Light my fire

So far, so good...

I'm a bit lost as to why this is considered above average. It's a line of match sticks and it seems very contrived and gimicky to me.

 

A star for Bruce, please.

10 on originality to everyone who has attempted to synthesize some significance out of this photo, to quote myself. It isn't in the photo, though.

the matches look too hairy to me

i can appreciate the technical difficulties associated with this shot and would be pleased if i could produce it myself. does that make this photo original? i'm with bruce, i think the ratings are to high. i find it very literal, matches burning, that's all. it may work well on the cover of an introductory chemistry text book.

A mildly interesting picture, to be sure, but certainly not something I'd want to hang on my wall.

This photo does have movement - or perhaps a sense of expectation/anticipation. So much so that it almost makes me laugh.The technical quality, the pleasing colours and the shape of the flame make it aesthetically a pleasure.

OK, I have to say that the framing of this shot bothers me. We know that by nature heat rises straight up like a tree. In this shot the softer orange flame of the matches on the left slopes right with a graceful curve. The white flame from the igniting match on the right slopes gracefully left to converge with the former. These two sloping sides combined with the arch formed by the non-visible flame along the bottom creates a shape not unlike the Eiffel Tower light up at night.

 

My problem is that the top and the left of the form created by the flame are chopped off.

It gives me a sense of tension because I cannot see the termination of the flame.

 

I might be more likely to appretiate this shot because my nick-name used to be "pyro" back when my job involved useing explosives. I love the nature of fire!

This picture does remind me of children trying to burn down a brush-fence, as it quite often happened in this country.

This picture is so striking to me in its complete lack of movement. If a person is "seeing" the flame jump from one match to the other, this is because they're expecting it to do so. Someone who had never seen matches before wouldn't infer the progress of the flame based on the image. The movement is in the mind, not the photo. And since there's no smoke coming from the burnt matches, there's no visual clue to where the fire has been and where its going. Had they been smoking, it would look more like a fuse, but that's completely absent here.

The line of the matches is dead straight, parallel with the bottom of the frame. There's almost no perspective or depth-of-field, therefore no movement inwards. The black background carries as much weight as the foreground, and threatens to swallow the light. The only suggestion of movement is in the arc of the flame, but it just disappears off the frame without doing much or leading anywhere.

Admittedly, good focus and lighting. Composition is so flat that it works only as an abstract study of form, and not very interesting at that.

Some quick off-topic comments on improving photo.net.

 

First, a prior comment noted that comments should be moderated, perhaps even threaded -- great idea. Check out slashdot.org (or countless other similar sites) for a clean and simple way to do exactly that. IIRC, the SlashCode is Open Source, so it's all yours to take and modify for what you need here.

 

Second, I certainly agree with having the photographer say something about their photo. Many of us, being guys, would love the technical information. The artistic part of all of us would also, I suspect, appreciate the photographer's take on why their picture is good, why they bothered to take it, etc. Perhaps they could be e-mailed notifying them of their selection and _they_ could make the comment, rather than the @#$% left behind by the POW elves. That way if the comment sucked, at least we could blame it on the photographer, rather than the nameless faceless elves of some corporation.

 

Just my $.02.

I don't know about some "corporation," Daniel. If it is explained who actually picks these POW's I'd appreciate knowing where. Absent such knowledge I'd suggest the likelihood is strong that this site is run as a sort of academic project. Does Dr. Greenspun still teach at MIT? If so, you might have to look no further than his students.

 

I see a strip of matches, from a matchbook. Part of the strip is burning, one match ignites. The movement in the picture is complicated, and creates tension.

 

The part of the strip that is burning, up to and including the igniting match, gives the vector of the first movement: left to right. This movement is interrupted by the flame from the igniting match, which curves back and upward, caught in the updraft of the existing flame, and following the centralizing tendency of the flame.

 

And we have our anticipation of knowing what will happen with a match head close to a flame, reinforced by what obviously *has* happened to match heads close to a flame; a continuation of the left to right vector.

 

Wonderful!

 

People have suggested to crop the picture and leave just one unburned match, but I like the big black blob, and the other, progressively darker unburned matches. But that half match doesn't add much, in my opinion.

 

I like this picture very much; perhaps missing the cliché just shows me for the beginner I am.

Technically slightly interesting. Visually uninspiring. There are so many better images on the site and I add my voice to those disappointed that this was awarded Picture of the Week.

Personally, I find this image to be very good technically. I applaud the great effort and skill that went into making this shot work. Aesthetically it has some inexplicable shallow feel to it but that is most likely due to the subject matter and the polish of the shot.

 

Reading this week's comments has been depressing. I have not been a member for too long but I enjoyed the feeling that this forum was above the pettiness I've witnessed at others and actually fostered creative and intelligent discussion that helps beginning photographers like myself. Please people...lets return to the focus of this forum and leave the flaming for the newbies on AOL and junior high.

First of all, congratulations on being chosen.

 

Anyone who cares will notice that I'm new here. I've read the commentary for weeks/months, but hadn't subscribed until lately. It's usually an entertaining diversion to see Tris' knee-jerk, can't avoid responding, responses. I love seeing Mary's comments if only to be able to anticipate what may be here next time I look.

 

To the picture... I'm a relative novice, I use the POW. My objective is to attempt to discover how I might take a similar shot. For this one, my thinking is this:

 

Take a book of matches (I don't have the nifty wood ones like these, but I've seen them). Burn the first one. How long before they all go? Tris' suggestion that it's a 1s shutter seems about 200x too long to me.

 

Therefore, it seems that I'd have to use a flash. When I hold a match in the dark, I don't see that much of the light gets onto the stick itself, so these need to be lit in order to get the sticks so bright.

 

I don't wonder about smoke. When I burn a match, I don't see the smoke til I blow it out. In any case, the smoke is generally above the level of the flame, certainly above the head. When you light a book of matches, and the ignition is moving along the line, the first ones are still lit (as can be seen in this image). Therefore, I would not expect smoke.

 

So, I'd try, dark room, stop down a couple from a correct exposure on the wood with a flash (unlit matches), up close, very small DOF, distant away from background so it's dark, light the first match wait a half-sec and click.

 

I'd probably stock up about 30 books of these nifty wood matches and see what I get. Then chalk up what I learned in my attempt to capture the art this photographer has shared with me.

David, I think you need to stop drinking and re-read your comments

 

actively tolerate ?!? as opposed to ... inactively intolerante?!? is this suppose to make sense?

 

by so doing create an environment of toleration You think toleration is a bad thing?

 

You have been propagating some strange membership scheme but do you really think that any exclusionary measure can replace toleration? Do you think that censorship in your new fangled membership scheme would take the place of civility?

 

If you cant learn to tolerate anybody and everybody on this level then you surely wont on any other level. Maybe you should reconsider your own concepts before you change the world.

 

Before WWII Hitler tried to sensor art (and people for that matter) by opening a gallery that was intended to show how superior the classics were compared to the new abstract style (which he considered excrement). It backfired in a huge way. He gave the new art form the biggest debut ever. I believe the attendance is still a world record. Of course all abstract artist were forced to leave the country.

 

Do you think that anybody who doesnt conform to your ideas should leave this site?

 

Point being: Two things you cant subdue indefinitely are people and art. Start your own site and figure it out for yourself.

 

sociopath members are there any other kind?

 

I see this site as a shrine to the art and THAT is your biggest misconception! This site is an active learning forum very unlike a shrine.

 

No Michael, I was not familiar with Godwins Law but I think its merit is subject to the merit each person decides to give it. Obviously you give it plenty. I do not think that my comparison was half as dramatic as you are trying to imply. I was merely referring to a well know occurrence in art history. What you turn it into is out of my hands.

it's very original. in one of the other comments they said waiting for that middle match created a good balance i believe that's true. composition is perfect. all the technical aspects of the picture are nearly perfect. but if this was put up in an art gallery i'd walk right past it. it just doesn't strike me as a picture i'd stop and look in awe at.

Sorry Micheal, I guess I sounded too direct, but you are right. Putting my Hitler analogy into proper context was a good idea. Thanks.

 

To David:Wow! and I thought I had problems! How the heck did you read religion into this?

 

PS: The current system is not arbitrary, it just doesnt include you. It is subject to its own rules and definitely conforms to the Law. Isnt this site Mr. Greenspuns liberty at work? How is this site breaking the Law? Nothing has been demanded of anybody so why should this site require our endorsement?

 

/photodb/image-display?photo_id=430061&size=lg

My fellow photographer. One, this is not the place to solve personal disputes. Though I shouldn't need to tell you this, at least a dozen others have.

Two, if you knew more about computer Virus' aside from how to use Norton to get rid of them, then you can understand that just about anybody you know can "send" you a virus.I don't know of the technical details specifically, but there are a few viruses out there that will search for any e-mail address on a person's local harddisk, searching any location, including HTML and Cookie files that can be found in Netscape or Internet Explorer's Browser cache. Once found, it can send false e-mails including itself either "To" and/or "From" one of those given e-mail addresses. I've known people to get a Virus attached e-mail from themselves. I've even had a relative "send" me a virus. I called her up only to find that she never sent me an e-mail that day.

You've been one of a million of targets for some sophmore level computer science major who has decided to have a little fun. Just delete the message and get on with your real life.

David,

 

You say you don't care about your ratings or ranking yet the whole reason you are upset is because of the ratings "hooliganism" you experienced. Those two facts don't make sense together. The site has so much more to offer than the ratings system. If the ratings system bother's you then ignore it like others do. Also your off subject postings can also be viewed as hooliganism. You're trying to bully your opinion on others.

 

For anyone that hasn't figured this out. A public scoring system that is mostly unmoderated and used by thousands of people against thousands of photos isn't going to be very fair.

 

I'm curious to know what you think you accomplished with your boycot? So, you deleted all your photos, big deal. I'm sure membership and activity will drop off dramatically now. I can see how much quicker the site is responding now. Even if most of the photographers removed their portfolios the site wouldn't suffer. Some may even argue that it would improve and go back to more of what it was.

 

I really want to ignore you but I'm also worried someone might take you seriously. You're constantly repeating yourself without really giving details. In our private exchanges you teased me by saying you would be getting to the point but then found an excuse not to. The phrase "if you can't sing well sing loud" is coming to mind for some reason.

 

The virus thing happens quite regularly don't try and twist everything to suit your position.

 

I don't think I'm even going to bother looking at POW next week. I'm not boycotting it. I know that what little input I have on the photo is irrelavent and would hardly be missed but it will make my week more pleasant to not have to read this bullshit.

I've waded through the mire of two POWs and I've got it - David, Tris and Vuk - they ARE the elves........