a sense of wonder...

digital manipulation doesn’t rock my boat but if your photographic buzz leans towards the digital you could consider “a sense of wonder...” a pretty image but at least the effects should be seamless. If I step outside of my preferences and for a moment accept digital artifice I’m left wondering as how the artist could have possibly missed the blunt contaminating artifact of the banding Fred and others have described.

also amazing is how the language of praise overtakes objectivity. I can’t fathom why it is so but maybe for people’ wishes for reciprocal treatment with their own work. Words matter and should be dispensed with care and this here is no masterpiece, and to say it is undermines, mocks, the rare occasion when we actually come across the real thing.

The attached is a quick and dirty take on the original. The choice tool is the ‘Patch Tool’ in Photoshop 5.

Runar and Anne have a lot of beautiful photographs in their portfolio. I don't think this is one of them. The banding and the distinct tonal circles more or less ruin this one for me. It looks clumsily and amateurishly processed in comparison to most of their other work.

I can't see into the minds of the elves, but perhaps that's why they selected this particular photo for the POW. If the POWs were all flawless masterpieces, I suspect the comments would quickly become monotonous, and we would learn very little. For me, the best POW selection is above average but not perfect, and it leads to an interesting portfolio.

I don't think Carlos is talking about the choice of the elves. I think he's talking about uncritical praise from fellow viewers.

Yes (and Carlos made a very good point), but I was responding to Jim. I've long felt that the "photo of the week" ought to be the "critique of the week," although the acronym isn't as catchy.

Looking back, I guess I could have been responding to Carlos as well, but that wasn't in my mind at the time.

Carlos, thanks for the take! I found it quite informative on the banding subject. Nevertheless, I have to say that I do find the original take more interesting... even if technically dubious... The edges of the background give me more details to explore than just a general impact (they look like several spotlights in a controlled environment). And because of the circular shapes, they also induce my eye back to the main subject. The secondary flowers out of focus also present edges, so i haven't found the backlight edges to harmful to the overall picture. Am I missing a point here?
Usually I find flower subjects dull, but this photo and the remanning portfolio most certainly changed my opinion! They do transmit feelings and constructs outside the subject. Here, the pose and composition, texture, color and 'delicate' focus are truly insightful.
For me, the thing here that "itches" me the most is the thermal noise on the darker parts of the image...

I have to admit I much prefer the cleaner edited shot that has been uploaded.

Marco makes a good point, though the technical flaws do really impact the shot negatively. I think seeing the overlapping circles of light is important, which Carlos's version does not maintain. It would be hard to "clean this one up" because too much has been lost. Had those light circles been handled well to begin with and the banding avoided, they would work much better. They could have still had somewhat defined edges, but those edges of light could be so much softer and feel much more organic. As they are in the original, they simply read as technical glitches. Also, had the lighting of the background been dialed back just a bit, the photo would have more depth and the light wouldn't so overpower the flower. If that light had the translucency of actual light, it could be sensuous and atmospheric. As it is presented, it's much more solid and graphic.

The "problem" with art is that what is masterpiece for some people it is slavepiece for other people and vise versa. I do not like the master-slave in art. I do not like the superior-inferior in art. May be that is why I do not like numbers in art.

There’s no problem in art. Except for the problem of inferior art evident everywhere. And sometimes you find most excellent, even extraordinary art. But it’s not about one’s preferences or inclination or interpretation of a given piece, it’s about the word itself and the poverty of language. It’s about the cheap way the word is tossed about. Now, you can find the definition of masterpiece in any dictionary of your choosing and all definitions agree the word refers to exceptional, extraordinary work, produced by great artists. It’s an unambiguous non-negotiable word.

What informs anyone’s perception may be measured by the art of those who came before. If your thing is photography, you know who they are. Same if you’re a painter, or a composer, or an aspiring writer… Whatever rocks you as an artist is shaped by standards laid out by those who traveled the same road, standards that inspires and helps you define what matters… (for you)
Is also part of what allows you to recognize a real masterpiece when you see one. Most stuff is obviously pedestrian and mediocre, but there are plenty grand and transcendent examples of art. And that’s where the word belongs.

Excellent!

Sorry, but disagree. I like the stronger circular elements even though some might characterize it as "banding". The softening effects you used are mushy by comparison, not especially beautiful to my eye.

The moment you try to apply some creative litmus test to prove the perception of beauty you will find others who will disagree. Not all masterpieces are technically perfect. I much rather enjoy an image that has visual impact and emotional content that is not technically perfect than a hundred perfect images made with no creative spirit. I enjoy the image as it stands for the qualities it possesses not for some idealized bid for pictorial perfection that it presumably missed.

This is one reason it's often problematic to re-work someone else's photo. It will inevitably lead to comparisons and it would be great for the work to be judged on its own merits. Also, once a processing problem has been introduced, as the unsightly banding originally was in this case, it's very hard to negate it. Much better to go back to the RAW original or the original jpg. It shouldn't become a matter of whether we like AR's version better than Carlos's. It should be a matter of assessing AR's version alone and looking carefully at it and talking about both the art and the craft of it. If we leave either aspect out, we aren't looking with both eyes.

I agree with Carols that "masterpiece" getting tossed around so ubiquitously undermines the meaning of the word and does a disservice to good art.

I look at this and immediately see in big bold letters "processing mistake." If this is at all a learning site and this forum is really supposed to be about critique, then technique and craft ought to matter. You want art, go to a museum. You want to learn how to create better photographs, come here, but be suspicious of voices telling you you've created masterpieces. I know I am. I don't want nasty comments, but I do like a kick in the pants sometimes. Listen to the words of those looking carefully at your work and saying things that are constructive. Neither being mean nor being patronizing is terribly helpful to other photographers.

The best way to assess people's critiques is to check out their history of critiques and see if what they say generally has merit or if they are continuously just blowing smoke (and I'm not referring to anyone specific here) and it is also to check out their portfolios and note the type of work they do, all of which together may give you a clue as to their visual acumen and what they might expect out of a photograph.

I didn't take Carlos or anyone else to be asking for or expecting that. One can make constructive technical suggestions that will actually aid in the creation of "an image that has visual impact and emotional content" without needing to be accused of asking for the impossible . . . perfection or sterility. In a photo like this, part of the visual impact IS the technique, perhaps more so than in other types of photos where narrative takes on a more prominent role. Addressing matters of technique is not to undermine the emotional effectiveness of any work of art, it is to enhance it. Technique does not FIGHT art. It is often essential to it.

Carlos, thanks for a brilliant text on art and masterpieces. One of the best I have seen here on PN. I agree with your argumentation.

For techniques I agree that we may allways improve and find new ones. I do it all the time, and Photo.net really helps in this, I try to help too. But for art I have total different opinion, for me there is no inferior art, art is uncritiquable, unratable, uncomperable.

Can't wait for the time, when photographers will look at photos, like they and every one else does, at art (not as craft objects where perfect technique is non-negotiable) as expressions of aspects of life. And in that case, first experiencing the image (whether painted, drawn, or photographed) as is, as a whole. Then analyse it, if you're so inclined, and try and find the intent of the image, (the content/story/metaphor/implied message). And THEN try and see how technical elements (form,shape, line, light, colour, texture, composition...) help to better create that content.

AND ONLY THEN, start trying to socalled "improve" the image. Unless you've taken the time to understand what the image is trying to communicate, all talk on technical shortcomings is fruitless, not to say, lazy and arrogant ....

Stamoulis, I hope we never reach the day when art is not critique-worthy. Some art is downright bad and not differentiating between good and bad art undermines the entire idea and history of art.

Bettie, craft is not so separable from art. The great sculptures couldn't have been made without the craft. The art grows with the craft, not despite it. Same for the great paintings and the great photographs. One can balance, in various ways, the importance of craft at any given moment, but I think it's vital for viewers, art appreciators, and photographers to recognize how intertwined craft and art actually are. Improving craft often helps one see more subtlety and nuance which adds depth to the art itself.

If this photo were better crafted, it would have much more emotional impact on me because it would have translucence and depth, much more room for my imagination to flourish.

Stamoulis, I simply don't understand your last scentence. I mean... you have rated and critiqued photos here on PN, how do you say "art is uncritiquable, unratable, incomparable."?
Bettie, I agree with Fred, there is no art without craft. One thing is sure though, some kinds of art are more dependent on craft than others: one striking example is classical music and popular genres. One requires exceptional scholarship to fulfill its purpose (e.g. Rachmaninov), the other may be effective with much less need of knowledge (e.g. Bob Dylan), both having their own virtues.
In photography I believe the same applies, particularly, flower subjects usually require a technical minuteness to be able to transmit its intentions. Journalistic photography, on the other hand, doesn't need such a technical thoroughness to make extraordinary impact.

A music teacher I know, confessed to me that, due to the training as musician she has received, she is unable to go to any concert performance. She is too aware of technical glitches and "mistakes" be the performers. No matter what their calibre....

Too bad for the music teacher you know.

I did not write that art is or is not worth critique, I write that art is above critique. I do not write critiques, I write opinions, my personal opinions. When I came in Photo.net (few years ago) I think it was "contribute a comment", now it is "contribute a critique". I write under some photos to say that I am a viewer. Here I wrote about smoother background but I am not sure if artist would like it that way.

Vomit, vomit, vomit! This is a gloppy cliched flower picture. The colors are dreadful and the form is slack. It is bad botany and wretched aesthetics. The inbred photo.net dwarfs have done it again.

For a technical analysis. The background is an artificial circular mess. A bad case of tunnel vision. It's only virtue is that is takes our attention away from the gloppy and nondescript flower. Everything is out of focus--except--the tip of the leaf in the low right hand corner. That is where the eye automatically goes until the cliche meter in the brain says the eye must look at the nondescript and anemic flower.

Another week another cliched Photograph of the Week. Only this week's pick is distinguished by being utterly without the slightest merit. The dwarfs have exceeded themselves this time.

Another thing: The title is the cliche's cliche. "A sense of wonder" my foot. My only sense of wonder is that the perpetrator of this abomination did not delete it or destroy the negative.

The moronic title makes the whole disgustingly stupid presentation complete.