Three Poles

Jeff, congratulations. This picture making it to the POW makes my day. Even if I like a lot more some other stuff in your portfolio, this image is a perfect example of simplicity and effectiveness. Keep up the great work.

I like the simplicity and calmness of this picture. It reminds me of Michael Kenna's work.

I looked through Jeff's salton Sea Folder and although this is an excellent image there at least five others in the folder that I think are stronger images. Jeff is indeed a fine photographer and his work is outstanding. I guess differences of opinion make the world go round.

Congrats Jeff. There are comments about cropping and the poles being too centered. I'm not sure that's true after a second look. I think the centered subject works here and the poles sort of crop themselves through persepective. Just look at the spacing from left to right. I like simple composition anyway and I like the moodiness of this. It's moody, not muddy

On my monitor the tones look a bit flat. the subject is straight to the point. Elegant and deceptively simple.

Congrats on your photo. I know from experience that when when one of my lesser photographs wins a competition, it still feels good. This photograph, IMHO, would fall within that category. The picture strikes me as rather boring. Here in the midwest flooding happens all the time. I just figure that's what happened here.

Mediocre, bad composition with subject right on the center and horizon centered too. Sky and tonality again mediocre and dull and the subject is not rare: here in Brazil we have lots of floods that make lots of scenes like this. And don't forget that Jeff uses lots of Photoshop. Hey people! Comment and rate only this photo here! Not his folder. I agree his folders are great.

Very interesting start on this POW ! I'm glad to see that we are getting some interesting discussion about composition here... The critical question of course, well documented by the elves in their presentation...

Perfect or not perfect, that is the question about the composition...? Space left or no space left ? Central-symetrical composition or not ?

Well, I love this discussion first because it shows how much debate can go on from any minimalistic image. Why so ? Simply because the problems of composition have been - excuse my French again - " pre-isolated ", just like prepared for a study. Please note that such discussion wouldn't come to our mind in a madly busy picture, where it can easily be difficult to form any opinion about its composition.

 

Then, who's right ? Who's wrong ? In my opinion, all the comments I read are right !!! I did notice that some prefer the horizon not so centralized whereas it doesn't disturb somebody else. I've noticed difference of opinions about the pros and cons of a central position of the poles... Yet, I feel all is right ! Am I mad ???

 

Maybe. But what I think is this: I've seen a thousand times on Pnet pictures condamned for their composition - though I'm not an old-timer here... I've almost never seen an explanation about THE DIFFERENCES between the KIND OF IMPACT this or that particular composition creates. That saddens me a little... So, what about this...?

 

Would I be correct to say that cropping the left side would suddenly give such a huge importance to the sky and the sea - since we would deprive the poles of this central position ...? Then, I guess that we should now go for a somehow tighter cropping... Cropping the left means to me cropping a bit a the top and at the bottom... To what extend is another question (and I would here propose to go quite tight). Anyhow, what's the result like ? Yes, the eye leads to the land now... Yes the picture is harmonious. It might even gain depth too... The perspective will be stronger... And the result is nice, and quite moody... maybe more touching that the present composition... This is what we could have gained. But what would we have lost ?...

 

Let me try to somehow defend the existing picture and the elves' choice and comments as well... Jeff's picture is, I feel, COLD at first. That explains why some people came to say, in substance, " Ok, 3 poles, so what ? ". (By the way, no need to be rude here...). Exactly. So, what ? I see in Jeff's composition all the difference I could see between 2 French expressions (which I translate as bad as it gets):

1) To be alone; 2) To be alone IN THE WORLD - meaning alone and lost in a large world...

 

Jeff's poles are alone and lost in a large world. Any tighter cropping might gain points on many fronts, but will loose that specific feeling of a painful isolation...

 

My conclusion will be short - my keyboard is running out of ink already... With each composition, we loose some and we win some, but the fact is, we can't (in the present case at least) simply find A BETTER COMPOSITION. What we can find, and some of you found it, is A DIFFERENT COMPOSITION, WITH A DIFFERENT IMPACT. It is possible that the resulting impact pleases more this or that person. Each of us has different and personal concerns about each picture we see and that's why this place is great. But I would suggest we always try to see exactly WHY a picture was taken this way or that way by the photographer. If we are humble in doing so, we will find a reason. And if we analyze what we would have won with a different approach, and compare it with what we would have lost, there will be no " TRUTH " in the end, but what's sure, is that we will wake up better photographers - and better men - the next morning...

Keep it simple! That's a common phrase, easily applied here. I'm not sure my monitor is providing the best view. However one does not need to see all things clearly to be captivated.

I think this photograph does quite a good job of bending the rules. I could grow bored of photography if every image I ever view had followed the rules you might find on an old Kodak manual from the 50's to an exact "T". Rules were meant to be broken, and in this case, he succeeded!

I do agree, though, that he photograph is lacking a bit of contrast between the detail of the ripples and the soupy greyness of the water; perhaps a bit of the extremes in white an black might perfect this image in my eyes. Other than that, like I say above, this one hits me right in the nose as a neat photograph!

I saw this before on Jeff's website, and must admit at first I thought I prefered his other images. But then when I looked at this again I appreciated it much more. It to me sais loneliness and isolation. The fact that the contrast is less than in Jeff's other photos in this case is what gives it the emotion.

 

Menno

Well, here we go again. A passel 10-10's, 9-9's and like that. And basically for an average or perhaps above average snapshot of a relatively static (not to say sterile) scene taken with a digital camera.

This week's pick is represented by the server's keepers as . . . perfection. Right. Better still, the commentator(s) goes on to say that this is "one of those rare images we would like to have hanging on our wall." All this coming from a collective photographic think tank which is apparently enamored of colored bubbles, man-eating Volkswagens, etc.

I disagree that this photographer has much better work to display here--perhaps he did once and has since removed this material. I will allow that this selection of Mr. Alu's is superior hands down to his first POW, but then that picture strikes me as one of the more curious POW offerings.

Anyway, back to these silly grades: is there anyone who giddily ladles out these obnoxiously high scores prepared to come forth and rationalize, in public, their thought process for doing so? Is this simply the knee-jerk reaction to "certified" art I assume it to be? Or is there some other social play at work as well, say, an effort to "play the game" in the hope that you, too, will one fine day be similarly rewarded?

I just don't get it. Even for some of the best images on this site, and I'm talking the stellar work here, not the junk we are routinely subjected to as POW selections but pictures which are visually stunning and speak clearly of technical expertise, even with this high-class work I'm hard put to think in terms of much more than an 8-8. Yet the majority of Photonet is mad for generating perfect or next-to-perfect scores for pretty much average pictures, and often enough stuff which is not even recorded half-ass competently in digital, much less on a film emulsion.

I shake my head, and I tell you with deep regret that in my opinion most of you are in need of better education.

Tony: a couple weeks ago you delivered yourself to one of the dumbest remarks I've read on this server, and this server specializes in dumb ramarks. Pointedly, you declared that "our group" is comprised of serious photographers. I, on the other hand, countered with the observation that "our group" is pretty much what you'd find on any street corner around the world in terms of its greater photographic experience and expertise. And this week's POW, with its attendant ridiculous grades, is, as far as I'm concerned, just one more reason why.

To Jeff: please don't take this as an attack on your work or you personally. Your images aren't all bad, a few are pretty good, this one included. But "good photography" it is mainly not, and indeed there are some who would argue that what you're doing (with your digital gear) isn't really photography at all but rather mere "image making." I'm not sure I agree, or at least I used to not agree completely, though the more I see of this kind of work and the soft reception it's given I'm beginning to wonder if I shouldn't take a firmer stand on the subject.

I'll tell you this much. The way "photography" is headed it won't be long before all we'll have to look at anymore will be "swell images," with nary an authentic photograph in sight. I don't know about the rest of you, but I think that prophecy is sad.

Holy smoke, I actually agree with Tris.

 

BTW - I see FOUR poles, and not three.

Hi Jeff,

I like this picture, it's minimalist and reminds of both Fay Godwin's 'Land' and Raymond Moore's early work.

 

But shouldn't you be working in a larger format than a Kodak with a small chip?

I only say this because your Photographs, when they are photographs (printed) and not pixels on Photo.net, well they'll suffer under the process of enlargement and you'll begin to lose those smooth tones.

 

I immediately thought this was a 5x4 print, which immediately helped me to imagine it on my wall, however I think you're shooting yourself in the foot by using a low spec digital camera.

 

I can no longer imagine this picture as a 12x16" print, and your work screams out for enlargement.

 

Your stuff needs to be on a wall, not a screen, and that camera of yours probably won't put it there.

 

rating 8/7

 

After reading most of the comments on this week's POW, I felt I had to make part of my thoughts. I am not a very experienced photographer. Most of my work on this site is from crappy "tools". I only bought an SLR recently to further explore what can be done and perhaps get more serious about the quality of my work.

 

This being said, I don't always know how to comment on images because Im not a technique guru. What I know however, is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Sure, humans perceive an aesthetically pleasing face as a median. But when it comes to more complex scenes, I think personality kicks in. What you like, what your dreams are, what you believe in, your past. It's all affecting your taste. If someone differs in opinion, it's probably because they don't share the same views. For my part, when I see something I don't like, I discard it and forget it. I try to comment only on the things I like. That way I'm letting that person know that his/her work is appreciated.

 

Moreover, I don't think it's fair to shun down innovative tools, such as photoshop. Sure, some people might use it a bit more than others. But if it makes their work nicer, it should be fine. It's just another tool after all, and it's still art. Some people might say theres not much to this shot, that its a common scene. But Jeff actually took a picture of it.

 

Jeff, I like your shot. Keep up the good work!

 

Holy smoke, I actually agree with Scott!

 

The concept is very good, but the execution is way off. Not necessarily a digital thing in this case, but your camera simply can not capture the finesse required for what you've intended.

 

 

 

Tris, that hurt. Unfortunately it was mostly true. Oh well, at least you are blessed with a thick skin for the inevitable rebuttal. I guess that if a person had only seen two photographs in their entire life they might be able to honestly rate this as a 10/10. What am I missing? I'm a big fan of minimalism, but I don't seem to find anything here that elevates this photo in that context. Well, I guess if people who don't like a photo can rate it as 1/1 others who do like it can rate it 10/10. Don't you think it would be easier to rate them as a zero or a one? You are essentially using a binary rating system anyway.

 

I have had many first hand experiences with scenes and subjects like this. Most were not very appealing photographically. First of all, I don't care much for man-made objects included in landscape photos, though I'm not sure this is a landscape photo. Secondly, there does not seem to be a great range of tones in this jpeg image. Once again this does not seem to be the best showcase for tiny digital black & white images. Please, please, people spare me the endless droning about monitor settings this week. I'll steer clear of the argument about film verses pixels. As someone stated recently, photography has always been about innovation.

 

I don't have any great issues with conforming or breaking rules of composition. I will say that to me this composition is not an attention grabber. I think you could find a dozen photos on this site with the same basic elements that are more engaging.

 

 

I think what this photo really needs is a snappy title to elevate it into a thinking piece. My suggestion, "Inundated Crucifixion." Or for a (slightly) more humorous approach, "Trouble On the Line."

 

Jeff, congratulations on your Photo of the Week. Watch out this week for sharks in the water. They are the perfect killing machines.

 

Don't you think it would be easier to rate them as a zero or a one? You are essentially using a binary rating system anyway.

Bingo!Or (as they used to say on Bullwinkle and Rocky) . . . Dennis, that hurt. Unfortunately it was mostly true.

This is a very nice shot, simple with great atmosphere. However, it really should be pointed out that Richard Misrach did a rather full series on the Salton Sea of which this photo is quite derivative.

...for all the comments on this pic. As many of you know, I use a fairly cheap (Kodak DC280 Digital) camera to take my photos. I bought the camera originally to document some of my hikes through the desert, then realized I could also fulfill my dream of doing B&W photography. At first I was a purist, and decided I did not want to manipulate the images in any way. This philosophy ended quickly as I began to play with the dodge and burn brush in Photoshop. Now, dodging and burning is my main means of photographic expression...

 

...except in this pic. This is one of the only pics in my "later" style that I left fairly untouched. I did darken the poles a little. Originally I had dodged and burned it extensively, but later realized that I really liked the subtle version (the one you see) much better. To me, this is a very "quiet" photo, and I am happy with that result.

 

As to the centered composition, there are times when nothing else will do. For me this is one of those times. What intrigued me about these particular poles is that rather than just sticking straight up out of the water, the poles on the ends are leaning slightly, forming a subtle arc. I placed them right in the center to emphasize this. Anywhere else seemed to detract from it.

 

Yes, I think this photo could certainly be improved, but more on that later. I need to go work out now!

 

Jeff

 

...the photographer of the week. Especially when I want to say something negative. Sorry Jeff, but I, um, just find this dull and uninteresting. I mean, whats the message? Given how many amazing photos there are on this site (and in Jeff's own portfolios), I find it odd that this is POW. Sorry, can't agree with this one, elves!

While this is a decent minimalist monochromatic capture,I just can't work up a great deal of enthusiasm for it.Too dark for one thing,especially around the edges.Also a bit stark and sterile.Maybe just not my taste entirely.However I congradulate you on your POW selection.

Usually, I think when someone makes an attempt at fine art black and white photography (myself included) it tends to fail. However, I do like this image, as well as the rest in the folder. Lately I have been spending hours in my school's library looking at the work of some great documentary photographers, so my head is full of complex street scenes that almost make me dizzy with a sense of movement. I like this image (at least right now) because it is perfectly still. However, I do agree that you should ditch the digital camera completely. Your work needs to be enlarged and printed in order to do it justification.

It is an interesting attempt, but I wouldn't pay money for this. There's also severe vignetting in the corners, or is this intentional?

 

There are many similar pictures which are much better executed. Take Ansel Adams' image with a few blades of grass sticking out of the water. There is just something in that composition which is powerful and evocative, but in no way is it boring.

Then, who's right ? Who's wrong ? In my opinion, all the comments I read are right !!! I did notice that some prefer the

horizon not so centralized whereas it doesn't disturb somebody else. I've noticed difference of opinions about the pros

and cons of a central position of the poles... Yet, I feel all is right ! Am I mad ???

 

I think the reason that the horizon splitting the middle of the frame, the clouds, etc. give mixed feeling is because they are both so etherial in this image. Normally, I would like to see a horizon NOT in the middle, obviously. But you have to work to FIND the horizon in this image, the difference in tone is barely there. Same with the clouds. They are pretty interesting clouds, but obscured by some kind of haze or something. "Minimalist"? Perhaps. But there's something oddly contradictary about giving this "minimalist" image a maximum rating. I cringe to bring it up yet again (forgive me!) but it's almost like there is a BW+3 score going on. The comment about calling this "perfect" is correct. I would be very reluctant to call anything perfect, but if I did, it would be closer to perfect than this image.