bjn

I enjoyed the series but this image in particular caught my eye. There's a surreal feel that I find quite magical.

I find the fake frame to be distracting and not very flattering to the image.

I find the footprints a distraction. If they clearly related to the figure, perhaps they'd add to the story, but I don't think they're from her shoes and pacing around.

 

I like a lot of what's going on with this image, but I think the spare footprints on Lars' other version of this image would work much better.

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4318249

A pretty face, nice eyes. But this shot feels contrived - expertly contrived to be sure. Fiddling in the wind looks like a commercial, not an artistic exploration.

Very communicative. Lovely color and texture. I wonder what I'm seeing of the mother, in a perfect universe this shot would show more of the context of the mother, but I'm quite happy to be shown this shy face and those incredible eyes.

Nice color, and composition. An interesting study of these droplet size transitions.

I like the image a lot, but I dislike the amount of sharpening applied. It makes the ripples appear crunchy and harsh.

Very painterly.

A very strong image. Great tonal range with contrast on the figure creating drama. The frame's a distraction, I'd tone it down and even out the widths, too thin top and bottom.

The point of saying the photo isn't manipulated. Why is that worth noting? Is a surreal (contrived) image more impressive because it uses the physicality of a cloud backdrop and painted hands in a single shot? This is an illustration with props rather than Photoshop layers. Hands without obvious heavily-caked white paint would better maintain the surreal "suspension of belief" and that could be done better with "manipulation" (as if painting skin wasn't manipulation). I can respect the craft of the single shot setup, but not as much as I'd respect an image with more impact.

 

To me this is an image in search of a context. On its own, there's not enough visual or literary (the title) punch for the image to stand on its own. It might work as an illustration for another work, but that requires an alignment of planets nobody can predict.

 

Perhaps I'm missing something in this image, but lots of surreal images with intentionally obtuse titles are nothing more than what you see. I see a pretty shot, competently shot, with aspirations...

I too find the dead-center composition less than inspiring.

I'd suggest rotating the image to level out the horizon.

Nice illustration. I think you're being a little coy about how much this image owes its look to the IR film and how much to Photoshop artistry. Obviously the related images in the series are composites. I'm not bothered by photo illustration except that in this discussion the techniques used are fair game for discussion.

The large image link wasn't working for me. This is the kind of image that draws attention from a distance (or via a small jpeg) but that needs to hold up to close inspection. Do the details on the figures hold up? I hope so, because the image works very well at this "distance".

Given the slow lenses for the Xpan, the shot is a good use of the tool's limitations. The square object (street art?) made me think it was an artsy version of the image-expand button that the Explorer browser uses. In a digital age, this looks like a clickable icon and therefore distracts from the image more than it would in another time or context.

A near miss, but a good near miss. Aside from the lack of control of the foreground, I see the horizon as tilting down on the left. The tilt can be fixed but I don't see a crop helping a much with the foreground.

This is the most successful shot of the series to my eye. The foreground lighting is unexpected.

I like the image, it feels like a scene from the silent movie "A Trip to the Moon". The stars are pointless (pun intended) in this small jpeg. I really dislike the border, it's far too strong a graphic shape for the image.

I like this image most from the series. I'd personally like to see a hint more highlight in the shadowed eye. The vertical edges do hold the rectangle together. I guess my sense of the series is that they're competent but feel somewhat contrived and insincere, like a lot of "edgy" imagery. Good shots for ads, not quite there as art.

At first I thought the shot was some sort of artificial Bryce computer-modeled landscape with the type of electrical arc sky you see in fantasy computer video games. It's quite a pleasure to get the rest of the story and see how radically my perceptions of the image change. For once, I agree with the POW choice. Thanks for the mind-warp.

The attachment shows the color scan from Velvia.

Thanks for the kind comments. The image looks very different in the color scan from Velvia. Using a channel mixer adjustment layer in Photoshop produces the equivalent of using filters with black and white film. The advantage is having precise control of the filtration effect. I was surprized by how much I could change the character of this image, which underscores that I don't "see" black and white.

High drama in lighting and color, strong composition. I'd prefer to see the image without the Photoshop frame.

Striking image, nice design. I wouldn't give a damn if you used Photoshop or used Man Ray's discarded chemicals.

This is an interesting textural study. I would try an off-center composition...