Close Encounter of the Third Kind.

Aside of the obvious impact I like the formal issue here much:
All are hiding them, with glasses, hand or head down. We have a symmetry and centrerweight on the humans. The white (back)ground brings that to the foreground clearly. (The hard light was managed fine and correct, for my taste)
For me this, fine grab of 'simplicity' of a moment, is worth the POW.
Regards Axel

very good documentary shoot, congratulations

Another lousy photo of the week. You can see something like this at any typical south Florida beach. More shocking would have been to photograph a 300 pound woman in a bikini

@ Brett, you are right, the topic of whether a photo deserves POW

honors is verboten. So I offer my apologies for getting carried away

in extolling the value of presenting even a supposedly mundane

circumstance in such a remarkable place. Everyone looked right

past the incredible and very singular backdrop, assuming somehow

that this was a beach. Uh, it isn't a beach, its travertine pools, and

those are very beautiful and extremely rare on this planet. So I keep

feeling confronted, in reading all these political reviews, by the

notion that it's a lazy read of this photograph which ignores this

critical detail.

Another way to look at it is this: if everyone on PN is willing to drool

over extremely ubiquitous shots of Antelope Canyon, then Pamukkale certainly deserves special attention - especially in the POW

forum! Yet everyone is focused on the midday lighting or the East versus West aspect,

with the consensus on the exposition of both details being, "Eh".

To my mind that begs the question, how about applying a little focus to the way in which this photo actually IS

exceptional (and thus worthy of being honored)? So those are my two cents, and I guess I did step a bit out of line in spending those pennies with my last comment.

I'm confused. So you're saying that this photo should get POW honors (which isn't even an honor) just because of it's location? I realize you're upset that people aren't as amazed about the location as you, but do you think that something that has been photographed so much should get honors just on the basis of its existence? Look at the people. Does it really matter where they are? Sure it sets the context, but what if this happened in a cave, or on a beach, or on a space station?

It happened at Pammukale. It would be even more worthy if it

happened on a space station. Way less worthy if it happened on a

beach. Yes, the location sets it apart. If that confuses you then you'd

better steer well clear of the TRP section of this website. That will

really get your head spinning!

I'm not actually upset that people aren't as amazed by travertine

pools as me, I'm upset that they nitpick incidentals while ignoring

fundamentals. You and others are choosing to regard this image as

a portrait rather than a landscape. My point is, it's both. How about

giving some props to this image for presenting a landscape which (on PN at least)

is extremely rarely seen?

i love this picture. very funny and well exposed

I fail to understand why this POW is met with such violent and unarticulated opposition from some.

One can appreciate the subject matter or not and one can formulate opinions on how the scene could have been better shot and better composed, but I think it would have been more constructive if the first could explain why it is "decadent" and the second in question could formulate why it is lousy and which are all these photos that one can see on a typical South Florida Beach. Why only in the South, by the way ! !

I have been to the location a couple of times and although I like the image, to me it is an easy capture given the location and tourist trap nature. I must agree that it is a tourist shot, West Turkey is pretty relaxed on the whole and the locals are well used to the tourists bathing in the hot springs in bikinis. BTW, I bet the girl is a Brit, we just love the tramp stamp here and Turkey is an increasingly popular holiday destination.

You are right about this location not being on photo.net often, but I personally have taken thousands. I have friends that have taken thousands. There are tens of thousands online, so at what point does it's rarity become ordinary and common place in photography? Even on a space station, there is a point where it would become ordinary and not extraordinary. Forgive me for not seeing it as a scenic shot. The composition and exposure indicate, at least for me, that the subjects and event are what were important in that one photo, not the location. If the location is so important, then perhaps photographing it in such a way so as to make the location obvious would be more appropriate. I've done a lot of rock climbing and bouldering and I can recall many locations that looked very similar to that photo.

I don't see it as a portrait. I don't understand how you can come to that conclusion. It looks almost like on-assignment editorial work, but I would rather refer to it as a street shot. Don't get me wrong, I really love the photo, but I feel like what you're saying isn't jiving with the photo.

I overlooked the obvious argument that by your reasoning, a very poorly cell phone pic of the local would be merit enough to make it POW. If you want to discuss rarity, how about the four people in that shot? Never again will that exact moment ever happen again in the same way with the same people at the same time of day, but those rocks will still be there tomorrow--well, unless someone does something really stupid and turns them into travertine tiles for kitchens and baths.

David, if you have taken thousands of photographs of this locale

then that explains why you consider it ordinary. And if the

intersection of landscape and portrait photography is automatically

street photography, then I'll give you that as well.

However, my personal shooting experience with this sort of

composition and exposure provides a diametrically opposed

perspective to yours regarding the intent of the photographer. But

this POW isn't about me, so I'm content to set this insight aside.

The main point I was making is that Pamukkale is spectacular and

rare and historically significant - and therefore in my opinion it is an

essential subject of this photo, equal to the four humans and their

cultural divide. If I'm wrong about the latter concept, the

photographer can inform me of that. If I'm mistaken about the

former, then so is UNESCO and so was millennia of intelligentsia

from the Ottoman Empire. So I'm just left to wonder how your

personal overexposure to this location is enough to jade you into

discounting all that. But you certainly have a right to your authentic

personal experience, whatever it may be.

Is the subject of the photograph the photograph or is the photograph a photograph of the subject?

This is a reason baby pictures, for the most part, belong in family albums and don't often make it to museums. Because it is the subject alone that is of interest to the person who takes it. And it is the subject alone that is unique and compelling for the one who takes it. Cute, tender, lovable, and loved as the subject of all baby pictures are, most of them are fairly uninteresting photographs . . . to anyone but the family of the subject.

I don't dwell too much on the exact location of this photo. It seems somewhat irrelevant to the photograph itself, though it's a potentially photogenic location. This photograph simply is what it is. No more and no less. The question would be, is it trying to be more than it is? I accept it as a cute find and move on. It seems well taken and seems not be trying to be art.

I have not read all of the comments, so I expect I may duplicate some comments. This is a spectacular photo in my estimation. To me it seems obvious the three 'covered' women are leaving 'the water', as I see the lower portion of their clothing is wet, and it is likely the bikini clad woman is on the way to the 'water' due to the fact she is going in the opposite direction and the hair does not appear messed.
An observation that the lead clad woman is holding a cell phone, is conjuncture based on the position of the hand only. . . there could be any number of other reasons the hand is in its current position. The hand could be likely had been raised to that location and is about to be lowered. There is no evidence the hand is 'fixed' in its current position.
Exposure could not be better under the circumstances of the location and lighting conditions. There is quite a bit of detail available in most all portions of the photo except where there is obvious 'direct' reflection of light from the sun.
Composition is what it is. . . a candid, spur of the moment shot that likely did not leave the photographer the option or time to move for a better angle or other move to change the composition.
The more one looks at this photo the more one is intrigued with all the subtleties ones eye catches in the clothing, the white surface area, height of the wet clothing, the bikini clad woman. . . a 7/7 photo
KZMike

Fred is probably right here, that this image is sort of what it is, but I do think it does have some interesting points.

The landscape is certainly a unique one, all things considered, but it is hardly the focus of the image or even near being so. The shot just happens to be taken in this environment and on a certain level, this background does add to the image. I suppose, if I were more learned on the place, there might be some significance to the landscape that could inform the image, however, I seem to hear that it possibly does just the opposite, if anything at all other than provide a rather unique backdrop. One could certainly discuss the texture and the "melting" appearance it possess, but I don't see it as informing image in that regard--sometimes these secondary details and reading do add to the meaning in more esoteric ways.

It is also irrelevant how "easy" a capture this might be at this place. As David mentioned, this shot was only at this point in time, besides THIS is the POW, not the supposed other easy captures. (Where are they?) While we are on irrelevant, so is what these clothed women are doing, at least in the absolute IMO. A picture allows one to build a story and, generally, that doesn't mean building up a passion to discredit the image because others see something different. One's story can certainly enrich the experience of a visual-or not, but for me, it isn't about what these women are doing or how they are or aren't interacting anyway. It is really about the comparison and contrast of the two younger women and in some ways the demeanor of the one on the right. I find the structure of the image emphasizes their separation and segregation in such a way that they must be compared, contrasted and studied. I mentioned the similarities on their choice of clothing color earlier, but then there are other things I find interesting including their near identical stride and the positioning of the clothed woman's arms. Her demeanor and separation from the elders is also something common with young people when in tow like this. I don't think there is anything earth shaking to be had, but sometimes it is just the simple things that actually are the most interesting.

Is this a landmark image, no, but I think it is worth studying.

Technically, the photographer did a good job with the exposure. It would have been easy to underexpose with all the light rock background. The composition is very good also.

Culturally, I used to live in Puerto Rico and saw lots of scantily clad young ladies, on the beach and off. If the woman was by herself in this photo, I would think nothing of it, but with the three other women, she appears almost naked. Her state of undress is certainly heightened by them.

I understand what you are saying Patrick, I just feel that in this photo, it isn't as important as you think. The photo isn't of the environment at all. The composition makes that very clear. You make it sound like, if the people were removed from the photo, there would be no difference. It's historical because of some kind of human footprint on it, and because of some kind of human documentation. Remove humanity, and it's just Earth. Not even earth, just a rock with some plants and some water. All I see is travertine. Remove the traditionally dressed people and no one would even know the difference. It looks exactly like some rock structures of the salt lakes here in the US, just like parts of the edges of the dead sea, the rock slide at a climb called "flaying the gumby" in the New Valley Gorge, or like the rocks outside Portnashangan, Ireland. If the rocks were so important to the photographer, then I feel the photographer would have photographed it and ignored the people, or at least emphasized the pools or expanded the angle. I realize the geological/historical importance of the feature, but all it does is just provide a context. If that context is changed does it change the cultural significance? I don't know, but I'm not inclined to think it will. POW is about photography and technique, and not so much the historical significance of the subject/object. By no means am I jaded. I specifically sought out that location for a vacation and I appreciate it for what it is and represents, but like I wrote above, it's about photography, not history.

To clarify one thing, I don't think it's ordinary. I never said it was ordinary. I was referring to the saturation of any topic in photography and expressed both ends of the spectrum: ordinary, and extraordinary to explain my point.

For me this is a good capture with nice light. I would prefer different point of view but this is just my personal opinion. Congratulations.

It's a lovely photo for all the reasons previously mentioned. Since I live in Beirut, everyone is always trying to get this kind of photo (e.g., veiled woman looking at underwear in Victoria's Secret etc.) with varying degrees of success. So, the photo is a cliche. But the important thing is that the photo "works" on many different levels.

I respect the Elves for selecting this image for the POW, the image is technically outstanding, to obtain such even exposure of the sourronding and maintain its details is not an easy job neither many photographers could do that or even know its technical photographic value, the tone there is so critical and Saad did a great job to bring it out in this superb form.
Bravo Saad your image will worth being on the front page.

I am stumped by all the comments on the difficult exposure here. I spent two days shooting this same location with 35mm slide film and Ilford FP4 in a Mamiya 645 with a hand held meter, without any undue stress over exposure, and the vast majority of the frames were easily printable. Yes the light is bright and yes the calcium is white ... so compensate for it.

The image itself is a somewhat comical snapshot of a culture collision into which you can read any amount of depth or intent depending on your interpretation. On that level I like the open ended nature of the expressions. I also like the wet pant legs of the young Turkish girl. They tell me that despite cultural differences both young girls wanted to take a dip in the hot mineral waters reinforcing the universality of youth and the human spirit.

This is a wonderful photograph of human feelings. Yes this is a photograph of the subject. But the subject is subtle human emotion, which involves the viewers across cultures. For this reason, this photograph does not belong to a family album. For this reason, this is selected as POW.
Congratulations Saad for this outstanding documentation of human life.

David, saying this photo isn't about the location at all is waaaay too deconstructionist for me. I can appreciate your

opinion but I'm pretty positive that if the backdrop here were a beach, we wouldn't be considering this image

whatsoever. And travertine pools are nowhere near as ubiquitous as travertine itself - why else is this locale a World

Heritage Site while the other ones you mention in many cases aren't even identified on local maps? The answer is

scale and historical significance, and to me that confluence ineluctably makes this location part of the subject.

I don't expect everyone to share my bent that the backdrop is as much a subject as the people here, but since that is

in fact my honest personal opinion, only the photographer himself could dissuade me from it. My take on the

responses agreeing that the BG is irrelevant is that the photographer deserves much more credit than he's getting for

lulling viewers into not even consciously absorbing such an essential compositional detail. Well done, Saad - you

certainly have my admiration here.

Patrick, why would anything the photographer says dissuade you from seeing this as you see it?