mstrada

Hmm... Something about the lighting makes the top half of her torso look a little off. I keep looking for her arm. Also, some unfortunate JPEG blockiness in the background.

Really, really attractive shot. But I'm having trouble with the leftward tilt of the towers. Perhaps a ~1 degree rotation in Photoshop will fix it.

Thanks for the helpful (if somewhat disheartening) criticisms. I've tried to correct the color cast, and I've chopped off a bit of the sky to make it more balanced compositionally. I do like having a lot of sky above the fence, though, even though I see the fence as the subject.

Distracting background ... The subject is worthy of a closer crop and less dof.

Kyle quoted Leslie as saying: By me, art can deliver new points of view but not new knowledge.

 

Then Kyle responded: "That is really sad to hear. The choice to deny any possible knowledge that may come from art is my definition of ignorance."

 

I think what we have here is a difference of opinion as to what "knowledge" is. Perhaps Leslie too cavalierly separated "point of view" from "knowledge" -- a boatload of philosophers and linguists would argue there is no difference at all.

 

I'd bet Leslie is well aware of the blurry, perhaps non-existent, line between the two. Before jumping all over Leslie for his statement, I'd want to know what he means by "knowledge." Clearly, a photograph or other work can impart raw "knowledge": a picture of two sloths mating can impart on me knowledge of how two sloths mate. A picture (artistically composed and exposed) of a sign that says "The distance between the earth and the sun is 93 million miles" can impart that knowledge too.

 

I hate to put words in Leslie's mouth, but I think what he might be saying is that the kind of knowledge that art excels at transmitting is the kind of knowledge we normally call "points of view." Art can be used to transmit many forms of knowledge, but sometimes it can do so only by beating the viewer's head with it. What makes "art" special is the facility with which more subtle forms of "knowledge," like "points of view," can be transmitted.

Curious as to what people think of the framing of this picture. I

like it because it gives the photo several dramatically different

levels of depth.

This is very nice. Too bad about two things though: (1) that the hummingbird is sucking on a garish plastic thing; and (2) that there is a somewhat distracting splotch of brightness behind and to the right.

 

I guess it's tough to change the first part -- you can lead a hummingbird to something pretty, but you can't make it drink.

I didn't comment on this particular picture above, but I thought I'd lodge my feelings. I think Leslie's portfolio contains some truly astonishing images -- many seem like details from a Francis Bacon painting.

 

While I don't think this particular image is one of his finest, I think it is solid. One thing that people have not commented on too much is Leslie's choice of subject. Based on his other work, I don't think a rotten piece of fruit was chosen purely for its aesthetic value. Leslie's work is about decay and violence.

 

I hate to sound like I'm back in Art History 101, but converting a piece of rotten fruit into a display of color and form speaks to questions of beauty and the definition of art. I like the challenge. This is more of a thinking piece that people have given it credit for.

 

Please hit me if I sound too pretentious. But Leslie's work has really made me want to explore some new things in photography, and that is a great thing.

I've been admiring Leslie's work from afar for awhile now, and am happy to see her (his?) work make POW. I think Leslie is one of the true artists on photo.net, with a distinctive vision.

 

I do want to respond to one part of Leslie's critique of the ratings system. I agree that the system is easily manipulable and therefore not very informative, but the fact that ratings can be "all over the map" is not one of the problems. Much good art -- including this POW -- will generate wildly varying reactions in viewers. Some people think Andrew Wyeth is a lyrical portraitist of America; others think he is a painting-selling shill. Some people think John Cage is a brilliant composer; others think he's barely a musician. Some people think Leslie Hancock's still lifes are beautiful, simple expressions of color and form; others think they are emotionless exercises in lighting.

 

Some art will provoke more uniform responses. Not too many people hate Beethoven (as long as they don't hate classical). Not too many people hate some of the photographers on here (as long as they don't hate photography).

 

I don't take the disagreement as an indication of much.

I think it needs something stationary.

I like this, but I wonder if just a tad more depth of field, or placing the vase closer to the flower, would help balance the picture a bit.

I would have preferred it without the tree. Also, might have been a nice time to use a warm polarizer, to bring out the rock a little and darken the sky.

Taken from the Brooklyn Bridge. I wanted to capture a dramatic sky

in an interesting composition.

Nice, but I'd crop out the black strips on the left and right. It would look more mysterious.

What I like about this photo is the fact that the kid is mimicking the pose of the carved figure (with his arms extended down and hands crossed). Did you ask him to do that?

Extremely attractive photo... But get your ugly signature off it! Especially on a stark, simple shot like this. Very distracting.

This is a great photo, deserving of higher ratings than it has received. The pattern is wonderful, and I very much appreciate your decision to capture it in black and white -- turning it into a display of whatever colors are on the umbrellas would ruin the geometry of it.

I'd say the coolest thing about this photo is that it hasn't even been taken yet. (See exposure date, above.)

 

But, as soon as it is taken, I will say that I like it very, very much -- not often does a pic on the front page cause me to veer over to the critique forum when I was engaged in unrelated business. I think the pole is essential. The wires in the upper left are less so.

You say "disembodied head" like it's a bad thing!

 

Point taken, though ... My intent was not to create floating head, but to use available light (I'm a simple man with simple goals), which required f/1.8.

I like this photo a lot ... not sure why the ratings (few as they are) are not higher. (And, to save on server space, I also like the shot of the guy with the stroller. Both of these shots feel cold and desolate -- an accomplishment.)

Nice reflection shot, but I wish it had a spot or two of color.

Amusing photo. What's with the wispy white streak on the upper left of the pumpkin? Smoke? If this were to be blown up and displayed, I'd clean up that and the white specks.

Beautiful contrast, placing the dark-haired subject in the midst of blown-out white. Looks hazy and heavenly.

Nice ... Looks like you're down in the grass with them.

The mountains hint at beauty -- wish you had shot a bit wider so I could see more of them, and maybe establish more of a contrast with the brightly-lit brush.