dennisdixson

I thought I would take another stab at photo editing because I'm not sure I want to be a part of this conversation.

 

My advice (directed towards no one in particular) is to concentrate on your own remarks relating to the photo and leave others to succeed or fail on the merit of their individual statements.

Jeff, I think it's only fair that if you are buying drinks you should extend the offer to all of us. Some cheese and crackers would also be good, but what I could really use is one of those massive party subs. Don't try to fool me with one of those minimalist fluffy white bread sandwiches either. I want substance and lots of fixin's.

 

PS - Thanks for the compliment Mary. You are very very kind.

I was looking through this folder and realized you have the makings of an interesting coffee table book here. You should consider putting together a documentary on this subject. At least the art is being seen by a somewhat wider audience here. Good overall presentation.

Is that Antonio Dummetti the younger in the background? I have always believed that the best comedians are the ones that can laugh at themselves.

 

Grazie Bill

 

Question for later. Should a rating system start at 10 and be subtractive, or start at 5 (average) and be both additive and subtractive? Should ratings be a three-digit system 5.5.5 Technique, originality, aesthetics? This is assuming that people care about technique or originality or that people care about ratings in general. I do like the idea of a survey type rating system as mentioned in a previous post, though I think that may be too much of a load for this server to handle. Forget all that, let's just design a wacky board game instead!

 

By the way, I am somewhat surprised by your sudden embrace of popular vernacular and tacky home accessories. But hey I dig that crazy lingo man.

 

Sorry Geoff, inferences are just too sophisticated for me. I guess I missed your point. Unfortunately my binary rating system only allows for two options 0/0 or 1/1 (on or off). Since your comments were too difficult for me to understand, I was forced to rate your comment 0/0.

 

It does seem natural that a person would ask himself or herself why everyone else is rating a photo in the 8,9,10 range while they are only able to give it a 1/1. Stupidity or Spite? Ratings are subjective and relate directly to the rater's experience. By experience, I mean photographic experience and analytical ability. People who routinely give out scores of 1/1 or 10/10 are really not putting much (any) thought into the process. When someone rates 1/1 on one of my photos, I usually ask them to explain how they made that decision. The typical answer is that they don't like that particular type of photo. The rating has no basis other than the viewer's prejudice towards the subject. I joke about hating cat photos, but I still know a good photo of a cat when I see one (I actually saw one once).

 

I too enjoy minimalism (a lot) but I think the photo Jeff Green cited was a better example than this one. Since you explained yourself so well (and I was able to comprehend it) I will give your recent comments a 1/1 which is the highest rating available under my new system. Dang, it really gores me that I had to give you the highest rating. I need to refine my system.

 

 

OK Geoff, first let me reiterate that I see many merits in Jeff's photo and his methods as well. I think the so-called bashing was directed primarily at the rating system and the foolish comment about perfection. You would think we were all in heaven with as many perfect scores that are given out here. I refuse to believe that any photo that makes me cross-eyed from looking at it would be rated as a 10. The light fall-off at the corners makes it look like this was taken with a toy camera (oh yeah, I forgot).

 

Your comments do not exactly read like an endorsement. I do not believe that mediocre and dull are the same as minimalism. I don't think the photographer was going for "simple for the sake of being simple." That's not much of a compliment in my mind.

 

Your idea that the majority must be right makes me laugh until my sides hurt. That's how all kinds of problems get started in this world. We need people to firmly disagree with the majority, and as far as this site is concerned it's usually the people who disagree that have the most compelling argument to support their position. Your thesis appears to be based on the belief that people who gush over a photo are somehow more qualified than the ones who make an objective critique. Using my new binary rating system I would have to rate your comments as 0/0.

 

What I like - I like the pattern of the water that forms a grid similar to a well-manicured lawn. That satisfies my need for irony. I also like the catenary curve of the wires, which is repeated in the clouds. In fact, I would say that it makes me think whatever message was flowing through those wires has now escaped into the atmosphere. That satisfies my need for mystery. Now if I only has some aspirin and eye drops.

 

I am very disappointed that Tony did not want to engage in this weeks discussion. I think the problem was that he was not able to relate very well to this type of photo. I have made some (minor) alterations that I believe enhance the basic composition and hopefully will generate some additional participation.

 

I think its great that Jeff has found a creative outlet in photo editing and he should be commended for documenting his adventures. I feel even more appreciation for his work when it is framed by context. I also liked his comments about his experience in the digital world.

 

Antonio, mai camminata via dalla famiglia.

 

 

 

 

Tris, that hurt. Unfortunately it was mostly true. Oh well, at least you are blessed with a thick skin for the inevitable rebuttal. I guess that if a person had only seen two photographs in their entire life they might be able to honestly rate this as a 10/10. What am I missing? I'm a big fan of minimalism, but I don't seem to find anything here that elevates this photo in that context. Well, I guess if people who don't like a photo can rate it as 1/1 others who do like it can rate it 10/10. Don't you think it would be easier to rate them as a zero or a one? You are essentially using a binary rating system anyway.

 

I have had many first hand experiences with scenes and subjects like this. Most were not very appealing photographically. First of all, I don't care much for man-made objects included in landscape photos, though I'm not sure this is a landscape photo. Secondly, there does not seem to be a great range of tones in this jpeg image. Once again this does not seem to be the best showcase for tiny digital black & white images. Please, please, people spare me the endless droning about monitor settings this week. I'll steer clear of the argument about film verses pixels. As someone stated recently, photography has always been about innovation.

 

I don't have any great issues with conforming or breaking rules of composition. I will say that to me this composition is not an attention grabber. I think you could find a dozen photos on this site with the same basic elements that are more engaging.

 

 

I think what this photo really needs is a snappy title to elevate it into a thinking piece. My suggestion, "Inundated Crucifixion." Or for a (slightly) more humorous approach, "Trouble On the Line."

 

Jeff, congratulations on your Photo of the Week. Watch out this week for sharks in the water. They are the perfect killing machines.

 

Bill, I am amazed that for all intents and purposes, you have escaped the bitter curse of Photo of the Week. Did I mention how much I admire this photo? I guess you realize that it's all down hill from here. Sorry to see you reach your photographic pinnacle so early my friend. Did I mention how much I admire this photo? Maybe after you fall from fame to obscurity, we can get together and reminisce about the good old days. Did I mention how much I admire this photo?

I would like to thank Marshall, and let him know I am really interested in seeing the further adventures of sweater man. I think sweater man was wondering why the main subject in the Last Supper was centered in the frame. Who on earth would have made such an obvious compositional error?

Finally! Now I know why the Blessed Green Virgin is green. She forgot to approach the Opera from upwind. Grazie Antonio per tutti i vostri contributi. Desidero che ero intelligente come siete.

Detail of the trompe l'oeil.

I did some online research and found out the guy in the yellow sweater is a direct descendant of the famous Shoeless Antonio Dummetti. Local folklore states that when he was a young man the most beautiful maiden in Sorrento rejected Antonio. Sadly, he had a serious foot odor problem.

Driven by despair; and a strong hormonal imbalance; Antonio married the next available woman he found. Unfortunately she was a rather homely woman who had been raised on a pig farm. Strangely she too had a foot odor problem. Even so, Antonio had many children and scores of descendants, including goofy sweater guy.

To this day the foot odor problem remains a family trait, causing members of this clan to be outcasts from society and always on the fringe of any activity. Unfortunately these problems usually lead to binge drinking as well.

An ancient depiction of Shoeless Antonio Dummetti the 1st being rejected by the most attractive maiden in Sorrento

Scuse a Antonio, ho pensato che aveste cancellato il vostro commento.

 

Qualche gente dice che Antonio ricicla il vetro. Dico che Antonio ricicla l' uva.

 

I enjoyed your tale of the Immaculate Consumption.

Bill perhaps you had too much limoncello as well!

Limoncello Photo

I agree with Rex (in part) that the photographer's own comments have proven to be the most illuminating. Especially when measured against the generally dull babble about ratings and expensive verses inexpensive equipment. I disagree that the photograph is sterile. It's way too moldy to be called sterile. "Delicious confusion of a thing and its image," made me laugh since we are talking about rotten fruit. Maybe it was delicious at one time.

 

I hear what Leslie is saying, having seen people look at a stack of prints and "identify" what they see with no thought about the meaning. "This is a house, this is a dog, this is a man" The sad part is they act as though they have just performed an impressive card trick, never realizing they are the ones with the proverbial wool over their eyes. We are people in a hurry, accustomed to looking at life like a sit-com where everything is laid out for us in less than thirty minutes. No time for reflection, we want to be entertained.

 

Leslie's comments have given me some excellent food for thought (sorry) and show the fine distinction between confusion and just plain stupid. It's time to grab the camera and take some thought provoking photos of dismembered Barbie Dolls charring on the grill.

 

Dahlia lounge photo was shot on Kodak Royal Gold 400. Something like a four second exposure to capture the 'movement' of the fish tail. Obviously shot on a tripod. Digital is only a temptation at this stage.

 

By the way, I was thinking you should write your own unofficial guide to the city after reading this.

Don't hold back man, tell us how you really feel. Do I detect some post holiday frustration?

 

I actually thought it was Kenny Rogers wearing a pimp hat at first. "You got to know when to hold 'em, you got to know when to stroll 'em."

Let me be the first to say that it would be hard to diminish that image.

I had to come back and have another look at this so I could compare it with the current POW. --"Paul" or "man in an orange hat," or "orange hat with a man." December 30th, 2001.

 

This cleaned up version of "Dave" addressed the technical flaws of the previous post, which as I expected were inherent to the scan and not the photo. (I am still distracted by the hot spot near his chin)

 

Let me state that as a candid (or semi candid) portrait this is worlds above the orange hat photo chosen as POW. Perhaps side by side comparison is not meaningful because the two photographer's intentions were disparate. Still, since the juxtaposition exists in my little universe at this moment in time, I am forced to weigh one against the other.

 

First, this photo uses the medium (film as opposed to digital) to maximum advantage. There is a range of tones to look at here. My eyes can adjust to the fine details as opposed to straining to find unrecorded detail. For example, I can see the man's facial features, which in my mind is required for a portrait.

 

Secondly, though we can not see the light source in either photo, here we can visualize it quite easily. That makes things a bit more logical and grounds us in reality.

 

Third, it is quite obvious that this is an environmental portrait (sorry, I refuse to call it a snapshot). On the other hand the POW could be a portrait of a man, a hat, or a room were the power just went out.

As I stated before, this photo is compelling. It's a slice of life that exists in time and space, and we are invited along. No color for the sake of eye catching color, no false mystery for lack of detail. Sorry to make comparisons, but this is a deep well as opposed to (POW) a shallow puddle.

I sincerely hope this photo is discovered by some of the other members of our small parallel worlds.

 

Tris, this would be excellent as an illustration for the "Lifestyles" section of a newspaper or travel magazine. The man's expression and personality are perfectly captured. I am surprised at your choice of film, but since you seem to make it work well so I can't debate your choice. My one complaint is that the uploaded file size is a bit hard to view on the average size monitor. It's either the thumbnail or the scrollbar. On the plus side, I can just about make out the time on the man's watch. Perhaps he will lend me those glasses. Obviously a well composed and as you are fond of saying a technically well executed photograph.

"But I fail to recognize the significance or interest of this photo." " Sorry, but other than it's technical aesthetics, this photo shows me nothing." You seem to be alone in your analysis and your statement seems a bit judgmental.

 

To me this is an interesting photo of a person and a place (subject + context). The photographer has given us the luxury of some space to wander around this photo and at the same time has reduced the scene to its (not "it is") essential elements. If the frame were close-cropped, as some have suggested then how would we get the impression of a vast empty space? There is also the juxtaposition of the woman (soft, warm, yielding) to the metal column (cold, hard, unmoving). This is accentuated by the fact that the woman is facing slightly away from the column.

 

One possible cause for the photo looking out of level is that the floor may have a slight built in slope. This building may have been converted from another use where the floor was sloped for drainage.

 

This is a great photo for a lot of reasons. Color, composition, framing, use of negative space, juxtaposition, form, texture, maybe even some humor. The column seems to be competing for attention and in fact is more ornamented and colorful than the woman, but she does not seem to notice or care. I can't figure out what she is holding in her hand, but it picks up on the red in the fire extinguisher. Yes, simple brilliant and way cool.

 

 

Jeff, this one should be called "no title needed." I am so there. I can never tire of Paris, and the photo is great as well. I can almost smell the croissants...