john_a5

Fred, and that's the wonderful thing about all of this. For me, the overall lack of sharpness is what helps this. I think it gives it more of a sense of immediacy rather than being more staid. It has its problems either way, but for me these things end up helping it.

Focus is one of those things that can often be overrated. It is important when it is but its absence can take an image to other places when used effectively--alla Sarah Moon for example.

I agree that this image is a pretty ordinary scene but that it does have a "something" about it that is also pretty nice (not the toning, however).

Having had two golden retrievers--which are some of the most independently minded dogs--I relate to this scene and I think the less than extraordinary setting and nonchalance of the second dog pulls the image back from where it might have gone. (I realize these aren't Goldens)

The magenta appears more to be a vignette gone wrong as it wrap around the outside like a "containment" procedure (edge burn) would. This can often happen if one is working a b/w image in rgb and works above a neutralizing layer.

I tend to ignore titles, but I think this one portends what might have been if the setting was a bit more mysterious. Right now, "the unexpected" seems only the when he will need to pull out his doggy waste bag.

That said, I still find the image interesting, but maybe just because the treatment (blur) is so unexpected for such an ordinary event.

Sometimes things are just what they are...

I guess I see this image as a document of an event that one would document if one were shooting a wedding--or the client would want to know why! Now, some might have chosen to come in tight on the two while here Nicolaie decided to also record the context as well as the event. For me, I think that is more interesting as the spotlight is maybe a bit less common while it also lends to giving less options to the photographer's viewpoint (without getting their shadow into the shot). As such, and having no control on the positioning of the people, you sort of get what you get and you look to make the most of it, which I think was done here.

What I like is the fact that the "blacks" aren't blank and we can still make out the man's complete outline, rendering him both a shadow and a presence. I find some of the other interpretations here interesting and might be fun to ponder although I doubt anyone involved here would even go near this....Mrs. Robinson???

I think the image works fine for what it is, a document of a moment with a little creative decision making that makes it a bit more special than some other alternatives may have.

As I read the responses here and looked at the image I think there are a lot of indications that this image was probably recovered from a somewhat underexposed image..maybe more than somewhat. What I see in the face that is being referred to, I believe, as the difference between gritty and dirty are essentially post processing artifacts, what you get when you try to recover tone that isn't there but keep contrast--similar to the posterized look that was mentioned.

Technically, I do think there are a lot of issues that have been mentioned and I do feel the image is a bit cramped in the framing as it is--what is the rounded protrusion on the bottom of "her" right side? Anyway, lots of room at the top but seems truncated at the bottom.

Not suggesting the image is terrible in the overall attempt, just needed to be better exposed and processing issues would probably be remedied.

Lex, oddly, when I first joined PN about 10 years ago I did it under a pseudonym that could have been thought as female. I didn't post photos and yet got hit on more than a few times when all I ever did was make comments on the POW and images.

Not sure it takes any explicit motivation for some......

OK, Fred McMurray in "My Three Sons!"...glad there is soneone out there who cares..... ;))!

addendum to my last post...

Just looked at Alfonso's website and it makes me wonder. The work there has much more substance there than what we see in his portfolio here--in fact, it makes you wonder why the difference--is it pandering to the audience on these pages or....?

My first hit from this image is sort of Fred McMurray in "Father knows Best".

Although I am not a big fan of highly processed images, this one seems a bit more tame than many I saw in Alfonso's portfolio and think it would probably have more application than many of the more over the top images might. From a technical aspect, the construction of the image, it is actually pretty well done and even the processing holds a certain line that I would see very applicable in today's commercial market. But the inconsistency, from fairly straight forward to fantastical in the portfolio leaves me a bit cold--not a photographer I would be willing to hire nor take too seriously overall. Regardless of style, consistency of presentation is an important factor IMO.

For me, what makes this image most interesting are those things that one might not normally consider if one were to visualize this image rather than actually photograph it.

Things like this odd door and what appears to be a completely nonfunctional cap. The short white line that breaks the symmetry and suggests a road and yet there is no curb to separate the pedestrian from traffic. The obvious pedestrian “path” in the wet that the individual is following faithfully and yet no “path” indicated of vehicular traffic.

I think the image becomes a bit more that just a predictable graphic with these elements that end up allowing us to wonder rather than just embracing.

Symbolism. I thought, immediately, that this image has a strong message although I didn’t really know the context other than what I see symbolized in the image. That strength comes through as I recognize what appears to be a banner with the image of Jesus as the Sacred Heart. This gave me meaning to this man’s gesture, which seems like he is blessing himself with the sign of the cross. Combine this with his disheveled look, downward gaze, the crowd and the partial words including “stop" and I sense that there is something of significance happening here--maybe something more powerful than what can be addressed by humans alone. It makes me want to know more.

Like Fred, I don’t know that I was satisfied as I looked at the adjacent images but I still feel that this one communicates something of the human condition and has a power within it that I just didn’t find in the others I viewed--if they are even related to what is going on here.

As I have said in the past, I do try to look at an image and determine what its purpose is and then judge it on that basis.

Here, the open, even light tends to suggest that detail is more important than drama. A commercial differentiation between say a catalog shot for a middle market audience versus a branding type image for an elite sports company. In that respect, the lighting is a bit hot in some places, including on parts of the background where we experience some flare into the body of the subject. It isn’t awful but not ideal either. The cyan/green cast isn’t unfamiliar if one has slightly underexposed a background like this, especially with digital. Here, even the hair has cyan notes in it as does the tube (?) top, so maybe there's just a slight color shift overall that needs some attention, not an intention for this color.

So, again, the light is set for detail and yet we have this foot hiding much of the pose’ detail—and what seems the most critical detail possibly. What we end up with is a somewhat jumbled confusion of toes. I think there could have been many different angles that could have really made this intersection of elbow, foot and extended leg-foot much more elegant and, well, visible--or maybe that would have emphasized the geometry. I also think there would probably be a lot of other angles that would complement this pose and one could even create more a sense of dynamics if that were desired. (I wondered how a lower angle might create something more unique.)

So, certainly I can appreciate the strength and flexibility of this young woman but this is a photograph of something that is, I am certain, repeatable and not a singular moment, so I don’t think I can give kudos based on the woman’s pose, except to her. I just end up not finding a good reason for using this angle for doing this shot—although I have seen wonderful images where more foreshortening was done and a “new” creature was created, like having a foot for a body, strange “legs” and “wing” (almost chicken like).

Again, just a critique of this photo, which I don’t think succeeded on any level particularly and certainly, as others have suggested, is not on the same plane as many of Raymond’s other work.

Sergio, I think like Fred said, the issue isn't manipulation but rather this specific manipulation. I think your reference to the other two photographers on this site, Gentry and Bova, would be good ones for you to visit and compare the way you have rendered your colors, in this image, to their use of color.

People have a tendency to react to the least desirable element and thus most have balked here due to the over use saturation and contrast, something that is not the case with almost all of the works by the two you mentioned above. Their use of color is a bit more subtle, even when they do push it, than your result here.

Certainly, that doesn't mean you have to use color the way they do but if they are people you look to for reference, then such a comparison might give some perspective to the comments you have gotten here on this image.

When I first looked at this image yesterday morning, only Anders and Julie had commented and I was looking at it on an older laptop, which desaturates and reduces contrast on most images. Although not the type of image processing I find attractive, I couldn’t understand the problem with the color—which just seemed expressive—and I saw some nice elements in the composition.

I switched to my primary system to comment and then it was pretty clear what others had (and have been) commented on with regards to the color—and contrast. Different cooking or overcooking, that is probably a fair question—and then, depending, I suppose, on one’s computer’s interpretation, it might also be the venue it is being consumed in.

Personally, I pretty much end up, on the color and processing, where most others have here, but I do like the compositional devices used here. Primarily, I think the off-axis tilt really changed the dynamics of the image as well as the relationship between the man and the primary woman—he leans towards her rather than the other way around, which I feel adds to their connection psychologically. The crop, which is more than what was done in the “original”, adds to the effect of the imbalance caused by the canted frame to really emphasize these two people and makes the image a bit more intimate. And, of course, the fact that they are the only ones gazing at “that” place also adds to the bond between them.

So, I will probably go eat somewhere else but do find other parts of the image's structure appealing, it's just the sauce that ends up turning me away.

On one level, I do understand the various comments about the color of the grass, we tend to expect a certain level of reality. But here, I think it serves this image very well--as does the overall color treatment.

There is what I would consider an overall bluish shift here, which does, along with his clothing hint at cooler weather(but not too cold as there are no gloves). The pinkish overcast sky certainly refers to rain, but I also think that the lush, rich color of the grass alludes to a sense of fertility (richness) of the soil. This guy is working hard but it doesn't come across as desperation farming--like in the time of the US dust bowl or during drought. His work will pay off, or at least that is the sense of things.

So, to me the saturated and rich green is almost a symbol of the soil there, saturated and rich and I can enjoy it for that (and maybe a reflection of this man's hard work--metaphorically--that the land will yield for him). I think it can be, like we might see in a painter's work, an expressive choice and doesn't have to be "real" or rendered as such. But certainly, just as with a painting, some might feel things go too far but maybe some license should be given to personal expression in that decision.

Of course, there is always Steiglitz image, Spiritual America to add fuel to this discussion. I got the connection immediately and think it might be worthwhile for those interested to read the description on this link.

If one looks back at the original comments, Michael also posted a black and white version which appears to not have the blur applied. I would suggest that this effect wasn't needed here, the emphasis is squarely on this man without any extra device. This blur does take some attention away from the subject, although, a more organic blur might have integrated a bit better--but, as I said, is really not needed, IMO.

Basically, I find this image rather compelling. The man, who is the obvious central focus of the image. His canted angle, with that slight dip in his shoulder while his arms are outstretched, controlling various "parts" of the process while his intense eyes coordinate the whole effort all work to create a wonderful sense of purpose, work and toil. This was a powerful moment to capture.

Even the color shifts here seem to work well with this. The blur, which seems to have been done in post, could be less for my taste, but the image is still impactful and maybe "some" of this makes it that much more so.

Now, I don't think this ruined the photo, but I did find the posture of the horse quite a bit less dynamic, with its feet so close and near vertical but the near perfectly, horizontal nature of the top of the body might be the real culprit here. I felt that this ended up lowering the tension and power of the scene quite a bit. Michael did find a solution in the original comments when he posted a crop where he brought the top of the frame down into the horses body. This eliminated the more restful, horizontal impression of the horse and I think that gave more force to the position of the legs. It also got rid of some superfluous sky, which also helped to focus us on the energy of this man. For myself, as I scrolled down on the image, I don't think I would have eliminate quite as much of the horse as Michael did, probably cutting just a bit into that triangular harness strap, the shape of which I think does help with the dynamics here. (note all the other triangular shapes formed throughout this image as well) This type of change, the cropping from the top, does seem to restore the power lost by its inclusion.

This is a very nice image overall.

I actually will often use this sort of effect on color images as well. In that case, I will cool off the darker areas while slightly warming the lighter tones. This has to be done very subtly (and custom to each image--sometimes its not possible to do it well, so I don't do it!), avoiding odd color casts, but can be very effective in increasing the perceived depth of an image.

Just the opposite, but it is a combination with the darker tones receding more rather than advancing and flattening out the image. The lighter tones don't turn as cool and don't recede--as much at least.

Anders, it is essentially basic color theory. Cool colors recede while warm colors advance.

Selenium toning works differently on different silver gelatin papers. On some, it would neutralize the tendency for the silver image to have a slight greenish cast, when not toned, while with others (like the ones Bruce and Adams used --later papers), it could move the image to a bit more cool-ish purple cast, particularly in the dark and mid-tones.

(Of course, it could also split tone an image like Misrach did with his early series, Night Desert. In this application, it could move certain tones a bit reddish, but this is not the effect I am referring to in this case but did become somewhat popular for a period of time after Misrach's work became known.)

Lannie, I thought your analysis of what you did and what you might now consider doing to be pretty right on although, certainly, the final adjustments always depend on how they affect the image when we start working on those areas. For my personal work, I will refine these sorts of things over a fairly long period of time.

But, since you guys are getting into these sorts of things, what do you all think about the slightly yellow/green cast here. Online, the images I linked to are neutral, but in person (the silver prints anyway) were nicely cool due to the selenium toning. This brought a great sense of depth to those images. Even though the "tint" here is pretty subtle--5-6pts yellow and 1 green, this does affect perceived depth of the image.

Lannie, my comment was in reference to your linked image a few entries above, not the POW.

But I believe this is another view of the same place as the POW to add to the Evan's image.

Seriously, Julie, why do you assume I don't know Evan's and his work--or admire it as you do?!? That just adds to the insult. I said it wasn't the assignment to Evan's but rather the insinuation, in your scenario, that I was somehow intolerant of progress and variety.

Please do a little research before you make your assumptions, there is plenty of information with regards to my background available by link here and on-line--seriously.....

Julie, I just didn't get that hit from this image--as I have described here-- but certainly understand the principle of what you are saying. We just never know where a seed might get planted and that might be immediate stimulation or something that germinates over time. So, I was very serious when I suggested that I thought it was great that you and Anders did get something of value here even though I did not.

I also don't think "like" is an issue with regards to the success of any image. "Like" is over rated and often related more to what is known and familiar-stasis if you will-- than it is to growth and progression in most cases.

Maybe it is because I have used this lens (effect) extensively over the years (with five different camera systems) that I don't get the same take you guys do. Familiarity can certainly make us more resistant but it can also make us more demanding. It can also just be an issue of what we need at the time. For myself, I neither saw an aesthetic purpose nor did I experience the type of revelation you experienced. But the discussion, which I think is useful when we discuss issues, and don't project personalities, is always of great value.

So, yes, I felt your characterization was a bit presumptuous regardless of what you see as the validity in Evan's points, it just shows, in my opinion, that neither you nor Anders actually understood (his statement insinuating that Stephen and I weren't being open minded somehow) what I was saying. I wasn't insulted because you suggested that I was like Evans but rather felt the insinuation in that scenario that I was somehow limited to understanding or appreciating progressive works or variety in the field of photography was just off putting. 'nuf said!

"...but for me it just looks gimmicky and off."

Fred, I think this is sort of the point that Anders and Julie weren't seeing here--they appear to have made other connections that have escaped many of us, which is great. What isn't so great is to assume others have some sort of staid view of what photography should be just because of a difference of opinion as to the effectiveness of a given image.

The reason I ended up dismissing this "gimmicky" nature of this image because I didn't see that as part of Michael's sensibility--whereas often that is more apparent in someone's stream whether it is over use of any effect to the end of it being just about effect and not the content of the image. That is all fine and is part of the journey for lots of us at one time or another. I just didn't see that here although by itself, it certainly might seem to be such. (Commercial work is a good place to look for technique/effect--even ones that have intrinsic substance--that is so overused, and thoughtlessly so, that it becomes trite--used for effect not substance)

In the same way you suggest about Hitchcock's work, I think the work of Coburn and Kertesz had substance and purpose which I just don't see in the POW. But, again, I think the POW is fun in its own way it just doesn't take me anywhere nor will it stay with me as it might if it were my own memory.