mstrada

Thanks for checking this shot out.

I love the rich textures and the simple, three-part composition. And you got a rabbit to sit for a portrait -- not easy.

Wondering if I've succeeded as a matter of graphic design, if not as

a matter of accurate representation of reality. (There's been no

digital manipulation other than cropping and bordering, though.)

Perhaps could use a bit more context ... The background is intriguing and possibly spectacular -- I'd like to see more of it.

Mary: I was, mainly, joking about Dali's double-crossing pranksterism. Didn't you see the annoying smirk on my face as I typed my comment?

 

Trust me -- I'd happily be among the first in line to protest the dogmatic pretension of the art world, and I'm sure Dali would be ahead of me.

Maybe, Mary, the joke was on you, and Sal was actually creating something brilliant, fooling you into thinking he was not, then laughing as you believed him and failed to see the brilliance of his work. Hmm?

 

Or, maybe he was simply incapable of producing something that was not brilliant, however hard he tried. And the art world simply recognized his failure to be a failure.

Now that's a good point. Really saturated pictures are, in some ways, ideologically similar to black and whites.

 

It's another example of what I think is the excessive dogmatism that inflicts photography. Far more so than other media, photographic criticism is dominated by "rules" that -- to the extent they are enforced as such -- run contrary to the whole idea of art. (E.g., full frame fetishism; color fidelity; focus rules; compositional guides; "proper" exposure; etc...)

 

I'm not an artistic anarchist -- most of those rules have a sound basis in aethetics. But I feel like they are too often blindly enforced -- as though adhering to rules were in itself a good -- instead of being viewed as useful ideas subject to modification and reconsideration.

I agree with Seven and Marc that the "oversaturation" of this photo was a deliberate artistic choice, not a failed attempt to replicate the Real World.

 

This discussion is on the precipice of another classic POW theme -- artistic license vs. journalistic integrity, which is, to my mind, a very interesting one. I do think that criticisms directed solely at the oversaturation are not quite on point. I sometimes sense on this site what I feel is an artistic double standard applied to photographers, as distinguished from other visual artists. (E.g., the "uncropped frame" cult, who would hold photographers to compositional restrictions that don't bind any other kinds of artists.) If this were not photo.net, and were instead painting.net, and Monet uploaded some waterlilies, would some people say "Your depiction of color in this scene is totally unrealistic, and waterlilies actually have sharply defined edges." No. Because everyone would recognize that Monet has exercised his right as an artist to interpret, not just depict, the world.

 

To me, this shot is impressionistic in a similar way, and I like it.

 

(And, by the way, I respect those who simply don't like oversaturation, or who believe oversaturation is inappropriate in this one case, and confine their criticism to that aesthetic point. This post is more directed at those who indict the picture for being unrealistic, or "plasticky," and imply that those qualities are bad in and of themselves.)

I enjoy and learn from the alternative crops that have become very popular in recent POW discussions. In most cases, I conclude that the original crop is the best (maybe I'm irrationally predisposed to find the most merit in the photographer's own choice), but I enjoy them all.

 

And as usual, I think the original crop is the best here. Two things lead me to favor the original composition: (1) the woman's location in the lower-right corner, oriented away from the only other "action" (the people and the space behind her) reinforces the impression of her being, in Marc's words, seule au monde; and (2) the inclusion of the window both explains the lighting and (stop me if I turn into a cliche) introduces an optimistic element into the frame.

 

The trash can is, to my mind, unfortunate. But, honestly, I didn't even notice it until someone pointed it out. Anyway, cropping it out from the bottom presses the woman too close to the edge and I would keep it in for that reason alone.

I've never understood why some people think that an uncropped shot is more natural or in any way "better" than a cropped shot. (Look, and ye shall find boasts of "Full frame, uncropped" on many descriptions on this site.)

 

Photography is the only visual medium (that I can think of) in which the artist begins with a standardized "canvas." A painter chooses the size of his canvas; a sculptor chooses the size of his block of stone. And critics freely comment on the choices made by painters and sculptors concerning the size and contours of the raw materials they chose.

 

Unlike painting and sculpture, nonstandardized film would be impracticable, given that electronic/mechanical hardware must interface with the film. So standards are imposed on photographers of necessity. But we should still be as free as any other visual artist to pick and choose the borders of our images.

 

In that light, I agree that cropping is but one aspect of composition. Like any other compositional choice, the artist should be free to do whatever he or she likes, and critics should be free to disagree with the artist's decision. It's no more subjective than any other part of composition.

I like the composition, with the three rocks cutting a curving path toward the light. However, the foreground is just too dark. Maybe adding some neutral density up top would have helped?

 

I do think, though, that this would look much better as a big print, even with the underexposed foreground. I am sure we would see detail that just can't come out on an effective 4 by 6 print on the world's crappiest paper (my screen).

Doug Burgess: "It's so good I'm worried about what we will fight and bicker about all week."

 

Hmm... I don't know -- the figure looks kind of waxy to me ...

 

I am, however, curious about how the blurring was accomplished. I think it is effective -- and in fact essential to the photo's mood -- but I wonder whether it was (1) a filter; (2) lens fogging; or (3) ... Photoshopping ...

 

I disagree with the suggestion to crop it. The square format is lovely. This one deserves to be printed big (and hung on my wall), especially if printing would pull some detail out of the coat.

What a cutie ... The pic looks much better in the larger view. I wonder whether it would be better to have pulled back a bit and gotten her whole head ... I'm unsure. There's an appealing intimacy at this distance.

It is too bad the plane of focus is a couple inches in front of the child's face -- this would be really striking with sharp eyes and narrow depth of field. I like the pose and can sense the child's shyness.

Great moment caught. I think your title should reflect that this guy is a preacher (of some sort), which I gather from your other shot of him.

Wow. This is really excellent. I just browsed a few of your folders, and I really like your street photography. You have a very good eye for spotting juxtapositions and -- dare I say it -- even decisive moments. I'm actually a bit surprised these pics haven't attracted more comments/ratings. Perhaps you should put a few in for critique.

Because I am a nosy bastard, I have noticed that Chris Battey has been on the site at least a couple times since this shot was posted. (Thanks, elves, for the "Who's online now" function.)

 

I assume that Chris is waiting, as many POW recipients do, for a critical mass of commentary to accumulate before speaking. But, good God man. Many phosphors are being wasted over an uncertainty that could be clarified with a few keystrokes. Please?

This shot is a good example of a photo that derives a large amount of its power from its title. Imagine that, rather than "Condemned Man," it was called "Asylum Resident," or "Criminal Detainee." It would, no doubt, still be a good documentary shot. But this title gives it moral heft that it otherwise would lack. The title places the viewer in front of a very dramatic scene.

 

It's a good lesson for me, at least, because I often dash off a title at the time I upload a picture, without much thought.

By "unusual" I certainly did not mean common, and perhaps I chose my words poorly. I guess what I meant is that an articulate description of what I've cavalierly called the "real world" is not always going to satisfy those who look to art to depict something wacky or far-out. That's unusual, in the sense that I used it. (Remember, I was responding to someone who complained that this photo depicts a scene that (he says) he sees every day, implying that things seen every day -- even if articulately described -- are not the subjects of good art.)

 

As for whether this photo misleads viewers, perhaps I've missed it, but I don't think Tony has sold this as documentary or photojournalistic work. I guess if it were to be published as such, and I were Tony's editor, I'd ask Sheri's questions. (I'm not sure, by the way, that even if the reactions were in response to the guy's "punchline," my take on the picture is that much different. While we might view his "just give me the money" line as a "punchline," I doubt he had comedic intentions.)

First, if you think you see this every day, you're not looking at the picture very hard. You see this scene every day in the same way that I see women like the Mona Lisa every day.

 

Anyway, your test for artistic merit -- "I've seen this scene before" -- is, respectfully, just silly. You're not even saying you've seen it in art -- you're saying (I think) that you've seen it in the real world.

 

I'd say that if Tony has captured some part of the real world that resonates with you, he has succeeded, not failed. There aren't too many things in the world that we all haven't seen many, many times. Art (or at least this kind of art) is about depicting a transitory, temporary slice of the real world for repeated later consumption. I would agree with an above commenter's description (I'm too lazy to see who said it) of this photo (or Tony's work) as "articulate" -- not necessary unusual. I guess you're looking for unusual.

 

The real world is far more beautiful and descriptive than any photograph ever will be, and your statement makes me think you demand that good art surpass the real world. You'll forever be disappointed. The test of good art is how much of the richness of some part of the real world is captured in a static, reproducible, analyzable form -- not whether looking at the art is as good as the real thing.

This is the kind of photo that both amazes and frustrates me. It amazes me because it is, well, amazing. It is frustrating because when I see something like this, I'm inspired to think, "Moments like this DO exist -- and they CAN be caught on film by modern-day mortals -- and I CAN go outside and do it myself." Then I go outside and do it myself, and get my film back, and look at it, and wonder what hallucinogen I was under when I entertained the notion that I could generate something in the same ballpark.

 

The discussion about this photo is well-developed without POW status -- most Photo.netters have stumbled across it already. What strikes me most about the shot is what Vuk said in an ancient comment above: It's more like a "bloody movie" than a photograph. The businessman looking down at the homeless man, smirking ... the sideburned youth laughing at how easy life is ... the oblivious woman in the fur coat ... the swath cut through the crowd to the bearded man in the back, looking at the camera ... And, of course, the homeless man himself. Capturing all of these things in a single frame is really extraordinary.

 

Dammit, though, it's frustrating.

Ack! I hadn't noticed the double-jointed finger. Now I'm going to have nightmares.

 

I agree that Miss Snottypants' (what cruel parents) photo makes better use of the full frame, and displays a bit of what this POW could be. I'm not sure I like the contrived de-colorization of Snottypants' shot, but hey, no one named it POW.

If you want to know where the picture was taken, see: http://www.electronicmusicfest.com/information/ (It appears that this venue includes both outdoor and indoor areas, but it looks unlikely that this was a pure street shot.).

 

As for the model release issue, I'm a lawyer who is shockingly ignorant about it. But I recall from law school that the tort of "appropriation of name or likeness" required commercial exploitation of a person's image. Posting a shot on a website with no commercial purpose would not constitute this tort. This rule might be modified by statute under state law; I don't know.

 

Also, there is surely a "newsworthiness" privilege, which permits photography for news-recording purposes without risk of liability. I doubt this picture would fit within that privilege, but depending on the purposes for which it was shot or the uses to which it was put, it might.

The subject is solely the geometry of the scene ...

 

As for cropping, yes -- after scanning, I cropped a bit on the top and sides, and rotated by one degree to make sure the posts were vertical (at the expense, I think, of a perfectly level horizon).

I don't think my voice will be needed to the soon-to-be-deafening call of "What?" (I'll add the obligatory -- and true -- qualification that the photographer appears to have some much better and more interesting stuff in his/her portfolio.)

 

It'll be interesting to periodically check this discussion for blood loss -- it's going to be messy.