aplumpton

Doug, thank you for your kind comment. The registering of drops on a glass interface while keeping the backgrounds in focus worked in most cases, but the effect varies. 

Your comments are appreciated. One of a series of images (in progress),

in-camera and without Photoshop special effects, on rain, shot in August

2015.

Your comments are appreciated. One of a series of images (in progress),

in-camera and without Photoshop special effects, on rain, shot in August

2015.

The graphic quality is its force. We see the birds in absolute two dimensional disposition, possessing no depth or texture. This seems to emphasize the lightness of their flight with their elegant trailing legs streaming behind and acting as counterpoints to the long and almost unsubstantial necks. This elegance and lightness is felt even more I think by blotting out the vegetation. The vegetation speaks to gravitational pull and this is lessened by removing it from the frame. The result is not really abstract as the essential form of the flamingos is immediately recognized. Perhaps the sky is the main abstract element and it seems to be used or accentuated here for an emotional effect. The compositional choice of capturing an odd number of birds is to good effect.

Yes, it is like viewing art in a museum. If we need always to read the description or artistic approach of the artist it can color our perception and original thoughts, especially when the latter are not yet established fully.

Sometime I think that being informed of the approach of the photographer (not the approach in a technical sense but in terms of his or her values and what he or she is trying to accomplish) helps in the viewing and in the appraisal of our own personal opinions of a work or a series of works. What I do find missing in some of the POW forums, including here to date, are the reactions of the photographer to the comments. We can do without that of course but sometimes having that input can add value to the discussion, and indeed, to the learning process.

It would be good to have a statement by Chuck Turner in regard to his approach in making this photo. What did he desire to show or to symbolize? I think that the comments have generally acknowledged that some elements work well in this composition and communication but that others are more problematic. It is, as Fred says, not an easy photo to appreciate. That does not mean it is not ambitious in what it is trying to communicate to the viewer. It seems to me to be a photo made with intention (perhaps this is an obvious statement) although various differing reactions to the result seem to be experienced. Is it a raw diamond something like an unfinished symphony ... or simply an already polished statement of something difficult to perceive or appreciate?

Fred, I acknowledge and understand your points. They are appreciated. Nothing is really "black and white" in my mind about this image which I think has been constructed with some care by the photographer. Although it doesn't work for me for the reason mentioned (lack of relationship) I can see elements within it that tend to lift it out of the ordinary - for instance the way the girl's body flows with the lines of that part of the tree that is angled more closely to the bottom of the frame and the way her upper body and arms are angled similar to the upper branches of the tree. If it was a picture more about the tree I think that if her eyes were closed (dreaming pose) it might say more about this tree. What do you think? What is it that makes this image work for you in the way it is?

Fred,

Interesting differing perceptions we have. What I think I stated quite clearly above is that for me the tree is quite secondary, given the interesting expression and pose of the lady that contains more value than an oft viewed large and probably inanimate (dead) tree. I see no relationship between the tree and the girl. What then is the photographer trying to show us? If it is the tree with ground and sky, they cover at least 85% of the picture area. If it is the girl, then given her expression and pose there seems little point (to me) of her being placed in that position.

I feel there is no "dialogue" between the two as there might have been, although I agree with one of the commenters that this sort of placement of pretty (and even pensive as here) girls in natural surroundings have more often than not little to say (and I am not referring here to seeing a pretty girl or an impressive tree, but the relationship of the two) . It could be different of course, but that would require something more inventive, symbolic, symbiotic, emotional, enigmatic or aesthetic (a lot of hard work to achieve in this sort of scenario, and admittedly not an easy task).

So if it is the tree that is important, it might be best pictured alone or with some natural (normally present) lifeform, featureless yet effective masses of black or white, or a blurring of leaves to give effect of movement or ambiance which might heighten the impact. If it is the girl, I am pretty much certain that her expression would be more meaningful and compatible within her more normal or typical (for her) surroundings, and probably the simpler the better in this case.

So there I rest my critique, for what it may be worth, fully expecting many to disagree (but that is the purpose of a good and fruitful discussion I believe, and the more views with a difference the better...).

Following upon the first sentence of the last comments by Martin, which has considerable merit as such, I feel that the girl is the main subject and the tree quite secondary. If she was sitting on a sofa or other less noticeable support the attention would be more directed to her expression and pose, which are reflective and of interest, but obstructed in this case by the tree "clutter" (however photogenic and well revealed by B&W the latter may be).

Looking at the image again and the other one suggested by Micheal, I think that the impression of the odd angle for the plane (at least for a 4-engined large aircraft and not an acrobatic plane) may have been caused by the use of a fairly long focus lens or longer setting of a zoom lens. The trees are in fact probably more distant than they seem and at the top of a more distant mountain or hill. It might be interesting to know from Janine what focal length and sensor size she employed, if that was recorded.

I still find the angle of the plane physically improbable (whether collage or not) and somewhat disturbing as a composition, as the relation of its angle and that of the trees (perfectly vertical) seem to suggest. Michael's reference shows a plane in a much more normal appearance and a more astounding presence of chemicals (I hope her boat was at a safe distance). I don't necessarily agree that the elve's ought to have picked the latter photo, as the objective of POW is to create comments and discussion about the image and not necessarily highlight what appears to be a successful photo. However, either photo is interesting by showing us a seldom seen (up close) action.

Strange image - the angle of the plane and its probable speed mean that it is virtually impossible for it to lift up and avoid a crash (assuming the trees at its side are no more than about 50 to 150 feet tall). All this points to a collage of images. Even if it isn't faked, what makes it a memorable photo? I am looking....

The wait may have been worth it. Finally a PofW image with substance that attempts to portray or communicate something to engage the viewer.

But what? It is certainly intriguing, if a bit awkward in its compositional and communicative content. The awkwardness has been partly mentioned above, the lone ranger mask and the "elephant trunk" and includes I think the type of balance or effect of the different masses and tones. The masked person appears like a stone carving, with the evident odd skin texture. That is just an observation and not really important, although perhaps it is meant to communicate something.

Although the overall result intrigues but does not convince me, there is a part of the image that I really find of higher interest. Nearly sublime. That is the expressiveness and effect of the lady dancer, her pose and the beautiful blurred effect of her body. Taken alone this would itself be a marvelous and emotional (for its beauty) picture. But it is I think a treasure in an incongruent space. I hope that the photographer can somehow extract (un-collage) it and present it alone (without the "elephant man" or with the latter somehow removed or obscured). Maybe I will see the image differently as I look more at it (than that of a brief view and immediate reaction) or learn from the comments of some others?

Good perception. This vertical framing is I think better than the horizontal one.  Shadow images are often best made with a minimum of subject matter and leaving more in mystery than evident. When they suggest a story or enigma or are symbolic that is often desirable in addition to (or more so than a) graphic composition, and I suggest you continue your series with that aim.

A photo that suggests what it doesn't explicitly show - such as the thoughts of the little boy as he watches something on the grass before him, or something outside (beyond) the frame, or perhaps a thought completely unrelated to that.  But he seems quite absorbed, as we can guess by the pose and also the hand placement.

His hair is perhaps blown a bit by a breeze - it goes everywhere at once (like a little boy or girl) or perhaps it is due to his rollicking before the photo was made. It looks slightly out of focus, but is ostensibly not - the apparently closer and farther points of his face and costume are relatively sharp. It is a visually consuming photo of a child in an unusual pose and I can understand the reaction of other viewers in wanting to give this litle person a hug.  One of your best photos I think. He will no doubt be the subject of a series of other such non cliché images you might make in future. 

Agree mainly with the preceding critiques. Costas can make some good photographs as some parts of his extensive portfolio shows. Dropping into the realm of kitsch photography does not much for showing that ability and the often tendency of the elves to propagate photography kitsch is unfortunate for a once fairly respected photography website. A wide variety of approaches is commendable and agreeable, but the Photo of the Week seems to be losing its impact and interaction due to the selections in recent times.

A good example of the possibilities offered by Photoshop (or its equivalent) and letting one's imagination some freedom. It reminds me of the type of work of that photographer from Marseilles France who has avery fertile imagination and has photographed himself in myriad fascinating situations and assembles the elements using traditional darkroom techniques. Wish I could remember his name and the titles of his books for this case as it shows what has been done in this style. This is what one might call a cute image and perhaps because of that it is hard to take from it some particular emotional impact or meaning.

Bill, I concede that you can specifically define photography as everything limited to what the photographer and the camera, sensor (or film) and lens have produced and, of course that can cover photography in black and white (or grey scale) spectrum, a full color spectrum of the type humans recognise, X-rays, UV rays or IR rays, or any other electromagnetic radiation emanating from the subject and so captured.

Creating some metal pieces of art is something I have amused myself with at times. Their craft fabrication and assembly from metal pieces might be reasonably classed as metal "sculpture", although for others sculpting denotes instead the altering of a mass of substance to create something else and a piece of art (much wood and stone sculpture are so made). So it is also in a similar way with photography, which can go beyond the baseline definition of the medium and expand into other things the root of which is stil the photograph or a series of photographs.

In the photographic example I gave a page or two before, the two image elements are photographs straight out of the camera, untouched, the combination of which under the enlarger may not represent reality but they still create a photograph in my mind.

When showing multiple facets of a face in the Braque-Picasso cubist manner as Picasso often did at one point in his evolution, does the result depart from what we call a painting? Must a painting only be based upon one view of a subject or one aspect of that subject alone? Perhaps only for a figurative or realist artist?

Bill, If one brings together one or more photographic images together is it not still a photograph? When one modifies a photographic image in the darkroom is it still a photograph, or not? The basis of the image is a photograph, so unless I draw or paint on it or assemble it with other non-photographic images it may be questioned.

How would you interpret "Harmonious Flight" a photographic darkroom collage of 16 exposures (if I remember the number), each of which is one of two photographs I made? For me it is still in the medium of photography and therefore a photograph a photograph (A view also held by the authors of a 1989 monograph "150 years of photography")

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17958927&size=lg

Having browsed the portfolio which I had not previously seen I am conquered by the imagination and intentions of the photographer and her effective if very whimsical images (Some examples: "In search of happiness", "Knowledge", "Solitude") which have considerable meaning. They are an antithesis in my mind of the present selection of the Elves who seem to be overly captivated by the technical aspects of the creation (Yes, I realize that the objective is not to necessarily show what works best but to raise discussion about the effect of an image, which they seem to have done, although mostly in regard to technique) . Many of her other images are so much stronger and in my opinion worthy of Photo of the Week. The photographer humbly suggests that her intention is not artistic but simply travel, recording what she sees and image editing with Photoshop, but her work in my mind goes well beyond those stated approaches. A portfolio worth learning from.

It is quite acceptable to discuss how this image was made, just as a chef might receive many questions and conjectures about his recipe of a terrific rhubarb mousse that is sitting yet to be eaten on a table, to which several guests are invited.

The pleasure there is in the eating. The pleasure here, which seems to be somewhat overlooked, is in the looking and perception of the viewers. While I am a bit impressed by the use of collage, Photoshop, separate panned image and whatever on the technical side, I prefer to look at the image (which is probably the photographer's aim) and absorb it as just that. It is a pretty (or at least "interesting") wallpaper image which is cold in tone (despite the red) and which doesn't reflect much of an idea of forest to me.

A framed work that might have a good place in in Bluebeard's Castle is one feeling I get. It doesn't make me laugh, cry, marvel at the composition, or lower my jaw in surprise. I want to find something in it that expands my feelings or insight, but am at a loss to see that. Of course this is a very subjective take on the image as a communication. I admire at least the desire of the photographer to present something different and her capability to craft whatever she had in mind. It just doesn't hold much intrigue for me (as a viewer).

Anabela, I just saw your post and can understand the importance for you in regard to Chernobyl, Siberia and radioactivity and the very specific use of the word "mutations" which overexposure to nuclear radiation can certainly produce. In that context the photo would likely be good as part of a series of images on the same subject that explained the context and the use of the redness and bleakness.

Interesting that this photo seems to have been overlooked, but perhaps that is so for many that we have not requested presented specifically for a critique.

Whether planned or not the moment and effect here is great, the composition and strength of the wave being quite powerful. It is maybe a sport photo but a metaphor for other things including - nature and man's confrontation with it - we can just see the blue surfboard but mainly that of a person, limbs extended in arbitrary manner, completely at the mercy of the wave (life) - the posture reminds me of Kertez's well known shot of a lady stretched out in zigzag manner on a chesterfield -  the huge green mass (nature) and man's position in it - the apparent difficulty of man in a moment that we know is transitory and despite the apparent contecxt, simply playful. I really like the composition, not elaborate but effective. Not sure what your title means, if it is not simply that nature has recovered its territory?  Nicely done!

I love the idea here and the superb image of the woman. The four rectangular fields are well integrated to make a whole that is more than the sum of its parts although the image also suggests the possibility of evolution to other image forms and tones for those rectangles. The mystery element is strong, the buttons or other small out of  focus circles adding to the unseen aspects of the main image.

I appreciate seeing your work, especially here and elsewhere where you have used paper folds to create visual tension, fragmentation or different facets of the subject. I love receiving ideas from others and will try to learn from your paper folds approach or some derivative of that in future. Thanks for showing.

The things that work for me are the photo's simplicity (which is a quality that sometimes can be great and othertimes banal) and the chromatic tension created by the blue and orange elements.

The incoherence of the detailed boat and its setting is not something I find very attractive, but probably that is because I prefer stunning images that do not have a pasted together quality. This would work well I think as a pretty and forceful image in advertising or on a book cover where a certain effect may be sought. Some of the other images of the author (boats on the Thames. etc.) seem better constructed, more seamless and aesthetically effective. Apart from the initial grab this picture makes (it is hard to overlook, whatever you feel about it) that impression dissipates as I try to find something more meaningful or convincing.

The author is a competent photographer of straight, uncomposited or less Photoshopped images (wildlife and people images in his portfolio). I would suggest that he apply that experience to exploring landscapes more fully and seeking in them a more subtle richness that might evoke more emotional response.

I am not usually excited by the visual message of technically impressive macro images of this type, although I readily acknowledge the competence of the photographer, whether exhibited at exposure or in image editing. Looking at some of the other technically proficient macros in his portfolio I am fairly convinced that the result is one without image editing, as the curvature of the drops (wide angle lens effect) can be consistent with the imaging of the flower that we see otherwise as its small central part in the out of focus background to this photo.