mottershead

Mark, I think your comment is very sensible. Actually, my understanding is that the POW selectors are supposed to avoid photographs with content that would provoke "political" discussion. The reason I believe this is that one time by chance I was involved in a chat room discussion where some of the elves were lurking anonymously, and people were asked to "nominate" photos for POW. The "no politics" rule was mentioned.

Unfortunately, homeless people are a "mature" subject. It is much easier to take a picture of a homeless person than a dancer or a football player. For one thing, you have to go to some trouble to find a dancer or a football player, but in most American cities, you just have to get in your car and drive a couple of miles to find a homeless person begging at a street corner.

 

In order to achieve high regard, a photograph of a mature subject should have high technical merit and bring some new perspective to the subject. This photograph is quite deficient in technical attributes such as composition, light, and tonality, and the perspective that it brings to the subject of homelessness is apparently that homeless people are faceless signposts, which is not an especially fresh perspective.

 

This is a site for discussion of photographs. With this one, the elves seem to be suggesting that any old photograph that tugs at middle class guilt and prompts discussion of a political topic has merit enough to be Photograph of the Week. I disagree utterly.

 

Next week we'll probably have a picture of the World Trade Center towers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prior to its selection as POW, this photo received 30+ ratings, and had a slightly above average rating. I think this was more or less right, and I wonder what agenda the elves have this week, since presenting an excellent photograph does not seem to be it.

 

It is apparently a snapshot through the window of a car. While the subject is somewhat compelling, the composition is very weak. I think the fact we don't see the subject's face further weakens the image, making the focal point the sign.

I agree that the fog makes the shot; otherwise it is just another picture of a pretty girl.

This photograph made a positive first impression on me, although not so positive as "Illumination". However, for me it does not hold up under close scrutiny, for the reasons that Tony and others have analyzed.

 

It is exasperating to have, in almost every POW discussion, someone objecting to an analytical critique of the images. It's almost as if people are afraid that their positive response to an image will evaporate if it is analyzed -- that the critiques are stealing something from them. But in my opinion, the greatest images are those where one's appreciation deepens upon close scrutiny and analysis. A well-reasoned and true analysis is a gift not a theft.

 

Besides, if analysis and critique are not legitimate, we might as well just eliminate the comments and all just rate the image according to how much we "like" it.

Nathaniel, unfortunately for the ratings, this photograph was selected by the elves for the Photocritique, where it is rated by everyone who happens by, and an unconventional shot like this will tend to get slammed.

 

Don't be discouraged; it is much better than the ratings indicate.

As one of the ringleaders of the anti-sweater gang, I must admit that the sweater is growing on me. I still think that it is too bright, but it is necessary for the composition. Sweater-man also serves as the viewer's surrogate (we are looking over his shoulder) in this scene and helps to draw us in.

Frank, I don't think it is a contradiction. I said he probably exposed for the sky and lengthened the exposure to blur the sea. The effect was to make the foreground dark and moody, and because of the sea, dreamlike. Of course, he could have gone about metering the scene and establishing the exposure other ways. My real point is that I am almost certain that he visualized the result.

Tony, I am sure that when Juergen has collected his thoughts, he will speak for himself; however, I suspect that what is on display is what he visualized. Probably he exposed for the sky, knowing that this would underexpose the foreground and render it dark, at the same time using a long exposure to smooth the sea, and taking two images to be stitched -- producing the very original, dreamlike, image that we see.

 

The foreground detail is not important in this image -- it is uninspiring and, as you say, bland. The only purpose served by rendering it in bright detail would have been to keep all the Ansel-Adams-edge-to-edge-sharpness-infinite-depth-of-field-detail-in-the-shadows-radiant-tonality guys from nipping at his heels, at the expense of making the image banal.

 

Supporting my theory that the effect is deliberate are several other images in the same style in the folder. I also recall quite distinctly at least one other photograph that Juergen has since deleted which was even darker than any currently in the folder. (Actually, I would be interested in knowing why Juergen deleted this other image, because like this one it was quite wonderful.)

 

OK, here is a version that doesn't look "underexposed", created quickly in Photoshop. There is still no detail on the underside of the foreground rock, and it doesn't look as good as it would if there were more exposure to begin with. But leave those things aside and imagine those problems weren't there.

 

Is this really more like what people want to see? For me, it completely destroys the mood and the meaning of the original.

Leslie, in addition to being in aptly (or less than aptly) named folders, photos that are marked for critique are exposed in the Gallery, and in the Photocritique. Today, this photo and the other one of the same subject are near the beginning of the Photocritique list, meaning that almost everyone who uses the "Rate recent photos" feature will see it.

 

Personally, I like this photo. As with much of your work, it is highly original and graphic, as well as being shocking.

Tony, I think the type of manipulation you are doing to make the image look "all right" to you is within the margin of difference of all our monitors. For all I know, what you are calling "all right", post-manipulation, is the same as it looks on my monitor, without any manipulation at all.

 

Indeed, I am seeing quite good detail in the foreground rocks except for the smallish area on the underside of the large rock, which is clamped to 0,0,0, for whatever reason. This is quite a small area and it blends with the rest of the rock, which does hold detail, as do the other rocks. All this does bring home that high- and low-key images on the web are rather at mercy of the monitors, even more so than usual.

 

I am afraid, therefore, that this is a rather arid discussion, since none of us can comment on how it looks on your monitor.

 

Overall, I find it a quite magnificent image.

Michael, you would have to light the orange peel just right for it to be art.

I think this photograph is exceptional. The title, "Commissioned Portrait", makes it clear that the photograph is intended as a deconstruction of the conventions of commissioned portraits (even if it is commissioned, which is beside the point). As such, and considered on the merits of its composition and color, it is highly original and superb.

 

The comments on the photograph which say that it is "washed out", that it is "not flattering", that the model has a weak chin, etc are utterly failing to miss the point, which is that this photo is deliberately breaking the conventions of the "commissioned portrait". These people shouldn't have needed the title or even the statement in the technical details to realize that their comments were beside the point. If I were the subject, say a bride being photographed before her wedding, I would be appalled; this is not at all what I would be expecting. However, this is art. I am really quite dismayed by the narrow-mindedness of the crowd of raters on photo.net as evidenced by the low ratings on this photo. For me, it is a 9/9, and if you check my averages you will see that I am not a high rater.

Very nice light and color, and overall an interesting composition. However, I think the composition is a little off: the bottom edge of the frame cutting off the vase disturbs me. Like others, I also think the wire and the clutter on the table are unfortunate.

 

This looks like a picture that you could take again. If so, it would definitely be worth it.

Jonathan, you win on the cropping.

Jonathan, even though I basically like this photograph, I don't agree with the dichotomy that you have advanced in your last post between the people who are "focused" on the photograph's elements and those who have responded to the overall "effect". This basically dismisses those who have criticized various aspects of the photo as being hung up on details.

I suppose you need to dismiss some of the criticisms, because almost every aspect of this photo has been criticized by someone, and if all the criticisms were true, then the photo should be thrown in the trash -- which is not the case. But I do think some of the criticisms are valid, and you are dismissing them too easily -- that you are being perhaps a little too easy on yourself.

The overall "effect" of a photo is the result of a combination of the various elements, including, if it is not abstract, the pictorial content. It isn't some phenomenon on top of all the elements -- something mystical which cannot be analyzed, to which one can only respond. People here are analyzing the photo's elements in order to understand and to communicate why it is that the photo does not have a positive effect for them, or perhaps (like me) to understand how it could have a stronger effect. They are not ignoring the "effect" at the expense of the details.

While the elements may combine non-additively so that the overall effect is greater than the sum of the elements, the manner of this combination can also be analysed.

If all this were not so, there would hardly be any point in submitting photos for critique. We would all just rate the photos according to whether we respond to them or not (a fancy way of saying we "like" them). The comments could be eliminated or replaced by cheers and boos of various volumes. And producing a photo to which people respond would be entirely a matter of luck or god-given unanalyzable "talent", since an understanding of how the photographic elements combine could never be taught or learned.

The title is ironic. This photograph is actually a color photograph, with no digital manipulation to desaturate it. You can see this if you look carefully at some of the highlights in the reflections off the black paint.

There are many aspects of this almost-silhouette that I like: the classic, strong, profiles of the model's face and breast, the way the breast is framed by her arm, the vertical lines curving down the frame. All of these, with the turban and the diffused lighting combine to create a soft, "romantic" image. I also like the cigarette, which contributes to the feeling that this is a candid, relaxed moment, and also adds what some have referred to here as a "European" air of sophistication. Strange how hard these advertising-engendered associations die, and stranger still that these days a cigarette is more risque than a breast!

 

The thing that significantly weakens the image for me is the framing. The bottom edge is in completely the wrong place and interrupts all the vertical lines of the image. The knees sticking up and the cigarette arm coming across are also not very pleasing and create a confusing jumble at the bottom of the frame, very much in contrast to the elegant lines of the rest of the image.

 

We are told by the photographer that the cropping was done like this to remove an unaesthetic pair of jeans, but I think it might be better with the jeans than framed like this. As much as I like the feeling contributed by the cigarette hand, I think the composition might be stronger without the knees and the cigarette arm and hand.

 

I'm not an advocate of this type of manipulation, but for illustrative purposes I've attached an edit of the image. I think this edit is not as good a photo as the original -- the cigarette was an important element -- but I like the composition better.

Robert's point is very interesting. I think he is probably right that if many of the masterpieces of art photography were posted incognito on photo.net, they would not receive high ratings, or even much attention.

And I am not just referring to the work of contemporary photographers whose work is "challenging". I think it would apply to most of the work of celebrated photographers whose names everyone would recognize, perhaps excluding only their most well-known images, which we have all been taught to think of as "great". Ansel Adams, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Robert Frank, to name just a few from a very long list. For example, take away the most familiar ten images from AA's "100 images" book: would the remaining 90 command much attention or respect here?

Many art galleries that feature photographs are on-line. If you visit them, you will find many photographs with an aesthetic completely opposite to the technically perfect, well-lit, simple, magic hour light, "high impact", "high concept" compositions which advertising has caused most of us to associate with quality in photography.

This contrast is almost certainly deliberate on the part of many of these photographers (and gallery owners). Why pay hundreds of dollars for an image to hang on your wall, if it looks like it came from National Geographic, or that you could buy on a postcard for $3.00, or as a nicely framed poster that you can buy at the mall for $50.00?If you are interested in looking, the AfterImage Gallery in Dallas has an excellent Links Page.

I am not saying that all of these "art" photographs are good, or that all of the photographs that are popular on photo.net are bad, but the contrast between the two aesthetics is really quite striking and interesting.

This is a photo critique forum. Not all the comments will be complimentary, and people who are displeased by an image, even if in the minority, should not be assumed to have dark motives, jealousy, character flaws, etc. because they express their point of view. Any more than the people who favor an image should be assailed for having "kitschy" taste.

 

To be specific, I think Tom has been quite articulate and impersonal in expressing his reservations about this image, and is more than entitled to do so. There would not be a discussion unless there were different points of view, and as long as we keep the commentary from becoming personal, we should welcome all points of view that are well-expressed.

I can see the difference in your second version; but I think you didn't go anywhere near far enough. This is partly a matter of taste, but here is what I would have done. This was a big desaturation move in Photoshop on your second version!

I think this image is very interesting in that it shows how finely attuned to facial recognition the human visual system is. With very minimal information, we recognize this as a face, and no doubt people who know Paul LaVenture recognize this as a photograph of him. For that reason alone, the photograph is interesting and striking.

 

I do have some sympathy for Tony's criticism of the arbitrariness of the "negative space". Almost any amount of black around the facial sliver would have been possible, and this somewhat diminishes the image. One often feels in the best art that every element is inevitable and could not be otherwise.

 

This photograph is "high concept" and very graphic, and while this makes it striking and easily accessible, one searches in vain for the layers of meaning and emotion that have been prominent features of recent POW's.

 

Nevertheless, there is a lot to be said for accessibility, and it is too easy to dismiss all such works as "kitsch" and "eye candy". I think it is an excellent photograph, and while I have somewhat a preference for photographs from the "other" universe, I can enjoy this one, and appreciate its merit, and recognize the considerable achievement of creating it.

 

 

 

Tris, thank you for presenting us this wonderful mural. Not having seen the mural myself, it is hard to say whether you have rendered it accurately, but I would suspect you have, and rather well at that. I particularly admire the lighting, which brings the bricks of the wall into relief. I won't rate this, because so much of the aesthetics of photographs of art is derived from the art rather than from the photograph (as it should be). But I will say that I think you have done a fine job here.

On this one, Photoshop was used, but only Curves to adjust the contrast and Unsharp Mask, which is almost always necessary when working with digital cameras or scanners.