Beware! May swallow without chewing :) (www.sihirlitur.com)

dingo style ;-p

There's a great version of this shot in the 1975 Photography Year Book by a photographer called Paolo Robino (who'd enetered it in a VW-sponsored photo competition). In this one only the feet are showing and the figure inside the bonnet is clutching onto it rather than with arms outstretched, giving it a "compact" look. As a Beetle owner I like seeing it executed again...and with a 1303.

 

Next...a Fiat 500.

I agree with most of the above comments regarding creativity and originality, and with discussions of some of the technical flaws.

 

The colors don't really bother me as I think the intent of the picture was to be cartoonish. The hills behind look similar to old hand-tinted postcards from the 40's and 50's. Not entirely unpleasing. In fact, there seems to be a market of postcards with similar humorously nostalgic type pictures, though they are usually in black and white.

 

The colors and overall darkness and texture of the picture seem to be in keeping with many of the other shots in your wonderful portfolio, so I'm less inclined to think of this as technically flawed or the problem of a bad scanner, but that your presentation technique may not be to some people's technical delight. From your portfolio you obviously have a lot of experience and accomplishments so I'm sure you are comfortable with the technical production of your images Though the corner stuff really does detract.

 

While the subject matter is entertaining, compositionally I think it has some shortcomings. The shoe does not add much, partly because the image is dark, it took me while to figure out what that black spot was, there is not enough action to suggest that the shoe was kicked off or ripped off. While being eaten by a car, he does not look to be in much distress. His hands are almost in a relaxed position and he is not kicking or fighting to get out. It looks a bit like he is taking a nap in the trunk rather than being eaten. Placing a blanket over the trunk and letting his legs relax would give this a whole new impression.

 

I see many more wonderful pictures in your folders. This is one of the more creative, but probably not the one I would pick for POW.

 

Congratulations

Oh boy...this photo's great. It's a little too good. That person being curshed looks like a dummy! What the hell gave you the idea to compose such a humorous and creative photo?!

Well deserved POW. A nice change.

C'mon people, I wanna learn something here. Nice snapshot but I am looking for good pictures. The art I mean.

Well, it's a funny shot...but photo of the week...I don't want to be a moaner, but surely it slightly devalues the whole thing...such a prestigious prize should go to something really outstanding. I could pick faults in lasts week's winner, but at least there was something that really made you go 'wow'

Daniel, there are many purposes for taking photographs besides art. Not all photographs are art, nor intended to be, yet they may be technically excellent. And they may be perfect for their application, despite technical shortcomings.

 

The purpose of this photo is to amuse its viewers. I doubt anyone would put it on the wall, or in a book of "artistic" photographs. In this, it has a great deal in common with many other recent choices for POW. "Art" photographs are actually rather under-represented in the POW choices, in my opinion.

 

This one, someone might publish in a comedy magazine, perhaps, or on a humorous greeting card. Apparently plenty of photographers who frequent this site find it so amusing that they are prepared to overlook its technical faults, which is usually hard for photographers. I must admit I cannot see why, but the only thing more perplexing than taste in photography is what people will find funny.

Nothing much to add to the previous comments, except I like the sepia B/W version a bit more. Neat shot. I'll never look at my Passat in quite the same way.

Thanks everyone for the comments. Here's a better crop and color corrected version of the image. I will try to re-scan it soon.

Liquor in the front, poker in the....

There's humorous and then there's goofy. The police and mannaquin shot from the same folder is humorous, this one... goofy. But hey, if you're into that kind of thing, well done.

...(although this is better than my old grade-school attempts using dumpsters and a Polaroid).

 

This shot is cute, but I find the technical drawbacks - framing, vignetting, color balance - disappointing. The shoe flying off, for example, which is hilarious, is almost missed in the overall picture.

 

To be fair to the picture, though, the centered car does look quite evil as it swallows that poor person.

 

Check out Mr. Ozozlu's other portfolios, or his fine mannequins in the Absurd portfolio. His work can be very impressive.

As I checked the most recent grades for this photo I noticed that back-to-back 1-1's were assigned. Now how people grade is their own business, of course, but I just wonder how useful it is to give out extremely high or low scores with no indication as to why. I hardly expect any thing of the kind from the two people who left these grades--afterall, this server's full of that sort of nonsense--but I thought it ought to be mentioned.

As for this POW, I'll say this one more time:

This site is chock full of good photography. Would you people at Photonet who choose the POW's please be more discerning? At the very least bother to check out the entire body of work for your prospective POW photographer as it just might be that he has other, even more worthy material to make your choice from. (And that is certainly the case with this photographer.)

I find liitle to object to with this picture. It isn't poorly composed or badly rendered--then again, it isn't very good in either area. But overall it's okay as these things go . . . yet I ask you, what does it have going for it, what's "special" about this shot? Who would want to look at it for a week? (The answer is no one, or few for sure.) Who would gladly discuss it for a week? (Same response.) What might this photograph teach someone breaking into photography? (I don't know. Perhaps to choose your humor carefully in mixed company?)

Another rather obvious miss. I just hope that whoever is in charge is doing this on purpose--in other words has a strange sense of humor, because one thing's for dead certain: he apparently has no great knowledge and understanding of or sense and appreciation for quality photography.

When you think about it, that's kind of sad.

C'mon people, I wanna learn something here. Nice snapshot but I am looking for good pictures. The art I mean

-- Daniel Urban.

Why can't a snapshot be a good picture? Why does it have to be art? And what is art, anyway? Is art parking your camera on a tripod, loading pro grade slide film, bracket 9 stops and select the best looking landscape image? Or the most professionally lit portrait?

I think it is far more important that people make images like this one. A landscape image is great, of course, but if we forget to have fun and make something different once in a while, I fear photography is going to be very boring ideed.

This is going to be a fun POW-week :-)

"And what is art, anyway? Is art parking your camera on a tripod, loading pro grade slide film, bracket 9 stops and select the best looking landscape image?"

No.

"Or the most professionally lit portrait?"

No.

Patrick.

It's more than a little disconcerting these are the two prototypic examples of photographic "art" you've come up with. I think it says a lot about Photonet.

As for PoW, I actually preferred the uncorrected version to this. Haluk, could you please restore the original (that was the picture selected after all) and simply upload the reworked one as an attachment? The cartoonish quality of colour cast/saturation and vignetting actually made an important contribution and it's now been turned into little more than a snapshot. What is really letting you down, as pointed out above, is the awkward pose of the hands--perhaps fingers outstretched in shock/pain would have worked better. The fallen shoe is also questionable, especially the way it is positioned and captured.

Congratulations on receiving POW. The image is certainly different and - to many - humourous. Its capture required photographic knowledge PLUS imagination, though of course there are many in your extensive portfolio that are more beautiful and/or demanding in the technical area. Members seeking "purer," more traditional/ artistic images, need look no further than your main folder to find their reward.

 

Yet I am happy such an image has been chosen, for it teaches much to those who would learn. Think differently. Loosen up. Be yourself. Have fun. You can do anything you think you can - the idea being not to limit the idea.

 

This pic might also mean a less serious week on the front page. Given the anxious and belligerent state of our species, that would be welcome relief indeed.....comic relief.

 

Love and laughter - anything more beautiful than that?

 

I laughed, as was your intention; we connected across miles and cultures - thanks for that.

 

I like the concept, but the composition kills it for me. It's not a "whole" image to my eyes, considering what you were going for. A different location would do wonders. Perhaps a three-quarters view of it sticking it's "head" out of an alley, or head-on shot like this, but at a beach with the rear end in the water and the surf lapping up to the shoe; something to complete the story you've started to tell. I think it's a great idea and has wonderful potential. Your "Public Nudity" is a great example of what I consider a "whole" image (and a very successful one at that). The composition is an intregal part of the concept. Despite the criticism this pic is getting, don't let it get to you. You have some strong work. Getting POW just tightens the screws a bit as a lot of people are expecting a lot out of that particular image (myself included).

I must agree with Vuk's comment on restoring the pic that was choosen. Changing it in the middle of the forum invalidates many of the above comments. The photo we are now commenting upon has absolutly nothing to do with the "other" one. We knew from the start that it could be improved so there's no need to prove it here (upload the improved in your portfolio or, as vuk suggested, post it here as an attachment). Haluk, please restore the original. Thanks

 

 

It is a perfectly fine picture. To rant about it's technical shortcomings is a little harsh, since it's obviously a photographer goofing around with his camera.

 

I've tried to stay out of these POW put downs because I did not want to take away from what I'm sure is a great honor for the photographer who took the shot. But I have a hard time believing that this picture is even considered by him more than a funny snapshot and was probably blown away that it was chosen.

 

In the late seventies I saw several versions of this shot by my friends. The trunk in the front (boot) lends itself to humor. I assume the folks that picked it thought it was more unusual than it is.

 

I've been around for six or seven months and find this site a daily stop. I also feel that it has helped my photography. Maybe I'm just taking this section a little too seriously. I had looked at POW as something to strive for when in fact it's obviously just a few folks browsing the uploads and picking a nice picture to plop into this spot.

 

I also think many of us may take all of this a little more seriously than the folks putting on the show.

I just wanted to add that I took the time to review Haluk's work and it is very impressive. I could have picked a dozen POW's from his uploads.

For me the staging and contrived quality of the shot ruins it. There is nothing to discover in looking at the photo. Some of the others in the portfolio were much more genuine, engaging, and more authentically absurd. I don't have a problem with the look of the picture I like that kind of quality, but again, compositionally there is not a lot to grab my interest, although in that respect it is no less interesting than most of the "technically superior" yet mindless pictures that usually show up here. After all that, I must agree it's nice to see something a little different selected.

I am interested by your comment. Out of curiosity, would you mind sharing with the Community and its visitors your personal definition of a "mindless picture." Thanks.

Photography for me is a hobby that I thoroughly enjoy, but I have no intention to become a professional and I have no arts background, which would probably help to improve my photography. I visit Photo.net almost daily and have been reading the POW comments for quite some time. However, this is my first comment on a POW.

 

Looking at recent POWs and reading the comments I started to ask myself what makes a great picture.

 

For me, in a great picture all parts contribute to the whole; ie there are no unnecessary, let alone distracting elements in it.

 

All else follows from there; ie composition, exposure, sharpness etc. have to contribute to the whole. If, for example, sharpness if off, but this contributes, or at least does not distract, from the picture, this is not a problem. If, on the other hand, the picture is so blurred that the viewer is distracted by the lack of sharpness, this is a serious flaw.

 

A further consideration is wether there are any elements that could have been included to significantly improve the picture as a whole.

 

An added benefit for a great picture is, if the whole is something other than a beautiful flower or a fast motorbike, ie if the picture carries a deeper message or evokes a certain feeling. This is extremely hard to achieve and I wonder if any POW has been able to do this yet.

 

While it is possible to randomly take a large number of pictures, and come up with at least one in which all parts contribute to the whole, this is extremely rare. Taking a picture that holds up to this criterion is usually the result of careful planning, and requires some level of technical proficiency as well as appropriate equipment.

 

A snapshot is characterised by a lack of planning and will usually contain some superfluous or distracting elements.

 

This criterion is by no means new, it has been used a lot in the POW discussion. However, to my knowledge it has never been clearly spelled out, and a lot of people keep on wondering according to what sort of criteria the POW is judged.

 

Reviewing the archived POWs with this criterion in mind, I believe that the overwhelming majority of them hold up very well. Of course the judgement is still highly subjective. While one person might think that following the rule of thirds, blurring the background and cropping tightly all contribute to the whole, another person would have made different choices. At least in almost all cases a convincing argument can be staged that the choices, which the photographer made, were made to contribute to the whole.

 

Unfortunately this is difficult for the last two POWs. Last week Tony Dummett had a good shot at defining what the whole in this picture was - and I was impressed: ;-)

 

"We see something such as this and a nagging, unsettled feeling eats away at our bones, whispering to us that we (in our comfort zones) are just a PART of the grand scheme of things, and a small part at that."

 

However, I find it hard to see how the big brown fence in the foreground contributes to this message. I could construct something, but it would be far fetched. Also, the shabby scan on the left-hand side is difficult to explain away.

 

This weeks POW had a fantastic chance to be even more than a great picture, because it has the potential to evoke a feeling - it aims to make you laugh. However, I for one was distracted by the less then ideal background and perspective, as well as by the severe vignetting. What tops it all off is that the photographer actually altered the picture halfway through the week, changing not only the cropping but also the colour balance of the picture, which previously contributed very well to the comic like nature of the picture. This clearly demonstrates a lack of consideration and planning and confirms that the POW has moved from great pictures to snapshots.

 

Like previous posters I suspect that the people behind the scenes take the POW much less seriously than the Photo.net users, which is sad considering the first class work that you can find when you have a look at the top rated photos .

Well done Haluk - this really is a fun pic.

Aesthetically you have many better, but its true the world is SO SERIOUS these days, nice to have some humor.

Where IS that space reserved? Between your ears?