Untitled

Well, if you do not flip the photograph, do you expect to shoot the photograph upside down or would you ever expect to see in the image info "Please check the pic upside down".

 

I feel that flipping the photograph in a photo editor is the only "PRACTICAL" way of attracting the viewers interest. Since the shadow is much bigger than the orignal, as well as the fact, that, a shadow could be easily identified had it not been flipped.

 

Good Effort Marcio !! Congratulations on POW !!

Other things being equal . . . .

It is a good one, but it is not original. Who took the "MIracle of the Street"? Same idea done in (I guess) 1930-50s. Still this is a good "homage" to that one, in fact one might even suggest this is better as it is simpler. So good effort, I would have taken it too. But it is not truly original - what is though?

"I would have tried the high contrast treatment suggested and also cleaned up some of the more distracting parts of the background but not by the extreme cropping that was suggested previously. I would have also tried flipping the photo horizontally to make it read in the left to right direction which was also suggested earlier in the discussion."

and

"The option of having no visible road texture would leave the bike and its shadow in a dialog, out of any physical reference to a "place", and together they'll give depth to the image. This depth is imo all we need, and not a reference to a location. The road texture doesn't really bother me either per se, it just so happens that I feel it takes away from the simplicity which was the aesthetical strength of this image to me."

Thats exactly what Im talking about! Thanks Jacques Henry for posting your link to the other Brazilian bicycle shot. In this other shot we are getting closer to a true perspective where we cant tell the difference between an actual photograph that was flipped and one that was not. If someone could now provide a perfect 90 degree perpendicular shot of a bicyclist and his shadow the stern to slight discontent with this image will be finally understood. I would ask those who could not side withnor understand anyone that was appalled with a blatant upside-down picture making it to POWto take a look at the link provided by Jacques Henry and see how a true shot from above demands your complete attention and appreciation; how natural it looks to the eye, and how the mind doesnt flip back and forth trying to find the RESPECTIVE PERSPECTIVE even if the real subject is included at the bottom of the frame.

 

Symbolism: I think this photo can symbolize the evolution from monkey to man (true or not). Neanderthal man and ergonomics: Beyond the cave and the club. I think it can symbolize technological superiority as well as inferiority; wealth as well as poverty depending on how many turns the earth has taken around the sun. It can also symbolize intelligence, resilience, ingenuity, the beginning of the modern era, the end of tiresome commune and the beginning of obesity; it can symbolize the hope for a better future as well as the end of innocence and the dawn of destruction. (To name a few).

Hey - were it that I was a more sophisticated critic, I may have an insight into your photo beyond..."cool shot" wish I had taken it! but I don't, so Cool shot - wish I had taken it - and here is a toast to a lacking of sophistication...

...por ter sido escolhido POW!

mas o complicado mesmo e aguentar a critica nem sempre inteligente ou construtiva de alguns...

I liked your shot, because of the flipped image/angle it makes people stop and take a second look.

Thanks for sharing your work and congrats again for the POW!

Very dramitic effect. It is like it broke the rules of 3D

I was struck by this image as a thumbnail and it holds my attention in a larger size. Well seen and caught.

Really great shadow. The shadow is bigger than the model. The treatment really works. Take a look at my last submission. I call it "we all have a dark side". A also rotate the image.

fantastic! i think this is a great image. fun. the photographer has shown creativity in

flipping and turning it. i don't think it should be cropped let alone critized. as for

film grain, printing and so on, i think seeing these as flaws in this picture is to not see

the picture itself. it perhaps is not supposed to be a fine example of technical ability

but rather an example of seizing the moment.... that's what photographs are. that's

what great photographers do. the quality lies there. i have nothing but praise for this

'amateur'....

I think you've hit it straight on: by inverting it, the photo has become an abstract where space need not be reinforced (by the road grain). On the other hand, if you flipped the image horizontally your eye would read it more naturally in motion, and the composition is different entirely. With the image as is I find my eye gets caught by the neutral space in the top left and isn't terribly drawn to the cyclist. Still, it's an interesting shot.

"I don't think it should be cropped let alone critized."

I personally feel it needs no crop. But I'm more interested in "let alone criticized". Nobody forced you to criticize this image, right ? Now if this forum is meant to be anything else than a "praise-only" forum, I would personally suppose that every week, there should be various people criticizing various pictures.

"As for film grain, printing and so on, I think seeing these as flaws in this picture is to not see the picture itself."

Why do you think that way ? Any evidence to support this ? What you should consider is that a few people in this thread, namely Dennis, Richard S., G., Carl Root and myself have seen here what we could see. Perhaps you may think that our eyes are not sharp enough, but I did see a flipped picture of a bike and its shadow. All I said was that there wasn't anything new there and that the surprise element did not work *for me*. Now, what I would be interested to hear is why flaws should be ignored if they are seen. Even assuming this picture would be the smartest flip on Earth since the beginning of times, that wouldn't mean it has to be seen as perfect technically IF it isn't. You may find it technically perfect and that's your call, but if you admit the possibility that it isn't, why should flaws be ignored on a critique site - if that's what Photo.net is.

"It perhaps is not supposed to be a fine example of technical ability but rather an example of seizing the moment..."

Ok, that's agreed. But could it perhaps be both at the same time...?

"That's what photographs are. That's what great photographers do. The quality lies there."

PART of the quality - and probably MOST of the quality of A CERTAIN CATEGORY of pictures - lies there indeed. Since this picture isn't a posed shot, it belongs to this category, but the performance is of some importance to me. It was to Ansel Adams. And to most street photography masters too, by the way. Conclusion: the post-production work and technique overall are not irreleant details to be brushed away, although more and more people would love to have it that way...

Yup, the following street photographers certainly emphasized form over substance:

 

Gary Winogrand

 

William Klein

 

Robert Frank

 

Henri Cartier-Bresson

 

Weegee

 

Lisette Model

 

Josef Koudelka

 

Lee Friedlander

 

Tony Ray-Jones

 

 

It's unbelievable the nonsense that gets passed for criticism by folks who apparently never leave their computer screen.

Couch a Nasty let me guess...........You don't like Marc G., Do you?

 

Why don't you say so and stop being a asshole with your clever, witty responses to his commnets

 

I think you dislike him so much you that i fthe building were on fire and he yelled Fire Fire that you would burn to death in the flames as you made fun of him.

 

I post this as following your lead in mocking.

 

Cheers mate.

In my last comment I said the end of tiresome commune I meant to say the end of tiresome COMMUTE. Not a big deal, but the meaning is lost in the mistake. I did try to correct it as soon as I noticed my mistake, but found out I cant edit my comments in POW.

If anyone can make sense of the following dialog - or should I say monolog ? -, please help. I can't.

What I said was : "The performance is of SOME importance to me. It was to Ansel Adams. And to most street photography masters too, by the way."

Answer was: "Yup, the following street photographers certainly emphasized form over substance" A. K.

I don't see any connection at all, sorry. Nor do I see at all what "EMPHASIZE...OVER" means in this context. Nor do I see the point you are trying to make with regards to my post. Must be my English, or perhaps Zorro is right after all.

Please continue to pretend to be smart, Mr. KochanoWsky. You have been insulting quite a number of times already, and since Photo.net allows you to continue and simply deletes your posts one by one, I've decided that I'll simply refrain from posting anything in the POW forum. You win. The difference between you and me is that you came here to win a battle, whereas I just say what I think about the pictures at hand; so, all the best to you and congratulations. I'll be back if you get banned from posting in the POW, and if not, I won't.

That's what tolerating repeated verbal abuse is all about. Cheers.

Marcio, e sempre muito bom ver brasileiros se destacando por

aqui. Tambem ja fui agraciado com a POW em marco do ano

passado com uma foto do Pele, que esta em minha galeria.

Acho sua foto uma boa foto, no entanto, nao posso concordar

que se trata de algo original, pois ja vi muitas com essa mesma

ideia. Inclusive em minha galeria, tenho uma semelhante,

porem ao inves de uma bicicleta, tenho uma cadeira de rodas.

De uma olhada. Mas, claro que isso nao tira seu merito.

Parabens brother.

Made me think of a world in which shadows are the real things and people are just images, that's a not so interesting world I think ;)

very witty, well done!

Marcio, you have a nice picture... but I can't agree this is a

original one. It isn't. Look Clovis Ferreira's picture and you will

see a similar.

Its a nice picture, but not original.

Marcio, look this one. Looks like the same ideia. Don't you think?

Excellent pic!

what a great idea - phantastique !

fascinating photograph. The composition is incredible. Those long shadows give a really great effect.

Very orginal.