mark_richards

Bernard Mayr said:

"In a nutshell: I'm interested in the beauty of the real world, not how well graphic artists can translate their wet dreams into a images."

I agree, but I'm not a huge fan of photographs that are very selective and/or present an idealised view of reality either (recent examples being the people who wanted to remove the bottle from the Moroccan communal bakery photograph [the only distinctive thing in the photograph for me] and the waterfalls photograph where the flowing water had been blurred to the point where it didn't resemble flowing water anymore]). I watched a television programme about the Taj Mahal last night, but I struggled to find a good image of the Taj Mahal that WASN'T taken from the usual viewpoint (a viewpoint which only reveals part of the architecture) on the internet afterwards: why are the aesthetic preferences of most photographers so narrow?

As for the aesthetics and impact of the final image. I hate it! It has nothing to do with photography versus art (to me, images are images with typical photographs being at one end of an indiscrete scale and paintings etc. being at the other); I just think it discards the best aspects of photography (like precision) and painting (like texture and handling) and presents us with a pile of indistinct mush. No offence to tamtam, but I think the people who do this are photographers who want to be painters, but can't actually paint (I can't paint, so I know how it feels).

That site is ultra-cheesy.

 

Anyway, is there any chance of a better upload for this image? The colours & tones are nice etc., but the details/textures have been mushed.

 

I don't need a naked figure (and I preferred last week's POW without one); I just want something to actually look at instead of having to imagine detail that may or may not be there.

What is the subject? Who cares?

 

This is a type of photograph which I hate (too pretty/picturesque to the point of being unbelievable etc. [note - that is not an accusation of fakery]), so I can't comment on the content much.

 

My biggest gripe is that a scene with lots of fine detail + 28-300 zoom + DSLR + photographer's resizing + photo.net's compression/whatever has resulted in a pile of pixellated mush. I can't comment on the thing that would attract me to a photograph like this (the textures/details) because they have been completely obliterated.

 

If Asier uploaded/attached some 100% crops of this photo (e.g. a bit of a trunk, some tree foliage, some ground/fall foliage etc.), then I would have a much better idea as to whether this photograph is AAA or not. Uploading/attaching the entire thing would be commercially silly, but a few details wouldn't hurt.

It isn't moss - it is a seaweed (sea lettuce, I think) that grows all over rocks (esp. boulders) in intertidal zones. As Juan said, it looks particularly verdant because the tide was in/up one hour before this was taken.

...It's a take on the familiar juxtaposition of people and nature theme.

 

However, I love the textures and colours of the rocks and (sea) weed; the human figure provides a useful indication of scale, but I'd rather look at the rocks and the weed. They make the photo for me, so I'm a bit upset that other members are so eager to crop them.

I like this, but I don't agree with the judges assertion that a boring bunch of cinnamon sticks + Carey = an interesting bunch of cinnamon sticks.

 

I think these particular cinnamon sticks have interesting form and details/textures. Carey has enhanced their details/textures and emphasised their form, but they were never boring in the first place.

 

Do the judges need to have a high contrast black & white photograph of something in order to think it is interesting?

I agree with Ricardo Yamamoto; I need more than one photograph to get a sense of a place (in this case, a shot from the desert walkers POV), and then some. Furthermore, there is the photographer's (selective) choice of subject/angle/etc. to consider.

 

I'm not enamoured with this shot; the form of the dunes is very interesting (not as picturesque as the dunes in Caravan #1 [see Pennie's folder], but more interesting to me), but dunes are rarely uninteresting. It's a composition that's been done to death too (no disrespect to Pennie; it just has).

 

I know you can't have too much of a good thing, but I reaction to this thing is rarely more enthusiastic than "nice, but" these days (unless it is filmed by David Lean...) If I had taken this photograph, it would be a souvenir shot that I would keep to myself; I wouldn't expect anyone else to be interested in it.

 

How about a macro shot of a camel's hoof, or a big close up of a camel's mouth (bad breath not included), or even a close up of a camel's backside? How about a shot from ground level (desert bug perspective or something)? This shot is very pretty, but it doesn't really convey the reality of the desert for me.

I prefer the B&W version - the splodge of blue colour behind the bottom steps is distracting.

This is super photograph, but will be glad when the photographer turns up and supplies with some more background/context information. I just don't think it says that much in itself. Whereabouts in China is Uhu? Is this a building or a boat? Why are the windows/shutters broken/damaged? What is that decoration surrounding one of the panes/panels? Why is the man making a/the victory sign?

 

As a general study of defiance of aging/delapidation, this is great. However, there are lots of questions that need answering. Tell me more! Tell me more! (sorry, I just watched Grease...)

http://scratchy.spods.co.uk/~rubenstein/flyingkitten.jpg

It is a shame that people are discussing Photoshop (again.. yawn) instead of the image...

Photoshop is great (see above), but one of the joys of photography is the ability to capture delightful coincidences/occurences like this and say to the world, 'Look! These things happen!'.

Although lenses & film inevitably distort perspective, light, colour etc; only distort time, composition, and content unless the photographer intervenes (or uses some bonkers fisheye lens).

Look at the example above:

Everyone knows that kittens don't grow that big, and don't lie underwater waiting to snatch helicopters from passing aircraft carriers. This is obviously a fake, so people react to is as a fake...

Imagine what the reaction would be if this picture represented a real moment?! It would be worth a small fortune!

This is why Paal's picture is so fascinating; it represents (I'll take his word for it) a real moment. It is therefore (for most people) more 'special' than a composite.

As a composite, this would get lots of accolades (I belong to a small web community of amateur photoshoppers that try to make amusing/surrel fakes), but 'only' as a highly convincing piece of shoppery.

This is why people really must be a little more open about their photographs; if it is unaltered, then say so.

I'm not sure which are more tiresome; the people complaining about the of PS, or the people asserting that it doesn't matter if the 'moment' (time+composition+content) of a photograph has been altered or not.

Yes, we live in the 21st century blah blah blah. However, some people still believe in using photography to documents things as they are/happen.

Grrrrr.

Using PS isn't 'cheating' or 'magic' or 'wrong'; it's just that people like to know when its been used (just as people like to know when filters, softlights, dogding/burning etc. have been used).

 

It's not so much a 'should PS be used or not' (I prefer the original) debate, but a 'has PS been used or not' debate that hijacks POW from time to time. The latter is irrelevant once the truth is known (all those mind-numbingly obvious posts in the 'hands' POW), and the former is a non-starter (PS is a legitimate tool).

 

Personally, I'd love these the two images side by side and have a decent 'did the use of PS improve this image or not debate' instead. Unfortunately, these often get hijacked by the 'if the use of PS doesn't improve an image, it proves that PS is the spawn of Satan' brigade (Meryl).

 

I don't want to criticize Yuri at all for this, given his poor english. It's not his fault; he is probably more proficient in english than I am in his native tongue, even though he is using a Babelfish...

I have to agree with Daniel & Graham (again) - more technical info please.

 

I agree with everyone who thinks the birds (they are not ducks) are too black; they look super-imposed, even though they are not.

 

The PS accusations may have something to do with this photograph's general appearance. It doesn't look like a photo to me, even though its genuine. It has a very painterly look, which may be due to all the artefacts (look at the trees) rather than the neg.

 

Any chance of a better scan?

This photograph doesn't engage me much, but I fail to see why it should. One of the strangest paradoxes in photography is that even pictures of ugly (or depressing) things must be aesthetically pleasing and/or engaging.

The greys in this photo destroy any life the decor might have had (an aesthetic plus), but they don't make this scene any more bearable.This week's POW reminds me of the Great Homelessness Debate several weeks ago where a "good" photograph of the homeless was used to denigrate a "bad" one. If I remember correctly, Aldo (and Tris?) was a strong advocate of photographing the world 'as is' instead of hunting high and low for those rare moments of aesthetically pleasing magic (e.g. this one from dominique's folder)

This image is really awful; a drab, generic, hotel room where the only thing of real interest is completely virtual. For this male viewer, there is an element of frustrated desire here... (dominique's photo of the empty bed has re-inforced that).

I don't 'get it', and I don't particularly like it. However, I'm not sure I'm supposed to!

Depressed now...

Glad to see POW back to its old self again...

 

I'm aware of Philip's spanking, Keith. However, POW has been nauseatingly dull for the last few weeks.

 

Anyway, the discussion is still about the photo; some people think it is a 10/10, whereas others think it is an 8/5! Ratings, eh - don't ya just luv 'em?

 

This week's POW is rather awkward because there isn't really much wrong with it (apart from not being particularly original), hence all the gushing comments. Once the gushers have been and gone, the debate becomes centred on various people's rating criteria.

 

This is what happens when the Elves choose a photo that no-one can seriously fault. All Tony, Brian etc. can do is suggest (quite rightly) that it isn't worthy of a 10. What else is there to say apart from 'great/good light', 'great/good movement', 'great/good expression', 'blah blah blah'? How could this photo be changed? How could it be made better? The 'problem' with this photograph is that there is NOTHING in it that can form the basis of a discussion. Heck, even the FENCE re-inforces the composition! All we can talk about is ratings (again).

 

In future, the most important criteria for POW must be some kind of photographic controversy. There isn't any here.

 

Hang on, there is - the girl's left arm & leg aren't distinct enough from the sheep's head.

If a photo engages me (as this one has), then I'm usually prepared to overlook any technical flaws.

 

I actually like the (apparent) lack of detail in this photo; the composition works on the level of a painting for me (its full of surrealist/expressionist motifs), so I'm not too fussed about the lack of detail in the 'figures' (there's enough).

 

However, as Nick suggested, that engagement factor is totally subjective. I can appreciate the composition, lighting, and detail in "Classic Car Night" (its a triptych), but it doesn't excite me like this photo does.

 

I rarely comment on photos (or rate them); most of the photos on photo.net (even the good ones) are just technically perfect cliches. However, every now and then an image comes along which totally blows me away. I see no reason why I should contain my enthusiasm just because the horizon isn't straight!

This is great - I just wish you had stepped back and panned to the left; you missed Death & Antonius Block playing chess...

 

I love the strong contrast in this image; it lends itself to surreal/mythical interpretation. The angelic looking seagull and the outstretched hand remind me of the Sistine Chapel (I've just noticed the pure black figure underneath too). It looks contrived, but it isn't. Amazing.

 

The horizon isn't level, but it doesn't attract from this picture's appeal (if it really bugs you, rotate it by half a degree and crop the thing).

I shouldn't add any more comments, but my ego has got the better of me again (remind you of anyone?). I was tempted to write to Aldo in private, but to do so would be to deprive the forum of my fantastic insights (ditto).

 

Aldo, please don't be discouraged by the negative comments about this picture (most of which are directed at the Elves anyway...). You have a good portfolio (much better than anything I have), and its good to get feedback from the (more than) technically competent photographers on this site (which doesn't include me or you-know-who).

 

As I said earlier, my problem with this being POW is it's "political" content (which has triggered a rather unpleasant discussion about homelessness and SUVs and Dubya and goodness knows what else). I concede Kyle's point that this is due to people's inability to have a civil debate rather than the photo itself.

 

My problem with photos like this is that they are somewhat immune to technical criticism. I wouldn't want to swap places with this man ('professional' beggar or not), and that is what this photo does for me. Somehow, complaining about the composition seems trivial.

 

What constitutes a 'good' photo of a homeless person anyway? I agree that Mike Czepiel's photo is better in many ways (better tone, more detail, more texture etc.), but its no more 'real' than the photo here.

 

The 'homeless' defy generalization like any other sociological group. One of most difficult things I encountered in London was people sleeping rough (and begging) whilst I was on my way to the Shelter (where people were getting re-settlement help and three hot meals a day). On the night before I left London (New Year's Eve), I saw a defenceless rough sleeper (a woman) being verbally abused and physically threatened by a group of men. Call me naive, but this was the most disgusting thing that I have ever witnessed with my own eyes.

 

As for Tris...

 

I'm sorry, but I WON'T be looking forward seeing you in next week's POW. Your obsession with meaningless ratings is just pathetic (especially when it concerns meaningless photographs). Daniel Bayer doesn't care if people rate his pictures badly; he KNOWS that he is a decent photographer. I can't imagine him (or anyone else) losing sleep because he drops 2 places in Photonet's top #50.

 

Although its true that one (how pretentious, sorry) doesn't need to be a master of a craft to pass comments on the work of others who are, I do feel that you are skating on the proverbial thin ice.

 

I don't care about ratings, but I do care about comments. Furthermore, I am much more likely to care about comments from photographers whose work I admire (such as Ian MacEachern). I do not admire your work; therefore, I don't care much for your comments (especially technical ones). Your work does not inspire me, Tris; it only reminds me of my own.

 

The sad thing is that actually agree with you about the general poor choice of POWs and people over-rating photographs, but I haven't managed to make most of photo.net hate me (yet). Most of the top-rated photographs (and photographers) are too 'artifical' for my tastes (they flatter their subjects too much), but I'm not going to patronize everyone with an amateur treatise on aesthetics.

 

Anyway, you're a probably just a troll (or one of the top #250 photographers using a pseudonym). If that's the case, then the jokes on me.

 

If not, then please consider your comments on next week's POW very carefully. You are wrecking this forum, not bringing it to its senses.

Interesting discussion.

 

I spent last Xmas working in a homeless shelter in London (we had about 800 or so 'guests' in during the week). Volunteers were not allowed to take any photographs, and I'm not sure that the official photographer took that many (with permission of course). This really made me think about the necessity of photographs (and photographers); sometimes their ego seems more important than their subjects. Somehow, taking photos for any other reason than promoting this particular charity's work seemed wrong.

 

The only problem with this photo is that it has been chosen as POW. Outside of POW it is just another provocative (not technically perfect, but so what?) street photograph. However, in POW (with the Elves' trite comments ['this made us think' gimme a break!]) it becomes vulnerable to charges of voyeurism, explotation, egoism, etc. The sad thing is that isn't the photographer's fault; he apparently isn't on a moral mercy mission, but the Elves' selection and naff comments make us prejudge that he is (and then the poor guy has to turn up and justify his intrusion).

 

A tip for the Elves:

 

In future, try and choose POWs with less controversial or emotive content. For me POW is about technicalities and aesthetics, NOT ethics. The last thing a POW thread needs is a 'should this photo have been taken or not?' debate. It's impossible to technically critique this photo without trivialising the subject; therefore, it should not be POW.

 

Oh, and keep your pretentious, 'Oooh! Isn't this a 'great' photo of a homeless person!' comments to yourselves.