wandering

1. the subject is too close for the horizontal format and 2. I would have wanted to see slightly more details in the background , presently it is too blurry . To me , this is a far better image than the last one (where the child's look carried some artificiality ) . The photographer has been successful in imparting a sense of oldness in the photo .

Bozena, Have you seen the photographs of Roman Vishniak of people in Europe caught in the grip of Nazism and poverty? Vishniak did his images in the 1930's and 1940's in Europe. Your image reminds me of Vishniak. You make a strong social statement and display excellent communication in your image. The high quality of your image is testified to by its being chosen as image of the month as well as by the number of contributors making comments. Congratulations on your excellent work.

I applaud this idea and execution.....to a point. It's extremely difficult to 'act' out destitution or indigence. Is that what you are trying to convey here? The look on the girl's face is quite good, but it seems incongruous to the clothing she is wearing. There also seems to be an incongruity between how they are dressed and the surroundings in which you've placed them. Many years ago I watched a documentary about a woman reporter who assumed the persona of a street person. She couldn't accurately experience it with any degree of credibility until she dressed up as a street person.......and I mean completely. She assumed the posture, used make-up every day, lived on the streets, and virtually became one of them. She did this for many months and ended up with health problems as a result of her 'experiment'. It was a fascinating psychological study. Although you have done an excellent job on this, there is still something 'staged' about the image, but I do applaud your efforts on this!

really great work 

Basically good. But, being the eye is normally drawn to the brightest places I find the lightness od the background & the very bright bag she's holding very distracting. It takes away from the story going on between the two people

There's something fatally flawed about comparing this to one of Vishniak's photos, which is of course no fault of the photographer's here since that wasn't her purpose, hopefully. When it's so clear that something has been re-created, the re-creation itself might somehow play a role in the statement, otherwise it's just unsuccessful fakery. In other words, the photo could have some level of consciousness that it is a re-creation and not be trying to simply fool the audience. I don't think the photographer here is trying to fake us into thinking this is a real scene but I'm not sure she's been adept and straddling the line between fiction and reality.

While the photo may have shortcomings in staging and recreating a given culture of the past, I think these shortcomings pale in comparison to many attempts by many photographers in recreating or, more accurately, enhancing natural landscapes via digital processing, trying to improve on the colors and light that are seen in a natural scene. I can understand and applaud Bozena's attempt at recreating a cultural scene; I have a much harder time doing the same thing with many (but certainly not all) parallel attempts at enhancing natural scenes, which originate I think from a jaded view of the natural environment.

There's a difference between a re-creation and an enhancement. I agree with Stephen that many landscape enhancements are done tastelessly and are over the top. I don't find what the photographer is doing here to be any kind of enhancement. She is creating a fiction based on real concerns. She hasn't over-processed anything or enhanced anything, which is usually the case with the kind of landscape treatment Stephen is talking about. I just think her fact-fiction dialogue isn't as effective as it might be.

Why again almost the same photograph? Bozena must feel uncomfortable!

I don't know Stephen, but I think the manipulation issue isn't related here. But in that regard, I have been re-reading Sontag's On Photography and find it interesting to note that she mentions issues with what people were doing to photographs back then (1973) that made the realistic or reporting nature of photography come into question. I think we place too many restrictions on ourselves--or others--but certainly personal preference is, well, just that.

As to this sort of photo, I would have to say that I do feel that if it is to be successful then we should be fooled as to whether it is vintage or not. Just by the fact of who made the photograph and the date made should be the only reason we know it is not a true representation of a given time. If we don't achieve that believability, then we have not succeeded.

In this case, I don't have any issue with the size of the figures or tonalities--although I do notice that both of these last POW's are a bit heavily weighted to our left. The strong black figures brings our attention right to them and I don't find the light background a distraction or an interference with the image--it isn't hot and contrasty, but soft and subtle, creating a nice backdrop. The bag is a bit bright, but not awful. I actually find the background it quite complimentary to what seems to be the goal/story that was undertaken.

The problem I have with this image is, like last week, the little girl. I am not saying that a child throwing a tantrum isn't a real event, but I don't think it is noteworthy in this sort of work. Here, all I see is a little girl that doesn't want to pose or run through the requested scenario again. She is obviously sulking--and looking right at the person she is upset with (the camera). I have no issue with anything else, really, just that it is not a moment or scene that is compelling in any way (unless props and technique is all it takes to be interesting). Just one that, as I said last week, reveals a need to pay more attention to detail and make a believable and compelling image--not just post your best try.

John, too many great artists and photographers play with and point to their own fabrication of fiction and photographs for "being fooled" to be the thing that one would pin the success or failure of a photo on.

Of course, fooling people (or the less negative convincing people) is one level and can yield success. But fooling someone into thinking this was 30s Europe and a Vishniak-like scenario isn't the only thing that Bozena might be trying to accomplish. I think there's a lot of potential in deconstructing the fabrication aspect of photographs as an alternative to simply mimicking a historical genre.

Well, fooling or even convincing may both be the wrong words, but if you are trying to make a period piece, then it should look like a period piece and have some believability to it. There are certainly times when one combines an edge of the modern with the vintage shot, a sort of irony, comedy or satire, but if one is going for a period piece--which it appears these are--then they should look like a period piece. Even if shot in color, an image that is supposed to look like it is from the 1800's should have a feel of authenticity to it in all other aspects.

We might not be opposed here and instead thinking/talking about something different. I am looking at this from a perspective I would find if I were doing such a thing for a client. I'm looking at how important location, casting, the right props and good directing are to the final product (in fact, I am not sure the little girls shoes here actually work, but they are difficult to see well) These things are very important to making convincing photos. If they aren't believable, then what are they supposed to be?--this might be where I end up with all of this.

I find the idea of looking at an image of someone pretending to be troubled unsettling. Maybe it wouldn't be so unsettling for me if there weren't, I think, associations with the train marshalling yard at Auschwitz. There are so many pictures of real human suffering in the world, and genuine images of Auschwitz (both wartime and taken today), that there is no need to pretend, and I think there is a risk of devaluing genuine images of the subject.

Then again, I don't have a problem with exploring the borders between reality and fiction, just for me it's the wrong place to do it. There's also nothing inherently wrong with an image being unsettling - just not in this way. The image doesn't tell me anything beyond the fact that a girl is pretending to look sad. That doesn't tell me much about the world, doesn't tell me much about sadness, doesn't tell me much about the difference between reality and fiction.

I think a lot of the problem is that it is retro. It is not looking at itself or telling us anything new about anything, it is just a re-enactment. There are contemporary images that seem to me to reference Auschwitz that I have no problem with, so it's not the case that the subject is untouchable: Ackerman.

That said, the image is I think visually attractive (and though the burnt out bag does bother me - the bright background doesn't at all).

I like how the background and surroundings look realistic and atmospheric. I like the shallow depth of field, with the focus on the figures, and the darkness of the figures compared to the lightness of the background. However, where are they going? They look as if they are in the process of going somewhere, yet their feet are firmly planted. So they’re not walking. They’re standing in place. That makes the photo look more posed, to me. Also, are they poor? Their clothes look a bit new. I’ve looked at the other photos in the photographer’s portfolio, and in one of them, the upscale woman in the city getting her shoes shined seems to be wearing the same coat as the woman in this photo.
It’s an interesting idea, almost like a movie still. But I’m not sure what the interaction between these two people is supposed to be. They don’t seem to be interacting with each other in any way. It’s like the photo could stand alone with either one of them airbrushed out, leaving only one figure. Is the woman her mother? Are they on speaking terms? Why is the woman turned sideways but seemingly looking past the girl? All of this said, this is a high level of scrutiny for any photo to withstand. Good job by the photographer on creating this interesting photo.

Photographer is director, models are actors, camera is shooting. Author uses archetypes the audience can not read. There are no links to holocaust here. Scarf, genuine leather shoes, low level platform, fabric bag are reminiscences of mother and childhood. The problem is how does it taste. Sometimes it is nice to see something through the womens eyes. I like this photo.

At the very beginning I want to thank you for such great interest in my
work and a great discussion that gives me a lot to think
the world of photography.
Photos are posed and on the pictures are my models.
I'm trying to create photographs looks likes a lite bit of the theater because I feel it best. Unfortunately I am

not always able to do what i want because lack of props and costumes.
Two years ago in my town i was considered as a strange person who was making street theather,
today, perhaps people look at this different and i think slowly accepting me.
I want to show in my photos something that often we forget I want to convey my emotions.
That's my plan and outline what i make.
I never planned my session. I ask my models to speak, to scream,that i could feel it myself.
I'm like a director without a script. i can't plan, I can't tell how and what we do,
I need to find in a given place and feel with all my heart the whole scene together.
When i feel that people play that pose no chance I could pass it now to convey to you what.
Photography is all I have is my whole little world, whose i still try to understand and i still learning.
I Logged into your portal to show to world what I'm trying to pass on to my society.
I am deeply moved,I do not know the language i can't respond like I want every one of you.
I want to say one thing, that in moments of doubt you gave me hope that what im doing have a sens.
I know what I'm doing makes sense and thanks that you want to see my work, imperfect with big mistakes :)

Again sorry for my language i don't known english very well ( to excuse myself i use google translator)

A heartfelt thank you to all and sorry that I can not answer as I wanted

Bożena N.

Bozena is not to "blame", but entering this week's POW I thought it is a mistake.... but it seems it is not...;-))

Even if it not a mistake, this also an image for discussion and the Elves did a great choice here, regardless who the photographer is, is there a rule here which says that only one image for a photographer to be selected as POW?, if not then I find this image very interesting of its contents to be in the front page.

Bozena, reading your description of things done and your process, I can certainly empathize with your desires and situation. But the one thing that stood out for me was the fact that you are not scripting what you are doing. Spontaneity is a wonderful thing, however, you are not working by yourself. When we make images in a contemporary setting, scripting can certainly help, but at least there is some commonality between you and your subjects. When you attempt a period piece, then there is a large void. Maybe one of not having any reference at all or having contradictory references.

Spontaneity will yield great gifts, however, you have to have a firm and understood concept as your foundation. Scripting allows you to convey the tone of a shot, historical background that the actors can understand and a motivation behind what you are doing. It allows everyone to get a foundation of clarity as to what is being done.

This not only allows for a more successful shoot, but it enlists the actors to get more involved--maybe more props and costumes will show up. Scripting doesn't preclude spontaneity but it might make it more relevant.

Photos of Bozena are all very nice but have an obvious limitation: they are built as studio photography and this street shot lose all their charm. I am not convinced the decision to enter into the picture of the week, because it would otherwise be selected on all images taken in the studio, beginning with john peri work. I take comfort in the fact that many before me have questioned the fact that these pictures are constructed with model and clothes and make up....

Niki, what in the world does John Peri have to do with this?

Can someone give some clarification here? Since the studio nudes aren't dressed in period costume I assume the comments about John Peri refer to his street photography. I was under the impression that John Peri's street photography was the real thing, i.e., the dress and period etc. were genuine even in those shots where the people are hamming it up a little for the camera. Am I right in thinking this, or am I missing something?

My friend nikki, John Peri is a great Artist and his work of very powerful light and thats whats photography is all about.
Bożena is another great Artist with her work which been posted here and I believe both having a great garage to share their work and not just talking photography, like some others.
There are people you gonna find on the net, they talk to much and there is nothing satisfying them out of the other people work while their own work is just smile snap shooting, you click on the names and see what sort of street people photography they do, you will find not even one photo appears in original pose but they all acting, the way they steers in the photographer camera other wise all been asked to prepare for their photo to taken, also the technical quality is too poor and the basic simple elements are all missing of their work.
No, John Peri to me is a master and so well technically skilled and many here would learn a lot of this man work, the same for Bożena, that why those un happy people and their negative responses to every POW do not draw my attention neither it do bother me at all.
So far I did not see one single POW posted here by the Elves which do not worth the discussion, they are all of great value for me to learn, I am sure photo.net Elves are of very high technical knowledge and understanding photographic wise and they do a great job, we should respect and thank them for that.

I named john peri for example, was the first name that came to my mind. I could say Ikka Kallio or rashed or many others of our friends. the problem is not that, but the fact that these pictures are fake, are build and therefore not spontaneous, does not seem the case to include in the photo of the week. there is no spontaneity, no surprise, there is nothing that these images, definitely beautiful, they want to say to the viewer. I prefer a thousand times a natural street picture to a fake shot

Niki, probably at least 50% of photography is what you call fake. Set up. Do you think Edward Weston just happened upon that pepper exactly where it is?

Rashed, you have a habit of personally attacking those who give critiques you don't like. You've written that same post here quite a few times when negative or even just constructive critiques have been given to a photo you think is good.