Lost Necklace

Lannie, I see it providing context because it adds substance and weight to the overall vision that Jan is constructing in his work, whether through more straight or less straight photos (or images, if you prefer). I find characterization and stylization more important to his work than realism and it's helpful, to me, to see that carried out not only in the more physically-constructed composites but in the very obvious poses, gestures, stylization, and color play in his straighter images. Even in fiction, there can be a search for a kind of truth and even a straighter photo can convey a strong sense of fiction. Though I don't see the above picture (the POTW) as successful and it just doesn't engage me, recognizing the consistency of vision throughout various uses of mediums helps me relate to what I see as Jan's broader aesthetic approach than just one image would allow. I actually think there's a lot of rich possibility in exploring such (potentially truth-telling) artifice in working with straight photos and composited ones. Because then the medium actually does become part of the message, which is always fascinating to see played out.

You might well be right, Fred, since there is a possible narrative in both the portrait and in the more manipulated shots--although the narrative is to be provided by the viewer, and that is fine.

As for pure flights of fancy in Jan's folder, none quite beats THIS ONE, in my opinion.

---Lannie

Exactly. But having agreed with Michael and Anders, I'm at a loss as to how to critique this. Do I engage with it as fantastical construct and suspend my disbelief as Tony Long says above? Is it an allegory? As a fantasy world, I find it interesting. I like the split (at 2/3 for the compositional traditionalists) of the waterline which gives us the view above and below. To me it does show substantial PS skills and an active imagination. I am not all that put off by the blown highlights. I've seen and taken photographs directly into the sun on cloudy days. Were this an actual, single image taken with the lens partly submerged in the water, the blown highlight is perfectly believeable if not aesthetically pleasing.

Since we're also pulling other images from Jan's portfolio, I rather like this one:

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17501416

I think you just did, Steve, and rather well too. :-)

To me, this type of image is akin to new vehicle designs; you either like it or you don't, and any alteration to modify it in order to satisfy your preferred taste will mean a complete redesign which is of course impractical.

Saying what we like or dislike about particular parts of the image wouldn't be very meaningful to its designer because his ultimate objective is to win enough affection to have it hang on your wall, just like a new car's designer wants the car in your driveway.

"his ultimate objective is to win enough affection to have it hang on your wall"

Michael, you may know the photographer and this may be his goal, but he doesn't have a bio or a web site so I don't know if this is his goal or not.

When I post photos on PN, it's not because I think anyone would want to hang them on their walls. As a matter of fact, a lot of my photos are made having a distinct idea that most people probably wouldn't want them hanging on their walls.

What if it turns out his goal is to make nice pictures or his goal is to express himself or he has no particular goal but just can't help but make things?

What I want out of a critique is whatever a viewer has to offer. I'd hope anyone willing to put their work up for critique would be pretty open to . . . well . . . critique. Any response is welcome, whether it's to the overall idea of the photo as they see it or a specific part of it they like or don't like. I have my pet peeves, for sure, for instance endless discussions about where to crop but me, but still, for me, it's about hearing whatever it is people want to say. That establishes a connection for me, a way of sharing, and I can learn from it.

Pardon my lack of clarity, Fred.

My remark was meant metaphorically as in an artist desires acceptance of his work and not a personalized variation unique to each viewer. Of course there are artists making images for their own pleasure, in which case you can go make your own if you don't like it. :-)

As an aside, I wanted to say that I think Photo.net has been doing a great job lately of offering up a nice variety of images for discussion. No one genre or aesthetic has dominated and it makes for an interesting exposure of styles and photographic approaches. To say nothing of the commentary that the photos have generated.

I'd like to add that composites are actually more common and popular than it appears, except most of them don't take themselves too seriously and are usually served for the purposes of online amusement. Here are a couple of examples:
Peeking Duck
Duck Photobomb

Michael, I'm sorry, too. It looks like I took you too literally.

My point is really to say that, FOR ME, even though I feel I have a strong voice and photographic ego and want my work to be my own, I do benefit from feedback, both general and specific, and have learned a lot by listening to what people have to say about my work. It doesn't interfere with my individuality.

I have to be very honest a say up front the following is a case of my playing the devil’s advocate to a certain extent.

I must also say that it is very impressive and a great deal of work and skill has gone into it's creation. No doubt a great deal of skill and time was spent using software to create the effect but, is it a photograph? Is it not a digital creation based on a photograph(s)?

Oxford English dictionary definition of photography gives us a starting point
"the art or practice of taking and processing photographs”. Modern photography is based on the property of silver compounds decomposing to metallic silver when exposed to light. The light-sensitive salts are held in an emulsion (in color film, layers of emulsion) usually mounted on transparent roll film.

However, this definition, if taken literally, would mean that only transparencies are "photography" which I would not agree with. It would also rule out digital photography and again I would disagree with that. But taking an image and then performing a large amount of digital manipulations and classifying it as "photography" when most, of the work has been computer based cannot be classed as a photograph.

Again I think it is a well crafted image but it is not, IMHO, photography.

Here is one made in IR:

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9555057&size=md

I personally love this one more than the ones that are extraordinarily complex composites--and, yes, I do consider IR to be within the purview of traditional photography. Others might disagree.

--Lannie

OK, two quotes for today, one from a great poet followed by one from a great comedian.

“I am ashamed to think how easily we capitulate to badges and names, to large societies and dead institutions.” --Ralph Waldo Emerson

“It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to.” --W.C. Fileds

""composites are actually more common and popular than it appears, except most of them don't take themselves too seriously""
Actually, you just need to make a few clicks in art galeries on the web and you would see composite images taken very, very seriously - when it is good. It would normally go under terms like "mixed media" works or "print-making" works, which both include a vaste array of techniques for making images. What is special about Jan's techniques is that they include photographical and digital techniques.

OK, Matt. I'm sure curious as to which parts involved the use of a camera. Help me out here. And seriously, although a camera was used for part of this image, does that make it a photograph? And was a camera really needed to make this image?

I have nothing against creativity, and I like a lot of fantasy art (which is what I believe this to be). I don't particularly like this one, though, because too many elements just look wrong to me. I just think it's stretching it to call this a photograph.

hi im from an app making company named pashadelic. we offer you opportunities to make communities among photographers. if you are interested in it, check this outhttp://pashadelic.com/
hope our service help you.

Jim: I didn't say the finished work was a photograph, just that photography was part of the process.