HANDS

Lovely composure, balance and processing.

Great portrait of hands that have done a job.

Le mani parlano di una lunga storia!

Perfettamente fatta!

Ciao, Sergio!

PDE

Wow Sergio! Stopped me right in my tracks. Could not pass this by, so powerful, so telling, so….dramatic. And yes, photographically of a very high quality, like all of your work. Truly magnificent.

DG

Bella e geniale, mi piace molto: 6!

Copy. Flip. Paste. Add button.

Fun for digital noobs.

This particular one has no redeeming quality that I can find.

Hi Julie, I'm amazed with your comment. Let's say... I'm shocked! In your biography you describe yourself as "an artist" - "digital artist" more specifically. And yet, you think you have the right to qualify this photographer as "noobs".

Excuse my ignorance in English, but everywhere I look for the word "noobs" is definitely pejorative, with a negative meaning.

Unlike "newbie", who has little knowledge but eager to learn and fix their own mistakes to overcome themselves, "noobs" have been trying to "improve" something but have not progressed or even, are worse as they started.

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe this photographer cares about the image he may project and his work? Upload a picture here does not mean to be judged, only to be discussed.

And finally ... is photography quarrelled with fun?

And you... do you call yourself a digital artist? Is there no fun in Art?

My intention is not to discuss, I have no strong stomach for this. This symmetry has its beauty. There is beauty in everything, only you have to know how to look at beauty of life/photography.

Have a nice day!

People who call others "noobs" have no idea what they are talking about, since they have no idea whether the person is indeed "new" or not, and it also suggests an air of unwarranted superiority. For all we know, Sergio maybe a recognized master and he just happens to like the effect.

As to the photo: it catches the eye, so that is good, but I don't like the look applied to the hands. It makes them look unwordly and completely unlike any hands I have ever seen. For some this could be considered a plus, but I find it a negative. They look like a couple of dead, dessicated fish.

"It makes them look unworldly . . ." Although I wouldn't necessarily agree with this characterization, I think Sergio's treatment definitely gives the image an abstract quality. The fingers appear flat, as if they exist in two dimensions only. Another factor is the extreme degree of detail.

I didn't know Sergio's photos before seeing his "photo of the week" image.
It made me go to his very large portfolio and found hundreds of beautiful photos. Especially his dance and ballet photos impressed be as well as colorful photos from India (people), Rome (architecture) and Istanbul. Fine photographic eye.
Inside his portfolio one finds also numerous mirrored photo manipulations like the pow : Hands - which is only one mirrored hand flipped horizontally and heavily contrasted, which creates a feeling of unease and unworldly, which surely was the intention. Whether it is fun I don't know but the effect is there and fits to his folder of CREATURE MONOCHROME, where it will end up, I would expect.

The tools that lead humanity to ascent its ladder, in an image.

The crafted tools on the image of the crafter, in an image.

I can't imagin those hands but a working hands, and they are the best hands ever

to offer the best food, to raise the best family, and to have the most onest

hand shake and tightest grip, they are the working hands in an image.

I guess the photographer presenting them in such a way, he want from the

viewer to look at them to provok a feeling so simple as the simple bare and

clean hands.

I agree.

I think this raises the question about what is art to each of us. The two dimensional and somewhat lifeless quality of the person's old hands is perhaps what the photographer intended or perceived and that is what he may be part of what he is trying to emphasize through image treatment. It is an image that may shock or incite a viewer to find an analogy like dessicated old fish (which is perfectly OK, and a good strong reaction which in itself is positive) but the communication may in fact go beyond that for some.

I find the photograph preferable to many orthodox or oft seen images of POW and the critique forum. My contemporary art gallery (Imagisle art contemporain, near Quebec City) is in recess this year due to an insurability issue, but I would be content to present this one. Not because it might sell to a client (it probably would be hard to sell to many) but simply because I feel that it attempts something different and perhaps is a meaningful communication to some, especially if part of a series. The photographer seems to have a conceived approach and it will be interesting to see how it relates to his other work in his portfolio.

I have since looked briefly at his portfolio which demonstrates a diverse range of approaches, but Ibelieve there are at least a half dozen B&W images that could effectively be brought together to make an effective mini-series on existentialism or the human condition. Perhaps by separating a portfolio according to themes or mini-themes would be a plus value over photograph that are regrouped according to place names or designations like "abstract"? Often, however, a theme is set as a starting point for a series.

Fred, out of curiosity, I'm posing a question concerning the connection between a previous POTW and this one. In a previous thread, the discussion concerned a somewhat unorthodox portrait (http://photo.net/photo-of-the-week-discussion-forum/00dlDE?start=10). In that thread, you took the position, which hopefully I am restating correctly, that there are different styles and forms of portraiture. When you agree with Robin about the hands looking like dead fish, doesn't this presuppose something different?

No. It does not presuppose anything. There are different styles of portraiture, which I said in the other POTW thread because someone suggested that that particular POTW couldn't be a portrait because only half the face was shown. That discussion was about how to classify a given photo. To my knowledge the issue of classification has not come up here. I could see the current POTW classified as a still life, a portrait, fine art, or any other number of genres.

I don't like it. And I think Robin's description is apt. I'm not sure what the problem is. That doesn't mean I'm not open to all kinds of differing styles of photography and doesn't mean I'm not open to manipulation or even to the interesting idea of a deadening of human body parts. It means I don't like this particular result. And I don't think it opens up the issue of what is art to each of us. I didn't say whether or not I thought this was art. I agreed with a descriptive analogy of how the photo looked. And now I'm adding that I don't like it. There's plenty of art I don't like.

My saying it looks like dead fish or saying I don't like it doesn't mean I don't recognize that it might have meaning and import to some. I find it obvious, unsightly, and tritely executed. The idea behind it doesn't in any way offend me or shock me. The idea actually may have potential.

I don't think all strong reactions are positive, though that's often something said when a photo is negatively criticized. I have a strong negative reaction to this photo and I question why that would be manipulated to be a positive.

I see no problem with this image. It is not really a portrait to my mind. It is a statement and a somewhat unique one at that. All good art for me is a statement, even those I cannot put into words to appease my more logical evaluation. It may be unusual (and hardly anything like "manipulative") to say that a negative reaction is positive, but I believe that strong opposing opinions are more interesting (and ultimately valuable) than meak middle of the road critiques. In this case it is fun I think to hear how the image strikes different persons differently. I couldn't care less about having support for my own reaction from others, I can live happily with it, and I would simply congratulate the photographer and hope that he uses this approach as a sprinboard for the series of images (using some of his other very fine B&W images of people) I first alluded to.

Nice work!

Nor is it a portrait to Michael's mind or my mind. Michael brought up a different discussion, one that was about portraits, not because he thinks this POTW is a portrait but because he thought that my saying there are many different types of portraits (in the other discussion) had something to do with my critique of the current POTW. The point Michael was making was about one's accepting of different types of styles not about portraits per se.

I find this an ugly image, and my attention is taken more by wondering what the hands are on than the hands themselves, which I regard as more abstract than photograph. It would be nice if the background gave some indication of the man's occupation, with maybe some detail which gives us a slight insight into the story behind the hands. As it is I find it a quite emotionally vacuous, sterile image.

Fred, your response to me made plenty of sense, and it made even more sense when I read your response to Arthur. You weren't objecting to the incorporation of different styles at all.