giallo Mascagni

Sette !
Mauro Vacca

The piece grows on you, or at least, me. You know, most photos you look at, paintings as well, you've seen all there is at the first glance- no mystery, no feeling, no sense of time and place, and no reason to re-visit it? Well, I like this one because of a duality, and I don't come back to just read the current comments, but to review the art itself. Food for thought... it is both complex and simple, yet how can that be, those are opposites?

Will try to post one I also waited for a long time before the scene came together (3 hours- Milano street scene 1989).
If not, here is the link to it on this site:
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2507616

I like the simplicity of the photo. Almost minimalist.

mi accodo alla scia infinita di complimenti!

Amazing Photo....

Personally, when I first saw this image I was taken (in a good way). I liked all the technical aspects (composition, exposure, lighting etc), and enjoyed it for what it was. After reading comments by John A and Stephen, I started to question the very things they questioned (staged vs unstaged, author's intent etc.). I am always intrigued by John A and Stephen's comments as they make me think so much about the many aspects of photography, and art in general. Yet, I always come back to the image and accept it for what it is (my interpretation). I understand that story is important, and that it should override the technical aspects of a photo, but at what level do we say that the story is too weak etc? Does that even matter? For me I find that it does not matter so much, and all that really matters to me is my emotional reaction to an image. I found myself at peace when looking at this image, and even if that is not the artist's intent, does that matter? Sometimes I think we may over-analyze images, and in doing so lose the intent of art, which for me is striking a note in the viewer's heart. Having said this, I do enjoy reading the comments that people leave on POW, and will continue to read these comments to stir my mind, but not to the detriment of my emotional reaction to the image.

Dear Michael, as long as you have taken the garage to post your image here thats is a very ignoring attempt and you have my respect for that, but again as long as we are permitted to comment on the original image here which is the POW we are also permitted to comment on your auxiliary image, the question is, when an image like the one you have posted here the luck the even exposure values, and badly exposed at some of the zones, with no much of definitions and details, would we call that image as being a successful capture, or is just what you as a photographer, wanting it to be a great image?, if an image like that is decorated with its outer edges with a fancy framing work, will that enhances its technical quality, improve its composition, or just to make some people believe it is a good capture by viewing the frame work.

I do not know for sure if your image here is a contribution to this week POW or not, to me and according to my personnel opinion,by all means it is not contributing at all.
All of the respect my friend Michael, that was just my personnel thought about your image and others might see it differently.

Rashed S,
yes.

nice shoot, good compotition and colors

Paul, that's very well stated, and IMO it's how it should be. I think we have a better understanding of the POW and of our own view of photography (and of our own view of our own photography) when we react to it emotionally as well as intellectually. Points of view from other people, whether I agree or disagree, often give me something to think about and things I might not have seen on my own, but in the end I have to incorporate those into my own personal view of the photograph. Used in that way, the POW discussions can be a very enriching experience (as long as the discussion stays civil and stays pretty much on track). Personally, I really like it when the photographer also participates in the discussion.

I thought Rasheed's response to John A's photograph epitomises what is so ofetn wrong with these POW discussions. Even for those who don't know John personally it is obvious that he is an accomplished and thoughtful photographer. Yet when he posts an image it gets derided on shallow pseudo-technical grounds. Similarly for Michael's image. I think a more useful approach would be to ask "why did the photographer make these choices that I don't understand?"

Paul, I think the bottom line for most has to be how something sits with them at the time they are looking. Over time, because of various input and exposure to new ideas, most of us change and things we like today, we don't tomorrow--and sometimes just the opposite, in fact, that is often more rewarding.

One of the things critics do--and it is very enlightening to read one of these passages--is to intricately describe a piece of art that is before them--or you--in the book or article you are reading. For instance, in an environmental portrait they might comment on the type of shoes worn, the posture, the positioning of each person in the image if more than one and how each relates to the others, the ornamentation on the walls, the carpet or rug, the way furniture is arranged, facial expressions, how hands are folded or positioned etc. All the while, they offer a reading of what these things seem to be informing us of--even at times commenting on the view out the window or some hidden object in a corner. The idea of all of this is to be sure that they are, in fact, seeing what is there and not just responding to what the mind sees from its own biases -- which many times misses what is actually there or even seeing what isn't there. They are trying to get an objective handle on what the image holds and doing this sort of thing makes any piece of art more approachable, because you break down the image into common and known parts. Doing this, we may find objective support for our first impressions or maybe it might open one's eyes to seeing what is before them more clearly--for better or worse.

I have seen it done here in part a few times, but generally not so much. But when we discuss story, or staged or not and such, it is somewhat along these lines and an attempt to come to terms with what is before us in a more objective way. When I first saw this image, I recognized the beautiful aspects of it, its formalism and its balance. But I also immediately read a dissonance, for me, in the figure and as I said, not in a way that made the image intriguing. The discussions that ensued, for me, were like the description and meant to lay bare those things that I intuitively responded to in a negative way. In this case, I couldn't find support for going against my first reaction, even though I honestly tried to find a reason to like the figure with the umbrella in this scene--I just couldn't outside of his being a sort of counterbalance to the lamp--which I don't know was needed in the absolute, but worked on some level.

So, I guess I am just saying that my conclusion about the image wasn't about story, lack of story, staged or not staged, but basically those just explained why the image didn't work for me. But my purpose is never to convince anyone of anything--except maybe that there are alternative ways of looking at, critiquing or studying images. Conclusions are always personal.

This image works for me because I try to ignore it for a few days and my eyes keep going back until on inpulse I click on it, and I love it viewed larger! Great image my friend.

It's a nice postcard or vacation picture. Pretty.

I can still feel the dissonance that John talks about, and that dissonance, for me, is strong enough to prevent me from seeing this as a pretty picture or postcard. For a day or two I thought the fact that this is what was spontaneously presented to Martino was enough to carry the photograph. A man walked onto the geometric tiled terrace carrying an umbrella that didn't quite seem to mesh with the rest of his presence, and Martino either quickly made the photo or, after anticipating and waiting for a human subject to appear, made the photo. But I no longer feel that just because Martino was working with what was presented to him, and that he made the most of what was presented to him (IMO), that is then enough to overcome the dissonance described by John. Even though Martino may have made the best of what he saw, and even though there are many elements to like in the photo, he simply didn't get "lucky" enough to have the "right kind" of stranger walk across the terrace that would have made for a more integrated and compelling photograph.

I came to this conclusion after thinking about my own photography in which I walk along a trail looking for a natural composition or waiting for something to appear or to happen. Much of the time I end up with something that is worth the shot, but it is not, IMO, an outstanding shot that either tells a great story or resonates deeply within me. A few times, however, this does happen; over the 30 years that I've been making photographs, I have a small handful of such photographs that I value very deeply.

I think Martino's photograph is one of those that is worth making, but it does not, unfortunately, have the good fortune to address the incongruity inherent in the person who happened across the stage (again, IMO). There is much to like in the photo, but there are also elements that keep me from putting this photograph in my favorites folder. This is in no way a criticism of Martino, but rather at most a lament that he was not fortunate to be given more to work with. Clearly he had the vision and photographer's eye to make the most out of the scene, but the scene itself that spontaneously appeared fell short.

To Stephen and John A. First, I would like to thank you for your responses to my simple words. Having read both of your responses to my words, I would like to offer the following.

Stephen, you have put it so clearly that other reviewer's opinions and reactions definitely have an effect on other people's views of an image. It cannot help but be that way. There is nothing wrong in this, and I have to admit that yours and John's views have always made an impact on how I thought about an image, but in a very good way. If it was not for all the reviewer's opinions etc, none of us would grow as quickly as photographers. We would only see the various aspects of an image from a single perspective; our own.

John A., I have know all along that your intentions were not to sway a viewer into thinking like you, or otherwise. I totally feel that you have nothing but the best intentions when you comment on images, and that your comments are made objectively. Like I said to Stephen, I appreciate everything you and him (and others) have to say about images. To be totally honest, every time I visit the POW, I am always searching for certain people's comments, particularly yours and Stephens. I find myself doing this because of the delicate and systematic way you and Stephen break down images. You both have great insights into all the aspects of visual art, and this has obviously extended into photography, which is a form of visual art. I know that some people tend to take your comments in a negative way, but that is their own problem. I think if people want to learn more about their own work, then they should read these posts with their own work in mind in an effort to challenge their own perspectives.

Yet, there is a danger when allowing other people's insights to influence one's thinking about image making. What if the image maker comes to a point when he or she feels they cannot get to the perceived threshold? Does one pack the camera gear up and move on? I know for a fact, that one of my friends was to this point just a short while ago. He was frustrated, and felt that he would never get to the level where he wanted to be in photography. I kept reminding of my philosophy about photography, which is to make images that I am happy with, regardless of what others think. That is not to say that I am happy with all my images. On the contrary, I find I am my own worst critic, and that the number of what I consider keepers, is less as time goes on. Some may think this is a bad thing, but for me this is a good thing. It means that I am personally analyzing my work (to the best of my ability and understanding of photography), and I am working to get to that higher personal level.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I value the feedback I read about on POW. It has helped me mature as a photographer, in a short time, and I feel that many aspects of my image making have come a long way, especially since I have joined Photo.net. There are many people that are valuable resources on this site, including you and Stephen. Thanks for that. Take care, and all the best.

Paul

Semplicemente fantastica!

Hmm, wasn't this last week's?

Colour, composition, balance. One of the best photo.net pictures. Congratulations.