***

"Fred you should know better" --Anders

I'll keep that in mind, Anders.

________________________________

Stephen--

I don't think it's a trap to feel in touch with a photographer's motivations when looking at his photograph. That's part of expression and communication. People are talking about what they see and, unless they completely discount that a purposeful and intentional human being was behind the camera, why shouldn't they see intention? Photographs are a weird combination of fact and fiction, a framed transformation of "real world" raw materials. I see intention behind all great photographs and art. If I didn't, I'd be disappointed. You want the photographer to state his intentions. I often see them right there in the photograph. And I'm reminded that not everyone is self aware. So asking someone their intentions doesn't necessarily give me any clearer answer than actually looking at their work. Much that comes out in our photographs is not consciously intended.

I think when most people say "the photographer intended this or that" what they really mean is "it looks to me like the photographer intended this or that." Since it looks like "the photographer intended a period piece," lack of important details seems a fault. The alternative would be what looked like an intentional updating or even undermining of the period by including modern details to make some sort of photographic statement. It didn't look like that was the case here. The out-of-place elements simply looked out of place, not intentionally out-of-place. In his last post, the photographer has now confirmed what most of us had already seen. ("Modern elements on photo are my fault.")

I agree with you to a large degree about some other things you said. Suggestions about what to do might better wait to hear what the photographer wants. Though I've learned over the years that viewers (and especially other photographers) are usually going to tell you what they want instead of waiting to make suggestions based upon what you, the photographer, wants. That's fine, I guess. You just have to know that that's a combination of their problem-solving skills and their taste coming into play. I prefer for a photographer to "fix" his photo (if he thinks it needs fixing) based on his own taste and not the taste of the critic.

That's why I didn't offer a suggestion. Because I wasn't sure whether the photographer wanted the period aspect of the piece to be completely authentic or to be more a recollection of the period but with a modern touch. If the photographer wanted the latter, then I might very well have suggested putting more emphasis on the modern touches so that it was clear that he was updating a period style. As it is, the modern touches look like a mistake, and that isn't dependent on the photographer's intentions at all. That's just what I see (and what many were seeing). A way to alleviate that mistaken look is either to get rid of the modern touches completely or make them part of the statement of the photo by bringing more intentional expression to them.

So, we might split the difference here, Stephen. I'd say I don't need to hear the photographer to get a read on what I think the photo looks like it's trying to accomplish. And, since we're dealing with a visual medium, I think what it looks like it's trying to accomplish is more significant (to the viewer) than what it is trying to accomplish (which is significant to the photographer). But -- and this is a big "but" which I appreciate your emphasizing -- I think to be really helpful in making suggestions, if we care about the photographer's vision in our critiques a little more than we care about our own desires as viewers, we will ask the photographer's intentions. A good critique communicates what the critic thinks it looks like the photographer intended and then the photographer will know if his communication succeeded or not, of if he doesn't care and was just shooting and not intending much at all. Then the photographer can come back and say, no, I intended this instead. And the critic might help him figure out how to convey what he wanted to convey.

I think it's well worth considering why we would ask his intentions. Isn't it so that he can better convey those intentions in the photograph? In other words, if the photographer comes along and says, I really wanted this photo to look like an authentic period piece, we would tell him to have avoided the modern window and perhaps make some adjustments to the costume. Why? Because then his intention that it be an authentic period piece would be more complete and evident in the photo. Which is kind of where we started.

________________________________

I will now join Gordon B. for a while in the land of POW absentia.

"This photo was taken in Museum of Architecture in Wrocław (Poland) one year ago. Magda, girls from a picture, is a member of medival brotherhood. She was clad in typical, silesian dress from XV century. We planned doing simple portrait - nothing special :). We didn't have additional light - just only a window. Modern elements on photo are my fault. That's all :) Thank You for all Your opinion
Regards
Michał"

Bravo. Michal. Very well said.

I think the discussions about intention overlook that fact that the important thing is not a philosophical discussion on exactly what the photographer might or might not have intended, and whether it relates to copying Vermeer style or not (life is made in large part of acknowledging what has gone before each of us), but rather how the image directly affects us. Notwithstanding my earlier comment, I think we should see the portrait for what it is and not for what it might be. Your image, in addition to its chromatic and compositional success, has shown a gentle image of a pretty and expressive lady in a historic costume. A "Chopinesque" directness and lightness. I would photograph with you anytime and be better off for it. Good luck.

I think Arthur's comment, directly above, expresses perfectly how I believe that I should be viewing and interpreting a POW. In other words, for me I try and look at the image and decipher what it evokes in me. My first reaction, like many others, was that it was a Vermeer pastiche; but in contrast to others, I felt it remarkably successful. And now learning, via Michal's explanation, that it was nothing more than a photographer making, in my opinion, a very effective image of a woman in period costume in a modern museum makes the photograph even more meaningful precisely because of the feeling and subject it evoked in me. Cheers!

"I will now join Gordon B. for a while in the land of POW absentia." --Fred

But first, a word to Arthur. This sort of thing has come up recently in other forums as well. I hope you will consider that what's important to you may not be important to others and what's important to others may not be important to you. This is a forum of many diverse viewpoints and expressions and I hope it stays that way. What you want to talk about is no more important than what some others of us may want to talk about.

You misspeak when you say, "the important thing is not a philosophical discussion on exactly what the photographer might or might not have intended, and whether it relates to copying Vermeer style or not (life is made in large part of acknowledging what has gone before each of us), but rather how the image directly affects us."

Now, would you consider changing that "us" to a "me"? Because, in fact, the image doesn't really "affect" me much at all, not very much emotionally at least. So I'm not interested in discussing how it affects me. I'm interested in discussing something about how it's being seen, how I see it, and how it was made. I can accept that may not be important to you. Can you accept that it's important to me?

And let us consider how much shorter and more to the point some of these discussions would have been if we had had Michal's statement at the very beginning of the POW. Yes, we can state what the photo evokes in us, but to criticize Michal for technical oversights that don't correspond to our assumptions is not being fair to Michal or any other POW recipient.
And now I can finally end where I started and had intended to end: great distribution of light, I have no problem with the OOF pillar on the left, minor quibble about the background area above the head, and most concern with the modern window (especially the frame). Overall I really like this because of (other than the light) the interesting clothing, the pose chosen and placed by the window, and especially because I personally seldom do this kind of photography and therefore greatly admire those who do so and do it well. It's something I aspire to, and that alone makes the photo attractive to me.

Fred, my specific comments about the image were directed to Michal, not to the gallery. My feelings of how I feel one should view and critique a POW image is of course open discussion and I realisie and fully expect that there are different viewpoints on that (I enjoy differences of opinion, not criticize them as you are often prone to do if they are not aligned with your cherished thoughts).

I also believe that the POW forum is useful in order to react to the image subject as it is portrayed - just who can get into the mind of a photographer or an artist that he doesn't know? Constructing hypotheses (or more accurately, postulates) is something my post doctoral colleagues sometimes did on the basis of two points in a graph. Curved line, how curved? straight line, other? It doesn't work. Rather than do the same and assume what the photographer thought when little evidence exists, why not just consider an image on its own merits, as the viewer can discern them from viewing the image?

As for my use of "us", I am surely not alone in this generalisation. Have a look please at your last post and see where you might be able to switch "us" to "me." Fred, please relax, say what you feel, and let others come to there own conclusions. You may be surprised at the synegy that creates in interacting with other's thoughts.

Fanstastic work. Light and compo... The Vermeer look.

Fred, you told Arthur--

My question is, why is Arthur "misspeaking"? You're not interested in how the image affects you, but are you at least curious why it affected Arthur, or some of the rest of us, the way it did? And aren't you really asking Arthur to think like you, when you ask him change his use of "us" to "me" in his comment? Finally, you go on to say that you're

Well, Fred, I can accept your viewpoint, all I suggest is that you be willing to consider the viewpoint of others. Again, I am finding this whole POW process quite fascinating. Cheers!

This is the sort of thing I been trying all of the time to bring out, that there are few regulars here, possibly 3 or 4 at the maximum, they always enhernce and inflounce the other members to write just what they want on the POW and they never give a chance to the other to say their personnel opinion on a free way.
We have to thank the photo.net and the Elvis for providing this previlage ( POW ) which is a very important source of photographic education for all of us and those few regulars should Stop enhercing others and let them say what they want to say in free atmosphere.
I still beleive and sure that those few ones are of no photographic in the correct phrase but just interent chatters, for this there are many other places for chat and spending their in valuable time and not the POW.
I am sorry to see this interferance with other members taken place every week and from just the same people.

Have a good day my friends and enjoy this well selected POW by the Elvis.

Michal's words aptly describe the impression his photo leaves me with. I fact I had no need to read his words in order to arrive at the same conclusion. There is too little attention to detail for me to be incline to think that this portrait was intended by the photographer as an accurate historical depiction. For the same reason it also seems unlikely that this was an attempt to emulate Vermeer. That having been stated, the costume and window light are bound to bring up references to Vermeer regardless of what the photographers intention may have been. As such it seems odd to suggest that persons commenting on this photo would need confirmation of intent from the photographer in order to be justified in using Vermeer as a reference in critiquing the photo.

The window light is well utilized, bringing a softness and delicacy to the textures of the clothing and tile as well as providing lovely lighting for the model. The composition feels awkward and impromptu. I cannot help but feel that further exploration of the space could have yielded a more pleasing result. The angle chosen has the front of woman's dress too close to the window as well as being clipped by the oof post and the crop has the other edge of the dress too close to the edge of the frame.The entire crop is too tight and makes an airy and open space feel tight and claustrophobic.

I note in the other photos on Michal's P.net pages that his portraits have a feeling of spontaneity, an immediacy which works in their favour and excuses some technical shortcomings. With the photo chosen as this weeks potw the attire and the window light seem to demand a more rigorous and premeditated approach the lack of which detracts from the final result. Despite any shortfalls the photo is a nice portraits of a lovely young lady, a photo I would suspect that she would be pleased with.

Rashed , may I respectfully ask what you would like to see on the potw in place of comments about how members react to the selected photo and their suggestions for improvement along with the debate and exchange of ideas which tends to follow?

In an ideal world, governed by your rules alone, would the potw forum be and endless stream of platitudes for Elvis ? If so, would that not eventually become a bit tedious?

Dear Gordon, thank you for pointing out and bringing this issue to my attention and I also have a full respect for your person, please also bare in mind my poor Englsih to state what I am going to say here.
http://photo.net/photo-of-the-week-discussion-forum/00YJ4T?start=70
Two weeks back Jim DeTour, came to this POW and said his own personnel opinion about the POW and all in a sudden Stephen came in an attempt to make Jim change his opinion about his comment:
Here it is :

Jim DeTour ../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub1.gif, Mar 04, 2011; 03:38 p.m.

Great shot. The buildings lights are a bit offensive sometimes when my eyes wonder around the photo. Maybe that's just because I would prefer no lighting on the building to highlight the sky. Probably because I would prefer a more natural look since it seemed the light was a bit bright. We all know it is hard to be in the right place at the right time. To each their own.
And this is Stephen input to Jim:

Stephen Penland ../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub8.gif../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif../v3graphics/member-status-icons/trophy.gif../v3graphics/member-status-icons/golden-critiquer.png, Mar 04, 2011; 08:28 p.m.

But Jim, it's not a "shot." It wasn't made with a single click of a shutter. Photographs previously taken were brought together in a computer and combined to make a composite photo.

This is absulty a wrong attempt not to let the others say their own opinion or guide them to a different path.
All I am saying and I like to see here is to let every one be fully free to write his own comment, on his own way and on the way he say the POW with out any enterferance from any one else.
I understand after all of this time that some people here are not satisfied with what the Elvis select for us weekly and at the same time I beleive that what been selected for us is technically well fir this gategary ( POW ) and I do not beleive that those people in any sort of technical position or skill to replace our Elvis here.
Some with non capable photographic wise and their images are less than being avrage and some hidding their images under umberralas and so sacred to share them with the others, but still they think they are better than others.
Let every one be fully free to state his own opinion on his own way and the way he see the POW.

My friend Gordon I have seen your inputs to the POW, and resepct you when you state that if you like the image, you like it and if you don't like it you don't like it, this I do approcaite and respect for you.
Thank you my friend and I really I wish you all of the best as I also wish all of the best for all.

Rashed,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I do understand that you are working hard to make yourself understood in a language which is not your native tongue. I feel certain that if I had the skill and knowledge to communicate with you in your native language our exchanges would clearer and more concise. Sadly I lack knowledge of any Arabic languages so we must struggle along with you making all the effort, for which I thank you.

In the example you gave I thought that Steven was merely pointing out the fact that the image was a composite of more than one image. To my way of reading the exchange Steven was not telling Jim what he was allowed to think he was only informing him about a fact already in evidence.

Thanks to your further explanation I do believe I have a better understanding of your concerns and I do in some amount agree with you. I am sometimes saddened to read in these pages the rhetoric which amounts to nothing more than an attack on an individual for having offered an opinion contrary to the attacker's stance. For myself there is an important distinction between healthy disagreement between individuals with contrary opinions on the potw and the unjustified name calling which sometimes finds its way into these discussions. The former I welcome the latter I do feel moderators should be removing.

Dear Friend Gordon, thank you a lot for your replay, your input as I said earlier is very much appreciated for the POW, you come here and you say what you feel about an the POW, this is fare and your right to do so but you also always been writing thing related to how better that POW could have been, another appreciate manner from you.
You never tried to draw the attention of the others in how good your work is, having said that, you do have the cap and many other of our images here do also deserve that cap, you don’t just speak but you make a good use of this photographic hobby practical wise and you have my respect for that.
When I look at the POW or any other image, I have my person feelings about it and also my technical evaluations, according I lay out my words which reflect my understanding of the image technical quality, beauty and its way of presentation, that why I do not need some one else for a reason or another to show me the weakness of that image because there will always be reason behind my intention not to bring out those weakness and will bring them out when they need to be brought out.
There are many photographic sites on the internet but I have seen no one equal to photo.net, here we have a site which contribute a lot to the Art of Photography all over the world, regardless any race or believe, it is only Art which matter and thats bring people closer to each other and it do shorten the cap and between the different parts of the world.
It is because of the Ham Radio hobby, I have an American brother Jim DeTour, we do not call each other friends but brothers, this is what I am after when I share my images here with every one else, I do not recommend any of my images to be a POW but I feel so happy when any one get it here, it makes me feel that man who got it must worked hard for it photographic wise and also sharing it wise.
Thank you my friend Gordon again, you always been so gentle and nice, have a nice day my friend.

Sorry Dear Gordon, I did mean here many of your images also deserve the cap, forgive me about the mistake:

“””You never tried to draw the attention of the others in how good your work is, having said that, you do have the cap and many other of your images here do also deserve that cap, you don’t just speak but you make a good use of this photographic hobby practical wise and you have my respect for that"

Rashad, Gordon is correct: I was only reacting to Jim DeTour's comment of "Nice shot." The term "shot" implies to me a single click of the shutter, and that image was not a single click of the shutter. That's an important distinction to me, and I was merely pointing that out. I was not attempting to make Jim change his opinion about his comment -- you completely misunderstood my intentions and my comment to Jim. I really think Jim was probably using "shorthand" and meant to say "Nice photo" but instead said "Nice shot." I just wanted to clarify that with Jim. It is a photo, but it is not a "shot" in the sense that it was made with one click of the shutter. I hope you now have a better understanding of that particular comment exchange.

Dear friend Stephen, thank you for your response, very much appreciated.
When an image been selected by the Elvis and posted as a POW or even any image post by a member on the site, it is here as one full image and into bit and pieces, this is how I look at it, therefore if I like it, I will go and say so and I will point out why I like it, other wise if I do not like it, again I will have to point out why.
Thats between my personnel opinion and that image, I will not after ward go and tell some one else the shortages or how the image been constructed to the other members, if I do this I am digging the crave yards and de valuing this image to the others.
How the others looking to an image this is their eyes and their opinions not mine, I am not here to drive others into conclusions, such act is ok if it comes from the owner of the image itself but not from any one else.
Up to this time I have not seen any POW been selected by the Elvis which do not deserve been posted, they always come with some thing different and having its own christristics and worth discussing, worth discussing but not humiliating.

Thank again my friend Stephen and wishing you all of the best.

Rashad, well said, and I agree.

Pls look straight in the eyes of the man in the picture below.
This masterpiece is important in the history of German painting.
Can you name the reason?

Sure. While it's a portrait, it's from a painter (Hans Holbein the Younger) who came closest to replicating a photograph at that time (early 1500's).

I love window light, particularly when it emulates the school of Flemish painting, particularly Vermeer. The "girl reading a letter" has the same color scheme, but her attention is directed at her letter. So it is full of subtext. We do not know the contents, which could be either good or bad. This photo is a beautiful portrait of a young lady, directing her gaze at the onlooker. Perhaps she is patiently waiting for someone. But, I think it could be further enhanced. There are no props or other details for why she is waiting there with a somewhat uncomfortable positioning of her knees on the brick. If Michal wanted to think about a scenario, keeping the nostalgic approach, he could add more detail in the foreground. Maybe she stopped to rest with a basket of bread next to her, overlapping her skirt and partially hiding her legs. Or perhaps for a more compelling tighter perspective, he could crop into the skirt at the bottom and some of the background to her right, leaving some of the shadowed area for mystery. The mood and portrayal are magical. I guess I am just looking for more subtext.

Regards, Leora

Simply perfect.

A wonderful photograph, not only in the calm and graceful yet neither totally rehearsed nor overly manipulated/embellished pose of the model, but also in that it combines references to Vermeer with clear indications of a modern setting, so without aiming for or pretending to be an overly staged "true to the original" replica. Clearly this is not a photograph intended to pass the technical scrutiny of commercial publishers in advertising or historical catalogs, and it therefore should be judged on its own merits rather than rules-to-broken such as isolating the subject by shallow DOF, tight cropping etc etc. Aside from the purely esthetic aspects, the picture made me wonder immediately whether the clothing was taken out of a theatrical costume wardrobe, or whether perhaps some people still genuinely dress in this style for their daily life - in the current age of spandex and Lady Gaga.

And that was my initial appreciation, even before scrolling down the comments and reading Michal's explanation of the subject and location. Unlike a replica, the composition to me has genuine creative merit because (among others) it does not aim to obfuscate or crop away the many hints at a genuinely modern setting for a subject and environment with such a classic painterly look. Not just the window but also for example the following: Vermeer rarely (if ever) included realistic imperfections in the complexions of his female subjects, the colors and fabrics of the clothing look much more contemporary (no evidence of ironing or starching), the model lacks the relatively short and chubby stature of Vermeer's well-to-do subjects, there is no hint of jewelry or luxury household items, no reflections in mirrors to allow the painter to demonstrate his mastery with, etc etc. All of these aspects make the photograph stronger to me rather than weaker, because the creator displays enough personal vision to stay clear from an overly detailed and borderline obsessive attempt at pure replication, and because he gives his audience the benefit of the doubt whether they will succeed -or not- in avoiding the pitfall of hasty conclusions about supposedly replicative intentions or results.

Before dealing with the picture, I take up two topics that seem to have hijacked the critiques here--the fallacy of intention and the relationship of a picture to its milieu.

One, an artwork cannot be critiqued on the basis of anyone's perception of the mental state of its maker. The work stands alone, evoking the responses it does, and the artist's perceived intention is simply another ghost in the machine. "The photo evokes memories of Vermeer, therefore Michal was trying to emulate Vermeer. But the photo is not a Vermeer, therefore Michal failed."--this may be false. It is true only that the photo evokes memories of Vermeer in specific ways, such as diffuse sidelighting, lighting ratio, formal pose, rustic interior, and these are all properties of the artwork and subject to critique.

Steven Penland brings this out very clearly, and he's right about that. But his idea that a work needs some introduction or explanation by the artist to guide the critic--that's a clear indication that the work is incomplete in itself, an admission of failure. If the work is singular, it is timeless, and can endure the uneducated chipping in their two bits. And a great masterwork is able to teach us how to see.

Two, when contemplating a Vermeer, understanding a variety of things about the times in which it was painted may enrich the contemplation. All the objects in the frame are invested with specific meaning related to the spirit of the time. But many characteristics reveal that this photo is not a Vermeer. Samer's rendition featuring the chosen colors of a real Vermeer rather than the found colors of the original scene brings this out for us, which is very helpful. He need not apologize for showing what this photo is not, but we must see it for what it is. Leora's comment that this photo lacks the additional visual elements--the "subtext"--of a real Vermeer is accurate. The other elements are out of focus to create a sense of space and modulation without distracting us from the subject--a very modern spareness.

Aha. It is a twentieth century Magdziak, and the "anachronisms" in it such as the out-of focus plaster in the left foreground, the large panes of flat glass, the mediocre quality of the fabric, the slight self-consciousness of the pose, and the alert, direct gaze of the model demonstrating her independence and equality are appropriate reflections of a modern milieu that we understand perfectly from everyday experience. Apparently good modern feminists like to wear traditional Silesian garb, they look good in sidelighting from windows, traditional materials like plaster and pavers are very appealing to the senses, and photographers like to take pictures of these things, even though they may choose not to work their renditions as a painter does, but show straightforwardly what was there.

In this context I proceed to the photo itself. This is a picture of us, with our feeling for our traditions and our nostalgia for the past, an affirmation that the vernacular subjects of Vermeer and his contemporaries are truly timeless. Yes, our headgear is slightly askew and we are not wearing our garb, but letting it wear us. No, we are not engaged in the business of everyday life, but waiting pertly and a little too expectantly in the romantic hope of becoming one with the ages. The question it raises is not "Is this really a Vermeer?" but "Is this who we are?"

The train of commentary on this photo is worth a forum unto itself.
I like the lighting and balance of colors in this. I too think it could be improved a bit had the column at left not intruded. Regardless, this is a nice use of natural light.
Perhaps it's the science fiction reader in me, or the more modern windows and brick, but rather than thinking of Vermeer, this portrait put me in mind of a retro-future setting, specifically "The Hand Maid's Tale."