jim_gardner4

I like this very much for two reasons. Firstly, the composition, lighting etc are all wonderful. Secondly, how refreshing to see that someone is still willing to show a photograph of a child with no clothes on without being afraid of all the crazy "you cant do that" comments. A lovely shot which we can all enjoy purely as a photograph without worrying that we may get locked up.

Well done Oliver, a very well executed shot with a humerous side.

Hans-Peter, thanks for your comments, they are helpfull. To answer all your questions would take up a lot of space here but I can say briefly how I rate photos. If I think a photo is average I will rate it 4. I try not to let my own taste get in the way of rating. As an example, if I was rating a colour shot of a football match (which I dont get at all) the fact it was something I didnt particularly like shouldnt mean I wouldnt rate it high. On the other hand, a black and white nude may still be rated low if, for example, a flash lead was visible in the shot. That is obviously the short answer.

If I had to rate the above photo, I think I would give it a 4 or possibly 5. 

Yes I would say this photograph works and what makes it work is obviously the pigeon. Without the pigeon I think the shot would seem quite flat visually although the sunlight coming across the daffodils and onto the grass helps it no-end.
The dead area (no pun intended) bottom left does not help the overall ballance and it would be easy to suggest the photo would be better if Ugur had been further to the right. This may have filled this dead area and meant the pigeon was infront of the light coloured monument in the background. That said, we dont know what else may then have intruded into the shot and that would rely on the pigeon playing ball and flying through the same space.

Depth of field looks good in as much as more DoF would mean we were not drawn in the same way to the bird. This would then also mean a slower shutter speed and the pigeon would then be quite blurred.

If Ugur knows/knew any of the people "in the photograph" it would obviously be a very personal shot to him but even if not I think he should be proud of his efforts.

John, thats a fair shot. It shows movement in the wheels which is obviously very important and background blurr which is a must. However it doesnt show the rider. Could you have got a position where he was going round a right hander and therefore getting off the other side of the bike? Also, if I were taking it I would show a little more space in front of the bike. I think this gives a sense of the bike riding into a space and also speed.

I agree with Mark on this. It looks a great shot already and the scratches may distract from it. It almost looks "pinholey" which may have also worked well if the model could have kept still long enough.

Mark. Yes thats right. Its a look I really like in some photographs but I cant say why. I used the same technique in the shot of the cases I have. Polly Chandler uses it to magical effect in a great many of her photographs.

Fantastic. It could be a portrait, a nude, a study or all of those things.

Excellent, I love it.

A truely beautiful shot in every respect. I will remember it and use for insperation.

The model quite likes it but she would like to know what others think.

Thanks.

If the sign and post were not there I would like it so much more but I assume it was a quickly taken shot without time to pose the people or get a different viewpoint. If it was posed etc I guess it would be a portrait, not what I assume, is a street shot.
I like the grittyness to the shot and by that I mean harshness, nothing to do with grain etc and would have been pleased to have taken it. In fact the more I look at it the more I like it. Is the nearest woman about to turn round to see what the person behind her is doing? Will she wait for the rain to stop or just run for it? Would it make it to the wall or a frame? No.

Really great shot Oleg. I love everything about it except, that little something that looks like a wire at the bottom of the wall the girl is leaning on. I cant help but see it. Apart from that, perfect.

Wow! Moan,groan and bar humbug. I have never commented on potw before or indeed read much about it BUT, in this post alone there are several references to the fact that potw in not chosen because it is the most technicaly perfect or constructed photograph. If its dead, its dead. I have seen plenty of photographs of dead people. Is that worse because its a person or better because its more serious? Really, I'm interested.

Anyway, the photo; personally it doesnt flick my switches dead or alive but I still think its a good photo. It does make you look (yes it does,everyone posting on it has looked) and the out of focus points dont hurt at all in my opinion, if fact they make it look more real. I agree it could do with more contex which should have been possible given the situation but on the whole I think its a good photo even though personally I dont like it that much.

I say well done Jim and well done to photo of the week people for using it. It has definately provoked discussion.

Maurizio, thank you. 99%+ of what I do is film based rather that digital so yes I will post some more as soon as I get round to scanning some prints that will fit in my scanner.

Cracking shot. The pose, lighting ,tones, all spot on.

Fantastic shot which is made for me by the angle.

When printed in the darkroom, I like this, but would value other peoples

thoughts.

Anca, whata agreat shot. I think its the depth of field and the subjects pose that make it for me. Tell me, is it on private land or did you hope no one came walking along?

A shot from a £15 Nettar 30 minutes after buying it. For an old folder

(camera not me), I was fairly pleased. Your thoughts?

A 35mm shot taken a long time ago. I have never done anything with it

but may get it printed one day.