Untitled

I am grateful that this image was selected for recognition.  However, I am quite baffled about this decision, since no one commented on it when I posted it for critique.  Go figure . . .

The POW was selected for discussion and not recognition.  I'm not sure about the POD -- I never saw any explanation of the POD....it just appeared.  One wonders what kind of process both the POW and POD actually go through to be selected.  Group discussion?  Darts?

I think this photo would work for me better if it were limited to the top 60%.  My kinds of fires have the wood on the ground, and the fire rises above.  I'm just not used to seeing fire below the wood, so the composition is just a bit unusual. The aesthetics of the flames are best on the right side, IMO; when they get too bright, they tend to burn out (pun intended), as they did at the top left and especially down below.  A "quiet" flame, as you have on the right, can be very mellow and very peaceful....perfect for marshmellows.

Your feedback is thoughtful and most appreciated.  I see your point about the blown out whites, and I should have noticed that myself.  Regarding the flames below the logs, this fire was built in a metal fire pit which has space below the log placement.

For whatever it's worth, I joined with others in one of the discussion forums in arguing that the POTW should be reinstated and that there was little point to having a POTD.  My understanding is that Admin plans to retain the POTD and bring back the POTW.

The selection might be random but likely from someone not attuned to recent events. Today's selection is from none other than Gerry Gentry turned Mrs. Gentry. 

I don't have anything intelligent to say about the photo, Michael, other than it reminds me of good times by camp fires. :-) 

As in much of your work, what appeals to me is your thoughtfulness and vision in finding ways to abstract very real things. While we all know what this is, you've broken it down into shapes, geometry, and elements. In that respect, you have put your own visual and creative stamp on it.

Something I notice here is the flatness of the image where I think I'd prefer to see and feel more depth and energy. It comes across as graphic, which in itself can be very nice, but if it had maintained the energy of the fire, I think it would go deeper. Part of the zap of energy is in the (too) strong highlights Stephen mentions. Part of it is that so much, except that lower right and extreme upper right area, appears to be right on the surface. When I sit in front of a fire, the places my imagination usually roams to are the cracks and crevices in the fire itself, the deeper recesses. The upper right goes so quickly to black and the lower is dark enough so that the intrigue doesn't go much past a graphic black surface. The flames don't seem to break the two-dimensional surface of the photo and instead seem confined by it.

Maybe what I'm saying is that there are abstractions to be found even in living, organic things like fires and you do a wonderful job in perceiving and finding them but I think this one loses some of the organicity (I guess that's a word since my spell checker didn't yell at me!) which, if retained, would add, for me, an important dimension.

All this being said, YOU might not have wanted that and might prefer the more graphic, less organic approach and then this all becomes about aesthetic preference.

As I mentioned to Stephen, this fire was built in a metal firepit.  Granted, the highlights of the usual "campfire" usually are most visible from above, rather than from below.  The advantage of the firepit is that it allows different perspectives.  I was happy that I could concentrate on the fire's underbelly.  That is what I was after, along with the detail in the burning logs.  The flames to me were less important.

To fully appreciate your comments, I'll need to find the original photograph to confirm whether my treatment robbed it of its "organicity" (great term!) and also to see whether an alternative treatment much achieve different results.  Obviously I can darken the highlights and/or fiddle with the levels to address the overblown white areas.  Do you have any other suggestions?

Your analytical acumen coupled with your aesthetic sensibility and your depth of feeling make you a great teacher.

Gratefully,

michael

Going back to grasp the organic feel of the original is what I often do with my own work, so I think it's a good move here. I sometimes find that in stretching my expressive side, which I like to do, my technique goes a little too far, and when I look back at the original I often wind up modulating my technique which, in turns, winds up better expressing what I stretched to express . . . if that makes any sense!

The downward momentum of the flames are a wonderful aspect of this photo.

I'm really confused, I thought I'd read that the POTD AND POW were somehow being amalgamated (if that is possible) but I could have read quickly. I have to be honest Michael, I just saw the link for the POTD about 5 minutes ago, :-(, so I clicked to see the rest of the images and I immediately saw this was yours. I saw that you had uploaded it on January 21st. So, I went back through my images to see what I was posting around that time and there seems to be very little if anything. I know I was not online a lot because on Boxing Day I caught the flu and was quite sick till going into February. Had I been online more and seen this image, I certainly would have critiqued it.

Personally I LIKE your POV in this image. It is a welcome alternative to see the flames and the embers of a fire. It reminds me of some of my favorite times around a campfire, staring into the flames and embers. As for the 'blown out whites', when you are really staring into a fire, I find there are many colors and some of them are very 'hot white'. I find this image has a 'welcoming' quality' that I would have mentioned had I seen it in January when we had such cold weather and snow.

There are so many images posted on PN, that the only way I can truly see them is if I go to GALLERY, then 'Rate Photos'. Quite often there, I will see someone who has posted quite a few images. I think there are many people who do not even see a lot of our images, not always by choice but perhaps by when they logged on, or how often they are online here?? On weekends there seems to be less people. I do not find the time to spend on PN as I used to. I used to stay  online well into the wee hours of the morning, and I find that I just cannot do it anymore, I get too tired. Must be getting old(for sure)!! My apologies for not seeing this image sooner or any of the other PTOD's. I just had not seen the link on the HOME Page. My fault entirely. This is a fine image and I'm glad I finally found it!!!

sincere regards Michael, I appreciate your presence here - so much. :-) Gail

Does your not being able to make any "intelligent comment" about the image come from your not liking it, from your not feeling that it deserves further comment, or . . . ?

Thanks,

michael

Please see my most recent system email. 

You have no idea how revved up I was when I read your comments.  I am grateful that you were able to connect with this photograph.

Your statement about seeing images posted for critique, for rating, or both that get very little attention is quite interesting and hit home.  Since I started on PN, I have been trying various strategies to increase the number of views my photographs draw.  And, yes, I got to the point a while back that I would be just be satisfied with increased views.  So I have no expectations about more and better ratings or increased critiques.

Part of the explanation for this is that, by my own admission, the quality of my work is inconsistent.  This probably stems from my lack of any real training in photography and my overall trial-and-error approach to both shooting and postprocessing. 

As for PN, I'll reserve judgment on the change in site management.  But I think I'm in it for the long haul, even though I occasionally get reminders that I spend way too much time at my computer.

Many, many thanks . . .  You are one of a few people who allow me to believe that what I do may count for something.

michael

That's an interesting question you ask of yourself, done in a humorous way!

But you probably won't be surprised that I have a serious answer. It's just to note the tension or counterpoint between a) a photographer/artist going from the gut and not having rational reasons for the things they see and do and b) the incredible value there is in putting some things into words. Particularly when we are learning, chalking everything up to indescribable feelings, I think, can be disastrous, because it may allow us to kid ourselves and avoid really dealing with some finer points and issues. I can't tell you how many times verbalizing things about my photos, especially with others, actually helped me to SEE much more clearly. Articulating can go a long way toward actually making us encounter and stand back from our own work. Of course, we don't want to overdo this, because reason and words will only take us so far. 

Finding the balance of these things that works for each of us is, I think, a key to critique, to learning, and to growing. One of the main reasons I critique as much as I do is because it forces me to think about (and articulate) what I'm seeing and feeling, what I think works (and why) and what I think doesn't. My critiques, both negative and positive, are as much a reflection on me (me thinking out loud) as they say anything about another's work. I know I'm not always "right," but it's a chance to share with others how I see. I find giving honest critiques almost as vulnerability-producing as posting photos. And the chance of learning from critiquing both myself and others are quite high.

Thanks for the email. 

As always, I am eager to soak up the feedback you provide.  BTW, I assume you picked up on the fact that my previous response to Michael was to Michael Chang.  But it works just as well addressed to myself.

I actually did think you were humorously posing the question to yourself and didn't remember Michael Chang's comment (and, like you, don't quite understand it). So my response was to you, thinking that you might have nothing intelligent to say about your own photo, but would also be appropriate for Michael Chang, should he read it. In any case, thanks for following up and clarifying the comment.