Tenderness

I am new to photo.net and am happy to find a forum that accentuates critique over one-word indiscriminate praises found on so many other sites. But while I believe very much in being constructive when I review a photo, I am at a loss as to why the photo.net editors - or whoever selects the photo-of-the-week - chose this one. My apologies, Hugo. You are probably feeling blindsided by all of these reactions. But I cannot understand why those who administer this site and who certainly believe in the power of photography chose a photo that has a handleless umbrella (be it phat, hat or whatever), artificially drenched in red, as the focal point of this unsharp image, while washing out the other colors. There is a place for using Lightroom or the like. But the decision to use it here in this way (is the umbrella photoshopped in?) leaves me cold. There must be many other photos that would have deserved the honor of being the weekly choice. That's what I was looking for when I clicked on this link. I wanted a photo that moves me, that makes me think in a way I didn't before, that makes me laugh, feel sad, smile, get angry, that makes me say, "I never saw it that way before." So, Hugo, excuse me for being so critical and unconstructive, but I expect more from a photo-of-the-week than what I got from "Untouchable tenderness".

William, thanks for your well-articulated comment. Just to provide some context, the photo of the week isn't seen by

administration as an accolade but rather as a chance to discuss all aspects of photos, good and bad. Sometimes, as a

matter of fact, I suspect photos are chosen as much for their failings as for their successes. In many cases, those

commenting will be just as constructive by pointing out failings as by pointing out aspects they like. In doing just that, I'd

say you've been both honest and constructive. Thanks for your input and keep coming back. It's good to hear your voice.

Fred, sorry, but did not mean any disrespect with laughing out loud. I expected your comment and what you expressed and found it funny that you just did that.

*big eye roll at Anders* <<< I mean no disrespect, I was just ... [fill in phony excuse]

************

Compare this PoW to W. Eugene Smith's somewhat similar The Walk to Paradise Garden. Yes, it's easier working with children than adults, but it's also much easier to fall into the sandtraps of cute and/or sappy. Smith strenuously tries to avoid those pitfalls by giving the bare bones of his idea. The picture is pretty much an illustration of his title, not the other way around; or at least they work as necessary partners. And yes, it is still cloying, but in this case, I kind of like it -- many people don't.

Fred, thank you for giving me some insight into why a photo might be selected for photo-of-the-week. I find it refreshing that an image - be it lacking or impacting, depending on the viewer's reaction - would be put up for review, almost as a teaching point. I think too many of us live within our lonely image worlds, maybe knowing what we like when framing what we see in the two-dimensional, relatively sure (or at least hopeful) that others will agree with what we find visually alluring, but not knowing how to find that confirmation. Or even the opposite. I know I would be thrilled for someone to tell me - constructively - why he or she thinks my image falls short of what it could be. A kind of external honesty is what I need as a photographer. If my image is considered trite or amateurish, I think I am strong enough to take the criticism. Perhaps I won't agree. As Hugo (and others) might not with me about "Untouchable tenderness", in which I think the red is overpowering, not needed (even the umbrella itself may not be needed). He might think, perhaps correctly, that I am just not sophisticated enough in how I see things, a point of view that could be backed up by other more positive responses to his image. All I want to say is that I am pleased that this is a place where the negative is - within reason - allowed, perhaps in a way even nurtured. Without it, how would we ever know when to believe and trust someone who says they like our "eye" on the world around us?

Tim: sorry but I must conclude you are lacking a sense of humor. When someone starts attempting to tell someone what humor is, then one knows they are lost. There is absolutely no rule whatsoever that states that critiquing must have humor alerts for those who do not understand. Also, as an aside, my critique lacked all humor.

 

LOL

No disrespect intended.

That there is a mythic aspect to the photo is not a negative for me. It is a confection but not overly sweet in its overall feeling. The red umbrella is a thing I have mixed feelings about. It is not intended to be naturalistic. Deconstructing it by looking for source of light is open territory of course. And when I do I can find a lot to grumble about. The gestalt, if I can use that word for a change, is one of gentleness and peace and a kind of balance that a garden setting, however mythological, can accomplish. I can accept idealized, even the fantasy of Disneyesque in a photo. It has its minuses and a few pluses. Does deconstructing a photo allow for a reconstruction after we get done with source of light and over vignetting and no handle...maybe, maybe not.

Thanks for the eye roll, Julie. Very charming and kind. No Irony :)
LOL with Endof.
And then maybe we can go back admiring oriental gardens and enjoy the inspiration they evoke among many photographers and painters - with or without prank.

Hello everyone, first of all thank you very much to all of you for your comments. I still have not finished reading all of them.
However I want to stress Leslie Reid's comment, I think this interprets what I wanted to express.
Beyond the post processing or title,this image represents perseverance, friendship, companionship and love after years. Of course, you are free for interpretations.
I respect everybody, so once again thank you very much everyone, including the editor of this forum have chosen my artwork among thousands of others.
My apologizes, I'm a very bad for writing.
Regards,
Hugo C. Romano

Hi all, I assume that I am a human being who makes mistakes, I make mistakes in post processing, perhaps someone could have happened.

On the other hand the title is very abstract, it goes beyond the miss something tangible. It is based on the spirit and emotion, it's something imperceptible by touch, hence the word untouchable.

Of course I am always available to an specialist who can suggest me a better title based on what I wanted to express, you'll be welcome.

I leave the image where the umbrella has the handle, in this case the meaning of the image doesn't change, I leave it to you at your discussion.

Thanks, Hugo.

Questions for you: What are they looking at? Why?

This discussion has been pretty barbaric and insulting so far--unnecessarily so, in my opinion.

Hugo, I actually rather like the photo, but I would like to see the original, before processing, if you have it and are willing to upload it for us. I ask not because of concern for what might or might not have been shopped in (or out), but because I wonder if a different color treatment might have been possible. Did the colors actually look like this? Perhaps the color palette was fixed from the outset by the faded red umbrella and the dull colors of the clothing.

The aesthetics of the colors aside, there might be a message here of a "faded love" sort, or perhaps I might say an "unfaded love" on the part of the couple in spite of the disappointments that life brings--a faded life, perhaps, but not a faded love. Love, that is, endures--or can. Some might find that message a bit saccharine or even maudlin, but I can affirm it--and appreciate it. The fact that I do not really like the color palette might just be my problem, but the colors might be redeemable with different processing. Without a large attachment of the out-of-camera file (converted to JPEG, of course), it is impossible to say whether the colors might have been improved upon. One might even argue that the colors as presented do indeed successfully promote the intended mood and message of the photo.

Congratulations on having the photo selected, Hugo. It certainly has fulfilled the function of generating discussion. I am sorry that some chose to make this week's Photo of the Week into a dart board. I do believe, Hugo, that it lives up to your stated purpose (in your biography) of transmitting "kindness and dreaminess" in your photography. I wish that some of the commentators could have found it in themselves to be a bit kinder. We are all out of line when we insult, but never more so than when we insult those who have offered up their work or their comments in genuine gentleness and sincerity.

--Lannie

"This discussion has been pretty barbaric and insulting so far--unnecessarily so, in my opinion."

I don't agree at all. It's just not the usual PC group-think (aka lying). Very refreshing.

PC? What does political correctness have to do with such a photo? In any case, there were and are alternative ways of critiquing a photo besides those employed here. This was really quite brutal--and unnecessarily so.

I agree. It is analogous to gratuitous violence, in my opinion, or even mindless vandalism. Such thoughtlessness concerning the feelings of those who risk themselves when they post their work (or their ideas) here is simply incomprehensible to me.

To echo JDM's remark, why such a mocking tone?

--Lannie

What on earth was that about, Fred?

--Lannie

Honest responses to the photo are welcome, whatever those responses may be. Comments on other posters are personal attacks and are not welcome.

Clever, but there is the honest response, and then there is the air of flippancy that afflicts this thread. I don't think that we should confuse the two.

--Lannie

nm

Julie, I can't answer your question because of I couldn't see their eyes.
Landrum, you're welcome with your comment, I so apreciate what you said,
I use to show only my final image. I just can say that I love warm colors, probably it's against your taste, but photography is a very wide art, so everyone is right.
Probably if I present you a B&W image, the meaning will preserve in the artwork.
Regards
Hugo

I had a thought. Although Hugo didn't say anything about this in his earlier response to the critiquers, is it at all possible he took a shot of the couple standing in front of a large mural? While I know that could be stretching it, were it the case that might explain a lot.
And to those of you who want to have a cat fight back and forth, perhaps it would be better to exchange email addresses and continue your barbs in that more private forum than in this one.

"Julie, I can't answer your question because of I couldn't see their eyes."

That's very true ("duh!" to myself: thanks, Hugo) and, actually makes me consider the picture without focusing on that line-of-sight-to-the-structure. Rather seeing this as just full-surround. An 'it's wet, it's late, they're tired, but they're together' kind of thing. Interesting.

As usual, not saying whether this changes my response, but I like 'trying it on.'

Guys, you're free to think about my artwork in the way you want. I told before that I'm very bad writer, In general I never talk about my technique, and everyone has its own.

If you are expecting me to reveal to you something, I think you will have to wait for a while.
Comments ceased to be constructive criticism, and became a pure discussion in this forum.

If you want to ask me a serious consultation on art photographic composition, contact me in private, I will try to respond in the best way as possible.
Regards,
Hugo

Thank you Hugo, for your participation. An honest effort.

Hugo, I have thought about your title a lot. I have tried to come up with one that conveys everything you were trying to convey with such a title. I do think that you wanted somehow to convey the idea that some emotions (not to mention the poignancy of certain situations, such as growing old together) are beyond words.

Therefore I would suggest the word "inexpressible" except that I cannot find a way to incorporate that word into an acceptable title. "Inexpressible Tenderness" does not quite do it. I do think that the photo does convey certain emotions, and I do believe that they are somehow "inexpressible." At the risk of sounding even more maudlin, I am reminded of Jud Strunk's song,

Okay, Julie. Have at it--after you stop laughing.

--Lannie