lucas_griego

Marc,

First off. Congratulations on POW!

Funny thing was when I first saw this image come up on the page I knew it was yours. Signature style?

I like the image. Tonys comment about those carrying the "yoke of geopolitics" was intersting. I can agree there.

On closer inspection there are some minor things about the shot that I noticed - just food for thought.

I guess shot from this angle the her limbs do that optical foreshortening bit. The more I look at the models left arm the more it becomes apparent.

It is an image with a clear and direct impact.. right away you get the mystique, the allure, a very Oriental image.

Congratulations!

Hi Gordon, thanks for the kind words.

Yeah space to work can be funny. For some reason when I have more space I do less work.. I dunno - maybe lazy?! I find that with small spaces I get the attitude something like - "Oh yeah who says I can't shoot this shot in the space the size of a postage stamp!?!?"

Of course - not that I don't almost destroy all my gear and sanity everytime I do it though! ;-)

As for photogs not sharing technique.. yeah this is what I found as well... Sod 'em. Anyone who won't share a technique has some serious insecurity problems. I find that most guys not willing to share are guys that don't get a whole lot of work anyhow - it's a personality thing. I still get amazed when I get something that turns out like I expect it to... so I am usually tripping over myself to share it with someone! ;-)

cheers

Wow. Thanks for the kudos Gordon.

Yeah, too bad I don't own this ring flash.

One of these days... then I can blind all my models! ;-)

Ben,

I thought the trick was to stay on the ground.

This guy looks like he just bought the farm.

Killer shot. Probably better to be the photographer here than the guy on the luge (luger?).. anyhow, nice one!

Pinaki,

I think you miss the point here.

While the above shot may not be the foremost journalistic shot on PN I think you managed to draw some rather far fetched conclusions regarding the photographer. There is a similarity with this shot (e.g. the mans mustache and the pose/eye expression) and a rather famous shot of Salvador Dali. Your comment about being an 'outsider' says more about your mentality (insecurity?) than it does about the photographer of this image. Sad.

Lighten up a bit.

I found the shot to be an interesting capture - and while maybe not telling a complete story it does show me an interesting (yes, exotic) face with an intense expression. I think it shows a good amount of character here. Again - could have more of a story - but it was harldy presented as the Pulitzer Prize winner for Photojournalism. A nice simple shot showing an exotic character. 'Nuf said.

As for the all the 'cheese' comments...

If you think this shot has anything in common with the link below... get your eyes checked. ;-)

Yuri,

Nice shot. Well put together and a fairly strong composition. I like both the before and after versions. I don't think the small amount of editing/retouching really has had that big of an impact on the final image. I think it was already fairly strong before the editing and find it still holds up well after the editing. Like many have stated - cool that you let us know what the deal was. The rest of your work is interesting as well. Congratulations on POW.

This feeling is common among women after real-life encounters like that on the TV

What is that supposed to mean? Women who end up working in porn - or women who end up having sex like in porn movies? Or both?

Yes, agreed. And a good suggestion at that. I think if the $25 was mandatory to be able to participate in the critiques etc. that it would benefit everyone here on POW. The most irksome thing about the latter part of this POW thread is that I don't totally disagree with Sintchak or yourself - I also think that making this one big feel-good-factor won't serve any purpose either - even more so in the light of 10 or 20 years down the road if someone has to sift through all the superlatives to get to the critiques... but as for my part in careening the latter end of the POW off track It's the manner in which pointing something like that out is put across I guess.

Handholding excepted - It'd probably be more constructive and less side-tracking of the post if instead of so much complaining how low the standard of critique is here on POW - if perhaps you gave some constructive pointers instead (and not just references to potty training) POW might become a place more up to your level of crique.

Calling a statement silly is hardly 'vehemence'. Err - at least last I checked.

The statement I called 'silly' is a round-a-bout reprimand that Josh should be 'embarrassed' because so many people gave him 10/10's. Ha ha - and that's still as silly as it ever was.

As for my posts regarding Richard Sintchaks comments - well... it's all above to be seen - speaks for itself fairly well really.

Doug Thackers post - ????

Re-read my response to it - I'm not sure what you felt you had to defend about it - I actually agreed in part with him. Jeroen Wesdorps post - I didn't respond to it. So not sure what you mean there.

As for 8 posts - I meant Sintchaks posts not yours - err... Did you feel berated because I posted a shot of two sheep?!

At any rate - thanks for the tips on how to achieve or go about attaining a level of mature and sophisticated critique that so many of us on POW seem to lack according to you. Shucks - by then I might even have a grey beard.

;-)

-- Brian Mottershead

Your first row description should properly read:

Determined Girls in Yellow Shirts Falling off Indifferent Looking Rodeo Sheep Photos.

-- Chris Battey

Priceless... ;-)

It's not the over-the-top ratings that are doing a disservice to us here it's the over-the-top criticism and ridicule of those who may not have the same lofty standards for art critique. When a member attempts to tongue lash everyone into the neat categories of :

It's obvious where the real disservice to the POW forum lies.

To have a member run on for paragraph after paragraph telling others how much they don't understand what they're looking at or what they're rating is a bit much by any standards. Condescending jabs and implying that people are not up to 'understanding' do little further any real discussion/critique of the image at hand.

Your assertion that so many here are lacking depth of judgement in their critical perception, can't 'figure it out' or rate only because it appears as magic to them is hardly going to cause anyone to rethink their position or be receptive to suggestions that might raise the standards of the POW forum to levels that you feel are acceptable.

What do you suggest these people do to save themselves from themselves? Where exactly should we start? Just what are the standards for critque that we should all be abiding by?

Berating and belittling people probably isn't the best place start. Your constant reference to people 'wetting their pants' and 'potty training' hardly serve to move this forum towards the goal of more enlightened critiques that you seek - to me it seems this kind of insinuation is pushing it in just the opposite direction.

I am sure that we can all learn lots on how to critique judiciously from the 'older' more 'experienced' members. 'Grey beards' as many would have it. But that "learning" doesn't mean that everyone here should have to endure all the demeaning ruckus, innuendo and slights - Grey beards or not.

I thought the image was a good one when considered against the background of it's intended use. I didn't bother to rate it as I have yet to see anyone agree on what the heck the numbers are supposed to mean! The instructions for ratings on PN are subjective at best so I don't bother - especially not when it seems so many are trying to derive hard fast universally applicable rules from them.

What exactly are the 'critique' guidelines that you suggest we follow? How do you suggest we arrive at the level of discourse that satisfies the requirements for intellectual integrity and prudent critique here on the POW forum?

Heated or adversarial is not the issue..

Try bored to death with your highminded rant accusing everyone who has given praise or a number that doesn't fit your personal neat little numbers hierarchy as contributing to the decline of PN. This is nonsense.

PN is not a perfect world where things fit into neat little categories with all the numbers and comments lined up just the way you like them.

If you feel it's adversarial or heated just because someone calls you on your contemptuous attitude towards other PN users who don't hold the same opinons as you - well shucks - that's tough.

Get over yourself already!!!

-- Your whole condescending rant has basically been about control - you don't feel that people's opinions and their use of the

'subjective-at-best' rating system here is up to your photo-critique snuff.

It may be news to you but not everyone here at PN is waiting on bated breath to find out if an image is brilliance or trash or even simply enjoyable to look at based on some number.

You seem obsessed with making sure everyone here abides by some set of hard fast rules that correlate to a subjective number rating system.

Not everyone is going to fall in line and rate what you think they should rate nor will they praise or chastise and image by the same standards that you do - so why run on for paragraphs ridiculing everyone because they're not hung up on the numbers like you.

You should be embarrassed!

>>>If I was the photographer I would be EMBARRASSED over the string of 10/10, 10/9, 9/10 this image has received.<<<

This takes the cake for silly statements. Why should the photographer get embarrassed here? He has about as much control over people rating 10/10's as T.Dummett has over people wetting their pants!

What's on the plate here? Should we have a 10/10 filter? What about a !!!!!!! filter... I mean obviously we can't have people just running off over the hills with unbridled enthusiasm now can we. What about a 'bathroom pass'?!?!?

heh heh

aww shucks...

It almost feels like were back to the pre-sanitized POW already. Refreshing.

Joshua - Great capture here. Timing is everything on a shot like this and you managed it well here. Like couldn't be better and you've shown a real slice of life of middle America here.

-- Doug Thacker

One one level I can see your concern about the way this was shot - but at the same time I have seen many many shots like this attempted with the same latest and greatest gear -- and after looking at so many shoddy results I think skill is still definitely involved here - it still ain't easy to get a shot like this down.

-- Trevor Hare

>>>... not the sick individuals relishing the cruelty.

--It takes a lot to break a sheeps neck - as anyone who has ever had tried to load them up for shows can attest. The trick in this event is not to 'Houlihan' the animal - it ain't sheep bulldoggin'! The goal is t to stay on it for seconds on the clock - this sheep show's no signs of taking a tumble. These animals are incredibley durable and would fare better here than the girl by far. If you ever spend any time around farm or ranch animals you'd find that they are not fragile creatures. As for your "sick individuals" schtick - get off your hobby horse.

>>>I never realised savagery like this went on as public sport at a county fair in the USA. It informed me.

---This is hardly savagery. I am not sure where you live or what you eat - but most westerners live so far removed from where and how the everyday items in their life are produced, made and slaughtered that they often have quaint ideas about the reality of them... so maybe it is a wake up call for you.

Bryan,

Your point about the purpose of POW is well taken. It should be a place for conjecture about an image - my point was that to judge the shot for not having some incredibly developed story and plot to it is rather silly. Reading what the shooter posted tells the story that is. Some even took it a bit further to say that even if it had been done in Photoshop it would have been a poor example. That's nonsense. It's a bit like saying "Dogs are dumb".. yeah they are - at being humans... but when it comes to being a dog - they're brilliant. So in this case why knock the shot for not having more story - it wasn't a pj shot nor was it a pre planned shot.

>>Since it is a POW, I feel justified in pointing out that the standard for seletion should be higher.

However as you can see from the range of comments above or on any of the other POW's that there has yet to be an agreed upon 'standard'... I don't think it's possible. Especially not in light of the arcane circumstances/methods in which POW's are chosen.

I'd like to see a bit more of the woman with her back to us.

If this is supposed to be a protest it's looks pretty sparse here to be honest..

As well - the "Buddhas not Bombs" is a pretty dumb tag line. err.. I mean as a political statement.. not as title to your shot.

;-)

Milos,

I like the toning and I like the use of DOF here - really adds to the feel...

but when I read your story with the shot it kind of leaves me wanting more - I mean... where's the dog? What's it doing that is so funny?

If you hadn't said that part I would have gotten a totally different picture... which is why I clicked on the thumbnail...

Your story seems more alont the line of this shot...

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=525350

Anyhow - I like the shot... but I don't know if it really works with the story.

Gabi,

Nice shot - I wonder if when you took this shot that you imagined all the dissenting voices it would bring out on the POW?

You got fanged by the frustrated tree trimmers association..

>>I agree with Tony and Brian: the right palm should be cut away<<

Then taken to task for this shot being a badly done attempt at a photo shop image...

>>it just it looks like something done in photoshop (and not done well either).<<

and then there was the "common sense & maturity brigade" reprimanding anyone with a sticky exclamation mark keys...

>>reminding me more of children wetting their pants than mature criticism.<<

Shucks, who'd a thunk?!

D. Thacker makes a very valid point up above... To further add to that - Gabi explained the circumstances in which it was shot - so it was hardly the full on pro location shoot with the brief from the client and the aesthetics approval committee.

Sure this shot is not the be all end all of photographic perfection... (as if there such a thing to begin with!)

But the shot does have a 'visual impact' and as long as were not all being pistol whipped into the "rule of thirds cult" or being conscripted to the "color cast correction chain gang" -

The shot is arguably aesthetically pleasing.

It's not the Photo Journo shot of the year illustrating the most gripping drama- but it does evoke a certain simple sense of wonder.

This is POW... Photo of the Week...

Not "Photo of the Century"...

Not the "Photo that the Fate of All Humanity Rests Upon"...

simply the Photo of the Week - so why judge the shot for something it's not?

Congrat's Gabi -

Marcus,

Well done. One of the better shot's I've ever seen of this structure. Impressive.

Wow. Philipe Gauthier seems to be really bothered by just about every shot in this folder. If it's not the gear, it's the shadows, if it's not the shadows it's the composition, if it's not the composition it's the symbolism.

sigh...

One has to wonder why he even bothered to look and leave so many comments on shot's that are obviously not his cup of tea?

Stewart, I happen to like the entire folder - regardless of what you shot it with or how the chicken's shadow falls. ;-)

I think your off to a very good start here... keep it up. More than happy to check out any new shots you may have on this subject matter!