joshroot

Folks,

While I realize that subject matter is as crucial to critique as any technique or aesthetic choice, I would encourage you to be mindful of the line between OT forum debating and POTW image discussion. It's one of those lines that is different for everyone, but I'm hoping that by asking people to be aware of it, we can keep the POTW conversation on track as being about the image itself as much as possible.

If you are of a mind to debate politics, the OT Forum is available and there are always people willing to butt heads with you over any topic you think is important.

Folks,

Once again, the place to discuss the POTW system or criteria is not here on the image itself. Please stop.

Post on this thread or start another in the 'Site Help' forum if you need to vent about some grave injustice. But if you are posting here, then you should be talking about the photo. If you've got nothing to say about the photo, then say nothing at all please.

Hi Folks,

Here's the deal, if you want to discuss, praise, or complain about the POTW system or criteria on Photo.net, this is not the place to do it. Remember, you are posting these comments on another photographer's image. Discussions about the site itself are not only off-topic, but rather rude. I doubt that any of you would wish for the same sort of discussion to be plastered all over your image. And finally, if you want something changed on Photo.net, you've got to bring it to my attention. I do my best to pay attention to as many things on the site as I can. But there is a limit and I'm naturally going to miss a lot of what is said. Therefore, if you don't share your thoughts via a method where I will see them, you are really just shouting at the wind.

Any further discussion that is not related to the image at hand will be deleted. Shortly, I will also go back and remove the previous non-image related debate as well (including my own comment here).

Interested in discussing the POTW system? Here you go:

I've got some stuff to say about the Photo of the Week system!

Thanks,

Josh
Photo.net Mop & Bucket man

Please note the following:

• This image has been selected for discussion. It is not necessarily the "best" picture the Elves have seen this week, nor is it a contest.
• Discussion of photo.net policy, including the choice of Photograph of the Week should not take place here, but in the Help & Questions Forum.
• The About Photograph of the Week page tells you more about this feature of photo.net.
• Before writing a contribution to this thread, please consider our reason for having this forum: to help people learn about photography. Visitors have browsed the gallery, found a few striking images and want to know things like why is it a good picture, why does it work? Or, indeed, why doesn't it work, or how could it be improved? Try to answer such questions with your contribution.

Howdy again,

Just in case I wasn't clear previously.

The POTW forum is not the place to debate photo.net policy. I will delete any further posts that are not on the subject of Joanna's image. If you want to complain or ask questions about not being able to post images that you did not make, I have made a thread for you here:

http://photo.net/site-help-forum/00aNhA

Howdy folks,

Photo.net asks users to not post in forums, upload to our servers, or generally cause to appear images that they themselves did not take. While it is rarely done with malicious intent (at least here on photo.net), in an age where so many photographers have to fight the battle of unauthorized usage and image theft, we just feel that the right thing to do is to draw a very clear line in the sand on this subject.

If there is a need to refer to another photographer's work in a discussion, I have yet to see a situation where a link would not suffice.

Questions about this, or any PN policy, should be directed to me via the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of the page. Please keep this discussion focused on the POTW image at hand.

Thank you,

-That Guy Who Runs That One Website

Alberta,

I sense that you are implying that I (or someone) messed with the time/date stamp of your post. While I do not have a lot of confidence that you will believe me, I promise you that I did no such thing. For one thing, the only way for that to happen on photo.net would be to go into the database and adjust it manually, as photo.net does not have the ability to adjust timestamps in the admin interface (mostly because there are few legitimate reasons to be doing that sort of thing). That means that Jin, the head programmer, would have to take the time to do it (as he doesn't let me mess with the database directly). And to be perfectly honest, even if I requested such a thing, I doubt he would be inclined to do it without a VERY good reason. Even for someone as talented as Jin, messing around with the database directly is not something to be taken lightly. One mistake and giant sections of the site can be affected in a nightmarish way.

In addition, there is no real reason for me to have messed with your post. I would have made my post no matter where your apology was located in the timeline as there was confusion over what is and is not on topic that I felt needed to be clarified. And as I said to you via email:

In all honesty, what probably happened is that you forgot to click "confirm" when you were posting (or perhaps clicked update instead) and then moved on to another page thinking that your post had been made. It happens to everyone from time to time, even those of us who have been here for over a decade. And if not that, then the next most likely culprit is a server glitch. The PN servers are hardly immune to that sort of thing.

And as I said before, I'm sorry to see you leave photo.net but I wish you all the best in whatever direction photography takes you in 2012.

Given that the topic of the man being added or not has a direct relation to the critique of the image at hand, ti's not really off topic. Though the "natural vs processed" debate that it alludes to surely has the possibility of going off topic as far as a POTW discussion is concerned.

At the very least, that sort of thing would likely be on topic in both the philosophy of photography forum and the casual conversations forum. Depending on the topic, it might even be on topic in the digital darkroom forum.

Is this street photography? That is really going to depend on your definition of "street photography". To me, street photography has less of an element of "something staged" and more of an element of "candid" than this this image has. It is a funny scene no doubt. But it doesn't fit my definition of what street photography is. However, that's just my opinion.

Technically, I would rather not have seen the streaks from the slow shutter + flash. Given that I don't think it's likely that these guys were moving much, I would have rather seen a higher ISO shot without the flash or even a long shutter speed shot with the camera on a tripod. But given that I wasn't at the scene, those are just guesses since I cannot know what the ambient light situation was like. The tree trunk in the middle of the frame at the top also isn't a strong aspect of the composition. I can't help but wonder what the image might have looked like if you had gotten closer to Luigi and shot him from his left looking over his sigh (making it more readable) and towards the prone Mario. Even if that blocked out some of Mario's face, the wording of the sign and Mario's outfit should have been enough to get the joke across.

Please note the following:

• This image has been selected for discussion. It is not necessarily the "best" picture the Elves have seen this week, nor is it a contest.
• Discussion of photo.net policy, including the choice of Photograph of the Week should not take place here, but in the Help & Questions Forum.
• The About Photograph of the Week page tells you more about this feature of photo.net.
• Before writing a contribution to this thread, please consider our reason for having this forum: to help people learn about photography. Visitors have browsed the gallery, found a few striking images and want to know things like why is it a good picture, why does it work? Or, indeed, why doesn't it work, or how could it be improved? Try to answer such questions with your contribution.

Here is the first photo taken by my son Oliver (Canon 5D + EF 16-35/2.8L in case anyone is interested). No, he didn't hold it himself, he's only 18 months old. But he did look through the viewfinder, point it at his cousin, and press the button himself.

It got me thinking, could I remember the first photo I ever took (or even something close to the first)? I remember the first roll of film from my first camera, a Kodak Pocket Instamatic 100. It was mostly of people's knees, I was a short kid. Can you remember your first photo? Just to see if any of us could, I made a forum post here: The first photo you ever took...

Hi folks, just a reminder:

Thanks everyone!

I'm not a big critique guy, but this one caught my eye. I think I would have liked to see a bit more space around the word "house". Though I suspect that it was part of a larger word, and that might not have been possible.The head in the "o" will be seen by some as contrived I think, but for some reason the guy is interesting enough looking that I don't mind. I think I might have liked to see the words on his shirt in hopes that there was more context for the image, perhaps having him cross his arms lower (if this was posed), and also dropping the hat out. But if it was a candid, it's hard to make that stuff happen.

Overall, the lack of context is what harms this image the most for me. The "War" title, the "house" in the background, a somewhat stern or grumpy subject, etc. I come away feeling a bit frustrated because I can't figure out what is going on.

Please note the following:

• This image has been selected for discussion. It is not necessarily the "best" picture the Elves have seen this week, nor is it a contest.
• Discussion of photo.net policy, including the choice of Photograph of the Week should not take place here, but in the Help & Questions Forum.
• The About Photograph of the Week page tells you more about this feature of photo.net.
• Before writing a contribution to this thread, please consider our reason for having this forum: to help people learn about photography. Visitors have browsed the gallery, found a few striking images and want to know things like why is it a good picture, why does it work? Or, indeed, why doesn't it work, or how could it be improved? Try to answer such questions with your contribution.

Howdy folks,

As has been noted, the POTW discussion is not the place for "great shot" or "this sucks" comments. Nor is it the place to debate the "worthiness" of a POTW choice or Photo.net policy behind the POTW.

The POTW is for indepth discussion of an image that has been chosen as being worthy of discussion.

When comments that don't fit the POTW guidelines are posted, they are deleted and an email sent to the user explaining the idea behind the POTW discussion and inviting them to repost their thoughts. Users who repeatedly make posts that don't fit the guidelines will be blocked from posting in the POTW discussion. But most people aren't trying to be a problem and are just a little confused about what the POTW is and is not.

Going forward, please direct all comments or questions about the POTW system or comment moderation to me via the "contact us" link at the bottom of the page. Any further discussion on this thread will be deleted as it detracts from the discussion at hand.

Thanks!

Perhaps time for my standard reminder:

The POTW discussion is not for:
-Complaining about the choice of POTW or the system by which it was chosen
-Simple "Great Shot" comments
-Attacking the photographer or other PN users

The point of the POTW is that "this is an image that we felt was worthy of discussion".

Thus, we all should be talking about the image at hand. You can like the image, dislike the image, wish the image was slightly different, want to bury the entire genre that the image is in, whatever you want. Just have something to say and say it about the image.

Just a reminder to everyone:

There is nothing wrong with giving a "nice shot" type comment, plenty of people love getting those comments about their images, but that isn't what the POTW is for. If you want to compliment the photographer, send him/her a personal message or just leave a compliment on their portfolio. The POTW discussion is supposed to be an in depth discussion of the image itself, not just a place for praise.

John is correct, in a literal sense, as far as what I said the POTW discussion should be about.

However, I think this is one of those gray areas where we want to be flexible. I do not think we gain anything by clamping down on general or "the concept of ____" discussions that come up when based around the image at hand in the POTW discussions. Broad based discussions, when narrowed by being tied to a single image, can make for some of the best discussions on PN.

For example, while you don't want a discussion about an HDR image to dwindle down into a shouting match about photoshop vs adjustments. The fact is that the idea of how "unreal" images make a viewer feel is a relevant topic in that case because it does have a direct bearing on the image at hand.

Use your best judgment and we'll probably be fine. I have a lot of faith in the PN community when it comes to that sort of discussion. I think it will be fine. And if we get off topic, I'll do my best to shove it back the other way.

It should be noted that the title was chosen by Jim himself. PN and the elves had nothing to do with that (as evidenced by the fact that it references a "photo of the day" which PN does not have). As for why the title is what it is, you would have to ask Jim. Imaging Resource does do a photo of the day, so perhaps they organize those photos a month in advance or so?

Hi folks,

Once again I have deleted a pile of stuff that doesn't have to do with the image at hand. The POTW thread is for discussion of that image, not to attack other users or the photographer, not to lavish "great shot" praise, and not to complain about Photo.net policy or how the POTW is chosen. If you have a problem with Photo.net policy, another user, or the POTW system, send me email via the "contact us" link at the bottom of the page and we will talk about it. But this is not the place for that sort of thing and people who repeatedly forget that fact will get booted from future POTW participation.

It's not that hard of a thing to remember. Just talk about the image.

Hi folks,

Just a heads up.

Wasting POTW conversation with either generic "nice shot" compliments or personal attacks will get you booted from the discussion going forward.

There is nothing wrong with giving a "nice shot" type comment, plenty of people love getting those comments about their images, but that isn't what the POTW is for. If you want to compliment the photographer, send him/her a personal message or just leave a compliment on their portfolio. The POTW discussion is supposed to be an in depth discussion of the image itself, not just a place for praise.

As for personal attacks, while it should be obvious that we don't allow that sort of thing on PN at all, the fact goes double when we are discussing something that is likely to have wildly differing opinions. In the POTW, there has to be space for someone to say "the long shutter speed look of this water kills the image for me" as well as "the long shutter speed look of the water evokes a sense of calm and wonder that brings me back to childhood" or some such thing. Nobody is stupid for thinking one thing or another, nobody is jealous just because they don't connect with an image, and nobody is a suck-up just because they love an image.

You guys are all great at discussing images and photographic concepts and the POTW can be the best example of that on the site (along with perhaps the philosophy forum). I'm not lying when I say that. But we need to keep both extremes (praise and personal scorn) stomped down for that to happen.

A much better shot than the other one that you submitted, in my opinion.

The spray and the body lean balances the image quite well. There is still some dead space on the left hand side, but it isn't in the same league as the "bullseye" of the other image. I would say to keep in mind that the lines of the kite aren't nearly strong enough to balance an image. They are really just there as a point of reference to inform the viewer of what the guy is doing, particularly in black/white when they are even harder to see.

There's a lot to like about this image. The sky, the throwers body language, even the lines in the sand.

However, the big empty space on the left hand side is annoying to my eye. It's just too big and empty. I might have tried asking the thrower if he would have tried throwing a banana slice to try and place the frisbee on that side of the image. Or, I might have tried making the image when the thrower was in his windup or preparing to throw. That would also have put the frisbee in that space on the image. Finally, cutting the foot off, while a small thing, is also a little too eyecatching for me. However, it's pretty minor.

Good capture, good concept, just a little unbalanced in terms of its composition for me.

Technically, this photo is fine. Appears to be sharp (as far as one can tell online), action nicely frozen, correct "moment" (if this wasn't full extension of the trick, it was close), and exposed well.

My largest issue is that the composition/cropping is far too "bullseye" in the center. The space in front of and behind of the surfer is wasted space in my mind. The slightly panoramic horizontal crop that the image appears to have does not really help either. Now extreme sports are tough in this regard, particularly with moving sports where the temptation is to use the camera's AF (often leading to "bullseye shots). But it's something that every photographer who shoots these sports has to learn to overcome. I would have rather seen the exact same moment framed vertical with the surfer in the upper 1/3 of the image.

Overall though, good capture. Just work on the composition.

They are cute kids. But I'm at a loss with the image. I can't see their outfits, so I don't know anything about the fashion show and I can't see what they are looking at, so I'm not sure what is going on. I would have tried to leave the top of the girl's head in if possible. though I admit that I'm guilty of doing that myself more than I should.

I think the part of the shot that I can't let go of is the midriff of the adult in the background. It's pretty distracting to have this headless body hanging out back there. Candids are tough because the temptation is to get the shot that is in front of you rather than finding the right spot and then looking for the shot. But a balance of the two will lead to better results.