'Miss Liberty' of the Streets

'The Statue of Liberety arrives on the street in the guise of a fresh,

healthy, young woman, in front of a streetside business, (Here shown

dancing to booming ethnic/dance/club music for passing motorists).

Your rates, critiques and comments for this somewhat surreal or

enigmatic photo are invited and most welcome. If you rate harshly,

critically, or wish to make a remark, please submit a helpful and

constructive comment; please share your superior photographic

knowledge to help improve my photography. Thanks! Enjoy! John

It gets my vote. Once again, I'm commenting on another photo of yours before realizing who the photographer is. You're nothing if not consistent.

Can anyway the left side of the lady's face be made bright ( ? by adjusting highlights/shadows in PS) so that a little more details of her face can be achieved to visualize her expression well?

 

Regards,

Susmit

It's pretty amazing to me that you can pick out one of my photos from the queue when they are so diverse and hit the mark, but I suppose they have some elements of communality that bind them . . .. members have remarked on that before.

 

Thank you for the vote.

 

It makes my day.

 

John (Crosley)

 

There are two possible 'left sides' of her face.

 

One is her left side as she faces us.

 

That is in darkness, and although information is available to bring it out, it shall remain perpetually dark. It is supposed to be dark; that is the object of this photo; it is dark for artistic reasons, and naturally so as a result of the lighting.

 

In fact in a rework a bit less of the crown on her left (our right) would show, in the darkness.

 

If you mean the left of her face as we face her, that appears fixed, despite brightening and darkening substantially that seems to remain at one level, without some extraordinary 'selection' and manipulation which hasn't been done.

 

I migth consider emphasizing that more . . . . for artistic purposes (her right side, but the left side as we view her).

 

In the future, when you say 'left' or 'right' for a subject that is depicted facing us, best to say 'as subject faces us' or as 'we face subject' so there's clarity.

 

Otherwise, your comment can have two different and diametrically opposed meanings.

 

Best to you.

 

John.(Crosley)

 

(by the way, this one has my vote, as best recent photo and after best workup, one I'd put on exhibition, just for its 'intersting' qualities and its 'design' and 'lighting', however unpopular that may be with PN raters.

 

JC

I strive to make 'interesting photos' -- ones that engages the eye.

 

In the course of doing that I hope to incorporate proper 'design elements'.

 

If I have achieved that, and engaged your (and other viewers' eyes) then I have achieved my goal with posting this photo.

 

I think it is imminently 'interesting' and 'engaging' and any analysis about 'tonality, etc., is interesting but missplaced.

 

This is a photo that in m mind should be viewed as a 'whole'.

 

I recently got a missive from a longstanding member who took the approach that a photo may be very good, even excellent, but if there were 'flaws' that member 'took off'' for them, kind of like judging 'figure saking competition'.

 

In some instances, that may be a proper way to judge, but I think for others it may be entirely missplaced.

 

One of my most successful photos has everything (literally everything) out of focus except the tip of a man's cigarettte (he is a wife murderer and the focus is a metaphor for his life, and so is the burning tip of his cigarette).

 

People who 'take away' for things like 'not in sharp fous' miss the point of such photos, and the same easily can happen to a photo such as this -- missing the point by 'taking away' for individual perceived faults, without doing as you have done and taking in the entire photo.

 

Thanks again. Arond A.

 

John (Crosley)

As of this writing, this photo has had 31 viewers.

 

It has had eight raters.

 

This is almost a record percentage of raters for viewers.

 

That indicates that, if nothing else, this photo is rate worthy, and in one way or another 'stands out'.

 

That suggests to me it has fulfilled its goal as I view it.

 

John (Crosley)

I agree that an image should be taken as a whole. For me, 'engaging' and 'interesting' are paramount over other, more technical considerations. Life is imperfect, especially when it's in motion. Therefore, fine grain flaws seem forgivable. The world is saturated with technically great images, but few of these are ever remembered. I like to think photos are just impressions, not a stand-in for reality. Keep'em coming.

For you alone, if no other.

 

Happily.

 

john

 

John (Crosley)

"The world is saturated with technically great images, but few of these are ever remembered." unquote. huh? The world is saturated with technically flawed images and few of those are ever remembered either. In fact, virtually all images are never remembered, period. :-)

Meir,

 

I understand the point.

 

But isn't it a non sequitur?

 

Arond A. was making the point that technical flaws in his mind needn't doom a photo to obscurity, and in fact many great photos have 'technical flaws' in them or many so-called 'flawless' photos are not memorable, and was doing so in relationship to praising this photo.

 

You make the reverse of his statement, but without reference to this photo, which is an interesting observation, but without much relevance here to this critique, and possibly, thus, a non sequitur?

 

We know you like technically ''perfect' photos, but is there a place in your firmament (or below) for a photo like this, and where?

 

John (Crosley)

I don't disagree with Arnold beginning with "the world.." and you just said was I said. I post photos because they are beautiful to me. I think you post for the same reason and that might be their only commonality.