MichaelChang

Impressive picture, Sam. The DoF is just right and the subtle blend of colours are perfect.

I was going to say the same as Lex. It also reminded me of a YouTube video of Chuck Norris staring at me for 10 hours. [

Hi Roby, the car is properly exposed and without any objectionable reflections. As a picture, though, there are a few things I'd do differently:

1. The signs on the left is partially clipped; I would not have included it since it does not enhance the picture in any obvious way; and

2. The top of the fence divides the picture roughly in half, but the bottom doesn't exactly serve to frame the car or do anything aesthetically complementary; and

3. The location of the car in front of a busy background detracts from a viewer's appreciation of the car's shape; and

4. The car appears to be overly processed taking on an artificial appearance.

There are infinite possibilities and I would perhaps try in front of a cleaner background and experiment with various shooting angles, and possibly near dusk with the headlights on.

Shooting into the sun can be used effectively to achieve artistic goals - see Giuseppe Circhetta's "Thinkful Moments with Me, Myself and I":

http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=917321

Here's an interpretation of this shot with a bit of tweaking and cropping:

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/17902522-lg.jpg

You might be right, Martin, but we can only speculate.

There is no opportunity to acquire a First-Kiss image through both options so whatever the photographer commits to is what he'll have to live with, win or fail. We'll never know how the alternative might have looked, but if we could, I suspect no one will suggest overexposing it to achieve this imagined effect.

A photographer has two choices when faced with such lighting - expose to favor highlights, or expose to favor shadows.

This exposure favored shadows at the expense of blown highlights leaving little rendering options than what we see - harsh lighting in Black and White, no detail in the table fabric, flower arrangement and back wall, unnatural skin tone, and little added value by the shadow's contribution.

I suspect the alternative (of exposing for highlights) might have produced a more pleasant image, in color, with clearly defined decorative details, and some gentle coaxing of deep shadows in post, albeit at the expense of noise.

Chiara, this has to be one of the most unusual wedding photos anywhere; simply marvelous. 

The dark patch under her right eye, which I imagine is a consequence of post processing, makes her eyeball appear to protrude from its socket.

Some things are better if they remain undisclosed. :-)

https://twitter.com/CIA <- more than 50k followers in the first hour

I like it. Setting up a shot like this takes time but nature rarely waits; even a gentle breeze would have ruined the shot.

My objection to the processing is that it completely overwhelms the strong composition and dominates as the photo's primary feature.

Kids used to dress up and play Cowboy and Indians; there'd be a mob scene if children were seen playing with plastic guns and bow and arrows today and their parents will be chastised.

Maybe there's nothing wrong with this picture at all, rather we've just lost a bit of our innocence along the way.

Thanks for the clarification, Jim, and I acknowledge your sentiment :-)

My personal view about this picture is of a fellow photographer's experiment with a theme, albeit not one I would choose to explore, and my comment was offered in that spirit.

Evgeniy certainly does not owe us an explanation although it would be interesting to learn the backstory of the series.

Jim, I'm puzzled by your comment. Are you suggesting that this type of photo shouldn't be attempted at all? or just that this is a poor execution and there are far better ways to compose it?

I felt the same initially, but prejudice aside, if a photographer just *had to make such a photo, how would one go about it and make the result any *better than cliche?

For that reason, this is an exceedingly difficult shot to me, and this example is actually quite well done for reasons Lex alluded to, although the photo might be trying a bit too hard to my taste.

Here are the same models, same gun, and a similar take by Evgeniy. The PoW example is, to me, better:

http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs20/f/2007/258/2/0/late_angel___windy_by_shamanski.jpg

Shooting a scene like this with a 50mm lens seems like a peculiar choice unless it was thought to have a low light advantage; the portrait orientation speaks to the lack of choice in framing with such a lens.

The extreme contrast of the scene makes this just about one of the most challenging shots to get right aesthetically. Use a flash and you might lose the impact of the lit balloons. Use long exposure hand-held and you take the chance of blurry shots without aesthetic merit.

Overall, though I'd say using a 50mm lens severely limited any opportunity for a pleasant composition which to me would have made the biggest difference.

National Parks are often destination locations for (casual) photography, but the amount of ground to cover over usually short periods of time means the photos are often grab shots under default circumstances, unlike destinations close to home where extensive planning is possible.

I guess ones travel intention and level of commitment dictates the result - I bought a couple of large art-nude prints from a photographer about 10 years ago who brought a model with him on a 3 month photo excursion in a national park carrying a LF camera kit; the results were spectacular.

I think there is a general expectation that a "Photo of the Week" should be selected on the basis of its ability to generate interesting and insightful discussions, therefore the "quality" of the photo should at least rise above the common peer-to-peer photos offered for critique.

In this case, there is little to discuss about its aesthetics or technique without the participation of the author, and even then it'd be limited to mostly technical issues which might explain the resentment toward its selection.

Judging from similar photos in the folder, this series of "splash" photos appear to have been triggered by hand rather than by electronic means.

It's not trivial to achieve an aesthetically perfect photo notwithstanding the many examples of such floating around. It takes many attempts, patience, trial and error, made even more difficult if it's not electronically triggered.

This may very well have been an experiment; a work in progress in a process that we all go through, and as a POTW discussion, I'd like to know the technical details of the setup and triggering which I think can result in a fruitful exchange.

What a charming picture. The little guy with the hat over his face is clearly the mischievous one. :-)

This picture succeeds for me because it communicates the universality of childhood innocence at a time when lifelong friendships are formed.

I fully accept Rarindra's interpretation notwithstanding the infinite variations possible in shooting and rendering.

Here's a link that will offer some context to the picture:
http://www.refinedrebel.org/2013/09/13/596/

I can see a lot of effort went into staging the set, but my immediate impression is that a few props were haphazardly tossed together to loosely communicate Christmas at a trailer park that neither communicates a trail park nor a studio set effectively.

The Photoshopping of the kid on the clothesline is also rough; her weight is enough to break the line yet she barely weighs enough in the photo to sag the line.

The man can be a bit more expressive to better harmonize the comical look.

Jim, I think this is a competent photo by any measure even if it doesn't necessarily meet the standard of high art we've come to expect when a picture is selected as PoW.

The whirling steel wool trick is something we've all seen but few of us have actually tried. Nudes at the beach is even less accessible for most of us. The landscape background appears to be one of Norm's favorite spots and looks like a place I'd frequent as often if I had access.

Taken in the context of Norm's bio - a degree in cell biology and computer programmer with diverse interests, it's a pretty good creation for a passionate photographer even if this is a composite, considering it's not his day job.

This appears to be quite a well made composite - the background precisely matches this image:
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17659616

Hard to tell but the foreground could have been a composite as well. Either way it makes a convincing picture to the casual viewer.

The composition placing equal weighting on the two swans puts it in conflict with the choice of blurring of the right swan - unless you only look at the left swan, then the blurring of the other will look "right".

It's interesting that "almost" in photography can often be "nowhere close".

If this photo was framed wider, rendered in pleasing B/W or preserved in out-of-camera color, I might have mistaken it for an Ian Taylor photo.