Untitled

solo quiero decirte que quiero hacer fotos como esta.

Sin palabras, donde esta el mar, la tierra, y el cielo. que más puedo decir.

It's interesting that I have only one photo in my "favorite images," and it's this one. I've always thought it was magical. The fact that the water and sky blend into one is a strength, IMHO, and not a weakness.

What intrigued me was the overall lack of clarity of up and down. Then I noticed that the lines moved to the same place except for the footsteps. I wonder how long it takes for the mind to lock on an interpretation of this photo, and then whether it can be unlocked to see it in different ways. It is easy to see why this photo is popular.

@ Alex and Carols, Subject matter is a personal thing, so opinions on that issues are neither here nor there. This is the art of photography, and to that end design elements, technical compotence and most importantly the use of light are what matters. Photography is about lighting, the lighting in this subject adds to the contents of the subject matter. The execution is very well done with strong compositional skills and very good presentation etc. The image to me presents a positive aspect of life and of nature, not such a bad thing in todays times. We cant please everyones sense of taste, but we can appreciate and credit good work irespective of our personal taste.

Cheers RJE

Its like a walk to forever. Congrats. Bob.

I like it.

Some observations; sorry I didn't take the time to more carefully categorize them.

• B&W is perfect for the composition and lighting; clearly (to me) color would NOT work.
• As has been stated by others, a pictorial story that begs for interpretation. My imagination is roaming...
• Love the virtual starburst in the center of the image, with the human subject's head like a radiating point.
• Strong composition; I see geometric shapes (e.g., triangles).
• There is a mysterious "face" in the upper left of the frame - !

Nice!

"Subject matter" is not a "personal thing." It is very much a public matter, as is the technical side of any work of art. Anyway, my objections are not to "subject matter" but by how it is rendered. The subject matter touches on universal themes that all artists share. Whatever the subject matter may be--solitude, humankind and the elements or something else--it is secondary. What is most important is how the subject matter is rendered. That falls under technique. To repeat what I said, the image is a cliche. It is trite. It is vapid. It lacks original vision. That is the major problem.

From a purely photo-technical side, the image has problems as well. The tones are dull. There is too much of a frightfully static sky. Yes, it looks dramatic at first glance but like a loud tie its novelty wears off and it becomes boring. Especially on the left, where the sky and land meet, the photographer is unable to make a meaningful connection and resorts to glop. Also there is a slight but annoying tilt to the left of the left of the images. And another thing. The lower left corner is dead. In short, the overall composition is very weak. The structure is flimsy and the tonality is monotonous.

A couple of things:

First, I think it is worthy of noting that this sort of image, one that is constructed, is a bit more revealing of the person making it than most types of photography. As such, a bit more risky and maybe that should count for something. One doesn't hide behind what they saw or found or what someone else gave them. The decisions as to what to include or not was all theirs as well as the determination of how these things are put together.

Second, I do think that for the most part this image has been done well as to the technical aspects of the image. The tonalities are nice and subtle yet the image is not muddy. The "mirroring" in some areas does make the image feel less organic than we would find naturally (reflections that are too lined up), which is something I rarely respond to in these types of images but does create a more surreal effect.

Third, commercial success can't be taken, necessarily, as an indicator of the quality of an image in the absolute, but has much more to do with how easily it is read and its curb appeal. Cliches and gimmicks often sell extremely well in the photo stock markets because they can be read quickly and convey the desired message effectively. Advertising and promotional material can't allow for the viewer to take their time "to get it" or "figure it out", the headline and the image have to zero in on the point NOW! In some cases, an image will be used that has an immediate visual impact. Its purpose is to stop the viewer from turning to the next page quickly, giving time for the headline and product to be noticed and absorbed. I could see this image as working well in either or both of these cases.

I will also add to this that similar characteristics in an image often make it very popular with a broader range of the general population as wall decoration. These commercial types of images I describe above don't overly challenge but look good to the masses. Photography has many different purposes and uses and I think it often gets confused that a "wonderful" or "great" photograph is contextual and not universal.

My own reading of the image is that I think it has been done very well from a technical point of view. I would take exception to the mirroring I mentioned above except that it does create a certain type of mood/image. Personally, I have more of a sense of claustrophobia and the apocalyptic than anything else with this and I think that is due to the removal of any sense of "future" without a horizon. This makes the image a little less predictable, maybe, as compared to other similar images.

But the bottom line for me is that although the image has strong "curb appeal" it doesn't end up taking me much deeper. I don't know that many of these sorts of images, metaphorical composites, do that as they do often seem a bit too manipulative. There is a very fine line between reaching something more sublime and something more common with these types of images. It isn't generally the visual that is more common, most of the time they do capture our attention, but creating something that gets the point across and yet allows an open ended engagement just seems extremely difficult and rare.

For what it's worth, what is being sold through Getty and iStock seems to be a different version of this picture. I think I prefer the POW version, although I can see both sides of the argument about it. Go to the links Floriana provided above, if you are interested.

Martin, here is a direct link--it appeared the same to me.

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/the-sky-is-limitless-royalty-free-image/108349175

Im a big fan of Florianas work, this is another great image, works extremely well in b&w. It has depth, mood, wonder, everything. Well done.

I have to make some remarks, especially for Alex.
This image was created deliberately for commercial purposes. The profesional photographers know very well what I mean. Is posted to photo.net to advertize myself and find new clients.
I make clear the diference between commercial and art. I have two works nominated to Black and White Spider Awards :
http://www.thespiderawards.com/gallery6/gallery.php?g=w&x=a&cid=91&fid=64436
http://www.thespiderawards.com/gallery6/gallery.php?g=w&x=a&cid=87&fid=64426
Very passionate critique like your's , Alex , have a false premise. The image has been created for profesional design not for galleries, even Carmel :)))
But it is an opportunity to show off your skills as an amateur writer.

Floriana, you might want to check this link, I make no judgement here but it was linked to by a gallerist who is very well connected with the photography world here in the states, giving it some credibility:

http://cherepafford.blogspot.com/2011/11/wow-i-won-2nd-place-in-masters-cup.html

There seems to be way too many competitions these days.

Floriana,
I love your image - the composition, the B&W tones, and the overall impression I get when viewing it. I was puzzled by some of the criticism of the image, but when I went to the images posted by some it was clear that this is a different style than many of them. Not surprising that they would not appreciate this. I had never seen your images before and this caused me to search them out - very, very nice. Keep up the good work.

Why do we have to go looking for excuses why someone wouldn't like this photo? You really want to narrow down someone's visual acumen and critical skills to the kind of work they produce? Do you think a landscape photographer, and even a lousy one, couldn't critique a portrait fairly well, based on what he sees and his knowledge of photography? Your opinions are worthwhile. They don't need that kind of bogus support, the kind that says, others must disagree with me because they are so different. Don't undermine your own opinions by having to support them with who agrees or who disagrees. Stand on your own feet.

I still like it, Floriana. The black and white treatment allows a light airiness which puts it a cut above many similar photos. I think that, regardless of your motives for producing it, you have created a more than respectable image. The post processing work seems a bit sloppy, but the overall effect is evocative of many days that I have spent on the beach or out in ocean kayaks, days when the sky blended into the ocean so seamlessly that I truly could not tell where one stopped and the other started.

I also saw a similar effect when the first spiral band of Hurricane Camille came ashore at Ft. Walton Beach, Florida back in 1969. As we had approached Fort Walton Beach from Panama City along the coast road, heading for the storm but being careful to stay outside the worst of it, I saw the spray blowing across the coast highway, creating an effect where land, sky, and water were almost blurred completely together. I have never seen that precise effect since, and it was very special. So, for me your picture is not simply a flight of fancy. Sometimes the weather and lighting along the coast can give effects very similar to this. The work is admittedly idealized and very tame (as the hurricane would not be), but I still like it.

--Lannie

Okay, now we know. This is a commercial photo. I was about to write that this would be perfect for one those inspirational post cards. You know, the sort that say, "Jesus Loves You," or carry a quote from Rod McKuen. It is not that far from Carmel art, which is commercial and produced by the yard. Commercial or whatever, I am afraid it is Kitsch.

Alex, I just want to say that I really appreciate the way you critique. No minced words, brutal honesty. If I ever have the privilege of a POW I hope you are the first to respond. As for this photoshop image of the week, yawn.
Also, WOW.....advertizing commercial "art" on the photo.net photo of the week? For me, that's a pretty big turn off to even bother checking out the photo of the week. Good thing I'm not a moderator I guess.

Alex
" This photograph was chosen because Elves think it is interesting and worthy of discussion"
Art, commercial ot kitsch , they chose me three works "interesting and worthy of discussion "
You are here for ten years. They considered that none of your photos do not deserve to be discussed.
You talk to much for the Portfolio you have. Your malicious and exaggerated comments are not suported by anything. You are not a critic, photograpfer or professional galerist.
From now , I never take you seriously.
By the way, your folder "Cat world" is magnificent.

Paul Cretini, do not worry about the POW, it will never happen :D

John A wrote : "But the bottom line for me is that although the image has strong "curb appeal" it doesn't end up taking me much deeper."
in case John or anyone else missed my comment above, after reading this comment of John's that i've just quoted, i feel like repeating the comment i made earlier, because since John's comment sums up what the few feel who are not enthusiastic about the image, it feels like a good place to insert my alternate personal suggestion about the image's worth... (hope's no one gets upset about the repeat; i won't make a habit of it) ;-}
i wrote: "many, if not most, of us know young girls around the age of the subject in this picture. if we must, let's drag this image down to the barest simplicity and call it an illustration. let's imagine what sort of purposeful effect it might have on a child the age of the subject, were we to ask the child for their interpretation of the image and its subject. after hearing the negative reactions to this image, i concede some to the "cliche" argument if the subject were a woman in a flowing gown, la de da de dah; but let's imagine a child subject and a child looking at this image; i believe it would have purposeful impact." an illustration in a book, perhaps, directed to the age group of the subject in the image. dp

Donna, as an adult viewer, there are certain times I will put myself in the mindset of a child and will appreciate the photo from that standpoint. More importantly, sometimes a photo will put me into the mindset of a child without my even thinking about it. But I can still critique as an adult. I could adopt a childlike stand to a lot of photos and not notice their flaws, problems, inefficiencies, etc. because most children wouldn't notice those things, whether the subject was a child or not. But viewing a photo through the eyes of a child, for me, still would not entail being uncritical when it came to critiquing it. That the subject is a child, by the way, wouldn't dictate that the photo is childlike. To me, this photo is a very adult perception of a child's world, precisely because it is so commercialized and idealized. Early on when I was making photographs, a much more experienced photographer used a phrase that stays with me still . . . "mature simplicity." Really, where a 12-year-old's imagination (or an adult who can see as a child would) might be taken while looking at this photo could be very relevant. But what a 12-year-old thinks of it as a photo (or an adult who is critiquing like a 12-year-old) is irrelevant to me. I may want simple critiques, but I don't want simplistic ones.

__________________________

.

I respect and appreciate honesty. Brutality, not so much.

Donna, very interesting. ""it's a little girl walking on the sand" what about the sky? "what about it, it is a sky"does it mean anything to you "what do you mean" do you see any message in it " no, it's just a little girl walking on the sand"".

Just an excerpt from your request as I asked my daughter about the image--first reaction was just to the question as to what she thought of the image.

I wonder if metaphor isn't lost a bit on those with more immediate considerations and concerns, like growing up. Images like this probably communicate when one has romanticized or idealized their memories--just a thought.

I think it is wonderful that the image can impact some more strongly than others. For me, my comment was that I didn't think it was open ended enough to engage deeper than on a more superficial level, but that is my reading of an image that has been well done and does convey a message. The message is just a bit obvious and so doesn't allow me to go further with it, I see it and it is over. But that is just me and, as I said, I see it as functioning well in the context it was created.

To me this image first says: "I know how to use photoshop - look what I did!" I like the lower half but dislike over dramatic clouds - what was there in the original photo?

John wrote: "do you see any message in it " no, it's just a little girl walking on the sand""." (John"s exchange about the image with his daughter.)
and John wrote: "I wonder if metaphor isn't lost a bit on those with more immediate considerations and concerns, like growing up. Images like this probably communicate when one has romanticized or idealized their memories--just a thought."

John, since the subject of this image is a young girl, yes, let's roll with that…. in my opinion, we should not allow metaphors to be "lost" on a child. i imagined that this image might be used as an illustration in (let's say) a book of fiction for youngsters or perhaps a science book about ecology; children constantly romanticize and idealize, and when we adults guide it and nurture it, children grow into complex thinking and feeling adults. i hope i can be so bold as to say that i would have discussed the image further with your daughter; i would have drawn her attention to the idealized aspects of the image, and asked her where she thought the girl might be coming from or where is she going, or how do you think the girl feels, or it's not an ordinary beach so ask your daughter why the artist portrayed the beach this way, is the girl in a good place or a bad place, would you want to be this girl and why?

Fred wrote: "To me, this photo is a very adult perception of a child's world, precisely because it is so commercialized and idealized."
Fred, this image can be an adult's perception of a child's world for other adults, or an adult's perception of a child's world for a child, or "a very adult perception of a child's world" … but you need a stronger explanation to make us understand why you think these premises are so only "because it is so commercialized and idealized." … i believe that it is a skilled (adult and sophisticated) illustration (in the formal graphic sense) of a young girl alone in a very specific sort of environment; it may not be a highly sophisticated metaphor, but many commenters feel that we have an emotional story or scene here… the young girl can be substituted with any number of subjects… but here we have the young girl in a sort of fantasized setting, and this is provocative to viewers, regardless of how stock the scene is, it is a beautifully rendered fantasy. it's not Dali, but it's not a flat bland simplistic meaningless graphic by any standard. dp