I like the way you've captured the light on the long pipe. With the red ball at the end, it reminds me of a thermometer.

 

I think it has too much sky, however. The very dark spot in the upper right doesn't fit. I'd crop about a third of the sky out.

 

 

To me, this is all a fake...the sky is superimposed, and the red ball is a nice special effect. I can't be 100% sure, of course, but the light direction in the picture really doesn't seem right...

"This picture manages to capture something mundane and turn it into a captivating image." The elves.

I can only recommend capturing something interesting to begin with. I wish people wouldnt try to show off their photographic skills by attempting to make good photographs out of nothing, and I further wish that Photonet wouldnt encourage that sort of silliness. Its simply not true that anything is photogenic. Mundane subjects have to be depicted so as to powerfully imply something on a higher level (and not all lend themselves to this), otherwise very few viewers will associate the subject with anything from their experience, and the photograph will flop for them. I imagine there are fewer pipe construction workers on Photonet than motorcyclists, so this image is essentially dead for the majority of us.

When I saw this pic I thought it was taken by a clueless newcomer and the elves were merely trying to be fashionable by selecting something rubbish by a rubbish photographer to widen our horizons or some such daft nonsense, but it turns out that Rainer Kuczinski is quite an accomplished photographer (at least when he runs out of Velvia). Look for instance at this portrait, although the colours are a little wacky. And this photograph is simply brilliant.

Also, if we can add red balls as a major compositional element in Photoshop, doesn't this go beyond photography as Photonet knows it?

......I've noticed that the worst of the offenders (CRITICS) haven't even posted any of their own shots to the site......(Bruce Hamm).... Reading through numerous comments on photo-net, as e.g. the obove one,- I sense a certain MISCONCEPTION as far as CRITICS are concerned. Critics don't have to be brilliant practitioners themselves, in their chosen field of judging. Their gift is manifested in an opinion, by whatever measures, and to stand up for it!! Some critics are Artists in their own right, but not necessarily of genius-quality. Top photographers (whatever that means) admit to have run some 20 to 30 films through their camera before (by FORTUNE), they strike a winner. A single picture on PoW, with approval by majority vote,- is in the same category as: 'One ONLY

Swallow does NOT make a summer!' Should anyone to be detected by a Talent-Hunter.......,- the next question one can expect positively to follow: "Show me another 10 or 20 of your WINNING shots,- up to date!"

I've popped back in here several times, hoping someones comments would enlighten me as to how this red ball, glowing or not, fits into this picture? Is it part of the sprinkler system? Has a alien landed? I just don't get it.

I imagine there are fewer pipe construction workers on Photonet than motorcyclists, so this image is essentially dead for the majority of us.

 

Well imagine it from the demand side then. I'm guessing because of the raised beds and the irrigation pipe and upright that this field is about to be used for vegetable production (though if it's for grains that would go a long way in explaining European grain subsidies...nevermind). Eat some lettuce or maybe a carrot when viewing the picture. Ponder the chain of events that tie that pipe, or pipes like it, to the product of the field to the food going into your mouth. Ok maybe I'm stretching here.

 

Still, as someone who has spent 11 hour days in 110F heat in rubber boots making sure irrigation pipes aren't clogged, I can safely say this image is not dead for me. I still wonder about the red light though...

Overuse of Photoshop at it's worst. The red thing looks fake, as does the completely sharp dirt/pipe, combined with the blurry trees/sky. Photoshop can make a photo; it can also break one, of which this is a prime example.

Sorry - some of you totaly missed...
All photos on the color-box folder are scanned and adapted more or fewer to be in a good quality for showing on a monitor. The red ball-photo is the only one on this folder where I enhanced the red ball and softed the sky to enhance the contrast to the sharp ground.
I throw another photo of my folder into the discussion: Stormy sea... The weather was very heavy on taking this picture - it was short before the evening begins - very much of the other photographers prefer their warm hotel or restaurant drinking some nice wine at this time -I risked getting salt water onto my camera and make it unusable.
The light in such situations is very monochrome and if you watch the grey scale of this photo you will see, that no simply blue layers were pushed over the picture and no special filter was used.

Dont't forget other criterias that influence each photo you do: Type of film, Filter on the objective, The developing in your laboratory, The type of scanner to bring the photo into a webpage, The gamma and surrounding light while you correct the scan...

With all respect - I think there are not much photos on photo.net and in the photo-magazines that are good and are not influenced by any of the above noted criterias.
I saw a lot of boaring photos on photo.net in the period of time on the last year. Thousands of flowers, animals, sunsets, skys and mountains and portraits, that should better fill family-albums if you see the aspect of art only.

Not every photograph has the intension that each photo thrown to photo.net should win any price. Most of the photos are only a proof of the great fun, that people have with photography. Most of my photos for example only have a reporting character ( see Egypt/Ruegen... ) to show other users some nice places on this earth or give some information about films and cameras...

Very interesting to me is the fact, that most negative comments are not very constructive - follow the corresponding links and try to learn from this persons how to do really great photos - HAVE FUN!

A comment has been made on criticism and lack of performance in the art by the critic, which was answered with a defense of criticism being an art in its own right.

 

I would only like to add that there is a difference between constructive criticism and vulgar behavior of individuals who would trash a piece and their creator, which brings nothing of substance to the discussion beside showing a lack of hemorrhoid care on the part of the critic. May we please stick to powerful suggestions meant to help the photographer, and leave this era of sadistic pursuits.

 

People do not check "publicly visible" in order to be viscously attacked! That would be a personal form of sadism known as masochism. Should we have instituted a little "masochism" box for the check?

 

As far as "mundane subjects" are concerned...The poster stated "I imagine there are fewer pipe construction workers on Photonet than motorcyclists, so this image is essentially dead for the majority of us." If there were so many motorcyclists on Photo.net as to make the pictures of motorcycles commonplace and generally accepted, would that not fit the characteristic described as mundane.

 

If instead you are referring to dull subjects, well that is really a personal matter between photographer and subject. An artistic challenge is an artistic challenge, whether of a dull subject or one of commove.

WOW.....I just read all these critiques and I must say there are amazing ranges of opinions in this group...re: this great photo. When I first saw this image - I wondered how it made POW... UNTIL... I opened it and viewed it in it's larger form.. Great stuff!! Amazing light and composition. 10's from me. Originality+++ Now I am going back to look at the negative critiques again and look at the various people's work that gave those negative critiques. Everyone has their own vision and art is tip top if it generates such controversy. To me it is dramatic, creative and extremely original.. Anything that makes me say WOW out loud... ranks high marks in my book. Isn't that what art is all about?

I agree with N. Ahmad. There has just been far too much pretentious posturing in POW critiques, and not enough constructive suggestions. There seems to be a trend towards this new fad of pretending that viewers should be looking for aspects beyond the ordinary in every little ordinary thing. Fine, but to a point. It is good to try another perspective, but some critics are just getting far too anal about it. So what if there's lots of the traditional "nice" subject matter posted on photo.net. Hey, I'll admit to it--I LIKE my pretty flowers and cute little chipmuncks and lovely sunrises/sunsets. Everyday life provides me with enough doom and gloom and thought-provoking meanings on the negative side, so I'm going to indulge in and enjoy my little feel-good images. Gee...and some have posted their ponderings on why there aren't more women participating. Perhaps they're too busy having a good time to mull around these discussions. And I think the photo.net elves are having a good time picking out stuff to stir it up.

 

Getting back to the POW itself. I agree with cropping off the top. My first impression as it came up on the screen was that it is too dark. Although the irrigation line itself creates an interesting perspective, the red ball is annoying. I do enjoy the other fine images this photographer has posted.

I like the texture in the well-tilled soil, and the reflection off the pipe (though it appears brighter than the sky might impart), but everything from the horizon and up adds nothing to the picture. Were it in focus, maybe. And that red ball must go. It sure looks out of place, and has no reason to be there (only moving sprinker systems have lights, and then only at the pivot).

It is a great picture from a great portofolio.

 

I wish I had such an eye like Rainer has.

Sie haben versucht in einen toten Gegenstand Leben einzuhauchen. Inwieweit Ihnen das gelungen ist, ist der Entscheidung des Einzelnen ueberlassen zu beurteilen!- Nach meiner Meinung war der Versuch die Sache wert! Adelaide SA

ok I'll ask directly... Rainer, please explain the red ball.. is it part of the sprinkler (and as mentioned, you enhanced it) or was it added? Why did YOU add/highlight it in such a way? What was your intent? (just trying to understand what you're trying to convey)

Give your phantasy a chance.
Maybe a silver nozzle, a table tennisball, a plastic cup, a fried egg, a saucerful of secrets, a burnt spot in the negative - or even nothing...
( Klick here )   
I think the question is in reality not the kind of this little object of displeasure but what it can give to this threateningly rain expecting mundane (in the sinn of photography) scenery.
Watch the contrast of texture between the sky and the ground.
Enjoy the little green complementary horizontal strip of meadow that has no chance to reach the round warm colored funny ball touching the horizon.
Personally me loves the true highlight in this scenary the sharp, wet, diagonal cutting ( but not going to the center of the photo ) pipeline.
Think I like for the most part the composition in its contrasts of soft/sharp - surfacings/lines - cold/warm colors.

Rainer.

 

Armed with the aesthetic inspiration from this pic, I went out yesterday in search of my own dirt and red dots. Here's what I came up with, after a very tiny bit of photoshop editing:Homage to Rainer Kuczinski

 

Then, to my delight, this scene fell into my path and came ready-made with it's own genuine red circle:Keep on Trukin'

 

Cheers,

Vuk.

thanks Rainer...

I can't help myself... I keep coming back to read all the fuss. All I have to do is put my finger over the controversial "red ball" to know why it is there. Why did he do it? Maybe just because he could. Maybe it just adds a great element and contrast to the scene. Without that little red light - it just isn't as interesting. I don't go all technical and intellectual about what I like... I just plain like it. It strikes me and as they say "we all see noontime from our own window".

Vuk,

That's just a little uncalled for don't you think? I'm pretty disgusted that you went through the trouble of making a photo like that just to be a jerk. Come to think of it, I'm dissappointed in myself for responding to your rubbish which is giving you the attention you so desperately crave. Get a life.

Vuk -

Yo

u

got it!

I did some corrections to the 2 nice photos - You can see them following the links
Homage...
Keep on...
Go on this way more seriously... I will be a great fan of your works... :-)

I like the cropped Homage better than the original.

As annoying as the little red ball may be, this would not be POW with out it - unless of course there was fire breathing out of the irrigation pipe or something. I live in the agriculture world that are full of these scenes (Saskatchewan), and I know how hard it is to create photos that push the limit, instead of your usual velvia sunset wheat field pics. Good job.

I like the work he did on the ball. I think it adds an eeriness to the picture and a touch more color. Good work.

Joshua.

 

I was just having some friendly "pictorial" banter with Rainer, who seems to have taken my effort in the light-hearted way in which it was intended.

 

Rainer.

 

Your modification of "Homage" is definitely an improvement and the "Truckin'" flip is certainly worth considering: in many ways I do prefer it to my original. (Glad to see you've got a sense of humour in addition to great photographic talent.)

 

Vuk.