it is those little things, the odd wires, pots, windows, grit etc that make a shot worth looking at--the subject is just the muse for discovery. When we stop to notice these things, we get a true sense of the place we are looking at even if that is sometimes disbelief or shock--we see what is real not idealized or what we want to see."

I agree exactly, and well put as usual.

And the wow for the original is because at 24"x24" all the 'details' John mentions can be seen in spades, as medium format negs will do for you. (Besides making the color adjustments and densities to my liking with 'ChromeDigital.com' my lab in San Diego- in this case warming it up and giving it more density).

Luca-The lens distortion is something that comes with the territory with wide angles, and yes, I know in PS it can be easily straightened, and sometimes do, and I do notice it and it bothers me a bit too. As far as 'fixing' in on location, if you point the lens up, you cut out the best part, all the ducks, then have empty top. If lowered position first, and shot straight out, you solve the problem, but you lose the diagonal, and the case on the left would go out the top. I generally cover (view) all these positions with my hands before setting up, saves time and poor choices.

Fred, you did notice and state a few nice things, and as John states, we tend to notice things a bit off, not the things that are not. I do try and mention to folks the things that are strong in their work first, before letting them know what doesn't work, which you and many others do also. Thanks.

As to the slight cant that we are talking about here, the distortion, I don't see this as problematic. I straighten a lot of my own shots, but something like this is part of photography and actually gives the image a bit of immediacy that would otherwise be missing in this otherwise "formal" portrait. There is nothing extreme here and it seems a bit more of a "photographer's nit" than anything truly amiss. I feel that it gives back a bit of life to an otherwise pretty static image.

Back to the light, I think that we have to recognize that this was probably a pretty contrasty scene and I wouldn't doubt that a bit of work did go into getting the balance as well done as what we are looking at here. The "dark" area at the bottom right might have something there if one were to have a more open scan, but I don't know that someone other than the photographer would work to get something dug out of this area--and there may well be nothing to dig out. Doing one's own scans and working one's own images gives some benefit in such areas but, again, there may be nothing there to be had. The scene appears to be one that would have pressed the dynamic range of the film to its max.

Michael, to me the cant is an issue because of the pictorial flavour of the image. The whole setting looks somehow like a painting and the clearly "photographic" distortion clashes against this.
I realise that you have "investigated" different options, but still stick to my sensation above. I don't know how much space there was behind the camera. Of course the ducks need to be in the frame, but still I advocate for a square composition.
I would prefer losing the diagonal in favour of the elimination of the cant.
Just my opinion.
L.

The problem with Photo Net is that it's all about pictures that you can't really see very well.
Too bad we can't see a good-quality print of the Duck Man.

A m a z i n g color. And it's funny, if he wasn't wearing modern-looking sneakers, you could swear this photo was 100 years old. Great composition, too. I love when photographers really consider composition.

Very interesting choice of subject matter and photographed nicely.  Lighting works well especially on the chef/butcher's face, drawing you in to inspect it further.  Lots of see here including the obvious circular shapes and diagonal lines throughout.

At first glance, this reminds me of a real life Mark Ryden "Butcher Bunny" image even with the similar square crop.

Wow, a walk down memory lane. This image got a lot of attention in the front window of my Del Mar, Calif. gallery.

Thanks all for the wonderful comments/critiques. It talks a lot of your time to do so, much appreciated. MS