keith_lubow

...and I am also curious to know about the question I asked above. Are you familiar with the similar work of James Caccavo?

In any conflict, atrocities are committed and mistakes are made on both sides. War is not a pretty business, ever, and it always leads to desperate and ugly moves that are later regretted.

 

I don't think that anyone could successfully argue that "documentary" photography is objective reportage, like news journalism should strive to be. It is often a personal, self-assigned undertaking, and usually has much more of a slant than *true* news photography.

 

Propaganda can be made out of anything. However, propaganda means nothing unless it is taken as truth. It is up to we as viewers to accurately judge what we see/read, etc.

 

A good pic can be used for a variety of purposes. I don't think we have enough info at this stage to judge the shooter's intent.

 

Shooter, why don't you let us know a bit more about your relationship to this project, and how you intend to put in into its final form?

Kurt, I don't think we can really judge this photo by itself, either positively or negatively. It's something that we would need to see in the context of a publication, with other photos and text, or in a gallery. I perfectly understand your point, but this is not a standalone photo. This is why I chose to limit my comments to composition. Seeing this pic alone, I agree with you. But it could be good as part of something larger.

Nice composition for the subject matter. Are you familiar with the work of James Caccavo?

I think the subjects could have been better placed in relation to the background to make it look less muddled.

 

As far as concept, I think it is devoid of one, and is more of a commercial picture.

 

I think there is supposed to be humor here, but it doesn't appeal to my personal sense of such. I'm sure others think it's funny, as everyone's sense of humor is different.

 

The edge markings are indeed pretentious to me. If it were important to the concept, it would make more sense, such as to reinforce the idea that this is just a piece of film; not reality. However, I feel that in this case it's just an attempt to inject some sort of style where there is none. It is distracting form the subjects.

 

The obviously intentional color cast doesn't suit the mood for me.

 

The models are not particularly interesting to me. Not that they couldn't be; they just weren't made to be so.

 

In short, I would try this one again, or maybe try to find a better shot from the rolls.

 

Keith

The portrait is fine. Too many complaints about the deep D of F and teh distracting objects. This is a location environmental portrait, and these things are fine. They add to the mood and teh perception of the man. My big complaint is that it seems a tiny bit dark, low contrast, and, worst of all, highly oversharpened, perhaps because he was out of focus to begin with.

China is a beautiful place.

 

I would love to see a less saturated version.

 

At first I didn't like the cant, but it is growing on me. It seems to be without purpose, but I guess it is OK.

 

Keith

Also, I would like to hear all the technical details, if you don't mind sharing them. Camera used, film used (if it was), developer, dilution, temp., time, and how you got it to the computer (scanned a neg, or printed and scanned the print. If printed, what paper, etc.

 

just curious about these things

 

Thanks,

 

Keith

I like this shot. It's nice to see an actual photograph (i.e. unmanipulated). Congratulations on treating this frame like a real photograph and not simply something to which you can do whatever you want just because you can.

 

I would eliminate the white border, and only leave the black border if this is an actual full-frame silver print. Even if it is a silver print, I would use a full frame carrier with neat edges, as I think the ragged edges take away from the photo and make it heavyhanded.

 

Keith

A nice and powerful and well-composed illustration. I would leave

it just as it was in the original posting, but take out the letters on

the sign. Once you photoshop to that degree, it loses its editorial

value, and we can no longer talk about the event, or what was

happening. It is now solely art. That does not mean that is has

no value as another sort of image, however. it is now art, and

must be looked at ina different way. Like I said, it's no longer

about the occurence; something that happened, but, rather, is

simply a strong image regardless of meaning. The original

posting was the perfect composition, and way better than any of

the modifications anyone has posted. The power is in the

abstractions. it is all about line, shape, and color, so I think the

only thing heavily distracting is the script. I don't know how much

I can stress how perfectly composed it is, in my opinion.

 

keith

Leave the shadow - Photoshop the lady out

 

Kidding! A very strong and nicely composed shot. Subject matter is not interesting to me, but if you view it as abstract, it holds a lot more interest.

 

Keith

Well, it is visually pleasing in a cold and scary way. Technically , it is not a portrait since I don't know anything about this person by looking at it. She seems inhuman, almost like a replicant from Blade Runner. Kind of scary more than anything. If this is what you were going for, good job.

 

Keith

Uhm...Am I the only one who does not get why this photo is so well loved? This photo does not stand alone. It is not visually impactive and it leaves me full of questions. What is going on, was this staged, what do any of these people have to do with each other, what the hell is the woman doing and why, why is there a woody there, and what does it have to do with anything, what does the title/caption have to do with anything? Why is it interesting to so many people?