Sport Day... an Infra red picture...

I like the technique, the colours, and the detail.

Other than that, I don't see anything remarkable about this photograph. It doesn't generate any really strong visual or emotional impact for me. As someone else says, it's a "nice shot", but for me, if it wasn't for what I mentioned above, it would be just a snapshot of two anonymous people on a driving range, hitting golf balls to nowhere.

The IR effect & color palette I really like. The rest doesn't do that much for me. I like the balance given by the standing golfer. The main golfer teeing up seems dead center in the frame. I do like the time of day, the direction of the light & long shadows

The technique and content don't seem to relate to each other, so it feels more like an exercise than anything else. The technique leans toward an illustrative type of science fiction or mythology but because there is no relationship of that look to the content of the photo, it loses me. Were there some reason for the look (a perceived comment on the content, counterpoint to the content, irony, etc.), I might respond.

There is a nice quality about this image with its clarity and illustrative feel. The design/composition is well handled with the emphasis on the centered woman and yet enough of a dynamic diagonal to also give weight to the second golfer. The colors and contrast give us a sense of an arid--and hot--environment.

For me, technique is generally best used for two reasons. First, from an artistic standpoint it is because it supports the idea of the work. It makes sense to the revelation of idea or thought or somehow reveals something physical in a convincing way. The second reason, and what I see here, is more of a commercial application where it is used to create a different or unique way of looking at things as the primary goal--more of an external genesis rather than an internal one--an attention getter if you will. Of course, one doesn't have to be pursuing commercial work to essentially do this same thing, but it ends up having that sense about it.

As to the processing, this image may be my favorite in the IR folder. It seems the least self conscious and the least "obvious" in its coloration. While I think there can be a departure from reality in this sort of work, a consistent approach to finishing images of similar type gives more of a sense of intent, and thus substance, than what could be seen as just playing with the process. The latter, of course, being an important step in learning and development.

In any case, I do find this image pleasing and was hoping to find more images supporting this one and the idea I see embodied here. Musin has many nicely composed images in his folder.

Creative lines. Ultra-sharp focus. A bit too surreal for my preference.

The sharpness of this image draws my attention. The shadows perplex me. It seems like the rays from the sun and the lighting of the people is at a different angle than the cast of the shadows; particularly the person in the foreground. I think this visually challenges me and creates interest. I also like the diagonals created by the road, shadows, and rays from the sun. The colours and tones are very soothing yet they are not what we expect. It says “this is a very different place”.
I am curious how this IR image would interact with layers of a conventional image of the same scene within Photoshop; perhaps in blending modes or HDR. Talk about a high dynamic range!
Sorry to be so verbose (127 words)

Perfect!

Somehow this work makes me think of Salvador Dali.

Is the IR affect done as a photoshop add on / filter?

When one looks at something like this one has to ask whether the photograph's subject matter is intrinsically interesting or if only the IR technique is interesting. To be a successful composition subject matter should be interesting and the IR technique should enhance that interest. In short, IR should be no more important per se than the infinite tonalities that one can get from straight color and monochrome. This said, I must add that as certain subjects look better in either color or monochrome, there are those subjects that come to life in IR. IR is no more unnatural than monochrome or straight color. But that it is seldom used in straight photography does put it (however unfairly) into the special effects camp.

So, first question: Is the subject matter interesting? For me no. For a golfer maybe. In terms of technique I would say there is confusion regarding what is more important to the image--the figures or the scenery. Guessing that it is the figures, my feeling is that there is too much scenery and not enough of the golfers. Somewhere there has to be a balance between the main subject and the background. It is off balance here.

Next what does the IR do for this image? Okay, it makes it look surreal. But not everything surreal is interesting. For me the novelty wears off quickly; and when it does I see only dull colors and a rather gloppy and commonplace background.

I think the composition is weak in terms of form, color and content.

Humidity does not attenuate IR light so the air perspective is missing. In this way the space is contracted. Here the impression may arise that the ball will fly far away for this same reason. Composition is not perfect because the  golfer shadow head is cut.

What we can get out of this photo is that digital IR provides different possibilities than colour film IR. Like the latter, however, It takes an ordinary subject matter and gives it a sort of fantasy look. But I agree with some preceding comments in that for all the chromatic curiosity of this photo the use of IR (which the photographer has done well in a technical sense) leaves me only with an appetite for what it can do with the right subject matter. I think the photographer has not thought enough about that and would do well to seek out better and more intriguing subject matter, something better suited to the unreal chromatic and tonal potential of the medium.

I'm struck by the number of comments made prior to Musin's photograph being selected as the POW that focus on the interesting, impressive, unique, amazing, fantastic, and awesome colors produced by the IR process. I sense it is the difference from reality that spark these supportive comments. It's the simple act of being different from what people see every day in terms of colors that brings forth strong interest in the photograph. It's the different color, not the composition that is interesting to many viewers: two people hitting golf balls is not the kind of unique or dynamic action that rises to the level like that of a close and direct lion charge we witnessed several weeks ago that would be impressive in terms of composition alone.

IMO, this is no different from the comments I very frequently read when a photographer has digitally created a green sky, a purple sea, an orange forest, or other landscape elements that are totally different from reality. Comments along the vein of "fantastic colors" are very often made in response to these photographs. In these cases, however, the color changes were not made via IR-sensitive cameras but rather software that has globally changed some colors from real to unreal. The effect is very similar, and the comments are very similar as well.

It's as if we are so jaded by reality that the simple act of being different from reality is enough to ascribe words like "amazing," "wonderful," fantastic," and "awesome" to the photograph.

I think the comment by Fred G. in which he says this photograph feels more like an exercise than anything else, and the comment by Alex Shishin who asks if it's only the IR technique alone that is interesting, are hinting at my observation that simply being different is sufficient for being an interesting photograph in the minds of many viewers.

Personally (and this is where I know I will receive flak), I lament that some aspects of our living in this world have become so commonplace and so taken for granted that we get turned on by a photograph that departs radically in terms of real color. Little else matters as much as the photograph being different in terms of color. We are interested and enthusiastic simply because we've never seen such color of these common scenes in our lives before.

IR photography has an important distinction from unusual colors achieved through digital manipulation, that being the fact that IR colors have a basis in physical reality, while digitally manipulated colors do not. IR colors are real in the sense that they exist but they are normally beyond our range of senses. We create devices that interpret these wavelengths and translate them systematically to wavelengths that can be seen by our human visual systems. Digitally manipulated colors have no such physical basis; they exist only in the minds of the photographer.

I look at IR photography and digitally altered color as tools that can be used in conjunction with the right composition to create a photograph with a mood, feeling, or statement that is enhanced by the altered color beyond that which could be achieved with "straight" color. The part that I question, however, is enthusiasm for photographs that appear to be different only for the sake of being different, and that difference is the only apparent reason for the photograph's existence and the only apparent reason for the level of support from viewers. Are we really so jaded by reality that we take so much of the real world for granted to the extent that we have become tired of it, and these IR and digitally altered photographs revive our interest once again simply because they are different and we've not seen them before?

Just as a point of clarification here. I personally haven't shot with digital IR in a long time, but my understanding is that an IR conversion of a camera results in b/w images, not color. The color in these IR images is, or was to my knowledge, completely created in post--colorized images if you will. IR doesn't create any color, it just creates tonal patterns different than normal film/sensors--you hand color it in post.

If I am wrong in this, then I would like to be put straight but if I am right, then it might affect some of the recent comments.

If, in fact, IR color is created by the camera, it is done so uniformly and by a set of algorithms in the camera, which was my main distinction from alternative color created by digital alterations. I'm a biologist and not a physicist, but colors are created by different wavelengths of the light. IR also has a range of wavelengths, and that's why my semi-educated guess is that IR color is real color and is based on the varying wavelengths of the IR light that is hitting the sensor.

As if it popped right out of the magical age of illustration!
The super smooth... neatly defined subjects and surreal lighting all mix to make this a dreamlike composition...
It has an odd retro (vivid retro) sensibility to it and I find it VERY interesting to view.

I like it... that's all I have to say

Just a reminder to everyone:

There is nothing wrong with giving a "nice shot" type comment, plenty of people love getting those comments about their images, but that isn't what the POTW is for. If you want to compliment the photographer, send him/her a personal message or just leave a compliment on their portfolio. The POTW discussion is supposed to be an in depth discussion of the image itself, not just a place for praise.

Stephen, my research has indicated that IR doesn't produce color--only wavelengths read are those in the IR range--which are red--go figure eh?!? So as I thought, these images are all hand colored. In fact, I was going to mention the "bleed" in parts of this image as it is difficult to blend in small details. There are actually more obvious examples in some of the other photos in Musin's group of IR images. (I have colorized IR images done with film as well as combined IR and regular color film from the same scene--using the color film to colorize the IR).

There is actually a great deal of photography these days that is focused on the ordinary things we take for granted. One critical book I read recently actually pointed out how what seems ordinary becomes extraordinary if we actually take time to look at it. In some ways one could suggest that such a thought is behind the current wave of banal photography and that which has its roots in the New Topographics of the 70's.

My sense with this image was that the IR suited it actually fairly well as it accented the starkness and created a sense of "heat". The colors Musin used (much different ones used in many of the other photos) seemed to emphasize that as well. I would certainly agree that without support for this image, the subject matter is a bit weak but I do believe if a theme had been developed with such banal leisure activities, the image might have a bit more legs to it. The idea might have carried it a bit further than what we have here as a stand alone image. In some ways, it is the fact that the activity is so banal that makes it of some interest. Even the second golfer in mid swing would have sexed up this image, but there is some beauty in such a static shot--if it seemed to have been done on purpose. As it is, it doesn't tell enough of a story to hold its own without the context of others that let us know something purposeful is at foot. But this treatment also has a very commercial feel to it and would require a very deft arrangement of images to make it rise up and make us take notice I think.

John, IR is that part of the electromagnetic spectrum that we can't see, but it does have a range of wavelengths. Different wavelengths of the IR spectrum do affect sensors is a manner similar to that of visible light. If the IR-blocking filter is removed and replaced by a filter that blocks visible light, the sensor (or film) will still be affected by the IR wavelengths, and the individual photosites will be affected differently by the various IR wavelengths. This is what produces IR "color," and it is no different in this respect to the way that visible light interacts with the photosites. So these images are not hand colored; they are "colored" by the spectrum of IR radiation affecting the pixels of the sensor. At least that's my current understanding.

Photography that is focused on the ordinary things we take for granted is often seen, I think, in photographs taken with Holgas and similar cameras. I'm not sure if the emphasis here is on the very simple camera or on the subject matter with the camera relegated to a non-issue; I suspect it's the former. You and I had an exchange about Holga cameras some time ago, and I started to look at images taken with these cameras in a new light (so to speak), and I appreciated your perspective.

With respect to this Musin's photo, I still tend to agree with Fred G. and Alex Shishin that the main reason for this photo is the fact that it's IR, and without IR it becomes a rather mundane photograph. I think Fred makes a very good point about IR perhaps being particularly suitable for some types of photographs more than others, just as B&W or color are particularly suitable for their own types of photographs. However, I may also be agreeing with a point you made but which you are not especially emphasizing, and that is the commercial feel for this particular IR shot. I'm not sure why this is, other that it grabs our attention because it is both realistic and unreal at the same time. If I were in marketing, I'd take notice of that attribute.

But with respect to IR as a more artistic medium, I'd like to explore the range of IR photographs and come to my own understanding of what I think works particularly well; i.e., those photographs in which the mood or the message is enhanced by the IR medium.

Stephen, that wasn't quite the point I was making. I think any kind of photograph (and any subject matter) could be made suitable for IR by a photographer who made it suitable. I don't think IR was made suitable in this case. I don't even like the word "suitable" here. I prefer "integrated." I'd be more interested in a photo that somehow integrates the subject matter or content with the technique used. That being said, I'm generally not a fan of the IR look.

One possible candidate for a photograph that is enhanced by the use of IR photography in Musin's portfolio is his image titled "Stranded." Not only is it a photograph of an old boat on the shoreline amid the vegetation, but I get a sense of being stranded in an alien world, due in part to the color differences between the boat and the vegetation and the unreal color of the entire scene. I try to imagine this photo made in regular color (or B&W), and I think the IR version carries the story more strongly. Of course, this is entirely subjective, but I'm just making an initial effort to answer my own question.

Fred, our comments crossed. I was using "suitable" in the same sense (I think) that you were using "integrated," and I think "integrated" is a better description. I hope that notion comes across in the rest of my response.

Another possible example of IR "integrated" with the subject may be my own IR photo of three water lily pads (it's the only IR photo that I have). I'm often drawn to simplicity and isolation, especially of living things, and this photo incorporates those attributes. I think the sense of simplicity and isolation is enhanced with IR that produces black water and a white lily pad. Mentally compare this to regular color of a medium-green lily pad in a somewhat lighter body of water; that wouldn't hold nearly as much interest for me (again, it's all subjective, and anyone is free to pan the IR version as well as the imaginary color version.... but I like it for my own reasons).

While I understand their outlook, I do not subscribe to the approaches of Stephen and Fred who feel that any subject can be made suitable for IR photography if it is done right. I do not see it that way at all. IR photography is a specific tool for specific approaches and intents, to some degree like B+W photography (or other monochrome photography, not necessarily only grey tones and black and white), which is the medium of choice for very particular subjects or particular intentions of the photographer. Like B+W photography, it is not a panacea for all subjects, just as colour (whether warm, cold, harmonic, aharmonic or however it is composed for certain images) is used for certain subjects best and black and white (high contrast, low contrast, high key, loiw key) is used best for other subjects. This is not unique to photography, as one finds similar parallels in sculpture (materials variation ) and in painting (media variation).

Successful use of infra-red is to me very highly dependent on the subject matter" it works best when that subject matter has been thoughtfully chosen and consistent with the potential of IR to render the subject in an unrealistic (read "artistic" here if you will) manner desired by the photographer in order to enhance the feeling of fantasy, striking contrasts of light and form, suggestions of enigma or contradictions, or other qualities that the photographer wishes to create and that more often than not are not served as well by a facsimile or more representative depiction, but more by a purposeful mutation of perceived reality.

Arthur, I said exactly the opposite of what you attributed to me in your first line, and I said pretty much the same as you in the rest of your response. We're in agreement, and that's what I tried to elaborate in my last two responses. Fred can speak for himself if he chooses, but I'm quite sure you misrepresented his views in your first line as well.