mstrada

This is a wonderful abstraction. The flags look like a torch. I'm glad you decided not to include anything in the background -- this picture is about the form of the flags.

Great, surreal shot. I'd get rid of the bottom tenth or so, though, so all we see is lace and teapot.

 

As an aside, you have a lot of very good stuff in this folder; I'm glad I found it. You have real talent at spotting interesting forms in otherwise uninteresting things.

I very much like the string of lights that runs across the whole photo. Rarely can such continuity be shown in a panoramic -- let alone a 360 degree panoramic. This is a cool shot.

 

I also like all the people staring at you from each corner. Some of them look like they are about to beat you up, though.

Wow. This is really great -- an earthbound response to "star trails" photos. Although I feel like I bring up the possibility of cropping too much in my comments, I wonder about cropping a little off the sides here. It took me a moment to notice the regression of light arcs into the distance, because there is so much else going on here. But that is the coolest part of the shot.

I agree that virtually all work on photo.net is directly derivative of other work. I think you can look at the early careers of all artists (except perhaps a handful of super-geniuses) and find that, consciously or not, they are aping styles and even specific images made by other artists.

 

Most people here on photo.net are artists in an early phase of their artistic development, and -- maybe without realizing it -- they tag certain of their own images as "good ones" because they recall similar successful images by other artists. After a lot of mimicry, originality eventually emerges for the gifted. (Just so I'm not misinterpreted, I believe that I am in the WAY early stage of my development, and I can only hope that something interesting crawls out of me eventually.)

 

So I don't think it's much of a knock here to call something derivative or unoriginal (which is why I've never quite known how to deal with the "Originality" rating and, except where there is a clear reason to deviate, I generally make it the same as my aesthetics rating).

 

Of course, you can still knock something for being a COPY. This image is definitely not a copy, though -- the promotional shot it is compared to shares the idea of placing a person in front of the whale, but little else. There aren't too many other ways to photograph that particular whale anyway.

Nick's comments are interesting.

 

I'm underwhelmed by this selection, especially in light of some of the other stuff in the photographer's portfolio. First, someone please get this man back to his computer so he can make a bigger scan! (Strangely, all of Volker's shots include the same apology.) This is the kind of shot that might be a lot more impressive if larger and crisper.

 

On its merits, I guess I'm just not sure what makes the shot so special. The whale is pointing in the general direction of the man, and I guess that suggests some kind of communication or bond between the two. But that message isn't very strongly conveyed, considering how far the whale is from the glass and the general lack of information as to the direction of the figure's gaze or his expression. Plus, I'm not sure that it's all that interesting of a message. (I sort of wonder if the theme of this photo is the direct opposite -- is it about the wall between the man and the whale?)

 

Also, I'm not a big fan of the framing. I wish either: (1) all four window edges had been included; (2) none of the window edges had been included; or (3) only the top and bottom edges had been included, cropping the right edge. This framing feels awkward to me.

Ha! I wish the baby were bigger in the frame. Do people often put babies in the backs of pickups where you're from?

I sure can't see any cows. I wish I could, because this really needs a point of interest.

The jaunty angle of the shot is fun, but I'd like to be able to see his other eye. Would have been a perfect opportunity for a tiny smidgen of fill-flash, to generate some detail in what are now deep shadows.

Unless my eyes deceive me, there is a slight rightward tilt to this picture, which bothers me in a composition so focused on geometry.

 

Also, I don't agree that the shadows should be darker. If anything, I'd make them a little lighter. Also, to the extent you'd like to Photoshop this one a bit, I'd consider pumping up the red a tad. This shot is about color, and the red could jump out more.

 

Still, a good shot that reveals a good eye.

The word's got to go... The first thing I thought of were "Successories" (as depicted above), which nearly make me vomit every time I open up an airline's in-flight magazine.

 

The rest of the image is nice though.

Just beautiful. I love the square format -- it formalizes the picture, emphasizing its geometric qualities.

Really nice composition. I think I could do without the green leaf though...

The lighting is just beautiful. This reminds of a discarded bridal bouquet (not caught by any unmarrieds).

Damn, the scanner must have been a mess to clean after this. Anyhow, I like this shot an awful lot, as usual for L.H.'s work. Such interesting juxtapositions, executed with technical perfection.

This is nice. It reminds me of a re-posed, re-located version of Andrew Wyeth's Christina's World. But I have two issues:

 

1. Although others apparently love the flash, I think it is heavy-handed. There's no doubt here about whether you used a flash -- sometimes that's cool, but it detracts from what is otherwise a generally naturalistic image.

 

2. Her hand has collected too much blood and turned the shade of her sleeve. It doesn't match her face and looks weird. Perhaps she could have shaken her hand around up in the air a few times before each shot. (Sounds silly, I know, but it might have helped.)

Why does the Addams Family come to mind?

 

I like this unusual perspective. Good choice of wide angle and good decision not to show us the arm -- that's what makes it interesting.

I like. So he was not making any kind of face, and it's all trans-glass distortion? Weird. If he was making a face, I wish he didn't.

 

You should shoot band photos for liner notes. This idea (as well as others of yours) would work well there.

Really cool. The way the sheets are folded makes me think of articulated metal, like this figure is wrapped in armor or machinery. That gives it emotional impact -- this person is suffocated by what looks like one heavy sheet. I won't go further into what it evokes for me, because I try to restrain myself from sounding like an Art History 101 dork.

Super-cool. I love the shadowy figure and the dramatic sky.

 

Your folders are really interesting; I checked out your website ... It's quite a thing. Maybe I missed the "explanation" of it, but I didn't understand a damn thing about it. Cool though.

We all pass by things like this every day; only a few actually take note and see a picture there.

While I think this is an interesting image, it is tamer than Lasse's other work. For some reason, I keep seeing this shot on the facing page of some article in Newsweek entitled "Working Mothers: Can They Do It All?" I prefer those of Lasse's photos that I can imagine nowhere but on a gallery wall, and there are many.

 

While I like the idea of using the cog to replace the pure geometric form depicted in the original, I think maybe this picture tries to do too much and therefore ends up being superficial. To the extent that this photo is not just an aesthetic effort but also an intellectual one, why both introduce the cog AND change the gender of the person? I'd appreciate a more focused look at EITHER the "cogginess" of today's world OR the changing role of women in it. But when both are thrown in, they each get short shrift. My mind can't do too many things at once.

I wouldn't mind a bit of context here. From a plane I assume? Maybe it could use more of a focal point?

Looks like two little ducks. Not sure you need the lower third of the shot.

This is nice, but a partial neutral density filter really would have reduced the distracting effect of the bright spot in the pool. As it is, the range of contrast is too much for my eyes. (I don't know if you can use one with your camera.)