Paul

I am with Ms. Allen in that I am finding the sheer volume of petty rivalries and backstabbing net-politics to be starting to hinder my enjoyment of this weekly show. The number of competitors engaging in this nonsense has easily doubled in the last couple of months.

This picture was clearly composed differently in the camera, with a window visible somewhere, possibly in a wall facing the camera. Depending on the method of incorporation of this window, and its nature, I suggest it may have given this photo a lifesaving dynamic impetus. Does the photographer have an un-cropped version available for display?

The "texture" of the hat is likely JPEG compression artefacts, inevitable even with a mainly non-textured image at a file size of merely 8KB. Of course it may lack detail due to the compression also, consequently appearing out of focus. Some might say otherwise, but to me this image needs to be in sharp focus. I am thinking of somewhat similar shots I have done with Agfa Scala at EI 1600 (+3 push) and a prime lens. You can really feel the light in those shots, sense its feathery touch. In this picture even the light is dead, probably partly because of an absolute lack of fill and significant areas of blown highlights (relative to the very minimal exposed region).

I just want to restate that I think this image is brilliant. Period. I would also like to say that in the "ratings game" (and it has become a game) I am number 180 something and the reason is because I am honest and sometimes boldly so (but politely-I might add). As a result, I know I get crashed and bashed by "supporters" and false names. I get ratings from 10s (which I think are not warranted and I don't think that is false modesty) - to 1's and 2's and 3's as punishment for my honesty. I don't say "brilliant" to everything and I don't care how much anyone here is "respected" or how much anyone "knows" in the "technical realm" about photography..... This moves me and I like it. In fact, I think it is outstanding and one of my absolute favorite images on the site. I was so tickled to see it was a POW. [though i'm starting to feel sorry for anyone who is pow] I just am stating this because I refuse to be lumped in with the "everyone wins a prize type rater" referred to above just because I think this is exceptional. I'm reeeeally hoping to see a little more tolerance and expansiveness on photo net.

I think this image is very interesting in that it shows how finely attuned to facial recognition the human visual system is. With very minimal information, we recognize this as a face, and no doubt people who know Paul LaVenture recognize this as a photograph of him. For that reason alone, the photograph is interesting and striking.

 

I do have some sympathy for Tony's criticism of the arbitrariness of the "negative space". Almost any amount of black around the facial sliver would have been possible, and this somewhat diminishes the image. One often feels in the best art that every element is inevitable and could not be otherwise.

 

This photograph is "high concept" and very graphic, and while this makes it striking and easily accessible, one searches in vain for the layers of meaning and emotion that have been prominent features of recent POW's.

 

Nevertheless, there is a lot to be said for accessibility, and it is too easy to dismiss all such works as "kitsch" and "eye candy". I think it is an excellent photograph, and while I have somewhat a preference for photographs from the "other" universe, I can enjoy this one, and appreciate its merit, and recognize the considerable achievement of creating it.

 

 

 

No Tony and Brian, the amount of empty space is NOT arbitrary. The artist decided to make it the way it is and that is no less arbitrary than the amount of empty space around some of Tonys pictures (I think you call them frames or matting?). See attachement.

 

Now dont try and tell me you didnt add those digitally! So if that isnt trivial use of the medium of post-camera editing then I dont know what is. And if you claim that they are not part of the actual image then why did you add them?

 

This whole digital vs. non-digital things is complete rubbish. At least John Walters has a sense of integrity and has backed his position by refusing to upload any pictures to this site; after all they would have to be digitized first and that is just plain WRONG! Becauseit just iswrongbecause digital is BAD! Because it just is real bad thing it is BECAUSE!

 

Now if everybody took the same anti-digital stand then we would have a pretty dead web site taking up very little server space. Good idea John!

 

 

The reason so many folks don't like this image is beause the subject is facing the "wrong" direction, and has more negative space behind him. This causes subliminal stress in the viewer and is done all the time in fashion and makeup shots. It causes the viewer to concentrate on the subject at hand (or face). This image is also not well received by the PPA crowd because it it an abstract piece.

 

PPA rules want a portrait to have the nose EXACTLY in the middle of the frame. It should also be a 3:1 ratio with the hair light coming from the same side as the main light. The main light should be the customary Photogenic 16 inch parabolic. A real photographer would NEVER deviate from such rigorous standards unless he or she wants to be chastized by the other, "great" photographers of the period. Karsh never broke the rules, nor did that Boston based painter John Singer Corporal.

 

Lighten up kids, you could cause yourselves to have a friggin hemmorage over a piece of art. Concentrate on capturing Been Laiden or curing some exotic disease. Remember, today we have a choice of being happy or miserable. Misery is optional.

 

Happy and healthy New Year (yes, even to the Universe people)

 

PL

Kyle, I don't know what you're on about with your analysis of the photograph of my dead father. But I'll try to address your question as well as I can make sense of it.

 

 

The area outside the picture, white with text and (lately) a drop shadow, is used to separate the photograph (that's the bit inside the thin black border) from the photo.net web page environment. This environment consists of a pure white space with text, HTML links, technical and other information. My idea in adding the border and drop shadow is to aid in the presentation of the actual image by distinguishing it markedly from this crowded photo.net workspace. It is not part of the picture, nor have I ever claimed it to be or thought of it as part of the picture. I don't know where you get this idea. It is an aid to presentation, the equivalent to a framing decision, absolutely separate to the actual image.

 

Now to your red area INSIDE the thin black line (i.e. the bit I DO claim to be the image). In my analysis of the current POW I used one criterion and one criterion only for the red mask: pixels of one single value: 0,0,0. Please also note that I published my own filter's formula so that there could be no hint of skullduggery on my part. I also invited anyone to apply the same filter to the same image to test my analysis. Where, or what is your formula, because I'm buggered if I can figure it out. Was it the Magic Wand?

 

I do not know what criterion you have used in the picture of my father... maybe pixels GREATER THAN a certain brightness? I dunno... perhaps you think all that light area inside the thin black line is white (255,255,255) or something? Not so! If you have a close look (or re-do your analysis) you will see that there is an appreciable number of shades of gray (admittedly very light... it is a picture of a white wall, after all) in the area that you have masked in red. What does this prove?

 

That I have digitally added sunlight to my fathers arm? No, that was there in the first place.

 

That I have somehow deleted a too busy background and replaced it with a gradient? No, the background was a white wall, several feet behind my father. As I was using a telephoto lens and the photograph was taken indoors (meaning I used the lens full open), it's not surprising that the white wall in the background is blurred due to shallow depth of field.

 

You might also note that I have freely published the technical details of the photo. I was scanned from a twenty-five years old print that has been hanging on a wall in whichever house I have lived in for all that time. It wasn't the best print I could have made, but the negative was destroyed accidentally (in 1985) before I got round to doing another. It doesn't contain my normal self-imposed standards of highlight and shadow (that I could get nowadays with a high quality scanner). This is still a matter of personal regret to me, but the old print is all I had to go on. The fact that I mentioned it comes from a print was by way of explanation for any technical deviations that viewers familiar with my pictures may have noticed.

 

The gradient in the white wall, the sunlight on Bill's arm: this is called "photography", Kyle. Getting the effect you want in the camera (film or CCD, I don't care), rather than just using a Photoshop filter to do the same thing. It really doesn't surprise me that you can only think of one way - digital manipulation - to achieve the same effect. In fact, I'm rather glad you brought it up: it proves EXACTLY my point about the easy path that so many Space Cadets take. No sweat. No tears. Just instant gratification.

 

Now, if you care to take the same picture and apply the IMAGE/ADJUST/EQUALIZE filter to it, this will spread out the available pixel values to fit the whole range "0" to "255". Then you can see that there are many shades of light gray in that "blank" wall background (unlike the vast area of textureless matt black in this POW), rangeing in value from about 142 to the dreaded 255. Ergo, the background is not pure white. Your levels "analysis" of my image (as distinguished from its frame), purportedly in answer and in equivalent terms to my own analysis of this POW, will be seen to be the misrepresentation that it truly is (unintentional, I'm sure).

 

(I'll allow you one more use of my dear father's picture to do that, and then please pick on another of my 85 or so posted pictures.)

 

As to digital manipulation: I haven't got any problem at all with it, per se. I'm just not sure that it qualifies as "photographic" when the original image is changed too far away from the original. But, I repeat what I said above: THE MEDIUM OF ORIGIN DOESN'T BOTHER ME (how many times do I have to say it?) I THINK DIGITAL CAMERAS ARE GREAT! All your touching, gentle sympathy and patient understanding is wasted on me... I'm converted! (I'm just waiting for the pixels per dollar to come down, that's all).

 

My problem with this POW is of a different nature entirely. REAL digital artists go further than filling in a few thousand pixels with matt black before they claim any mature level of sophistication.

 

Last note to Paul LaVenture: Paul, no one's ever accused me of taking standard portraits. I get belted over the head for quirky composition so often I've got permanent lumps. Include me "out" of those who require all those little noses to line up in the middle and all those heads to be fully within the frame, please.

 

I just wish I could SEE your nose.

 

Kyle, your post of Tony's image just proved his point further! And also proved something else about your lack of understanding his point in the first place!

I dont know if Im feeling subliminal stress (would I know?), but Id prefer it if some (OK, most) of the black on the right was cropped, as well as some from the top and bottom. As it is I feel that the right side of the image is just a big void, whereas with tighter cropping I think it would feel more like youre standing by his shoulder, which would add more interest (at least for me).

 

I like the colour, texture and curve of his hat but Id like to see a little bit more detail in his face. I understand that not showing everything allows you to use your imagination more but I find there just isnt enough here to get started. Is he looking at something? I dont know because I cant see his eyes. Whats he thinking, hows he feeling? I dont know because I cant tell what sort of expression he has on his face.

 

Im looking at this on a laptop so I might not be the best one to judge this but I wonder if what people see as the photo being out-of-focus is really caused by the (digital) manipulation of the image to darken it. I dont have a problem with digital cameras or manipulation but I think if it has degraded the quality of the image you need to look at different ways of achieving the same effect.

 

As an aside (yes, I know Im a bit late and should have done this last week), Im still really bemused by some of the comments last weeks POW received. I fail to see how that photo was tasteless, ugly and a side-show (maybe Im looking at something different to other people?). What is tasteless about people having a good time at a bar? Are some people so detached from reality that they find it offensive to see a picture of people that arent attractive, or at least posed to be as attractive as possible? Last weeks POW certainly isnt one of my favourite photos but I found it interesting and think that Jo has a talent for being able to capture human (not necessarily attractive) moments that I wish I had.

 

http://home.hawaii.rr.com/meme/bjorke_aki.jpg

Seems to me that a major bone of contention is whether the image is a photograph (other large bones: is it really a portrait, or just a head; is painted black space useful in a JPEG; etc). Unfortunately, we are somewhat at a loss in the word department. Playing a violin voice on a synthesizer may sound quite pleasant, but it certainly doesn't make you a violinist. In the same way, retouched, synthetic, and heavily-edited images stretch our definition of photographer.

I think "U#2" types are more amenable to a definition of "photographer" more like that of "violinist" -- they expect skill with an acoustic instrument and process. No samplers, synths, or tape delays can cover poor playing, and Photoshop is no excuse for a weak image. At the same time, "U#1" shooters may feel that without those currently-fashionable techniques, they wouldn't get the images they desire, no matter how perfectly the original untouched images are crafted.

For lack of better terms, we call all these sorts of images "photos" and then the turf wars begin. Maybe we just need some new categorical words and people will be happy -- though, like deciding when a kitten becomes a cat, it may be difficult to decide when "straight" spotting becomes retouching, or when retouching ends and photopainting begins.

To make the image above required me to synthesize the entire studio photo technical process -- the camera, the lights, gobos, reflectors, posing, makeup -- but it's certainly no photograph, even if it looks less painted than some "genuine" shots found here on photo.net. What to call it? Does it matter?

Expect the waters to just keep getting murkier as time goes by.

Tony, you use a white area to aid in the presentation of the actual image by distinguishing it markedly from this crowded photo.net workspace, and to separate the photograph from the photo.net web page environment.

 

In my opinion Peter has done the same thing, ironically with exactly the same tools as you, just his is black and doesnt have any frilly borders.

 

I am comparing apples with apples here. You obviously disagree, thats fine. Its nothing to get personal over.

 

Kyle,

 

Peter's black pixels are within the image border area i.e. part of the image. I don't consider, nor have I ever claimed my presentation to be part of the image (this is the second time I've had to tell you this... please read). Your argument is sophistry.

 

Your statistical "analysis" of my photo was flawed and misleading in that you haven't yet published your criteria for pixel selection. Just admit it, will you? Or defend it, by publishing the filter formula you used to "prove" your point (as I did, so everyone can all try it for themselves)... one of the two.

I am glad to see the major egos are back online again. It is very entertaining to follow the threads and read comments like "this is the second time I've had to tell you this." (above)

 

If I were Kyle, I would smarten up and listen to Uncle Tony. Remember this, I don't want to tell you again!

 

(If for no other reason, he owns FAR more cameras than you do.) Seriously, Uncle Tony has amused us all with his "Paul with red blocks" rendition, (I'd give that a 6 for clever, and a five for original. He alone provides far greater entertainment to this site than twenty other photo.netters and for that Uncle Tony deserves the highest rating possible on Photo.net- something even greater than the POW honor.

 

I propose we establish, here, on photo.net, "The Tony Awards" entertainment rating system, reserved exclusively for the POW areas. Here's to you Tony, 10/10. You're better than TV.

 

(From someone who used to take you seriously.)

 

I think Christian was right with the comment I suspect many of these comments have to do with this photographer's current status as #1 on this site. Having seen what happened in last weeks and months, I find it not enviable to be #1 or to be chosen as POW at all. In such a place, one is analyzed and criticized from head to foot, till the last pixels. On the other hand, I have seen people below #200 or #300 live peacefully with high ratings to some photos of theirs.

 

I dont believe Tonys statement ... 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). I guess many of the contributors here still remember Tonys reaction to Julia when she was #1 a month ago. In Julias thread, he told us frankly he registered every person who ever rated his photos, and he clearly showed us his willingness to settle up with him/her even several months later (when the reason came).

 

Why? I remember one of Tonys admirers once mentioned that he used to be #1 on this site, right? (I must have experienced that period, but I cannot remember any more) Perhaps since he lost his place of #1, he has been suspecting if they're honestly won. In my opinion, one should try to impress people on this site better with photos than with words for that Tony is undoubtedly #1 (forever).

I have no objection to digitally filled dark backgrounds, though I would have to agree with Tony I would consider the result to qualify more 'photographic' credit if it were actually captured in cam, like the passiflora PoW. I may be wrong but I assume what Tony is getting at, is if it is possible to use a real background to achieve the intended result then why take the 'easy' option and then receive so much praise for doing so.

 

The reason I was surprised to see the elves choice here, was because they stated how they took weeks to choose a 'portrait'. Furthermore they use 'remarkable' to describe it, and then follow up with 'it captured our attention with the unusual approach in lighting, space and color'. Then I read all the 'master' accolades and was really stumped.

 

In either purist or modernist tradition, there are much more notable contenders from the portrait genre, particularly in originality and skill. Should the elves wished to have chosen a photographic portrait reminiscent of an old master, then they need have looked no further than here http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=402528

 

On the other hand should they wish to opt for a digital medium (with filled photoshop background) then I have seen many on this site with more artistic merit, pre-conceived thought, or hours of labour. Since digital manipulation is all controllable within software, and you can work from the comfort of a chair, I tend to expect more than this from a digitally reworked photograph. The medium is useful for creating effects and photo illustration yes, but if it is a simple black background, then it can be achieved solely in cam.

 

I do not see this image as an effective 'portrait' (specific reasons already stated earlier) in either the pure photographic, or the digital artistic arena. This is where the problem lies for me, it excels at neither end of the spectrum.

 

To all those that describe this PoW image as 'conceptual' I would like to ask what exactly the concept is? To all those that see it as a good character portrait, what does it tell you about Paul? I see only a lighting exercise, and a purely graphic result. If that is all Peter claims it to be then fine, I appreciate it as just that (though I might like improvement on exposure and focus). I merely do not see it as a great piece of conceptual work, character portrait, innovative lighting sample, or even a *successful* piece of graphic eye candy. Sorry Peter I do not wish to dishearten you, I am trying to understand viewers perceptions, moreover I am lost with regard to your aims, and you still have not offered any comment.

OK, this is getting REALLY dumb! "His pixels are inside the image and mine are outside" blah blah blah. So if your pixels are not part of your image do you have to upload them separately, or can you do it simultaneously?

 

I give up Tony, you win! I am flawed and my mind is misleading! I am not here to cause you grief.

 

You want to know what my pixel filter criterion was? I simply highlighted all the pixels that I considered to be empty and had nothing to draw my attention to. The same criterion you used but much less technical. I know, I know, now you are going to tell me that there is a big difference between absolute black pixels and pixels with a little bit of grey. And maybe by the end of the week we can graduate from grade two.

 

To satisfy your technical mind I used Adobe Photo Deluxe / Tools / Color Change. I am guessing that the eyedropper or paint bucket would do the same thing in PS6 or Illustrator 9. I have them but I havent had time to learn them yet, sorry.

 

So Peters picture is a Golden Delicious and Tonys is a Macintosh. To me they are still both apples. Is it Sunday night yet?

 

Oh, my poor peter, even if you have time to read all these 132 messages through and answer them all, you can make nothing clear and will get more things to explain. So, you'd better keep silence with your digital toy.:)

 

 

I always complain I'm surrounded by the most arrogant people in my office. After seeing Mr. Dummett here in this site, I have just realized how lucky I am. However, Im feeling a bit insecure since I recently criticized his great shot of gentlemans toilette so thoughtlessly which is celebrated as POY by his followers. Probably, Im standing on the top of his black list now.:)

 

Yes, this image is just eye candy. No, there's nothing wrong with that. I think it might be going a little overboard to call it "brilliant" and "mastering light." Really, any high school photo student could achieve the same results with only a common sense understanding of light in a studio. Any high school Photoshop student could also achieve the same thing.

 

Someone said that the same same thing could be done in a wet color darkroom. Yes, but usually you have to go from a negative, and seeing as how this was taken with a digital camera, the chances that this was a wet print seem to be pretty slim, don't you think?

 

Also you might note that I have not rated this POW. At first I rated photos, but then I just started leaving comments. How can you rate photography as if it were as tangible and boring as college football or something? Rating a photography trivializes it. It is meaningless.

 

The Tony Awards? Talk about 3rd grade playground stuff. Was that supposed to be clever? I say, if Tony is a little arrogant, so be it. Judging by his portfolio, he has a right to be. I'm tired of people who are mediocre at something complaining about someone who is better at it being arrogant. Same thing in other aspects of life. Proffesional athletes are very arrogant. Yes, but they are also the best at what the do; if they haven't earned the right to be who has? Also, I get tired of people arguing with Tony. Obviously he knows what he is talking about. Just listen to him, and not only will you realize that he is right, but you also might learn something. Would you argue with Mark Grace about hitting? Or Lefty Kreh about casting? Tony's portfolio is one of the few here that makes me want to get off the stupid internet and acctually go (gasp) take photos!

 

Also, where is this list of rated photographers on photo.net? I can't belive there is such a thing.

 

And finally, thank you! Someone else who sees digital manipulation as something else other than photography! As soon as you have altered an image in photoshop, you have stopped dealing with light and have started dealing with electronic signals. You have taken the "photo" out of "photography."

Glad to see the admission, Kyle, that your "levels analysis" did not employ the same formula as mine, although by its appearance it was presented as an equivalent.

 

You claim that our criteria were the same anyway: what we subjectively perceive to be "empty" space, so what does it matter?

 

I wasn't demonstrating "empty" space, I was demonstrating "emptied" space... space within the frame of the picture that had been drained of texture by the application of a background of pure black pixels in order to simulate what should have been better achieved in the camera. I don't have any major problem with the left-justified composition as other people do. It was what was done to achieve it that I thought too trivial and unoriginal to justify some the accolades above.

 

Once you have a ring of any solid textureless color around your model (in this case the color is black) then expanding or contracting the canvas is astonishingly simple. The "photograph" has moved away from something that was achieved within creative constraints, to a piece of layout art. The model's face is a cut-out that can be pushed around and glued down anywhere you like on this huge piece of black maskboard (whose size and shape can be changed at will). Where's the brilliance in that?

 

 

Tony.

 

Peter Christoph clicked his mouse a few times. Michael Spinak examined 10 000 tendrils and then shot 2 rolls on a tripod for several hours. These facts are completely IRRELEVANT to me standing in front of either image in a gallery, though it's highly unlikely one or the other would ever find itself there. Both photographers came up with a black background and a kitschy end result (Michael's far less so) that's partly to do with the black background. It is the end result that a normal viewer sees. The image is everything. The process is something, but only for the creator and those seeking reasons to like/dislike a picture beyond what's in the bloody thing.

 

BTW--the next person who calls this a "portrait" will be flogged and hanged personally by the leader of Universe Zero's High Council.

I'd normally agree with you, Vuk on "the image is everything", but in this case I think it's more a "file" than an "image". It's too easy to amend and change. Now that may be clever and adaptive of the photographer, but it's hardly a work of modern genius to accomplish.

 

If you download Mike's tendril picture and just EQUALIZE it you'll see what I mean. There's a richness in his "blacks" that is discernable as a glow eminating from the tendril strand. The EQUALIZE function exaggerates this so you can study its structure. I think it was vaguely hinted somewhere that Mike faked this dark area somehow. He didn't, of course.

 

For one, he doesn't even own a photo editing program (and wouldn't know how to use one for love nor money) and secondly, he told in detail how he put in the time to discover just the right conditions to capture the texture of the shadows on film. And they are there. Try that EQUALIZE function yourself, you'll see what I mean. The transition from plant to background is very smooth, when you know how to highlight it.

 

Meanwhile, back at the coalface, perhaps Peter's picture could be seamlessly transformed into something like this... (try and find the join: it's impossible with an infinite canvas)...

 

 

 

 

Vuk you hit it the nail on the head for me regarding those 'seeking reasons to like/dislike a picture beyond what's in the bloody thing'. The two universes initially proposed didn't work for me. Much more relevant to my 'two worlds' would be this distinction exactly. Those that wish to see beyond, and those that don't. There is some truth in 'only what's presented before ones eyes matter', for the non-thinking viewers at least, but it certainly doesn't apply to deeper delving artists and art lovers. Otherwise what is the point of debating the arts at all? What is the purpose of art school, or photographic education? What is the point of participating in a learning community? I dispute your view on processes. They do indeed matter. Without them who would even know how to take a picture? Who would know the difference between film or digital? Try loading your E10 with a film and you see process matters. In fact if it didn't how come you make 'process' decisions when purchasing and using it? If your argument is that monkeys can snap buttons or push paint brushes and produce art then that is another discussion. It has been done, but I don't consider it art personally. It's not communication, or even expression. It's a stupid human projection. The monkeys are just bored & do anything for a banana.

Hello, here I come to throw myself into the fire...

 

Overall, I do like this picture. It is thoughtful, and the black area doesn't bother me at all, although I would prefer it cropped either perfectly square or more narrowly horizontal (probably the latter). As-is is okay. The main highlight - to my eye, the brim of the hat, falls near an intersection of thirds, and the soft crescent shape of the face overall maintains a small amount of subtle movement within the frame, even though it is a still, static image overall. I would not personally characterize this as a portrait - as it has already been pointed out it seems more of a study, as the anonymity of the subject turns him into a generic "character" or type. One could almost call it a still life.

 

For criticism, there are two things which, although perhaps briefly mentioned, seem to have been overlooked. Firstly, I find the color detracts greatly from the subject - it would be much better in black and white. THe reason for this is that the face - already almost overpowered by the prominence of the hat - is already almost monochromatic; the red color of the had draws the eye away from the face and, imo, adds nothing to the image. The first time I saw this it screamed "black and white" to me. Secondly, with the exception (again) of the hat, the contrast seems very harsh and almost linear - I would like to see more gradation of tonality in the face, even if no more of the face was shown.

 

All in all, I give it 7 for aesthetics (the subtlety of it appeals to me, but the color detracts) and a 6.5 for originality (BTW I rate "5" as average, and rarely give out 1 or 10).

 

As for the nonsense about the background, I frankly do not understand why it matters if it was acheived digitally or not. Anyone who has done darkroom work knows that if you have a moderately dark background to start you can easily burn it in to "black as black" on a negative such as this. It is ridiculus to me to run computer analyses of digital images to pick out gradations or lack thereof which are not readily discernable to the human eye anyway, either on screen or in a print.

 

Finally, this is by far my least favorite from this folder...the others are much better.

 

My two cents, anyways.

 

Elaine

Geraldine.

 

I was speaking of things from the perspective of a viewer. To evaluate the quality of art, I do not need to know anything about it beyond the work presented before me and what it evokes or alludes to. Of course, most often I do know or end up knowing a lot more, which can add to my overall enjoyment but does not make the thing better. Art has failed when it requires crutches of the peripheral to convince the audience.

 

I own a couple of Tony's prints and I really wouldn't give a sh*t if I found out the so-called "candids" were actually elaborate stagings involving second-rate local actors. The knowledge would make the photos more amusing to me, but I wouldn't think any more or less of them as final products.

 

If I break my E-10 trying out your little experiment, you gonna be in big trouble girl...

Well Vuk,

 

Looks like a portrait of a poodle, dancing. (In a dimly lit apartment.)

While nothing else really needs to be said about this photo or added to this thread, I have been enjoying the sparring. In fact, last night I wasted nearly an hour perusing this, as I finished off a fairly nice bottle of 1979 Robert Mondavi Cabernet.

 

My take on the photo/image: very nicely rendered work. Works very well graphically. Striking. In many ways, however, it reminds me of Mr. Spinak's POW two weeks ago. In my eye (and I'm no expert technician), both fairly flawless compositions: both are superb graphic images. Some have noted both might have commercial uses. As pieces of art, neither elicit much response from me. Neither has much meaning--in my mind no symbolism, metaphor, or attempt to fathom some "truth." Just an image to be appreciated, like a pretty face passed in a crowd. As for personal preference, I still have a certain sentimental attachment to film and the chemical process, and thus am likely to respond more favorably to photographs versus digitally reconstructed images (yes, I do use Photoshop to improve some of my "work [hobby]").

 

Obviously the photo.net crowd is a quite diverse little democracy. The level of sophistication is varied as are the aims of the photographers/raters/commentators. While it would be nice if everyone here knew something about art history, owned or read books of photography, and attended art galleries and museums, that's not the overall crowd here. But photo.net provides what at least a little of what the members desire. People are able to find other like-minded individuals to converse with about photography. I suddenly forgot where this was leading . . . perhaps it's last night's wine.

 

Oh. Ratings. They are not fair. Most of us know that. Tony's a hell of a photographer: lots of first rate stuff (though he's taken Tris' place the last few weeks: Tris has shown great restraint, which is to his credit)and he's contributed a lot to this community, even if he's been in bad form this week.

 

Perhaps we should look at a new way to calculate ratings for "top photographers"--my poor little mathematical brain has been trying to figure a system that would somehow reward a photographer's corpus and long-term contributions to the site, rather than just rewarding someone who has posted just a few images in the recently inflated ratings environment.

 

I suggest the following:

 

(AVERAGE SCORE x 10) + 1 point for each photo with more than 10 ratings.

 

This method would discourage some of the current ratings management many members do and bring deserved attention to those with strong, large portfolios--which, if the purpose of this site is to comment on photography as an art, should be the goal of the highly rated photographers section.

 

OK. I've gotten in my few cents worth. I'd like to know what others think about the top-rated photographers formula.

 

P.S. And congratulations on POW.