Nash

I actually agree with the elves this week. Looks like an advertising shot or a movie still, nice old time 50s style, I wonder how the image would change if you took away the frame? You have some very well done shots, good to see a pro's stuff, thanks...

This is a very powerful photo. The shot really appealed to me the minute I saw it.

Whether one likes this type of photograph or not, you have to admit that Jim pulled everything together perfectly.

The architecture blended with the use of reflection blended with the use of shadows blended with the style of clothing blended with the subjects expression all come together nicely.

Well deserving of POW

Regards,
Chris Grady
http://grady.org

It looks more like the model is saying am I doing this right?

The frame admirably reflects all the attributes of this photograph.

 

I was making a point by blending my thoughts together in a sentence much like the photo blends all of those aspects together nicely ... IMHO.

He looks a lot like Dick Tracy to me :) Anyway, this is really nice shot; laconic and powerfull.

Technically spot-on, but really doesn't do much for me. Would be a great tobacco ad, but I think some of your other pictures are much more adventurous and interesting. It just looks too clean to be a "period" piece. The guy is too neat looking with nary a frumple or a hint of this really being an off the cuff moment, and his hands are just as they are in countless Marlboro ads.

 

If your intention was to produce a very clean, professional image perhaps for a print ad, then this is superior and your portfolios validate your credentials to a tee.

 

I have to say also that I don't much like the matting with your name emblazoned. I don't think it detracts much, but it's just not necessary for this forum and it really labels this as a commercial shot rather than something that was posted for fun and learning.....not that here's anything wrong with that.

As a POW.... awful!

 

This is not candid. So all the comments about "capturing the moment" are based on a false assumption of spontaneity.

 

The subject is a model, artificially good-looking, the shot is obviously one of many (and paid for, or looks like it was paid for). He is, as Ian MacEachern said, trying too hard. 2/10 originality and 2/10 emotion.

 

The whole picture is a fake. If you like fakes, then good for you. But for me, pointless posturing. No soul. Boring... in the extreme.

 

Technically, there is too much emphasis on the frame (a sure sign of a photograph going nowhere), and a great big blob of black in the middle is evidence of poor exposure control, or scanning control, or both. The composition is O.K.... as it should be in such an over-produced shot, as this is. "I seen a million of 'em".

 

Granted, Jim didn't pick this shot as POW (as I didn't pick mine). He certainly has a good understanding of style, even if it's derivative and lacking in originality (his client's lack, not necessarily his). But my guess is that this has been picked by the elves based on its genre appeal, not its intrinsic worth as a picture. We've had sports, motor-cycles, lightning, Norwegian Lights, strobe shots, obsessed auto-nudes, birds, flowers, mountain vistas and complete non-sequiters - so why not pack-shots of hired beefcake in silly hats for POW?

 

Try harder, elves. Or is this all you've got to choose from?

Picture looks interesting but the frame is too distracting for me. I'd like to see the print without the border and much larger to give it a rating.

 

Hey Tony, some posed pics are nice but cliched ones can be a bit run-of-the-mill and become tiring if seen too much. I have a shot like this one made several months ago and online here but was made mostly for the old guy.

I cant concentrate on the picture, that awful frame gets all my attention. This should be on the decorative gadgets of the week. I dont say it in a pejorative way, for it´s purpose seems well done. But POW no way!

This one is Madison Avenue all the way. Poised, generic and commercial. Just what it was intended to be. Looks like an advertisement. Not a bad one mind you. POW has never included advertising type images before, that I remember. I agree this was a poor choice for POW. Then again, I don't get a lot of them.

 

I do take issue with one comment, Tony, what do you mean "silly hat"? I've got a hat just like that. I got it at flea market. It's a "Stetson" and I wear it to parties. I feel like Mike Hammer. Now I find out it's silly. "Oh, what a fool I've been!"

I have to agree with Chris and Tim. It may look like an "ad"... but commercial photography is an art just as much as scenics, candids, graphic interpretations of a scene or nudes etc.. Not everyone can accomplish a print "ad" that convey's a message or a mood effectively. Having shot this type of work (and not as well as this image) I have a respect for people who do it well! Commercial or not... excellent photography is something I strive for and I've learned something about pulling elements together, framing and projecting a mood from this image.

Sometimes quality of execution is just as important as originality.

 

J

Boring... a fine ad photo, but boring as art. It stirs nothing emotionally and borders on pablumatic

I see a Nikon F4 was used, but as for film- none? Simply amazing!

You know these modern "retro" movies about private detectives. The best among them

made in a parody style with a mild sense of humour. So, the guy on this photo summarises

all of the features of such a character: broad shoulders, strong arms (look at his wrists!),

stylish clothing (especially the hat), the pose, the look, the manner of lighting the cigarette etc.

And it is just the same hotel where he is supposed to be. This photo is so well done that it

can be used as a poster for ALL the movies of that kind. It is a cliche looking at it from other angles

but if looked through the parody "art filter" (as we look at the pin-up girls) it has outstanding values,

IMHO. I hope Mr. Hancock will give us some details about his idea.Blago

 

 

 

Should Amy Powers get rid of all her nude self-images before a little girl sees them and thinks they're cool and starts to parade around naked? Should we remove all racing photos before someone thinks it would be exciting to drive our cars really, really fast on the highway?

 

Be real. It's just stupid to think that some kid who spends his time surfing photo.net will come across this picture and suddenly think it's OK to start smoking.

 

As for the image itself, I like the image. The frame could probably go IMO. If any of the critics bothered to look at Jim's portfolio, you'll see that most of his images are advertising images. That seems to be how he makes his living. Simply because these images are for Madison Ave and not the Met, it doesn't mean the images aren't good and executed well.

 

I think the mentality that an image is not good because it doesn't satisfy some rich and snobby 'artistic' requirement is ridiculous. If that were the case, most wedding photos would be considered crap (no matter how good they are) when compared to say one of Amy Power's artistic nudes. Images are good for a number of reasons.

 

Not all images have to be 'artistic'. I look at this image and see an era gone by. The look and feel of the photo just takes me back to the past. Yes, I know it was staged. But so is everyother 'artistic' image on this site.

 

 

I don't usually comment on PoWs as I often come into the discussion late and the comments I would like to make have usually already been made. This time I'll make an exception.

 

I've looked through Jim Hancock's portfolio and whilst his style is not my own favourite, I would say his work does have artistic merit and that he demonstrates a high degree of technical expertise. That said, there is something about this particular photograph that doesn't really work for me. The only thing is, I'm not sure exactly why. Perhaps it's a combination of things? I find the frame distracting, but even when I cover it up there's still something . . . I agree with Tony Dummett's about the "great big blob of black", but I don't think that's it either. Maybe it's the fact that the model's head is smack in the middle of the composition? Or maybe not. Perhaps someone else will explain it to me.

 

I don't want to appear too critical. I agree with the elves that the reflection adds an air of mystery and that the fall of the coat is graceful and it may just be that my eyesight/monitor is too poor to appreciate the penetrating look of the model.

As a professional photographer, I'll point out that this image is not an advertising image, it is a self promotion piece. This is what Mr. Hancock calls 'art' but not what I would call 'fine art'.

 

I have admiration for Mr. Hancock's work, but I think that Photo.net should be an amateur site with concerns for fine art, creativity, mystery, spontaneity, capturing the moment and history.

 

A different image by Mr. Hancock would have been better.

 

Did I make myself clear?

I agree with Ian MacEachern that there is nothing penetrating or ominous about the subject's expression. (Does he even have an expression? Sometimes I wonder whether the Elves are not elves but children.)

 

I further agree with Tony Dummett that everything about the photo is fake. (If you look closely at the face, you'll see that the "flame" the subject is cupping from the wind gives off no light--i.e., there is no flame.) However, in the postmodern world, where grape jelly tastes more like grape than grapes, that is simply not a criticism. Consider the ads for the Italian restaurant chain where the speaker has an obviously fake Italian accent. Why is this superior to an authentic accent or no accent at all? Authenticity is crude and unpredictable, and therefore has the potential for more harm than good in selling to the American public. Authenticity, here as there, was obviously not the goal, but rather a cleaned-up, sterilized version of history was desired.

 

Additionally, since there are no time machines, to own a historical image, you must recreate history and then photograph it. Since athenticity is almost impossible (some fanatic will always point out an anachronism or other flaw), the best course is to pick and choose and make no claims to authenticity by being obviously fake.

 

I am surprised (and disappointed) to read in the comments that there is in actuality a Mitchell St. Hotel. But this goes along with the scrubbing-up of American iconography and folklore--soon the Bowery and Hell's Kitchen will be Disney-like theme parks.

 

Of course, all of this is of little consequence or interest to those, perhaps like Tony, who believe there is something of interest and consequence going on in our own time.

To me, it looks like a good model shoot. The thing that gets me most is the description that was given to the POW. If I read the picture first, I would have would associated the description with a picture that was less orchestrated. Who ever said a picture is worth a thousand words?? :)

There is something penetrating and ominous about the man's expression. The more we look at this shot, the more complex it is; from the grace of his hands, to the fall of the coat, to the shadows, to the reflection in the window.

-keat

While I am sure this is a technically fine shot, as someone who comes to this site to learn or be inspired or entertained, this photo doesnt really help.

 

Thanks, Stan

 

Should we stop photographing war scenes because it makes people go out and shoot? Give me a $@$*& break. This is not glorifying smoking, it is showing someone smoking.

 

Also, staged shots are fine with me if they don't look stiff. This looks stiff, and that is the problem I see with it.

Had a chance to look at the portfolio. Work looks fine but have a problem with that border because it takes away frm the image. Love to see them without it.

Dennis please let it go. It really sounds like you want to start an anti-smoking rally on photo.net.

 

This picture replicates an era of the past. A time where people did smoke almost exclusively for appearances and fashion. I look at this picture and I see images of people jumpin'& jiving in swing clubs. Nights out, parties, style and appearances. Of course smoking is bad, we know it. But in these times it was part of the style much more than today, and I think the cigarette here does reflect the era trying to be represented, and is part of it in some way.

 

As for the picture, I do like the tone somewhat a bit stronger than sepia. I like the way the head and the hat is inclined, and I like the tight crop. I like that his face is partially hidden by the hat, it adds mystery. As far as as the face of the model it gives me a different impression each time I look at it. If I want to look at it in a negative way, I think the expression is forced. But in another way I do see somebody lighting up a cigarette for real and taking a peek on the side because something got his attention. It's all in how you view it.

 

Does it deserve POW? Of course, why not. POW is an occasion to have somebody's picture put in the spotlight for all to bring construtive comments on it. Does this one do anything for me? nope, but then again pictures of wildlife don't either. Taste is personnal. We shouldn't mix taste with our job which is to rate and critique this picture. A perfect picture doesn't exist, so let's move on with it and start to add comments on what "we" the critique(s) would have experimented with.