.: memories :.

in people, design, nature or a persons inner beauty.

 

First off - I like the picture - I like it very much. as to the discussions of 'posed - not posed', 'enhanced by software - or not', 'What if she was not as beautiful - or was' its amazing all the different opinions. Mine is as follows :

 

I dont really mind how the image came to be - its atractive to me. Was software used to enhance to enhance the image - if so thats a skill too. Did she pose - was it natural - all the same to me - I like the end product.

 

I like to think of it in what I think of as a relaxed viewpoint (not meaning for a second that anyone elses is wrong or silly or that I have a monopoly on truth or style). I think when a chap (or visaversa) sees a lady (or visaversa) in a bar and there is some attraction going on do you think there might have been some posing going on in order to better position ones self. In addition there may have been some makeup or aftershave (same as using photoshop for an image) to better position the individual to appear as attractive as possible. I think we all do it and have done it so is it that much differnt if it is an image. Look at movies we go to - edited - every one of them, the super stars the famous - hair transplants, surgery. Why should natural and untouched be the only way to prove beauty - we iron our clothes - is untouched really that much better.

 

In closing - even famous photographers have control over the image as it is developed in the darkroom and will alter timing etc to produce the best image. Thats my 4c. :) (again I am not knocking anyones opinion or post - just offering my own and certainly have no intention to offend)

I have been following this forum with interest because I think that the debate which is

emerging is really between a "nice" photo of a contrived situation, and a photo which

genuinely captures what the photographer wants to convey. There are a lot of photos

which to me read "kitsch" and do not have what I like to call "authenticity".

Authentic does not mean that the photographer is not involved somehow in the

creation of the image, it just means that the photo conveys a genuine sense of human

reaction to a situation. It's kind of like the difference between a good actor and a bad

actor. So without trying to get into a

competition between photos, I would like to post a photo here which I think may

convey better what the photographer was trying to say. Here is a photo of a widow

looking at the grave of her dead husband, caught in a candid moment, which to me

conveys the idea of mourning in an authentic way. What to you is the difference

between the two photos?

Thank you, Brian.

 

The difference is curb appeal (Are you reading this, Peter?). That's what a lot of people want. People react emotionally to the attractive woman. People have a positive response to the tonality on a gut level. The fact that the image does not in any way say what the title implies doesn't seem to bother many viewers. They say it's perfectly crafted, but how can you overlook all the detritus that has been pointed out? Craftsmanship includes, among other things, a well composed image where every element contributes to the impact, whether it's a specific story, or something more abstract. The OOF elements don't contribute anything to this image. That sharp contrasty thing by her ear is a distraction. What looks like PS work just below it compromises the aesthetics of the image.

 

Brian, I understand your image. It speaks to me like few of the TRPs and other POWs do.

 

Can't we get beyond "pretty"?

Interesting . . . in an ideal world, I would most like to see a photo of the Spanish Widow, but taken with the care (lighting, composition, colors) of Sirc's photo. Possible? Maybe. Authentic? To a point. A grieving widow might, with trust built, allow you to take pictures as she reflects at her husband's gravesite. But she might pose for the camera -- in other words, the camera's presence would alter the authenticity of the situation somehow. The shot likely would be more on the fly, there might be no time for softboxes, makeup, hair styling, but ps editing could do something with it. Having said this, I see now that Brian's photo and Sirc's photo are really two difference genres, one being photos in the real world, the other being something for a fashion shoot or photographer's portfolio that does not pretend to be "authentic." Both are legitimate art forms and should be judged on their own merits but, as I indicated in previous messages -- and NO negative reflection on Sirc's skills or choices here at all -- I find the former more interesting. Capturing, reflecting, portraying, interpeting the world as it moves around us -- what a wonderful thing to pursue!

I think this photo is absolutely INCREDIBLE!!

The colour attracts me to it....i love the way it confuses me - I can't tell the mood...heck, I can't even tell mine.

To me, she's a beautiful rebel lost in the thoughts of the day.....

-kymberlee

Love the composition, and the color is perfect as it is! Don't alter anything. Great job.

I think the creator of this photograph must be laughing at this discussion. It was probably created much more simply than all of you think. I took one of my photographs to be judged by the PPA and the judges discussed the thing for ten minutes. They presumed I had used photoshop here, done a little painting there, used gobos and reflectors and special lighting, etc. etc., when all I did was pose the subject, meter the camera, and snap the picture. Maybe they assumed I really knew what I was doing, when in actuality i just got lucky. Hehe.

Brian's image, to my eye, provides far more setting than Vaclav's, but less engagement with the subject. Vaclav's shows more engagement with the subject (real or actor, I of course don't know), but far less of the setting. In that, I find the images very different, though I can certainly allow that Brian's image might reach some people who react to the commerciality of the POW.

In fact, that is the fulcrum of much of the discussion to my reading: the polish of the POW impacts people's perception of its reality, or lack thereof. To many people, this is clearly the Hollywood version of the gravesite visit, the young widow (?), perfectly and stylishly presented, well-lit, offering up her emotion, keenly aware of - perhaps even performing solely for - the camera. Is that the reality of the shot? I don't know and wouldn't presume to guess. Does that make it less real? Prabably. Does it make it less evocative? Perhaps. That is partly in the eye of the viewer. I'm not sure that I could say that it fails simply because it (probably) isn't documentary photography, and doesn't offer photojournalistic reality with its real-world flaws. But I do like the shot, for whatever that's worth.

Forgive me for being obtuse, but why all this discussion of this pic in terms of graveyards? The photogrpaher doesn't say it's got anything to do with graves (it's titled "Memories", not "Grief"), and so far as I can see the first person to bring this idea in one of the early commentators after it became POW - everyone seems to have adopted the reading from that point on. But it's Memories that's the subject, not graves and grief.

 

Personally, I admire the technical perfection of this photo, but the shiny surface gives no grip to my emotional involvement - meaning I'm not convinced for a moment that this girl is other than acting. That's not a fault by any means, but it is one of the parameters of my reaction.

Thanks Isidro to point out the grave detail... not obvious at first or at second view... may be that the 'default' of the picture

but at it says in the tech:

Exposure Location Street: grave-yard

City: Hradsite

Country: Slovakia

Most of you need to get a grip on reality.

... you who are falling all over yourselves with regard to this photo, that is...

Thanks, Ray. Though I'm not exactly "falling all over [my]self" over the shot, I did post something somewhat positive. So naturally, I feel corrected by your recent post. Is it your assertion that anyone who likes this shot does so simply because the subject is attractive (as per your earlier post)? I don't doubt that the attractive subject is a part of many people's perception of the photo, of course, but I'm not sure it's helpful to say that we all need to get a grip.

 

There is an interesting thought hidden in your post: there is unquestionably an air of perfection in this shot, the idealized view if you will, as I mentioned in my previous post. That wouldn't work, or even be available, for many subjects and in many situations. But is there room for that in photography? Is any such image immediately too commercial to be considered serious photography? Is that the real question of this image as POW? I don't know, but I am certainly open to hearing thoughts on it, if people think it's an appropriate question.

 

Then again, posting this on Friday evening, there may not be much discussion left... Onward.

Interesting pose and lighting. I would love to see what the photograph looked liked. Before it was made into an illustration.

 

I would like to see PHOTO.net going more into Photography and not what one can do with a computer and a program.

Well, Russell opens another front for discussion. Personally, I started taking photos because of the digital medium's accessibility and the ease of Photoshop editing. I understand capturing an image in the moment is a hard-earned and substantial skill -- and not one I have mastered at this point. But I don't see why it is inherently superior to a person's skill of processing the digital "negative" with a computer program, i.e., fail to see how it constitutes "Photography" while the other somehow does not. Haven't photographers always played with images (dodging, burning, under-exposing, over-exposing, touching up, etc.)? I suspect when autofocusing came into vogue, some grumbled similarly that manual focusing alone was the "real thing" . . . (maybe they still do!).

Marshall, in response to your post, I think our world is completely oversaturated with

sterile images. We are bombarded every day by mediocrity, whether it be advertising,

pop music, or trash cinema, to the point that we believe it is the real thing. How many

times have I heard people say, "but if so many people go to see the Titanic, it can't be

that bad, right?" But we forget that a bunch of people are paying millions of dollars to

try to ensure that we only see "titanics" and only listen to Britney and only buy Cosmo,

and that we believe that that is what is good, because it's the best of the crap and it's

surrounding us and blaring in our faces 24/7. The problem is that our idea of what is

beautiful (or ugly for that matter) is getting lost in the midst of the degraded sense of

what is real. Our world has become a sanitised fiction which has little to do with

reality. So we see a photo which is essentially like an ad, and we think "wow, good

job." Yes, it is a good job. For an ad, it works just fine. And certainly, in photography

there is a place for ad work. I just have, as I think others here do as well, a different

sense of what I find beautiful. It's like sitting and looking at Cosmopolitan and

thinking "but all the girls are so Pretty and the pictures are so Nice." Now, as Ray aptly

put it, "get a grip on reality".

Bravo, Brian, I really respect you for saying that. Some get confused, though, that a criticism of the genre that this POW would seem to fit into is the same as saying the photo fails. It doesn't. However, there is implicit in those of us who are pointing out to the "real world" the sense that this genre has a sterility and a contrivance to it that has a dark side, in that it portrays an idealized "reality" that is more fiction than fact, and encourages both photographers and viewers to play it safe, and to conform to conventions of beauty, etc.

Brian - I think your post is eminently reasonable and describes a valid viewpoint of the image, and of the position such images tend to take in our media-driven culture.

 

For what it's worth, I never saw Titanic...

For those of us who have a minimal understanding of the art/craft of photography, could someone please articulate what it is that makes this image so outstanding. I am not being facetious. I've read the comments and the ratings, and looked again at the image, but I can't quite reconcile things without some help not yet provided. To me, the right foreground is confusing, contrasting in a somewhat dizzying way with the more muted background, and I can't quite figure out what is happening near the woman's left ear. I don't see any structure in the image that lends balance, and try as I may I see a complete absence of emotion in the woman's face (where others apparently see plenty). For all I can tell she might just as well be counting to

ten while she holds a pose. What I am left with is a well-coiffed woman with no particular thoughts on her mind, and a photographer's conscious choice of hue. If intended as a portrait, and if a portrait is supposed to tell the viewer something about the subject, I need to read the image notes to get an idea of what the intent was. The only things I can surmise are that the woman may be a model, but she probably is not an actress.

expression and light is great n masterpeace

Very lovely work and lovely model.

some people tried to show that cropping would make the pic better ...but NO! if you knew better ....this photo woild not be a POW.

This picture works because it's not cropped very tightly.

 

IMHO....it's always a mark of a good photographer if he/she can shoot good pictures without having to crop or manipulate it later.

After all a picture shot with a 6mp camera should have all the 6m pixels. Shooting a bad pic and trying to improve it later is not what a good photographer should do. It's an art in itself to produce a lovely picture without a need to crop it later.

If you love cropping, get a medium format and shoot....and cut what you don't like...... u wouldn't do that would you?

It's a wonderful image!

It's a nice photo, but the ratings and selection as photo of the week say a lot about

this site.

 

The model is lovely and in focus, helping to make this an above average photo.

 

I would not comment on it if it were not Photo of the Week.

Brian Hallet, to me the difference between your posted photo and the POW is that on the POW we are seeing a young woman mourn someone she loved vs. an old lady walking on a graveyard.

 

We are seeing the hardened, poised fa硤e of the modern denigrator come to a realization that life is tougher then they are vs. seeing someone who defies nothing anymore.

 

We are seeing the emptiness of a young heart that loves life, lose someone that she needs at a time when she is still not seasoned by the pains of life and who is wondering how she is to live the rest of her life without this person?if we are capable of seeing past the make up vs. seeing someone who is sick and tired of pain and suffering and wishes that she too would die.

 

We are seeing the pride of modern society come to its end vs. the humility of a people that time forgot.

 

We are staring at pain and sorrow in the face vs. staring at the face of pain and sorrow.

 

We are seeing a moment of reflection, regret, hopelessness and lack of consolation and even of questioning the existence of God, plus a face that will question life and our human existence vs. one of the same emotions but which fades into the darkness of solitude and lonely grief and who cares not about questions anymore after having not found the answer her whole life.

 

We are seeing a last goodbye in both of them.

 

Not that the POW is better then the other, it?s just different.

 

Of course all this is missing from an observers view point had we not known the thing on our right was a cross and had we not read the title. I agree there needs to be more visual photographic information in the photo and I?m not arguing this. I?m only saying that the face, the framing, the mood, the color, the fashion and its statement lend themselves for a great photograph and that the only thing that killed it was the indefinable cross. But if this is a set up, as some have suggested (I haven?t read all the comments, so I don?t know if it is or not), then this photo is a good lesson of what not to do with a large aperture lens and of what needs to be done next time.

Her makeup is not even mussed. From the photo alone I did not expect any deep emotion but after reading this was shot grave-side I am even more dissappointed. How could you shoot this at a grave site and completely miss all human emotion? What I am left with is her narcissism overshadows any feelings she has for the loved one.