doug elick

I found myself thinking, "what is that"? This image is certainly unique. The color rendition is good and the lighting (filtered through trees I imagine) is more interesting than if this were directly sun lit.

Perhaps its a limitation of using a jpegs and web browsers, but I find myself wanting to see more fine detail. I feel like there's another layer I'm not seeing. Also, my photographic sensibility would have me present this image as a B&W. I think this image is about texture and shadow, which *can* be enhanced by stripping away the color. Regardless, this is a strangely compelling image.

Good work.

I'm tossing a few images over the wall. This one was taken about 8

years ago. Hand held braced against a car, 1/30th sec, scan of a

print. A rather "puckering" situation to be so close to it.

Have at it.

Thanks.

Thought I'd toss a few photos out there. This is a scan of a hand made

print; benevolent mother Kodak severely screwed up the prints and

negatives...this is what I could save. Have at it.

Interesting composition. I think perhaps I would have reduced the depth of field to throw the background out of focus. To my eye, the texture of your backdrop is distracting. I also wonder if you could have used a more specular light source to enhance the shadow's definition without looking looking too harsh.

Overall, I like it. Perhaps I'd like to see more of the shadow in the frame...

"it has been said before this that even with a great camera (such as the D1) there is still the photographer behind the camera, and there is the rub. it can account for some technical proficiency, but there is much more to a great shot isn't there? creativity in composition, timing, intent, spontaneity, execution, even sense of humor; you cannot fake these things. (check out joshua's great folder)"

I agree this is a great photo, but how would you feel if it was but 1 frame out of hundreds of thousands taken with a DV (Digital Video) Cam? Would it still be a great shot because of skill or just dumb luck?

I know the end result is the only part of great import, but it's still frustrating to put much time and effort into getting a lighning photo, for example, only to have some guy with a high end video cam and photoshop "steal my thunder".

Your thoughts?

D.M. Elick

Wierd.....but cool. I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the picture, but keep experimenting. Interesting effect.

Douglas M. Elick

Absolutely gorgeous!! This is one of the most stunning photos I've seen here in a long time; National Geograpic quality even. How a photo of a guy on a motorcycle can get POW and this one doesn't is beyond me.

The only negative thing I have to say about this photo (and it's a minor point) is that there seems to be a dark spot in the center, almost like negative fall-off.

Bravo!

I'd say that you either

A) Have a beat up lens (fungus or plenty of scratches)or ate a pepperoni pizza and globbed a nice fat thumb print there. Open up the aperture, set the shutter to "B", open it and look through the lens at a point source (a light bulb) and see if it's a sharp image or diffuse.

B) You lost contrast from internal relections (e.g. should have used a lens hood)

C) You printed the photo yourself with an old diffuser enlarger with the aperture wide open

D) You printed the photo yourself and your chemicals were exhausted.

E) Any or all of the above.

Am I right?

Mr. Angel should feel very proud of his *photograph*; look at the debate it inspired.

I feel I must submit my counterpoint to some of the posts that were directed towards my previous submission.

Mr. Dilworth said:

"The line between photography and other artistic disciplines has to be drawn somewhere. For example, if

you dont need a lens, film, camera, etc. to create a photograph (which I agree with), then can a painting

be called a photograph? Your eyes (or creative section of your brain, perhaps) sensed the light, you

painted an image with your hand (or mouth or foot) on a surface of canvas. The painting process is as

much like using camera and film as using a flatbed scanner."

I must respectfully (and vehemently) disagree; there is a quite distinct difference between a painting and a scan. A photograph is essentially an image created by focusing light onto a light sensitive medium. Whereas a painting in created by the indirect process of the artist seeing his subject, interpreting it in his mind and rendering it with hand and brush, photography is a direct reflection of reality. Of course with photography, one can manipulate an image, but by nature, photography always starts with a subject that exists in the physical world; I cannot take a photo of something that exists only in my mind. By this benchmark, the image Mr. Angel produced is as much of a photograph as any other on Photo.Net; an image was projected (by the lens in the scanner) onto a light sensetive medium (the ccd). I liken the scanning process a flatbed scanner uses to the way a panoramic camera does it's magic; they both scan across a subject an "reconstruct" the image on a light sensetive medium (physical film or a ccd and computer to render the image).

In the final analysis, weather this week's POW is a true photo or not is a moot point. Only the final product and it's aethetic qualites are of any great import. Do not make the mistake of placing the significance of the process above the end result; at best, the word "photography" only very loosely describes a process. How we use that process, mold, twist and perfect that process is part of the learning process.

Dialogue about the photographic process is only of any value as it relates to production of an image that fulfills the would-be artist's vision. I think that for many of us, there is a love of the old chemical method and any deviance from that frightens us and causes us to unfairly discount anyone and/or their work who do not follow it. I love "old school" photography and will cling to my chemicals and silver halide emulsions 'till the bitter end, but I will not and cannot believe that my fondness of a process will stop the march of time or should invalidate anyone's desire to do things a different way.

I also cannot presume to be so arrogant as to put forth so much effort in an attempt to deconstruct the meaning an artist places on their work with phrases like, "I think the composition just sort of happened when

the unfortunate mushrooms were flung against the cold, cruel glass"; I would much rather ask them.

Rather than argue points of personal preference such as, "depth of field is not sufficient to cover subject fully; subject is mutilated

beyond tolerable limits, highlights are blown out yet shadow detail is lacking in darker areas, colours are

iffy at best" and to presume I know what the photographer's intent was, I prefer to rate photographs on more general merits such as composition, tonality and technical exellence. Who am I to presume the said photo isn't exactly as it's creator intended?

I've noticed that very few of those who render judgement on their fellow Photo.Net members photographs have any work of their own on line. Perhaps having at least one photo available for rating should be a prerequisite for judging other's work? I have much more respect for those who "hang it all out" and can endure the scathing remarks that are sure to follow from the residents of Photo.Net's ivory towers. If you can endure the firey blast of specious comments about specks of dust and why flatbed scans are pure blasphemy from the thesaurus toting, self appointed aristocracy who hold themselves in such high esteem that the air they breath is rarefied to the point their brain suffers from oxygen starvation, you have garnered the respect and admiration from the rest of us who understand that photography is a learning process that never ends.

D.M. Elick

Impressive image, I like it very much. It makes something as ordinary as a mushroom attractive and appealing; this is what photography is all about!

As a photograph, I have to say that I believe the hot spot is a bit too distracting and I wished the image was framed better. Aside from these issues, I think this is a quite striking image. As reproduced by my monitor, I think this image posesses a rich tonal range that many "traditional" photos here on photo.net lack.

I find it simply astounding that this image was recorded with a flatbed scanner; I would never have guessed. Extra praise should be awarded for the above average creativity displayed by Mr. Angel; isn't this what great photography is all about?

I cannot believe some of the painfully myopic statements people have posted to this forum. There's always a few of you out there who make it impossible for me to go an entire week without posting a rant. What will it take to finally drum into your thick skulls that photography at it's very essence, has nothing at all to do with equipment? The single most important photographic tool anyone could ever own is carefully situated between their ears; no gadget, no matter how expensive, can ever replace it.

In makes no matter what tool was used in the capturing and production of a photograph; weather it be a Leica, a Kodak Brownie, a Nikon F4, a view camera, a D1, an oatmeal box, or a flatbed scanner, the only thing that matters is the end result and how it relates to it's creator's vision.

Is a contact print not a photograph because no enlarger was used? Is a photogram not photography because no camera was used? Is an image recorded with a pinhole camera not a photograph because no lens was used? Are X-ray images not photography because no light was used? Step out of the box people! At best, those of you who do nothing but follow the accepted rules will produce nothing more than technically perfect, utterly boring images.

I find this week's photo very pleasing and so would most of you if the artist did not disclose how it was produced.

This is an interesting, well composed photo, but I find the dodge n' burn job done on it a bit too distracting. Perhaps the wierd glow truely is from smoke, but it looks suspiciously like dodging. What I can't understand is why so much; personally, I would like to see a bit more detail in the man's cloak; it seems a bit blown out (at least on my monitor set to 6500K).

Notice the odd dark spot near the cow's head; perhaps it truely is a shadow, but it doesn't seems to "jive" with the apparent light source.

Of course, my comments are highly subjective; I'd like to see a little more contrast, but that's me.

I have to agree with the previous poster who mentions images of exotic locations seem to instantly garner bonus points. However, this is a much more interesting photo than most.

All and all, I like the image, but wish I could see a less zealously dodge and burnt version of it posted.

"I think having a monthly photography project would not only allow us to post up pictures that we otherwise wouldn't but would also give us an excuse to take more photos."

What a great idea! This is the best idea I've seen on PhotoNet for quite some time.

"I lived in Kansas City for 25 years. I don't remember seeing these colours in any thunderstorms or the like. "

Just because you haven't seen something doesn't mean it can't exist. I've never seen a thermonuclear explosion, but I'm quite certain they exist. If you don't believe me, check out my photo folder. I've a shot of clouds near the core of storm that are the sickliest shade of yellow; the color hasn't been altered one bit.

Before anyone rants about how I dared post photos that were scanned with a flatbed, consider this. Not all of us have deep pockets; I can't afford a 'Blad, so I use a RolleiCord, I can't afford a film scanner (or the fee to have it done correctly) so I use my admittedly crappy scanner. The cash I spend to further my photography hobby comes from the same pool that that pays the mortgage and clothes my son. I'll be more than happy to purchase a slide scanner; send me an email and I'll give you the address you can send your check to. That being said, I think PhotoNet is a great place for beginners to have their work evaluated (as long as one ignores pompus comments about daring to use a flatbed scanner or having a power line in a photo).

I think the tornado photo is amazing; one should consider that when photographing a beast as violent as a tornado, one does not have much time to set up the tripod and obsess about lighting values for 20 minutes. Such behavior tends to get one killed. Technical merit aside, I think many of you fail to understand how difficult it is to be in the right place to capture a photo of ANY tornado. I like this photo, if for no other reason, because I know how rare such a shot is.

D.E.

Budding Amateur Photographer

(keep the pompous comments to yourself)

P.S. The following photo was shot around 3 p.m., it was really that nasty.