SEEN BETTER DAYS by GERRY GENTRY

This discussion is pretty clear in its appraisal of this image. There is one thing I wonder about here that I don't think has been mentioned though. I wonder, where is the light coming from? I'm feeling that a large part of the problem for me with this kind of treatment is that it removes the natural qualities of light from images in which it is used. Here, the shadows on the coat indicate a high, right location for the origin of the light but the light under the roof of the structure looks low, middle. So here we just get a sort of bland light that comes from everywhere and nowhere all at once. I just don't get any interesting directionality or real quality to the light in images treated this way and that I find unfulfilling. I was once told that "in photography, light is everything", here the light is nothing to me and that's a large part of the problem. Thoughts? JJ

I would like to see the original, perhaps as both an inline photo and as a larger attachment.

Gerry, what about it?

--Lannie

hi Jeremy, H.d.R. Is designed to omit the need for a light metre. it eliminates those washed out highlights and blacked out shades that we get from those sunny day photographs. in my opinion it makes everything neutral and artificial. in reality there are bright whites and lights and shadows. there should be a balance. that is what good photographers try to achieve. in my opinion H d R can work for bold colorful photography but for black and white photography it just misses the mark! as you stated especially in B-W photography we need the light.l

Jeremy, I think we all know that often diffused light like what we might assume was present when this image was created can be especially wonderful for black and white work. What you describe is again the result of what I spoke of above, the normalization and equal emphasis that the HDR process is designed to do. It over lightens dark areas and brings down naturally light areas. When one works to balance an image in the wet darkroom or with digital tools, these things are part of the considerations one has to balance with the other concerns that stimulated the need for dodging or burning in the first place. One works to "balance" the image using judgement and differentiation, which software just doesn't do. I have seen darkroom work that has missed as well, by the way.

Photoshop or other digital tools are not bad or to be avoided, that really denies the rich tradition of photography, it is just that they need to be used with purpose and intent while producing images where what we do serves and integrates with the image and doesn't become the image itself.

Jeremy, a good point. It both reinforces my feeling about a collage of two images, but also, if but a unique photo, (and despite the enhanced sky that "seems" to suggest the sun behind the subjects - contrary to the shadow on the upper forhead of the woman), it could be simply the case of a partially or more fully overcast sky, thereby acting typically in those conditions as a huge soft box, instead of displaying the strong shadows of a "point source" sun.

As primarily a darkroom B&W photographer, and with no experience of HDR in my digital work, I acknowledge the experience of Stephanie and John in their posts, which I have just seen while writing my own note. It would be nice to have some feedback on our discussion from the author of the work.

Whether the regard of the lady is important to the image or not is of some question. Not everyone smiles for the camera, as often is the case in Canada or the USA (although there are exceptions to that, of course). Having lived for a few years in the Midlands and briefly the North of England, I can recognize the type of regard as almost a cultural one. The mother of my British sister-in-law also sported a rather defiant or serious questioning look, which melted when you interested her in conversation. Is the lady here expressing disdain at how a favorite spot has been left to run down? She is dressed simply, but that doesn't necessarily give a clue to her economic situation. Lots of us like to dress in old but comfortable clothes. I agree that it would be interesting to see how all this subject matter comes through in Gentry's unprocessed or minimally processed (for histogram consideration) photograph.

Arthur, what you are suggesting is just that it is often better to have context than to not, for any image--who could argue. At the same time, and it is limited by our own limitations--knowledge base and experience, we have to draw on our own senses when we look at an image. Yes, we need to understand that what we see may be more assumption than fact but we can't be blank either. We look for clues, we allow for error but then have to make decisions regarding an image based on the evidence we have. If we learn more facts about the image, then we just adjust our analysis of what we are seeing to include the new facts.

Often, I have seen people look at work and blow by it. Then they overhear some fact about the work, what it is about or how it was made and they do a 360, now the work has gotten more interesting. It was already interesting, they just didn't have a framework to embrace it.

But regardless, most of the discussion here has not been about the lady's demographics but rather the compositional devices-her included- and their effectiveness, about how the image has been rendered and how the information we were given by the author works with what has been presented. In the final analysis, that may be more important in most cases, but not in all.

In terms of what about the photo doesn't work, it's that the subject, although perhaps placed correctly by the "rule of thirds," is completely blocking the right side of the shelter. So I think you unconsciously, perhaps, try to look through her to see that part of the shelter, and it feels very uncomfortable. A pretty obvious alternative, perhaps too obvious, would have been to photograph the subject sitting on the bench inside the shelter.

What is also disturbing is that the subject's face and knit hat appear to have been sharpened more than the rest of the picture, which creates a kind of disjuncture that also leads to some discomfort in the viewer.

Nevertheless, this has been a really pitiful discussion. A lot of the comments seemed just brutal from the get-go, and the photographer responded, predictably, very defensively.

I am now going to offer my critique based on, the “title” and then based on what Gerry has explained in terms of intent.

Firstly the title: SEEN BETTER DAYS – My first reaction to the image was that the elderly woman was the subject and that the title referred to her. I actually thought the title worked. I did not see the elderly lady as a homeless person nor did I see her as a complete stranger. I did not think that the image degraded or put her in a negative context at all (processing included). Yes she is in a wheel chair yes she is old, the title implies that has not always been the case. Although she could have always been in a wheel chair! The chair certainly shows signs of extensive use. The scene could be read as a place where time was enjoyed, it could also be read as a place she shared with a special person and where special memories are held. This was actually confirmed by the artist. To that end he has been successful.

Secondly the explanation: the reference to the shelter as the item that has seen better days does not quite work for me, it is secondary in the image. The photographer should have composed differently and presented differently to get that message across. He should have dominated the scene with the shelter in some way, and used the elderly woman as a clue , this could have been achieved by separating her form the left edge of the shelter having her face obscured from view looking at the shelter, ie being a figure. He could have used depth of field to isolate the shelter from the elderly lady, once again implying her connection to place. As others have stated dodging and burning could have been used to further emphasis what is subject and what is context. The photo does not fulfil the intent of the explanation

Having been involved in a group public exhibition for a theme, “images of our elders” the brief was to portray an elderly person in a positive light. This image although not showing the woman in a positive light, does tell a story when read in context of the Title, to that end it works. And I think it would work as part of a greater body of work that was about memories of elderly people. However the image was not offered up in this regard.
My conclusion is I like the image, I see it as an elderly woman who has seen better days, her expression makes me question has an event happened to her that makes this a bad day? The fact she is in a wheel chair is neither here nor there. It fits the title, it does not fit the explination.

Hi everybody, What a very nice set of people you are. Firstly I don't put this picture in as picture of the week. I don't mind any comments on my pictures as long as the people making those comment can actually take pictures themselves. I have recieved a number of private e-mails saying how appalled they are at the comments that have been made. I am not a professional photographer, I'm a happy amateur that loves taking pictures. Most of you on the otherhand are arrogant, pompous, highly opinionated know-it-all's that feel that they "own" ANY photo.net thread that deals with these topics.

I will not be using this site again, as it is not helpful to my photography. To all the nice people on this site, thank you for your help. To the rest of you "go to hell" 

Hi everybody, What a very nice set of people you are. Firstly I don't put this picture in as picture of the week. I don't mind any comments on my pictures as long as the people making those comment can actually take pictures themselves. I have recieved a number of private e-mails saying how appalled they are at the comments that have been made. I am not a professional photographer, I'm a happy amateur that loves taking pictures. Most of you on the otherhand are arrogant, pompous, highly opinionated know-it-all's that feel that they "own" ANY photo.net thread that deals with these topics. I will not be using this site again, as it is not helpful to my photography. To all the nice people on this site, thank you for your help. To the rest of you "go to hell"

Hi everybody, What a very nice set of people you are. Firstly I don't put this picture in as picture of the week. I don't mind any comments on my pictures as long as the people making those comment can actually take pictures themselves. I have recieved a number of private e-mails saying how appalled they are at the comments that have been made. I am not a professional photographer, I'm a happy amateur that loves taking pictures. Most of you on the otherhand are arrogant, pompous, highly opinionated know-it-all's that feel that they "own" ANY photo.net thread that deals with these topics. I will not be using this site again, as it is not helpful to my photography. To all the nice people on this site, thank you for your help. To the rest of you "go to hell"

Hi everybody, What a very nice set of people you are. Firstly I don't put this picture in as picture of the week. I don't mind any comments on my pictures as long as the people making those comment can actually take pictures themselves. I have recieved a number of private e-mails saying how appalled they are at the comments that have been made. I am not a professional photographer, I'm a happy amateur that loves taking pictures. Most of you on the otherhand are arrogant, pompous, highly opinionated know-it-all's that feel that they "own" ANY photo.net thread that deals with these topics. I will not be using this site again, as it is not helpful to my photography. To all the nice people on this site, thank you for your help. To the rest of you "go to hell"

Gerry,

It's true that most of the people in this thread don't like your photo--they've explained in detail what they like and don't like about it and why. That's the purpose of the POW: generating discussion of the image. It's unfortunate that you're upset about people not liking your photo, but the people explaining their opinions aren't doing anything wrong. You're the one who is repeatedly violating photo.net's Terms of Use with name calling and personal attacks.

I'm not going to comment about the photo. But it does seem sad that every week some unfortunate soul is unlucky enough to have their photo posted as POW only to find the same cast of characters savaging it. What kind of a human being gets their weekly thrills from treating people like this? Do you all really talk that to people's faces? Does it make anyone a better photographer? (I thought that was the idea of this site.) If you don't like it, why not say nothing and move along?
Nobody ticks the box for this kind of abuse when they upload an image. They should just scrap this POW thing, it's a farce.

mr. gentry... ...to send me (and other mediocre photographers) to hell seems a bit over the top and extreme under the circumstances. If it's not too late, wont you intercede with your better angels and try to reverse the curse?

Hello all. I'm a beginning photographer and a new Photo.net member. When I first saw this photo, I did not like it. I personally thought it had a very unnatural quality to it and I was not surprised when I read other posts that expressed the same sort of criticism. I, for one, didn't see any comment posted that seemed to be anything other than a sincere critique of the work expressing a negative reaction. I didn't see attacks designed to hurt, but rather comments intended to inform.

In art, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, rather than the creator. As artists, we need to develop thick skins. The whole point is to put your work out for others to see, so it's valuable to know when and why a piece of art doesn't work for a given viewer. In my own work I can tell when a person is being instructive and when a person is being mean. But even then, I don't necessarily discount what the mean person is saying. I take in what he says, gleen out the real criticism and see if there's anything useful for me. And I simply disregard anything that's not.

Frankly I dislike seeing those short, fluffy "Nice pic!" sort of comments on photos that don't truly seem to deserve them. They are disingenuous and not helpful. I, for one would much rather have an honest and instructive critism of my work over ego boosting. I don't need encouragement - I have friends and family for that. I need professionals and serious amateurs to give me honest opinions of my work.

I'm sorry that Mr. Gentry didn't see these posts as the valuable learning tool they are. I hope he will continue to belong to Photo.net and to post his pictures here.

<<<If you don't like it, why not say nothing and move along? --Ian>>>

Because that would defeat the purpose of critique.

There are many forums on this site I don't particularly like or care to read. So I don't read them.

BTW, it has been suggested and discussed that before someone's photo is posted as POTW, they be notified and have the option to refuse having their photo put up for this particular discussion. I have strongly advocated in favor of that policy. I don't know where the administration is at on that point at the moment. It might be the time to consider that seriously.

i agree with Ian. so much B.S,,,,blah blah blah of verbal diarrhea!nothing constructive or informative or interesting . its enough already. its small minded and self centred and egotistic and just childish behaviour. same thing every week.

Ian, it has long been viewed by some as a curse. I would be overjoyed to receive such a curse of getting the Photo of the Week, but it ain't gonna happen, so I'm safe. If it were to happen, I think that I would just go into the bunker and come out a week later, after the next PoW had been announced--and not take any of it too seriously.

To Gerry I can only say that (regarding criticisms) I would take what I might be able to use and disregard the rest. This or that issue on PN has ticked me off at times, and twice over the last eleven years I have taken down all my photos, only to repost them later--and more besides. So, I hope that you will reconsider, since from now on you will be an honored member with the coveted PoW emblem beside your name.

And, from those esteemed heights, you can avoid clicking on "Request for Critique" if you wish. PN is like a small city, and there are a lot of things of value here. As in all cities, if one neighborhood does not interest you, you can always find one section that does. I find myself hanging out on the discussion forums more than I used to. There is a lot to choose from, and one can always get instant opinion on this or that lens in the appropriate brand name forum, or a bit of technical advice almost instantly on just about anything. PN is a valuable resource for about $.50 per week. You have weathered the storm and can do what you want here now and be left alone--unless you put photos up for critique. So, if I were you, I would just refrain from putting anything up for critique.

In any case, your photo has been one of the most successful in recent memory in generating discussion and rational thought, if that is any consolation. You have stimulated us to think, and for that we thank you. Some of your photos are magnificent, and I have enjoyed perusing your portfolio.

So again I say, as one who is no particular fan of highly processed images but who does recognize your very substantial talents and achievements, congratulations on getting Photo of the Week. I and many others hope that you will return.

--Lannie

Sorry for the double posting.

Gerry
Happy Thanksgiving and congrats on your photo being selected. My observation of your work is that you're an environmental shooter with emphasis on sharpness and rich tones. With many of your images you have done this. The exception is this one. This is rather important with portraits to separate (distinguish) your subject from the rest of the image. This can be done with depth-of-field, darkening the background from the foreground (or subject), etc... My eyes usually go to the things that are brightest in the image, and then to the in focus areas. If the sharpest and brightness are all on the same level, then the image creates a bit of visual chaos.....

I personally don't think the HDR processing is an issue. I've read the comments about over-processing but that is a bit deceiving, since over and under are measured in different degrees for most. I also believe that calling it over processed is a bit negative without an explanation or example of what normal or balanced processing is to the individual making the statement. As far as the title, if a photograph speaks a thousand words, then it's got to be hard to condense that into just two or three words. So I tend to make up my own titles when I see an image....

Gerry, I understand and share your reaction to many of these comments. Many here think that everyone should react the same to their so called critiques. That in itself is a bit idealistic. They applaud those who can take the punches like a man, and criticize those who don't take these critiques as gospel. How dare you react negative when the first comment to your work was that is was prejudicial to the elderly, as if this person has his finger on the pulse of every elderly person, to know how they feel about aging. The beauty of it all is that the majority of successful (commercial and fine art) photographers have not been subjected to this type of forum.... stay true to your vision

Lannie, one doesn't have to hit the "request critique" button in order to be chosen for the POTW. Any photo uploaded by anyone is eligible to become POTW. I'm in favor of changing that. I don't think it's fair to have photos critiqued that the photographer may not want critiqued for whatever reason.

One of your photos is as likely to be critiqued as anyone else's. I surmise you were being self deprecating when you said, "it ain't gonna happen" though you have no reason to be. In any case, it's not an award, has never been meant to be an award, and is not a sign that the photo chosen is thought of positively. The photos are chosen based on some anonymous' folks opinion that it would make for good discussion. For all those of us know who've been chosen in the past, our photos were chosen because the elves thought they'd garner substantial criticism, which is the point of the POTW.

You are right that the current photo has generated much excellent feedback, which will be ignored by a select few who obviously have contempt not only for criticism but for the people who take the time to supply it. We come here and critique photographs and then they come here and critique us in very personal terms precisely for doing what this forum asks us to do and then have the nerve to tell us we're the ones doing something wrong.

But, one has to laugh this off as well and just continue trying their best.

Apparently you haven't been exposed to the commercial or fine art fields where the critiques from instructors, curators, art directors and such can make this forum seem like a love fest!

Getting honest critique is difficult and when YOU want something from somebody, they have nothing to lose but tell you exactly how they feel and are often brutal in doing so. Here, I do think that most of those who contribute give a good explanation of cause and effect when they present critique, something that should be valued as that is often not the case with most comments I see under images that were not submitted to this forum or on other photo sites. It is rare that one gets comments that actually give tangible, objective feedback as to what is behind the "WHY" the image works or doesn't for that person. Yes, the opinions are subjective but what one needs to listen to is the more objective description of why the conclusion was reached--and, as I said, I think most of the time that is included here.

i don't deny that this weeks comments got off in maybe a somewhat uncharacteristic way, there were assumptions made, assumptions that might have been made by some compelling evidence. But we all know to assume is to make an ......, I think those of us who went that way at first, recognized and apologized for having done that. Beyond that, I do think that the discussion has been a rather good give and take when people weren't criticizing others but offering counter points and their rationale behind them. That is what is supposed to happen here.