SEEN BETTER DAYS by GERRY GENTRY

I think that the composition is very good, although it seems to me to confuse the viewer by its two main subjects (actually, three, to which I will come to shortly), namely the lady and her somewhat puzzling expression versus the definite pull of an ancient and intricate architecture. Had the lady instead been shown looking at the benches (using a back and partial side of her face) and water scene it might have come across as the title the photographer intended (faded architecture and place). Or, alternatively, the background might have been thrown slightly out of focus, such as to enable the somewhat enigmatic (yet characterful) facial view of the lady to come across with more impact. The third subject, equally prominent, is the extremely dramatic sky. From my point of view, it is entirely unwanted and unnecessary to the other two subjects, and serves only to detract from them. It would be nice to see how the image would work with a much less dramatic sky.

HDR or not? A personal decision, of course. Some like the caricatural effect of it, others definitely do not. I think it would be a lot better in this case to have avoided its use, especially in regard to the human subject, as she is effectively turned into stone by its effect. While it is not an obligation here, it is instructive I think, as photographers, to see the before and after effects of HDR and Photoshop use, especially when used as it has been here in such a very strong manner. I do think that it works best with the architecture part of the photo, something that is best seen in double clicking and enlarging the image.

The use of a title, other than a more unambiguous or a very simple descriptive one, is often a problem, as some have suggested here. Much better I believe to indicate "untitled" in may cases, to encourage the viewer to sense a wider window on the significance of the image. I am very happy for the photographer that he has won a lot of awards with his photo, although many of us who have also had that privilege soon discern that our best photos are not always so categorized and we retain more appreciation for that latter type of image than those with the pretty ribbons.

The main problem with the image is it is presented in a 700 pixel wide frame. So the "shopworn" seaside shelter loses almost all of it's detail, just leaving the lady sitting in what appears to be a wheelchair or walker as the most dominant feature in the photo.
So you end up with a poor presentation, a poor title and an excessive use of HDR.
I'm sure the image on your mother's wall is a suitable size for viewing, not the 2x3" postage stamp version we see inline.

Hey, I wonder if I'm the guy you're talking about who only makes photographs of his dog? I mean, I do make photographs of my dogs (and other dogs and animals), but there are quite a few humans and other things in there as well. So if it's me you're referring to, your statement is far from the truth.

Here's a clue for you, Mr. Gentry. You can't be thin skinned and offer your work for critique on this site. There will always be someone who doesn't like what you do, and they won't hesitate to let you know. Grow up, stop pouting.

Well, this all goes to show how one has to be careful with titles. When HDR was first used is not relevant to the discussion. I believe HDR in this case creates a mess. Congratulations on 20 awards. This says something about photo contests.

I'm not a big fan of this particular picture, but there are a number of pictures in Gerry's portfolio that I think are a lot stronger, including those that use HDR ("Under the Pier" and "The Trombone Player," for instance) and those that don't ("Foot Spa" and "Barn Owl," for instance).

Take a look, if you haven't already, and see what you think.

I've noticed that, like this one, HDR pictures seem to have foreground to background sharpness. Why is that?

So your mom thinks it's great. . . .

Gerry, your mom is going to like anything that you do. She's your mom. You're still her little boy. In her eyes you are a creative genius. You could work for Olan Mills and she would think that you are a creative genius.

You have ruined more good photos than anyone I have ever seen. I hope that someday you will reach the stage where you can look back and realize why so many people consider this so very horrid. It had potential, but you ruined it, RUINED IT! Keep your original files, and, when you have gained a better perspective on what makes for good photography, reprocess it, but NEXT TIME DON'T OVER-PROCESS IT TO DEATH.

One last question: what on earth made you think that anyone would think that the subject was not the woman with the lens in her face?!

--Lannie

Gerry, if you think that I have been too brutal, go back and see what I have said on another of your photos, since it applies to this one as well:

[LINK]

In spite of everything, congratulations on being awarded Photo of the Week. You can be a great photographer, in my opinion, if you will rein in your impulse to over-process your photos.

--Lannie

Here is one where your current approach to processing works very well, in case you think that I am an old fogey who can't or won't learn to push a few buttons and do HDR:

[LINK]

I do think that you are a photographer of some substantial promise.

--Lannie

I'm going to join the chorus of folks who agree with Fred G. about this image. Without the over-the-top processing and the dismal title, it could have been a good image. As presented, it's a garish caricature.

I also agree that there's no way a viewer would know that the title refers to what she said about the background. The natural interpretation is that the title refers to the foreground subject: the woman.

wow you are starting to sound off like a bunch of ignorant bullies from the dark ages. i have seen too many to count photographs on this particular site that have been way over treated than this one and given comments like wow this is great.. great post processing my friend,.. etc. by some of the same names here who are killing this photo with your unkind and uncalled for remarks. seems a bit hypocritical to me.

Stephanie, this is the Photo of the Week forum, and that means that it is a critique forum. Nothing that has been said has been bullying. This is a critique forum, and, if someone does not want criticism, then they should not click on "Request for Critique."

I am somewhat in awe at the infantile reaction that our criticisms/critiques evoked from the photographer. Again I say: if one does not want a criticism, then do not ask for one:

Critique = criticism [LINK]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique

Above all, do not attack the critics for not thinking that your photo is as good as mom said it was.

--Lannie

At the risk of beating a dead horse, Gerry, look at this picture of Jim Adams with one of his dogs:

[LINK]

Whether you like the subject or composition is beside the point: LOOK AT THE PROCESSING.

Now look at yours. If you like what you are doing, fine, stay with it. A lot of us are going to prefer more natural processing--and many of us have gone through an over-processing phase, but grew out of it.

--Lannie

I would like to see some justification of the harsh critiques (tittle aside). The enlarged image does not appear to be over processed at all. yes it has the elements of HDR but not to extreme, the ladies face is not rendered hideous, or offensive by the treatment, it highlights the elements of age. Gritty high speed film can have the same effect, that does not mean its good or bad, it is just a way of story telling. What right do all you "nay sayer's" have in badmouthing work because it is presented in a way you don't agree with, you have a right to like it or not to like it, but to describe it in terms as presented by so many of you is just as Stephanie said, playing the man and not the image.
Demonstrate to me how the image is lacking?
It is competently exposed
it is competently framed
the subjects are competently arranged
The lady has an expression that suits the image (IMO)
The detail is excellent
The tonal rage is also excellent
the tonal gradation is excellent
so what we are left with is a bunch of opinions about taste. Critique should be more about competency, as it is competency and pushing the bounds that make for good photography, the shallow view that all images should be presented a certain way demonstrates a prejudice in artistic expression remember you don't have to like an image to know weather it is good or not and good can be defined by competencies achieved.
Opinions are like ar$e holes, every one has one.

I won't go through your checklist, Richard, but have a look at this picture of the grill of an MG:

[LINK]

Now I do like that, and, no, it is not necessarily natural looking like Jim Adams' picture of himself and his dog, but it is quality work.

Why do I adjudge it so? I am not sure. That is very difficult to say. I would like to be able to analyze what it is that I like about that picture and what I do not like about massive HDR.

I don't think that we are ganging up on Gerry. He has just inundated us with over-processed high dynamic range images, and a lot of us do not like it. Is it merely a matter of taste? Well, it is certainly that, but is that all that it is?

I like to be able to give reasons as to why one photo is better than another, but Fred is typically better at that. I hope that he will weigh in.

The best answer that I can give was suggested to me by a friend: too much processing is like a woman wearing too much makeup. If the makeup is too much, one does not see the woman for the makeup. I think that that is what I do not like about too much HDR or too much sharpening (both of which can be great if used in moderation): I cannot see the picture for the processing.

In other words, it is not a matter of whether one likes or does not like HDR. It is whether one likes it when it has been troweled on like four applications of mascara. At some point the quantity definitely interferes with quality, and finally interferes with appreciation of the photo--far too much of a good thing.

As for women, well, just take the mascara off. Take it all off.

--Lannie

I think the first page of comments all brought to the table why people do not like it; it's not just about the HDR processing, it's the message this picture conveys.

The list given is what makes a technically competent image, yes. Technically, there is not a whole lot wrong with the photo - before the processing started anyway. I don't think anybody said the photo was incompetent. But, that does not make it a good photo, let alone a great one. It makes it a competent photo.

Competency does not push any bounds; competency is usually "measured" by notions like sharpness, tonal range, an accepted-logical placement of subjects etc. A set of imaginary rules of what a "good photo" should adhere to. Rinse-and-repeat. That is not pushing any boundary at all.

It's about a whole lot more than taste: it is about reactions to the photo, it's about how the communicative value of the photo is perceived, what emotion it invokes. Critique should certain address that too. And frankly, we cannot cast the title aside either; it sets the "scene" for the first encounter with this photo; see Stephen's (excellent) reply. That is not about taste, that is about communicating. Rather than considering whether this photo is sharp enough, consider what this photo is trying to tell you.

For me, it's telling "a caricature about old age, that does not try to be funny and is not funny". That is not a matter of my taste, that is what I see and experience. An opinion, sure, but a bit more substantial than just taste, and surely something we can and should discuss about. If you want to dismiss opinions "because everybody has one", fine; nobody is telling anybody to agree.

In my view, this thread was doing exactly that. It discusses the message perceived from this photo, and how choices made by the photographer influence that.

Wouter I strongly disagree with your position. Competence is more than technical, competence is result with intent, achieving an outcome that one sets out to achieve, and setting goals and reaching them. That’s what makes someone competent. Breaking the rules with intent to achieve an outcome and achieving the desired outcome, is competence. Some of the great works of art follow no rules, Pollock? would you state the artist is therefore incompetent? Especially if they never followed the rules? NO. One measures ones success and competence by measuring the outcome against the intent. I agree that you cannot disregard the title as that genie is now out of the bottle. That is a failing of Gerry. Give an image a title at your own peril!! I don’t agree with Stephen on the issue of titles and he and I have had this debate before, I respect his position but I don’t agree with it. Back to the image at hand: It is competent when put in context of the rest of Gerry’s work, we can measure this by reflecting on the body of work that is his folio. This image is not a mistake, it had intent. It also demonstrates the skill of the photographer, because of all of the items I mentioned above. It does push the bounds, and the fact that it has pushed all of your buttons, suggest to me that it is very successful as an image. It is not an image that sits on the fence and follows rules (including composition). Perhaps that was Gerry’s mistake, he did not play it safe, and he chose to push the bounds. But in my view they are not overly exaggerated, the responses to me are overly exaggerated, and as state come from a position of prejudice against what is different, what confronting and what challenges the senses of sight, I would equate it to complex jazz fusion, to 90% of the population it is received as harsh, inharmonious, and confusing, to much information for the senses. This image does the same to some extent, the HDR effect and sharpness provide a lot of information and detail, but that does not make it bad, you just don’t like it, you may not get it you may even hate it, but to try telling an artist to change his or her style because it does not suite the viewers perception of what is good or bad is a nonsense. To state that the image is bad, just demonstrates that the “Nay Sayers” may not yet have developed your visual senses sufficiently to appreciate that what is different (that is what prejudice is based on). END OF RANT.

While it is true that many photos generate controversy and lots of criticism because they break rules and are great, it is also true that many photos generate controversy and lots of criticism because they suck. In that, I am being general and not referring directly to the POW.

I think achieving a result with intent is quite significant, as Richard states, though it is not completely determinative for me. I've seen many intentional results achieved that aren't worth achieving and . . . again . . . suck. Someone intended Elvis to be portrayed on black velvet. It gets a lot of attention and was controversial. None of that made it in any way good. It sucked and still sucks.

But, even if we were to use the standard Richard has set out, suggesting that this POW is competent because it achieves an intended result, Richard is wrong about the competence in this photo and about competence in general. A doctor may set out to remove a limb and do it flawlessly but if he removed the left arm instead of the right, he's been incompetent. Competence can have much more to do with intended results. It can also have to do with knowledge, with being right, among many other factors very much aside from achieving a desired result. Regardless of any of that, however, this photo hasn't even met Richard's standard for competence. The author of this photo claimed that he titled it the way he did because of the impact on himself and his mom of the decline of the sea front. And yet, his shooting and processing of the photo doesn't show this decline in any way, shape, or form. He portrayed this backdrop without really showing it in the way he claimed to be seeing and feeling it. In fact, he stylistically covered up exactly that motivation that suggested the title. He completely undermined his own intentions through his own intentional choices. He erased whatever decline was being perceived from the sea front.

The author of the photo seems willfully to have mischaracterized my comments about his photo. I never said I don't like HDR. This was merely what he needed to tell himself in taking such a juvenile and defensive position against any and all critiques that were, in fact, constructively given. I said I felt HIS USE of HDR in this instance was hamfisted and didn't help him achieve what he was thinking or feeling. Note all the positive comments within the negative critiques that were offered, which he chose to completely ignore. His classless and universal panning of the photos of ALL the people who think negative of his photo is pretty unprecedented (at least in my memory) in a POW. It's almost breathlessly petulant and immature. Someone who has at least a modicum of confidence in their own work doesn't lash out like that. They understand that no photo will please everyone. And they understand that when they get a bunch of similar criticisms from a wide array of fellow photographers there may well be something worth listening to. That doesn't mean they should change anything or necessarily give in to what is said or suggested. It just means they can learn, if nothing else, about people's reactions to the kind of work they're doing. (And, yes, it may turn out that in the future they will be recognized as genius and the naysayers fell short in terms of their vision just as it is probably as likely if not more likely that it will turn out their stuff is as bad as most of their peers were saying and their ego got in their way of absorbing critique and evolving by utilizing it rather than defending against it.)

There are no rights and wrongs here. Only opinions and only gut feelings. I've received many critiques that I wasn't ready for but that planted some sort of seed and that helped me years later as I thought about them or I grew into understanding them. I'm sure we've all experienced that. Being a good photographer and being a good artist can mean NOT standing by everything you do. It can mean being willing to fail, make mistakes, and being a big enough boy to grow from those things rather than throw tantrums in public.

Lannie, sorry, I meant to address your question directly. My main criticism here is in the processing, which I've addressed fully, though the composition is a bit troubling as well. I'm a big fan of environmental portraits or of photos of environments that give significant attention to a particular person or persons within them. But I think this composition dismisses the woman (who we now know is the author's mom) a bit by looking past her and by having her compete with rather than share the environment. I don't feel she's part of it. Now, one could say that she was feeling alienated from the environment because of its disrepair or the way it aged but, as I also said above, that disrepair hasn't been shown so that relationship between them is lost. So the woman and the environment seem incompatible, at least as viewed in the photo due to the photographer's choices. Were that incompatibly VISUALLY explained, in the photo, by showing the disrepair of the sea front, then her seeming incompatibility with the environment could be a good example of aesthetic tension, even alienation, which I certainly appreciate in good photos. But without the accompaniment of a visual depiction of this alienation the relationship between woman and environment, to me, just seems off, somewhat awkward and clumsy. The plus side is that the photographer captured a good moment of his mom and a facial expression and gesture that seems quite genuine and fleeting enough that he captured and preserved something very worth capturing and preserving. But then, as I said, his processing turned that genuineness into trite and very predictable stylistics and undermined the authenticity inherent in the shot. Though Richard may not agree, certainly many of us feel we have seen this style to death, used in this way.

By the way, for examples of some good HDR work, some work where the style of HDR goes well with the content of the photo and with what is being shown of that content, what is being brought out through style rather than the style simply being overlayed onto the content, look at Arthur Plumpton's portfolio, one of the previous critics here whose photos, according to our author, are among the many "snapshots" he used as a put down.

A final word about snapshots. The best thing about our POW is, in fact, its snapshot character. And I use that as a compliment. I think any good photographer who can capture some of the love, immediacy, and connection that so many snapshots carry for their makers and viewers should celebrate the ability to imbue an "art" photo with those very real qualities. That may be where I think the POW missed. In trying so hard NOT to create a snapshot (and certainly the POW author's looking down as he did on snapshots in using it as a putdown of his peers, betrayed his feelings about snapshots), he undermined his own very authentic original instincts. He tried too hard to make art and that's the major failing, IMO, of this photo.

I am by no means against post processing and by no means against artificiality. But there are nuances to all that and many fine lines. I think this photo is confused in its approach, in the relationship established between style and content, between the real and the artificial aspects of all photos, and between input and output.

"To state that the image is bad, just demonstrates that the “Nay Sayers” may not yet have developed your visual senses sufficiently to appreciate that what is different (that is what prejudice is based on)."

The problem with statements like this is that it ignores the fact that it might just be the other way around. That because many of us have been creating and looking at images--and making huge blunders ourselves in the past with over doing things--in a serious way for many years, that we have developed an eye for what is or isn't a generally a more sophisticated approach in such work. I mean, this thing HDR and applications like this, have been around for quite awhile now and yet I haven't once seen this sort of treatment exhibited in high end galleries or museums. Yes, I have seen work that has been processed heavily, but there is a sophistication and integration in the work that moves it beyond just a superficial curb appeal.

But then, I do agree that this image was composed well but don't agree that it is non-traditional in that respect. In fact, it is almost as if Gerry had his rule of thirds overlay on when he composed the image as the woman is placed perfectly according to that principle. But then we get back to intent and if what Gerry said in his statements was in fact true, that the structure is the subject, then his placement of the woman was a failure. Human's always dominate a scene and when they confront the camera in such a dominant way, it ends up a "nolo contendre".

But even though it would be hard to suggest that there isn't a full tonal range here, the issue is just how the HDR renders everything pretty much in the same way, causing an image like this to completely lack any emphasis. Everything ends up blending together and the effect becomes the subject and everything else is just a prop at its service. I have done a lot of testing with the process and that is one of its fundamental drawbacks, it obliterates differentiation by normalizing (and over emphasizing) with increased local contrast, everything. I also think this is the reason it often looks more cartoonish to people, as it just seems to flatten out space, like in many cartoons. Certainly, one can--and should--then at least burn or dodge parts to bring back some focal point within the image. Arthur suggested that there were 3 subjects here and although I agree on one level I also just see the whole things as just homogenous. Only the woman's stare/glare creates any specificity at all.

We have focused a lot on the title and there were, me included, strong reactions to the image with this title. Part of the issue has to do with the way the image has been constructed. Now, I certainly could be wrong, but I often look for evidence in a shot to inform what is going on. When we see a person, older, disabled and seemingly vulnerable shot over their shoulder, it wreaks of being exploitative in nature--shot so as not to get noticed. Add to that what I see as not a welcoming look, and it appears we were caught. Personally, I like the glance over the shoulder as a device, but in cases like this--with no further evidence of such device--this just doesn't speak to a shot of a loved one in front of something that they cherish or lament, it looks like a stealth move to create a compelling image at the expense of an elderly, disabled person. And we can't ignore the clothing either, I know I probably look homeless at times as well, but that is the hit I get from the clothing--my studio was, for years, near where homeless people hung out for shelter and this sort of attire is very recognizable.

Although I personally am skeptical of Gerry's claims with respect to the image, woman and intent--mostly due to the intensity and cruelty of his defensiveness--if his comments were legitimate, then he should seriously consider the visual he presented as the catalyst for the remarks he got with respect to the relationship between what he captured and the title.

Thanks, Fred. You have said it all much better than I could. There are a number of issues here, not merely the technical, as you, Wouter, Stephen, and John A. (among others) have emphasized.

Even so, back to the technical side for a moment:

You or someone first mentioned sharpening as well as HDR. I think that emphasizing only HDR misses the point. It is the combination of HDR with a lot of sharpening that creates something that is other-wordly in this case. If that is one's goal, that is one thing. In this case, I doubt that that was the goal. The combination is perhaps analogous to a woman who wears false eyelashes and a lot of mascara. Together, it is all simply too much. Pulling back on the sharpening alone would help a lot, in my opinion.

If there is a lesson here, I think that it is to use such tools sparingly, not to refrain from using them at all. I do not think any of us is categorically against the use of either HDR or sharpening, judiciously applied. I am reminded of the problem of boosting saturation. It gets raves, it makes newbies feel empowered, but ultimately it is just too much for some of us who have seen too many brilliant sunsets. We can spot it [almost] every time, and, once we have spotted it, that is pretty much all that we see. The rest is lost--at least to some of us.

I suppose that a lot of it depends on one's target audience: even Elvis on velvet surely had its supporters.

--Lannie

I am reminded of something that either Bob Atkins or Brian Mottershead said, whether to me directly or to the entire PN community: "many of the worst things seen on Photo.net are failed attempts at art." (approximate quote)

I would not put this photo among the worst. I simply think that the original file could be reworked and be a lot better. There is some really good work in Gerry's portfolio.

--Lannie

Lannie, there may have been some additional sharpening as well but the "local contrast" I mentioned with HDR also serves to over sharpen an image. The process increases edge contrast--exactly what sharpening does--and we can see the halos of this process around the top of the structure and in the trees in the background, particularly if we look at the larger version of the image. My experience is that additional sharpening isn't necessary to get the effect we see here.

Thanks, John. I didn't know that!

It was not so long ago that someone pointed out the halos in my own over-sharpened images. There is so much that I should have known eight to ten years ago where digital post-processing is concerned.

--Lannie

It is true that taste has been a major factor in the reaction of many here to the POW. The HDR or whatever tonality is something akin to the issue that color photographers once had when shooting with discontinuous wavelength light sources, such as fluorescent lights. Like those color images, if uncorrected. We know that no black and white (itself abstract) can be construed as realistic in view of the chromatic basis of the medium. However, we are accustomed to seeing a more continuous grey toned result in black and white, imbued with a more varying luminosity and high key - low key differences. Ultimately, however, such critiques are a question of taste. You appreciate the effect,0 or you don't.

In trying to analyze the result in more compositional or emotional terms, as I think John and perhaps some others are also attempting to do, I got stuck by the conflict of the appearance of three subjects within the overall subject matter. This, and not the taste for HDR processing (despite my general dislike for overly processed images that don't work as such), is what I prefer to assess here. Any homogeneity that may exist, as John says, is to my mind simply a result of the truncated or limited range of B&W tonality. Given that, I still think that the image is overburdened with subject matter. As that was discussed in more detail in my initial critique, with possible solutions to the dilemna it posed, I won't repeat it here. Suffice it to say that my critique is based more on that compositional and emotional block, than on any question of taste for an image tonality which in some cases, but not really here, can be effective.

A small additional point: I get the feeling that the image has been created from at least two photographic image sources. Although it is hard to tell with any precision (and I may well be "up the creek" here), the image of the woman and that of the shelter/bench appear to be taken with differing focal lengths. The shelter is of a clearly very wide angle view (as seen by the roof form and perspective), whereas the lady appears to be photographed using a normal or near normal focal length. A very wide angle focal length would distort considerably a close subject placed to the side of the frame, as that of the woman here. However, the result does not appear to coincide with that fact. If the sky was also PS'd in, that would be a third possibility, and, as I have already suggested, a very questionable one in terms of the overall balance. In any case, the sky appears to have been greatly enhanced and further caricaturizes the result.

This is a good discussion, and despite some high emotions from the author and some critics, adds to the importance of photography critique forums. I react with pleasure to differing views and critiques in my own portfolio, as that is one way that I can evolve, iteratively, in my thinking.