sammm

This is one of those times when the sheer dramatic impact of a photograph overwhelms any minor quibbles we may have with petty details. I will weigh in on the side of those for whom this is the most amazing self-portrait of all time.

 

I like the near total monotone of the smoke, background and face, with the small red triangle of the neck and the red circle of the cigar each struggling to emerge from the 12% gray (give or take a few percent) of the rest of the photograph. The little bit of reddish neck tells me there is a person trying to emerge from the haze, and I think anchors the underlying drama and meaning of the shot. My only quibble is the blue shirt - I'd like to see that toned down; it would have been good to put the model in a gray shirt instead.

 

I would put this in my den, printed large (if, of course, I had a den).

I like this one - good soft focus, nice choice of background.

For those who like the simplifying aspect of the post-processing, what do you make of the foreground, where a lot of detail has been retained, and if anything, emphasized?

 

One of the things I see as a compositional flaw - the relentless leading of the eye to a single point, holding it there - seems for others to be an advantage. For me, this leaves the image without any tension, and overly static.

We've seen the likes of Clayton's post before, but I'm curious as to what he likes or dislikes about the post-processing? There is something unique about photography in that it is not ALL post-processing (as, for example, painting is entirely the work of the artist, not the work of a mechanical recording device), and where an image is heavily post-processed, I believe a different standard applies, leaving elements open to question that I might not question in a "captured" image. In this image, the choice of deemphasizing the entire top half of the photograph through processing seems highly questionable to me, and to weaken the naturally captured composition. With less post-processing, I'd find the resulting weakness to be a mild demerit, not a fatal flaw. Where this weakness results from a conscious decision by the photographer to process away what the device captured, it is a fatal flaw.

 

I normally would not stray quite this far from the image, but the moderator's endorsement of your post seems to embrace a discussion of whether post-processed images should be held to a higher standard as an appropriate topic for conversation, and I've at least tried to tie my thoughts on the subject to the image itself.

OK, Vittorio has chosen to use photography and photoshop as media to render a highly stylized image of a small village. For me, it is a nice image, but no better.

 

Why? The composition seems to fight itself; the image divides quickly into three parallel sections, with the middle and bottom section fighting each other for primacy and the top third fading quickly into the background. I think the most interesting element here is the foreground, with the vinyard's parallel lines. But the vinyard is composed in such a way that the eye is led directly and quickly into the village, without any pause to dwell on those lines. It is hard to really focus on what is the most interesting element, because that element just kicks your eye to another part of the canvas. And whehn your eye reaches the village, just off-center, it just stops. Everything else has been softened into the background, and there is no compositional tension created.

 

It may be that there would be more interest and more to engage the eye in a larger version; the impressionists would have had their brush strokes, the Barbizon school its intricate details; each drew one into the work and created a flow for your eye across the overall work. Without seeing this image larger, however, it is hard to tell.

 

So, for me, a perfeclty nice but not an extraordinary image. It is more a study of a technique that an interesting composition per se.

Ah! Color fidelity as a technical weakness. I had mentioned it more because I think it works, and expresses very well the "beachy" feel of light reflected and scattered by heat and sand. It is a sad world where the only departures from meticulous and faithful color rendition embraced are those of oversaturated ex-Velvia addicts habitually pushing up some levers in Photoshop.

I agree with Louis McCullough that if this was taken with (non-Polaroid) film or digital, it might well not be here - not to say it would not be on the TRPs somewhere, but probably not here on the POW as a particularly interesting photograph. To me, that doesn't mean it is a weak shot, but instead that the choice of Polaroid, and of this particular image for Polaroid, was an excellent one. Who would have thought? Perhaps a man with a portfolio full of Polaroids.

 

I have questions about some of his other choices for Polaroid subjects -- the bins of vegetables in his portfolio, for example, don't speak to me in the same way and a choice of an incredibly high resolution large format might have spoken more (in my case). But, for this subject matter - unexpected and perfect. A tool used with talent.

 

As to the composition, I like it, and do think it is notable - anyone criticizing it care to share details of what is wrong with it?

By the way, I note that the time of day and place this was taken, with the hard shadows and light, would have been tough to manuever for most film -- the polaroid does better than expected in my mind. I'll confess to only shooting polaroid when I'm setting up a large format shot, never as an intended keeper - does anyone know if this wide range is a consistent characteristic of spectra?

Rich slice of life shot, nicely composed to emphasize the boy's gaze, but to keep lots of other interests going at the same time. Love the dog.

 

I'll confess - the washed out yet saturated colors of the polaroid aren't always my favorites. But for this family on this beach, they work.

I'll confess that the mid-tones look about right to me as they are - I'd worry about losing the contrast with the tiny bits of true black here and there if they were darkened. I would have to see it done to see if it worked. I'll confess that bit of sky bothers me a bit, but I'm not sure what to do with it. My eye does try to fly up there, taking attention away from the woman, the crowd and the architecture.

Gorgeous shot - I think a touch more foreground might improve it.

The behavior is curious - the photograph, excellent! Love those little eyes.

Throughout this discussion, I never had any doubt where the person went when their footprints stopped - like the bird, they simply flew away.

 

The gentle white tones make this one for me; I do think a bit more attention to the minor details (clone scars, the heavy footprints at the end) could have improved it, but still a nice shot.

Nice, ethereal feeling - did you alter the colors or tone in way?

I'd love to hear details on the set up and shoot.

This is one where I find myself moving my screen a bit, looking at it from different angles to try to figure out just how much detail is in the left eye - I think if that could be lightened just a tiny bit, the print would be perfect. I like the high contrast combined with the detail in the jewelry and the look to the left, it makes for a haunting, dynamic picture.

No, I haven't been posting nearly enough, or taking enough pictures - I need a vacation!

I like this, and the amount of geometry is good. As Mae West said, "Too much of a good thing can be wonderful!" As a matter of fact, I like this enough to hang it on Doug's wall. Blown up to 48 x 60.

 

The emotional pull of a simple child, even in nondescript colors, is a powerful offset to the weight of all those pipes and all that yellow. Yes, a similarly sized and colored stuffed animal couldn't effectively balance the pipes. But a toddler? No problem at all.

Given the level of discomfort expressed by many here, I would say this is successful on many levels. Congratulations, Oleg!

One other point: one of the things I think the texture obscures is the absolutely perfect focus of the original; the blurring of the person, it appears partly by a longer exposure(?), partly by placing the sharpest focus in front of her, and the crispness of the footprints is wonderful. With texture, those footprints becomes much less distinct.

 

I think there are other strong qualities that are obscured, like the flat, surreal colors, but that focus is the big problem for me.

Looking at this and all the comments, I have a few "end of the week" thoughts:

 

(1) Carl Root's point on the relative needs of a strong message to complement a complex image are right on. He's hit the nail on the head as to why I have a stronger gut reaction to the pre-PS version.

 

(2) No one seems to react negatively to the in-camera manipulation, which is as strong as or stronger than the ps-manipulation. The vignetting, the odd color cast, even the placement of the focus in front of the person, on the footprints - all are things that happened inside the camera that manipulate and distort "reality". All of them also add to the image and make it successful. With respect to the texturing added in PS, it might well have been obtained during traditional printing. What about the fact that it was added in ps makes it different from the other manipulations? Why do you hate your boxes filled with silicon and solder but love your little empty box?

 

(3) I can't identify in the discussion a clear rationale for the additional layer of texture: can anyone tell me clearly what it adds to the image? To me, whether added by ps or by wet chemistry, the added texture only obscures. My problems with that texturing have nothing to do with ps. Why should they?

I find the original (as you cropped it) more compelling and direct, and more believably odd and fascinating. Is it because of the lesser degree of photoshopping?

 

Perhaps. The flatness of the colors, especially the grey sky, makes a very elegant statement to me.

Brilliant! Without the smokey "fabric", I suddenly find this much more memorable, and no longer merely "interesting".

Nice shot, kind of cool, and I learned a little something about photography and science from reading the comments.

 

But, like Marc, I doubt I'll be able to remember my first time.

Marc,

 

For some other photos of schooling fish and their behavor around sharks, you can look at this fellows photos: http://www.bigblueimages.com/Sharks.htm

 

(I don't think any of his images match this one, harsh as I may have been above).

 

I have a brother-in-law who has raised schooling fish in tanks in a fish farm - they are fascinating to watch, and can create other interesting patterns. I'm surprised more aquariums don't have good exhibits on school behavior.