kurzawica

Was this POW "too good?" Relatively few comments, nearly all praising the aesthetics, composition, and techniques, no significant suggestions for alternatives, very few if any criticism. Very little debate does not make for a good POW selection, IMO. Again, I really like this photo, wish I had the opportunity to try some shots like this. In response to John Rowsell's question, I think the diagonal line is an important part of the composition and greatly contributes to the appeal of the photograph.

To Stephen Penland,
Obviously, most of the 'debate" about past POW are really nothing more than snide comments or insinuation about the "worthiness" or lack thereof of the image. I think part of the lack of "debate" on this image has something to do with the makeup of this site. Most of those who comment on the POW are jaded photographers who are trained to nitpick little details about the aesthetics of an image. Rarely does any of the criticism get into the actual soul of the image, the thing that makes it tick. This is why an image like this shuts up the critics, because, there really is nothing there to "critique". I went to a Sade concert over the weekend at my wife's behest, and I found that after three hours of technically brilliant, yet, oddly empty music, there was nothing to hang on to. She was pretty (check), the musicians were accomplished (check), and the acoustics and effects were brilliant (check, check), but there I was in a huge stadium of 50,000 people asking myself if there was anything about her music that stuck to me, and I came up empty. There was no great social message like Bob Marley or Alpha Blondy; there was no signature vocal style a la Billy Holliday or Janis Joplin; there was no great fire that burned within her like Michael Jackson or Hank Williams. It was just a modulated, flawless, professional performance that left very little room for complaint, but, like the good pastry I just ate from a bakery around the corner, is quickly forgotten. But, to have these thoughts while consuming the croissant is, of course, unfair to the meal. So, having buried Caesar, I hardly doubt I will be rushing to the portfolio from whence this technical virtuoso image comes from once its POW reign is over. But, my, is it a great shot!

Stephen,

I think that most of the discussion around POW's comes where there are issues that involve things like emotion or philosophical issues--gray areas. Technical things don't seem to be overly discussed like in the distant past, but sometimes do make sense. Of course, much of the diatribe that can come here has to do with what is or isn't photography, something that isn't an issue with this image.

But with an image like this, I think we are left with an image that doesn't carry much more than what it represents--which from a photographic standpoint is very well done. I have suggested many times that we need to meet an image where it is and this is a good case. Not everything is charged with deep philosophical meaning that can be debated or interpreted in different ways. Not all photography is meant to be high art or even art for that matter. That doesn't diminish the value of an image as a photograph or even the desire for some to hang it on their wall but there is generally less to discuss. It is either your thing or it isn't, while certainly its merits as a photograph--composition, aesthetics etc--can be appreciated and discussed.

Because it is straight photography, no debate, thankfully, is stimulated in that regard. If we were all motorcycle racing enthusiasts, we might debate whether the action here was represented faithfully or not or if the action is significant from such a standpoint.

All that is left for photographers is whether the image is good photography or not--and it is. What else is there to discuss? If all of the interests of this site are to be served here, maybe this type of image is a good thing from time to time.

Hi folks, just a reminder:

Thanks everyone!

To Emmanuel Enyinwa,
I don't think it's obvious that most of the debate about past POW selections are nothing more than snide (defined by Merriam-Webster as dishonest, unworthy of esteem, or slyly disparaging) comments about an image. I've participated in many of these discussions, and I would not describe my comments as "snide" or "insinuations about the worthiness" of an image. I've gotten many insights from the different points of view that others have similarly offered their opinions, and some have slowly changed the way that I look at photographs. I consider those comments by others as anything but snide comments.

Commenters have often had differing opinions about a photograph, discussions of which, in my mind, constitute a "debate" and which is one of the aspects that I like about the POW. I think most who have contributed to POW discussions have had a definite point of view, have been sincere in their discussions of that point of view, and categorizing their contributions as "snide remarks" falls far short of what I have read.

Nor do I consider myself a "jaded" photographer, and I have never been "trained" to nitpick little details about the aesthetics of an image. I doubt that most POW commenters in the past would consider themselves jaded photographers, and I also doubt that any have been trained to nitpick little details about a photograph.

Your comments about the actual soul of the image are interesting. You seem to make a distinction between an artistic expression (e.g., music or a photograph) that is technically very good versus one that has "soul." In music, you defined "soul" as having a great social message, a signature vocal style, or great fire that burned within the musician (all of which can be pretty subjective, and that's very important and we should think about that, but I'll pass on that aspect for now). My question here is whether the POW by Slawomir Zylak as "soul" in addition to the very good technical aspects that many have mentioned. I would suggest (i.e., this is my own opinion) that "soul" can include that which expresses the essence of something. It has the primary elements, perhaps aesthetically arranged, that says to the viewer, "This is what it's all about." I'm not a motocross rider, although I have ridden motorcycles in my youth and have some understanding of the appeal that this endeavor can have for those who live to ride motorcycles and live to participate in motorcycle riding competition. It seems to me that for this latter group of people, this photograph probably has "soul" in that it captures the essence of that activity and it is presented in a visually impressive way. If one doesn't ride motorcycles and has no interest in that activity, I doubt that person will see the "soul" of the image that others can easily see. That's partly why I think the notion of "soul" can be very subjective -- it rests on one's primary interests in life.

To you, this is a great shot, and that's about it. To others, it captures the essence of something that is very important in their lives, and it does so in an exceptional manner. You will quickly forget the shot once the week is over, others will not.

I think that some categories of photography may have more "soul" and more easily identifiable soul than others. I think it's much more easy to identify soul, or social message, or deeper meaning, in some photographs that involve people (and perhaps digital imagery as well, because it is often made for a purpose or to express a thought or feeling) than in photographs of landscapes, insects, automobiles and airplanes, flying birds, and similar photographs that don't necessarily involve people. People are special, probably simply because photographers are people -- we can identify with that category very easily. But if we define "soul" as capturing the essence of something (a landscape, insect, automobile or airplane, flying bird, motocross, etc.), then those who have a great love and interest for those subjects will probably be able to see a soul in those special (and relatively rare) photographs. When they comment on such photographs, they will often concentrate on the specific elements that, to them, make it a successful photograph for capturing the essence of that subject. To you, that may be nitpicking, but to them is it the task of identifying what makes it a successful image that stands so far above the rest of similar images. At other times, a POW may not represent the essence of a particular subject, but may be an interesting photograph in its own right. Again, the discussion will concentrate on whether that image is, in fact, interesting, and if so, what elements of the photograph may make it interesting and how they might be altered or improved. I think that is far above the making of snide comments.

Finally, I'm struck by your focus on soul, social message, signature style, or great fire that is obviously burning within the photographer and the photograph he or she made. In your own biography, you state that you want your photographs to put a smile on people's faces, to brighten their day, and that this is a very high accomplishment. No mention of soul, or social message, or expression that reveals a great fire burning within. So I'll run with your statement of purpose on Slawomir's photograph: does this put a smile on people's faces? From the comments I've read, I think it does, and probably especially so for those who ride motorcycles and especially those who participate in motocross. I think it does so in such an effective way that there is not much to criticize or much room to suggest improvements or alterations, and hence the lack of "debate," which was my original statement.

John A. was posting as I was writing, and I fully agree with what he has stated. I think I may have gone a bit further in that it might be possible for some to see a deeper meaning in Slawomir's photograph, but that's beside the point. I agree that many photographs have to be taken just as they are, and not what we want them to be. For most, Slawomir's POW will be a straight photograph of a human activity, and it can be evaluated solely on those terms. If it doesn't express soul or a social message, that is a non-issue. It may not appeal to you if it lacks those attributes, but that is not sufficient reason to dismiss it, IMO.

As I thought about this issue, I think it is one that should be highlighted as an important factor in some photography. Sometimes what appears to be a great photograph to a photographer can be a mess or a subject of ridicule to someone who is an expert in a given area.

I am not suggesting that it is the case here, but I would assume the value of this photograph to a group of serious motorcycle racers would be whether the image captures an important/significant moment and how good the technique of the rider is displayed in this photo. The qualities we as photographers enjoy here might not even factor into their appreciation of the image unless the other criteria were first met, if it even would matter then.

I once photographed a cheerleading uniform catalog. During the whole shoot I had an expert cheerleader standing next to me telling the models what to do and what they were doing wrong. Just the way a finger is pointed can be the difference between a usable and unusable photo, even if the latter was a better "technical" photograph and something that held more emotion or content. The intended audience would know the problem and the credibility of the shot--and the company--would be compromised.

In any case, this is just something we need to understand and acknowledge as photographers, that there are important aspects of photography that can be outside our awareness.

To both Stephen and John A,
Well, looks like we did finally find a handle, so to speak. I do not think I need to necessarily justify my comment about snide remarks on the POW page. Anybody who has honestly followed the debates over the years can attest to that. But, sticking with the subject at hand, the issue of "soul" is extremely important in art. If not, Paolo Uccello would be a greater artist than Vincent Van Gogh, and Sade will be a greater vocalist than Billie Holliday. In other words, technical brilliance, while important, is not that special something that makes art endure. There was a series of commercials for the reincarnation of the Nissan 300Z a few years ago. Those ads featured images of the classic Z running in b/w footage accompanied by Country and Western music. Those ads sought to evoke memories of an earlier time as a way to convince the prospective buyer that he was not just buying rubber and chrome, but was getting a gateway to an earlier, more pleasant times This is what art does. Stephen, you nailed it on the head that the reason I--and most of us--do not see "soul" in that image is because we are not emotionally moved by motor cross racing. That is partly right, but does not expain it all. When I say "soul", I do not necessarily mean that it has to be a John Crosley. After all, I'm not into bird watching, but it does not make Miguel Lasa's "osprey fishing" any less accessible to me. I am not into track and field, but I "got" Damil Sencar's "High Jump Ballet". I am not into horses, but somehow Wojtek Kwiakowski's Arabian Horses still get through to me, and to most people. Those images somehow managed to grab me not because I cared about the subject, but because there was something in the image that grabs the reader by the throat. It is that something that keeps you looking at the images over and over. I just don't see it in this image, and, perhaps, you and John A agree. Perhaps, in our own roundabout way--taking into account the general apathy toward the image on this forum--we have proved that this image is not POW material.

Emmanuel, just to be clear, that wasn't my conclusion at all. My conclusion is that certain images will draw more conversation the more there are gray areas associated with it and the more general appeal it has as to its genre. I don't know that art is or should be a criteria for the POW. There are many uses and interests in photography that do not rely on the creation of "art" while certainly almost any image can be art to some. I may prefer to discuss an image that has more content to it, but looking and analyzing photographs is not dependent on their being art but on the nature of the work itself.

The world of photography is large and varied and so is the membership to this site.

There are times when an image works so well in fulfilling what it intends that there is not much worth saying about it. We can deconstruct it and then reconstruct it and say all the important things about tone, form, impact and so on and not really say anything that not readily apparent.

So I'll say that this is a good image for what it wants to achieve: capture the excitement of a motor cycle race. There are thousands of images like it. And there is nothing wrong with that. Motorcycle races are pretty much the same.

The significance of this image has less to do with Art and more to do with Life. This some dude's great moment. It is not lost. It is captured forever thanks to photography. That this dude's great moment is not only captured but captured so remarkably well is what moves me in the end.

The world would be boring if everyone liked the same thing? :)

Is well aware that I have a lot yet to learn. I am aware of my imperfections. But the photo gives me great joy. It is my way of life. I like to show the world through my eyes, from my perspective. I'm glad when someone likes what I do, but listens well and criticism.

Picture - in my opinion - shows the essence of the sport, a player struggling with the track and motor. Do you have a photo of the "soul"? I do not know? Let the viewer to evaluate and respond to that same question.

I love speedway, I love photography and I share the happy effects of my work. If someone is in the memory for a long time who saw the picture - I am very pleased.

I photograph for my own pleasure, and being aware of the imperfections of my photos do not count on it that will appeal to more than a few people. Selection of photos of the week he surprised me. Thank you for this and for all the comments about the pictures.

P.S. sorry for my English:)