cd thacker

One of my favorites by you, Alex. I believe you posted this at one time on the Leica forum? I like it as much now as I did then. I could go on and on about it but I won't. Its strengths are obvious.

Strong work, my friend.

Okay, I thought the images to the left were too well defined when I posted the above - whenever that was - but now it doesn't seem that way. Did you change this image, Babatunde? Or did I change?

Just goes to show you don't need a fancy camera to take strong pictures. Still, I find it incredible that you got these (and some others) with a point-and-shoot.

I noticed you used 100 speed film for this. What's the speed of that zoom?

This is the first photo I've felt compelled to comment on here in quite some time. Finally now I see the entire point of the bustle - what it must have been in its day - and I think it should make a comeback. And be worn in just this way. A very nice image. Almost primordial.

I'm familiar with Helmut Newton, but who's this Norman Parkinson?

Here.

The more I look at this image, the more I think that the lack of texture in the hair is, if anything, an asset; it actually helps draw attention to where all the action is here: the faces. Your criticism reminds me of those who are critical of HCB for being out of focus. Who cares? Lots of people can make perfectly focused, perfectly exposed images. How come those images aren't strong like this one? In the end, it's all about the effect of the picture - and not about the technique (or, for that matter, the number of Leicas one has acquired). Oops, I did say g'day, didn't I?

Certainly one of the stronger images on this site. The angle, to our left, of the girl's head and of her eyes, points us in the right direction, even as her facial expression reinforces the feeling created by what we've no doubt already glanced: the main subject, the girl to our right, whose comedic brow, innocent smile, flyaway hair, and face full of joyful surprise, are a real treat. What makes us come back to this image, though, even beyond that treat, is the relationship implied between the two girls - their sharing of fun and joy.

Add to this the warm tonalities, the beautiful catchlights in the eyes - which lend depth and drama, as catchlights are supposed to do -; and add, as well, the way the photographer has broken to such good effect the silly rule that has every fool with a camera trying to shoot at eye level with children and dogs: add it up and you have one charming picture, one that makes any talk about "weird" backgrounds, "photoshop" (please), and, what was it?, no such thing as black in nature or something? Great job, on a shot I wish I'd taken.

Emil,

Congrats, first of all, on PoW. Clearly, however, it is this image, over and above the several other fine photos in your folders, that takes first place. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that this is (to me, obviously) one of the most striking images on Photo.net. Bravo!

As fine a PoW as has ever appeared here. In fact, I like this so much that I'm too excited to explain why. Maybe later, after my passion has ebbed a bit . . . .

Kind of creepy. Hints of domination and abuse.

Well then - what's not to like?

I could stare at this for a good long time, Lucas. In fact, I already have. And I can't think of a thing to say except that I like it very much!

Maybe (no doubt) I'll think of something more later, but for now: the colors, lines, warmth, figures, pose, attitude - even the clothes - they all come together neatly here to form a picture oddly powerful - made more so by its subtlety. Very Asian in that sense. As well as in several others. Sure you weren't born there? (And how did I miss this the first time?)

 

so will you be the first three time POW'er?

Next week.

Alright, let's address Mr. Dilworth's concerns about the actual content of this image. If we really delve into it, how much pathos is actually there? The left hand grabbing the top of the head, and the fingers of the right spread under that, appear at first blush to be a sign for some sort of deeply greivous emotional state. Now, since we are provided no preparation or context that would make us care for this man or his situation, if this were a portrait in morbidity, let's say, it very well might be gratuitous and melodramatic.

But look at that face. I see thoughtfulness, pensiveness maybe, preoccupation. What I don't see is any sign of histrionics, or even agitation. I see a face and a posture onto which I can project any number of scenarios and causes and emotional states. Which means, to me, that the careful viewer is limited only by his own imagination, or, perhaps, by his own state. Given then the enigma of this image and the elastic narrative possibilities set up by it, we are forced to ask: if it appears to you to be histrionic and weak, is the problem with the image? or with the viewer and his reflexive presumptions?

Why not exploit the strong points of the medium? Too many photographers have imitated painters for too long. -- Samuel Dilworth

Up to now, as far as I know, Samuel's statements and my own have coincided constantly - and I'm sure we will be on the same track again. In the meanwhile, I beg to differ. His statement above reflects, of course, the ideas of Alfred Stieglitz in his groundbreaking journal Camera Work - in, what, 1908? As you may recall from your studies, Camera Work was, at the time, very effective in destroying the Pictorialist approach to photography, in which photograhy was thought of as painting and in which it tried to emulate painterly modes. At the time, the end of this approach was a good thing. Photography became "photographic", more hard-edged; and has largely remained so - photographic - to this day.

What has been lost in the history, however, is a fact that never went away: photography really is a kind of painting - even as it is also both more and less than painting. Now, one hundred years after Camera Work, photography has without a doubt established its viability and independence from painting; now, one hundred years later, photography can afford to explore that part of itself that merges with painting. It no longer has anything to fear from painting. Which is why a painterly photo, such as this week's POW, was yesterday reactionary but is today valid.

This is certainly one of the most interesting and photographic images we've seen as POW - Yuri's winner of five weeks past notwithstanding. Let us, first of all, nip this idiotic Photoshop argument in the bud before it starts.

Look at the picture. As you see, he is wearing a black jacket. On his left arm the cuff of his shirt extends beyond the jacket sleeve; on his right arm, as often happens when wearing a jacket, the shirt cuff is inside the jacket sleeve. Hence, the appearance of his right arm being "cut off".

Yuri, as his two POWs in five weeks will attest, is a fine photographer. But a quick look through his otherwise fine portfolio reveals that his Photoshop skills have a long way to go, to catch up with his eye; Photoshop is not yet his thing. He is obviously far more skilled with the camera than with the mouse, so I think we have little to fear from him in that respect. For now, anyway.

My initial thought on seeing this chosen was, 1) Great image; and, 2) with all the thousands of images (nearing half a million) on this site, couldn't they find one by somebody who hasn't yet been chosen for POW? Second week in a row for a repeat appearance. But then I thought, well, hey, if they (whoever "they" is) were going to choose a portfolio to plumb for repeated POW choices, they certainly could have done worse than Yuri's. At least his work consistently shows honesty, integrity, and originality, or efforts toward it.

This image has a really painterly, Old World look, dark and dramatic without being overly so. Whether a spontaneous capture or a setup, it matters not. The swirl of dirt away from the window center effectively conveys a vortex, in addition to providing a neat internal frame. Great work!

Nice, but I prefer the B&W version, where the background face is right-side-up.

I hasten to add, however, that what Vu says is true: ask for a critique around here (or anywhere else) and you'll likely get one. It may (or may not) be a lame critique; but someone in any case will surely oblige you.

In my own case, I don't mind so much those critiques that are obviously off balance - you know, the ones that stem from jealously or some other base but human emotion - you can always tell, can't you? Those you can easily refute, or shake your head at and ignore.

More startling are critiques that pinpoint true weaknesses. Such critiques are fairly rare, but these are the ones you actually learn from, so they should be welcomed. Far worse than either kind of critique, though, is to be ignored.

I like this. That should be enough, but since you don't know me, I'll elaborate.

You can see something of the person here. She looks vulnerable. There's a lot of intimacy in this portrait, something not so easy to accomplish.

Some wedding photo pros - a handful, frankly - do really outstanding work. That is, they transcend the genre in creating something distinctive for their client. These are the wedding pros who, of course, eventually end up in great demand.

Most people who shoot weddings for a living, though, produce mediocre results. Sure, they are technically accomplished, with exposure, focus, and so on being consistently good. But they utilize a standard set of poses and ideas and that's that. Consequently the work lacks what your photo here has in spades: soul. Beware of hacks.

I thought about the Elliot Erwitt photos when I saw this, too. But other than having some of the same elements in common, i don't see any similarity. And I certainly don't see any effort on the photographer's part to execute the same concept.

That is one of the most pleasing, original (and sexiest) photos I've seen in quite some time. You can view it as just what it is; or, purely in terms of abstract shapes and colors. Very nice.

I think I like thisd one even better than the other. Somehow the power lines don't bother me; simply a case of showing the world as it is, finding beauty in the world as it exists.

Nice shot. I like the gradations of color, and the way they are proportioned throughout the frame. Also, the contrast between the clouds and the industrial elements. And the strong sense of balance here.

If a city is a living organism - and how can it be otherwise? - its buildings and streets are its exoskeleton. This exoskeleton and its people exist in symbiosis, each providing character to the other. While the degree of influence that people have on buildings is obvious, not so apparent perhaps is the reverse: the influence of the living space (buildings and so on) on the people.

Photography is rife with studies of people, urban and otherwise; people as subject matter is the first front of photography and rightly so, because they are so interesting. But this thing that so influences its inhabitants - this exoskeleton (or hive, maybe) - devoid of people and sitting there in all its squallor, serene, majestic, imperturbable: those kinds of studies are much more rare, and all the more fascinating for it. And that, obviously, is what we have at hand.

Imagine this is blown up really big and on your wall. Look at the detail here. You could get lost in this detail for hours. All you have to do first is really look for a moment. Or, you could thumb through Pop Photo and Shutterbug. Again. Your call. It is incontestible that some pictures - very many, let's say - are dull. It is equally incontestible that some pictures only appear dull because we have such a thick skin over our eyes.

First of all, thank you for the larger version. Now I can really see this . . . and feel confident in addressing it. The comforting thing about the urban landscape, which this image obviously captures, is that, wherever you are in the world, it is largely unchanging. Cityscapes vary, of course - Calcutta, let's say, may be grimier than most, and Singapore more orderly; while, in New York the air seems to be alive with electricity - but urban fundamentals remain the same: that dense construct that says, "Ahhh, city!"

I've never been to Brasil, and I don't speak Portuguese, but in looking at this I feel right at home. So this is interesting to me for that reason, but also in purely graphical terms: the interplay of lights and darks, of different size squares and rectangles, and the sense of depth provided by the smaller buildings in the foreground, all work together here to create a certain dynamic tension in the seemingly static.