thomas_k.

John:
Thank you for clarifying. It makes sense. One could argue that if a process used by a photographer produces unsatisfactory results over and over again, the process itself could be deemed unsuitable, and advice could be made for other photographers not to use it, right?

John:

Would you agree that photography as a craft can have some standards by which it can be judged? If a photo of natural landscape is obviously and crudely manipulated (in digital or optical manner) would you agree that it exhibits poor craftsmanship?

It's a storm on the coastline but the sea is missing! Please paint in ( pardon: photoshop in) some breaking waves on the bottom.

I have a very mild response to this image. To me it falls in an indecisive area of not beeing a documentary enough (it could have been taken at many places and times around the globe) and not vague enough to take my mind and/or emotions for a ride. Reading the discussion it appears that there is also a confusion about importance of various elements in this photo, apparently it is hard to read and grasp. What is it about?

Debra: I second this opinion: this photo is not a mistake. You thought and executed this image. It may not be an end to the process. I think of many (majority?) of my photos as sketches or studies which may lead to other images following same process of though. You may or may not respond to the "rules" of "good" photography. You can respond to and modify your work, or ignore the wishes of your audience. In my mind this discussion is to inspire it's participants, not to pass final judgment on POW as a success or a failure.

Lighting on this portrait is nice but framing and pose are too rigid and unnatural. Here is an interesting collection of reading women by Pierre-Auguste Renoir with beautifully flowing and natural poses: http://bjws.blogspot.com/2012/09/women-reading-by-pierre-auguste-renoir.html

Several comments speak about "two beautiful models". Can a photographer take credit for beauty of his/her model?

If photographer’s intention was to create an illusion of “demons” floating in the air, then it does not work for me. All I see is two models lying on the ground on their sides and fake mist coming out of a jar. I think placing camera right above the models would have helped a lot.

Lack of context in which this photograph was taken makes it really difficult to understand or relate to. The question: why little Johny is crying? - is impossible to answer without additional info from a title or short description. As others have pointed out it can be a trivial or a tragic scene. To me it is strange that this photo is left untitled. Shouldn't documentary photograph be presented with details about who, where and when or even what is going on? On the other hand maybe if we knew what is going on in this picture we would not be discussing it.

To me it's a nice portrait. The post processing treatment does not get in the way of it showing the likeness of a real person. I very much like the relaxed, unforced expression on girls face. Forcing kids and adults to smile for every picture taken is a crime of modern times. I imagine that this girl - now a young woman will cherish this image for being different than family snapshot.

Now that we know that this is a composite and relation between this image and reality is broken, where do we go now?

Is the medium still a photograph? Or maybe the editing software is the medium due to extensive changes, and this image should be approached as a form of graphic art for which a photograph was only a starting point?

Many participants of this discussion compare/relate this image to a painting. Would it make a difference in perception of this image if it indeed was an oil painting? Would you think it's a good and interesting painting? Would you buy and hang it in your living room?

Unlike most responders I do like the styling of this photograph. It reminds me of postcards from the 1930's from many European cities showing it's old centers. When I find such a postcard, faded, showing muddy blacks and whites but usually with great detail from large film negative, it makes me wonder about how this place looks now? Was it leveled during the war? What happened to the people shown going about their lives peacefully just few years from WWII? As to the current POW - I do not care much about triangles or piping - I do like this a bit hazy, low contrast, gloomy atmosphere which hints on chaos and tragedies that have taken place in this now well organized and peaceful place.

It would help the duck to be in focus. It would help to create a stronger relationship with hippo. Would it be a "false" relationship? Maybe an accidental relationship of the opposites? They are connected because they are so different and it raises questions in viewers mind.

Wait, wait... is it she or he? - the hippo I mean. The amount of facial hair suggests a male. The duck is a male, walking away....what's going on?

Interesting image. I like the "vintage" treatment - it goes well with the subject. I would frame it differently, do not like top edge of the image slashing trough middle of her forehead. I would include some hair on top - she is not bald - is she?. It would make a beautiful series of photos with more images from a beach: 3/4, full length, smiling, hair blowing one way or another - maybe 5-8 images - all with same effect. Again it is very interesting image/subject - I would love to see more.

Very nice image. Symmetry occurs everywhere, do not fight it with "3-rds rule" - embrace it. Good luck.

I can see the propellers not moving!

"...it never seems to get noticed when I show it with other environmental portraits and I can't seem to figure out why."
This photograph is quiet and its mood is subdued. It does not "grab" viewers attention easilly. It strikes your emotions Paul, because she is your family member. For me it requires time and effort to "read" this photograph - many people are passing this photograph because it does not have strong, up front, quickly gratifying aspect to it. This image is to be studied in all its details. Face, hands, what she wears, pictures behind, room behind open doors, etc. An 20x30 print from your 4x5 negative would allow the viewer to appreciate it more than a low resolution/dynamics scan we are seeing on our monitors.

This is not a photograph. This is a composite/collage pretending to be a photograph. Two photos were used to create this image it is

not a photo anymore and should not be presented nor viewed as such. It is pretending to be a photograph to heighten the drama. It is

made in a crude and pretentious way.

To me this image first says: "I know how to use photoshop - look what I did!" I like the lower half but dislike over dramatic clouds - what was there in the original photo?

I do not see any connection between the girl and the background/the factory. What is she doing there? Why abandoned building behind? Does she live there or is she just a model? You can explain this in words, but image itself lacks something.