scott_blair1

There is something about the pose, the lighting, the color, the near background, and far background that just makes this uniquely beautiful. Yet there is nothing dazzling or exciting going on. In a way, it's as subtly arresting as Boticelli's "Birth of Venus".

If three daisies in a rather dull symmetrical arrangement are not interesting on their own, this doesn't add anything extra. But if it's fun to do and people like to look at it, who am I to judge?

If it's a grainy black and white, it's art. I'm not knocking the photographer, or the photograph. But then again, with a certain number of posted comments, it becomes a successful choice. I forget that that is seemingly the priority for selecting the POW: will it generate traffic.

It's quite a bit dark--probably a typical bright outdoor "18% grey" underexposure. I would think that, regardless of monitor, the whitewater should be white--as white as the background of this page. And yes, unless it was a commissioned portrait, it is too tightly cropped. These are just post-processing technicalities, though. The photographer's skill is evident. Good work.

These POW discussions never cease to amaze me. A dot of light is distracting, a bit of elbow is cut off...good lord, the first thing I saw was a sharply focused eye, and it wasn't looking at any dots or elbows. What has happened to photography, and to photographer/critics? Is everyone so caught up in the idea of a photograph as just a file to open in Photoshop, and so jaded by the daily onslaught of hackneyed Pulitzer wannabes of disaster and irony, that a shot like this is uninteresting and unoriginal? No one seems to see, or wants to see, the milieu; just the subject, no pieces missing, perfect lighting (according to your favorite book), perfect contrast. It has to look like Photoshop autocontrast, in other words. The photograph is not supposed to recreate the experience of being there, it's supposed to be a trophy. "I went into this dimly lit bar, full of the regular drunks, and came away with a perfectly composed, perfectly exposed photograph of an especially unusual person doing something especially unusual." Continually, a war is raging about "pure" photography versus digital art; yet whenever a "pure" photograph is being discussed, someone has to make it "better" with Photoshop. And this damn obsession with distractions...

Some might classify this as a nude; I consider it a magnificent portrait.

Very creative, and very well executed. I love the lighting and the contrast of colors. But I really think that cable release is way out of context, though, which gives the work a contrived feel. Maybe a loupe...but then, that suggests it might have been more coherent yet if the empty slide mounts were mounted slides instead, still with just the one illuminated. Easy for me to say after the fact, I know.

These two pictures are fine as they are. You can't please everyone. Was the bride pleased? That's all that matters. This a most curious pool of criticisms. Lots of contradictions. Preconceived notions of what originality should be. Here's how I would do it if I had done it, but I didn't do it because everybody does it.

This series is especially beautiful. I like the intimacy from shooting up close and on her level. This one and the previous two are my favorites.

You have a good eye for a scene to photograph, just need to work on arranging it within the frame. This would have been balanced a bit better if there was about 2/3 foreground, 1/3 background.

Eerie beauty. Such a powerful composition that I could appreciate the photo in the small view, which is a good thing, since I'm too impatient to wait for this 3 gigabyte file to load.

Well, I like it, and not just because it's Texas. I've been inspired to take pictures just like this one on a County Road. If it's a deplorable urban thanatopia, then no subject is required, since the feel of the place is the subject (see this week's POW). Well, that's the subject here--the feel of the place. If I were to offer a tip, it would be to have a feature in the distance, and square up the road a little better. That would give the dimensionality the others are talking about.

Great candid capturing a fun moment. Did you use bounce flash?

At first I also thought this was too small, but after looking more carefully, I realized it would look the same no matter how large the image. Definitely a contrasty black and white, but can't tell too much about grain at this size. For every poor person who cannot leave this depressing congestion, there are ten who don't want to give up the money they make in the city.

Beautiful. Upload it to the Trains.com reader gallery.

I think it's great. DOF is no more nor less important in close up than any other style. Everybody loves the isolation of a fast telephoto for "full-size" subjects, and it works in the small world just as well.

I don't like faceless bodies, but I would categorize this as erotic art rather than porn.

An exemplary environmental portrait. Make a print and give it to the young man.

I don't rate photographs, but if I were to give a particular photo a 10, then yes, it means I think it is one of the best I have ever seen. The ratings are not a pyramid. More than one photo can get a 1, a 5, or a 10. Furthermore, anyone who thinks the best photographs ever have already been taken, long ago, by some of those god-like names we have to hear all the time, then that person has very low expectations for his or her own accomplishments.

Doug (Thacker),your question is completely valid, and I think you are far from the self-righteous sneering hecklers that populated the POW discussion until recently. I suggest that you look at the huge volumes of mediocrity that is churned out by those who think they can buy talent and creativity along with the latest technology. Anyone who is shooting PJ is lucky to get the best equipment, but they must have gotten to that level by "paying their dues". Just because you can achieve excellent results by the seat of your pants, there is no compelling reason to continue to do so when more efficient means are available, especially when it is a job.

Trevor, you can be excused for not understanding rural America; most Americans don't. This event is about as savage as all-human events such as piggy-back or three-legged races. "Country people" make little distiction between humans and animals. Rule number one in all interactions is The Golden Rule. Rule number two is Survival of the Fittest.

Why don't you explain it for us?

Caladium.

I am reminded of a book I once read about Jack the Ripper. One victim's body was discovered where the scene was "festooned with her disemboweled entrails."

The picture has a lot going for it, Jill. It's very good photography -- clean, uncluttered composition, and the angle gives it impact. However, the hands are the focus, and all the lines in the picture are emphasising them. The old guy even seems to be looking at his own hands. This looks like a statement on old age and arthritis, or maybe boredom, as in "idle hands". Even though this is a great picture of the man and nothing else, I think what you are trying to achieve would work better if there were something else in the image for the man to "not comprehend". Or maybe the object of confusion could be outside the frame, even the viewer.

This photograph demonstrates one of the problems with a social welfare program. This man is in an urban setting where he will be seen (and photographed) by many. Therefore, this is the face of poverty to most people. The truly poor people in America are not in the cities, and are infrequently seen by the urban masses. The above depicted individual is what might, in other countries, be called a professional beggar. As hard as it may be to believe, there are many layers of genuine need below him. Let's save our passionate compassion for those that deserve it.