mona_chrome

after reading the caption, I understand why I could only think of Resident Evil

This photo is full of incredible detail. I do like silvery printings of photos, but I think here it is fighting with all the detail. This feels a lot like an infrared shot in the way you have treated the tones, but since there are so many things in the photo and everything is pretty much the same tone, I am lost and feel like i am not seeing anything. I think maybe a little more subdued tones in adjacent areas would help this photo get some life and settle down. This is a good exercise in the technique, but now balance it and I think this could be a very nice photo.

Derrald, thanks for the info, I kind of thought that barn looked like it had a natural lean, but actually any lens, when tilted up, will cant images inward and it will always show up more with wide angle lenses because of the distance to subject being smaller than with longer lenses.

 

I have only been to Iowa once, on a job, and although we did get to shoot in one cornfield, I was pretty much wisked between the airport and the industrial plant where we were doing most of our work. I am supposed to be back in Iowa this summer, shooting landscape, for another client and so always find photos of the area interesting, if not pretty flat--not the photos flat, the landscape!

August, just to clarify, agree, disagree or whatever, please don't ever assume anyone

speaks for me. CR and I may have similar conclusions about how successful this piece is,

but if I don't say it, it isn't mine. Second, i would hope that my opinion in evaluating a

photo based on how I see it as to the use of compositional elements doesn't sound

pretentious and condescending, this is what we all should be doing and if we get different

results and conclusions, they are just that--I articulate my reasons and I hope others

theirs, by doing so, we are given an opportunity to revisit our own conclusions with new

ideas and perspectives.

 

Finally, I do have a bent towards the artistic merits of a photo. When we shoot a

commercial photo or an editorial photo, both of which I do, there is always an underlying

purpose that stimulates what the subject matter is and possibly even how one must

approach the subject. But that does not give the photographer a free pass to not try and

do the best they can with the situation. The results often are adequate for the intended

use, but not always what we might want to present as our best work. The goal should be

to create work, in any arena, that we would be willing to stand behind as our best and that

is how I look at these photos. As I said, this is an exchange of ideas and I appreciate the

disparate views put forth here and am glad that "nice photo" comments are not allowed

without a discussion as to why that is the conclusion.

I really like the movement in this image and the colors. I don't know if the tree or the shed was actually leaning or this is the canting caused by the lens, but regardless, the lean of both towards the center create a wonderful movement to complement the sky that almost seems like it has been brushed by the tree. Very nicely seen.

One thing I do have to admit, as someone said a bit earlier about how people may view

disparate POW's, is that I tend to look at photographs as pieces of art, not as

documentary, or nature or whatever. I tend to lump them into how I see them artistically.

Sometimes that may fly in the face of the purpose of the creator. But I do still feel that, no

matter the reason for the photo, those principles still apply in the final analysis.

 

A lot of the talk here by those that have responded to this photo in a positive way has

been supported to a large degree by their discussion of subject matter. Some just

commenting on the incredible scene and others seemingly mesmerized by the capture of a

shark. It all made me think back to a somewhat recent POW where we discussed how

much does exoticism, in this case maybe what we might call personal exoticism, plays into

our appreciation of what we look at. As I said in my first post, the subject matter was not

enough to make this photo for me. Maybe I am fortunate-although many times it has felt

more unfortunate-, but I have been around sharks a great deal. I certainly don't study

them, so I can't say I see any particularly unique behavior being documented. I have no

emotional attachment or fear of them, so I can't react on that plane. So I am, again, left

with looking this as a piece of art and how does it hold up for me. It just doesn't without

some other hook. As said earlier, I know what can happen in these situations and I just

don't see it here. Even as a lazy swim and the fish reacting, I am left cold by the poor use

of line, color and depth--yes Marc, there is a post where Felix does indicate he changed

the color in the original postings. Camera angle could have helped this photo to change

the use of line and thus potentially changing the dynamics. The color could have been

presented more natural, instead of being changed, or even selectively modified to possibly

increase the depth. And then there is the moment thing. Could this have been a better

photo, I hope so. Right now it appears to only be effective on possibly the level of

document of a given time and place. But this is my opinion and I certainly don't begrudge

anyone theirs.

 

As to the award thing, I don't know these awards and I know there are many vanity presses

out there with their own "awards". But I generally don't find awards to be determinate of a

piece of arts merits or my opinion of such-now maybe if it was in the collection of the

Louvre or MOMA, that would be another thing altogether--probably not!

Bill, I think the line is where we don't accept it just because it was the best we could do. The

goal should be to have all of the elements come together-the moment, the composition, the

execution etc. Maybe a moment was missed here or maybe there was never a better

composition to be had, we don't know that, but we know if the photo works for us or it

doesn't and shouldn't that be the line?

I would certainly agree that, in a situation like this, one cannot direct the action, however,

that doesn't make what we end up with good by default. Sometimes we just get the shot

we get, and sometimes it just isn't what it might have been.

 

I do have to agree with one comment made here that, and I think it is what makes me feel

this is so static, there is no connection made between the shark and the smaller fish.

There is no "moment" happening here. I was fortunate to watch a shark come in with a

school of fish behind it from the top of an oil rig-view much like this but deeper water.

There was a moment where the shark turned and the fish dispersed-it wasn't long but it

was incredible for that split second, but that isn't what has been captured here.

 

Also, on pondering what else was bothering me here, I realized it is also the lack of depth

by what I referred to earlier as the gray pallor-I feel this is somewhat greenish and green

does tend to decrease depth. Reading through the original comments, before this was a

POW, I read that the color was shifted to make the shark appear as it would out of the

water, thus changing the color of everything else. This made me decide to see what a

color shift might do to the lack of depth and definition of the smaller fish. I am going to

post my result not as a better version, but only for comparison as to the sense of depth.

OK, so I have been looking at this for a bit now and have been trying to come up with how

to say this, since I think it might be a first here, but this image does absolutely nothing for

me. The natural event just isn't enough for me to carry this image. I feel this is very static

and, at the same time a bit busy. Not busy because of the little fish, but because of the

white highlights of the water riffle refraction.

 

The shark in the middle stops me dead. The fish, buried in this gray pallor just become a

frame instead of an active element. I just find the overall color very unappealing on top of

it just being a lackluster photographic composition. Maybe when I get caught up on the

hour I lost over the weekend I will be able to see what everyone else does, until then, sorry

to be so harsh.

For my two cents, I think the dynamics of this shot held peoples attention a bit longer than

possibly your average architectural shot. In fact, I am not sure I would totally categorize

this as architecture, altho a dominant element to be sure. The introduction of a human

might have "loaded" the photo is some way, but it would not have been what it is now. But

a photo like this, and many others that are certainly valid expressions, don't necessarily

need to go into the deep realms of the psyche to be worthy of our study. On the other

hand, they will not provide the basis for a lively discussion for a week either, but maybe

that is ok-at least once in awhile. For me, I do think a photo like this would have a life on

a wall, it does not challenge on a daily basis, but it does provide some imbalance if not

alone for its scale and dynamics. I don't think every piece of art needs to be in our face,

but we don't want it to recede into being wallpaper either.

I have always liked off axis shots and I think you do have several in your portfolio that are very nice. This one, unfortunately, just feels a bit indulgent and I really don't get a sense of why it needs to be like this. The colors are wonderful and, as usual, your depth of field incredible. But the angle doesn't really add motion or immediacy and just feels forced. Now, your manhole cover, a totally different story!

I guess we're on slightly different trips, I pushed everything, but I wont go where I wouldn't

go!

I thought I would have a little fun and give CR what he might be looking for, and at the same

time just show, via the color version, what a slight rotation might do for the image. I still feel

that the tilt adversely affects the photo and maybe this will help demonstrate how it might be

improved.

 

Disclaimer: if you don't like the color blame CR

I have come back here to look several times today, and I think that generally the

comments here are right on. This is a very nice photo, graphic and yet rich with details to

wander through to see what might be discovered. The wide angle distortion creates a

movement that pushes the eye around always to come back to the circular canopy

overhead. Altho blue can sometimes diminish depth, there is enough red in this blue to

counteract this and still allow for a nice sense of depth. The overall tonality of the photo

is very nice and does not seem to have suffered from the upload. All this said, there is

one problem that is bothering me quite a bit. I like photos that are canted, shot off axis,

but they need to "be" off axis. Here, there is a noticeable and, for me, quite disconcerting

counterclockwise tilt to the photo. I am all for things that are disconcerting in good ways,

but I don't think this is. There aren't a lot of straight lines, but the buildings tops at the

bottom and the central buildings vertical are what creates the "lean" here. Since there is

already distortion in the image, I think a suitable correction could be made through the

transform command without losing too much of the image. These types of little, maybe

nit picky, things are what differentiate a very good photo from a great photo.

Somehow, I just end up feeling like this was a missed opportunity. The sky is wonderful, but the ground just runs together and feels very disjointed at the same time. The near grass is almost like an intrusion, then the dirt, another "foreground" that is disconnected from the landscape behind. The mounds are shot broadside and so they don't add a great deal to the dynamics and the two gray ones kind of merge together. What ends up is you have a nice sky that is not supported like it might have been if you could have gotten a bit more movement from the landscape.

 

When i look at this, I just have to wonder if you could not have gotten over to the foreground dirt and moved to the right to have the mounds, that look linear, create more dynamic lines, by shooting somewhat down their spine-at an angle, that would draw the eye to the horizon and the sky. This would have really cleaned up this composition and added so much. I hope you don't mind this critique, but I think you do have examples of better use of line in your portfolio and, I do believe, that this had some great potential.

Please don't ruin this by some gimmicky border treatment!

 

I think this photo proves that focus is not always needed to be perfect. This is a wonderful photo with these colors and your choice to reverse the photo and create something different. I have to admit that this is my favorite in your portfolio and the other like it , second. These just feel more natural and "seen" than the others. Nice.

Jayme, I will give a little info here, but don't want to get too far off track. "G" made the

comment about using and understanding what high key is. Essentially, high key just

means that the predominance of the tones are of high, light, value and does not rely on

overexposure. This photo, orignal, is high key but overexposed, but a normally shot high

key photo can be printed normally and/or will look fine on transparency film.

 

The high key printing method I was speaking of, and which this photo is reminiscent of, is

where you move the tones up, and essentially end up with no true blacks (high key photos

will generally have some blacks) If you shoot a very high key photo, or overexpose like

here,

and you try to move the blacks up, you have no headroom and start losing valuable detail

in the highs--might be ok for some, but I like to see the modeling of the form and think

digital blowouts generate a less appealing feel than their organic counterparts. I think

that is what we see here to some extent, although there was already quite a loss in the

highs in the original exposure. (I realize that there are techniques to control some of this

loss, but just wanted to give a general framework of the differences)

 

I hope this is clear, but if not, or you have other questions, please feel free to e-mail me.

It is interesting to me that today we find the original posted, as I thought this might be the

case as to the original exposure. There is a difference, and i may not articulate it well,

between a high key printing and a photo shot high key. Generally the high key printing

requires a robust mid-tone photograph without a lot of very high or low values. So that

contrast can be matched to move everything up without losing detail and yet allowing

some stronger lines to remain. A high key photograph(shot) will lose the values in the

highs as we see here, in the POW and more pronounced in some of the others in the

folder--particularly on the buttocks of some of the seated models. This one benefits from

the larger area of the entire side being overlit rather than just the limited area of the

others, but the tones are still a bit too overexposed to maintain a more desired effect from

this technique.

 

Overall, as i said yesterday, I do like the form and treatment, even if they are not that

original. But as i kept coming back, and having read Marketa's background, I do think that

the way the hair is so haphazard really ruins what could have been a nice form and line

study. I think that is why so many of the classics in this genre have the hair rolled tight to

the head, so it is not an issue. That is not to say that flowing hair could not work, but it

does inhibit the flow and spontaneity of a shoot to having to be constantly restyling the

hair with every movement of the model, and that, obviously, was not done here.

 

As I mentioned yesterday, and others have said in other words, there is some artiface in

much of Marketa's work, but I also think there is some latent talent that just needs to

mature and push through the predictable and safe.

I am somewhat surprised that the issue of whether this is photography or not has come

up. Although I am sure this was done in photoshop or similar, this technique has been

done in the darkroom for many years before we knew of digital and involves no

manipulation other than the decision on how to print it. There is nothing non-

photographic about this.

 

As to the photo, I do like it a lot. For me, a form study does not need to look natural, but

should be, as this one is, elegant. The hair muss might be fighting the nice lines created a

bit too much, but it is still nice overall.

 

I think it is a difficult skill to create these high key photos in photoshop or in the darkroom

successfully. What I do wonder here is, again, how much of the highlight tone has been

lost in the upload and would a print have better (softer) transitions and whites than what

we see here--holding some of the lines between skin and skin and skin and background a

bit better. For me this is my favorite in this folder, as it lacks some of the artiface of the

others and is pure form.

 

Overall, a nice photograph and a nice portfolio.

Julie, I would have to agree. It just seems like another one of those crops that has no

sensitivity to what the creator intended. It creates a totally different photo, one for a running

(shoes or whatever) company rather than a study in architecture or form.

CR, I think the aesthetics have been beat to death, in a good way, but after a week, I think we

have heard it all. The whole geometry thing is worthy of discussion, especially at the end of

this thread. By the way, how's the weather in Venice?

Just a note, if you use the runner and his reflection on the wet pavement, which would be a

perfect vertical to the camera, and bisect them-mirrored weight of runner and reflection, a

correction of -0.2 degrees is about what looked right, even when cropping way in on the

photo-but let's not get technical!?!

An interesting conversation here about getting straight! Marc does come closest to what

you have to look for, but in a photo like this, with no horizon, limited, if any, true straight

(vertical) lines and shot at an angle to everything, except the runner, I think you really

need to just visualize what looks right, although the runner might be the true clue to the

straight vertical--not too many people run on a slant to one side or another--on that

basis, we are talking maybe a hair off.

 

What I had noticed earlier, when I was determining how I felt about the left side was that

the posted orientation did not bother me much as it is presented here, but as I cut in, it

did start to feel tilted more. So I do think it becomes an aesthetic decision based on the

presentation and some will have more tolerance than others.

Gee, and I thought you had one heck of a good telephoto!

 

I thought this was a bit hazy and am attaching a little more clear version for your consideration.

Mehmet, I certainly am not one to push for exact, or even close for that matter, color match in a scene. The one thing I do love about the digital control is that we can now control how our color photographs look rather than depending on the materials provided us by the film and paper companies. I think the reason I reacted to this color is that cyan is a process color(4 color printing) and just has a very unreal, man-made quality about it. (many times in printing, printers will substitue a more purple blue for cyan to get better results with subjects like this). I think this photo is very nicely seen and just felt that the overall cyan cast fought a bit with the natural beauty. So, I just wanted to pass along why I reacted this way and do respect your choice.