mweb

The color aesthetic in this photo is in line with my personal tastes. Excellent technically.

Worthy of a spread in a major fashion magazine. Ultimately doesn't do anything for me,

but I suspect I am not the target audience.

The uncropped photo works much better. I think it works better still if the bird is placed as

far in the upper left as possible so that it appears to be looking down over a vast expanse

for prospective prey.

 

Regarding the ethics question, we now know that the overwhelming consensus both here

and among wildlife professionals is against feeding wild hawks because it is/likely is/can

be detrimental to the bird and not the least bit analagous to feeding the spatsies in the

back yard. Although one can, and should, trust the intentions of the photographer up to

this point, to continue feeding the bird would demonstrate a different type of ethical

intention.

 

One more note, I'm thankful to the elves for picking a POW with equipment-related

technical problems. I think that for purposes of discussion, the composition is much more

important than the quality of the camera.

Comments and Ratings always welcome.

So far, all I've seen is idle speculation on the question of baiting the hawk. The bird feeder

analogy is a logical fallacy just as it would be a logical fallacy to cite the damage feeding

does to dolphins as "proof" that we shouldn't feed hawks.

 

Personally, my guess is that it's harmless and I definitely trust the good intentions of the

photographer. Still, all this guessing is just that. I would like to know what experts in the

field say.

 

The National Geographic thing was just an off-the-cuff example. Frankly, I too am terrified

of seeing a cute little baby seal every time I open the cover. The very idea is horrifying.

Not that I'd turn down an assignment...

I don't know the ethics of feeding wild hawks but am willing to defer to the experts. If it is

likely to cause them harm, then feeding the animal for the purpose of a photograph would

be sick. If not, then I see no problem with it.

 

Regarding the photo, it is a nice capture. I think it might be better if the subject were not

centered. I think it might benefit by having the bird in the upper left part of the frame.

Since it is cropped, I wonder if the photographer experimented with other perspectives?

 

In general, I think the difficulty of the shot often matters to the overall quality of the

photo. Yes, the photo still needs to be good on its own, but plenty of photos are good on

their own without being great because they are too easy. Cats and babies, for example, or

greenhouse flowers, require much more creative vision and often technical skill to be great

because there are so many good ones out there. National Geographic will not hire you

based on a portfolio of wonderful pictures of your cat.

 

On the other hand, and as long as the ethics question is settled in the photographer's

favor, such a nice picture of a wild hawk is something to be proud of.

Thanks Tony. It was a very windy Memorial Day at the beach. I don't know why the guy in the foreground was laying there wrapped up in the sheet. He looked like maybe he'd been partying all night. Whatever, I doubt that the real story is all that interesting. My hope was that the composition is suggestive enough to allow the viewer to come up with a better story.

Ratings and Comments always appreciated.

Very nicely done. I'm pleasantly surprised to see that it is not manipulated. The only

suggestion I would make is to consider rotating it. I think it's more dramatic that way.

I think the use of PhotoShop in such a drastic manner is fine as long as the photograph is

presented as art and not photojournalism. But my photojournalism training was long ago

and as journalistic ethics go it might as well have been in a galaxy far, far away. I know

there was a fuss when Time doctored the OJ image to make him look like a deviant, but

haven't heard much since. I don't know what current journalistic ethics are regarding the

drastic alteration of an image. I suspect they are slippery.

 

As to this photo, I'm not sure what to say. It looks great at a glance, but once I notice the

cloning, I lose all interest. For a drastic alteration to work, in my opinion, it either has to

be purposely obvious or as close to invisible as possible.

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm not at all opposed to altering an image's content with PhotoShop

to tell a better story. PhotoShop is great for cleaning up little problems, but at some point

a flaw is so great that even the best retoucher cannot overcome it .

 

I guess in the end, this is one of those photos that came tantalizingly close to being great.

The original flaw is such that it can be masked with PhotoShop, but not overcome.

I think Ben S. described the photo quite well when he wrote "yet another pretty young

blond heavily made-up woman who appears posed in a contrived fashion."

 

But my question is how we are supposed to judge this photo? What is it's purpose? Is it art

or is it commercial photography?

 

As commercial photography, I think it is excellent. The model, the makeup, the lighting,

the photographer's great technical skill and aesthetic; all worthy of a major magazine

spread on how dress ultra-hip at funerals. As art though, I would say it is not good. Too

phony on one level, not phony enough on another.

 

In no way do I mean that as a put-down of commercial photography. Just don't want to

critique and orange when I'm looking at an apple.

I suspect that the blue in the distant boats has been overenhanced in photoshop. If so, I would consider being a bit more subtle about it. If not, isn't it sad how the existence of photoshop sometimes detracts from our appreciation of good photos? In that case, I'd consider using photoshop to tone down the cyans so that it doesn't look so photoshopped. Yep.

I share Isidro Acevedo's sentiment that the fact it's a picture of a mannequin takes away

from his appreciation of the photo.

 

But does the degree of difficulty matter? Or should we only judge the final product? Get a

better looking mannequin, get a better photo? Is posing a live model that much different?

It's certainly more difficult. If it were a still-life with a bowl of fruit would we be asking

these questions?

 

I wouldn't answer categorically either way. I've seen little evidence of absolutes in "art" of

photography. In general though, I think degree of difficulty is a factor.

 

Big questions aside, I like the composition though I don't think it's particularly original to

dress a beautiful woman like a monk. I very much like the detail in the upper right corner.

I think it provides a dramatic buffer between the blacks and the whites. I also agree with

Stephane Camus and others regarding the abrupt tonal changes in the "skin." I agree with

those who think it would benefit from a softer light.

Don't see how cutting her face in half helps.

Ratings and Comments always appreciated.

I must say I'm a bit surprised at the reactions to my little posts. I thought I was within the

realm of conventional wisdom on the subject. I'm certainly within the realm of the

conventional wisdom I learned back at J school so long ago, but then J school is very big

on attribution. To each his (or her) own, I guess. I enjoyed the thoughtful

replies and it was nice to see the great portfolios behind the comments.

Again I'll stress that I think it's a wonderful photo. I believe the photographer did

everything he possibly could with the given situation.

 

My question is whether or not the situation itself takes away from the ultimate quality of

the photograph.

 

I respect Carl's definition that the extent to which the photographer uses the camera to

control the arrangement of the elements in an image plays a very, very important role in

determining the quality of a photo, but I suspect he would agree that the actual content

within that arrangement plays some small part as well.

 

That leads us to the question of whether a spontaneous arrangement is superior to a pose.

Ultimately, I guess that's a matter of taste. Who do you like better? Cartier-Bresson or

Helmut Newton? For the sake of this argument, let's choose Cartier-Bresson and say that

we like spontaneity.

 

I think it's been proved conclusively that Tim did a fantastic, Cartier-Bresson worthy job of

capturing the spontaneity of the moment. But how spontaneous was the moment? That's

the rub.

 

For the sake of this question, let's accept the proposition that a wedding planner of some

sort foresaw that bowler hats would look cool in the context of the art museum. Clearly

the planner would not have foresaw the exact juxtaposition that the photographer

captured, but he or she would have foreseen that there would be interesting

juxtapositions.

 

Now imagine the exact same shot in a different setting. Instead of an art museum, it's a

barn or a mosque or a quaint country church. Instead of a bowler, it's a John Deere hat, a

fez, or a slick new hairdo. Imagine that everything is essentially the same, only totally

unplanned, totally spontaneous.

 

Would that be a better photo?

 

The other question concerns how much we should acknowledge the artistic vision of

others when photographing their work. I'm not suggesting that a wedding planner or

architect is solely responsible for the artistic result of that or any other photo, but I think

that if they foresaw some similar result, then they deserve some part of the credit, even

though the photographer may use great skill to take it to a higher level.

 

I don't mean to be contentious and I certainly don't claim to know the Truth about these

questions. I just like discussing photography and I've enjoyed reading such intelligent

responses to my questions.

 

Congrats again to Tim on his POW.

Phil et. al., I think the photographer did a wonderful job juxtaposing the components that

were available.

 

But can you really deny that the components are aesthetically interesting in themselves?

Can you deny that the artistic visions of others are responsible for those components?

Don't you think that the wedding planner foresaw the juxtaposition of the hats with the

architecture? If that's true, the photographer was, in large part, building on the artistic

vison of the wedding planner who was building on that of the architect. The photograph

demonstrates great vision and skill, but

still...

 

If it's not true, if the wedding party just happened to end up at the art museum, then my

argument is not as strong, but I think the point is still valid.

 

To some extent photography always builds on the work of others. When does the art of

the photographer transcend the origin of the subject? I think that's a question that needs

to be asked whenever we see a photograph that depends to some extent on the work of

others.

 

We can probably all agree that if I go to the Louvre and take a picture of the Mona Lisa,

that won't make me Da Vinci. I guess my point is that if I go to the Louvre and take a

picture of the Mona Lisa juxtaposed with a model in a stunning designer outfit, that won't

make me Cartier-Bresson no matter how artistic the juxtaposition may be.

 

Isn't the POW supposed to engender critical conversation on the larger issues of

photography?

 

And I honestly mean no offense to the photographer. I think Tim Holte's work is

consistently innovative and excellent and actually serves to bolster my point.

I think the photographer did a very good job within the confines of the situation. My

problem with this photo is that the situation was the creation of other peoples' artistic

vision. The architect certainly had a lot to do with the wonderful architecture. The wedding

planner most likely foresaw the striking aesthetics those hats would generate in the art

museum.

Kinda like shooting fish in a barrel. Not as easy as it sounds, but no great feat

nevertheless.

I don't think the photshop trick covers for the blown-out highlights. Nice composition attempt though.

I like this photo because of the colors, but question the tilting of the horizon. Would the photo be ordinary with the proper perspective? Is the tilting a cheap trick? Are the bad guys about to appear around the corner? Holy horror at the beach hotel, batman!

I like the tonal gradation ( is gradation a word?). What is a "high key" image? Did you mean "haiku?" I you called it a haiku image, I'd probably like it more.

I would consider straightening the horizon and taking out the black dot in the lower left corner. Other than that, very nice.

It's hard to go wrong with ballerinas. Still, you've added something to the genre. The lighting is fantastic.

There is banding around the tower. You might try working with higher resolution or adding some blur to the sky.

The white lines on his right shoulder and the bottom left of his jacket make it look copy/pasted. I'd consider cleaning that up a bit, maybe feathering more along his entire jacket.