Wayang

Im a machinist by tradeconjones are not my strong suit. Second statement first; I was not going to comment on this shot because I thought it was me, someone very new to photo.net, someone who does not want to come across the wrong way. Then I read David Malcolmsons comments and felt that balls or no balls I too must raise my head above the parapet.

As a machinist my working life is full of thousandths and tens of thousands of an inchwhen Im fabricating items they must be that exact, they must be flawless. Marcthat is how this photo strikes me, it is cold, it is emotionless, everything is thought out and shot to within a ten thou. Yes it is the perfect studio shot; it too is flawlessperiod. Your skills in composition, lighting and Photoshop exceed any that I will ever master and I respect you and themenormously. Yet to me this pure unalloyed photograph leaves me cold as the lump of steel that my job required me to turn into some sort of widget.

Give me London Tourists . Give me Kung Fu Squirrel. Those are shots Ill remember forever. And so after beaking off how do I rate the shot? If you rate it the way the rating categories are worded, Aesthesis and Originality, I guess it deserves 6s or 7s... but that will never feel right to me.

Thank you for your nicely articulted response, Mr. Vanson. I feel the same way. This photo is a masterpiece of craftsmanship (and probably beyond anything I'll ever be able to acheive), but it just isn't very moving.

 

To you, Mr. Gouguenheim, I offer my congratulations, my admiration, and my thanks for the energy you put in to photo.net. I trust that you understand that I'm describing my reaction to your photo, not launching any kind of personal attack.

Beautiful picture. The soft feel compliments the woman's delicate femininity. Just lovely. Congratulations on a well-deserved POW.

First off, Mark - CONGRATS on the POW! I think that this is an excellent photograph and is an interesting view of the model.

 

I know it's lazy, but I tend to expect to see models in a view from level - so it is very nice to see this one from above like this. But what really seems to make this photo for me is the concealing hat - just showing the lips and chin... really makes me want to see and imagine what the rest of her expression is and draws out my curiosity through the rest of the photo. Also, I am a fan of contrasty images and this satisfies that as well.

 

Great photo!

This woman appears very beautiful, your photo only emphasizes and enhances her loveliness. Feels warm and mysterious almost drawing onlookers towards her splendor and inviting them to remain in her good graces and company. Astonishingly stunning

I said disturbing, I meant distracting.

This picture has a definite "Quiet American" look about it. I saw the film last week and this shot could be a publicity still for it. I don't know too much about the exact styles of the costume (some have said Vietnamese, some Chinese) but they lead me to hanker for less oppressive days where ordinary people went about their business without needing to carry the yoke of geopolitics on their shoulders, pawns in some globalised chess game between warring power brokers. It's a very evocative picture.

 

I too prefer Marc's amended version. It is smoother and better finished.

 

The concept is quite attractive too. I guess, to use a cliche, you could say it engenders the "Mystery Of The East". Just a touch of lips here, a shadowed arm (so delicate) there and - admittedly not so mysterious - a beautiful and enticing pair of legs, with a sort of "cinema noir" lighting (reminiscent of the 50s) about the whole scene. So nice not to see the usual semi-pornographic, pouting-lipped, tits-and-arse-in-your-face, G-stringed excuse of an image that pretends to be a "glamor" picture on these pages. There is subtlty here and definite allure without the crass MTV look that passes for beauty nowadays. So nice for Marc to present a beautiful woman in such a non-gymnastic pose. Note to girl-snappers: we're not all pimply-faced teenagers, smuggling concealed budgies in our jock straps. We have imaginations, and Marc has recognized that.

 

I really can't find anything wrong with this picture, and there is much that is right about it. The picture is about what cannot be seen, as well as what appears in front of you. It is enchanting to look at and the product of an obvious professional in his field.

 

May I also second (or third, or fourth) congratulations to Marc for a well-deserved POW, and for his untiring and passionate contributions right across the forum here, from which we have all benefited more than we can say.

Jim Vanson

You are comparing apples and oranges! Lets try and stay within the parameters here. This is a fashion shot and as such should be measured by that ruler and compared only to similar work. It is unfit to compare it to all other types of work. As far as I understand this is not an open competition where all photographic work qualifies as a criterion to judge the chosen piece, nor is it a competition where a single photo is chosen as the grand prize winner. If one doesnt like this weeks choice, there is always next week, or 50 more weeks after that. One cannot compare a fashion POW with a picture of an old man or that of a rustic door hinge, as well as that of a scorpion or a cow; that is not the point here. The purpose of POW is to promote all types of photography, albeit it is assumed that each weeks POW will be categorically inclined. By the way, both of these photos (London tourists and Kung fu squirrel) will never find their way into Vogue, Teenage, Seventeen, Glamour, or even Nature Photographer magazines. I know these four magazines have little in common to each other and the last one has nothing in common to the first four, and that is precisely my point about the kind of photos you seem to compare Marcs work to.

Kung Fu squirrel makes me dizzy and 'London Tourists' although kind of interesting is detached from any descriptive meaning. In other words, these could be London tourists just as they could be Paris tourists or even Sydney Australia or Perris, CA (USA) tourists, just as they could also be Christmas carolers. I find no clues of them being tourists, much less London tourists and this information has to be worded in. You can also say that they are blind people asking for alms or being escorted across the street. On the other hand Marcs photo is very stylish and provocative as well as clean cut. It is descriptive, as it tells a story about fashion, ethnicity, social status and the epoch in which it took place or one it represents. While the human figure is a study on femininity, a study of light, composition, lines and shapes. It is subtle yet bold, it is fragile yet strong, it is a study of beauty yet without a face. And I can go on, and on, but, you get the picture!

And no, Im not playing Marcs guard dog, Im just giving my honest opinion and trying to reiterate what I think is the purpose of POW. I also cant understand how one can like a picture to the degree so mentioned and find nothing appealing about it.

Im also not trying to put down Mr. Malcolmsons work, just making a point about photographic categories and the information within a photograph that describes such.

Marc,

First off. Congratulations on POW!

Funny thing was when I first saw this image come up on the page I knew it was yours. Signature style?

 

I like the image. Tonys comment about those carrying the "yoke of geopolitics" was intersting. I can agree there.

 

On closer inspection there are some minor things about the shot that I noticed - just food for thought.

 

I guess shot from this angle the her limbs do that optical foreshortening bit. The more I look at the models left arm the more it becomes apparent.

 

It is an image with a clear and direct impact.. right away you get the mystique, the allure, a very Oriental image.

 

Congratulations!

ISIDRO ACEVEDO, my comment, quoted directly reads as follows"Yes it is the perfect studio shot; it too is flawlessperiod. (Marc) Your skills in composition, lighting and Photoshop exceed any that I will ever master and I respect you and themenormously." That comment was made in an attempt to avoid the beaking of birds pecking only at what they want to see. It acknowledged the fact that it is a studio shot. It also acknowledged that Marcs photo is a credit to the photographer whose skills far exceed my own. Your quoteI also cant understand how one can like a picture to the degree so mentioned and find nothing appealing about it. Is so out there, its embarrassing. I said And so after beaking off how do I rate the shot? If you rate it the way the rating categories are worded, Aesthesis and Originality, I guess it deserves 6s or 7s... but that will never feel right to me. If I did not find the quality just why would I say that it was entitled to 6s & 7s? So to reiterate;

One-This is a perfect studio shot, it is flawless. Two-You are entitled to your opinion although I wish you would have read what I said more closely (although maybe I wasnt as clear as I could have been). Third-David so aptly sums up my feelings towards the shot with one extraordinarily apt wordjejune. With that this dumm Indian (me) lays the subject to rest.

I will say that there are different opinions about this image and some could be just as wrong as mine might be. I have returned to this image again and again trying to work out where its appeal lies. I suspect it is this. The picture has a strong diagonal composition, and this kid of composition has a great aesthetic appeal at an elemental level, regardless of the content of the image .I think this distracts many viewers from a more detailed scrutiny of the elements of the image. In the image as it stands the models pose is awkward and uncomfortable- there is a sense she is going to keel over to the right. Now if you rotate the image 45degrees to the left, the models posture is much more natural: unfortunately the image becomes totally ordinary. Is this where Marc started from then arranged his viewpoint (or rotated his scan) to achieve the strong diagonal? What I am asserting is that the photo is very ordinary when divorced from that diagonal composition. Further viewing merely reinforces my feeling that the pose of the arms and shoulders is incredibly awkward and ugly (go and look again with unblinkered eyes).

I see, there is a big discussion about your beautifull picture .... From me just a few words to say that this image is very good, it represents well your personal photographic work and, finally, i feel in this pict your great ability in comunicating emotions through the images. Congratulations.

Impressive subject, pose, and array of tones and textures. I'd be interested in seeing what the non-PS'd image looks like. The digital blurring seems to have affected the border between the floor and the fabric on floor a bit much, as well as giving much of the image an artificially smooth and flawless look (much the same way that Playboy airbrushes their models).

You'll find the non-blurred & non-soften version in sepia toned B&W posted roughly in the middle of the present thread as "Final version". Or you can see the original version in color uploaded in the same folder. Regards.

Congrats. I would have chosen something from your photojournalistic images, but that is me. I think I like the color version of this one a little better. You definetly seem to stimulate discussion, and therein lies a value all on its own. I've always enjoyed your opinion, though not always agreed. Keep up the excellent work. Warmest regards, J.

I remember seeing this image long before it was selected POW. It first struck me as a very arresting image, and really drew my attention from the other photos up around it. As I looked more closely at it I found that, while the photo has undeniable aesthetic appeal, the hidden face caught my imagination. We are given several clues at to the subject's identity -- the clothes and the body most notably -- but that face is kept hidden. There are many places this line of reasoning can lead to: the objectification of women, certain strands of Orientalism, or more simply, a feeling of mystery that the photograph engenders. Because the photo is so crisp and precise I would argue that this photo comments on objectification of women (for the other two thoughts I would prefer to have seen a less polished image).

 

There is also the idea that a photo is always of something, but in this case the thing that the photo is of is denied us. Or is it? Do we need to see the woman's face to know her identity?

 

Excellent shot. Truly a deep and thoughful image.

 

Scott

Marc congratulations on the POW. I must confess that seeing this photo made me go to your other folders to get some broad stylistic background before commenting. I'm most impressed with your industrial series. Your fashion flare stands you in good stead, but I got spoilt on Andy Warhol's Interview in the 80s/90s and feel they had the best fashion I've seen. You have certainly given a lot to the photo community, and as an avid amateur, greatly appreciate the generosity of your time and talents; even when I feel that other images of yours might be more deserving of this POW.

JIM

I understood exactly what you said and why you explained you appreciation of this photo in terms of exactness (because this is what you do for a living and you appreciated the meticulous and careful placement of all elements). I also understood your parallel to a cold piece of steel (with this you are saying that the photo does nothing for youperiod). I got that TOO! Im not way out there! Im not contesting anyones preferences here, nor am I contesting the right to disagree or dislike anything, nor the fact that one can appreciate a photograph for all that it contains yet still remain unimpressed by it. To tell you the truth, I dont like fashion photography myself, and the more it leans towards the nude the less I like it. But I can still understand it and appreciate the art aspect which the photographer tries to instill in his work even though this type of art does nothing to inspire me in the least bitas I consider it distasteful and unnecessary in photographyor any other type of art for that matter (nude that is). So I can concord with the fact that while some photography means the world to half of the population, it can be jejune to the other half. I got that too! If you also read my comment again you will see that my intent was only to try and steer the critiques towards the category on hand and not deviate unto other types of art. I started this by saying that you were comparing apples with oranges. I tried to as best I could to make the connection between your critique of the POW and your mention of the type of photography you like, but to me they are mutually set apart and I was only trying to point out the UNNECESSARY mention of the two photos you suggested we seephotos that at least for you are worth remembering forever. I think that anymore arguing would be just for the sake of arguing. But excuse me if I misunderstood thisYet to me this pure unalloyed photograph leaves me cold as the lump of steel that my job required me to turn into some sort of widget. Give me London Tourists . Give me Kung Fu Squirrel. Those are shots Ill remember forever.

Isnt this supposed to mean that (at least for you) these photos are better than the POW? You dont mind if I STRONGLY disagree, do you? This comparison is why I went into the long winded description of my appreciation of this POW. I wasnt trying to change your mind for you and I most certainly wasnt trying to call you stupid. Cant say you didnt try to tag me though!

 

Peace!

"If anybody has a picture of a squirrel performing some Kung Fu on the knees of 2 London tourists sitted in a rickshaw - preferably wearing a vietnamese hat -, please upload it now, and it will be considered seriously for our next Photo Of the Week..."

A note I saw published in the forum a while ago, from our dearest Elves... (Or was it just a dream...? :-)

Smiling Out Loud ..........

I may be blind but I aint dumb and with that I ask what the hell is wrong with yous guys? While youre [talking] about each others tastes Im out shooting photos. I gotta tell yous something yous aint noticed; clear the wax out here it comes, ITS JUST A PICTUREnothing more, nothing less. If your going to argue at least argue about something important, something like how great the bokeh is on Leica lenses or if the new TriX is as good as the old TriX

Sorry for not bringing much of general truths about art in general, but here is at least my response to ISIDRO about THE LIGHT, about what's photoshopped, what's not, etc.

"Sorry marc, but I'm baffled by the angle of the flash and your statement that only one light source was used" said Isidro...

And yet, it is exactly the case.

"I think you are not being truthful to us when you say there is no Photoshop manipulation here....I think the dark oblong circle around the whole frame was added in Photoshop as it is in stark opposition to the angle of thelight bathing the subject."

Well, no... The oval is indeed drawn by the light... All I did in Photoshop was to clone a bit at the bottom right edge of the pool oflight... Then I also muted the whites and adjusted contrast overall, burned the shoulder and the silver cloth a tad, and that's all IN THE FINAL VERSION.

"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 shouldnot light her face."

Yes, UNLESS she raises her head up... And that's the case here.

"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 also.since the hat isfully lit; but it seems that the hat is completely eliminated in the shadow."

Well, the hat is not fully lit... Then, first, I am not using any snoot. I used a flash head and attached to it a kind of lens used in the cinematographic industry. It basically allows to have much sharper edges than most traditional spots would permit to. Secondly, the shadow of the hat exists indeed, but issimply left out of the frame. It would be on the left, if it weren't cropped off, as you can see in the color version I have uploaded - which is a squareformat. Looking at the color version, you should anyway be just as surprised, since the shadow of the hat falls in the shadow area, indeedOUTSIDE of the oval.

So, how can that be...? Well, you need here to try to figure where the light source was. you wrote this: "...IMO, this shadow can only be cast from alight hanging on a ceiling" , and then this : "Also the 'oblong circle' says that this light was behind her and slightly to her left side"... And in bothcases, you are wrong... The light source was actually at about 2.5 meters above the ground, slightly in front of her, and to her left.

But what's now important, is to remember that we are talking about a kind of spot light here, meaning that the center of this "spot" is always muchbrighter than its edges. Look at the hat, and you can clearly see a toning from its border in front to the top of it - which is almost black... Thehighlight and tones on the hat indicate that the hot spot of the light source was actually pointed elsewhere - not on the hat, but on the legs.Basically, the light is just a bit in front of her and pointing down at her legs, following basically her body position (the body is almost turned tothe back), and lighting her face & chest on the way down... And you don't see any shadow of the hat on her chest for 2 reasons: a) because she'sraising her face up; b) because the light is a bit in front of her, and not behind.

Now that you know where the light was and how she's lit, remember that the light is barey touching the hat, and all I need to add is that the shadowof her hat would be at about 3 to 4 meters from this hat... And you can easily imagine that, eventhough a bit of light would touch the floor aroundthe place where the shadow of the hat would fall, it would be at least 4 f-stops darker than the model's chest, on which I adjusted my exposure...

Basically, the shadow area at the top is lit, but by so little light, that it turns black on film.

Blind, you have just shot down the whole reason behind the great bokeh of a Leica lens and the reason why film makers improve or experiment with their products. Thanks!

Now I must look at photography from a product stand point and not from an artistic stand point. (No need to draw out the guns, just making an observation on your observation). By the way; you have two excellent photographs in your portfolio, the one called legs and the composite one about Jesus. I did notice one thing though; no matter how good these are, they are just a picture and nothing else. Would you like to be praised for your artistic eye or for your choice of equipment and film used? Should I give credit to the camera and film manufacturer or to the photographer?

Since I have previously commented on this photo (or one of the variations) prior to it being selected as POW I would like to add my sincere congratulations. As I have said before you often reveal how little I know about certain subjects. I admire your work including this photograph. Most of all I admire the inquisitive nature and clarity of your frequent comments and contributions.

 

This photograph represents a genre or style of photography where many of us would be faced with a high likelihood of failure. I respect the fact that even though this photograph is well executed and would please most reasonable people, you are still thinking and working on ways to improve your craft. I think that is the measure of true talent. This photograph is an arresting work of art and also has great potential for commercial applications.

 

When I see this photograph I know it is a studio shot and yet it seems far less contrived than less professionally done efforts by other photographers. I think that execution (technical and artistic) is the primary difference between things that are trite and things that are art. I am certain that in many minds a dog dressed in a costume and shown driving a car is just as exciting as a woman dressed in a costume and striking an elegant pose. I dont get the dog photos (at all) but I can appreciate a well-crafted photo of a woman every time. Go figure!

 

Because the company I work for appears to have been taken over by a fundamentalist group that hates all modern technology I will have to read all your other well deserved accolades off-line.

And almost all expressing well-deserved tribute. I hesitate to add anything beyond congratulations and appreciation. But you are interested in individual responses, so:

 

About the image. Lovely work; elegant bordering on exquisite. A few nits, but they are well covered/acknowledged already, and the overall effect easily transcends those details. (Note: I don't know how to "read" the cultural elements of this image properly, so my reactions are those of an "outsider.") At first (weeks ago) I saw simply a commercial studio image executed with exceptional skill and intelligence, and graced by a sensibility that is more than "skill and intelligence." I admired the composition and lighting and the way these create an atmosphere of mystery and sensuality, invoking old associations with both the Orient and female sexuality. I liked very much how the whole construction seemed almost an ornate setting for the "jewel" of the lovely model, whose charm is celebrated without any sense of inappropriate exploitation (an attitude of authentic "human" respect which I've noticed in virtually all of your work with models).

 

Now, armed with the knowledge of what "Wayang" means, it is easy to see more. Puppet, manikin. The hidden face as signifying incomplete identity, costume as persona sans person. Fashion as a theater awaiting an animating spirit. A rather more complicated, many-leveled, provocative image, of which a great deal, indeed, could be said.

 

About other things. Anyone who still doesn't realize that Marc has already fully acknowledged (above) the usual aesthetic limitations of "commercial studio" photography should read his (really sort of wonderful) comments on Tony Dummett's POW a few weeks back. When I read that I thought at once of Marc's "Asia" folder, where one does not see so much spectacular control and studio creativity as in this POW, but does feel in the presence of a sincere and singular "heart" responding to what it discovers in the world... What did Cartier-Bresson say -- something about great photographs being made when the head and eye and heart are all on one axis. "Even" commercial work can be wonderfully made, and wonderfully meaningful, when it is infused with such a spirit.

 

Photo.net interests me not only as a perpetually renewed source of pleasure and instruction and inspiration, but also as a kind of self-emergent "planetary democracy" -- a community created in a space where boundaries of nationality are all erased, and made up of talented and intelligent individuals who, for the most part, exhibit a rare generosity of spirit as well as their great enthusiasm for a shared passion. It is like a light in a gathering gloom to me, given how events in the international sphere seem to be evolving. And Marc is surely one of the very bright luminaries in this constellation, and well deserving of all the accolades appended to his work this week.

 

At least, IMO :-)