mona_chrome

What I think is great about this photo is that you really have two skies in one. A panoramic, eliminating the top half of the sky, would yield a bit more pastoral feeling photo, whereas here it is much more active. i like the use of the divider to show the crops versus the cattle, but do feel it is almost too cut in half. I think a more extreme angle on this feature coming out of the lower left corner would have created a bit more dynamics in the photo. but overall, very nice.

I think this is a very nice photo, but I do think "cyan" when I look at it. Although I like the delicate tone, I do think it would be better with a bit more magenta and yellow in it--curves: green and blue pulled down a bit. This color is just a bit too unreal for this scene, but it is very nice otherwise.

Marc, I certainly agree that, with the digital age, we need to concern ourselves with learning

how to convert to black and white to achieve the best rendition of a photo. But I do think

that there is one principle that guides it all, how does the photo look. For me, I continue to

feel that this one's tonality and tonal separation has been well done for "this" subject. This

tonal pallette would certainly not work for a clear, sunny morning in the desert southwest,

but that is what I like here, the palette was adjusted to fit the mood/atmosphere of the photo

rather than adhering to a histogram's "perfect" photo distribution, which would totally ignore

nuance.

I have looked at this photo on two different calibrated monitors and still am having

difficulty

with the suggestion that it needs to have its contrast boosted. It just isn't muddy and the

atmosphere is what makes this in my opinion.

 

Bill raised the issue of why convert to b/w if it doesn't improve the photo. I would agree,

but

I think that is subjective. Here, I, and others, like the b/w version much more than the

color, while Bill, and others,

prefer the color. So, I suppose the answer is really up to the person posting the image. I

was also surprised at the statement that b/w covers up sins in color, I always have viewed

it much more difficult to create a b/w photo that is successful than a color. In b/w you

can't hide the lack of seeing and such in the color. But, the question that has long

plagued me on this site is rather why post more than one version at all? Why not choose

what

you feel is best and be done with it! I understand the feedback thing, but at some point

don't you have to make an artistic stand and leave the ratings and opinions of others

behind?

I just reread my comment from last night and realized that I made an error. I love the

right side of the image, and the rest of it for that matter. My discussion on dead space

was meant to be about the left side of the photo.

 

My feeling was that there is a bit too much dead space on the LEFT side of the photo and it

might be reduced a small amount--probably an 1/8 or so of the space between the edge

and the bridge, but no more than 1/4 of it. This would move the bridge a bit further away

from center and reduce the emptiness of the mid and upper left. But today, I am not sure I

still feel that way and might be happy with it as is. If I had to make a decision, I would

probably print both out and sit on them awhile.

 

Everything on the right side of the image pushes the eye to the left and the large object in

the lower left corner holds the overall balance quite well. This is a very nicely done

photograph.

Overall, there is a nice use of line and form here and the photo is nicely composed for the

most part. For me, the tonal range is perfect for this scene. I wonder if sometimes we

just get caught up in the full tonal range thing and forget that it doesn't always exist in

nature-nor should it in all our photos. Here, there is nothing muddy about the tones,

there just isn't a white. We just see the effects of the atmosphere, while the near objects

are anchored in a nice rich black.

 

The image may be slightly cocked to the right, which really doesn't bother me. I do feel

that Carl's version has gone too far and leaves me feeling that I am falling over in that

version.

 

I like the runner, but one thing about him does bother me a bit, the tangency with the

bridge support in the water on the left(our left) shoulder. Almost like the triangular end is

resting perfectly on him. I don't know that this is enough to kill the photo for me, but it is

there and I notice it.

 

Finally, there does seem to possibly be a little too much dead space on the right, which I

feel adversely effects the dynamics of the photo. I certainly am not advocating much

movement here, but a little to bring a bit more life back into the composition, I would see

no loss to the intent of the photo by doing this and I don't see any alternative way of

dealing with this--I hope Lannie doesn't read this because I

think I am advocating, dare I use that word, no I wont, a trim here!

Marc, I am glad you somewhat pulled back from the David LaChappelle comparison, as I

was having a bit of difficulty with that one. More just comparison of style than

anything else. I can read a few thin connections in her use of expression and such tho.

 

I do think that these last comments kind of brought something into focus for me on this

person's portfolio, and actually something that John Kelly brought up very early in this

thread. Looking at the work as a body, one might have to wonder if there is a transition in

the work occurring. Much of the work is rather predictable, I think John mentioned the

sunset thing as an example, but there is also a lot of other work that feels more

experimental and maybe the genesis of something new. For me this image, although

some may see it as a done before theme, is a bit more complete as an individual

expression than some of the others. Even after 30 years, I hope my work is still evolving

and I think here we may be seeing a transitional piece in a transitional portfolio. We

should all strive to keep that alive in our own endeavors.

I have to admit that I am a real sucker for reading comments that I totally disagree with. First, I think this is a very nice, and less typical, view of the Grand Canyon. What I don't agree with is either desaturating this or removing the blue in the upper part of the photograph. Sometimes I think we forget that there is an atmosphere and that shadow is generally blue in cast. This contrast in the color, due to atmosphere and yet the rich, saturated colors just make this photo. What is nice is that the saturation is not into candy colors that so many make in the southwest, but rather beautiful earth.

I noted here the comment by Marc G, and I thought one other that I can't find right now,

that the word afterglow, in the conotation referred to by John Kelly, was not familiar to

these people. I think this brings up an interesting question, does Antonella know this

word in this context or does it mean something else to her. I am not sure it is even

important, but it does point back to how we bring our own biases to things.

 

Also, I would much rather have someone hate a photo of mine that just like it or think it is

ok. At least the photo, as John acknowledges, has had an effect. A friend of mine saw a

photo, from a series, and told me he hated it and didn't like looking at it. A year later,

seeing the series completed, he went to that photo and said that "you know, this is still my

favorite!" Sometimes, maybe not here, it takes time to process what we see and reconcile

it with things known and unknown within us. That is what I like about this photo, it is so

many things. I don't see rape or abuse and maybe not even a comment about women. I

don't know what it is yet, but I find the image intriquing and wonderfully done.

When i first saw this photo I figured there would be a lively discussion. I think it is

incredible for a lot of the same reasons many others have dismissed it.

 

My first reaction was that this was a doll and it took me a minute of looking at the face to

be sure it wasn't. Given that, I wonder if the whole stiffness of the limbs, the perceived

inconsistency of the upper and lower body and the vacant stare are just brilliant rather

than faults! What I think is great about the whole folder, although I don't see them as all

really relating-maybe two series here, is that Anotnella is moving outside the norm here

and not just showing another fashion fodder, to borrow Dennis' term. Yes, this could be

fashion, but it is different and it functions on its own merits.

 

Is this a comment on women or about women or about abuse or or or? I think that is what

makes a great photo, the fact that it can mean so many things. I don't read titles before I

look and think, but I don't get the title and that is ok. I prefer titles that don't get in the

way.

 

Finally, maybe it is my laptop screen, but I don't see the technical faults others have

mentioned. But I also think that talking about the photo is much more rewarding than

discussing technical issues that could easily be just upload losses.

All I can say is that I am glad I went through the whole TRP list tonight. This also proves that most of the best photos are not on top of the ratings.

 

I love this photo. i see it as a 30's or 40's photo from New York or something. From the thumbnail, I thought the people were going to be totally black, actually could have been a good thing in and of itself, but the tones are just great. I like this whole folder and the Maritza ( ? not looking now) especially. Nice work.

I think this is a nicely seen photo, as are many in your portfolio. I like the use of the curve to bring in the eye. I think you chose a position that was very close to creating a distracting line of the inner bank, but were just enough right to avoid that.(if the inner bank had been 90 degrees to the bottom, I think the photo would have suffered for it) The contrast is fine to me, but i did notice what appears to be oversharpening in many of your landscapes, but didn't see it in your people shots(I didn't look at everything obviously, but this was my conclusion from the ones I did look at) I am not sure why you are doing this, but I hope it is only after you resize these for posting here. That said, the oversharpening doesn't mean you aren't seeing well, because you are.

Alan, be careful what you ask for! Someone might give it to you--sorry Alan, I couldn't

resist such a perfect set up!

 

Anyway, the fact that this photo is asymmetrical falls in favor of this already pretty static

composition. For me, I just think that there is just too much dead space, at least I think

that is what makes me end up with some indifference to the image. When I compare this

to the clothespin shot in your portfolio, I think that image, even tho there is a lot of white,

has a lot more impact as everything feels more connected.

 

As to the vignette, in some ways, for me, it helps this image, but I think it is a bit abrupt

as it travels into the pure white. I tested putting a very light gray over the entire image

and it became more integrated--I put a value of 233 for all r/g/b on a separate layer and

chose multiply for blending mode. This is on my laptop, so it may not be the best value

on a better monitor.

 

So I think this is a nice graphic image, but it just seems to be missing something, I won't

ask for the bird, but maybe it is just too empty.

Mark, the last thing you want to do is to judge your success by ratings! Individual vision is not "mass" acceptance. Ratings here seem to evolve to the lowest common denominator. If you chase ratings, you might as well chase your tail.

Mark, for me, this one does not seem to carry the power or convey the same strong vision as your shot of the swimmers diving off backwards. Here, since the photo is not as abstracted, the angle seems a bit forced, whereas in the other shot, it seemed integral. I do think, tho, that it is great that you are trying to present an ordinary thing in an extraordinary manner.

What an incredible location. I wish I could actually see more of it--not a criticism of the photo, but you have just made me curious as to what else is around and up here. I can't help but like the shot just because the setting is so unusual. It might sound a bit funny, but it kind of looks like some wierd laundromat with the single round object right of center, like the door to a washer or dryer. Creates quite an irony on that level. Anyway, this is very nicely framed and you have balanced the light well in your treatment.

Lannie, wouldn't that have given us something to talk about! Actually, just trying to practice

what I preach, if you will.

Regardless of motordrive or not, this is nicely seen and presented. There is a nice sense of movement and you have abstracted this activity in a very pleasing manner. Nice job.

This photo is very striking as one opens to the PN page. There is a wonderful use of angle

and light that immediately grabs the attention. As I looked closer and longer, it does

begin to breakdown for me. It is not that there are not some great elements, but I do

think there is a better picture buried within this frame.

 

First, the left side of the frame introduces some distracting elements due to their

incongruity and incompleteness. The disc, in the left darkness, seems like an intrusion

and does not add to the strength nor dynamics of the two main structural elements here.

The aforementioned plants also seem to fight with the overall feel of the photo, especially

the singular organic form that is otherwise being highlighted here. The large form

creating the right diagonal seems a bit overbearing here, especially in how it's

irregularities seem to fight the otherwise geometric, industrial qualities of the other

structural elements. I do think there are several alternatives that would greatly improve

the dynamics and message of this photo.

 

Reviewing Francisca's portfolio, I am very impressed with a very consistent way of seeing

throughout all of the work presented.

Bill, you are right, crops are a fact of life here. I don't think, however, I remember ever seeing

one that really improved the photo and most of the time they seem to change the whole

sense (idea and/or feeling) of what was presented originally. Fortunately, they don't seem to

be as random as in the past.

 

About the crop, however, if one looks at the images abstractly, the crop takes the photo from

a "D" to an "A". Surprising a man would suggest such a thing!

I don't know that I agree with cropping the image, but i think Mathieu has hit on something.

I like the upper left, but I do think that the bottom right, at least here as an on line posting, is

having some difficulty holding its own. Hence my comment above that I wonder if the print

would not hold this area better than what is presented here. Here, my eye does want to run

off the page down there.

 

The reason I don't like the idea of a crop is largely because I think this is the original

presentation and I think I have seen the crop before. Also, the air here allows one to veg out

for awhile. I really like this image.

I really think it would be hard to say much other than this is a very nicely done

photograph. As I looked through the portfolio, this one does stand out for me, along with

a couple of others, as very individually seen.

 

I think the biggest disappointment for me, with this image and for most of your portfolio,

is that we have to look at these on line rather than as prints. The way you push your tonal

range, especially the high values, I think we lose their delicacy through the scans and with

the upload.

 

Nice work.

I have been looking at this photo for about 5 minutes trying to figure out why, with some great elements, this photo just isn't working for me. I thnk it just comes down to the fact that there is too much of the black area at the top and too much grey on the left side. I don't see that either of these excesses serve the photo or the idea. I hate to second guess, but I also wonder if we had a bit more info on the right if it might anchor the photo better. My eye just can't really find anything to rest on, but the motion is not pleasing. I really like the perspective and such, but it just doesn't come together completely for me.

Maybe it is just this model and maybe I don't find any connection with her, but every time I see her photographed she just looks bored--same with Yuri Bonder's photo, but at least this photo is more honest.

David, I had seen your comment on the cutline yesterday and meant to comment, but got

sidetracked by the crop thing. So I am glad you brought it up again today.

 

First, I do also think this composition is fine and actually makes it a bit more dynamic and

adds to the irony. As to the cut line, as a photojournalist, I know how important that is in

that business, believe me, I get angry e-mails from photo editors everytime I do an

editorial shoot because I don't do them. But beyond that context is it really important?

There have been a few discussions about titles on these POW's, but this is the first time

this issue has been raised that I know of. For me, I like to view a photograph for what it is

visually. Sometimes I find myself wondering where it was made or whatever, but I wonder

if that is not a choice of the photographer to reveal or not, rather than a necessary

element to the enjoyment or succes of the image. I rarely reveal such information on my

personal work, but would be curious to hear your take on this issue beyond the

photojournalistic arena.

 

Richard, I think if you disconnect the head and neck from the body there would be a

resulting fatality in every case! I agree with Julie on keeping them together, but did notice

something as I scrolled down, my laptop can't see the whole image at once. As I scrolled

down, I stopped where about 80 percent of the space above the Giraffe was not visible and

noticed that it seemed to strengthen the giraffe's gaze at the viewer. I wont post a crop,

but I thought it was an interesting outcome.