passage

and who uses one of those dang viewfinder contraptions

What does this have to do with anything?

I shoot with a pinhole camera that doesn't even have a viewfinder. Doesn't stop me from making worthwhile photographs.

And years of doing "hip shooting" helped me get there, probably similar to what Maurice is doing.

Really, this discussion has gone way out of bounds...

Sorry Tony,

 

I didn't mean to imply that you should water down your comments or fill it with placating emoticons. Far from it, I appreciate as much as the next guy your honesty, I just felt that you were coming down particularly hard on Maurice, questioning every aspect of his photography; his motivations, his authenticity, his ownership of his images, his skill and his place on this website. I felt that you were getting onto a slippery slope of alienating many others, and as you are a top-notch contributor to the site, I didn't want to see that happen. Anyone can come on here and say that their vision is the right one for photo.net, perhaps someone could say that only those willing to push the boundaries should be allowed in the door and the timid (those who use photoshop only to emulate the darkroom) need not apply. Your voice by way of the quality of your work just carries a lot more weight than that of others.

 

I apologize for perhaps misreading between the lines and suggesting that you are egotistical or elitist, I don't know you personally and I didn't mean to pass personal judgement by what is posted here.

 

I agree with you that sometimes this site is all over the place, and I would sometimes like to do a search on this site that where I could filter out things that I'm not interested in or filter in the things I am. I think an improved search engine (the current one is bizarre)on this site or more substantial subforums perhaps for those with more defined interests such as wedding photography, or beginners, or heavily manipulated images, or large format, or APS, or digital or whatever, where each subforum could elect its own favorites to discuss would allow us to cross forums without leaving the larger photo.net family. Then I could trot over from the underwater forum to the avant garde forum and contribute, enjoy and comment on each. What do you think, sort of like being on the Mall in D.C. where you have natural history over here and air and space over there.

 

Personally I would just like a better way to search this site rather than introduce a fragmentation.

 

 

7, i like the t-shirt in Green.

Another vote for 'Nice Photo Maurice'.

 

I'll steal from your own comment to make mine "closest to what i wanted to convey... in this case, ephemeral, etheral passage..."

 

I think you've succeeded. And to paraphrase the moderators' comment; she captivates me as well.

 

I didn't appreciate this photo at all in its smaller form. I probably almost missed this one entirely - it's Sunday now and I finally clicked on it. Somehow the pose, expression and selective blurring make this one special.

 

Congrats on the POW, and with this comment the total number of comments for this POW exactly equals that of Amy Power (current at 115 as I type).

I can't find the photograph, because of all the comments.

Don't worry, Saul, it's debatable if it's a photograph, and it's not worth finding anyway.

As all survivors get shrunk in the critique wash the implication was big HEART, rather than head ;-)

 

Ibi - green can be arranged in HSB for the discerning. You have an option of radial, motion or smart blur - but smudge stick is extra.

 

Maurice, I also do digital Xanax if required ;-)

 

Don't worry, Saul, it's debatable if it's a photograph, and it's not worth finding anyway.-- Samuel Dilworth

Saul.

You should see how difficult it is to find a Samuel Dilworth photo!

I'm Sorry Maurice but I've got to say: Congratulation VUK !!!

pawel, i'll second the motion!

7, can you motion blur the fabric instead and keep the image in focus? that could be the beginning of a whole new trend: motion blurred photograph in focus on motion blurred T-shirt.

Well done Maurice. I like this image. The lady looks graceful, and I get a sense of fleeting elegance drifting through the drudgery of the city, enhanced by the movement & posture of the subject & her trailing finery. I have a thing about the transience of beauty, it is there one minute, gone the next. It is a profound concept, whether you intended to convey this or not, it's why I like the image.

 

Pawel- To say she is probably thinking about herself and her own beauty is a reflection of shallowness on the person that makes such an assumption, not on the subject herself. To flippantly compare the bkgrd blur to another terrorist attack displays gross ignorance & insensitivity.

 

Tony Dummett - Your comments bother me greatly. I rightly or wrongly interpreted your earlier comments on this post as elitist. RE: 'Just because Maurice used "PHOTOshop" doesn't automatically make this a PHOTOgraph. I think the admission standards for "POW candidate" need to get a little tighter here.' What you are saying is that this is less than a photograph, and undeserving of POW. As a respected top member on photo.net, and a photographer with a wealth of knowledge & experience, I held you in esteem, as I am sure is the case for many other amateurs here. Why don't you use the respect bestowed upon you in order to encourage others in a positive way, instead of flatten their enthusiasm. Yes of course you are entitled to hold dear your views & express them, but aren't they going to become obsolete anyway in a few years? Technology moves on, & presently at a fast pace. I am truly disheartened that you think less of a piece of work because it is digitally produced and/or manipulated. Whilst distinctions may be useful for labels in communication, negative distinctions only serve to segregate, limit, devalue, and exclude. Therefore it is a form of elitism.

It seems to me you can either devalue digital photography or just bite the bullet and see it as a bona fide alternative. You don't have to like this image in order to appreciate it or encourage further development. Constructive criticism is useful yes, your comments are not. How can you say there is no egotist or elitist intent, when you quite plainly make judgements on the photographers motivations, methods, & result, that strongly support that this image is of inferior status & DOESN'T belong??!!?? Quote from Oxford English dictionary: 'elitism - advocacy of or reliance on dominance by select group'. It appears to me that the purist dinosaurs (select group) do wish to dominate photo.net. Fine if that is just a desire you harbour to yourself, but be careful you don't take too much of an aggressive stance, as this would then be viewed as bullying.

you rekindled my spirit. thanks

I emailed to notify Tony of my comments here, and he has responded privately due to this POW now being outdated.

Hello Michael, just to reiterate I did not say Tony was 'anti-digital' but that he thought less of a piece of work because it is digitally produced and/or manipulated. What concerned me was not the film v digital, but that digital manipulations do not deserve POW. He's entitled to his opinion, I am merely saying how myself & others might interpret this. Rightly or wrongly, as stated.

I like the almost ghostly flowing image of this picture. The title "Passage" fits the blurred movement of the photo. It would have been nice to see the woman's feet completely though, and I don't know what the light is around her head. Is she wearing some type of tiara? I don't care for the light it creates.

How did you get 123700 people to watch your photo ?

Fantastic photo! It is great to see an artistic photo taken with a digital camera. Many people have not embraced the amount of creativity you can have with the digital medium.

"A conservative is a man who believes nothing should ever be done for the first time."

 

- Alfred E. Wiggins

 

"I don't agree with what you're saying, but I would defend your right to say it with my life."

 

- Voltaire

 

Well, it's pretentious ;-) and it might not be read by many, but it sums it up pretty much, I think. Maurice, don't ever let people tell you that you do not belong in photography - nobody has the right to do so!

 

Should we let others decide what photography can and cannot be? Never!

I don't have much to say except that this photo, this piece of art is done well and is visually intriguing. Who CARES whether it is really a photograph? Anyone ever heard of mixed media? It obviously started as a photograph shot through a viewfinder

 

Ok, so he didn't look through the viewfinder....again, so WHAT??? Ever heard of a pinhole photograph? No use of a viewfinder! Is every pinhole photo not legitimate just because the photographer wasn't looking through a viewfinder? Does that mean the photographer did not care about what she/he was shooting? How ridiculous.

 

Art can be achieved many ways. Some people thought Jackson Pollack wasn't a painter because of his method. I suppose there are those who still think that. Silly to me.

 

Just because someone uses photoshop does not mean that the photos they produce are no longer "photos". How is it different than manipulations that are done within the darkroom? And lest you think I am a digital photog who is just being defensive, the truth of the matter is that I do my work in the darkroom; manipulations and all. But to those who achieve their ends through the computer...kudos, as long as it is done well. This idea that once a photo passes through photoshop and is manipulated it is then, by definition "no longer a photo" is absurd and is really a stream of conciousness belonging to a conservative old guard that will eventually go the way of the dinosaur. Times change, technology changes.

 

And even if it does make the piece no longer a photo....who cares??????????? Does it really matter? Some people shoot photos as more documentation of the world around them others are interested in producing more expressive work. This is obviously the latter. Who cares what means he uses to achieve it? It's just a silly boring debate to me and frankly I find it disappointing that so many on this site decide to spend their time trying to tear down others over such trivialities.

 

Maurice, nice image.

I'm fairly new at this photography game, but, I know what I like and what I do not like. I am not going to say that I dislike this photo because that would not be true, but, what I do want to know is "am I the ONLY one who sees this is a BLURRY photo and it should have been taken over (assuming that it's real).

 

Tony

("what I do want to know is "am I the ONLY one who sees this is a BLURRY photo and it should have been taken over (assuming that it's real). ")

 

Ummmm...we know it's blurry....he made it blurry on purpose....therefore he intended it that way and it should not be taken over....

 

("I am not going to say that I dislike this photo because that would not be true") Then why is it an issue if you say you like it?

I cannot believe the comments thrown around about film vs. digital. What is the great evil about digital ? So you have more options and power to alter your image. So be it !! The moment you film bigots put a polarizer filter over your lens you're altering your photo. Do a little dodging & burning in the darkroom and that's perfectly acceptable, but god forbid one should change the attributes of a pixel or two. Sheesh ! Pull your heads out of your arse. Stop implying the use of a film camera doesn't alter the original image. If you don't like the final image, that's your prerogative, but don't tell me you don't like it because it was "shopped" too much. That's like saying I don't like it because the guy put too much vaseline on the lens. Personally I find this photo falls into that category where it's so obvious it's been modified, by whatever means, that you simply look past the method and go straight to the end result: do you like it ? what does it say to you ?

I enjoy learning tips from the comments through suggestions on how to improve a photo, or simply the description of how one made an impressive photo, but don't tell me it doesn't qualify as a photograph because it's been altered by a method that doesn't involve a darkroom and chemicals.

Assessing a photo's alterations way is like assessing a woman's makeup. Most of the time, it's felt a woman is properly wearing her makeup if you can't tell she has any on, but there are exceptions. For example in theatrical settings, such as Japanese geisha girls. When you see one you don't fixate on the customary application of the makeup - it's obvious - you get past it!

 

And yes.....Andy Worhal produced a truck load of "art".

Agree with above...it was odd reading thru some of the posts from early 2000 about digital cameras and digital manipulation. Where would we be today without our CS3s and high tech diggy cameras?!

 

Amazing photo, great PS skills for 2001!

beautifull energy