Clifford On The Road

...if I may ask, and since you are around... and since Clifford is all ears for your answers... why are you rating so many images ? and why all around the same figures ? and why don't you write comments in general ? and what are your qualifications to rate almost 5000 images in less than a month ? Does that leave you any time to look at the pictures you rate in the first place ?

I realize that you are entitled to do what ever you find suitable, but what's the point of all this, if I may ask ? What are you getting out of it - especially with no pictures online ?

After seeing such a great photo one starts pondering "Where did the inspiration for this shot come from or what triggered the shot?"

 

From the song "How much is that doggie in the window" a major hit in 1953??? Nearly 50 year's ago. Are we having a coincidence here? And the

mentioning of the state of California in that song and the fact that this picture is taken in California. Another coincidence? And could this picture also have a second (sub) title "Lawrence's home coming".

 

Link to the lyrics and song: http://www.niehs.nih.gov/kids/lyrics/howmuch.htm

This is my vote for this photo as the Pre Photo of the Week. The PP award, concluded on Saturday at whatever EST, when all votes and comments are in and tallied. On the PP award, the comments appear on the photo before its chosen as the PPOW.

 

As a tribute to this weeks PP OW I am attaching my best shot of the equally interesting animals on the back of the truck driven by the man who was cleaning the toilets at a rest stop on our last camping trip. True, its true! Look at Cliffords ears. Three months ago they were much shorter. Therefore, I think there has been some manipulation to this photo!

 

There seems to be enough comments on this weeks PPOW to carry some over till next week.

This photo is too perfect to be believable. You can clearly see that the glints in his eyes are just not in the right place given the overall direction of the light. For example, they are inconsistent with the light on his little button nose. And then he cloned in that yellow thingy on the left, being sliced by the frame, just to make us think it was real. A little too clever! How come Mr Lawrence Spinak (is that your real name?) didn't disclose this obvious manipulation?

I can't take this anymore...I try and try to produce great photographs for photo.net. Sure I get the occasional top photo...but someone always comes along and ruins it with a 3/3. You don't see them handing out POW's to Rick Vincent now, do you....WELL! Do YOU!! Then, something like this comes along....Clifford...He makes it look so easy to pull off a 6/6 average...EVEN WITH THE 3/3's...Well...I've had it...Its time to take action in the only other way I know how.....I HAVE CLIFFORD...and if you ever want to see his furry red hide again...ALIVE...then I suggest you listen up...I'm talking to YOU LAWRENCE...It's ransom time, and I suggest you pay up or little Red Cliffy here gets it. That's right, sizzled up like dog meat in a Mexican taco stand...Here's the deal ...7/7 rate every photo in my entire portfolio...That's right my friend...7/7...Yeah, you got it..that means you have to leave a comment on every photo too...Photo.net says so...AND THEY BETTER BE GOOD COMMENTS...a few recommendations for POW wouldn't be a bad idea either. It's that simple...if you ever want to see your precious little scarlet fuzzball again. Like I said, I've gone over the edge...Somedoggy is going to pay If I don't get my demands met.

I say we ALL give in to Rick's demands and I MEAN NOW !!!!! ........... 7-7's on every photo - you got it ........... Nice comments - you got it ........... Recommendations for POW - done deal ....................... God Save The Queen .............And Cliffy TOO !!! .....

At first glance I wasn't sure why all the high

ratings on this either, but then after taking

a long hard look, and it took a very-very long

hard look, I now understand what it is about this

that gives it that POW quality!

It is done so cleverly that it's impossibe to tell

for sure if it is real or PS, but however you've done it, you have captured a perfect image here that IMHO should be POW! The DOF is perfect and

the Compostion is outstanding. The eye is drawn

to Clifford. Nice touch with the bug splat! To

be a little picky though, I think I would crop that little yellowish - orange truck out on the left, it's quite distracting. Then you have a truly perfect photo!

If lettuce can get a 7, then Clifford should be

an 8/8!!!!

 

BTW ... Thanks Marc, for the "QOM"!! Afraid I'd have to give the answer a 3/3 though.

Am I the only nay-sayer here? Aside from the obvious digital manipulation, there is the question of Clifford's excessive saturation. I am not familiar with the properties of this particular emulsion, but I cannot believe that the real Clifford could have been that color. I know he is supposed to be red, but is it believable that a children's toy would be such a ridiculous, garish red?

 

Of course, slavish high ratings of excessively saturated images are epidemic on This Server. No doubt this is the work of that whole notorious Spinak-Dummett mate-rating crowd.

Dear Brian,

 

You can think as you please, but I assure you that the only digital manipulation that occurred was when my right-hand index digit pressed the shutter release.

 

As for saturation, I'd send you a fur sample, but Clifford's currently being held hostage in a frying pan-bondage scenario by Rick Vincent.

Yes Men !!! ............ Nooo ...... well, yes - maybe ................... What ??

Hilarious .... rofl ... truly an inspiration. Have a long and good ride, Clifford. How could anyone grade this 3/3? BTW -- I recently got an e-mail from Bailey saying that my post was deleted ... oh no, that wasn't Bailey.

I believe I saw that particular shade of red on an Ellesworth Kelly photo, and on a certain test photo. Are you plagarizing Ellesworth, Lawrence? Shame on all plagurists (spelling)and red dogs.

Doug Burgess, can you make a color scale to measure reds, like your black to whitest of white one?

"Aside from the obvious digital manipulation, there is the question of Clifford's excessive saturation." said Brian.

Here, I shall say NO, NO, NO, AND NO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I find it truly sad to see the Editor of photo.net being so dishonest. Manipulation ? Ha ! Talk about it ! Excessive saturation ?!! Ha, yeah, right !

See what Mr. Mottershead is up to when he's not exhausting himself at work to keep some sort of order in the Photo.net school yard !

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=1085596

Now how's that for a digital manipulation with excessive saturation !?! Mmmmm...?!?

Come on, Brian... Don't you have anything better to do than creating such abstracts ! Don't you have anything better to do than criticize the only true masterpiece this site has ever been graced by ?! Give it up, PLLLLEEAAASE ! Give it up immediately, and acknowledge what's grand as just that - no jealousy will ever take any further anyway !

After a careful examination of Brian Mottershead's latest upload - see link in my previous post -, I came to the conclusion, that Brian actually brokre the sacro-saint laws of copyright and actually uploaded as his an image that was nothing but an extreme macro of our star Clifford.

I analyzed most carefully, and it appears that the 248 red on Clifford's fur is exactly the same as the red in Brian's upload ! I even saw that one of Clifford's hair had been cloned off from Brian's upload - without Brian even mentionning it in the technical details !!!!

Please note - highly scientific content after this:

To detect this illegal cloning, we applied the known CD-TD 7326 test, which was used by Tony Dummett on all previous manipulated POWs. Which is to say that there is absolutely no doubt left about the fraud.

SO, BRIAN... How could you complain today about a dog you actually used to become famous on photo.net for this "image" of yours you had the guts to call "Test"...???

We will not negociate with terrorists. Surrender immediately or your portfolio will be surrounded by thousands of Bailey Seals and Rogers by tomorrow morning 8 a.m martian time !

I'm half expecting Tris and Peter C. to materialise, ghostlike, carrying Vuk wearing a pimp hat on their shoulders while David G. writes anonymous paeans to whatever it was he used to write anonymous paeans to.

And where is Geraldine A., our muse who worked it all out and then got banned before she could tell us what was really going on? Nejat? Blowin' in the wind, my friends; flying high with P.G.... as they all are - now - but not as they all should be....

Mottershead is making very un-Editor-In-Chief-like accusations, Spinak (M) is accusing me of serial stalking and Gougenheim is pixelating Mottershead's upload, applying the CD-TD 7326 test. Someone's gotta say it: this place has gone to the dogs. Meanwhile, has anyone given a thought to Clifford?

Clifford: alone, bounden (as was Prometheus), a pawn in this game of international name-calling and oneupmanship; his little cojones already frozen, now subjected to indescribable indignities in the laundry tub of Captain Sin himself: Rick "Osama bin" Vincent, of no fixed address.

The attached photograph to this post makes a simple statement. You - all of you - would do well to heed it.

So as not to have this comment moderated-out, striving to be on-topic at all times, can I ask Lawrence, did you ever work with Yul in your previous career and did he have any influence on your current photographic work?

What I find clever about this photograph (it has been established as a photograph hasn't it?), is that it has been cunningly designed to mislead you. Look at the perspective lines being used at the top section leading us out of the frame instead of the cliche placement at the bottom leading you in. Regarding the circles of confusion, look at the dof, it is very finely controlled to blur Clifford (executive decision to use a long focal length at a very short distance worked amazingly successfully to achieve this), and ingeniously place emphasis on the road and traffic, not Clifford - who in my mind is merely there as witness watching us, watching them (the traffic in front). Hell it even says "Clifford ON THE ROAD" in the title. If that's not a clue then I don't know what is. This picture therefore, is a subtle statement about voyeurism. Not that I know much about it, but if you zoom in on the caravan at 590078% you can just about make out a couple amongst the pixels of the gap in the curtain. You see? You have all been barking up the wrong tree.

ps Tony I do not think it is politically or morally correct to colour dogs red if that is not their natural colour (like Cliffords). It demeans their sublime status in the animal kingdom - unless of course you are implicating their regal status by using red to denote royalty?.

As usual, you have read my mind, Geraldine. Clifford is indeed reminiscent, in my mind, of royalty.

 

Welcome back. You have been sorely missed.

Among other things, we have a statement on classic triangular compositon. The image is chock full of them--all of these alluding to the invisible triangle from the photographer's eyes to Clifford.

 

This is no less than a 21st century rework of "The Kiss". The intensity, the anticipation, the archetypes, and the passion are all there.

 

In spite of my enthusiasm, I remain suspicious that someday this, like Doiseneau's image, will turn out to be a posed photograph.

One thing other posters have not commented on is the beauty of the tress in the background; the contrast between the closely spaced trees on the right hand side with the more widely spaced trees on the left hand side gets the viewer's attention. The beauty of the trees on the left first catches the viewer, which makes them naturally want to look to the right of the road, where the more closely packed trees naturally draws the viewer downward. At which point ones eyes is drawn to the dog's right ear; this then diverts the viewer to the shape of the dog as a whole.

 

The plush dog, naturally, represents fragility (as do the beautiful trees). The SUV driving in front represents the destruction of the environment; this photo is definitely an environmental statement.

 

The oversized dashboard in the bottom of the photo strengthens the environmental statement; it shows how our technology is replacing the beautiful environment (as represented by the top of the photo) with a relatively bleak grey.

 

A truly marvelous photo; this one definitely deserves a 7/7!

 

- Sam

I prefer this vertical crop. I think does more justice to the subject. I am a little distracted by the way the shadow falls across Cliffirds nose but my PS skills are lacking to fix it.

Marc, you buffoon: I posted my brilliant "Test" image before "Lawrence" posted this; so how could I have plagiarized this? Anyway, "Test" was simply my experiment to prove how mesmerized the photo.net crowd is by saturated colors. Obviously, Lawrence fell for my trap and used the eye-dropper tool in Photoshop to steal my color, along with his other transparent digital hocus-pocus.

I woke up this morning and my dog was red! What is going on in this world? I wonder if Bailey will be as generous on his ratings of this image now? :-)

Ansel Adams? Crap!

Cartier-Bresson? Hack!

Weston? Incompetent!

 

There is but one God of photography, and His name is Spinak.

Again, I'm late to the party. Don't you guys know by now that I don't yet have a home computer? An originally sublime, technically proficient photograph like this gets uploaded on the weekend, and I'm left without the benefit of basking in its glow until I arrive at work on Monday morning? C'mon, I know I'm not the only one in this position, so Lawrence, in all fairness, a masterpiece like this should only be uploaded on a Monday so that the full photo.net audience can be suitably enlightened.

 

I'm not going to drag this discussion into our weekly PS vs. non-PS POW debate. Though certainly deserving of POW honours, this photo does not deserve the characteristic mire of such a debate. The detractors above (Brian, this one's leveled at you) should get a life, and leave such worry's to the photo.net higher ups who clearly know what is, and what isn't a photograph.

 

In fact, the sheer brilliance of this photograph has led me to reconsider my long-standing practice of not rating photographs. It deserves nothing less than a 10 and 10. Hey wait a minute, what's this maximum 7 and 7 crap? Site management... justifications please! Can you direct me to a thread where this heavy-handed, totalitarian and fundamentally undemocratic change of course has been disclosed... with feedback from us, the membership (and the true OWNERS of this site)? Besides, I need some good bed-time reading (reading 5 or six comments on this topic might be interesting).