rondal

If Jan Saudek had directed Brazil, it might have looked like this. Lovely!

Rotation, a gimmick? Perhaps, but Egon Schiele did it too (here is an example).

From a purely graphical standpoint, I think the vertical (rotated) version is superior to the horizontal one - as in, more balanced, and at the same time, more challenging. Like some other people who commented, my personal sense of photographic sight is honed more towards human elements, but doesn't all good photography boil down to interesting compositions, anyway? Henri Cartier-Bresson took humans and turned them into abstract patches of black and white not dissimilar to this POW.

Lannie: to me, technical dexterity (be it in the field, in the studio, in the darkroom, or in digital imaging software) always takes a back seat to unique artistic vision.

Personally, my perception of this image would not change, had it been created in its current form with the single click of a shutter and not been manipulated later. Some choose to create art with paint and canvas, others with a camera, and yet others with a camera and a computer. That's for each to decide on his own. What matters to me is the artistic vision behind this image. Currently, I don't understand it - but will be happy to have it explained to me. Until then, it will just remain a pretty picture to me, and I can only critique its superficial aspects (such as the lack of grain I mentioned earlier, which I personally find distracting).

Nour, if there's a story behind this photo, please tell it!

It is a curious choice. We have no idea what was going on in Nour's head when he clicked the shu... um, I mean, the mouse button to create this image. That the story behind this photo is told in a (visual) language I do not understand detracts from my enjoyment of it, just as trying to read A Thousand Nights and a Night in Arabic is, to me, of limited fun. Richard F. Burton has done a pretty good job of making me appreciate that book, though, so I'm still hoping someone (possibly Nour himself) can explain his reasoning behind this composite.

Personally, on a technical issue, I'm also not too fond of those things I do understand about this photo, especially what some have referred to as 'softness' but is in fact the utter lack of grain.

Could W. Eugene Smith's Dr. Albert Schweitzer Marking Timbers during Construction Project, 1954 "win" the POW? It is a darkroom composite of at least two different images: the silhouette of the hands and saw handle have been superimposed on the finished print.

It seems to me that each time a digital composite is photo of the week, one can pretty much count on the age-old argument of 'straight' vs. 'manipulated' photography. And when I say 'age-old', I mean it! As some among you will know, first it was Group f/64 against the soft-focus pictorialists, then 30 years later it was Magnum-style candid photojournalism versus posed photographs, and then in the '90s all the panties were in a twist over the emergence of digicams. To this, I can only say: vide! This is what a true, straight, candid, analog, unmanipulated, photojournalistic, reportage, and above all objective travel photograph should look like! In fact, every photographer should be reduced to the position of camera-operator, and not let his quaint, outdated humanity interfere with the recording of reality.

Or, on the other hand, we could simply abolish the distinction between photography and painting, and just call everything 'visual art'. Heck, why not throw sculpture into the mix, too?

One of my photo.net favorites. I've been trying to figure out what historical photograph this reminded me of. It's "Large Bore Cannon, Baltic Fleet, 1936" by Yakov Khalip.

Somehow, an originally beautiful photo marred by post-exposure factors is like the face of an old person who was very beautiful in youth. It may offer just a shadow of its former beauty, but, oh, what a shadow that is!

 

There's no argument that this photo, presented here as a digital image, would most likely be more beautiful if the image (as opposed to the photo itself, which, apparently, none of us have seen) was bigger and cleaner. Nevertheless, to me this is probably the most evocative POW since July 19th, or maybe even since May 3rd. Certainly the first since then that managed to bring a smile to my face.

 

To add some confusion to the grain vs. digital artifacts debate, I think the strange pattern is a result of what a high amount of digital artifacts does to a high amount of grain. In other words, it looks like it's both!

A dystopian Karl Blossfeldt.

All this recent talk about manipulated photographs prompted me to upload what I think a simple, unmanipulated photo should look like. I cannot comprehend why some people go through such pains to contrive an elaborate scene, when beauty can already be found everywhere we look, waiting only for us and our cameras to capture it.

All this recent talk about manipulated photographs prompted me to

upload what I think a simple, unmanipulated photo should look like. I

cannot comprehend why some people go through such pains to contrive

an elaborate scene, when beauty can already be found everywhere we

look, waiting only for us and our cameras to capture it.

"It is better to take pleasure in a rose than put its roots under a microscope." -Oscar Wilde

 

I think the only poster who really hit the nail on the head regarding this image is Tony Dummett.

Reminiscent of "Hit" by Frederick Lord Leighton.