stefan1

I think this print has a lovely range of tones and I wonder if the presentation here was adjusted after being scanned in? The black in the border (which adds charm IMO) is particularly strong of course. The effect of the tea-toning is very attractive for this image as well.

I'm still in the failed-angel mode on this one, so maybe that is why the heavy shadows seem to not fit the subject. Freeing myself from that, I really like the strong contrast to the brightly lit sheet. The background treatment is tops as always in your images. This version looks a little more "edited" than what I've seen elsewhere :-) The kicked-up sand puts good energy into this attempt at flying!

This is a Rorschach test of sorts - what do you see?

cigarette smoke? very well conceived and executed.

To me, sterility is the primary point of this image, and a jumping-off point for where to go next with your interpretation of this photo. The wall is so white that it may or may not be there; the geometry of the exhibition space is clinically perfect. Despite the barren setting, the two men are so engrossed in the same photo that they ignore the camera trained on them. In a way, they are the only imperfect elements of this image. That they themselves are reflected in the photographs may not be overly subtle, but it helps add complexity to their relation to the art they are viewing.

James - thanks for the term photogram which was new to me. It seems to be applied to objects being placed on top or at least in the path of light incident on photosensitive material. The present image grabs a middle ground in a sense. I use an oddly shaped piece of glass between the paper and the light source (a laserpointer). It is not so much the shadows (usually the primary component of a photogram if I understand the concept correctly) as it is the refractions in the glass that create the image, hence the relation to "normal" photography. On the other hand, the light source is rather featureless in this case and all the structure originates in the obstructing object, making this more of a photogram...

Black and white and lots of it. Makes me wonder if you posed this? Very good regardless.

I may be dense, but I get no pleasure out of having this image turned upside down. Good tones here.

I like the idea, but maybe you could enhance the contrast between the cold winter and the warm gallery interior?

A little laconic and hard to read emotionally.

This looks interesting and makes we want to know more about the subject, but it also appears a little busy.

Fun symmetry in this photo - two flowers, two silos all in their respective element.

This is so much about the light you found - you could remove the dancers and have an intriguing background left, but the combination is fabulous.

A perfect range of textures and colors. The many layers makes it interesting despite being a relatively austere composition.

I like tones and the resulting feel of this photo. Some minor nits in composition (the island just touching his head, cut at knees), but easily forgivable given the positive associations I get from this image :-)

I like this take on making a collage of the many faces of children. Not having the cental face and leaving less room between the rows might have been a more successful alternative?

You can see the wheels turning behind those eyes (that are nicely defined in this photo).

I typically need to max out my poor little Canon G3 when I do these things, 15 sec exposure, aperture wide open, but I try to keep the equivalent iso at 50 (the lowest value) to keep the noise down. With these parameters I usually manage to fill the luminosity histogram pretty far out to the right and I often shoot in raw mode which helps theoretically but not very much in practice.

I think there are two things I have going for me as compared to the shot you gave as an example from your portfolio: (1) there is no competing light so there is no problem with balancing the light against other sources, (2) as the refracted light is projected and reflected off a white screen, the camera captures most of the power that left the laserpointer I use, a smaller fraction gets scattered elsewhere as compared to a situation in which you are relying on the light scattered in (say) a glass - you will be able to capture only a small part of the total emitted power (does that make sense?).

You might want to take a look at this version of laser light scattered in a wine glass: Glass triptych. That too had a pretty maxed-out exposure.

What makes this work? Why doesn't it work? Pray tell.

I like to interpret photography in the widest sense as "drawing with light". Here is a "photograph" that strays more into the gray zone than Jürgen's POW - a projection directly onto B/W paper.

The detail in the leaf is wonderful, but I don't understand why the background has to have the mottled appearance it has here. As noted elsewhere too, this will be a very different beast in a high-resolution print.

The discussion about whether this week's photo of the week really is a photograph or not prompted me to post this image. It is a print on B/W paper, but it does not involve a camera in the usual sense, nor is there a lens, unless you wish to use that term for the candle holder I used to refract a laser beam to produce this image.

The realization of this print came about after some help in one of the forums here at photo.net - this link might explain a little better what is going on here.

Thanks for looking.

Your cheapest source of a collimated light source may well be a red-light laser pointer, which is what I used in this photo.

I think there is enough detail that the axis is not that dominant and that you may overthink the composition if you delve too much on that. I like the light you used to photograph this artefact. Is it really a sextant?

Congratualtions on finding this artful facade. Wishing maybe for more interesting light and that the sunny patch wasn's there, but that isn't the main point about this image anyway...

Lárus: yes I am Swedish, but I've lived in the US for over 10 years now. Again, I value your honest opinion and don't worry about offending me. I don't think we need to be experts on abstract art to evaluate whether it speaks to us or not. I understand your point about the white background, this is why I tend to convert these to black and white, but this had a little bit of tonal range so I wanted to preserve that.