venicia_l

Thanks for editing.

Brian,

 

Thanks for editing.

At first your crtiticism was about ANY filter. Now you are back peddling. Actually, you really have nothing to say. Your comments here are simply negative and that's destructive, not constructive. You are vague to the point of meaningless. That completely defeats the purpose here.

Since you have none of your own work to use as example and since you have nothing of a constructive nature to offer, your credibility is now non-existent. It is simply unacceptable to call a work poor and to claim it doesen't meet some standard when you are unable to articulate anything about that standard. And to be negatively critical because an image does not meet some notion of yours of "genius" (whatever that is) is utterly absurd.

There is nothing wrong with people offering opinions here who do not post their own work. But in the absence of that, you had better have something of substance to say. Otherwise you are just being negative and that's cruel.

VL

Philippe,

While you may be right, I find your "critique" lacking in anything of a constructive nature about this image. Your comment would be appropriate in a juried show in which the judge can reject any work without the requirement of teaching the photographer how to do a better job. Here, the purpose is to share knowledge not simply to find fault. Finding fault alone is useless here.

This image does NOT represent genius, it's true. It has qualities that attract "typical" viewers because of its "Gee whiz" qualities. On the other hand, it has very high qualities in many other departments and represents a high degree of technical skill and very pleasing aesthetics.

I do not agree that the use of filters automatically puts an image into a "gimmick" category. ALL photography is a "filter" of the original scene. To argue that a "faithful" rendition of the scene is "unfiltered" is to be completely ignorant of the complete abstraction of reality that is EVERY photograph. The notion that a photograph that "looks" very much like the original, must have, is a "faithful" representation, is a complete myth anyway. No original scene actually looks anything like any photograph of it.

Your comments and biography infer experience with "genius" level work. What is it about this image with which you find specific fault? What would you recommend the photographer do on a global level or specifically to improve the work?

VL

Igor, Would it be possible to post the "straight" shot without the B&W IR layer?

VL

Yes, it's art in that the photographer has handled the tonal values well in this high key image. The lighting is excellent for the key treatment and other technical aspects of the image are of high quality. And they ARE individually lovely.

It's just dismaying that the photographer finds it necessary or satisfying to pander to the current sophomoric fascination and fashion of depicting either fantasy or real "girl on girl" sexual themes. (Does it matter that I resisted using "moronic" in place of sophomoric?)

Psychologist friends tell me these themes, having been quite prevalent in the media for about the last 10 years, especially with the advent of the Internet, have resulted in an increase in female same-sex sexual display from practically zero to commonplace in a generation. It seems that young men and women are now influenced by images in the media to orders of magnitude never before seen in society. And that girls perceive such behavior as expected of them by boys as a sign of desireabilty and conformity and are as casual about it now as their older sisters and mothers were repulsed by it. I'm not sure what all that implies, I'm just repeating some psycho-social data. Maybe it's healthy. Maybe it's the opposite. Maybe it's all just dumb.

If a female nude gets more attention than all other image forms, I guess an image with 2 nude female bodies, especially if they are involved in some kind of sexual activity gets twice as much.

But then, I guess it's important to appeal to the 11-20 year old male demographic.

Someone will probably counter that the image is tastefully done for this genre. What do I know? Besides, my comments probably violate all the forum rules about keeping comments to the image itself and will be removed.

VL

Ian, you are remarkably perceptive to have seen this composition. NOTHING is out of place. The only thing "wanting" about this scene was the time that nature had to wait for you to happen on it and show it to us. But you have remedied that!

The other suggestions for composition and other changes are not improvements on your work.

Wonderful colors, shapes, textures and perception.

VL

Does it work? I'll say it does. I would have guessed Plux X with an orange or red filter.

VL

The pilot cannot swerve right or left. To do so would put a wingtip into the ground - instant disaster. He can only pull up to avoid an obstacle directly in front - and the photographer's entire upper body is well up into the direct path of the propeller.

If the pilot had inadvertantly lost the precious few inches clearance between his prop tips and the ground, the plane would have dropped to the ground, disintegrating and exploding in a path that would have included the photographer who would have had absolutely no where to escape the plane's mass, the flying debris and the fireball.

I am reminded of a grizzly scene in the movie version of Joseph Heller's, "Catch 22" in which a low-flying plane such as this flies "through" a man inadvertently standing in its path, on the edge of a pier. He is instantly vaporized from the waist up. The viewer is treated to the legs, still attached at about crotch level, standing in place by inertia (the prop's shearing impact is so sudden as not to disturb them at all) for a second or so until they simply fall off the edge of the pier into the water.

The pilot, so traumatized by what he has done, flies erratically for a few seconds, obviously loses control of himself and his plane and we watch the craft slowly, lazily, bank and turn awkwardly and crash into a hillside.

Sorry, but that's the terror I feel looking at this shot!

VL

Please view large. "Town Meeting." Tiny blooms in ground cover, underovercast skies.

VL

When is my photo session? Make me look as good as this child and I'll buy all your film for the rest of your life!

(On second thought, since it would be so easy, I better recind that. ;)

Love your work, John.

VL

John,

You are just a damned voyeur. You view women as objects to drool over for physical attributes. You can't wait to get a girl out of her clothes just to see her body and you love to catch sneak shots as she disrobes, thinking she's not noticing.

I'll bet you're thinking of getting every one of them into the sack.

God, I love that in a man!

VL

I think PN should establish a new category entitled something like "The 5 Most Compelling Images Posted in the Last Year." The selections should be made by a Blue Ribbon panel. This image should head the list and be permanently used as the icon for the category.

I can't stop coming back to this. Damn! The only thing that might make this shot better is more dramatic lighting.

VL

Luca, this is one of those images that we try and try to make work. It seems so right at the time we make the image. But it just doesn't come out the way it looked at the time. There is late, glancing light of a low sun heading toward sunset - magic light. This should be lovely, but something is wrong. This light can be as tricky as it's beautiful. The contrast can build very quickly as it does here. The large masses of shadow are dark and featureless. The trees in the background are dull and brooding. Not interesting, just featureless.

Hay bales. Everybody does hale bales. Why aren't these interesting? They probably were at the scene. Not here. The scene is static instead of serene. It needs some movement and there isn't any.

The cloud bank on the horizon is just milky white sky. and the other cloud which has potential has only that.

The foreground seems to be in focus but the near hay bale with its sunlit end is not and everything else is annoyingly soft. And there are distant telephone poles strung out on the horizon above the trees just noticeable enough to be a distraction.

I think you've pumped the saturation to make color the saving factor and that's not working either. The blue sky looks over done. Maybe another evening from a different angle. This one's just doesn't make the keeper list.

VL

The wings seem to dip and sway, the plane seems to be moving closer and the dust cloud appears to billow if I stare at this image!

I would have set up the camera on a tripod and fired it remotely. This obviously was not at an active airfield as this violates half a dozen rules about this sort of thing. It's a brilliant shot, but so dangerous as to be terrifying. The possibility of a tradgedy is enormous - one little mistake . . .

But it sure is a great shot!

VL

Ming Chiu,

This scene really has good possibilities. But I think you are trying to do too much here. You have included too many elements, several of which would have made good compositions themselves.

The house is tilted and appears almost ready to fall. That's part of its interest. But the horizon is also tilted and that's a problem.

I suggest you isolate the house and just the boat in the foreground with the boat closer to the camera. The boats on the left and the horizon are another complete image. I also suggest a lower camera position to take advantage of the wonderful reflections.

Good eye.

VL

Right here on our stage. Tonight! We have a reeealy beig shewww.

I couldn't help it. This Calla's shape reminds me of Ed Sullivan'sbody language.

VL

Thanks everyone for the comments. I appreciate every one of them.

VL

Carl,

I wasn't arguing the point. The same image can have a completely different "look" at different sizes. I first printed an 8 x 10 which is nice but not all that interesting. Frankly, I was disappointed, but printed it at 12 x 18 anyway. The large print just "works." The customer looked at the smaller print and admitted if she had seen only that she wouldn't have been interested.

Also, it may look very different on your monitor than it does on mine. Thanks, I appreciate your thoughts.

VL

Ysomar, this is a great subject with all kinds of possibilities given the brilliant coloration and opportunity to image the fine detail in the feathers.

But everything is working against you here. The light is almost directly overhead and very harsh, throwing the shadow areas into deep shadow, while highlights are over exposed. The lighting of the scene in general is flat. The background, especially the water is very distracting and unpleasant.

It would help greatly to shoot this kind of subject much earlier or much later in the day with the sun a a lower angle, or under slightly diffused lighting. A focal length of 100 mm or longer (35 mm equivalent) and a wide aperture (f/2.8) would throw the background out of focus and isolate the duck. I would move in tighter on the subject. I always use a tripod. Correctly used, it can improve your shots more than an expensive lens.

If you can return to this scene, I encourage you to try many different angles and compositions.

I left a rating, but it did not register. I don't know why.

VL

A red Calla bloomed in my garden this morning. A surprise this late in

the season (June 20).

Stefano,

Well you HAVE missed my point (which is becoming less and less important). I have said nothing about HIGH ratings or POSITIVE comments. How did you misread that I did? I complained that the PN system frequently "buries" images after they get 10 ratings (of any kind) unless the photographer has engineered a way to get attention otherwise (some claim I have accomplished that end now).

YES, most emphatically I think everyone should read whatever comment the photographer has made. YES, most emphatically, I believe every photographer should comment about what he meant to accomplish or a description of his methods. It adds enormously to the appreciation of the image. The more abstract the image, the more such information usually helps.

Is this ALWAYS the case? No. Obviously not. If I view a wide angle shot of tidepools in the setting sun with foreground rocks receding into mirrors of wet sand, fantastically colored sky and sea, it is obvious the artist meant to show the viewer a wide angle shot of tidepools in the setting sun with foreground rocks receding into mirrors of wet sand, fantastically colored sky and sea. Many abstracts are perfectly acceptable as "stand alone" also. But the artist's words add understanding and enjoyment. It is often impossible to intelligently critique an image without asking, "What did you intend to say here?"

No, I do NOT subscribe to the philosophy that every work of art conveys its meaning simply by virtue of the fact that it exists. Every single one of Ansel Adams' images or Galen Rowell's images DO stand alone. However, their wonderful descriptions of their experiences while making their images has become as much a prt of the value of their work as the images themselves. Adams' description of the making of "Moonrise over Hernandez, New Mexico," his most purchased work, is required reading for anyone hoping to grasp the passion and intelligence of the man, and the meanings of that image.

I appreciate your comments. Thank you for taking the time. I got YOUR attention. Didn't I? I don't care whether someone likes my work or blasts it. I don't care whether someone agrees with me or disagrees. I just LOVE the opportunity to share viewpoints. Not to argue. To talk.

VL

This was the concept shot for this series. After this I had to go out and find JUST the right pair of gardening gloves. And JUST the right pair of clippers. It took weeks.

Photography is SO exhausting!

The final image at 24" wide off the Epson 7600 just stops people in their tracks when they walk into my studio. It's really impressive and it's hard to believe it comes from an APS-size sensor (Fuji S2). It is a LOT of red up there on the wall.

VL

wj, that's a marvelous image.

VL