VESPERS

As seen in a shop window.

again I like your vision. Your post-processing (looks like you inverted the colours) make the figures stand out nicely. It would be nice to see them without the weird objects surrounding them, though your post-processing minimizes the intrusion. Seeing by their position, you were leading them in the prayers? Or you were the big dude whom they were worshipping? If so, were you balancing a bottle of V8 on your head? Cheers, Micheal

 

it would be great if some/many of the raters would come to understand the word "originality". I think that there can be a wide variation on how

each of us likes the looks of a certain image, but there shouldn't be a large

variation on originality. In this instance, how many photos like this have you seen? Not many, eh? Perhaps only this one. Then it is original. How can

anyone give this photo 3 or 4 in originality is beyond V8. Maybe Pnet should

have a crash course on understanding "aesthetics" and "originality" before

they alow someone to rate. Micheal

 

Man you pushed a button on this one. I knew damn well that it would get dumped on if I put it up for ratings, but for some reason I went ahead and subjected myself to it. I must be a true masochist. I have to tell you, that with my admittedly weird tastes, this one is dear to my heart. I thought maybe it would even stimulate some discussion. But not one person made any effort. They were just too busy spouting, profound criticisms such as, "Pretty, beautiful or I like this." Not even a, "Boy this sucks!"

 

So why I thought this should be accepted by the average Pnetter, I don't know. At any rate, you could not be more right. Even if it is butt ugly and you hate it, how can you give it less than average in originality. Jesus@! Bring on another sunset or bird, and give the fives, sixes and sevens for that?????????????????? Some of these people are mindless fools. They have no ability to distinguish between originality and aesthetics. Most of the time, they make one decision, and that is "how much do I like this." Not "Does it create an emotional response?" Not, "How well does it convey the photographic meaning?" Not, "Is there any truth." Nothing, but "Gee, I don't think this is 'pretty.'" Yeah, there are times when Pnet is the advocate of mediocrity and sameness. You my friend are one of the few exceptions.

 

Now I feel better. This was shot through a shop window. They had hundreds of statues and other similar pieces. The sun was glaring at my back and caused me massive problems. Most of the images I took have too much reflection in them to be useful. Believe it or not, the processing is minimal. It was almost monochromatic on its own, but I did go ahead and desaturate it to get rid of a brownish cast. The other strange objects at the front and the rear, I thought about removing, but I decided to leave it as weird and peculiar as I saw it. There is also some crap on the glass window, that I left, and still might remove it. I blew this up to a 17 X 22 and printed it, and it is some of my best work IMHO. Obviously not in anyone else's.

 

I hadn't thought about them worshiping me, but now that you mention it......

 

 

Micheal, thanks for at least looking at it. I do appreciate it. And, if you think it sucks, just say so. I'd rather hear that then nothing at all.

IMO - it does not suck, is original, and needs work on the aesthetics.

I would have looked long at this sight trying to figure out how best to get a view that showed the scene and eliminated the surrounding clutter. Upon finding that I could not do so I'd most likely just left without any photos. It appears that you took this photograph at the best angle to capture the image and the lighting that was available, but the clutter still bothers me. I think you should have used the Burn Tool in the editor to selectively darken the areas that are not pertinent to the image.

I had to use Google to learn the meaning of "Vespers", I'm not a religious person. Your subject title is very appropriate.

I publicised my opinion about this image by rating it. I don't pretend. I comment on photos honestly. Cheers, Micheal

Yes you did make your opinion known by your rating. The thing is I know you well enough that if you rated it 3 for aesthetics and 5 for originality, I might move on, or I might good naturedly shrug it off. But, and this is key, I could dial you in and ask why if you hadn't already expressed yourself on it. AND I could see your work and make my judgement of whether or not I cared about your opinion or not, based on your work. I know that there are people who would abuse low ratings if they knew who gave them, but I think ratings have to stop being anonymous.

 

For instance, Shawn has weighed in that he does not really like several aspects of the image. I don't have a problem with that because a.) I know his work and respect it, and b.) he makes a valid case for his beliefs. I don't know if he rated it or not (I forgot to look), but if he rated it low, at least I know why. I would argue the originality portion if it were lower than 4 (really five IMO), but we could amicably agree to not discuss it or amicably discuss it. Either way, I don't think I would turn around and retaliate by giving him low rates.

Thanks for opining. As I stated, I gave some consideration to dumping the extraneous material, particularly at the back. I may still do that, and clean up the window detritus that looks like a dirty negative or printing paper flaws (particularly bothersome when printed 17 X 22). The stuff in the foreground, while it is clutter, is IMHO instrumental to the overall wackiness of the image. Hey, look at the bright side. There are no overhead wires.

 

I appreciate where you are coming from though, and recognize that this is not the type of shot that you are likely to do. No disrespect is meant by that either.

I took some very similar shots at an open bazaar in San Diego but I did not show them because all the statues had price tag stickers on them that I did not feel inclined to remove with software. Next time I am in San Diego I will peel off all the price tags, toss them onto the ground and have a grand time taking photographs of the plaster images in all of their glory. YES, I have been known to do such thing in the past, and will do so again in the future...

Well, I'm not betting on your getting any images like this around Susan's. I hope you did not take offense at my statement. No disrespect was intended. I just meant that I am more inclined toward sloppy funky stuff, and in a sloppier funkier style. Your work is always well polished and presented. Mine, only occasionally so.

 

On another note, don't let Susan get you drunk at the Jersey Lilly while you are there.

I don't think that I would ever take offense at one of your comments so toss that thought from your silly head. When it comes to sloppy, funky I can identify with that every day of the week. However, I do have an inner desire to see my sloppy, funky images in as much of an artistic view as is possible. As such I am always looking for the perfect view of my subjects. I grew up in an artist's community so I cannot help myself about that.

As thumbnail it looked like photo of Chinese Terracotta Warriors :D

You said, you shot this thru the window. Wondering how that window looks and what was your angle of view, but I have a feeling you could include window frame. You framed it anyway : ) Stuff in the back is for me helpful information about the location and nice contrast with main subject/s. Also wish that the glass was a little dirtier, but it works good enough as "natural" filter and helps the atmosphere.

Thanks very much for the comment. Not sure I understand why you think the glass should have been dirtier. The frame of the plate glass is mostly not shown but very close to the bottom. The terrible reflections from the sun showed on most of the rest of the image, and made it fairly worthless in my opinion, but I will go back to the series and see if there is anything more useful. Cheers

What I meant is that you didn't have almost any control of lighting, position, etc, so you couldn't document this as perfect composed photo with great lighting (although you did great job for the circumstances), so I would concentrate on pronouncing the location. Dirty windows IMO would more obviously show that it was shot thru the window for example. But that is only my little opinion. Image definitely has it's message and looks powerful.

Thanks. Now I understand what you are saying. Yes, you may have a good point there, because it might make more sense if one could see a bit more of the surroundings without changing the focus of the image. I'll see if there is any possibility of doing that. Appreciate the thoughts.

I love this shot David. Maybe one of your best IMO. Mainly because (as Samir said) it looks like the Terraccotta Army of the Emperor Qin Shi Huang that was unearthed in central Chinas Shaanxi Province.

 

 

To me this could be the Christian eqivilant... maybe the Terraccotta warriors where orgianly in a shop window befor some disaster burried them, and perhaps 2000 years ago, Davi Cho Boss drew a sumi painting of them.

 

anyway... I love this shot. Keep digging.

 

Shane

Man, you really won me over with this comment. This one was something I liked too, but everyone pretty much crapped on it. I know that shouldn't mean anything, but it does. If you like this one, you got to be an alright guy in my book.

Great atmosphere and scene! Wow!! Seeing this David, one should have to shoot B&W for at least two year. In watching and discovering more what light is doing!! Especialy on the left, the bending of the heads to the right is magnificant. This is so very fine, one of your best!!! Thanks for sharing. Haha.. a pitty, it's a vertical! Lately I often do prefer B&W screen-papers!

Thanks a bunch! I like this one a lot too. It was a tough one to shoot through the glass with a very low sun. I know you know shooting through glass, so you know what I mean.