Paul

Also, while I know you weren't using a real camera, presumably it can be focused a little better than this.

I don't know . . . what you see but I can see (and damn near can feel) the texture of the hat and if that isn't good focus then . . . I don't know.

For those of you who don't "get it", and mean it sincerely, look at it this way: if Paul had been butted up against the right border, Paul and I would have been fellow bystanders looking at the same thing, which would not be in the picture, and so would leave a feeling of incompleteness, rather than mystery. As it is composed, Paul is the subject, and I am staring at him and hoping he doesn't notice me and move on. How many times have each of us almost without realizing it, have found ourselves staring at someone in an airport lobby, museum, mall, whatever, and wondering what they were deep in thought about?

As to the photoshop comment, an effect like this in the camera is not at all difficult. Nor is it difficult to say "it's ok, but I would have done this, or I would have done that..." It's easy to do, and anyone could have done it; but nobody else did.

And as an added bonus, the entire portrait resembles the profile of an eye.

I first saw this image of Peter's some time ago and rated it 10/9. Gratifying to see it's made POW. The elves have made an excellent choice here. The image is simple and beautiful; unlike some of the POWs lately. Congratulations Peter!

This photo reminds me of Anthony Hopkins playing Hannibal.

A very unique and interesting portrait. A great example of how less is more. Thanks and Happy New Year!!!

I have been looking at this image for quarter an hour now, trying to see what it is I am missing. The impact it has had on so many viewers says that there must be something there, but my eyes are surely failing. I find it uncomfortably difficult to critique because usually I find something positive to take away and/or compensate for any negative observations. In acknowledging the political divides on this site I must point out I belong more to the digital than traditional camp, so I say without bias, and with regret to friends, that I find nothing appealing, original, aesthetic, meaningful, or artistic about this photo. My critique therefore arises in response to the accolades. As a personal exercise or experimentation then fine yes it is a worthy project, but as a noted 'masterpiece' I view it as a disappointment.

 

To clarify specifics, I find there is far too little detail to enjoy. Tris mentions the texture and focus on the hat, but surely the focus should be on the facial elements or some hint of expression? The hat is an accessory, unless this is supposed to be a hat portrait. The beard seems well out of focus to me, as do the highlighted features. Employing this lighting technique, I would like to see more 'form'. Barely any skin or physical features visible, combined with the chosen 'straight' profile rather than angled, leaves much to be desired in terms of creativity and depth. The composition has been praised but again I don't see it. Choosing to place the face to the left, leaving so much black to the right, appears poor design to me. Perhaps it is the square format, which somebody mentions we are not so accustomed, but I don't feel square format to be enhancing anything. It is claimed the darkness leaves the visuals to the imagination & lends mystery, but it is quite apparent it is a man in a hat, and my imagination just doesn't conjure up anything exciting in tandem. I appreciate Anson's comments about the differences of positioning affecting the relations between subject/viewer, but as a viewer I can't help feeling 'irritated' by his position, as though stood ignorantly, blocking my way when I wish to proceed upon my forward facing path.

 

If there were less of a blank area to the right of the subject, and more space (with some gentle hint of light source) to the left, then I think the composition may work better. Then if the face were slightly looking toward the cam, with more skin & form visible (perhaps an eye or some characterising wrinkles), I would better appreciate the result. Nevertheless congrats Peter, for successfully conveying *whatever it is* to so many others.

 

i agree that this image has little emotional value (for me anyway), and one might be looking in vain for some emotional connection, some story of humanity as it were. perhaps this is the real "blood, sweat and tears" that some are after (for me anyway). "mysterious" only gets me so far, but not enough to be truly provocative. is there a difference??

 

then why don't i mind looking at it so much?? i agree with tris that this shot works for many different reasons. and the focus seems fine with me too. this image is in the "eye candy" category for me. just a pleasure to look at. and i think that is just fine.

 

but eye candy is just that, eye candy. all sweet and no substance. beautiful to be sure, but no meat (sorry vegans). no story, no complexity, no humanity, no emotional core. i think this was the inexplicable "beauty" of last week pic. and i think i agree. can i do that??

 

grant it, some would say capturing all these intangibles are easier in a "documentary, 35mm lens" shot than a head and shoulders portrait. (i would say so) but then what to do with dorothea lange and her portraits that have become icons precisely because they connect humanity, blood sweat and tears. all in a mothers face. her face is a novel, a sermon in itself. and this too is a picture that i can and have looked and looked and looked at. but she is no eye candy.

 

like mr. schuler, i have no beef (sorry vegans) with commercial art, and i agree that it hurts no one to "be kind to strangers on the street". (actually i imagine that it only serves everyone to do so)

 

but if i had a critique in this analogy, it would be that a great picture is the stranger on the street that grabs you by the shirt collar and screams "LISTEN TO ME AND CONNECT". a great picture is the stranger no more. many have suggested that they want to see more of this man's face, and i wonder too if his face, or even his profile reveals more. more that i would have connected with anyway.

 

 

 

 

Tony Dummett, don't look under your bed either, because you might find some scary creatures there too.

I think this is a very nice picture, and I certainly would be pleased with it had i taken it, but I have to agree with some others that it doesn't do a whole lot for me.

 

The composition doesn't bother me, it just doesn't seem to have a lot to draw me in. I don't see a lot of character, that I guess some assume is coming from the whiskers and the hat. He looks like a nice enough person, but there just isn't enough expression or features to make any personal connection to the person. Sort of like the opposite of last weeks POW where the people were right up in your face, no subtlty. Some folks didn't like that at all, but this one takes it to another extreme where you have to assume everything about the person if you take this as a portrait, or nothing if you look at it as a study in lighting, which I do. In that regard, this is a good job at doing what every student of photography tries to do: the person by the window (judging by the earlier comments I assume there was a window on the left that has been cropped out).

 

It is a very nice photograph, it is technically very nice and an excellent example of how natural light can gently paint a subject but to me it doesn't really stand out. Most "by the window" portraits look very staged and unnatural, and this one almost gets away from that, but not quite, and cropping out the window and adding a lot of blackness to the back doesn't quite do enough in my opinion.

 

Congratulations, a very gentle and pleasant photograph. He looks liek a very good friend of mine and I would have loved to have ahd a picture of him like this.

I very much agree with Andre. I too find Tony's comments about Universe #1 and #2 to be very black and white.

 

I happen to think that neither this weeks POW and last weeks POW are great photographs, and there should be room for this opinion.

 

Leaving last weeks POW aside, my major criticism about this photo is that while the composition and the coloring is good, the lighting is not very sophisticated. I would have liked to see a little more light falling on the subjects face so that I can identify the person, read his mood, and thus understand a little bit more about what he is about. As it stands now, the picture, too, is very black and white.

 

Can somebody please tell me what blood, sweat, and tears have to do with viewing a photograph?!? Are you implying that the harder I work the better the shot will be?

 

If this is the case then I already know that I got some GREAT full moon shots last night without even developing the film. I was out all night in minus 30 Celsius with a good wind, going through almost a full battery per roll of film, trying not to breath within ten feet of any lens So that MUST mean that my shots will be great,right?

 

The original comment by Mr Dummett (Where are the blood, sweat or tears here? The effort in calculating a fine exposure or the vision, the depth, the compelling stamp of expertise or sympathy or statement?) Implies that this final product was NOT what the photographer had envisioned. How do you know this?

 

Here is a shot I took by COMPLETE ACCIDENT. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=486304

I squeezed the trigger a bit too tight while I was carrying my camera along the water. Does the lack of effort diminish the image? If so then I need to find a different Universe.

 

Let me be the first to say that it would be hard to diminish that image.

Im not sure if that is a slam or a compliment Dennis but soon as I figure it out I am going to go through ALL your pictures and give them 1s or 10s respectively! LOL ;-)

The first time I saw this photo, I wondered when it would get to be POW.

 

Congrats!

This weeks POW, to my eyes, is boring and pretentious, all technique and no feeling. I also think that it is exactly what the photographer had envisioned but that doesnt make it a good photograph. The difference between this image and Kyles is one of aesthetic judgement. Like all found art, his footprints shot is successful not because of the effort made beforehand Mr Dummetts blood, sweat or tears but in its selection after the fact. Which is what I suspect Mr Dummett was really referring to anyway.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

 

Please show a bit more respect for our community's #1 rated photographer. People of Universe 1 obviously love his pretty pictures enough for him to sell a whole range of calendars (containing 12 each, I assume) for a mere $9.99 and still turn a profit. The Kenny Rogers and velvet oil painting comments sum up the popularity of this efort and there is little else to add.

 

BTW--this is definitely NOT a portrait and I would really love to know who picked it as one (I'm pretty sure the elves have handed over PoW duties to other people for the past few weeks).

I second the positive comments above. I really like the way you've placed him to the left, looking out of the picture. Excellent all-around.

 

http://dowker.math.utk.edu/jpg/POW.jpg

 

Whatever the photographer's "final vision" was, it doesn't seem to have been what he shot in the camera.

 

I grew intrigued about all that black area that everyone's been going on about, you know, the "masterful" lighting and composition bit? So I put the picture through a simple Filter Factory filter, designed to separate out the pure black (R=0, G=0, B=0) pixels and turn them bright red so I could see the graduation from exposed area to "masterfully" lit background. A sort of digital "litmus test".

 

This is the filter, if you want to try it yourselves:

 

R: r+g+b==0?255:r

G: g

B: b

 

The result is above. That much vaunted "negative space", under the brim of the hat, through the neck and shoulder area (leaving the outline), some of the face, all of the left hand side, the hatband (or most of it) and of course the entire right side of the picture looks suspiciously like it was added post-exposure by creating a series of square marquees and filling them in with black pixels. If this is so, that "glint of light on the collar" is only a glint because the rest of the collar was masked out on a PC screen. Those "subtle light strokes" conceal the broadsword of the roaring Photoshop mouse.

 

A quick look at the photographer's portfolio will reveal to anyone who cares to look that he is right into the digital effects "thing". We shouldn't be surprised that this pic seems to be in the same genre.

 

So are we talking now about a genuine photograph or a piece of post-production graphic art? If it's a photograph it has been very heavily and artifically altered from the original in-camera creation. If graphic art (where such manipulation is applauded), please don't ask me if I think EDIT/FILL/BLACK in Photoshop is a masterful use of the available software (the bluntness of my answer might upset Tris). And please don't award credit for it as a photograph... or should I say, "the finest image on photo.net"? Sheesh...

 

Darkness in a photograph can be a wonderful thing. It can convey fear and suspense. It can be an integral part of composition, appealing to our reptilian eyes, with the boundary between dark and light adding contrast and balance, allowing the eye to rest on the creative centre of the image and take it all in.

 

In other cases it is just a pragmatic sort of pre-press layout effect (falling short of qualifying as a photographic compositional element), easily rendered, adding little but ersatz artiness and story-board artifice.

 

I may be a bitter old Klingon from Universe #2, but I'm almost sure the silicon-based Space Cadets of Universe #1 have been hoodwinked here.

 

(I know, I know, you all still like it anyway...)

Tony.

 

I don't give a sh*t how he got there--it's still a piece of kitsch. I do object, however, to the severe cropping. If you've made such an enormous framing misjudgment (at least 33% here), try again and don't waste our time. Please correct me on that last point if the Finepix is actually a medium/square format camera.

 

BTW--who the hell wears sissy hats like that? Certainly not a cannibal.

Don't hold back man, tell us how you really feel. Do I detect some post holiday frustration?

 

I actually thought it was Kenny Rogers wearing a pimp hat at first. "You got to know when to hold 'em, you got to know when to stroll 'em."

Well it seems that Peter Christoph has violated Article 41, Section 13 of the Universe #2 Law! Take him away and flog him I say! He went from vision to final product by way of Adobe® instead of gobo cards, ND filters, and dark room slavery.

 

Im sorry Tony, I dont get it. What is your point?

 

PS, your red rendition actually looks kind of cool! in an artsy fartsy kind of way.

 

Don't hold back man, tell us how you really feel.--Dennis

 

Sorry dude, I have to hold back: new year's resolution to be a kinder, gentler contributor on Photonet.

 

no digital photography expert but the 'broadsword of the roaring Photoshop mouse' Tony uncovered looks more like jpeg compression to me.--Mark Meyer

 

I suspect the same, but let it not take away from the historical importance of Tony Dummett's first stab at digital imaging, though his choice of scarlet red really exposed him for a novice. Only time will tell.

Are morons ubiquitious??

Universe 1, Universe 2, real cameras, fake cameras, black space, blah blah blah -- You're all making me dizzy.

It seems to me that you folks have taken the time to criticize this image to the enth degree. What ever happened to just saying to the maker and holder of the top spot (of which YOU are NOT) "Job well done."

 

Rule number one: Art is subjective.

 

Rule number two: You like an image or not.

 

Rule number three: See rule number one.

 

If all the photos taken of human beings were full-frontal faces, lit from the front and exposed at f64 -- that would probably make some folks happy, but not most.

 

By the way, the shot of the "man in the hat" is really a shot of a woman without a hat and shot full-frontal in total daylight and without a beard or glasses. I think she may also be a Klingon. (I thought Kling ons were something else.)

 

The bottom line is that the person who took this image was smart enough to venture onto this site, submit his work for the world to view and ultimately be chosen for the top spot for the week. It's his fifteen minutes in the spotlight, and if you try hard enough and take absolutely perfectly posed, composed, and exposed photographs with your real cameras with real film -- hey, maybe you'll be lucky too. Good luck.

 

Oh, I almost forgot . . . "Job well done!" Keep up the good work and don't let these bastards get you down. (I think Gen Pershing or Gen Bradley said that first.)

 

PL

 

 

Paul.

 

If that's how you evaluate the worthiness of art, I suspect you've got about as much taste as your namesake in the photo who chooses to plonk a second-rate pimp hat on his head (though, ironically enough, in matters of fashion, it is sometimes useful to look around at what everyone else is (not) doing).

I wanted to say what you said Vuk (about the kitsch and the hat... we had a hat like that a few POWs ago, from the soft porn guy) but, you see, I've pre-paid my next holiday in U#1 with frequent flyer points from U#2, and I don't want to either end up as a JPEG artefact on the ratings list or upset the 97,364 silicon-based bipedal Space Lemmings that lerrrve pix like this before I even arrive (I've got posted pet and baby pictures to nurture, after all).

 

As the the planet Jpeg... I'll withdraw the word "square" (the marquee could have been round). Contrary to popular wisdom, CCD cameras don't have less dynamic range than film, they have more. There would have been something to pick up in some of those shadow areas. Extensive areas of black like this just aren't natural, as Tris says below (we time travel in U#2 as well, although mostly only to the Past).

 

Typical of some that they see my hi-tech illustration as "art" (they probably get off on the TV test pattern too... all those complementary colors and that shimmering effect! Wow!).

 

Paul, you should bone up on your photo.net history before you start getting cocky about defending contributors with a mere 7 pictures posted (which seems to be the recipe for success nowadays).