bjorke

I don't recall HCB ever shooting panos, but this is still a lovely shot -- peaceful and nostalgic even without the title. In fact imo the title interferes with the image, and attempts to over-sentimentalize it. The shot is great without the title -- my favorite I think of all your xpan material on photo.net.

Of all the photos in Aldo's folders this has got to be the least interesting. I can't read all the comments already in here, but:

 

Aldo, congrats on POW. Feel glad that you have many even better shots right here on p.n.

Magnificent color, but surely this is a montage, guessing from the shadows? Beautiful!

I brought this image out to compare the commercial photocd scan of 1996 to my new desktop scanner. Sadly, I discovered:

• how really bad the PhotoCD colors were, and
• that the original slide has been attacked by Hawaiian fungus!

I scanned the original anyway, and posted it as http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=595952 -- the desktop color is better, despite the schmutz

I'm now looking for any of the three or four dupes I made of the slide at the time, perhaps one of them will reveal the original colors more truly. Thanks for the comments, I appreciate them all.

A difficult, high-contrast subject to be sure. Maybe better at a different hour?

Wish the caption told more of this story -- an intriguing image

Why do I think this would make a terrifying jigsaw puzzle? :) Gorgeous.

Beautiful on multiple levels. Does the final version look as perfect on the film?

Rather than post yet another "Photoshop This Picture" a la fark, I've been thinking about photo.net's database and some of the obvious problems with the "rating" system. Here are a few thoughts.

BTW, are those the original colors? I think the framing is okay, it implies the unseen mass of the head -- but the shot still seems rather lacking in the personality department, to say nothing of the fact that if I met this person, I doubt I'd recognize him even after seeing this pic quite a bit. That doesn't make the shot faulty, but it does make me confused about the p.n staff's definition of it as a paragon of portraiture.

A happily original view of a much-photographed site

http://home.hawaii.rr.com/meme/bjorke_aki.jpg

Seems to me that a major bone of contention is whether the image is a photograph (other large bones: is it really a portrait, or just a head; is painted black space useful in a JPEG; etc). Unfortunately, we are somewhat at a loss in the word department. Playing a violin voice on a synthesizer may sound quite pleasant, but it certainly doesn't make you a violinist. In the same way, retouched, synthetic, and heavily-edited images stretch our definition of photographer.

I think "U#2" types are more amenable to a definition of "photographer" more like that of "violinist" -- they expect skill with an acoustic instrument and process. No samplers, synths, or tape delays can cover poor playing, and Photoshop is no excuse for a weak image. At the same time, "U#1" shooters may feel that without those currently-fashionable techniques, they wouldn't get the images they desire, no matter how perfectly the original untouched images are crafted.

For lack of better terms, we call all these sorts of images "photos" and then the turf wars begin. Maybe we just need some new categorical words and people will be happy -- though, like deciding when a kitten becomes a cat, it may be difficult to decide when "straight" spotting becomes retouching, or when retouching ends and photopainting begins.

To make the image above required me to synthesize the entire studio photo technical process -- the camera, the lights, gobos, reflectors, posing, makeup -- but it's certainly no photograph, even if it looks less painted than some "genuine" shots found here on photo.net. What to call it? Does it matter?

Expect the waters to just keep getting murkier as time goes by.

Were they innately Flemmy? Was it "Belgian Tuesday"? Or did you talk to them?

It's rare that people are aware of their emotional states or their motivations AT THE TIME. But as has been said many times by many people, a primary function of the artist is simply to see, and to carry on what he sees to others. This photo is well-seen and whether you were using the camera as a weapon (shades of Gene Smith) or on autopilot (shades of Winogrand) or showing the things that must be changed (Hine), it's a shot that has power and in the best spirit of photography lets the viewer linger on that frozen, delirious moment.

 

Keep, please.

Yeah, true -- one of the problems with using a single image in place of an essay or even an image along with a larger story. Fortunately, the central girl is wearing a WTC memorial ribbon -- though in future years I'm sure people will forget its meaning.

The footprints give the shot an adequate sense of scale -- I don't know that an actual figure would be needed for that.

What's lacking for me is contrast -- the whites reach close to true white but the blacks never drop below gray. Without a range of grayscale values, the result is unduly flat.

this seems oddly off-balance. maybe just my tastes

was this meant to parody Gene Smith's "walk to paradise garden"? (where's the missing girl?)??

seems to be begging for a caption... has a lot of charm alone though

nicely balanced, good color

vertical framing would have made a HUGE difference... darker bg too

this photo doesn't seem finished -- as if you're working out ideas for a better, more direct photo

execution is nice technically, but... that's all most of the frame is wasted

why so much headroom? leaving space for typesetting?

What this photo is missing is a verb.