Abbie going to the beach.

The idea of picture is okay but not too thrilled about the enhancement in photoshop. What happened to pictures shot well enough to the point that no digital altering is needed? Seems many have to use photoshop to make better pictures. Why not do it with the camera from the start?

Classic.... Well done. I also can't understand how anyone would rate this below an 8 in either catagory... However, I suspect good photos get higher ratings by good photographers and genuine and striving amatuers and lower ratings from "critics". I always check the work of each person offering a comment...and the most helpful critiques come from people who have work up. Photographers have a deeper understanding of photographic art and what it takes to create an excellent image. Critics (who are not photographers or good photographers) are not necessarily "wrong" in their opinion... they are judging based on what they like and don't like. And although perfectly entitled to their opinion -- they are speaking from personal taste (which is fine) with no understanding of what it takes to find the shot, create the shot, make decisions re: camera, lenses, lighting, composition, exposure etc. Then there is - I suspect - the sour grapes syndrome. Those people that like to bash a photo out of jealousy as well as show how much they know about photography technique and rules...however, oddly enough those people don't have any work to show! I'm not talking about anyone here or anyone in particular.... Just something I've noticed over the past two months.

I don't even allow nonphotographers to look at my work. Photographs should be viewed only by experts in making photographs; the public at large, even those "educated" in art (only artists can know what art is) have no place even forming an opinion, much less offering it here. I propose that all photographers from this day forward, refuse to publish in newspapers, magazines, and galleries that are open to the general public. After all, who are we taking pictures for--us or them?

Good looking girl. Good idea. Great execution. I like it.

That's the best word I could find to describe this image. The image of the woman is very appealing. And the stories (that could be told) are too: Where is she going? Will she be meeting someone there? Who? Why?

well, I better stop now.

I guess I should be ready to get flamed, but I dont like it. The grain adds nothing to the photo. It does not have a positive influence on the mood, or the overall quality of the image. It is a negative for me. The color is drab, and the massive area of black foreground with its minimal detail is just that a giant area of nothingness. The sky is very uninteresting, and covers too large an area as well. For those that think the form of a pretty girl is enough to carry the photo, so be it, but this has been done so much in print media that I cant see how anyone could consider this original. Picture of the week?? What were they thinking?

After looking at this for a number of days, I would say that I have ended up where Jonathan Burdick did. The gesture is excellent, the composition is pretty good, but the anemic color fights the intensity of the composition rather than complementing it. The grain here seems wasted - in fact, high grain in color photos often looks unpleasant rather than "photographic" as it can in black and white photos.

Commenting on one of the comments above that recurs here on a regular basis:

I always check the work of each person offering a comment...and the most helpful critiques come from people who have work up. Photographers have a deeper understanding of photographic art and what it takes to create an excellent image.

I disagree strongly with this. The skills of a good critic are an ability to analyze and an ability to communicate with the written word. Being a good photographer has nothing to do with either of these skills, and many photographers think about how a photograph is made rather than what it says.

And my work is widely available on the internet, on my own web site and at photocritique.net.

Ladies and gentlemen, may I state the obvious? This picture is sexy as hell. And it manages to bring that off without a nipple or a pubic hair or ... hopefully you get the idea. I mean the woman is fully draped and backlit, for crying out loud!

 

How does Jeff do it? The figure is classy--some might say classic--to be sure, but that's just the price of admission. Note that she's posed at the top of the composition, as if at a height above us ordinary mortals, and note the crosswise planks that lie between her figure and us--ah, how hard it is to ascend to that height! How about the hair swinging one way and the skirt the other--remember "that brave vibration each way free" from English Lit? How about the gauzy netting either side of the figure? How about the bottle (help me out here, all you Freudians)?

 

For my money, there's no mystery about where the "Oh, wow!" reaction in these comments comes from--it comes from the Oh-Wow complex hard-wired into all of us. Congratulations to Jed for taking a picture of that.

This photo suffers from the fact the subject it much too centered. From an aesthetic point of view she should have been positioned a little more to the right when making the print. This would add a "dynamic tension" to the image and draw the eye down an toward the right (making the Primary Optical Area contain the bottle and main part of the silhouette.) It's a nice shot, but I don't like all the darkroom screwing around. My personal viewpoint is that a photographer should "see" the photo, shoot it, and then print and crop to present "what he saw" when he released the shutter. Anything else is just "Adobe Photoshop" and not art.

fucking unbelievable! good shot dude!

great photo

It seems that anyone with constructive criticism gets bashed. I don't always agree with the critics, but I do read them and look again at the picture with their critique in mind. This particular picture just doesn't grab me. Doesn't mean it's not good, just means I don't like Jackson Pollock either ... but Pollock made it into a lot of museums.

 

I think this photographer's strong point was overlooked. In looking at his portfolio, I was taken by the portraits of the children. It's a lot easier to work with adults than children. There is no doubt that the children's portraits in his portfolios have all been enlarged and framed, and are proudly hanging on their families walls. (And Grandma & Grandpa's) They're simply fantastic.

Jed,

I had a chance to take a look at your folder and love your portrait work. I'm still okay about your POW selection but love your B&W .Keep up the good work!

Dear Paul Rootare, I would love to know what planet you are from. At exactly what precise point in our space-time continuum did you suddenly become an expert "Photographer"? Does God go around handing out certificates? I thought that you had to study, practice and learn to develop your skills. Mabey I was wrong and all my years studying art history, fine arts, graphic arts, environmental design, Roman history, and latin were all just a waste of time. My GOSH, some people are so full of themselves! I appologize for not being born a bonafied, certified, licenced photographer, but I want to learn how some of these imaginative artists manage to create such great images, not how many jewels they have in their crown!

And YES Jeff Spirer, being a good photographer has EVERYTHING to do with being a good critic! A critic who lacks the ability to practice what they preach doesn't have a clue what they are talking about!

OK, now you can all hit me with everything you've got, I can take it as well as I give it, unlike some other people.

And YES Jeff Spirer, being a good photographer has EVERYTHING to do with being a good critic! A critic who lacks the ability to practice what they preach doesn't have a clue what they are talking about!

Ever see photos by A.D. Coleman, who is, for now at least, the most widely known photography critic?

How about movies by Roger Ebert?

I'd suggesting getting an understanding of what critique is about before you go yell about it.

Ooo, ooo, ooo, now were into sociology!!! Alright! Since you brought up the concept of immunity, lets clarify... Yes, Mr. Ebert doesnt have a lot of movies in his portfolio. That is exactly what makes his opinion so widely acceptable. If somebody who had actually produced something gave a critique of someone elses work, then their opinion would be subject to the scrutiny and merit of their own work thereby eliminating a large percentage of the public (bad for business). This concept makes it really convenient not to have any practical experience and stay immune from criticism themselves and simply rely on media hype. That is also why I cant lend those kinds of people much credit. I mention this here because it is very pertinent to the kind of critiquing that happens on this web site. It is usually the ones with nothing to show who act so smart. The ball is in your court now.

This particular photo is one of the kind which does not sway me to one side or the other of emotions. Perhaps the greatest value to acknowledge is that some viewers do not know in what direction the girl is walking. The re-occurring request of "CONSTRUCTIVE" criticism is as much 'flogged' as the word "DEMOCRACY" and is wide open to interpretation. I prefer LESLEY AGGAR's (photographer) attitude to criticism: "OTHER PEOPLE's OPINIONS ARE VALUABLE AS LONG AS THEY ARE HONEST!" To pick on peole's spelling mistakes (speak: typing errors) is very petty. My left little finger, for instance, likes to punch an "a" whenever possible. I've tried everything to cure this problem, except for: tieing a helium filled child's balloon on to this trouble maker. As far as I'm concerned, there is no point in analyzing the photo if it doesn't have any impact on me. Judging for the sake of it, is not my style! Adelaide S.A.

Michael. I give you two 10s and two thumbs way up for that last comment! Well said and I agree completely! The voice of reason in a war-torn site! LOL Thanks.

I would have loved to have seen more bounce I her hair, instead of those few strands of hair protruding leftwards. It looks as if she is wearing a baseball cap turned sideways. The image is very strong in every other respect. I loved the IDEA!! Keep those images coming!

Many thanks to Frank DeJeet for his comments about composition, as I have said before (somewhere up above!) I appreciate any input. This is particularly true when you look at the viewing figures. Currently this image has been "viewed" over 89,000 since this counter began working. 73 comments, some of which are mine, from 89,000 "viewings"?

 

Frank at this point has posted no pictures for anyone to look at, but the question is .... how do I know whether or not he is a photographer from this fact or from the extent of any comment he makes? Hmmmmm....

As usual the POW becomes a forum for controversy. I was not saying non-photographers didn't have valid opinions... I was simply saying that the pattern I've seen in this forum is that the most harsh - and non-helpful and amost mean- spirited citiques are 99% coming from people who are not brave enough themselves to put work up...or are possibly the are not photographers themselves. Everyone DOES have a right to put in their two cents.... Most of it is helpful food for thought. Main thing as a photographer is - if it excites you it will excite others and there will always be others,,,photographers and non-photographers alike that won't be excited. Taste in art will always be subjective. The controversey is fun too... otherwise we all wouldn't be in here every week to look at the work, commment, read the other comments and dream and strive to be the best we can be at our passion. All comments - good and bad - as long as they are constructive, help us all to improve our vision. Thank you Jed for your beautiful work.

Coming in a little late here, but I really like this one. I remember seeing it when it was first posted. Personally, I don't like the grain or the toned bottle and think the photo would be better without either. But the composition and execution here are excellent IMO.

I'm going to leave the arguments above alone and get back to business here.

 

Jed, this is a good photo. Not excellent, but very good. You are to be commended for your intitive in the darkroom. Very few people take the time anymore with the advent of photoshop.

The one thing that bothers my eye is the fact that while the subject is almost centered, the walkway is not. I would have liked to have seen the right side of the walkway as well. Other than that, its great. For all those who think that the colors are blah, remember that this is a toned print and not a color slide. Not much you can do there.

Hey there Jed, just me again. I thought that after all the bickering I did on your POW page, I should at least offer you something more constructive.

 

Think about this; You want your picture to captivate people right? You want them to stop for a minute and actually examine your picture when it (eventually) is hanging on the wall in a museum. In order to do this, it helps to learn how to control the eye of the viewer. Unless the picture is very simple, people need road maps built right into the picture. That is because it isn't like writing, there is no rule that says you have to follow the image from the top left corner to the bottom right corner. This can be achieved in many ways using perspective, patterns, color, and almost always with light.

 

At first glance your pic is a silhouette and therefore by default is classified as a relatively "simple" image to read. In this case that is not true since it has far more than the usual two textures. There is the texture of the boardwalk, the filigree of the fencing, the grain of the sky, the flat figure of the girl and the posts, and then add to that the blue bottle. There is also a healthy variety of lines. The ridged straight lines of the posts and boardwalk, the curvaceous lines of the girl, and the wispy lines of her hair and the blowing fence. Yes, there is a lot going on in this limited chromatic picture and it might explain why some people think that "the sky is too much" or "the blue bottle is too much". If you wanted to reduce these elements you could simply crop it and eliminate the fence although I think that would take away a lot of the atmosphere.

 

It actually has a very primitive look to it and reminds me of the early Daguerrotype copperplate prints of the 1840s.

 

The perspective of the boardwalk is exactly what I mean when I said you need a road map. It really draws the eye up to the focal point of the picture, the girl. This effect could be enhanced by doing the same thing with light intensity (chiaroscuro). By using a Neutral Density Graduated filter from the bottom up, you could have made the boardwalk increase in brightness as it reached the subject without sacrificing the clarity.

 

You might also consider what emotion you want to inflict on your viewer. Images which draw your attention to something above the horizontal centerline are more up-lifting or inspirational. You have managed to do just that very succesfully while still keeping everything in good propotion.

 

Well that's my two cents worth. I hope it is more constructive than my last comments.

those who speak as experts but offer no evidence lack credibility.

As for the picture...

I like the composition and the selective toneing (sp?), but I don't think the grain helps.

Meanwhile, I'm removing all my photographs from public display.