A girl falls from the side of a sheep during the County Fair in an event called "Mutton' Bustin" in Crete, Nebr.

This is one of the most amazing images I have ever seen. It is perfect in every way. It's infused with a frozen anticipation of an impact which will never happen, and so I can't take my eyes off of it.

 

Personally, I hate it when people go on crusades against an image like this. I believe this is a forum in which to discuss photography and not perceived social ills. I have to agree with Scott Blair in this respect. Now, if it were an image of Bosnian Muslims murdering children in the former Yugoslavia with pickaxes, that would be very different, but a child riding a sheep?

 

The photography-related question that is brought up, then, is how much of the picture is man and how much is machine?

 

I don't think it matters. After all, the camera, whether it's a D-1 or my old Speed Graphic, is merely a tool for capturing light. It doesn't matter whether this tool uses emulsified glass plates or the latest in digital photocell technology. Practically, there is no difference between the two; the photographer behind the camera must decide where to point the thing, where to center it, and when to push the button. Whether it's a continuous mode makes little difference - I could take my little 8mm movie camera out and do essentially the same thing with film (come to think of it, that's a neat idea. I'll have to try it; does anyone make a negative scanner for 8mm film?).

 

If the fact that someone used a digital camera to produce an image somehow dilutes the validity of an image, why don't we all go back to scratching pictographs on the walls of our caves with a charred stick? Even then, there's be someone complaining that "He used mahogany while I'm stuck with pine"

 

Sheeeesh.

 

(getting off the soap box)

 

This is a marvelous image. Keept it up, please!

I think an easy way to sum it up is that a trained photographer sees himself as a self made millionaire on the same segment of lifestyles of the rich and famous as trailer park trash that won the lottery.

"...Now if it were an image of Bosnian Muslims murdering children in the former Yugoslavia with pickaxes..."

Jim, the Bosnian Muslims (including many children) were the ones being murdered... by Serbs, while the rest of the world stood by and did nothing. Muslims worldwide seem to be getting more than their fair share of flak of late, and I know your remark was flippant, but I think its important to remember who (on this occasion) the bad guys were.

 

Can I also just say that I have long thought that Joshua's image would make a fine POW. With commendable skill (and a little luck), he's stopped time at a perfect moment.

 

Don

 

 

Can't say more. It's perfect.

"Perfect"? "Most amazing picture I've ever seen"? Stop a moment and listen to yourselves. Perfect? (Look it up). Most amazing EVER? You people don't get around much do you? It's a good photo, a very good photo, but PUH-leeze. Let's try to control ourselves instead of devaluing our ratings system and adjectives shall we? You're just hurting the system and taking away whatever credibility is left.

 

Oh, and by the way people, there are TWO ratings numbers here. One for Aesthetics, one of Originality. They should be considered SEPARATELY. One means "does it look good", the other "is it unique, different and clever compared to what has been done and has been seen before". Treat them each in and of themselves. It is NOT just a chance to vote twice.

 

"Oooooo, I like this....10/10!"

 

Meaningless and pathetic. Really.

It's difficult to argue with Peter Christoph's contention that the final image is all that counts. This is simply because his is such a namby-pamby, waffling, feel-good position that hitting on it would be like kicking your dog because you're in a bad mood. You'd feel sorry for it later.

I agree with Richard Sintchak above. The standard of criticism on this site since it's been sanitised is appalling. Everything's WOW! and PERFECT! It also seems that (according to him) Peter Christoph has personally followed just about every picture in recent weeks from obscurity to POW status, nurturing it like a new puppy, defending it from the nasty, vicious detractors that aren't ABSOLUTELY STUNNED! or AWESTRUCK! or affected by some other such gushing emotion that it engenders. Why, it's even "not nice" nowadays to question the use of automated digital gear to get freeze frames like this. How dare you say such a thing, Mr. Thacker. Shame on you!

The "Nasties" move "OUT" and the "Smarms" move "IN". Vivid, passionate, creative streetfights have been replaced with New Age "niceness" and honey poured on so thick it makes your stomach turn. We're back at the Camera Club level again, where no photograph is trash, every contributor is an artist and anything that has even a smattering of cleverness is elevated to the rank of Great Works Of The Twientieth Century by the Feelgood Brigade.

Nowadays, anyone can get MS Word or Pagemaker or Adobe Photoshop and make themselves look like a million dollars. That's what Bill Gates and his acolytes promised: even the greatest idiot will be able to disguise that fact by relying on auto-generated form rather than maturely thought-out (and expertly carried out) content, he or she can become an instant Picasso, Ansel Adams or Virginia Woolfe.

Yeah, sure it's a democracy and we all get an even break, same as the next guy does. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking that the end results of our endeavours mean anything very much. Means, whilst not necessarily more important than ends, do count for something. The alternative is to believe that any machine-generated crap can elevate any of us to the level of artist simply because we paid for the software, it's licensed to us and we used some packaged Rendering Wizard to produce canned canned clip art for the Xmas party invitations. Muck around, have fun guys, but don't kid yourselves you're doing anything brilliant or, dare I say it, photographic, no matter how good PC tells you your work is.

And maybe it does look pretty to the ignorant (and that's what the software vendors think we are). To reword A.C. Clarke's famous adage, "Any sufficiently sophisticated paintbrush effect is indistinguishable from genius." So many above come under that (mis)quotation's ambit. You're like natives in the jungle going oonga-boonga when the Big Silver Bird of Photoshop flies overhead, parachuting free plug-ins to the easily impressed.

Having said all that (and I know you're all waiting for a nasty review of this photo), I wouldn't want anyone to think that I don't like the POW picture, or that I think it's only clip art because a digital-everything camera was used. I do like it. I don't give a damn about the CCD or the auto-whatnot gizmo. It has a lot of pizazz and competentcy about it. It's not [gushword][insert_exclamation_marks] but it's not unpleasant to look at either. You can see that there's a considerable degree of method-aforethought and skill there. In fact it's a real photograph, which immediately takes it a step above the usual manufactured, over-photoshopped wet dreams that pass for photography around here nowadays.

This picture is a really good newspaper shot, but not really very artistic or creative. It's a result of pointing an automatic camera at a moving object and using automatic processes to capture a frozen moment. The photographer paid a lot of money for the gear. He has to have it to keep (and prosper in) his job and that is a good thing. He goes out to a rodeo and must come back with a result and this is it: good, very good workmanlike stuff. It doesn't have a lot of soul, as the telephoto lens used (necessarily for a news shot) has rid the image of just about everything else that might have been of interest but the central subject: a girl riding a sheep. Composition is straight down the line, in the middle, and exposure is adequate (the tech note concerning compensation was appreciated and informative). What more can I say? It's a good professional picture, but nothing to wet your pants about, certainly not meriting of the gravitas, net-parenting and mollycoddling that Peter Christoph and others have bestowed upon it.

aww shucks...

It almost feels like were back to the pre-sanitized POW already. Refreshing.

 

I think Tony needs a hug. Group hug everyone?

Tony,

I don't agreee with your assessment of Peter's comments. His first comment was that the image is excellent, not easy to get and that he liked it, all perfectly acceptable to me. His second was in answer to Doug's question that he thought the end result made the means unimportant, and also that the photographer is more important than the equipment, I disagree with the first and agree with the second, but so far, nothing namby-pamby. His third comment, again in response to a question was that he thought the issue about taking the easy way out to get the same image was irrelevant. He did use the word awesome, but again nothing really coddly. HE didn't really critique the image much, but at least he was willing to stick his opinion out there on a couple of issues.

 

If he has been repetitive over the last few weeks, you may want to review your own POW posts. You are pointing out the obvious to those of us who have been around for a while when you state repeatedly that the forum is less engaging, but even you may have to admit that things were getting too far out a month ago with people quitting, getting banned and throwing egos and insults around like beads at mardi gras.

 

I didn't like the censorship approach at all and considered quitting the site, but there are still a lot of fine pictures here to enjoy and the POW is just a part of the whole. Also, those who have been around here have read all the arguments regarding the scoring system and its various abuse at the hands of some (This was Tris' bread and butter), and the problem of over effusive praise of images, so not sure to whom you and Richard are directing these comments. Those who do it are clearly not listening after months of chastisement and those who don't are bored with the storyline.

 

If you're just trying to get things going again and stirring things up then no complaint from me.

 

I agree with you that the means are important, but I think that when a technology makes the achievemt of an end easier than in previous generations, it raises the bar, it doesn't lessen anything that was done by any other means or make the new technology creations less valid, but it puts things in the context more of when they were created. I think of the many PS filters available, they are very cool to look at and play with, but artistically, when I see one in use, I don't usually get it confused with high art, but when used effectively and appropriately on the right basic image, then I get impressed. I certainly have no skill in this and respect those who are able to use them to their greatest benefit.

heh heh

Joshua, do not feel that the value of your photo has been lessened any despite the attacks from the usual detractors. There will always be those whose aim is to hijack the POW thread for their own gain, and to attract the attention away from your photo to themselves.

 

It may offend some that I have nurtured this picture, or even other photographers in the past. I apologize to no one. I have found that one of the best ways to learn how you are doing, is to hear someone tell you what you've done right-- and this site is about learning. I will continue to offer encouragement to photographers on photonet if I feel it will help someone. Criticism can often be useful too, but there is certainly a lot more to be gained from positive reinforcement in my opinion.

 

I am baffled by the ignorant comment above which claims that anyone can get "MS Word, Pagemaker, or Photoshop to make themselves look like a million dollars". If the person behind the camera lacks the creativity or the experience to capture a great picture, no software is going to help it. It would have been equally foolish to contend that anyone who buys a Hasselblad and points the lens at something can take a great picture simply because he paid for the camera. Again, its the person behind the camera. We've all seen photos posted on photonet from people taken with a Hassy which really have no appeal, and pictures taken with a high-end digital camera and then overmanipulated on the computer, which also lack appeal.

 

Joshua, the statement has been made not to kid yourself into thinking you are doing anything brilliant or photographic no matter how good Peter Christoph says your work is. I have to agree. I am but one person with an opinion. Rather, listen to yourself, did you like it, did you achieve what you were after. That is the measure of your success.

 

Another blunder I found in the comments from this photo's main detractor is the statement "it does look pretty to the ignorant". I have looked at this photo and the other photos in Joshua's portfolio and I cannot find anything to suggest he is ignorant. Perhaps the detractor is referring to the 125,000 "easily -impressed", "ignorant" people who viewed this photo and those who rated it to an average of 8.80 and 8.67.

 

Finally at the end of his personal tirade, the lone "non-ignorant" photographer Mr. Tony Dummet has now viewed the picture and offers his own assessment, proclaiming it "nothing to wet your pants about." This type of comment does not change the appeal of the photo in any manner but serves more to display the level of maturity of the commenter.

 

Does this forum again need to be dragged down by the same tired egos (who I once had a high level of respect for) to this sorry level of unprofessionalism?

Nice capture really, but I ask my self hasn't this alreade been photo of the week once? It certainly seems familiar.

Jim Macias,-- Tony doesn't need a hug. He needs to grow up.

Perhaps the detractor is referring to the 125,000 easily -impressed, ignorant people who viewed this photo and rated it 8.80 and 8.67.

 

Peter, your comment points to the heart of my argument. DO you even know what you're talking about? The 125,000 is NOT people who viewed the photo and voted for it, it's the PAGE VIEWS. In other words ANY time anyone opened the front page of photo.net, (or happen to go there to find a link, or enter a search, or a search engine spider went past to collect links,..), because this POW happens to now reside there, a page view was counted. Whether they looked at the photo, whether they even knew it was there, a page view was counted and added to the page view counter to add up to the current ~125,000. Only a small fraction of that number actually opened up and viewed the image. Yet you use this number in some exaggerated claim as a kind of positive defense of how good people think the photo is. WRONG.

 

If I was the photographer I would be EMBARRASSED over the string of 10/10, 10/9, 9/10 this image has received. The most interesting thing perhaps is that the vast majority of these are from users who only recently joined photo.net over the last couple months, probably have not viewed more than a couple dozen photos here, have likely not participated in many debates or critical discussions yet, have uploaded almost no photos of their own, and worse did not bother to leave any kind of comment or critique as to really and truly why they felt this photo was a 10, especially in Originality. If you cannot see that this overabundance of sugary-sweet, unbridled, baseless enthusiasm for images that are good but NOT earth-shattering TOP OF THE WORLD PERFECT BEST EVER is out of control and is a DISEASE on this site, then photo.net is in deep doo-doo and is going to spiral more and more into a feel-good mutual admiration society that does NOTHING to help people learn, grow and become better photographers. And that's just plain SAD. Do people want to learn and expand as photographers through honest discussion and critical examination? Or do they want to have cheap, self-inflicted orgasms about how wonderful each others photos are? Oh, this is so nice....Oh nice!....Why thank you! No, thank YOU!....Oooo the blue here is so pretty! Reminds me of my living room curtains....this is SO nice....Ooooo, Ahhhh, OOOOh!

 

And drop the BS about people's "attacks" and "hijacking" of the forum. It's the usual blather from those who are uncomfortable for some reason within themselves to write an honest, critical assessment of a photograph and is the typical weak, knee-jerk response to someone who does not agree with you and has the guts and fortitude to say so.

 

I'm surprised you did not use the typical "They are just bitter they did not make such a great photograph" argument.

How about an intelligent response rather than a cheap, immature comment about Tony's need to grow up? Do you think your comment helped matters any? Did it add to the discussion here? Have you viewed Tony's photos to see where the experience of someone like him comments from? Thanks so much for your 5 seconds of time to participate which added NOTHING to this discussion.

Thank you. Just as my last sentence said. There's always one who has to take make this cheap baseless comment. Go take a look at Tony's images and ratings to see just how silly and pathetic your comment is. Do you think what you wrote was clever? Funny? Original? Not.

 

Why, oh why is there ALWAYS someone who has to make the stupid comment about how people who have the guts to critique an image are just being bitter and jealous. So BORING.

>>>If I was the photographer I would be EMBARRASSED over the string of 10/10, 10/9, 9/10 this image has received.<<<

 

This takes the cake for silly statements. Why should the photographer get embarrassed here? He has about as much control over people rating 10/10's as T.Dummett has over people wetting their pants!

 

What's on the plate here? Should we have a 10/10 filter? What about a !!!!!!! filter... I mean obviously we can't have people just running off over the hills with unbridled enthusiasm now can we. What about a 'bathroom pass'?!?!?

I'm just wondering when photonet will address the interest that others and myself had expressed in volunteering to moderate the forums, particularly this one!

I recommend you re-read the entirety of my statement and if you have problems understanding then please ask me.

 

Who said anything about control? About filters?

 

Bathroom passes? Excuse me?

 

If anyone truly feels this image is worthy of a 10/10 then in my opinion they do not understand photography very well. If they're willing to intelligently critique, discuss and expostulate why they think it should be a 10/10 I'm willing to listen, but boy would I be wondering what in the world ANYONE would say to support an argument that this image is the absolute best (THE BEST! NO BETTER!) an image could ever, EVER be, both aesthetically AND for originality.

 

It's a very good image. But I do not buy that it's a 10/10, after all there is NO higher mark than a 10 now is there?. (Please everyone understand this: THERE IS NO HIGHER MARK THAN A 10. IT IS THE ABSOLUTE HIGHEST MARK YOU CAN EVER GIVE ANY PHOTOGRAPH. IF YOU GIVE A 10 THEN YOU THINK IT IS AS GOOD AS THE BEST IMAGE OF ANY PHOTOGRAPHER THAT EVER EXISTED.

 

So WHY do people rate images 10/10? Why do they "fritter" and waste the integrity behind their rating and devalue the system by just casually tossing out the highest rating for an image? It's disrepectful and lazy, is what it is. Instead of taking the time to really examine the image, and rate it honestly and with substance. I imagine the photographer himself knows that this image is not a 10/10 and therefore for each one he gets he in essence receives a dishonest rating, a rating with no thought, no integrity, no substance. THAT'S why I'd be embarrased by strings of 10/10 ratings.

 

Understand now? Still think a bunch of 10/10 ratings somehow is good for the site and the purpose behind discussing and critiquing images? If so, please tell me why.

 

I really doubt a 10/10 image exists in the world. 8's and 9's...sure! But we should reserve the top ratings to create a balance and top threshhold against which images should be judged, not throw out 10/10 ratings willy-nilly. They become valueless! If you thnk more and more 10/10 ratings is good for the site, and people just "handing" them out right and left due to "unbridled enthusiam" rather than real photographic merit, and because it makes everyone feel good, well...then you help prove my point even further about the sad state of this site. Thanks for supporting my point.

Whoah nelly, let's take a breather here. The only authoritative source on what photo.net ratings mean is Philip's tutorial, and you'll note that there are a whole bunch of 10's handed out in there, many of them rather liberally even by my standards. But the tutorial defines the two criteria simply as: "Give a picture a high rating for aesthetics if you like the way it looks", and "Give a photo a high rating for originality if it shows you something unexpected." Nothing more, and if you try to claim anything else, you're making it up!

Now, as for how I personally rate images, a "10" for aesthetics means that I see no way of improving the picture and a "10" for originality means that I have never seen anything like it before (and I like it!). To date, preciselyoneimage has managed to score full points on both at the same time. Is it the greatest picture that there ever has been or will be? No, but it's a damned good picture, and that's good enough for me.

I think something that would probably help is if people claify what the benchmark of 1 to 10 is all about and are they rating against this fictional "best image EVER" or are they saying that in the environment he used his best judgment and skill to get the best shot that he could. It sounds to me like there are people on this site who are rating competely differently and butting heads because of it. It sounds like both factions are on the same page, but you're reading books!

 

I agree with Tony and Richard that if you are to hold this photograph up to the light of this unkown perfect that it shouldn't get a 10/10. It does seem that the ratings around here are getting a bit binary. But if your saying did the photographer make the concious effort and use his equipment to try to get what he considered a unique moment in time worthy of sharing with us then it deserves very high marks.

 

I think another part of Tony and Richards gripe is that there are alot of newbies on here just exited to be amongst proffesionals and probably not giving the best advice and ratings according to what there expectations are. Perhaps it would be best for you guys to go to a forum more suited for critical examiniation than POW, which is obviously frequented by novice and advanced alike rather than bashing your heads against the wall.

Get over yourself already!!!

-- Your whole condescending rant has basically been about control - you don't feel that people's opinions and their use of the

'subjective-at-best' rating system here is up to your photo-critique snuff.

 

It may be news to you but not everyone here at PN is waiting on bated breath to find out if an image is brilliance or trash or even simply enjoyable to look at based on some number.

 

You seem obsessed with making sure everyone here abides by some set of hard fast rules that correlate to a subjective number rating system.

 

Not everyone is going to fall in line and rate what you think they should rate nor will they praise or chastise and image by the same standards that you do - so why run on for paragraphs ridiculing everyone because they're not hung up on the numbers like you.

 

You should be embarrassed!

Too bad you cannot engage in a mature debate and discussion without getting all heated and adversarial.

Heated or adversarial is not the issue..

 

Try bored to death with your highminded rant accusing everyone who has given praise or a number that doesn't fit your personal neat little numbers hierarchy as contributing to the decline of PN. This is nonsense.

 

PN is not a perfect world where things fit into neat little categories with all the numbers and comments lined up just the way you like them.

 

If you feel it's adversarial or heated just because someone calls you on your contemptuous attitude towards other PN users who don't hold the same opinons as you - well shucks - that's tough.

First stop posting something, then changing your mind, then editing it, over and over again. Is this really such a big thing for you? Relax, bro'

 

I merely posted my opinion and although perhaps not eloquently, at least stated my reasons for my feelings. You on the other hand have still not written anything I would classify as mature reasoning or a clarification of your point or feeling on the issue (ignore mine would you? It's just my opinion). From you I've only seen just a low-browed and simplistic attack of mine. First you accuse me of being silly, then tell me to get over myself, accuse me of wanting to institute control, filters, bathroom passes (that was a nice ridiculing touch from you), and that I want everyone to abide by some rules I set. I never said any such thing. I stated my opinion, and like in common decent society I respect other's opinions too if they discuss them in a rational manner rather than attack another's opinions. Already two to three others have stated their opinions after mine, even referencing mine, and I respect that and what they said. Now if you want to bother to state yours instead of lambasting me and tell ME I should be embarrassed, then do so. Otherwise take a chill pill and not take what I say so personal yourself.