mike dixon

Gerry,

 

It's true that most of the people in this thread don't like your photo--they've explained in detail what they like and don't like about it and why. That's the purpose of the POW: generating discussion of the image. It's unfortunate that you're upset about people not liking your photo, but the people explaining their opinions aren't doing anything wrong. You're the one who is repeatedly violating photo.net's Terms of Use with name calling and personal attacks.

I'm going to join the chorus of folks who agree with Fred G. about this image. Without the over-the-top processing and the dismal title, it could have been a good image. As presented, it's a garish caricature.

 

I also agree that there's no way a viewer would know that the title refers to what she said about the background. The natural interpretation is that the title refers to the foreground subject: the woman.

"The light intensity seen on the wood suggests a bright Sun was present."

 

Yes, a bright sun was present--lighting the back of the subject. Most of the scene is in the shade. The exposure settings are quite reasonable for the conditions.

Sucks! ;)

No offense, Joe, but your claims that simply pointing a camera in the direction of a beautiful woman is enough to get a nice-looking photo (much less a stunning photo like Stephane's) is a sure indication that you've never actually tried to produce this kind of work. True, there are other people--make-up artists, stylists, assistants, and the model herself--who deserve their share of the credit, but coordinating their efforts in order to get ones vision onto film is not a trivial task.

 

There are a few minor, technical nitpicks I can come up with (though I think the shadows on her right cheek are a strong point of the image--they beautifully define the shape of her face), but I think the overall effect is very pleasing.

The light on the woman is from the left, on the frog it is from the right. In the real world, you wouldn't expect interior and exterior lighting to be like that, but it is slightly distracting in this shot.

Actually, the light on the woman is a diffuse source directly in front of her (the window) with the intensity falling off as her body is angled away from the light source. The light on the frog is a diffuse, directional light from the right (what you'd get in a shaded area on an overcast day). The lighting is entirely consistent with what you'd find in the real world.

Thanks again to everyone for the comments and the interesting discussion. In answer to Carl's question, I'm sure he was aware I was taking photos, but it was not a posed shot in the sense that I was directing his actions. I doubt that he was posing for my camera because his behavior seemed no different when my camera was pointing at him than when it was not, though there is always the issue when photographing people in public of how the way they present themselves to others differs from how they conduct themselves privately.

 

A final technical note: I know my camera, my meter, and the films I use--the in-camera exposure and subsequent development were on target. The web image loses contrast and detail in the shadows--I've yet to discover the secret for preserving subtleties in dark areas in a jpg file viewed by a web browser. Of course, several people simply disagree with the choices I've made in how the image should look. I don't take such disagreements personally.

 

Tom, I haven't tried my hand at filmmaking--I can barely afford still photography. ; ) I think directing would be a wonderful challenge, but I hope that I'd have the advantage of working with a good cinematographer (as well as quality script and actors) since my sensibilities in that area are undeveloped.

Thanks, everyone, for your thoughful commments, and thanks also for an intelligent discussion centered on photographic issues. When I first received an email notice that one of my images had been selected as POW, I cringed at the thought of what carnage might follow. ; )

 

To answer the simple technical questions: I exposed Delta 3200 at EI 3200 (using incident metering) and developed it in Xtol diluted 1:2. The image was printed on Ilford MG WarmTone.

 

The ragged border is largely a matter of laziness on my part--it's much easier than carefully adjusting the easel for every workprint I make. (Exhibition prints are also printed full frame most of the time but with a clean black border and white matte.) I generally make my framing decisions at the time of exposure (though this sometimes means composing with a certain crop in mind), and I get little benefit from second guessing myself. [Of course, by submitting images for comment, I realize I'm inviting people to second guess my choices--have fun!! I enjoy seeing how different people interpret and react to the photos.]

 

I don't want to dampen the discussion by going into too much detail, but I will say that the print looks the way I want it to look, and the web image is a reasonable, though imperfect, facsimile of the print. One final note re the brightness of the hand relative to the bottle: the reflective characteristics of rough, dry skin are quite different than those of a wet, smooth bottle and label.

Good photo. I see that bad hotel decor is universal . . .

 

I think Matt's comment was the funniest critique of POW critiques I've ever read.

Scott, if you want to unleash your usual venom on her for daring to state political views that don't match your own, I don't suppose I can stop you. It's ironic, however, that you despise the Taliban so much when you also propose and support the murder of many thousands of people (bombing Berkeley) simply because they live in a location where not everyone shares your narrow and hateful political views.

Considering the sign is so huge it fills 50% of the frame, having it remain red seems a bit heavy handed. I don't really see an antiwar protest, either--I just see two people holding a really big sign (and even they look uninterested).

 

As an ironic statement, though, it's quite good. It shows a complete lack of emotion by those supposedly protesting. I've seen more outrage expressed at a church softball game . . .

I took a look through your folders. Does it actually improve your self esteem to raise your ratings by going through and giving yourself 10/10 scores then logging in under a couple of other names and doing it again?

Very cool. I like the blurring of the face as you're looking around. I've done my share of riding in unfriendly traffic, and your photo does an excellent job of conveying the feeling of being threatened from every direction.