mathieulandry

This is a great small venue band shot! Did you use bounced flash? It looks more like there was a spot on the performer, but anyhow, I like that the performer is highlighted, while the background is nice and moody. I also like the angled mic which leaves enough room for the singer's face. In terms of composition, I think the way he is holding his guitar, almost perfect 90deg angle with his body, works well; it successfully frames the drummer in the back.

 

The fact the the drummer is framed, but the frontman is highlighted with stronger lighting gives the image nice balance.

 

I like it a lot.

I like trees. I like lone trees. I like morning fog.

 

But I don't think this image captures these elements well. I don't share the opinion about the neutrality of colours; I would've liked to see a polarized version. What mostly bugs me though, is the competition of the clouds with the tree. They are uninteresting imo, but more importantly, I don't feel they embellish this composition.

 

I also don't like the way the lower (dark) branch merges with the top of the distant hill to the right.

 

Overall, it leaves me with no feeling. I don't even wish to 'be there', which is not a good attribute for a landscape photo.

Doesn't work for me niether. The lack of symmetry and the obvious potential for symmetry ruins this shot for me. It's just off enough to bug me and not skewed enough to make it interesting for me. My own interpretation of the subject is that of a rare lone silhouette being stationary enough to 'liven' up the center stage; but this only adds to the feeling of snapshot. I think that this particular setting would have worked better for me if it had been properly staged with model(s) directed in the right positions.

 

Technically, I find the contrast and tones well controlled but I also feel the lighting is a bit flat and uninteresting, like if it was taken in early afternoon.

I really like the Square format for this subject. The attention is effectively focused on the girl by having her in the centre of the frame. That being so, I am drawn in her mind and that starts the wheels of my imagination. Although, I wish the crop would be adjusted so she is dead centre (there is more space on the right as it is).

 

The mutlitude of footsteps enhances the photograph by introducing questions and possible interpretations. The long exposure adds to the dreamy feeling that helps take the mind to a metaphysical level instead of letting it wander in visual inspection. I like the tones. I like the texturing but I find it is not one of Lars' best. I find it a bit harsh in certain areas and thus intrusive to my viewing pleasure.

 

My eyes keep stumbling on the shadow. I have tried to think why it should/should not be there. I think I'd rather see it edited away to bolden the dreamy feeling of personal reflection and introspection. On the other hand, it adds a quirky element.

 

Did she come many times to the beach? Is the shadow part of her conscience she is trying to wash away in this endless sea? I think the vignetting works well in this image.

 

Elton John's song (?) 'Candle in the Wind' popped into my head when I viewed this. I thought it was interesting an image should recall a musical reference.

For me, the merit of a photograph vs. digital manipulation is an issue of personal philosophy. In my own photography, I will try my best to depict reality as I see it. When I use strong or altering digital manipulation, in my mind, I pass from the realm of photography to the realm of imaging, which are quite distinct in my mind.

 

In this particular case, I gave the benefit of the doubt that it was an interesting play of light, shadows and patterns perhaps skillfuly captured with a telephoto or something like that. In my mind, I was looking at a genuine representation of nature. Now that I am aware of the trickery, I understand Simon's intent to some extent, but I am left with a perversion of nature, because this particular scene never really existed...

 

Like someone said before, it is sort of caught between a natural landscape and an abstract. Increase contrast perhaps and make the leap all the way?

I concede I was wrong about the composite issue. After Richard's mapping, I looked at the large version more carefuly and the smaller ripples section in the shadows was without a doubt cloned to make the larger upper ripples section IMO. That might explain the slight increase in pixelation one sees in that band. It's a bit deceiving to see Simon had to use 'filler' to salvage a mediocre image. What I said earlier still holds and I think the concept is good, but I feel cheated.

Anders,

 

I appreciate your view and I know completely what you mean when referring to other images, but I'm really asking: does something HAVE to change in the viewer, from the viewing of an image for that image to be successful?

 

My questions still remain since nobody really offered a follow-up discussion: I'm wondering if emotions even need to be evoked? Because we are beings that feel and think, can this truly be achieved? Is aestehtic virtue overshadowed by our inherent complexity?

 

I don't know if my geological background has any impact on my perception, but the light is defintely coming from the slightly upper right. There is no question about it and I see absolutely NO evidences of a composite here. Please, leave that topic alone...

I disagree that a photograph should necessarily convey a meaning or a message. Its aesthetics alone may in fact be sufficient to please. A message is a bonus. I'm wondering if emotions even need to be evoked?

 

Theoretically, an aesthetically pleasing image should be able to please because of its geometrical attributes alone, due to some fundamental physical properties (perception of form, symmetry, etc.).

 

But because we are beings that feel and think, can this truly be achieved? Is aestehtic virtue overshadowed by our inherent complexity?

I like how tight the discussion is this week...I mostly agree with Marc G's first comment. I too find myself thinking about nature's patterns and in this sense the image is successful. I am somewhat reminded of a nautiloid shell pattern in the repetition of the sand waves and conical shape. I think simon skillfully captured his subect in an opportunate moment. The result works for me so I find the manipulation discussion irrelevent in this case. I never put a picture on a wall without it being matted and framed so the digital frame is no intrusion for me. I usually generate those kinds of frames myself. I don't believe it's a cheap trick and doesn't modify the nature of the image, if done tastefully - and taste is a personal matter in general.

Spectacular image Paal! The lighting is very nice and please do share your technique! I would like to try this sometimes.

 

The image itself however, doesn't move me. It might be because of the cold tones and the skeletal subject spanned over a great empty space. I'm not really sure. Others might put the finger on it better than I.

 

I enjoy much more your other version of this, with a black background. The smoke trail is wider making for a more symmetrical image and is more appealing for this type of subject. It also complements the subject better...a light in the dark goes out...

 

But this high key version on second thought might be more original and thus would nicely sit in a contemporary art museum IMO. But I feel it would benefit from a nice wide smoke trail like your other shot.

 

Your capture of the smoke is simply one of the best I've seen and 'Disturb the Satus Quo' intrigues me and would've been another good POW IMO. But my favorite shot out of your portfolio remains 'Father and Son' which is just a fantastic and strong image. For me, it is your best.

I disagree that the flipped version doesn't work. This simple adjustment makes this photo 10 times more interesting and appealing to me. IMO it adds the dynamism it was lacking; the shark doesn't need to 'push' it's way through the fish anymore, it's 'falling' in it, making for a much more elegant photograph. For me, it has more chance to stand on its own this way.

First of all, congrats Felix on a great capture. I think the technical elements are all in line. I would see this photograph in National Geopgrahic no problem, as part of a documentary series.

 

A problem with POW is the lack of context. The POW is never pigeonholed and some folks may have difficulty changning their foothold from a certain type of photography to the next, documentary, fine art, architecture, etc...

 

As a natural documentary shot, your representation is tops.

 

I do have a comment on originality however...

 

Marc G. wrote:

 

"I find really weird, that some people who criticized the composition of this POW would not even mention about the picture's great originality."

 

I feel that underwater pictures always get a certain WOW factor from the general audience because a large percentage of the population doesn't dive often or not at all. The fact that we don't see a certain scene in our normal activities doesn't make it more orginal by any stretch. That kind of objectivity is difficult to reach, I admit. But this is what sharks do and I bet any photographer here that would spend the time in the right location with diving training could get the same result (not to downgrade Felix's work). IMO, accessibility is what made this image win many contests...

 

On the 'static' issue I have the following to say: I think our brain 'knows' what this image represents and yearns it to continue in time. But we're halted by the physical limit of photography. So in general, I believe a scene like this will inadvertantly be a lot better for most in a filmed format. For those, I suggest viewing the spectacular documentary series 'The Blue Planet'. Perhaps you'll even enjoy this image more after. For the rest, let's marvel at a fine piece of nature, captured with respect.

I've made it through the re-iterations of "Wow. fantastic. Good Job." and I agree that it is a nice piece of work. I agree with most that the Photoshop work really enhances the presentation. I think it's as close a photograph can come to emulate the drawings of M.C.Escher. Which is something difficult to do!!

 

However, Marc G. touched on something of interest when suggesting the crop at the bottom. It greatly enhances the image IMO.

I'm siding with John Kelly on this one. I don't 'like' the image, probably due to its nightmarish quality. That being said, it is eerie and bold with a strong statement. I don't really see all the technical flaws some have hinted at (but not explained). It truely belongs in an art gallery. Bravo!

These cranes don't move me (no pun intended). I agree about the distraction caused by the vignetting. To me this image is not only static, what it obviously is, but also sterile. It doesn't emanate a more profound meaning than a playful photographic experiment. The composition is decent but not complex. 'Anyone' can have a chance of having this view angle IMO. If the same subject was tackled with a wide lense at some not-often-accessible viewpoint, closer to the action, I think this idea would benefit from a certain dynamism and more interesting perspective. Being able to spot the operators inside the cabin would also add a tremendous sense of scale.

 

Which brings me to my next point (because I was diverging from the actual image I think) - the image has a sort of identity crisis, is it toy cranes or is it real ones? Just a quick view and the mind is sort of wobbling on the idea - the image seriously lacks a sense of scale IMO.

 

As graphic art, I find it ok. It has potential to be a mass-print targeted at IKEA parents wanting to decorate their kid's suburb room. Sorry for the prejudice, but that's what comes to mind when seeing this image.

Thanks David, that's exactly the crop I was thinking of. I agree that the crop is less powerful as a scenery. By cropping all the right side you loose the sense of space, which many here like. The crop seems to lack room to breathe, especially after having seen the original.

 

However, I will maintain that it works better on an abstract level and would still frame the crop and keep the original in my 'nice images' collection folder, because what is portrayed here doesn't appeal to me emotionally. This is why, I think, I had to find a way to modify it so it would become more abstract and loose that sense of space.

I do think this is a technical success. I wish I could see bridges the way Gerard does. My previous comments were purely subjective and cropping the image is the 'dirtiest' and simplest way I could think of voicing my opinion. But I think for me, it is actually more complex than something as crude as a crop. I would have to see other compositions of the same scene or be there myself to recompose...you know. But that's not to take away from the merit of this particular photograph. I think Gerard is a master at square composition! There are just so many shots in your portfolio that I prefer. Personal taste I guess...

"The dynamic depends on the momentum in the take off from right to left."

 

Alan, as much as I agree with this, I don't think the modified image I propose would loose dynamic, only its nature would change.

 

"Also the negative space needs its size to create the tension with the positive."

 

I think the negative space really overwhelms the positive in trying to keep the 'dynamic' you speak of. 'Tension' would be optimized in a vertical crop with a more balanced distribution of dark and light.

 

"I think it is best to leave the design alone, it works."

 

It works for you, but is not optimal for me. So, for the sake of disussion, I will not leave it alone. ;-)

Great eye to see this shot! It's highly original to elevate a mundane subject to a nice graphic piece like this. I like the contrast and tones. However, I quickly loose interest in this shot. That is to say, I'd never buy a large print of it to put in my home. If I was an advertising or magazine exec, I'd jump on this pic for it's aethetics and nice open space: perfect for text. If I may venture a suggestion of personal taste: for me the image would be much stronger and would emphasize the Yin-Yang duality that was mentioned above if it was cropped vertically, such that the topmost edge is all black (I'm at work and no photoshop so I can't post an example of exactly what I mean). I would consider buying such a crop. That's where the difference lies for me. The downside to that is you loose the leading end of the bridge into the haze. But as it is, to me, the image looks like it's fighting for direction. The top-left corner is pulling hard and the bottom right corner is pulling just as hard and the open space squeezes everything on the sides. I just don't agree with most that this is pleasing visually.

 

Thanks for sharing!

Perhaps it doesn't matter if she is putting the mask on or taking it off...what the 'Illicit Sanctuary' represents is the moment when the mask is off. The meaning I ascribe to that is that the artist sees that it is 'illicit' to not wear a 'mask' in society. We have to play roles; otherwise people are not happy kind of thing. This moment with just her and the mask shows a moment of duality and of internal struggle to me and the fragility of identity and her identity is her sanctuary.

 

At first I was also a little put off by the seemingly 'stretched-out' neck but after looking at it longer, I think it adds an element of power to the mask, like if it's drawing the woman in. Her neutral expression conveys a feeling of resignation to me.

 

Someone also mentioned that the mask looks masculine. Perhaps there is a gender statement here? Perhaps this image shows the struggle of living with the expectations of being a perfect woman in a society largely dominated by males and to be otherwise than the perceived model is illicit i.e. when the mask is off.

 

I think it's a wonderful self-portrait considering the technical challenges involved and the consumer equipment. The only thing that distracts me is the veil, I wonder if the image would be stronger without it.

 

Peace.

Rob Landry (quote): "Another thing that bothers me is the lack of definition between the two individuals; it seems as if their fur simply blends together and you are left wondering where one ends and the other begins".

 

That's exactly what appeals to me in this image and makes it 'original' IMO. There are different avenues one can take when portraying nature I think. For me they fall into roughly three categories. The first, landscape style, is where there is lots of room and enough DoF to show the context in which animals live and interact in their environment. The counterpart in my mind is focusing on the individual animal usually with a shallow DoF to isolate the feeling and show the aesthetics of a specific subject.

 

Take it a notch further and you may end up in the magical realm of photography, where some effects recorded on film may not match our preception of reality (I think it was mentioned before). This is such an image here I think - for me anyway. It's open to more complex interpretations IMO, which is not always the case with more 'classical' shots of natural subjects. It conveys a more methaphysical message to those who stop to think about it, whether it's there or not. I feel this is where photography becomes art - i.e. when it's not merely a 'pretty' image.

 

The sharpness is incredible, like most have remarked, but I have to nitpick and point out that I see the nose more in focus than the eyes. It's not by a big margin but I'd like the see the opposite.

 

Congratulations on POW Max. Best regards.

I'm with Marc G on this one. I agree that the subject is stunning but I also feel the composition is not that great. But perhaps it's not that easy to get access to try different angles for this type of shot?

 

It is a beatiful location and thanks to Dionys we can all witness it, but would I put this on my wall? No. Although technically good (apart from composition IMHO), this picture evokes no emotions in me. Is it a good POW? Sure.

Jill, you have a really good eye for portraits and I really enjoy many of your other photographs. However, this one, IMHO, is one of the weakest. First of all, the lighting is too flat and harsh for this subject to my liking. Perhaps it is to avoid a cliché and create an original effect, but it just doesn't work for me. I think the cropping works, but just not for this face. What I feel when I look at this photograph is a grumpy old man that didn't want his picture taken. That's just me. I hope people will look through your portfolio because I think you have way more powerful photographs there. Cheers!

I really enjoy the tones of this photograph. Also it is well captured - I can read a lot into this. I agree with the above, a bigger scan would be nice...I usually upload mine at 800x600. Keep shooting, you have some nice stuff!

I like pictures like this. This kind of light is magic. I have yet to capture similar results. I could see the picture working as more panoramic with a crop just over the low clouds on the left (Get rid of the top part). Maybe a graduated filter could've allowed more definition of the tree line and farm. I think that would be nice. I don't have experience with them myself but I will have to buy one because the results they produce are very interesting. Anyways, keep shooting!!