Untitled

Kodak-cliche or no, is well worth a week in the POW sunshine. maybe we could expand the discussion around this theme, perhaps with examples? it could provide a refreshing break from the tedium of looking at overworked- and-overtried, so-called edgy, moody, conflicted, but superficially absurd photos.

Or so said HG Wells.

You all know that the idea behind the POW is to serve as a discussion about that image. It doesn't mean that the photo is better or worse than any other image. Just that it would prompt an interesting debate.

I have a love/hate reaction to the image. I like the long shadow, I like the grain and contrast, and even the crop, but I get annoyed because I can't stop wanting to turn my head upsidedown to see the other image. Like some sort of optical illusion or escher print. Yes it's cliched, yes it's been done before, so what!

Nice one Marcio. Where have your other photos gone though?

Rob

In contrast to some posts, I feel there have been good POW discussions since I started to take note 7-8 weeks ago:

 

2 weeks ago (Tibetan Horseman) it was interesting to see sparring between the landcape/tripod/velvia connoisseurs and the action/captured-moment crowd as they tried (unsuccessfully?) to find something in common to value in photography.

 

Last week, the discussion of the role of the subject's hands in the composition of the portrait - and how different viewers felt about "contrived" images - certainly helped me understand how others might view photos I take. and while I value both contrived and spontaneous shots, that POW discussion will likely affect some of my future picture-taking.

 

I think there is potential this week, especially since the photographer introduced himself as someone trying to learn more. I would offer that the shot could be better with more context. The shadow trick, together with the subject's hot-weather clothing and apparently well-used bike - all begin to tell a story of the life and personality of the city going by on the street below. By showing the subject in relation to other individuals or groups or just an empty street with references to scale, could the photograph suggest more of a story?

A similar photo by Peter Turnley from his book "Parisians" c an be found here:

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0009/photo_frame1.html

Nice to see an amateur shot can be chosen as POW. Congratulations Mario! The image is interesting in that it makes me stop...look... look again. And then SMILE. It reminds me to look at things in a different way and see something more. So often I seen postings where the word simplistic is lauded. This one is simple too, but the simple act of turning it 180 made it special. I too had to turn my head to see it right side up... and then was reminded of an old photo of people stading in front of an abstract painting in a gallery... all with their heads tilted in various directions trying to understand the painting. Again.... had to SMILE. Good work and again congrats.

I personally don't think this was printed particularly well. It seems the paper scale was

too short for the negative or the negative was over developed. The film--Kodak T400

CN--is a black and white film that uses color processing (and has relatively large

grain structure) so the photographer probably took it to a lab and they overdeveloped

the negative to give it some oomph. I can't stand when labs do that. Even so, I think it

is quite possible to make an acceptable print from negatives like that. I wish more

time had been put into the craft of printing. I find myself thinking that a lot with many

black and white images on this site. But, then again, the lab may have printed the

image for him as well, in which case he only gets credit for framing and releasing the

shutter and then flipping it.

 

That being said, the photographer does deserve credit for being able to look at a

subject in a different way. Other than that, not too stellar.

I have no problems at all with this making photo of the week... part of what makes this idea interesting is that different types of photos can be explored, opening up a wider range of discussions. How many photos, ratings, comments, ect. the photographer has doesn't matter. Photo of the week is about making people think, and contribute to an interesting discussion, not about what photos are best (it's not a contest!) At least, that's what it means to me. By the way, Marcio, I like your image very much... I often drag my friends in from the other room to see images on photo.net and they are raraely dissappointed, include this time (that means they like it) Not every image of this kind looks good upside-down, but it works very well with this one! Perhaps it was the high point of view, or the subject... somehow it all added up and worked together.

Wait a minute, not so fast with the rope folks. Lets take a closer look at the image before we place it in the been there done that category and not even bother taking a good look at it. There are at least three things that I see in it that are either, a very lucky accident, or else, a good creative eye with some kind of determination in finalizing a preconceived idea or an inspired moment.

 

1- This photo is flipped and then rotated 30 degrees counterclockwise. Why was it done this way? Obviously this was done so that the shadow would take on a normal look by leveling it. So, even if the photo was taken at a different angle than the one shown here, there was considerable analytical thought in bringing it to this perspective.

2- The original photo is actually not that bad, and it is obvious that it was framed and cropped to make the shadow the main player.

3- The fact that the image was (flipped, rotated, and probably cropped) means that the photographer saw beyond the mundane and transformed it into an interesting abstract with his artistic ability. That is what photography is all about and he did a fantastic job in my opinion.

 

The fact that we have seen this type of photo before should not be the deciding factor in judging it. I cant help but conclude that the only reason this photo is being detracted is because it was taken by a self proclaimed amateur. Had the photo been taken by the likes of Doug Burgess or Carl root, then we could get right down to business and judge its meritsnot the case in this unfair world. (Im only borrowing your names guys, nothing personal).

 

I want to commend anyone who dares judge the photo for what it is and not join the expert crowd who has seen it all and has forgotten that photography can be about joy and experimentation and not merely about contrivance and emotive gestures or poses. (Again, nothing personal against anyone in particular).

 

To quote a famous saying by a famous writer posted in a famous photographic site:

"Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that,

but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great." Mark Twain.

I love the image. I do not care for the flipped effect though, I think it would have been strong enough by itself. Showing this image as it would have been viewed normally would be stronger to me. I say so as a photojournalist, when something is that strong just keep it real. Even though it looks neat, inverting it puts it in an perspective that isn't natural. I love photography for it's ability to capture the beauty of a moment like this, not to alter it. Either way though, it's beautiful work.

While I agree that inverting the image is not a novel idea, I do enjoy the transformation that the story takes by doing so. In reversing it to what would be the scene as shot, the subject seems a somewhat beleaguered labourer in the heat of the sun, but in the posted image he becomes a cool freewheeler in easy command of his vehicle. I like to see it as the cyclist's escape from reality and I like to think Marcio had something more in mind than a cliche flip. Whatever the intent, it has made me look more closely at the photo than if I had first seen it the right way up. Good luck Marcio and may you continue to have original insight into everyday scenes.

Well seen Marcio. Personally, I wouldn't have flipped it- I don't think it adds anything

Tom

Amateurs built the ark. Professionals built the Titanic.

I don't really like flipped pictures in general: they make me feel disoriented and force me to look at the screen with my head tilted trying to figure out the original image.

 

I agree with the fact that this might not be original. So what? I believe a photographer should be valued from his larger works, for example a study on a group of people taking 20-30 pictures. Single photos like the ones we see and rate on this site will never be original. What's left to do wich wasn't done before? All I see uploaded here or anywhere else are nice asses, kids portraits, colourful landscapes and the usual stuff. Not that these are bad photos... I really love and enjoy some of them, but again why is this less original than 99% of all the other pictures here?

 

Simone

"A similar photo by Peter Turnley from his book "Parisians" c an be found here: http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0009/photo_frame1.html"Steve Rosenblum

Do you mean the zebra crossing one Steve? I find that to be of much more interest to the eye as there is interaction between lines and shapes, it is more complex and made me look for longer at the relationships of shapes/lines/tones. On the other hand Marcio's picture is too obviously a bike and it's shadow, set against a non-descript background. There is no context or interaction going on, and therefore no interest for me. The approach of single subject on plain[ish] background does work particularly well with subjects of beauty, stillness, or some other quality which benefits from emphasis and subtlety, but imo a play on shapes and shadows requires a little more going on to grab the attention. Perhaps Marcio could have integrated some other elements from the location and experiment more with interaction and composition.

"Had the photo been taken by the likes of Doug Burgess or Carl root, then we could get right down to business and judge its meritsnot the case in this unfair world. (Im only borrowing your names guys, nothing personal). I want to commend anyone who dares judge the photo for what it is and not join the expert crowd who has seen it all and has forgotten that photography can be about joy and experimentation and not merely about contrivance and emotive gestures or poses. (Again, nothing personal against anyone in particular)."Isidro Acevedo

I don't think that is fair comment Isidro. You have separated the 'experts' from the 'amateurs' by your statement there, it is not others that have done so by their nonchalance over the image! I don't remember reading that anybody slated this image as bad because it was an 'amateur' picture, it just hasn't left a strong impression with some. A few have pointed out why that is, and some [myself guilty] didn't even muster up enough effort to explain. Well, I hope I have indicated why this photo does nothing for me in the comparison above [re: Steve's link to Peter Turnley's pic]

I love "exactly" the way it is. give power to that shadow.very creative, do not change it. .........O rio de janeiro continua liiiiindo...

Well, thanks everybody about your comments, even the bad ones. This kind of discussion can only improve my photography skills, and maybe can help other photographers too.

 

I couldn´t imagine over 30,000 views over my work.

 

For those who think it was a snapshot, I have to say that I waited at window for more than an hour to get this one. The street was crowded and I was lucky to get this strange bike with no one else in the frame.

 

I turned this photo upside down not only to create a strange perspective, but to make the shadow the main subject.

 

I made another print of this photo that I like more, flipping the negative so the biker comes from left to right (upside-down too). It seems more natural to the eyes ,as we read this way.

 

Soon I ´ll put more photos here, and I swear I´ll contribute more with critiques and discussions.

 

Sorry about my english.

 

Regards,

 

Marcio Ferrari

I am again struck by the reaction to this POW selection, but gratified that for a change the prevailing sentiment seems not to be swayed by [others] on the subject. Marcio's photo is terrific if only because he managed to do something entirely absent from 99% of photographs posted here; he gave the viewer a changeup when we expected a fastball when he flipped the picture. Done before? Of course, and what hasn't been? The photo asks to be looked at from different angles; it initially says one thing then shows you another, it has a nice balance and flow-- all in all a very pleasant experience devoid of the self-importance, false grandeur, shallow dramatics, and plain dullness of so much presented here. If I had been asked to say whose work this photro reminded me of, I would say Elliott Erwitt's, for the unexpected flip that Marcio introduced into it.

For the critics, my suggestion is that you take a second look at this photo and ask yourselves whether any of your own work contains a creative surprise.

I'd love to see this in a square crop -- the skewedness of the image would make it look really trippy.

 

I'm impressed this was taken from the 9th floor of a building.

 

Believe it or not, for all the photography books I have read, I have never seen this effect. It's so obvious too, yet I've never done it! :-)

 

Cool!

It's graphically interesting, certainly, though my initial reaction to this shot is far more driven by the visual trick of the flip than it is by the content. I'm quite torn about the flip here. Generally, I like shots that twist our normal perception, allowing or forcing us to see things in ways that we normally wouldn't. This helps us notice aspects of the world around us that we typically might register but quickly ignore. Here, though, the effect feels a little gimmicky, though I think it has a lot to do wtih the fact that there is an upside-down person in the image, and people especially aren't "supposed" to be upside-down, at least not on bikes (my yard-sale mountain bike experiences notwithstanding).

 

Truthfully, given heightened contrast and the absence of other elements, I think the message of the strong shadow is made successfully with the image right-side-up. Perhaps this is related to the way we perceive shadows in photographs vs. the way we see them in reality. If you'll pardon me for referring to Galen Rowell again, he once spoke about the difference between luminance edges (shadows) and reflectance edges (object differences). We tend to ignore luminance edges in our brain's routine attempt to process the world around us. In this shot, that edge gets full play and we are thus more conscious of it in the photograph that we might have been in reality. That, to my mind, is the effect of this shot, making the flip unnecessary window-dressing, as it were. But, of course, that's just one opinion...

 

I do agree about the contrast in the image. I would like to see it with more range of mid-tones. Even if there are comparisons to other images where the flip combines with other graphic elements to make a more compelling whole, I do like the graphic nature of the shot overall, and I appreciate the photographer's patience to get this isolated composition. Enjoy.

Marcio is a thinking photographer, and I've learn quite a bit from going through his portfolio.

 

I can find no fault with this picture given what Marcio had to work with, and yes, I agree that showing this inverted is the best treatment (after trying every possible orientation).

the crop is not bad, anyway, great shot!

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=607231

 

You may be interested in the discussion of this image, especially as it relates to which side is up.

Carl, That is very interesting. I find it interesting due to the fact that image is praised with comments such as "unique" and "Good photographers see things others miss, Very good", while this image that is similar, gets lackluster reviews. Could it be sour grapes from those who have more than 4 pics in their folder and contribute more often than Marcio?

 

The statements refering to this a something seen in how-to books is just ridiculous. The more I get into photography the more I realize it is almost impossible to come up with something entirely new and unseen. Most everything seems to be a variation of one shot or another. I don't see such negative comments about the thousands of flower macros or sunrise/sunset shots on this site. Probably every camera book has a flower macro in it to show the capabilities of the camera. Were we not all beginners/amateurs at one time. I still am!

 

I like this photo,a bit confusing to my eye with all the straight lines coupled with the circles. I too want to tilt my head, but overall I like it.

the flipping of the image is quite matter-of-fact and intuitive rather than being especially creative, surprising, or novel. one quick look at the rather dry-looking unflipped capture should be enough to convince all but the most stubborn that the shadow is the more interesting subject. not flipped, the shadow merely leads the eye to the anonymous, harshly lit and shaded deliveryman on the bike, and mostly to the bright basket cart at that. ho hum.

 

kudos to Marcio for having the open mind to come to this realization, which for a young photographer is a sign of better things to come.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1039396

 

This is the other one I was trying to find. . . . . . taken straight on with a fisheye rather than overhead like the other two.