aplumpton

Title or not, this is very imaginative and a tribute to intentional photography as opposed to casual photography. The setting and light are also perfect.

The title is fun, like the image (A+ on an unusual treatment, reminding me of the somewhat similar de-pixelated images popular in the early days of computer graphics), but probably not immediately perceived if were to be absent. Some images can mean many things and one can read either fantasy or violence in this one (I am feeling a little raw today, as we have just witnessed a horrific dehumanising incident of terrorism in our otherwise extremely peaceful little city).

I looked at the image a bit longer and this time with glasses. Yes, the muralist has included the two pipes and ventilator into his overall work and not just that of the principal subject. As such the creation is entirely that of the muralist and all the POW has done is to simply provide a record of that (maybe the muralist is unknown and a reference could not be made to him or her), like photographing a meal on a plate, or some item for a big box store catalogue. All the photographer has created is his title, which is a bit mosh.

Fred, a question for you (albeit rhetorical to some degree), related to the POW and in general: Where do you think copy ends (the function also of recording) and creation begins? I agree that this POW shows in part someone else's mural and if the photographer were to capture uniquely the mural it would constitute straight copy. Picasso happily admitted to copying, but he took someone else's graphics and added his own ideas to it, the result being successful art.

Did the muralist think much about placing his art where he did, and how it contrasted with the plumbing and ventilation, or was he just happy to place what he might consider an aesthetic image in a less than beautiful environment? In choosing his angle of view and the specific elements he put into this picture, did the photographer create something that a different framing might not? Did the muralist frame his image like the photographer?

Much photography is of things that have already been created by other "thinkers" (perhaps the jury on nature creation is still out). Do we say that photographing these objects (which when manmade, can be judged as art, or not) or creations is simply recording? I think it is instead how we visualise and reinterpret them and not so much what they intrinsically are, while at the same time the creations of others.

Whimsical is a good take on this well perceived image of graffiti and a side of a building (or industrial vessel?). I agree that tighter cropping would be more powerful. For instance, if you divide this nice image in half, vertically, the image half on the right with just one incongruous pipe is I think more of a surprise for the viewer. This is not to say anything negative about the overall composition which is very balanced and compelling, if a little too sweet and over-detailed to my mind.

Just noticed this one. Great. Similar comment to that of Jack.

....while still recognizing Daniel's good use of B&W tonality and diagonal elements.

Positive elements: Nice lighting on the building, uneven and enigmatic. A staircase that takes us up a diagonal to the top left, the lower zig-zag being eliminated and a little unexpectedly the staircase linearly goes to the edge of the frame. A potential there. The writing on the wall contrasts nicely with the low toned building and stairway, but without a strong purpose as subject it simply yields a little eye candy.

Negative elements: Evolution of what? The graffiti is boringly reproduced at each level (stage?) giving the viewer no message at all, evolutionary or other. If there was some point to the photo (symbolic, event determined, or surprising or convincing graphics), I would happily and quite easily dismiss the foregoing reservations about the technical limitations of the compositing as being relatively unimportant (here shown as a composited image rather than a collage of different elements), but the image doesn't seem to me to have a purpose. Vacuous may be a strong comment, but "a spade is a spade" (as a longtime former Liverpool co-renter once liked to describe that which cannot be denied) and little message is offered.

Overall, the negative wins for me.

To the extent to which they can easily be seen, the faces in the examples of two photographers and the four examples of the painter provide much of their messages, complemented to differing degrees by the position of their bodies and the surrounding elements. There are I think much better creations of Arbus and Frank than these two images. The Arbus just shows us that the woman is reading apparently alone in a dark room and we are shown (the principal message of the image?) that this is made possible via a bright window very present in the photo. Other than the fact that she is alone, what else? The Frank gives us a jukebox and restaurant as secondary subject, with lots of lens flare and blur, with the main subject being a man (in that overall and usual or common environment) ostensibly reading as well. Perhaps his hand over his right ear is an attempt to isolate himself from the music or noise, or simply a comfortable pose while reading?

Can we justifiably comment here in regard to these two images, and perhaps also in the POW, the words "so what?" Maybe, but also maybe not. The Hopper paintings show isolated individuals in well constructed compositions (which is also the case of Hani's image, in sole respect of the compositional elements) of other elements than the principal subject. To some degree, those elements and color palettes make the Hopper images and we can perhaps presume that the original composition of Hani's photo also makes his. Unlike all the forgoing examples chosen by Julie, we are not privileged to see his or her face, and the attire (trousers, socks, standard shoes) do not provide any particularly vivid hint to the nature of the person reading (And is there a child hung onto his back, other persons positioned within the samne space that he occupies, or other?).

If instead the pants were green, or magenta, or the shoes instead colorful running shoes, we might think more about the nature of the person. So we come back (sorry, at least I do) to the supposed secondary subject of the linearity of the compositional elements and their juxtaposition, and to the apparent main message of the image which is seemingly simply graphical and non emotive.

Among the persons with visible faces in the six examples of Julie, there is much more I think that can be said about the constructions of Hopper. He has chosen the surrounding elements to correspond well with the situation of his main subjects. Hani has some very interesting and original compositional elements, but I believe that they are not shown to be particularly relevant to the situation of the human subject. I guess that is where I unwind in what I get from the otherwise original POW.

Absence is effective in inciting the viewer to imagine something that is not present or what the photographer has purposely excluded. The strength of an image becomes that which is imagined. Curiosity (both that of the viewer and the photographer) and exploration (the photographer) are good companions.

The portfolio of Hani shows that he is very open to exploration and therefore very willing (like a researcher) to accept both ordinary and strong images, those that go beyond ordinary and seemingly complete or evident visual records. While I find that his present image promises more than it delivers, I admire his explorative personal approach in street photography. Exploration and curiosity are valuable parameters in making successful images.

I think what makes this picture to the degree that it does is the choice by the photographer of the graphical elements of composition and his angle of view. After that it seems to run out of steam, as the subject does not reveal anything of more interest. Using an unnatural color palette, or eye candy, may be compelling to some viewers, but it reveals little (chromatically, emotionally, graphically) that I can connect with and I am left with the thought that it would be of equal interest if it were in black and white.

It's interesting how shadows and uncombed hair can give an impression that I think in this case is is not mirrored in the subject's expression. His mouth is key. It is neither aggressive or smiling, but simply expressing content that he is the subject (he is hunched over in that anticipation and not in any attempt to threaten the photographer). The centring is for me very agreeable, as it is balanced by the important secondary subject to his left that gives a hint to the man's activity. An agreeable portrait.

Delightful, expressions and pose. The colors are seemingly those of some c41 process of yesterday that adds to the effect. Simple, but however done, well done. 

Perhaps more simplicity in the image? The multiple symbols already mentioned by myself and others don't help in that regard.

It is not necessary that a picture be clear at first sight (the pleasure is in thinking about it and effectively discovering it), not does it have to mean the same thing to each person, but I believe that overdoing symbols often reduces or confuses whatever impact it has. Some of the best images I have had the pleasure to view are very simple, almost if not minimalist.

The Japanese refer to mysterious images as Yugen, which may apply to this one. On the other hand, the Oriental ethic is often associated with minimal subject matter, sort of a "no need to overdo it".

I don't find the specific symbolism overdone, although the multitude of symbols does complicate or obfuscate whatever message the photo is intended to give, and in that sense makes it more difficult to appreciate. So, take away any of the multiple subjects, or even two of them, like the man, the fork, the garment, or the broken fence, and you still end up with an image dependent upon its symbolism. The latter options might well be more forceful, because they would be simpler. Provide a variable and more translucent fog rather than the uniform muddy rendition, remove the unnecessary vignetting, and the image might be equally if not more interesting.

The vignetting is perhaps intended, as it complies with what appears to be the punctum of the image, a man walking away from an ostensibly marginal farming op (everything appears broken, which is the beauty of it). The fog I think could be better, it could be equally dense but less muddy. Not sure what one could do in post from digital files, but a darkroom rat like me would be happy to have a go in changing the light, modifying the visual soup and local luminances. Fine concept, excellent composition, but a perfectible tonaity. A little bit of spark might counterbalance the total gloom and add depth to the content.

Extremely poorly chosen title, very nice capture of the action and the flying board, which, instantaneously captured, cements itself in our mind and is essential to the photo. The image would gain much I think by simple PS painting out of the bright spots (easily performed with the black background), numerous in number to the left and also on the right. I don't mind the high contrast and lack of surrounding detail and therefore dislike the bright spots that are unidentifiable and add nothing. Julie well noted the frail branch to the right and I think it is a nice counterpoint to the solid flying board, adding a bit more "depth" to a simple image.

I have learned two things from my own exhibitions and talking with their viewers and which may be relevant here. The first is that what I see and the way I express my visual creation of a perceived visual event is not always communicated to others as I experienced and conceived it. That I think is a normal situation in photographic art or any art, the power of an image to intrigue, and I am perfectly at peace and accept that "apparent disconnect".

The second is that the viewer will often relate what he sees not just to some mathematical or prevailing compositional formula of beauty but also to how the image allows him to reflect on his or her own personal experiences, values and memory. That I see a symbolism of death in the current POW is but one of other possible interpretations (or giving a value to an image) that I may bring to the image, in order to give it life for me. The more experience of one's own life that one brings to a reading, possibly the more varying those interpretations may be.

So I take a seemingly different viewing approach than Anders, Julie and some others, who claim that an interpretation is or can be richer than the picture itself (By what measure? Who can effectively so conclude, at least without giving specific reasons?), or that it is not a realistic critique because a viewer does not see that and sees something quite different (Anders, I know you accept different readings, and their subjectivity, as you state, but I already knew the nature of your appreciation without the benefit of having it contrasted to mine).

A picture often does not want to be interpreted either in solely impersonal ways or in one unique personal way. The beauty of an image can be its ability to reach different persons and to solicit differing responses. Intransigency of view has little position in a critical process regarding art, in my humble opinion.

By the way, none of these differences of perception of others touches me here in a negative way or in any way bothers me, because they do not accord with mine. I value differences of outlook and perception, which I think is inherent in my remarks above, but I am equally ready to support my own critique when it is queried or is directly dismissed in community discussion.

I have just read Fred’s general comments, which in large part I find palatable.

Thanks to Julie. The Mapplethorpe is beautiful (apart from the composition and excellent use of the B&W medium) because he is both predicting and accepting his own death.

Looking again at this weeks image, and the former comments, the hand appears to denote death (already) by its tone and its obscure otherwise expected finger details. Add to that the image of the cane cut off at its second most important point (relating to stability and its attachment to the ground below) further indicates that what we are seeing is effectively an image of end of life. I'm not convinced that the subject and photographer had that particular intention, but that is how it seems to work.

Fred is right I think about the human sources of the blur. If this is a main or important secondary subject should it not be more prominent (runners closer to the foreground)?

The greenish tone of the wood is likely the excessive use of a saturation slider in post. It has little complementarity or harmony with the sky tones.

The photographer seems to have also been attracted by the missing planks of the bridge. Those might be rephotographed by him in different ways, different angles in order to add something more particular to an often photographed type of scene.

Had this photo run across the front page of my newspaper this morning, I might have found it to adequately express not ghosts but a lot of uncertainty.

An enterprising photo, a bit similar in effect to Ms. Reese's "Wasted time" image (although Becky's "Time" image does not talk to me as much). Perhaps some details could be improved to "gild" the image, but I think it is a considerable success as it is, with or without the title. The large horizontal artefact (in front of the person?) seems to add a little additional tension or enigma to the image compared to a similar one in which it would be absent. I look forward to seeing more images in her portfolio. Art training is useful, however it is acquired.

A good single shot insight into the life of a man and his dog. I looked at Gianni's other human interest photos (one of the advantages of POW) and found that many were shot under overcast or non direct sunlight conditions, to some additional advantage (see his stark sunlit portrait of the man with hat beside others under more even lighting). In the present image the contrast is so great that a lot is washed out, or nearly so, or is in textureless deep shade, and so much information about the subject is lost. it would be a plus I think if he could have chosen (or benefited from) softer lighting conditions. Of course, single photos like this do not always allow that opportunity and perhaps he did the best he could have.

Thanks, Fred. I appreciate your view on the POW even if I don't wholly share all of it in this particular case.

I agree that "teams" can sometimes seem to restrict each member to the same opinion although the purpose of debate and "debaters" has usually always been one of being able to see issues from different angles and I know of few debaters who hold irrevocable positions in all matters. Like discussions of philosophy, issues are seldom black and white.

I am sure that you also caught my tongue-in-cheek humour about "teams" and perhaps also my reference to the unknown Photo.Net team that brings forward POW examples each week without engaging in any discussion. The latter position is fine, but it would be helpful to know who our fellow elves are, and where they come from in regard to their own perception of good photography (Perhaps individual statements of photographic approach or artistic approach, with or without a bio). Just a humble suggestion to our organisation at Photo.Net

Michael and Fred. I refer to the "boat" as that of (now-) conventional B&W photographic street photo approaches, handed down from original interpretations of Cartier-Bresson, Doisneau and a few others and now worked to death by many since then. Sorry, I need to see more evidence of originality.

@ Julie. My suggestion was as intended, simply "tongue in cheek", a subtle Canadian form of humour, and in this case one that expects nothing of the sort to really occur on PNet. As for "teams", what about that erstwhile and unknown group known as the elves, who seldom (if ever??) discuss what they think of the photos they show, abdicating the ownership of their choices or reasoning (which might even educate a little the reader and viewer).

Having judged many photo exhibitions, I have little need to worry about exhibiting the reasons for my critiques, or the sharing or not of the opinions of fellow judges. Those comments may not benefit the photographers in question very much, but they are nonetheless given openly and sincerely.

Interesting variations on personal perceptions of classic style images. We might form a fairly valuable debating team of Fred, Julie, Robin, myself and others who want more from an image, and Anders, Lannie, Michael, John and others who are happy not rocking the boat (I presume that the orthographically quiet elves might be part of the latter group). John, as we learn from his site, is a seasoned photographer. Can he trump what is his present approach? Is that not the objective of the artist?