I'll be watching you - 2

I think it's kind of natural to want to know what something is and to reserve judgment on it until you find out.

I really can't figure out what it is that I'm looking at in this picture.

[tongue in cheek]It's a photo.[end tongue in cheek]

.

The photographer may not be available to tell you. He may not want to. Had he wanted to, he might have titled it. He might see it more abstractly and actually not want you thinking about what it "is." He might be feeling, it is what it is. Sometimes, what you see is what you get.

Martin, I present the above merely as an alternative. I completely understand your wanting to know what animal this eye is from, or perhaps it's from a statue of something, etc.

I tend to prefer ambiguity myself. I like to be made curious by a photo, but I don't expect others to follow suit.

I like ambiguity too, but if you're trying to analyze a picture, I don't see how you can avoid trying to figure what it is a picture of.

I guess I'm sometimes just not that literal.

Personally, I don't like it. It's not my genre. Not a photograph I would take.

At first glance the crop of - what I guess is - a gentle face, looks deformed to me.

I do not feel attracted to it.

Has this photo a "universal" value? Personally, I do not see one. If I saw it hanging on a wall in a Museum, would I spend some time

looking at it - as I did visiting a HCB exhibition here in Roma? Probably not, but again this is very subjective.

Do I se originality in this image? Yes. The crop is innovative, even if I - personally - do not see any aesthetic advantage.

Hi ,

Thanks for the comments. The images is of a human eye .
Hope you enjoy it :)

Thanks

I have not read all the comments in the thread. My apologies in advance if redundant.

I would consider composing/cropping even more aggressively by cutting out the left and the top to the extent that the eye is placed in the corner. Heck, I might even go so far as to cut out some of the details of the eye. Though such composition/cropping would not make it good as traditionally defined, it might make it even more shocking or interesting depending on subjective preference. I appreciate interesting bad photos more than tame good photos.

It may say something about beauty as we are "trained" to see and appreciate.

I really liked it. The striking contrast between the eye and the skin. Even the odd composition.

I like this photo, as I do any that make you think. This one is ambiguous, and has many wondering what type of animal it is. It certainly seemed more animal like to us, as horse, elephant, etc., were mentioned as guesses. I was about to add ape, it seemed much more human than not. I was a bit surprised to hear human, except I had finally looked at a few more of the artist's works, and saw some of his darker models and thought it could have maybe been of of them.

I'm am a firm believer of cropping, and most posted here need it, to my eye. By cropping this one, as suggested a few times, you really make it boring, and that is never the end result wanted. Besides, you lose the nice line from the bottom up, thus taking half of what makes this nice. Lines are very important, and control eye movement, and if done properly, take you to the center of interest, or move you around the image, as long as it does not TAKE YOUR EYE OUT! This one leads you in.

Kudos to the artist; even if it's not one we'd 'put on our walls', as John stated, it does make us stop and ponder, and the treatment of darks vs lights really escalates that process. Is it the strongest image we've seen all week? Probably not, not for me and many here. But is it strong? Definitely, a lot stronger than many of the folks have in any of their portfolios.

PS Titles are very important and this one needs a new one, as the 'thing/person' is not watching us (not looking straight ahead at the viewer, as others have mentioned too), so it is totally inappropriate.

The image is of a human eye, as Piotr says. Well, I really like the ambiguity of the face. If the author didn't want to get this ambiguity, well, I guess, he got it.

Seems to me that Piotr left a little wiggle room in his response, whether intentionally or not. To wit, he says that the image is of a human eye, which is perhaps not the same as saying that the entire image--the eye and that which surrounds the eye--is human.

So I'm still wondering . . .

As to the "would I hang it on a wall" test, I think I might find a place for this spooky, expertly crafted image.

out of curiosity, is the subject lit with a soft box? (as opposed to an umbrella or snout or direct flash or...)

It's interesting how Velvia is still so beautiful and mind blowing! How did you scan this one?

Martin H: '...spooky, expertly, crafted image...'
SPOOKY (expertly, crafted image) can be a word to describe it. I think so too. I trust your sense.

Hi Kyrn , It is lit with a "masked "softbox

some large dark panels masking the softbox

Kyrn ,

Scanned with Nikon Coolscan 8000ED

8000ED, does that also do 120 film?

Top class!