chiba

This is more travel than architecture. What are you trying to say, and about which building?

Marc - as I replied to Lannie, defining this as we go is fine, and go beat up dictionary.com if you find that their definitions break a logic rule. What's acceptable as a photograph to you? Anything goes?

 

As an aside, I knew this leaf reminded me of some other images, and now I remember - National Geographic moths.

>We are defining photography as we go.

That's perfectly acceptable to me. Presumably at then end of this thread we'll be closer to a true definition (you can't simply ignore that) of "photograph of the week", and that definition can be posted as the basic criteria for acceptance. Still open to debate of course, but at least some kind of elementary criteria seem necessary. As I said, I have no problem with Juergen's image as art. What I have a problem with is the use of the word photograph. The Elves can decide to push the boundaries of what they define as acceptable, a worthwhile activity as technology changes, but until at least *some* criteria have been established then you're always going to get Luddites like me who'll pop up and object. :o) Rename it vaguely as "image of the week" if you must.

Lannie - it matters. If this was a photography competition with real money as a prize, somebody would definitely define the entry criteria. On photo.net there isn't a definition (that I can find) aside from the title of "photograph of the week". If there's a URL on photo.net to define the criteria more fully, then can someone please supply it? Hmm, I wonder if this was the underlying reason that the Elves put this image up for POW?

Definitions matter in this case, no matter how some may try to belittle them, otherwise one could take any object, for example your posterior, put it into a photocopier and that would be a photograph too. It wouldn't be, it would be a photocopy. Assuming the photocopier survived the process.

According to dictionary.com

 

Telescope

n.

1. An arrangement of lenses or mirrors or both that gathers visible light, permitting direct observation or photographic recording of distant objects.

2. Any of various devices, such as a radio telescope, used to detect and observe distant objects by their emission, transmission, reflection, or other interaction with invisible radiation.

 

Photograph

n.

An image, especially a positive print, recorded by a camera and reproduced on a photosensitive surface.

 

So, a radio telescope is indeed a telescope, but unless you call a scanner or a photocopier a camera, then this image isn't a photograph. Let's define camera, just to be sure:

 

Camera

n.

1. An apparatus for taking photographs, generally consisting of a lightproof enclosure having an aperture with a shuttered lens through which the image of an object is focused and recorded on a photosensitive film or plate.

2. The part of a television transmitting apparatus that receives the primary image on a light-sensitive cathode-ray tube and transforms it into electrical impulses.

3. Camera obscura.

4. pl. cam·er·ae (--r) A judge's private chamber.

 

 

Nothing wrong with this being called art or indeed being called beautiful, but it's not a photograph.

Juergen's a fine photographer, far better than I may ever be, but I don't think this image should be photo of the week. It may be art, but in my opinion it's not a photograph. Maybe everyone has a moment when photo.net jumps their personal shark - I think this is mine.

I have to say it - this is bloody brilliant.

Crop this square?

I like this. Well lit, balanced in the frame, nice tonal range.

The angles are very distracting from the subject.

Very standard, but well shot.

Beautiful. Good balance of light. Ancient castle -vs- modern city lights. Not original but very well executed.

"So, Doris, we've been here and here, so we should go over there now..." Your grass is beautifully in focus by the way, not so the building. What are you trying to tell us about your subject? (Rereading that, pretty harsh, sorry). Look, you categorised this as architecture and the building's one of the finest around, so *show* it to us...

Lovely dramatic sky, kind of uninteresting statue, especially the base.

Just my opinion, but I'd crop an inch off te bottom and a fraction off the left (remove the stump).

OK, so you went for rakish, but it needs more than that. Not interesting, sorry.

Black & white, red filter, make it kind of scary? This is a bit dull; sorry.

Badly blown, or is this what you were aiming for? Like how you filled the frame.

I like this. Good frontispiece for a portfolio. Now go shoot the buildings.

There are some wierd things going on with the perspective here. Feels almost like an Escher drawing. Good sense of 'city' though...

Looks like you had tripod rigidity issues, or maybe a bad film choice. Foreground needs... something.

Firstly, what are you trying to tell us about this building? Secondly, your camera's not level. Crop out the annoying white van in the lower left or wait until he leaves. Lastly, thought about getting a tilt/shift lens?

Unoriginal but well done. Touch more sun would have been nice, but it's hard to arrange unless you're *very* well connected...

In what way is this architecure? The kids in the foreground are a distraction. Either make them part of your shot to show scale or crop them out. Underexposed.