mottershead

I think this is kitschy and gimmicky.

Once again I am at a loss to explain the warm reception given to this photo. It looks like a record "I was there" snapshot to me, the type any tourist with a reasonable camera would take, while ambling around the town looking for a place to eat lunch. Most tourists would at least have put their spouse and kids into it -- and that might have added a little interest.

 

Probably, taken in the middle of the day, there is no special light. Indeed, the photo is too contrasty, with the left side almost over-exposed. Anybody who has wandered around the hill villages of Provence or Italy has seen this scene dozens of times and taken dozens of pictures like this. Access to quaint Italian villages is not something that everybody has, but it is more of a touristic achievement than a photographic one.

 

Almost the only thing unusual about this photo are the rave reviews it has received, which, again, don't do the photographer any favors. Judging from other works in her portfolio, this photographer has some talent. Let's hope she doesn't lose it under the influence of all this nonsensical praise for some very average pictures that she persists in uploading along with the good ones.

 

This is somewhat off-topic, but since it has come up, let me just say this: the Critique Forum on photo.net is not mainly about photo-sharing. Its purpose is "critique".

 

By photo-sharing, I mean the Internet equivalent of pulling out your latest roll of snaps at a party and having people make polite and friendly -- if somewhat bored -- comments. There are plenty of sites for that, and photo.net is one of them -- as long as you don't submit the photos for critique. But if you make a Critique Request, you should assume that the photo will be critiqued -- that it will become meat for discussion. If you aren't prepared to accept that, probably submitting the photo for critique is not a good idea.

 

Moreover, you also need to accept that the critiques will not only be for your benefit but will also be aimed at the wider audience of those who view the photo and read the comments -- that the comments on a photo are not a dialog with you but potentially a discussion, in which you are only one of the participants.

 

When a photograph or photographer is relatively obscure on the site, the main audience for the comments will be the photographer, since the commenters will know that few other people will read the comments. When a photograph or photographer is visible -- for example, a photo reaches the Top Photos pages --- the comments can quite legitimately address themselves to the wider audience which will view the photo and read the comments.

 

Maria, it isn't playing the game properly to react to these criticisms defensively by talking about your feelings, etc, implying that the critics are trampling on them, that they are motivated by envy and so forth, and that they ought to feel guilty for not playing along with the photo-sharing ritual. Your feelings are irrelevant, and envy is almost certainly not the motivation of the critics. What is relevant is the photograph, and whether it is good or bad. If you think the photograph merits praise and that the critics are wrong, then say why. But don't act all shocked and aggrieved that someone is criticizing the photo. Frankly, it makes you look ridiculous, not the critic. You don't have to agree with the criticisms, but it is silly to post the photos here for critique, and then imply with every defensive answer to the critic that any criticism that isn't heavily sugared with praise is not legitimate.

 

By the way, Lannie, I suspect it was Jeremy who deleted your comment. You will note that he also deleted several other comments, mostly from Rob Portnoy, at the same time.

 

 

I tend to agree with Nikos. It is a nice "capture", as he says, meaning that the photographer had to be open to the moment and ready to take the photo. That said, it was not exactly a "decisive moment".

 

Also, it suffers somewhat in the originality department, and while I think most people will have a warm initial response to the situation, the photo seems overly sentimental to me, bordering on kitschy. I might expect to see a photo like this for sale in a shopping mall store, with some kind of "inspiring" quote or sappy poem in the corner. Or perhaps on some kind of greeting card.

 

Except the mall or greeting card photo would be technically better, sharper and with better light, especially on the couple. Maybe a "god beam" shining down, or something. The composition is very conventional.

 

All that being said, I would say that it is a somewhat above average photo, which many beginners would be delighted to have taken. But it is not the work of a master by a long stretch. I have a difficult time understanding the overwhelmingly positive response, and I suspect that Maria has cultivated a group of friends on the site who aren't being sufficiently critical. All the comments in Italian make me think that a bit of national pride might be at work, too. None of this is a good thing for the development of any artist, although better than uniform hostility, indifference, or discouragement, to be sure. But Maria doesn't seem to be in much danger of receiving a lot of that these days on photo.net.

 

To be honest, this kind of whining is tiresome.

 

I've run statistical analyses and reported on them before. The ratings of people with no photos uploaded are the same on the whole as those who do have photos uploaded, and that is even taking into consideration trolls whose ratings would be deleted if they were reported. In fact, as I recall, the ratings of people with no photos are slightly higher that those with portfolios. I am sure the same would be found if we analyzed the ratings of people whose own photos are lower-rated.

 

Basically, when people get a low rating, they go looking for a reason to discount it. If the person doesn't have photos uploaded or those photos seem poor, they will dismiss that rating and remember the incident. All the high ratings from those same people are never noticed or are forgotten.

 

Your pathetic "photo" just shows that people are basically unfair in any matter which involves themselves. If you don't want people to rate your photos, don't upload them. Ditto, if you are going to find a reason to complain about any rating which isn't as high as you think it should be.

 

A very fine image.

 

I agree with Pierre that it could use a little sharpening, especially the fine hair of his beard and the skin of his face and hands. The only other things that I would mention are the hotspot on the violin could be burned in a little, and maybe the negative has a bit more detail in his shirt, which could be brought out a touch more (not sure about this last point, though). But these are all very small points.

I agree with Marc. I am very surprised to see this photo in the same portfolio as David's other work. It is hard to believe that it was done by the same artist as the others in the portfolio. Fluorescent yellow on a black background is the realm of black-velvet-painting kitsch. The lurid green and black frame makes it worse: at least get rid of that. The fact that it looks like a fake digital composite doesn't help to reduce the kitschy impression.

 

If I were going to create a qualifying test for raters, I might put this photo in as a trap. Anybody who rated it high would be disqualified.

The expression, especially the eye contact, and the light are beautiful. But the foreground hand (?) significantly detracts.

Interesting abstraction on a familiar theme. But it disturbs me that the foreground fence on the right is out of focus. Even leaving that aside, the geometry doesn't seem quite right. The eye can't decide whether the sun or the corner of the fence is the focal point, and the two are not in any obvious relationship.

Technically correct and the contrast between the bright snow-covered and darker shadowed areas is handled well, but compositionally it lacks points of interest. More of a record shot.

The elf's comment was edited for the reasons stated, not because of legal issues related to model releases. Editorial uses of photographs do not require model releases.

 

For example, in the case of Arrington vs. New York Times, the Times published a picture of Arrington, an African-American man, in the street wearing a business suit. The picture illustrated an article about African Americans entering the "middle class" in increasing numbers. Arrington objected to being characterized as middle class and sued, arguing that he hadn't given his permission for the use of the photograph and that his privacy had been invaded. He lost on the grounds that an exception to privacy laws has been carved out for newspapers, magazines, books, and electronic media to publish photographs of people without permission in connection with editorial content that is of public interest.

 

Based on this and many similar cases, photo.net does not believe that model releases are required for the photographs that are exhibited here. However, that said, we don't intend to gratuitously embarass people either.

The Photographs of the Week are chosen by a rotating group of individual members or "elves", not by the editorial staff of photo.net. The comments are also written by the elves.

 

However, this week, exceptionally, I have edited the elf's explanatory comment, because it seemed to me that it read in a great deal more than is supported by the photo, was potentially embarassing to the anonymous subject, and was apt to become the topic of discussion this week rather than the photograph itself. I have also deleted a fair number of comments which related to the elf's now-edited comment.

I knew that "Lawrence" had to be a fake name. I mean, who really calls himself "Lawrence" any more? No, careful study of the server logs and tracing back IP addresses has provided conclusive evidence that Lawrence is really Tom Menegatos. So, okay Tom, did the nudes get a little boring? How about 'fessing up?

 

Marc, you buffoon: I posted my brilliant "Test" image before "Lawrence" posted this; so how could I have plagiarized this? Anyway, "Test" was simply my experiment to prove how mesmerized the photo.net crowd is by saturated colors. Obviously, Lawrence fell for my trap and used the eye-dropper tool in Photoshop to steal my color, along with his other transparent digital hocus-pocus.

Am I the only nay-sayer here? Aside from the obvious digital manipulation, there is the question of Clifford's excessive saturation. I am not familiar with the properties of this particular emulsion, but I cannot believe that the real Clifford could have been that color. I know he is supposed to be red, but is it believable that a children's toy would be such a ridiculous, garish red?

 

Of course, slavish high ratings of excessively saturated images are epidemic on This Server. No doubt this is the work of that whole notorious Spinak-Dummett mate-rating crowd.

This photo is too perfect to be believable. You can clearly see that the glints in his eyes are just not in the right place given the overall direction of the light. For example, they are inconsistent with the light on his little button nose. And then he cloned in that yellow thingy on the left, being sliced by the frame, just to make us think it was real. A little too clever! How come Mr Lawrence Spinak (is that your real name?) didn't disclose this obvious manipulation?

Perhaps we should have a permanent "What is a photograph/Ethics of Digital Manipulation" Forum with a different image to be discussed each week. We could put the image to be discussed on the home page. Oh, we have that already -- only we call it "Photograph of the Week".

Moderator comment: Right on Brian... and once again we should remind people that the appropriate place for discussion of what constitutes photography (and this within the context of what belongs on photo.net) is here: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001gZr

While I am fully-paid-up member of the Photo.net Cropping Society, this time I feel the various proposed crops don't improve the photo. Those window mullions are needed to ground the photo, Also the crossing point of the two create a tertiary focal point which, with the frog and the woman's left eye, create a strong compositional triangle.

I agree with Nestor. It should be possible to separate one's opinion of the subject (or the photographer) from one's appraisal of the photograph.

 

"I this this is a terrible photograph because it is a picture of a dog, and I don't like dogs". "I think this is a great photograph because it is a picture of a beautiful woman, and I like beautiful women." -- these are burlesques of reasonable criticism.

It never occurred to me that this might be a fake.

 

Why not? Because people who make fakes in Photoshop don't come up with ideas like this. They come up with ideas like "let's have a kitten floating in the water waiting to catch helicopters flying off the deck of an aircraft carrier". They don't come up with ideas like "lets have a young woman blowing out birthday candles while outside the firemen put out a fire -- hey, kewl."

 

Almost nobody is brilliant enough to think of that, even assuming they have the Photoshop talent to pull it off convincingly. For juxtapositions like that, and the layers of meaning that they suggest, you have to take your camera out and be ready when reality arranges itself in a meaningful way for you.

 

Reality is more brilliant than you in creating surprising and meaningful juxtapositions. And that is why, in my opinion, photography is an important art form, and not just another tool for making images.

 

 

Congratulations, Paal.

 

 

Test comment. Test rating. To the photog: if you see this, don't worry, it should be deleted. Please contact me if it isn't -- Brian Mottershead.

Tony, the sharpness of the photo is excellent and so are the colors. The perspective correction with Photoshop is a bit of a new departure for you, no?

I keep coming back to this one. Probably my favorite from the last month or two.

Definitely Photograph of the Week material. Please upload more.

Youthful black skin like this is very photogenic and you have done a wonderful job with the lighting to render its rich tonality, contrasting with the whiteness of the teeth and the eye.

 

I agree with the previous comment about the eye being too near the frame; also I'm not enthusiastic about the size of the catchlight in the eye.