Paul

I assumed all along this image had been rendered heavily. The light for one thing isn't real world in conception--real light doesn't just reflect out of thin air but streams in from somewhere as well in order that it might reflect, and at that then this reflected light shoots off in some direction to do its own thing and like that; besides, the entire package just looks too neat and tightly wrapped. That does not mean I'd grade down on the supposed manipulation with software. The latter's a given for superior digital images (by that I mean images presented in a digital or Web-ready format), whether originally conceived in an analog medium or otherwise.

Had it been me I'd have taken the cloning tool or paint brush, set the width to 150 or so, dialed down the opacity to 75% and just clicked and clicked to a more-or-less "black" background.

And no, JPEG will not automatically render a value of 0,0,0 or 255,255,255. Indeed, these values are rarely found in natural photographic images. Go check this out for yourself. Move your pointer over any image you choose in your image-editing software of choice and tell me how often you come across any true whites or blacks. Not often will be the answer, I know already.

As for these grade categories: a wiser approach might be to change Originality or Cleverness (the nerd who thought the latter term up ought to be strung high) to Concept, and then change over Aesthetics to something complementary, say Implementation. Anything as long as we're able to better make sense of this process. Of course this will not serve to filter out the airheads who insist on assigning willy-nilly scores of 1-1 and 10-10 at the drop of a hat, but then there's no cure for that malaise. (I'm told they're working on that somewhere, though.)

There are enough of them on the floor of "Net" to break your neck on........YOU HAVE ALL LOST THEM!!

Kyle, Good for you for professing to actually shooting something recently (Full Moon) The rest seem to be shooting their feet.

 

I like the "image" at first glance, I don't know how to rate it because it does seem to evoke a "Mucho Post Processing" effect, then again, I could be wrong. Image.net??? Photoshop.net?? Ahhh! Jpegholdthemayoextracheese.net!!

 

I believe that if you scanned a Negative or uploaded a digital image and subjected it to minor color/curve/levels/burning/dodging adjustments, then it is still rightfully called a photograph. If you did much more than that, composite work, color replacement,cloning other than dust related, in other words " Ya REALLY mickey'd with it" Then it should be called a digital image (Even though they ALL are now)

 

It is a nice image, it does lack emotion, timing, a sence of belonging if that is what you are looking for. If it is represented as a photograph, than in my opinion, it looks a little like dessert before dinner....kinda fudgy!

 

I have several images that people question in the realm of photoshopping. I LOVE to show the slides and negatives on these.

 

Peter, I have not scrolled through the rope of the week but have you any comments on this jive?

 

I'll check in later. I am heading off to Cambodia tomorrow. Have fun guys.

 

 

Christian.

 

Your recent comments on my photos (although mostly ill-founded) suggested you were intolerant of any semblance of digital manipulation. Have you changed your mind in the last 48 hours?

 

BTW--Ian MacEachern will vouch for the fact that my impressions of this picture were formed well before I had any clue Mr. Christoph was at the top of the "member" list.

As long as we're on the subject of manipulated images, check this out:

Sunrise from my window - Resubmittet

What gets me is that it's so garish and yet seems to attract some. Even so it's a shade better than the out-of-focus and faded-away giraffe I was treated to on the directly preceeding page, and that was getting a soft ride, too.

Scrolling through your recent comment history, Christian, you seem capable of the odd aggro, self-opinionated, outright arrogant post yourself (viz your acerbic exchanges with Vuk and Marilou). So how come you're now a sober, etiquette-conscious member of - wait for it - "the bulk of us" all of a sudden?

 

All you can think of is jealousy etc. etc. (rave, rave, blah, blah... round up the usuual suspects) as an explanation for assertive comments. Zero imagination required for that.

I think more empty space in front of the man, than behind him would be better. Since backgound is black maybe converting the frame to the more rectangular will improve it.

Lots of black:

I do not have a problem with digitally manipulating an image to get the effect apparent here. I really don't think it matters HOW it was done, just whether it was worthwhile. It's not relevant whether it's "digital black" or heavy darkroom burning-in. Some people can't help but comment negatively on digitally-sourced images, which I think illustrates prejudice. Surely it should be judged by the end result rather than the means?

 

Square crop:

I don't care what shape the original image was, I equally don't have a problem with cropping an image to a square, or a panoramic format as desired.

 

This image strikes me as an exercise in lighting which, while interesting, does not hold the attention for long. This, I feel, is because there is insufficient information to make this anything more than an exercise. It might work as CD cover art because CDs use the blank space for text, and the cover really has only one purpose - to attract attention when competing with 1000 other CDs in a shop.

 

As a photograph on its own it suffers from the aforementioned lack of information - it's just too minimal. It is also unbalanced. There is no way I can be happy with this fellow's face being this close to the edge of the frame. You can argue that 'breaking the rules' is an artist's prerogative, but an image that does so has to be successful. This one doesn't.However, I do like the colour and texture of the hat. I don't think this image works any better in b&w. The cropped image posted by Ovidiu Moise further down this page is a more balanced composition. But I disagree with Ovidiu's comment - how can you rate an almost monochromatic image as being significantly better (9/9 v 6/5) if it was in b&w? I do not understand that logic.

Tris... are you suggesting it's a 'fake' because (0,0,0) shows up too frequently? If CCD noise disturbed the uniform black in such an image, the sensible response would be to kill the noise with levels. JPEGs can keep a constant color away from boundaries. If they couldn't, you couldn't edit it out, as it would return when you saved again.

I don't think the picture's a "fake." I gave it what I consider to be a fair score based on what I've seen (it's a striking image) and in spite of any personal reservations re everything else--in fact for me that's a beefy grade!

Interesting you should mention the way JPEG handles colors. A shift will place every time an image is saved and the effect can be hardly predicted on the near end--they call this format "lossy" for nothing.

I like it when top-rated photographers start slaying eachother! More blood please! Keep them guns working overhours! It makes room for people like Jo, Tris, me and my beloved brother Wim to move up higher on this list! We can't wait to be in the top ten, but a lot still has to be done. Cambodian Khmer Rouge are from now on responsible for deleting Mr. Bayer as soon as possible. I e-mailed them about his arrival down there. Well, anyway, for me it was surprising that Mr. Jo Voets dropped down on this list of shame a good 100 positions after his pic was rewarded Picture of the Week. Luckily he just doesn't give a damn about this list... Most of the time Photographers move up when they get a POW...Well, keep the blood flowing guys, it's, as always, fun to be in here. Happy New Year everybody, but why do these bush-fire-laying aussies from down under have to be the first with this new year stuff every year, it bugs me...The turning-direction of this world just isn't fair...

On the picture: I hate to say it, but it doesn't do much for me, although I'm crazy about black as a colour. It's just not enough man and too much of nothing (black), and I wished at least the little bit of man would be focussed...But the hat I like, nothing against hats please...The hat can't help it it's dressed in black. I wish y'all lot's of good shooting in all colours for the next year. Rienki

You had posted a couple of questions on pics.

 

Kyle: "Holding a helo" was with a 24mm @f/22 w/ 400 B+W.

 

Vuk: I was having a bad day, it's been the roughest year on record for me (2001) Ratings are fun but not neccessary. Your'e right, I should not be so concerned with them. Maybe if I were not so insecure, I would have not lost my wonderful girlfriend last summer, still a major source of my unhappieness, I know Tony, not the end of the world, but hell! You met her too.

 

I will not be able to post anything new until I get to London in March.

 

So Peter....What is your take on all this?

 

Cheers Rienk!

For all the people of Universe #1 who think that this image would be more attractive if

 

-it was light better

 

-it was cropped tighter

 

-the face was turned more to the camera

 

-and there was more expression in the face

 

here it is - http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=467030

 

And for anybody who wants to see one of the most beautiful cameras ever - http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1316617710#DESC

 

Portrait [DC Triangle]: "more than a simple re-creation of appearance." "...an artist perceives something of an inner life and refracts that likeness through their perception, point of view, and talent. The final product is a peculiar creature neither wholly the subject nor the artist." Also Legendary Portraitist Arnold Newman said many times: "I know there is no final definition of a portrait, nor can there ever be".

There is a personal note from a loved one of "Paul" on this page... She was moved by this image. That makes it even more clear to me that this fits in as a "portrait". I am a lover of beauty. I'm one of those dumb "support group of friends" Universe #1 people that Tony D spoke about in an above "comment". How insulting and ridiculous. Don't lump anyone who loves this image in with the group of favor raters!!! I'm disapointed in your comment because I respect some of your work very much...and somehow expect more of you as a person.. However...It is pretty simple for me. When something moves me, I am grateful for my ability to be stunned and awed by beauty. It was what made me want to be a photographer. It amazes me how deeply I can be moved by an exciting or beautiful image. There is a pensive, thoughtful moodiness in this image and I see it/feel it. Some may not and that is ok...because I think we see images though our own frame of reference and experiences. Since I was a child, I pursued mystery and beauty and abstract and graphic excitiment and the amazing color in nature that I found not everyone saw as I did. Some artists may need to be grabbed by the throat by an image...or moved to tears or laughter. Some may need to see technical photographic principles and excellence. Some may love an image because it touches a memory or a desire or allows them to see a part of the world or an activity/people they would not ordinarily see. I respect Universe #1 AND #2 even though I can not begin to understand the glowing and long praise for most Universe #2 type photos. However, I won't insult your taste Universe #2 - nor will I say you are wrong. Just different. I reserve my right and my taste and will continue to love and continue to love beauty. (which by the way does not include velvet paintings or anything I a may deem tacky) "Paul" - is a simple image, yet powerful and so well done with a minimum amount of light and texture and a very creative and excitingly different - portrait. So if you don't agree - fine. But don't bash those of us (me) that find something here and I won't bash you for seeing something remarkable in photos like last week that I just don't see. As someone said earlier ART IS SUBJECTIVE!

 

I like this image, but the lack of sharpness does detract a bit for me. The "unnatural" black doesn't bother me a bit- the same could have been done with standard manipulation in a wet darkroom.

Too bad some of the comments Mr. Dummett has made have taken on such a condescending tone... This "us vs. them" "I/we are better than they are" crap is utter nonsense which belongs back on the 3rd grade playground, IMHO.

 

Consider me part of Universe #3: none of the above....

 

 

I really like this image. I have since the first time I saw it. I'm just a beginning photographer, so I don't know enough when I look at something to know if it's been digitally manipulated or not... and I'm not sure if it's done well enough if I even care. Maybe if I ever learn to use Photoshop I will then know enough to be able to tell.

 

This image isn't one that speaks volumes, it doesn't have a story with little nuances that lift it into amazing photographic heights (like many of Tony Dummett's photos) and it doens't have incredible details that make you jump back and gasp.

 

What it does have is an interesting composition. If I took this photo and blurred it somehow so you could not distinguish it as a man in a hat, the colors and composition themselves would make an abstract that I'd be thrilled with.

 

The black (whether real or fake - looks real enough to this uneducated eye) is even without distractions, as if taken in front of black velvet.

 

The subject is placed in an interesting and creative spot in the frame, which might normally not work this well. I love it when the "rules" are broken and they work. It always gives me pause to stop and think about how I could be a bit more creative with my next photo.

 

The colors are great. Well, maybe it's just one color, but it's used very well. You've got to love that hat. The shape and feel of the brim in that rusty sort of color, with a little bit of texture in the felt really make it work.

 

I also like the square format. Lacking a camera that can take such images, myself, I often try and imagine that format when I look through my viewfinder, and wind up cropping off the extra in my final image. If you plan to do so ahead of time, is it a sin?

 

So, is it brilliant, masterful photography that will go down in history books? No. But it's a strong image. One I would be very happy with. Of course, I'm still a beginner, so I don't mind being in Universe #1. Hopefully I hover somewhere between both, and won't lose the ability to do so any time soon. :)

 

And keep in mind, nobody ASKS to be photo of the week. I would think the whole thing would be a nightmare. No sense being hostile. I do agree that it's not really a "portrait", but I like the image very much, nonetheless. Congrats, Peter.

This has been an interesting read. Tony Dummett, you're within the top 5 on my list of all the photo.netters whose opinion I respect. Daniel Bayer is also in that list. With that in mind, I was very surprised to see your comments.

 

Fist things first, the red mask. All jpg images will do that. That's the technology of the image type. I'd suggest your own images probably do that. This particular image has the obvious black chunks due to the digital aspect, I'm sure. Scratch that argument.

 

Second, negative space. I like it, it's an implied "remainder of the guy's head." If the guy were fully lit, his head would be full frame. I don't have any particular problem with that.

 

I feel the image is a decent facial feature study. I feel it does a pretty good job portraying dimension with the different depths to the nose,cheek, and hat. Maybe it's just a photo class image, and nothing more, as suggested. I don't know that is reason to classify this as "boring."

 

I can't help but think of Wilford Brimley every time I see this image. It makes me want to eat oatmeal.

 

I don't think I'd have any problem at all with this photo, if I didn't have to look at the ratings. Oh well. Mr. Dummett, I'm just very surpised to see how negatively you look at this image, when I've grown accustomed to agreeing with you. I'd probably rate the image A7/O6, for whatever that's worth.

And for anybody who wants to see one of the most beautiful cameras ever -

http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1316617710#DESC

 

Yuck! What a disgustingly UGLY waste of money and materials. Or did I miss the joke?

I really like this picture. The far off look on his face leaves me wondering what he's thinking about. As for all the dissent, I thought photography was subjective? Either you like it or not. Although after reading the posts I worry about my first picture I just downloaded on this site! J.

This is the first comment I've written for an image. I'm new to photo.net and I love checking out the POW. I think it's kind of funny that when I love a POW, many people don't (e.g. Jo Voets POW) and vice versa (e.g. this weeks POW). All I really know is that last weeks POW had emotion and made me wonder who Guy and his family are and what the hell they were doing in the photo. Paul (above) does nothing for me. I don't know what it says about me to comment on the picture I don't like instead of the one I did like, but whatever. I like the B&W version better, but I still just don't get anything from it.

I am delighted of all those comments! Is there a better way to learn about how people see things? Anyway, for those who said they like better the BW version,(but...), I must reiterate I said I would love some detail in the black part, and only so the picture might mean something to me. The fact that the picture is praised by some here does not bother me at all. We all have the right to like/dislike whatever we want. I must say a word on the ridiculous rating system, though. I welcome any comment, but I do believe that rating a picture without saying a word or two for the author is completely pointless. Especially for those who have no pictures uploaded.

 

I have nothing against digital cameras. And the fight digital vs classic reminds me of the fight from the beginning of the last century bewtween photography itself an painting. The future is digital whether we choose to accept it or not. But there is a difference in between digital photography and digitally created images. And we should be aware of that.

 

Happy shooting everyone.

I liked this shot, *especially* the black space. It isolates the face in the frame and makes the shot.

 

Any emotional content is not resonating with me. While there's a lot of darkness in this photo and the subject is the only one in the frame, but the subject himself doesn't seem very dark and alone to me; that's not his essence. This could be the host of "The Actor's Studio" backstage, trying to get those "favorite cuss word" questions straight while being caught by a spot. It's more "look how cool the guy in the hat looks!" than a deep portrait. Nonetheless, it is a worthy choice for PoW.

 

BTW, I was unaware digital manipulation rendered photos ineligible for PoW or even respect. Thus, I will promptly excise all my digitally manipulated photos, including most the ones I have uploaded since November. ;-)

 

I used to like this photo, but now I am finding out this was taken with a digital camera. I don't like it. Plain and simple.

 

Digital cameras have no place here on photo.net. I agree with Samuel Dillingsworth who said "I know you weren't using a real camera"

 

Try using something besides a toy digital camera and lets see how good your stuff is. All of the pictures in your folder were taken with that same toy digital camera it seems. Your stuff and all other photos taken digitally simply do not belong here. You people are trying to make a mockery of the rest of us who use REAL film and do manipulation of our photographs in a REAL darkroom with REAL CHEMICALS. Try dodging and burning the REAL way Mr. Christoph...

 

Dr. DD

Disgusted with Digital

 

 

I am interested in hearing some of Peters responses to all these comments, or at the very least a little expansion on his tech notes. PoW threads always contain extremes (plus everything between), and interesting though it may be to read and ponder on different interpretations, I ultimately wish to see what the photographer is trying to convey. Oftentimes I am happy making my own interpretation, but on this occassion I am lost. Please defend your work Peter, as a matter of pride if nothing else. Even if it was just a casual lighting experiment for an aesthetic (or otherwise) graphic, it would still offer some understanding. As it stands it tells me nothing about Paul, but then I don't know him & there is nothing here that illuminates his character for me.

 

re: Kelly Perl - no NO!! Wait until Philip Greenspun himself dictates digital manipulation does not qualify for uploading!! Until then stay right where you are or upload more ;)

 

re: John Walters - this is dry humour right? If yes I at least get a chuckle - even if you do appear to be yet another cowardly pseudonym.

 

I am totally BORED with the ego politics on photo net. I take each image as it stands regardless whether it film or digital, but ..... I have more respect for bona fide photographers expressing an honest opinion under a GENUINE name, over and above those fake pseudonyms playing little ego games.

Yes, Geraldine, I am interested in hearing some of Mr. Christoph's responses too. Or maybe the CAT's got his digital tongue!

We've heard from all the major egos now, unless they have more to add. IMHO, I like the picture, digital or not, it shows beautiful lighting, and is one of the best portraits I have seen on photo.net. Good choice for POW. Congratulations Peter. Some have suggested that the traditional film camera hot shots are a little upset that a digital photo landed at the top? I don't know...

 

Peter, are n't you glad now that you made POW!

 

Digital, smidgital: I don't personally care what the medium of origin is. It's the trivial use of the medium of post-camera editing that concerns me.

 

What I was trying to say in my earlier comment about the black field surrounding the model's face is that it gives the photographer too much easy opportunity to get the framing and composition right: it gives him an infinite canvas to work with.

 

Once you've feathered out to black you can make the canvas any size or shape you like. It's not difficult then to just experiment with layout and dimensions until common sense tells you that some sort of "balance" has been achieved. In other words, there does not seem to be a great deal of artistic tension in this image born of self-imposed (or even equipment-imposed) restraints. The photographer has simply captured an unoriginal image of his model and then placed his subject inside an arbitrarily sized, textureless black rectangle, of approximate ratio H:105, W:100.

 

Try the experiment yourself. Change the shape of the canvas. You won't affect the tonality of the image one iota, as long as you pick as your starting point pixels included my infamous "red zone" - they're all completely black after that. Then ask yourself, "What's so special about this? Is it a great photograph or just an exercise in layout, one of an infinite number of possible layouts?"

 

And please, no more "jealousy" or "ego" comments. I (and others who have been referred to) couldn't care less about ratings (with the proviso that they're honestly won). Any one of fifty photographers on photo.net (many of them U#2 Devil's Advocates) could delete all but seven pictures (what the hell, three pictures!) and generate a ratings average so far ahead of the pack that no-one would ever catch them, with or without the fan club. That this is not done is proof in itself (I suggest) of their bona fides in the current "everybody wins a prize" climate around here.

 

It's your turn, Space Cadets, but EARN the honour. If all you ever say about a colleague's work is that it is brilliant (eschewing critical comments as "tasteless" or "negative"), we'll end up with a bland world full of deluded technophiles who think only in terms of instantly gratified "concept", rather than hard won "execution".