Wayang

You are probably right Louis. This probably is not one of the 52 best photographs uploaded in the last year, but then, who wants the POW to come from Tony Dummett's folder week after week? I on't necessarily think that the POW is supposed to represent the finest shot on the site, but possibly to spotlight different styles, create some discussion, and vary techniques. It's obvious that even Marc doesn't think this is his best shot as he has posted a "corrected" version.

BINGO Scot Bulger !

" ...the POW is supposed to .... spotlight different styles, create some discussion, and vary techniques."

That's it!

Anyone coming to this page expecting to see THE best photography is not arriving with the right mindset, I think. While the elves may or may not have initialized the POW with this in mind, in practical terms, it doesn't work that way. Sure, the POW needs to be proficient, and it needs to possess excellence at certain levels, but I don't think it's useful to expect it to be THE best. If that were the case, then why even bother with discussion, because it would be, according to the elves, the very best? It boils down to preference, which varies from person to person. It doesn't mean that a POW should be a poor image, or that POW's are not among the best on the site, just that I suspect there are other considerations to choosing a POW than mere excellence.

Greetings Marc-I believe I posted a comment when you originally posted this image. But Ill add a few more words. After looking at it for sometime I can't propose legitimate criticisms or suggestions. I loved it the first time and now the second just the way it is.

 

Although, I would have liked to see a bit more of her hip/buttocks line below her right hand (one of the best parts on a woman). Maybe a reflector on that sideYou would certainly know better than I. Lastly, tipping the hat upwards to reveal more of her face.

 

Looking at this image even closer, its amusing to me because I cant seem to figure out how the model is posed. It appears her bottom is in a chair with her left hand and feet on the floor? I cant do that in my office chair without falling out of it. Not to mention the pitch of the camera enhances the dizzying pose.

 

A well earned POW color or B/W. John Orr

 

Sorry-I will not comment on the thread because I have to debate politics at work 12 hours a day 7 days a week and Im too tired.

If I don't have the right mindset! Am i confused, ignorant or what.

" In general personal attacks do no one any good, be a guerilla

and post a better picture, is my thought. " Marc has done this

and I have already given him my 77."Would you give a 7-7 to it as

your choice of best photo in your portfolio?" Sorry I was asking a

question which Marc can answer himself. " I think the photo is

very accomplished-technically, slick and eye catching. At a

human level it is controlled and a bit soul less and unengaging.

Therefore I wouldn't want to see it again and again, so a good

image but not great" IMHO. " and probably not one of the top 52

in the last year" yep I read the faq and my comment still stands,

I just disagree with you on the selection re "some of the most

striking photographs on the Net.... We think it would be

inspirational and educational ..." that's all

You are right , Doug, in your observations about the thinking behind choice of the POW. The intention does seem to be to stimulate discussion rather than honour the work of a given photographer. Nevertheless the elves' comments usually do give the impression that the POW has been chosen on its photographic merits.It is probably this that engenders a feeling of injustice when the work of many fine photographers is passed over again and again in favour of a less accomplished image which has had a mediocre showing in the top pages. This also gives the impression that the elves are some kind of elite who have finer judgment than the other users who actually vote certain images into the top pages. If the intention of the POW is merely to stimulate discussion perhaps a different name is called for, something like Photo Forum . The elves should then avoid making any comments on the image to prevent bias, and merely ask members to discuss the merits of the image on show.

 

Bravo, Scott and Doug, you certainly strike a point. It does not have to be the very best, different kind of photos will initiate more interesting discussions and open our eyes and minds to more possibilities. Right, I only want to stress what you have said as well, that it has to be good, for me good enough to induce a meaningful discussion, or at least an interesting questioning.

 

Well, anyhow it has been very entertaining, I like to watch a good fight provided that nobody is seriously hurt, remains me of my childhood, we used to fight about everything those days. It worries me though that the discussion is not any more about photos but about photographers, the later being sometimes too sensitive. Photos dont strike back. Besides, a discussion about photographers is misleading. The same could happen if we take the photographer intentions into the discussion. I am glad Marc that you did not explain your intention, that you will wait until the end of the week. If intentions are consciously taken into consideration most probably the appraisal of the photo will be biased or reduced to a comparison between what the photographer wanted and what he produced. In other words the criticism will be reduced to an examination: you did what you promised then you get a 7 or a 100%, or you got only 80 or 60% or whatever. This very often makes inaccessible dimensions of the photo that were no explicitly included in the original intentions. To produce a photo is not to pass a test, but a process with several steps in which you are taking thousand decisions. Not even Ansel Adams did knew in his previsualisations the final product and had to take decisions along the way. Yourself, Marc, have uploaded different versions of the same shot and still you are not happy with the scanned version in internet. On the other hand an artistic intention, meaning the intention to produce art, is not a guarantee of producing art, not even bad art. I dont expect that your intentions will illuminate much about this photo. This is perhaps a contentious subject but I really prefer to try other approaches since I instinctively am against considering the author intentions.

 

The same happens with biographies, I have been always reluctant to consider the biography of the author, it can be very misleading and certainly add a lot of noise to the meaning of the photo, or to the message communicated. The other day, I dont remember where in Photo net there was a posting about a Salvador Dali joke (I would like to know who told it, if somebody remembers it please tell me). He made a bunch of very bad pieces put them in an exhibition and waited to see al the praises from people that saw them. In fact those works were praised because of the authors biography. Not everything that an artist does is art. Very often it happens to me, and I think to many other as well, knowing to much about an author makes me blind to the work. If somebody is from New York, 30 years old, female and shows candids I think that I know all about the photo, when in fact I am perceiving only those dimensions that fit within an stereotype, only after stopping for a while and after having a carefully watch I can really see more and get meanings beyond those related to the most obvious features of the author. Only then I can see the uniqueness of that photo, which in fact is its main value. I had that experience, I know what I am talking about. But on the other hand the lack of biographical data can had another perverse effect, you dont know nothing about the author, then you can not place his or her work and then you dont get into the work self, you simply dismiss it since you dont have a starting point. In balance I usually try not to consider the biographical data.

 

But I am still with a problem, if I try to get to the photo putting aside intentions and the author self how do I get to the photo? We agreed that a photo is communication, that is it is produced and made public in a given context. Some professional art critics, which I respect and from whom I have learned a lot, approach the work of art placing it in an environment. For instance the one given by the contemporary art scene. Problems and solutions are formulated there, the photographic language as well. Now, your photo is a fashion photo taken in a studio, last week was a sport photo, Tony Dummett POW was a candid. (By the way what a misleading concept is this one! : candids, there is not such a thing as a candid, there are not essential differences among a good candid and a studio staged photo, in a candid you have a negative with which you work in the darkroom or in PS making alterations as elaborated as those made in a studio, you build up a good candid as much as you build up a staged photo) I think that the different genres give some clues about the problems, solutions and language, that means they provide some kind of environment to the photo, in the same way as the galleries and the artistic scene do it for the art critics. This photo is a fashion one, this is a starting point, I think that his merits has been very well shown above, I wont repeat what has been said. I am trying to fill the communication gap here since, for all his merits, I honestly can not go beyond that.

 

I think that I am missing some social context. I acknowledge that I am very ignorant about your social context, Marc. I dont know the east. Although I am traveling all the time the place further to the east that I have seen is Thessalonica, not much, as you see. I dont know nothing about eastern cultures and I have not been so interested as to perceive meanings that I suspect are in your photo. Perhaps it is a path worth exploring.

 

 

Whew! A lot to think about there.

The Dali event that you are referring to was posted by our very own Mary Ball in this POW thread (the sandstone steps) two weeks ago.

First of all, thanks to the moderator for cleaning up the mess. Let's burry the axe of war, and...

I'm still welcoming any PHOTO-RELATED criticism, be sure of that. (Leaving personal attacks out seems nevertheless to be part of photo.net's regulations.)

Louis,

"Is this [ 7 ] a lucky number in the East?" you asked...

No. Not at all actually. 8s are far better over here...:-) 8s mean prosperity to most Chinese.

"Would you give a 7-7 to it [the POW picture] as your choice of best photo in your portfolio?"

I honestly don't know about originality, Louis... I mean, to me, this picture is of course engaging emotionally, and does have a sort of meaning attached to it, but I obviously see a lot more in it than others may see. It's not to say this picture is greatly original, but just that I can't have a clear opinion about its originality. I took this picture after all. Then I posted it for critiques, and I didn't award it POW...

As for aesthetics, would I give the original POW a 7 ? Clearly, the answer is... NO.

As Scott mentionned above, if I thought it was perfect, I wouldn't have uploaded an amended "final" version later...

Would I rate my final version a 7 in Aesthetics...?

By photo.net's inflated rating standards, I'd give it an 83 upon 7...:-) (But AT BEST a 6 by real life professional standards. I've seen much better than that where I used to work as an assistant...)

Is there any image in my portfolio, that I would personally rate a 7/7 by high professional standards ?

NO.

By photo.net standards ? Maybe 3 or 4 of my pictures - I said "maybe"... (??)

One of my favorite images is a picture that Ian MacEachern rated "very good" long ago, and which was imo the most well-done and fun shot I have ever posted here. I was at least as happy to get his opinion on this picture, as I am today for receiving this POW "award". (Please note that the POW is apparently not called an "award" by photo.net.) I will always be happy to get even a very harsh (but polite) critique from anyone who knows something about photography.

Were the Elves right to pick this picture for POW ? Did I "DESERVE IT" - for what ever that means...?

I don't know, because I don't know what their motives are... nor do I know the Eternal Truth about photography or arts or anything else at all. All I know is that I love taking pictures, and that I like this POW picture. Basically, it's a picture I'm quite proud of. I'd say one of my 5 best fashion shots ever... (Highly subjective opinion, of course...)

I wanted an intriguing image, and I thought I had somehow managed that. I thought the lighting was interesting. Maybe these 2 things could explain why it was picked... I'm not sure...

Maybe the Elves were just too drunk and tossed a coin...:-) Regards.

First of all I would like to remind posters that objections about POW picks from a policy viewpoint should be addressed in a thread or in an e-mail to administration. See the "About POW" on the main page Secondly, POW picks are not all from the top pages! Third, as someone pointed out -- there would be a tendency to avoid picking work from photographers who have already been featured. Fourth, We are dealing with subjective and very varied tastes here and I wish people would respect that.

Normally when a poster spits venom and attacks against the POW, the photgrapher or policy on these pages.. they receive an e-mail. It is not the policy to go into policy on these pages even by administration. Sorry Marc to stray from that usual practice but I think we need a universal reminder.

Regarding the image... I think much of Marc's work is full of drama. Both in his color and black and white work. If it had a name it might be called High-Drama Art. Yes, to me it is art. Even commercial work can be considered art to some. I love the dramatic angle and the pointed hat and mostly like the stance of the model except for the left arm. She is fluid and graceful but the arm departs from that motion of grace for me. I like the second image better because I didn't care for the ps work done on the draped fabric on the floor. I also have a problem with the lighting on the left arm/hand. It is just not to my taste that the arm is black and the hand is lit. Yet - it is a taste thing and I recognize it as such. I've just never liked harsh lighting/shadows on the female face or form. Don't mind it on males -just not on females.

Bottom line for me regardless of some small nits - is that the shot was well thought out, original and wonderfully theatrical.

John Orr said "Looking at this image even closer, its amusing to me because I cant seem to figure out how the model is posed. It appears her bottom is in a chair with her left hand and feet on the floor?"

Absolutely! I was pondering on the same mysterious point. It is like a trick illusion. Her bottom I first assumed to be on the ground, but on further inspection decided it could not be because her hips look higher level than her feet. Also there is no crinkling in the material were her bottom would be on ground level. In the end I came to the conclusion that she is sat on a chair, and the material underneath the hand that supports her weight, is not actually on the ground, but draped over some support of which the height cannot be recognised due to the drapes. Well...... I don't know, but it certainly puzzled me as well as John.

I would also like to apologise to Marc because in my first comment my criticism was the blur of the material edges and feet of the model. I have since found time to go through the whole thread and there discovered the edited version... sorry Marc! Yes the posted edit without blur is just so much better.

Thank you for the answer Marc. I was genuinely interested in

your comments. I have found in the past that others will pick an

image from a selection of my prints which surprises me and it is

very interesting to me why they do so and of course they can

often point out something which although under my nose I have

totally missed. They of course are seeing images with none of

the background thoughts emotional or whatever that I the

photographer may have. From the new version in your folder you

will have seen my other comments, the colour takes away that

coldness I was alluding to before and I find the square format

makes for a very strong image. I will aim for a POW of my own

but be clear I don't believe I have a style or vision to deserve

being picked yet but who knows. When I look at my photos of 3 or

4 years ago I can see how much my attempts have changed.

Congratulations, I have you up as a favourite and look forward to

the images to come and lots of 8's ;-)

Louis

The AUTHOR of this picture does use various standard rules like: the DIAGONAL; placing the bust at the 1/3 INTERSECTION of the X and Y plane; SPOTLIGHT highlighted background (almost a high key image!); a mysterious face through the COVER-UP by the hat and a rather seldom used ANGLE, which attracts constand attention. But not to forget the sexy legs' exposure! These are the GOOD POINTS. The LET DOWN, by my judgment, ist the "charcoaled" right arm and the almost "bleached out" left arm. As a matter of fact the backrest of the settee could almost be mistaken for the left arm. A balancing act between right and left arm is recommended.

Marc: You rule. This photo has all the technical aspects as pointed out by others, but most of all it's got STYLE! This hearkens back to when women were beautiful and feminine and elegant, not the slovenly underfed runway matchsticks they are today. I AM JEALOUS OF THIS PHOTO!

 

Cheers,

Robert

Ive been looking at this photo for three days, and it has a lot of good aspects. The detail in the models dress is well captured, and the angle of her pose is interesting, and I like the lighting and camera angle. However, I am troubled by what appears to be areas of inconsistent focus. The material next to the models left hip appears blurred, but it also appears to be the same material next to her left knee which is not blurred. In addition, her right foot appears to be more in focus than her left foot, and that bothers me. I'm not sure if this blurring is intentional, an unintended result of the camera, or the result of artistic post photo activity. I just think it detracts from the image. I seems to me that items near one another should be in equal focus.

 

I suppose when I look at black and white images, I expect to see everything in focus, as I think capturing sharp detail is a strength of black and white film. Others may disagree. Anyway, for what this image represents, its a nice effort.

...look more closely and you'll see the corner of the chair under the cloth. Great photo, Marc! Congrats.

I like this photo very much. The lighting is great, the composition is - IMHO - superb. Very stlish and well deserving of POW. Congratulations!

Congratulations Marc.

 

Your efforts in contributing to the artistic dialogue make you most deserving of this recognition.

I think I see it now. She must be sitting on a box, with her hand on the corner, and not on the floor as some have suggested. The "blurred" part of the cloth must be hanging down to hide the box, and the angle makes the difference. I still think the choice of cloth weakens the image, even if it is actually not out of focus. I think the material could be approved upon. Something softer to match the rest of the photo. Perhaps a material with texture or pattern similar to her hat would better suit my eye, only in a slightly darker gray.

Sorry marc, but Im baffled by the angle of the flash and your statement that only one light source was used. I think you are not being truthful to us when you say there is no Photoshop manipulation here. If we draw a straight line from her left shoulder (underarm) to the shadow it casts on the floor, we can see that the angle of the flash should not light her face.

Also, if this is supposed to be a snoot casting a circle shadow around her, we should be able to see the hat as a shadow alsosince the hat is fully lit; but it seems that the hat is completely eliminated in the shadow. There is also no shadow on her blouse from the hat.

I think the dark oblong circle around the whole frame was added in Photoshop as it is in stark opposition to the angle of the light bathing the subject. For one, in order to eliminate any shadow (on her body) from her hat, the single flash has to almost be at her eye level and as such, the dark circle shadow on the floor does not correspond to it. IMO, this shadow can only be cast from a light hanging on a ceiling, but this is not the case here, for if it were, we should see two different but lighter shadows.

 

Also the oblong circle says that this light was behind her and slightly to her left side, but the light on the subject is in front of her at the direction where the hottest spot on her hat shows. Also, this line is kind of crooked at the lower right corner.

Therefore, IMO this oblong circle was added post exposure in Photoshop.

A little aside: the fact that there is not a visual separation between her dress and her shadow is kind of disturbing or uncomfortable to look at. Other than that, all the praises mentioned before are my exact sentiment and I find it repetitious to make mention of them. Congratulations! 7/7

"It saddens me that some have found inspiration in Marc's work."

 

Well, what can I say? Am I some superficial lout, such that I should be so easily inspired? I confess that what I most envy about Marc is not his command of technique (although that is very impressive) but his eye.

 

Marc and I tend to take photos of very different things, but his suggestion for a different crop got one of my rather ordinary rustic nature photos into the top pages, indicating that Marc has a respect for subjects that are not slick or artificial at all--and he had the eye to see what I did not see, at least in terms of abstracting from the scene that which made it into a good photograph as opposed to an ordinary photograph of a good subject.

 

Being a professional philosopher, I guess that I (a.k.a. J. Landrum Kelly on the search engines) never thought of myself as belonging to some mindless crowd of mutual backslappers who are not critical thinkers. I like Marc's critical commentary, and he has striven mightily to make me into a good photographer, even though he knows that he will never quite succeed. I appreciate those efforts and those constructive criticisms as much as his art, but I truly appreciate and revere both and always will.

 

Marc's original version awed me with its technique. The revised version added warmth. Should I desire more?

 

I'm happy just to be on this site, to be quite honest. I get comments from Marc, and have gotten a few e-mails from Phil Greenspun, Dennis McKenzie, Perry Shillinglaw, and others, things that I never imagined would happen to me when I stumbled onto this site in the fall of 1999. It's good to get the other side of my brain stimulated every once in a while by going out to take pictures, and I love this site. Marc is one of the primary reasons I love it, and I applaud most sincerely the selection of one of his works as PoW.

 

I meant to say, "I'm inspired. Mea culpa. Mea culpa. Mea culpa."

I won't post a complete reply to your post right now, but I will on saturday or sunday. My reply to you will meanwhile be sent to you via e-mail in a few minutes.

Basically, I stand by what I said, the only Photoshoping involved in the final version being contrast adjustments and toning. The black area at the top was black on film and not added in PS. Your reasoning is overall clever, but neglects a few important parameters, as you will see later. Best regards.

Bravo Marc, it's technically superb. I'll completely avoid the "is it art" discussion, and say only that I find the position of the legs slightly awkward... as though the left foot should be slightly further back and to the right to create some tension from an angle between the legs.

 

Just a thought born of subjectivity :-)

 

Ciao,

Graham

Marc,

 

I highly crafted photo with gorgeous lighting and textures. Compositionally interesting.

I like it very much.

 

Regards,

Bruce.

"Looking at this image even closer, its amusing to me because I cant seem to figure out how the model is posed. It appears her bottom is in a chair with her left hand and feet on the floor?"

 

Stayed out all night in Skopje, Macedonia (need to escape work sometime) perhaps its my delusional state right now or my delirium, probably the whisky sours have helped clear my vision a bit too. Whatever the case, think I must have been blind the first few times but it seems as though I was not the only one (Geraldine Allen). I can clearly see now that she is sitting on what appears to be a trunk with a silk-like fabric draped across it. As of late I've shot some high pitch images and love what I see. Thanks for reminding me Marc.

I'm enjoying these "how was it lit" guessing games, so I'm going to contribute my wild guess and suggest the light was to her left and somewhat in front to create that shadow, and almost level with the hat so that the shadow of the hat didn't fall on the visible part of her face. The light can't be overhead or the shadow of the hat would fall inside the lighted area. The only way I can explain the oval shape of the spotlighted area (if the flash was positioned as I suggested) is if there was some kind of mask over the flash that produced that shape. However it was done, it is very clever because the spotlit area follows the lines of her body beautifully. I would darken the right hand very slightly and minimize photoshop blurring. It is not clear in the web version how the fabric is fixed to the bench on her left (some kind of clip?) but I assume that would be less confusing in a larger printed version. I think it's a lovely "retro" fashion photo, theatrical and coolly sophisticated. To me it comments on the 40s, as someone has already suggested, a time when women's fashion was unapologetically about illusion.