mottershead

I also prefer this to the Guarionex. Chairs and their shadows are a classic subject, but I haven't seen one before with such interesting play between the chair, its shadow, and the pavement stones.

 

Originality is in the eye of the beholder. One person sees "just a chair". The photographer looks more closely and records the beauty of a particular chair in particular light.

Charles, you are missing my point. I am well aware that the majority view is that this picture does not warrant selection as POW. What I think is controversial is the view that the merit of a portrait has nothing to do with the identity of the subject. That the only thing relevant about a portrait is that it depicts some generic human being, and that it doesn't really matter who. That this picture can simply be judged as "bad" because of its alleged technical faults.

 

I believe, on the contrary, that it is highly important in general who the subject of a portrait is, and in this photograph, all important. If this were a portrait of my brother-in-law, taken at a Sears portrait studio, no doubt he would be asking for his money back. However, we know that it is a photograph of Pele, and it is one that presents him in an unusual way, a way in which we are not used to seeing celebrities presented. That makes it a good picture, even a brilliant one, although as I stated earlier in the discussion it does have unnecessary technical faults.

Richard, some approaches to poitraiture probably only work with celebrities. Various interpretations of this photograph have been suggested: celebrity as monument/statue; celebrity portrait as police mug-shot; celebrity head as national flag. I don't know which of these were intended by the photographer, but all of them are interesting.

 

None of them would have the same impact if the subject were not a celebrity. It is perhaps late in the week to begin a discussion about approaches to portraiture, but your comments suggest a view that it should not matter who the subject is, that it should be possible to appraise a portrait from information within the four corners of the photograph, without any independent knowledge of who the person is. That would be quite a controversial view -- do you really want to defend that position?

Please follow the posting guidelines. Postings should relate to the photograph, the more specific the better. Comments in the vein of "Congratulations", "Excellent", "This stinks", or "Why was this selected?" don't move the discussion forward.

It would seem that there is some detail in the shadows around the neck and chin. One wonders why the photographer chose not to render it.

It is not my absolute favorite from Paolo's folder which, as others have said, is superb. However, it is certainly one of the handful of the best. It is a very striking profile, emanating a kind of sensuality.

 

Perhaps the image would be a little better if the neck and chin were not in such deep shadow. The focus on the cheek rather than the nose or eyes is not a problem, in my view. The focus on the texture of the face almost makes it a monument, befitting the subject.

I like the moodiness of the fog, but I think the contrast adjustments are a bit overdone. The birds seem too dark compared to the trees, making the image seem unrealistic.

I like the muted colors.

With this toning, the pears almost look like metal sculptures. Except for the hot spot on the foreground pear, I like this very much.

Much of the debate in this thread about the rating system comes from the fact that there is no real guidance or agreement on the meaning of the ratings, and the only document on the subject is confusing. Everyone decides for himself what the ratings should mean.

One thing on which people can honestly disagree is what universe of photographs is being rated.

Richard Sintchak has made it clear that his rating universe is "all photographs in the history of photography" and when he says that probably no photograph on photo.net warrants a 10 when considered in this universe, I almost agree with him, although I think there are a few photos here that are close.

Others (including me most of the time) consider the universe to be "photos on photo.net", in which case some of them by definition warrant 10's.

Others might consider the universe to be "all photos of a particular subject type": for example, this photo might be rated relative to other rodeo pictures, or even "girls falling off a rodeo sheep pictures". Still others apparently consider the universe to be "photos that hypothetically might have been taken of this specific event/subject", giving the actual photo a 10 if they can't see any way in which it "might" have been improved.

So, here are my ratings of this picture, relative to various possible universes.

Universe	Rating
All Photos Ever Taken of Girls in Yellow Shirts Falling off Rodeo Sheep	10
Photos Probably Taken at this Event	10
All Rodeo Photos Ever Taken	8
All Professional Photojournalist Photos Ever Taken	8
All Sports Photos Ever Taken with High FPS Cameras	8
All Photo.net Photos	8
All Photos Ever Taken by Anyone in any Format in the entire History of the Human Race	7

Without agreement or instruction from the administrators of the site on the meaning of the ratings, it is pointless to argue about it. The only thing on which we should agree is that people shouldn't rate pictures without thinking through how they will interpet the scales and trying to be consistent in applying them.

When an artist succeeds in stripping away from the world the false comfort of the common, is that the crime? That her image doesn't trade in photographic cliches and herd expectations?

Doug, at the risk of overstepping my quota of comments for this thread and testing the patience of the moderator, allow me to reply.

I think my point (which actually was introduced here by Nick Scholte as a question) is that the elements of this image are a set of photographical cliches: an ultra-simple highly graphical composition; saturated, not to say lurid, colors; and a starburst, such as people used to do with nifty Cokin filters and now regularly do with Photoshop.

If these elements had actually been created with nifty filters, or assembled in Photoshop, people would have no trouble recognizing the result as kitsch. However, because the image was captured in-camera, its elements an artifact of film response to weird light and a long exposure, people are ga-ga for the image.

I should add that kitsch isn't all bad. It often takes great skill to produce it, and in this case, more skill was required to produce in-camera kitsch than the equivalent Photoshop kitsch would have required. (But perhaps I only think that because I have learned some Photoshop.) We can admire the skill and we can be technially interested in (and learn from) the light and film effects that the photo exhibits. But there isn't much to the image itself.

Lucas, I'm not criticizing Gabi for posting the photograph. Not every photo posted here is intended as a candidate for POW, and anyway she didn't pick it. She has described the circumstances in which the photo was posted. My criticism is directed (once again) at the POW selectors, this time for selecting a photograph which is noteworthy only for demonstrating some interesting film/lighting effects relevant to night photography.

Lucas, your comments would apply to any criticisms of a Photo of the Week, or indeed of any image in photo.net.

 

If this is not to be simply a forum where only people who "like" an image are allowed to comment, then critical comments must be permitted. This is even more true of the Photo of the Week, which someone has chosen as one of the 52 most distinguished photos on photo.net out of hundreds of thousands that will be submitted each year. In addition to the usual discussion of the photo itself, the POW discussions properly dwell on whether the photo warrants its selection.

 

Even if one accepts the theory that the POW needs only be apt for provoking discussion, there still can't be a discussion unless different points of view are expressed. If this weren't a POW, my comment (assuming I bothered to make one) would have been a simple: "interesting effect; might be nice to see how it can be used with a more compelling subject." Since it is a POW, I feel justified in pointing out that the standard for seletion should be higher.

 

 

There have been several comments that this image would not be interesting if it turned out to be a Photoshop manipulation or a filter effect; but since it is a straight capture on film, it is interesting, even wonderful, and deserving of gushing praise and multiple exclamation marks.

 

I fail to understand these comments. Some of the "impact" is from lurid color shifts due to a combination of the film's response to the long exposure and to out-of-view campground lights. The star effect is also the result of diffraction of the moonlight by the palm fronds, as recorded by a long exposure on film. Remove these effects, which are due almost entirely to the photographic/film process, and one is left with a boring, indifferently composed, picture of two palm trees.

 

The scene didn't look like this. This photograph is entirely "about", and its impact is owed to, how moon- and campground-light are recorded by film in a long exposure. Why an image that is essentially an artifact of film response would have more merit than a Photoshop or darkroom manipulation of an equivalent boring picture of the two palms is beyond me.

 

 

I am afraid I have to join the detractors of this image, although it has a certain visual impact.

 

The light behind the palm tree on the left looks more like it was produced by a cheesy "creative" filter than diffracted moonlight captured by a long exposure. And the green of the palm tree on the right is too lurid, whatever the cause.

 

Still, it is interesting to see what moonlight will do in a long exposure. As a curiosity, it perhaps warrants selection as Photo of the Week; but I think the standard should be higher.

Interesting and appealing photograph. However all of the black space on the right is gimmicky, and was clearly done with Photoshop. The problem with this technique, which has been debated before on photo.net (for example, on Peter Christoph's POW) is that the amount of black space added is completely arbitrary. Why just precisely that amount -- why not an inch more or two inches less.

The photograph would be better if the original 5:7 format were maintained, with some detail left in the black areas.

I missed the tear. Since the incorrectly exposed gray look is not a "statement" apparently -- all the more reason why you should do better on the printing/scanning.

The print is very gray and lacking in contrast and tonality. And it needs spotting in places, the white speck near the guy's mouth being particularly objectionable. It looks so bad in terms of the usual standards for evaluating B&W images, that think these faults might be deliberate.

 

However, despite these very serious flaws, the image has impact and communicates a strong story. Because of this, I definitely think it would be worth trying to make a better "print". If the faults are deliberate, they don't work.

Concerning Lucas' question (near the top of the thread) as to what effect fill flash might have had, and whether it would have disturbed the birds: I think it would probably have served to separate the birds from the background more and probably would have revealed more detail in their plumage. However, the use of fill flash for nature photography and landscapes requires a very deft touch not to look unnatural, and it can disturb the animals.

 

Besides, while I said in a deleted comment that the lighting was too flat, in looking at the photograph more, I've reconsidered. The flat lighting is consistent with the location and the mood. Also, notwithstanding the opinion stated above to the contrary, according to my eye the versions with neutral White Balance suffer somewhat less from the "flat lighting" criticism. It would appear that this is essentially a question of taste.

 

Since the issue of the mood created by the neutral WB versions versus the original has been raised, let me say that while the blue color-cast of the original does serve to reinforce the feeling of cold, I think the neutral versions look cold enough, and they do look more natural.

Hard to be sure about the horizon not being straight, since part of it is obscured by what looks like a land mass. I think Nick might be right, though. By the way, my edited version wouldn't have made it skewed unless it already was.

This is my suggested improvement mentioned above as the "best so far" -- again. The background was burned in and blurred slightly in places, and the white balance was made more neutral. It was cropped somewhat to make the Fab Four less central.

Jack, because of her very fair skin, Lilliana has a vein that is visible on her nose between her eyes.

The baby camel is cute, and the framing is good. The background is too light relative to the camel, but this can be rectified in Photoshop.

Painting over the light-trails, as you have done, looks fake, and eliminates most of the interest of the photo. You might as well have taken a picture of the scene in a short, standard, exposure, and drawn in completely invented light trails.

 

What does a straight scan of the photo look like?

At this point in the thread, you can't really say anything is "off-topic". A few more random comments, and we can put it out of its misery.

 

As one of the first people in the thread to express reservations about this image and the judgement of the elves in picking it for POW, I'd like to apologize to Aldo for the fact that he was in a pillory for a week. If I had known what was going to happen, I would have refrained from my criticism.

 

I won't say that Aldo didn't fan the flames a little, but no one deserves to have this happen. I hope very much that this does not repeat itself.