talksII

The original post is a hauntingly beautiful composition. There is little, if anything, that I can see needs changing. With the possibility perhaps of her choice of dress. While I love floral patterns and primarily white dresses, I can't decide whether the one she is wearing is either a superb juxtaposition: gloomy setting and emotion with cheerful dress, or, perhaps a poor choice of wardrobe for this particular image. A solid white (or other color) dress would have added to the general mood. But again - I can't decide, so that automatically makes this a phenomenal image. Anything that makes me think this much deserves praise. Well done! May we all be fortunate to have an image of this quality in our galleries.

There is something very unpleasant with her eye in the water reflection of her face. I don't mind if a photo is staged by the photographer, and I think it is a good B/W PP, but the outcome ( imo) as a subject/ photography/ art/ is artificial,gimmicky ,and bizarre.

It would appear that actual creativity has opened a floodgate! Congratulation, Andris.

malacis :)

I think Pnina managed to formulate my opinion of the POW too: +1

I don`t find anything wrong with artificial, gimmicky or bizarre, if it is in fact, the intended effect. And here I think it was intentional. The photographer has many images of the same girl, taken in a more natural way and this one, I think, was intended to be i.e.: not a straight up portrait but something weird and unusual. And in this it succeeds.

Personally, I don't mind artificial, photoshopped, or bizarre either, depending on the photo and how it integrates with the subject matter, style, and technique. I love a lot of staged photography, when done creatively and evocatively. Gimmickry, to me, is another matter. A gimmick is often transparently a gimmick and often draws attention away from other more significant things. I don't see this photo trying to be a "straight" portrait. Nor should it be. But I do see it as self conscious and fairly facile in its gimmickry. I suppose gimmicks can be well utilized in certain cases, especially if they are used to comment on themselves or are somehow being integrated into the story, scene, message, or depiction. The gimmick here, though, seems to be all there is besides the nice black and white processing. That feels kind of obvious and shallow to me.

I personally do not see a gimmick here. I see a photo that has been well staged and executed and which deserves to be applauded for that. The fact that the one eye in the reflection stands out quite vividly is something which, I have to admit, I did not even really notice at first. Only after the discussions here did I take a longer look at it and I actually quite like it. Nonetheless, the photo remains one which I admire for the technique, but which does not at all touch me emotionally. Why? Perhaps because it is too "perfect" for the type of emotion it is trying to convey?

For me "gimmick" might be a bit harsh here although I do think that the image is somewhat self-conscious, which is what kept me from getting too excited about it. It seems to me that there was an attempt here to explore the use of reflection (3 photos of this person using them) to go somewhere deeper, an effort that should to be applauded. I just am not sure I would quite go as far as calling it gimmickry just because it might not have worked, at least not with what we know here from the overall work, just maybe something that fell a bit short of what it might/could have been.

What I thought by gimmcky is that it does not look natural ,I'm not against it when it "seats" well in the composition and the gimmick is not "shouting"... which (imo) is too obvious here.

I feel Fred's definition of gimmick does apply. Yes, it's a harsh word, but this photo seems to use an effect for the sake of using the effect. It stands out because of its effect, and as already said, technically I find it very well executed. But it's just that. Technically, a very well applied effect. But indeed, as Pnina said, it's too obvious.

For me, no. For me, the question remains: which emotion is it trying to convey in the first place? Horror, death? Sad loneliness? Introverted? I don't know, the picture does not really leave a clue. Apart from the eyes (which raise the question which emotion this photo would be about), the frame is rather empty and lacks a dynamic to point me to other things. Most critically, it does not inspire me to look for it either.

It sounds very harsh, I know. Most likely, I would not be able to create this image, as I'm certainly no better photographer. It is very skillfully done. It is creative and original. It is good on many levels. But, to me, it lacks depth, it doesn't engage.

I agree with Wouter that it lacks depth and it doesn't engage.

Now, using this could certainly get a bit gimmicky, although it can create some nice effects if used with discretion and where it does actually work.

its an expressive click.. I dont know what pains one takes to click such a picture..but what I definitely know is that though the picture seems a bit less natural..yet it portrays great emotions and expressions.. what comes to me is a lady who is all tired and has lost herself to the harshness of the world. In fact she has no strength to fight the circumstances.. if a simple can depict so much it ought to be great according to me..

its an expressive click.. I dont know what pains one takes to click such a picture..but what I definitely know is that though the picture seems a bit less natural..yet it portrays great emotions and expressions.. what comes to me is a lady who is all tired and has lost herself to the harshness of the world. In fact she has no strength to fight the circumstances.. if a simple can depict so much it ought to be great according to me..      

As mentioned above: A very thought provoking image. We should all be so fortunate to have an image like this in our portfolio. Congradulations.

There's an element of absurdity to the way POW discussions are set up, which affects the analysis of a picture like this. We don't know the basic facts about the picture (for instance, is it manipulated or is it not?), so we spend most of the time fumbling around in the dark for an answer.

Compare this to the situation in a gallery. There would be an explanation of how the photographer works, and it would probably be understood whether or not the photographer's pictures, in general--or one in particular--were manipulated. And your evaluation of the picture would begin from there.

Were the ground rules of Photo Net POW discussions set up by Jean-Paul Sartre?

It may be that the "problem" lies in the lack of imagination or unwillingness to interpret the photograph as the viewer sees fit rather than a problem with the photograph itself. I don't need a clue to tell me what I see in a photograph. All of the emotions stated are possibilities; which strikes the strongest chord in you?

I see profound despair in the photograph, to the point that this relatively young person has given up and is dying, literally or figuratively, and could easily slip below the surface of the water. The blank look in the eyes contributes much to the feeling I get from Andris' photograph.

I do think Andris had a purpose in mind when the photograph was made, and I don't see it existing simply as an exercise in technique. I'd like to give more credit to the photographer than just trying something new; a lot has gone into the making of the photograph, including the cooperation of the model.

So much of the debate has centered on whether the reflection is real or photoshopped. I tend toward the latter, simply because it does not look like the reflections I'm used to seeing, and it does look much like my first attempt to make a similar artificial reflection (not bad, but not entirely convincing; Mother Nature is a very difficult act to imitate).

But I wholly agree with John A.; to call a less-than-perfect technique a "gimmick" is a bit strong. Most of us are in various stages of learning, and I'd like to think our intermediate steps are honest attempts rather than "gimmicks" with which we're trying to dupe our viewers. Yes, the lack of technical perfection does detract somewhat from the photograph as a whole for me, and that does affect the strength of the emotion that Andris wanted the photograph to convey, IMO. But it's not either-or for me, the photograph does convey something to me, and I do applaud the intent and the effort.

Finally, I do agree with the point just made by Martin: we don't really know some important aspects behind the photo, and we spend an inordinate amount of time and space arguing one way or the other trying to be detectives to discern the true nature of the photograph. While there is something to be gained from this exercise (e.g., I learn to see what others are looking at), it occupies way too much of the discussion, IMO; we spend too much time fumbling around in the dark. I think the discussions would be enhanced and would focus on more important aspects of the photo (and more important opinions from the viewers) if a POW had an introduction from the photographer -- i.e., a statement that would remove some of the "either-or" lack of knowledge about which we voice endless opinions.

Stephen, my choice of the word gimmick had nothing at all to do with a feeling that the photographer was trying to "dupe" the viewer. The definition of gimmick I supplied also has nothing to do with duping. As a matter of fact, reading the definition you will see that part of what is a gimmick is the transparency of it as an attention-getting device, not an intention to dupe. Many great photographers create illusions all the time, and many great photographers do dupe viewers, and I think that's fine. I love feeling as if I've duped a viewer, though I don't do it by photoshopping things into a photo. I do it by bringing something to a "real" scene that not everyone would have noticed or seen in the same way. The gimmicky aspect of this photo is its shallow use of reflection and its self consciousness. As has been repeated by many of us, it does not engage beyond the surface. All there is is a reflection here. Photographic reflections, without some sort of accompanying raison d'etre, are gimmicks, much like the ubiquitous street shots of a person or a couple of people walking by an ironic billboard. It's a cousin to a cliché, like shooting tree reflections in a puddle. We've seen it, and unless you can personalize or bring something new to it or visually comment on it in the photo itself, it will remain a gimmick . . . or a cliché.

Stephen, by the way, I do agree with you that the intent seems to me more than just an exercise in technique. I give the photographer a lot of credit for staging something and for trying to be creative. I love to see photographers taking chances and using their imaginations. The fact is that many heartfelt and genuine attempts at creativity, whether by photoshop or by setting things up a certain way at the time of shooting, fail to achieve the goal. That doesn't mean the goal wasn't there and shouldn't be recognized. But it still warrants criticism in terms of the actual achievement of the goal and in terms of what the photo looks like.

One more point. I think a photographer should be given the opportunity to make an opening statement. I don't, however, think a photographer needs to do that. Many photographers would prefer to let the photo speak for itself. They may make an opening statement that simply addresses some of their own thoughts, without providing detailed information on what was photoshopped or what areas were dodged and burned, etc. If viewers want to spend time speculating on such matters, that's their choice. I generally don't, though some photos strike me in such a way that I do wonder how they were achieved. Depends on the photo. No matter how many details are supplied, some viewers will still spend time discussing that, speculating on whether there would be another way to do it, a better way, if the way chosen is pure enough, etc. . . . all that stuff about "to photoshop or not to photoshop" we are used to hearing won't go away because the photographer spells out what he or she did.

Many photographers invite speculation. They don't necessarily see it as a waste of time or something they would want to pre-clarify.

I am often asked what emotion I wanted to convey in a photo. There's often no clear or simple answer to that question, because photos are often as much if not more so questions as they are answers. It's very hard to nail a photographer or any artist down on their intent. That's why so many artists give obviously evasive answers to such questions, and if not evasive they are often fairly open-ended. A photographer is often guided as much by what he sees as by what he feels. He has put what he feels into the visualization. A photographer's words would very often not do the pictures justice. Words often do not communicate the same things or in the same way that pictures do. I have found that some of my pictures seem to want a verbal introduction from me and some of them don't.

Stephen, the reply to my earlier post:

Fair enough, sure it might well be me, and my lack of imagination. But unwillingness - no. I've tried to explain my perception of this photo (twice) and my point was (and still is): the photo does not make me willing. I don't feel compelled by it. It's not about needing a clue, but the photo to me just closes itself up. I see a number of possible emotions in it, and I cannot be bothered to figure out which one strikes the chord for me.
That could be my lack of imagination, it could also be a lack of communication from the photo. Or a simple mismatch between me and this particular photo.

My opinion was, as mentioned, harsh-sounding. Sure I am glad people disagree because it is these discussions for which this photo is posted as picture of the week. Bu the "problem", as you call it, happens to just be my opinion. I could state likewise that people who like this photo aren't really looking good or something like it. But it's just a really unconstructive thing to say, isn't it? So, let's freely disagree, and let us not 'blame' the differences on the (lack of) abilities of the other.

To me, the photograph is very well done but does, as others have said, suffer from its artificiality. Authenticity is critically important for me in such images. Here, I just imagine two people wading around trying to find something neat to do with a camera.

I think though that the idea of gimmickry raised by Fred is very important. I would distinguish between gimmickry and trickery here. Tricks are skillfully used techniques designed by the photographer to draw attention. Gimmicks are similar but they lack skill in their application. They are superficially used let's say. I don't see the reflection as superficial or applied with simplicity. So I think the reflection is more of a visual trick than a gimmick here. Stephen mentioned this idea but seemed to equate trickery (duping) with gimmickry. So, as John said, I think gimmick is a little harsh and "clever trick" might be closer to the mark.

Fred's comment reminded me of this problem in landscape photography. The "clever trick" is so commonly used and easy to fall in to as a method that we often don't notice it. Super-wide, heavily saturated, over-luminous presentations with big foregrounds are all tricks I use. I know I do it and discussions like this remind me to be artistically honest about my own approach. So thank you Fred for this reminder. Your comments have been very helpful to me here. Best, JJ

Wouter, point well taken. As so often happens, my response, while it may have contained some valid opinions, was overly broad and should have been more sensitively and accurately stated. I've done it before, and will undoubtedly do it again despite my best efforts to not do so.

I'm a bit reluctant to argue the difference between gimmickry and trickery, as I can easily imagine that those words will mean significantly different things to different people. I think Andris employed some digital manipulation in which the finished product doesn't look quite real to many viewers (myself included). That may reflect a lack of technical skill for this particular technique (which was certainly the case when I tried it) or the great difficulty to accurately create, in all its subtle aspects, what we see in nature.

Now, I'm just waiting for Andris to come along and tell us that no digital manipulation was involved, that it's a natural reflection that may look like an alteration because of the shadows (yes, I've considered this possibility), and I will once again be feeling bad that I've based a criticism on a false assumption.

Stephen, no problem, I'm not arguing your opinion, your post contained valid points for sure. And agreed that the choice of word between 'gimmick', 'trickery' etc. should not taint discussion too much, neither whether this was done in photoshop or not. What we're facing and discussing is the vision of the photographer, and how we perceive it and how it affects us (or not). For me, most of the discussion so far has been really good in this respect, certainly including your post.