Friction Wheel, Bodie

Macho photo!

I'm not technically knowledgeable about black and white and the zone system etc.. I do know I admire people who practice it, know it and also are talented in the area of black and white developement. I can only guess that at times people who know more than I do... See things that I do not. This does not mean it isn't excellent as a photograph. I am just not qualified to comment on this piece. That said, there are some images I wish I could have shot and I can still comment on the asthetics. There is a nice graphic element and texture here. That is all that strikes me.

There's a saying that "taking a picture of anything with 4x5 will make it look like art", but this picture tends to abuse the priveledge. Technically it's good, but if it were taken with anything but 4x5 it would be labeled a "snapshot", and it's really nothing special.

And I'm not talking about angles or lenses, I mean sensibilities. There are people who see interpretive work (such as Doug's) and it enthralls them, there seems to be more to look into and enjoy than a glance would yield. THEN there are those (such as has been predominant in the posts above) who see nothing of interest and yammer off predictable derisions, etc etc etc, when suggestions as to how the image could be "improved" to their standards would be, at the very least, more worthwhile to read. All I can suggest is that before you speak your piece about the work, view it as large as possible and approach it from a neutral mindset: Which is what I am about to do now.

Terrence.

 

I've been looking at this photo repeatedly over the past couple of days and trying to give it the benefit of the doubt (since I do like this "genre" of photography and indulge in it myself), but my negative first impression still holds. Those who have complained about the annoying verticals are right on the mark. There is a good composition lurking in there, but I firmly believe a hacksaw is required to get at it.

If every photo would excite everyone equally,- wouldn't this be a perfect world,- but what a dull one?! By observing the picture I can see: Special lock-nuts, a wire-rope grip fastener, a part number, a part-maker's name, brake-pads and missing lid on grease-pan. Emotionally: I smell steam and smoke of an old steam train. The lighting brings out the nature of cast iron. The angle used- does create an intricate crossing of lines. For my part,- I would have opted for differential focusing to offset the exclusive mechanical construction, as seen on this projection.

While I appreciate the comments and constructive criticism, I'd appreciate it if folks don't reproduce or alter my images. I'm quite knowledgeable about digital printing using Photoshop and color management. I output to, devices like the Lightjet 5000 and Piezography, and I've spent many hours in darkrooms as well! Thanks for the suggestions.

These photographs have been registered with the U.S. copyright office because of problems I had a few months ago with people copying my images and altering them without my permission. Forgive me if I seem touchy about it - it's nothing personal, but I have to cover my bases, and protecting my copyright is one aspect of that!

No, not the stuff you make pie crusts out of.

Shortening the tonal scale of this photograph like Jeff suggests is a very valid idea. However...let me explain why I chose the exposure and development I used for this photograph.

Compositional elements aside, the scene was very 'hot' that day. I was in the high desert with harsh light shining into the elevator clutch housing.

Because I knew I'd likely print this negative both in the darkroom (I use a fixed-contrast cold light head) and digitally, I chose to expose normally and to indicate development that would produce a long tonal scale. Adherents of the Zone system may be familiar with this methodology.

I think that Jeff's suggestion has merit. It's a good way to present the subject as a more "gritty" piece. However, a suggestion like Jeff's would not have been possible witout a long-scale negative to begin with.

So, I guess the lesson here is that shortening the tonal scale is easy once the negative has been scanned - but I rather like the more quiet and contemplative look of the longer scale print - which is why I posted the .jpg as it appears above!

The original looks very flat to me. I can't see any 'painting with light' However, I do like the composition, just not how I'd print it, but that my personal taste (and Jeff's)

My apologies to Doug for altering his image (I've deleted the comment and image) I should have asked first!

 

 

sorry guys, I can't see any "painting with light" at all. This is just black to gray, no more.

WHy do people feel they need to alter someone else's images? I had it done to one of mine here without my permission and posted to this site. Do not blame Doug for copyrighting photos because he's only protecting himself. Photographers shoot things as they see them and if they want changes, they will crop or alter it themselves.

He knows what he's doing and has no apologies for his rendition, go Doug! (by the way, everyone check out the Audi gas-cap in his folder if this one doesn't do it for you, if that one doesn;t too, you might need a straightening out.:)

"With regard to material you include in a public album, you grant a non-exclusive, world-wide, royalty free license to modify, publish and reproduce said material solely for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting photo.net."

"With regard to material you include in a public album, you grant a non-exclusive, world-wide, royalty free license to modify, publish and reproduce said material solely for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting photo.net."

I am not a lawyer, but my layman's interpretation is:

photo.net is granted permission to modify, reproduce or display the photo for promotional purposes.

I'm not sure if that extends to individual users of photo.net, but as members of a community, it's comforting to know that some members will be polite and offer to honor the photographer's wishes.

Jeff was very gracious and more than accomodating when I asked him not to modify my work; I reviewed p.net's agreement, and as I interpret it, it's agreeable.

Many folks don't mind creative suggestions expressed in modification of their work, but since I have registered my work, I also need to act to protect it when it is compromised; otherwise I could set a dangerous precedent of not defending my own copyright. It's the holder's responsibility to defend the copyright, or it may be considered relinquished.

The white background photo.net uses really doesn't do any justice to this image. Or many of the POW prints, but this one in particular. Viewing on a gray or black background really makes the image stand out more.

Personally, I think this image is well made. The composition speaks well. However, the subject isn't appealing.

I am glad this got POW. No, it's not a racecar or a volcano erupting... but it brings significance to the ordinairy by way of an artists insight and skill with a medium (light). It also looks like a thoughtfully chosen and composed subject.

Interesting subject matter. Somewhat centered too much. Biggest problem is that it is too gray.

Interesting subject matter. Somewhat centered too much. Biggest problem is that it is too gray.

I like pictures of "mechanical/technical" objects very much, and can fully understand photographer's fascination but this picture lacks the idea. There is no appealing harmony or "order" in this pile of metal. The viewer skips form one detail to another without any guidance. Consider this: What is the subject in this picture? What feeling wanted you to transfer to the viewer?

Hey Scott Blair, about that copyright statement; I would love to know where you got it, or who wrote that. It is completely FALSE! It implies that the mere action of posting a picture on this public web site constitutes a waiver to all copyrights. This would normally be true IF it wasnt for the explicit copyright information that accompanies each picture that is uploaded to this site. The people who designed this site gave everyone the opportunity to waive any or all copyrights if they check the little boxes, although most people dont. The term Public or private has absolutely NO relevance here since making a web site available to the public has nothing to do with who owns it, operates it, or its content. If you leave the keys in your car and somebody takes it, it is still theft. There are many cases where intelectual property is implied just like your car ownership (you don't have to write your mane or an ownership statement on your car). The reason why you are not allowed to copy Coca Cola is because of that little R next to it. When Coca Cola puts their name on a billboard next to a freeway they are not giving their name or their product away. The architects of this web site have done a good job of legaly protecting the content in the best interests of the members. There is actually a way to format web pages so that the images can't be downloaded by the viewer but it uses more resources like server memory and makes the web site less flexable.

My philosophy about other photographers is simple: "I can learn something from every photographer,- even if it is: HOW NOT TO DO IT!" ......Jeff Alu is one of them. (Please Note: He has withdrawn his contribution!) (Adelaide S.A.)

Vedict:"Photography has been called "painting with light," and this photo is an excellent demonstration of the concept."

Acctually I can't see any light there. In my opinion it is vice versa i.e. picture was made using gray tones and that's you can see. There is no light in a sense of what you can see. In other words it looks like painted on a sheet of paper with gray paint - no single reflex of light, no vivid contrast, everything is so matte. So in my opinion verdict is bad but still it's a good photo. I love colour and dislike many B&W photos but this one is OK, no doubt.

Glad to see that ratings up above 6 are not required for a POW.

Who is the one giving out all this smart-alecky captions to good photographs? Are they even remotely qualified in the first place, tsk! tsk! talk about artistic infringement. "Painting with light?" - In Homer's word - DOH!! (Enough of sarcasm, I am just pissed off with the captions of a couple of photo of the week.. frankly it disgust me!) Anyway on to the picture, nice tones there, I don't know about altering of the pic as I did not read them, I just show it to my teacher, he said, when a picture captures the moment, it captures the eyes as well. To me, this picture just intrigues me, you just keep staring at, wondering what it is, in terms of light? Well, tones are grey, dark/light should be more prominent to give a feeling of light being painted across a dark background. This is otherwise an intriguing picture with a bad lame-ass caption to it....