Hmmm, a silent discussion . . .

Very nice, Michael. A detail that I think works really well are the lines in the ceiling tiles within the reflection. They really *make* the distance/depth into which the mirror takes the eye. Puts your head on the vanishing point. : )

Thank you, Julie. Quite honestly, the lines you mentioned were a happy accident, since I didn't really notice them when I took the shot.

I like the background grid and transparent backlighting of the background. I also think there's some potential in the strong geometry of circle against rectangles (including the implied partial circle of the second mirror on the right. I also think you hit on a good, strong tonality. But I don't care much for the photo.

I don't find your reflection with camera in front of your face terribly interesting and the reflection rendering is neither clear enough to be effective nor distorted enough to be challenging. Other than "this is a reflection," not much about the crowd activity, faces, or gestures in the reflection draws me in.

Michael, I was going to argue with you that your practiced eye "noticed" more than you remember noticing, but I will just say that I think you knew it was a good shot. Do you remember composing the foreground wires? You did that very well. I'm curious what that is and why it's there. It looks like the woven wire used for livestock fencing.

 

One more detail that I'm noticing that is fun: your wristwatch. Like the pupil of the eye.

An old bedspring, with a mirror reflecting a selfie, in front of a background with heaps of ugly digital noise. I don't g get it?

Fred, Gordon, and Julie - - I am very grateful for the time you put into your remarks. Fred and Gordon, especially, I'm not trying to change your minds, or trying to defend the image; rather I'm offering an explanation. The subject of the image was a metal sculpture I saw at an art gallery in Lake Worth, Florida. What caught my eye was the black metal which framed the piece and, particularly, the metal which encircled the mirror. In all honesty, I wasn't interested in capturing the mirror's reflections; my intent was to capture the foreground black metal and that was my primary subject. That's why it's the sharpest element in get entire frame. I viewed at the image as an abstract. So, when I was processing the image, I noticed the digital noise and felt that I could use it to the image's advantage. Clearly you may not have been aware of this when you initially were evaluating it.

Michael, I appreciate your explanation and I think it shows something very important about photography, which is that the intent doesn't always come through in the output.

When shooting a mirror, especially straight on, it's pretty much a given that the reflection in that mirror will play a key visual role in the photo, and its impact won't be lessened just because your intention is focused on other things in the field of view, unless you make some choices (instinctual or more thought out) that will help get the photo to "reflect" your own purpose in taking the picture, or at least help convey what you visually would like to emphasize. The reflection in the mirror could have been de-emphasized by the angle of shooting so, for instance if you had shot from a little below the mirror you would have captured more of the grid of the ceiling and less human activity which would have brought a little less focus to the reflection, although you'd have risked a still prominent but somewhat boring reflection, unless that grid could relate nicely to the rest of the photo. That change in angle, of course, would have changed the geometry of the wired rectangles and circles.

Reflections are pretty much part of shooting mirrors, at least in most cases, so you may simply be trying to work too much against what you're actually shooting. In any case, you can't just intend away or wish away a reflection just because it wasn't important to you. The photo will, and does, fight back! Sometimes, those sorts of circumstances just have to be dealt with. I've taken plenty of pictures on the street, for example, where cars seemed to be getting in my way or a shadow cast by a building was destroying an image I had in my mind of the shot. I've found that the best thing I can do in those situations, if I can't avoid the elements that aren't working, is either just forego the picture OR make the unwanted element work. That's a challenge, but a good one. Many great photos are a trade-off, since photographers are often at the mercy of what's there and not just what we'd like to be there. How might this have been shot to still capture the appeal of the metal to you and, somehow, make the reflection work with that? When you put yourself front and center in a reflection with a big camera in front of your face, that's simply not visually consistent with your not being interested in the reflection. The photo, in that sense, is betraying you. The exciting thing, for me, would be figuring out the puzzle and making it all work.

Fred, I just learned several important lessons from you. The first had to do with my composing the image and my angle. Had I changed my location and/or the camera angle, the image would have been different, perhaps materially so - and possibly better. The second is best expressed just by quoting part of your remarks, i.e., " . . .make the unwanted element work. That's a challenge, but a good one." Thirdly, I should have known better than to try using my intent to explain away deficiencies in the image. I truly appreciate the time and effort you invested.

Michael, glad you got something out of what I said. And while intent won't "explain away deficiencies," I'm glad you offered your thoughts on your intent here because, in a sharing and critiquing environment, that often helps a lot with understanding what the photographer might have been after, which can make ensuing dialogue and suggestions from the rest of us more constructive and more in tune with your own vision for the photo. I think that kind of willingness is very helpful! So, thanks.

Michael, thanks for the response. I guess that we all react to digital artifacts in different ways. I find the noise and pixellation in your more abstract colour work easier to look at. Here, in B&W, the white halos around the black wires and the blocky noise are screaming sloppy post production so loudly that I cannot get paste it. Your assertion that the artifacts are intentional doesn't alter my response to them. This is a personal prejudice as I tend to see B&W as a place for refinement and finesse.

 

I do agree with Fred in as much as an interesting reflection (rather than a selfie) could have elevated the image, as I do think that something could have been made of the geometry. As stands, the image seems like more of a missed opportunity than anything else.

Thanks for the clarification, Gordon. Since I am primarily self taught, I am constantly looking for ways to improve my work. Due to one of your comments, I realized that I must have oversharpened the black wires, resulting in the white halos.

When it comes to digital processing, I too am self taught and always looking for ways to improve my skills.

 

Over-sharpening or too much clarity adjustment or several other adjustments if applied heavy handed, can create those halos.

Congrats Michael and a well deserved POW. I'm attracted to the black metal framework, and certainly think b&w was the perfect choice for this image. Good textures and interesting second image within that framework. I can see why they chose it for POW. Well done my friend.............Best, Holger

Holger, I'm grateful for your positive feedback. Actually, I always appreciate feedback, whether positive or otherwise. In that spirit, do you have any thoughts on the comments from Fred and Gordon.

Your own reflection is a big distraction in this image. It would be better is you had shot it with your camera on your chest or hip. At the moment, it seems to me to be just a glorified selfie. No problem with that really, but I am not sure it is worth a lot of discussion.

Thanks, Robin. Whether or not the image is a glorified selfie, I suggest you ask Fred and Gordon whether it was worth discussing.

No need to take offence. I think that both Fred and Gordon have said it all too (and earlier), that is why I just added my 2 cents rather than going into a long-winded exposition. I agree with them: although Gordon's critique of your processing does not resonate with me. Reflections are often a problem because the depth of field is often insufficient to render the foreground and the reflection in focus, as is demonstrated here. Given my thoughts on your own reflection, however, I feel perhaps it would have been better if you were completely blurred instead of just indistinct.

Robin, I apologize if my response to your initial comments came across has being offended. I do appreciate your clarifications and, indeed, I have learned from them.

FANTASTIC! Masterful, powerful. To say more would distract from the many aspects one gets from justo observing and enjoying this magnificent Photograph (note the capital P). Bravo !! DG.

DG, I'm blown away by your generous review. (I suspect you weren't bothered by the technical issues others mentioned.) - - michael