DSC_7468dd11_new_web

Wow, this certainly captures your attention, unfortunately it does not hold my attention. Obviously "put together" post, the moon is unusually large but I think the biggest issue I have is that there are no moon rays on the water which further makes this appear un-natural. The boat is lit nicely but again un-naturally lit.
Just my two cents

I don't want to be mean, and I am fully supportive of artists exploring the limits in their art form.
Somehow this image gives me the impression that if I spend a lot of time in front of my computer rather than walking outdoor with my camera, I have a fair chance of securing the POW icon next to my name.

There are many photographers here who combine photographic elements with digital enhancements to deliver a message, which is fine. What I doubt here is whether any part of this image ever saw a real light ray hit the camera sensor through a lens. May be the boat, but that is doubtful too (easily 3D modeled). If this is a photography site, shouldn't we expect to see photographs here?

For pure digital art, there is always deviantArt.

Supriyo, I must wholeheartedly agree. I'm really dumbfounded about any claims on the part of the Elves that this photograph - if indeed it is one - has even a micron of potential for sparking dialogue.

Agree mainly with the preceding critiques. Costas can make some good photographs as some parts of his extensive portfolio shows. Dropping into the realm of kitsch photography does not much for showing that ability and the often tendency of the elves to propagate photography kitsch is unfortunate for a once fairly respected photography website. A wide variety of approaches is commendable and agreeable, but the Photo of the Week seems to be losing its impact and interaction due to the selections in recent times.

" . . . the Photo of the Week seems to be losing its impact and interaction due to the selections in recent times."

Well said, Arthur. This has been discussed rather intently, as I recall, on a previous occasion. It looks to me that the POTW may just disappear without as much as a whimper.

Looks like part of a storyboard for Star Wars or similar. A rather ham-fisted juxtaposition. Looking back at last week's pic, I now have a greater appreciation for that when comparing it to this effort.

Would be interesting to know what elements of this are actually 'photographs' and which are solely computer-generated. We had a similar discussion about 'digital art' a few weeks ago, and I think the same applies here. Just because the components of a final product have some relationship to photography does not make the resulting image a 'photograph.'

This one just appears a bit too unrealistic for my tastes. The bright colors of the boat do not coincide with the color-cast I'd expect from the moon, and, as tony pointed out, one would expect to see some sort of rays or reflection from the moon.

But I'd also like to point out that a work that is selected as POW is not being bestowed some honor, but is something the 'elves' thought would generate discussion - as this one has.

Whether photo or so-called digital art doesn't change the sensibility of the vision, which is unsophisticated "beauty" in the

category of what has rightfully been referred to as kitsch. There are plenty of "straight" photos in the top rated photos on

PN with just this kind of vision. It rings hollow to me regardless of how it was made. The moon and the boat. Yes, I get it.

By the way, it's worth noting that Glenn recently asked for our recommendations for POTW picks. So I wouldn't blame some unknown

entity called "elves" for recent choices. The choices are likely being made by members. That's worth pondering a bit. Why do these types

of images appeal to our fellow PN folk?

Fred, if I knew the names of the people who select the POTW, I'd be happy to refer to them accordingly. And, fwiw, Glenn's request for "nominations" was posted on 04/14/2015; the last set of comments was posted on 05/24/2015. As a result, I'm not sure that this process is continuing.

Michael, sorry, my point was not directed at you individually and was not meant to emphasize how we refer to those who

choose the POTW. It was meant to suggest considering that this photo may well represent the taste of a good deal of the

PN population and, at least in my opinion, why I think better taste can be learned and is worth encouraging. It's why the

notion that art is subjective doesn't hold much water with me, since I think much can be refined in our opinions of art and

its so-called subjectivity often stifles a self- and community-wide refinement of taste. Our individual and collective tastes can be improved and often are over time with greater exposure and some actual study of both photography and art.

Just for the record, this is from the 'About this forum' blurb for the POW:
"The Photograph of the Week (POTW) is chosen by a group of 15 Anonymous Elves."
That's why they've always been referred to as 'elves.'
And again, the POW is supposed to foster discussion. I don't know how much discussion you can foster with something that is considered universally good, if there is such a thing. Much easier to discuss something that might be seen as a bit controversial or 'kitsch.' Maybe what would be interesting would be for the POW to ask for examples of photos of a specific subject, and we could post examples of such that we liked, though that would require posting other artists' works and I'm not sure how you'd find them anyway.

Interesting opinion by Fred though as to our ability to foster a more refined taste in art through education. Does that mean we would have never been treated to Elvis on velvet or dogs playing poker? I think there will always be people who like that stuff, and I think even those have some merit from an aesthetic and talent standpoint.

 

People can and often do have meaningful discussions around good photography. If recent discussions around the flawed and mediocre photography selected in this forum are any indication, choosing such images clearly does not foster either lively or illuminating discussion.

Endof Days makes the same point I would have. There's plenty to discuss regarding good photos. For instance, what

makes it so good. These discussions have gone downhill consistent with the quality of the work often devolving into

speculations on whether they're even photos or not, which is about categorization and not about vision, technique, or

aesthetics. For the record, Admin hasn't updated descriptions such as you quoted, Bill, in years. There is much

misinformation in PNs descriptions and instructions. In fact, in some cases Josh Root is still referred to as Administrator. I

know for sure that non-elves have chosen POTWs despite what the description of the forum now erroneously states,

since I chose ones by Drew Bayliss and Wolfgang Arnold back in late 2014, and I'm not nor have I ever been an elf. And,

there are other means of "study," the word I used, besides "education" so please don't think I was suggesting we all take

some sort of course. "Education" sounds so formal compared to simply reading books, exposing oneself to a variety of

types of photos, going to museums, learning about different sorts of visions and techniques, and even engaging in

substantive critiquing and discussions on worthwhile photos right here. I wasn't suggesting there would be universal

agreement, but I am suggesting that such study and exposure tends to lead to enlightening and refined and nuanced discussions about photos.

And, Bill, I'm not saying only those studied should contribute here. Some very insightful comments about feeling from and

meanings found in photos can come from unstudied viewers. But I think POTWs specifically chosen for discussion would

best be chosen by folks who have some depth and knowledge with respect to good photography. I do think better choices

would lead away from discussions having to center on photo vs. non-photo and speculations about the degree of kitsch in

a photo, which now seem to be regular themes here. An effort to build from week to week on more worthwhile themes

and considerations for discussion would take a coordinated effort by someone or a group to make informed and

connected choices that would themselves ground and lead the discussions to more interesting places.

The moderator asked for ideas for POWs, and I don't know how many were received, but I think the issue here is less with the photos chosen and more with a general lack of interest in discussing them. Going back to January (the number of POWs that show up when I go into the forum), the most discussed one has more to do with the label placed on an unsuspecting subject than the photo itself. Other than that, there aren't any with very significant numbers of comments, and they don't all appear to be 'kitsch' photos to me (though perhaps I don't know what 'kitsch' is).

What's a 'good' photo? Would this one be good if the execution was better (i.e. components were better matched in post-processing)? Or is it 'bad' regardless because the subject matter is fairly common? Can I take a 'good' picture of a flower, or are all of them considered bad because, well, they're flowers.

I can see where there could easily be some discussion on this one on how it might have been made better, even if you (i.e. anyone) want to immediately write it off as 'kitsch.' And given this is a 'photography' forum, I also think it appropriate to discuss how closely it fits what one considers 'photography.'

The 'study' of art is something that has always baffled me a bit. What does it do for someone, exactly? Does it make them better able to judge something as 'good' art? If I like something as an unstudied person that a studied person doesn't like, does it mean I am wrong to like it or that my opinion about it is any less valuable?

Using this picture as an example, I can see where some 'study' might be useful with regard to identifying whether the light is right, but if someone else comes along and likes it as is, who's to say he is wrong? Many people believe there are no rules in art, and maybe the photographer, in this instance, purposely blended the subjects as he did for impact, as it does make you feel a bit uncomfortable to look at it.

For me, I base what's 'good' on its aesthetic appeal or, in some instances, my knowledge of how difficult it was to create the final product. I don't know how else one is to judge art.

One might begin by doing other things besides judging art, for example, experiencing it and talking about the feelings and

meanings one gets and sees while looking. Study gives one depth and context and exposure as well as the potential for greater understanding and emotional response. Art can be about a lot more than what I like. Yes, if someone has

studied any subject, including photography and art, I would give them a leg up in developing more informed and often

more substantial opinions which wouldn't mean I'd always agree with them. But I often learn from people who've made a study

of something and many of my own opinions have been influenced and deepened by listening to what informed people

have to say, whether I ultimately have similar tastes to them or not. I've learned a great deal even from people whose

tastes are very different from my own but who can put photos and art into context and look at them with some nuance,

depth, historical and comparative context, a sense of what other works they might reference, what rules or traditions

they may be breaking from or recalling, and all sorts of other things.

I don't generally think of opinions about photos or art as right or wrong. There are opinions that, when explained by the

person offering it, carry more weight with me, and that can be whether the opinion is similar to mine or not.

I have checked out at this image for a couple days and,- shucks,- it still leaves me cold folks. Have to say it has no emotional or intellectual appeal or pull, whether as digital art or in any of the categories I can come up with. No, I would not presume to say that it lacks any interest to anyone anywhere or does not represent a kind of taste out there somewhere. But as a basis for intelligent discourse, uh uh.. Not 'nebbishy' per se, if you will, but not all that interesting and not much juice. Juice to provoke good productive chit chat-- in my opinion but of course.. As someone said it could have been made as a computer collage with no photo genesis at all.. Wish that were not my opinion, but there you have it.. Ok. Maybe next week....Hope springs... etc etc.

A studied opinion on anything is of more value than an unstudied opinion. If I want to have a bridge built should I hire a guy with a degree in engineering or a guy who likes looking at bridges but does not know anything about bridges?

If I know Edward Weston likes a certain photo or photographer that I previously didn't know or didn't like, I might still not

like it but I'd take a much more careful look before coming to a final conclusion . . . And I'd suggest that to anyone who

wanted to be open to new discoveries and a possible change in their own taste. Maybe I'd discover something new to like

or maybe I'd just become aware of why a photo was considered good by an expert even if I still didn't like it. It could be a

way to learn about and appreciate what I don't necessarily like. Yes, Weston's liking something would carry more weight

with me than Joe the Plumber. Doesn't make Weston right. Makes him worth listening to and learning from. I'd rather study a selection of PN photos of his choosing than many of the photos that have been tossed about in this forum recently.

Your example is a bit ridiculous Mr. Days, as there isn't a lot of subjectivity in bridge-building, whereas if I'm not 'studied' enough to appreciate Jackson P., it's not likely anyone is going to die.

I do agree with Fred that you do put more weight on the opinion of someone who is experienced in a particular field of art, and if Weston liked one of my photographs but none of my friends did, I might still think it a good photograph, though in terms of the value of the piece, only Weston liking it probably isn't going to do much for me.

Not sure what you guys would prefer to see in terms of POW selections. I've seen some Ansel Adams stuff I didn't particularly like, but I suspect if some of those were identified as POWs some would think them swell simply because of who took them. I wonder what the 'elves' who make these selections think they need to do after seeing some of these conversations. I think it's very hard to discuss a piece of art and not stray off to side-topics.

Now I turn my attention to music..... My brother in law Jon is an accomplished musician, in the early days I used to listen to a band called Tangerine Dream, all the music they produced was computer generated. Guitars, drums, even vocals were, computer generated. John contention was that "it is not real music", because it was not created by conventional instruments. I used to get him pissed when I would tell him that the kids on the city streets banging on plastic buckets was in my opinion, music. They were rhythmic and had a good production. It totally freaked John out when the Blue Man Group came on the scene banging flip flops on plastic pipes. (John, it's still music).

I was a wedding photographer for many years, I was about to leave the house with my presentation to the bride when my wife questioned why I did not have the photo of the bride in the back of the limo. I explained that with her big dress, stuffed in the back of that car her head looked like it was 3 times the normal size, all bloated n shit. Julie convinced me to make it a part of the presentation. Wouldn't you know it, the bride loved it, go figure.

What people see that we don't see, that they see, we don't see is part of the fun.

Bill, you seem stuck on what you and anyone else "likes" and what people think is swell. Once you get over that limited approach to this topic, you may start to understand what Endof Days and I are talking about. Ansel Adams is a great example, but you have to approach the example in a more sophisticated way than just what you or I might like or think is swell. I don't much care for Adams's work, and yet I've learned a lot from looking at it and studying it, particularly when I've been able to view prints in person. There is much to discuss intelligently and artistically and technically and photographically when it comes to Adams's work and whether one likes it or not there could be a great discussion about his approach, his vision, his technique, his use of the camera, his darkroom work, his relationship to his environment, and many other things. Someone with depth could discuss Adams for days without even mentioning whether they like him or think he's "good" or "swell" or not. POTW discussions can have many layers. They can be about "I like it" or "I don't like it" and they can also be about a lot of other things. Anyone, studied or not, can voice their like or dislike and I'd take that opinion on face value and believe it's true for the person. Not everyone is capable of discussing Adams in different terms from their likes or dislikes. In this forum, I would hope people could. But it might require, in order to proceed with some substance, that people know something about photography and have bothered to look into and think about what they're talking about. In other words, at least some degree of study.

As I said above, I've chosen two photos as POTW, and there were decent discussions about them. THIS PHOTO and THIS PHOTO. I chose them because each seemed to have a quirky and unique take on the world and each seemed to come from a personal place. Neither had a traditional "good photo" kind of look so I thought that might lead to some interesting comments and speculations. There are many more traditionally "good-looking" photos I could choose for a variety of reasons that could stimulate thoughtful discussions. As I said, if it were me, I'd try to explore themes and make at least some connections through the weeks, also highlighting differences of approach. I've also commented in depth on many photos I don't particularly care for and think choices could be made of photos the elves don't like but that had qualities worth discussing and learning from.