Triptych.

EXCELLENT Work . love it

really a great work. Compliments.

I think this is absolutely beautiful. Very creative. I like this very much.

Very artistic...

Not the usual, boring nudes. Congrats. mandi, Roberto

This image has been selected for discussion. It is not necessarily the "best" picture the Elves have seen this week, nor is it a contest. It is simply an image that the Elves found interesting and worthy of discussion. Discussion of photo.net policy, including the choice of Photograph of the Week should not take place here, but in the Site Feedback forum.

When including images, please make sure they are relevant to the discussion, not more than 511 pixels wide, sufficiently compressed and make sure to enter a caption when uploading.

I'm not transported by this montage.. Usualy, people say it's best to start a critic by the general and end by the detail, but here the detail is too shocking and makes it difficult for me to appreciate the general. The detail i'm refering to is the obvious editing (especialy on the bottom of the model) and the over-use (sp?) of scratches, added smoke?, burnt frame.. it all looks too fake for me ;) The fantaisie atmosphere is, I believe, the point of the image.. it looks unreal for sure, but not in the way I would like it to be.

 

An other point is that I get the feeling it's unbalanced.. or unlinked morelike. I end up looking at each individual, and I dont get the point of the triptych.. for me the symmetry of the 2 verticals is'nt enough to make it work as a group.

 

Congratulation for pow, and cheers from France ! I'll be reading the following comments.. I'm an influencable viewer, so maybe I'll change my mind ;)

These and the Textiles portfolio are nicely creative. I would like to see the actual photos of the triptych rather than this photo of the poorly lit mounted prints. Well done.

What do you mean by shocking? (choquant?) I found shoking he is using a point & shoot camera to achieve a better result than me with a dslr!

 

I enjoy each of these photos separately but as a triptych I feel there must be a connection between them. A story of some sort from left to right OR the sides photos may be decorative elements but the main photo (in the center) should be the key photo, its raison d'etre. Now the middle one is not strong enough to justify the whole triptych.

 

What do you think? With a stronger middle photo to replace the current one?

I have to say I like the photos, because of the creativity applied to the normal average nude photos. It would take me hours to even get something to look even half this good (with digital editing). I can take a good photo (my opinion) but editing them afterwards is a separate art and skill of its own. so I appreciate seeing good creative work. Also my creativity is not that expanded yet.

Thank you for selected my photo! I'ts great news (and surprise) for me. And thank you very much for comments, suggestions and congrats :)

First, in reference to mondiani's remark that the centre panel should be the 'centerpiece' of a triptych: this isn't necessarily so: for a triptych to work it should do so as a complete unit unless the intent was otherwise and is made to work that way. Sounds sort of catch-22, but to break conventions it is best that one first knows how to work within conventions -- otherwise all you have is a happy or unhappy accident that one has very little actual control over.

 

The individual panels of the piece are interesting in themselves, particularly in reference to the atmosphere and sense of mystery conveyed. Conversely, the poses allude to a subdued sense of the dramatic but are curiously static and lack a sense of dynamism -- sort of as if the subject(s) are statues rather than people capable of motion. Unfortunately, the size on the screen can neither convey the full impact of the work nor the actual quality of the images.

 

Given all that, in my opinion the panels do not work very well as a unit despite the stylistic similarity of the panels. This is partially due to the fact that the edges of the side panels appear vignetted except for the top right corner of the left panel which looks curved out then bent inwards, which serves to separate the panels from the centre. This is further emphasized by the 'center piece' whose shading on both edges make the image look like a convex panel. This prevents the eye from naturally moving through the piece and perceiving it as unified whole.

 

Often it is small details like those that can be a detraction which takes away. The irony here is that it would take very little work on those middling little details to make this a far stronger work. In short: push this theme further to the edge, be aware of those small details that may not be readily apparent (it's easy to miss them) and you may develop the punch hiding away somewhat timidly in there.

Congratulations on your selection Jarek. I like this piece cause it raises the question of

where does the line fall between photograph and graphic art. As image makers does it

matter? Or as photographers? Is this photo.net or graphics.net? Just asking.

Congrats on POW. I love you textile images and have said so previously. In fact, the single images are stronger than this set, IMHO.

 

As far as this particular image, the balance looks nice, size wise.

But I think it would make a better diptych, sans that centre image. As a triptych it does not work for me. More is not always more.

Excellent work. All three would stand alone as super individual images.

I wish I had the insight of Wayne Haas. That's what critique means, but I doubt I'll ever possess half of that. However this image has prompted me to make a general observation. IMHO, this work has manifested the excellent skills of this photographer in both conventional photography and digital darkness, but most of all his artistic feel which I truly admire. If you're not into digital manipulation, unlike some other heavily manipulated photos, this photo (or photos rather) doesn't entail a great deal on you to imagine how the original photos should look like. For sure, these are great photos on their own rights in all senses. If it doesn't appeal to the entire masses, it should to most viewers, I reckon. Suppose you're indeed a big fan of digital manipulation, this is a great example, if not a masterpiece. Or if you just hate triptych, or even diptych, perhaps one of individual photos should attract you? :o) Apparently my comment has gone beyond this image as it is, but that's how I feel.

First, in reference to mondiani's remark that the centre panel should be the 'centerpiece' of a triptych

I didn't say so.

Jarek your work is stunning. I do not like this tritych as much as the textile series in your portfolio. Your lighting is masterful and your photoshop work wonderful. If I were to choose a POW from your portfolio I would have chosen textile #2. I am also impressed that you've taken these with a Canon G3 and a G5. Allan

While I think there are many elements of this that are well done in terms of technique, lighting, composition, color - I don't find this piece compelling like I do other of Jarek's work. It's hard to put my finger on it but my first reaction is that it lacks the emotional impact of, say, his "Portrait No. 1." Maybe it is that, while it is aesthetically interesting, and technically intriguing, I find there is very little being communicated here.

Congratulations Jarek, I love your work and it's pleasant to see it being recognized. I do though wish we could see the original unedited photos. I am a big fan of photoshop but i am a bigger fan of photography itself. I am sure your originals are just as great as the edited work and I hope you share them with us in the future.

How large are these prints? I like the triptych and the color palate generally. The antique character is well-executed. I like the imagination that went into these.

 

I'm wondering if they wouldn't have more impact (for me) if a token bit of the skin (only) was *slightly* pinker: On the monitor, tiny size, they actually don't seem like photographs. If they delivered just a bit more photo character I think they'd be stronger. But they're undoubtedly stronger as prints, as is.

...I do agree with some of Wayne Haas's reservations, particularly noting the lack of connection or movement between panels: the tryptich concept is normally intended to demonstrate related meanings, not just three independent, similar images. But these do look good together.

 

There appears no deep reason to hang them as a tryptich: I think they were intended simply as decoration. They accomplish that handsomely.

 

Unlike Wayne, I don't find the vignette/damage at the corners distracting and I suspect it'd be even less distracting in mounted prints. It'd just seem "antique."

My comments don't seem particularly original here, but I would like to say that I like the work overall very much. It's consistent with the other, very original work by a very talented artist. I like the palette and the ambiance a great deal. But, like some others have said, I don't understand the need of the triptych. I don't see the relationship between the three pieces leading the eye from one to the other. I think each photo is strong by itself. This is one of those examples that I wouldn't even label as photography, but art. I mean that as a high compliment.

There need be no argument that a triptych should comprise of three connected panels, in which the work of art displays a single coherent scene.

Certainly, it does not contain the typical scene of a traditional triptych, such as we might see on a church alter. It does though conform to the basic definition, through a display of poses that are contrasted across the panels.

The pose of the woman on the left mirrors that of the woman on the opposite panel. They stand within a similar environment, yet their clothing reacts quite differently and the subtle ambient differences effected by the smoke and local lighting, enhance the suggestion of contrasting emotional reactions.

The woman lying on the floor behaves and is adorned, in an acutely different way. Her reclining pose beneath a transparent veil, set within the larger central frame, portrays a more sophisticated emotion. For in addition to the vulnerable suggestion of her dress, she also seems at once to possess the strength and confidence of the woman on her left, and to know the pain and rejection of the woman on her right.

Seen in this way, there is indeed coherence to the emotional theme displayed across the tri-parted scene.

Still, this critique is no more than my own artistic and emotional projection and I would be interested to know what Jarek had in mind, as he created these characters and bought them together on a triptych mural.

Peter

p.s. Jared, I am very impressed both by the technical presentation of the image and your artistic expression of the displayed emotions.

POW forces you to look longer at an image...its a good thing. It requires you to verbalize what you like or dont like about an image... even better.

I'm saying this, because again with this image I love the very first impact, but then very quickly it starts to dissapoint me. Most of all because there is no message... or its so hidden, only the creator might know it. (women on a chalkboard?)

Thats ok.. not every image must have a message, maybe it was just intended to be graphics and sculptures? The very first pose on the left is strong and coming from the left a great intro, but then the middle part... which supposed to be the "heart and soul".. is the weakest of all three, looking too much and too hard to please the concept,too ordinary. The pose is not original at all, the arranged "drapping" to careless and stiff. It does not work together, even the last pose is not sculptural enough. The dodging and burning is ok, but not perfect, esp in the lower middle section again.

 

Now, women-sculptures on a chalk-board.. that could be indeed a great concept, but it falls way short in this case. Still even the try is admirable and I very much like the first part of the series.. well done, but not exceptional.