horrorvacui

Not enough depth of field, too tightly framed, too much objects in the background, the bowl is tilted. You could have placed the fork to create a compositional effect. Must have been just a casual snapshot. Sorry, it doesn't work for me.

 

Cheers

Cropping a photo is not a must. I assume you shot it in "landscape" format, and can imagine it would have been better composition to leave it that way. Leaving some space around the kid while cropping top and bottom tightly around the subject would emphasise the momentary loneliness induced by the "Offense", and increase the emotion generally. The medium format photo format doesn't fit here.

Nevertheless, it's a nice photo.

 

Cheers

I concurr with Pauli. You could also use flash to freeze the motion and bring out the detail between the lamps.

 

Cheers

Whenever people ask about commercial value of a photo, I'm inclined to consider it a crap. Sorry. Otherwise I could say that I don't like it, with or without the wing. Try to remove the bluish cast first and ask me than.

By the way, photographing through glass reduces image quality. Next time, open the window.

 

Cheers

I usualy don't like this kind of photographs, the "Lomography". But this one's very good. There seems to be something going on, and one would like to know more.

 

Cheers

You've clipped the image at the bottom...

Yes, a nice one. I only hope you were indoors while making this photo, as you should always be, lest the lightning should occur close enough to make you feel slightly unconfortable. Or roasted. I like people who use a tripod for long exposures, too bad lightnings like them too. Take care.

About the photo: where does the grain come from? Have you cropped that much? And I'm confused as for the "2 sec exposure" - unless the lightnings come in intervals of 1 sec I would have used bulb. It would be nice if the photo was a bit brighter, but under the circumstances I don't expect you to meter precisely...

 

No additional cropping. The framing is allright, but the bottle really distracts. Cropping wouldn't help, because you'd cut off the bottom of the drum as well. Surely the bottle can be removed in photoshop or photo paint.

I've rated it high, but I'm not sure who got the rating - the photographer or the person shown. Indeed a very impressive pose and expression.

I'd also say it's a bit on the dark side, on the other hand opening up would mean losing detail in the clouds, even though there would be enough left. The very deep blue sky is interesting - have you used a polarisation filter, or is it just the effect of the height?

I'd say photo.net is a photographers community, and not a porno server! You should send this openly and plainly pornographic photo to a right place, say www.adultserver.com or www.porn.com

Besides, are you sure that the individuals you photographed during their sexual intercourse are no minors? Send me some document prooving both individuals are older than 18 years, otherwise I'll have to consider taking legal actions

 

Cheers

So Tony won the Adobe contest. Bloody well deserved it, mate...

Regardless the danger of suspicion I'm trying to invade Mr. Dummet's rectum, I'll say: I'm a big fan of his, not only of his great photography, but also of the good-humoured (though a bit too highbrow) comments on other photographs and photographers, including the skilled thrashing of those who deserved it. The fact that a superlatively fine photographer, who also happens to be a good fellow happened to win the contest is a genuine pleasure to me - my most sincere congratulations.

Now, when I remember that the idea of participating myself has crossed my mind as I saw the announcement... Ridiculous, eh?

 

Tony, if I may ask... The main prize was a copy of Photoshop, so what are the Adobe blokes up to now, assuming you probably have that one - refund? Or just shove over another software pack and let you worry about finding any use for it...

Hey! I've already admired and commented on this before it was chosen for POW - if some of the elves need replacement...

I remember the picture nearly knocked me off my feet when I first saw it. A bloody good job indeed, that. I can only congratulate.

I also remember that originally I wanted to say something like "the fact that you toned it this way that seems very obvious to me now, but I would have never thought of shows how much better a photographer you are, and an artist as well..." - but than got somehow entangled and couldn't put it right - be it because making any kind of comparison between us seemed so inappropriate, be it because I have difficulties in expressing my admiration. Well, now it's time to do so.

By the way, this is the first time I can say that the elves have picked the best picture of a portfolio for POW. So there are more to be congratulated then just the photographer. Thanks, all...

Cheers

A very strong picture indeed... I suppose the original colour print would be strong too, strong enough for me to leave it as is if it was mine. The idea to tone it in this fashion is really admirable, and an idea that would never cross my mind. Congratulations.

I'm glad the owl doesn't represent anything from WWII... Now, I'd be carefull about that, Banks. This being an american bird, could represent a glorification of american bombardments ...

I'll second Mr. Zeiss here - separate rating of æsthetics and originality doesn't seem to account for much - the ratings are nearly always within ±1, they express rather the overall impression than real analysis (whereas I always try to keep it realistic: when rating my own photos, I always rate either Æ:10, O:8 or vice versa).

I needed to be told that this is shot using a non-AF camera to be able to recognize that this really is a bit of a tricky subject to photograph, and I need to consider that I have never seen an owl fly to concurr that this somehow makes it liable for a POW, but then again, I'm not really overwhelmed. A good photo it is, but nothing to take your breath away. Perhaps it's just me, I don't like the shape of an owl - makes me feel an owl shouldn't be able to fly at all. Or perhaps I am just spoiled by this photo of a hayabusa (©, I guess, Suzuki, sorry for the bad scan from a prospect and the negligence at removing the text - it's only to give you an idea). Now, this must have been a difficult shot, even for an AF, if you consider that a hayabusa can fly (dive) as fast as 300 km/h.

 

Cheers

There is a justification to discuss the backgrounds of the picture, folks. After all, a work of art, a photograph here, isn't all about the technical side of it - exactly like this you could insist on discussing Rubens' canvas, Vermeer's colours, Boticelli's brushes as the only suitable subject. Now, all these secondary items are indeed discussed by the art critics, but none of them would come to the idea to compare artists (or the artistic value) only upon technical aspects. If anyone can notice a political aspect in the POW, it's legitimate for him to discuss it.It all seems to boil down to the fact that this is a photo of an american war memorial, for american victims of war. I think you need an effort of will to associate this monument with glorification of any kind of politics. Even if there's no limit to the extent to which a decided mind can misinterpretate anything, please try not to, try to see the photograph as what it really is instead. There is a variety of ways and techniques which could have been used to make this a stupid patriotical, military-glorifying, distastefull propaganda photo; none of which was used.

Mr. Vuksanovic' assumption, the technique used by the photographer could be used to photograph a nazi monument, turning it into a kind of opposite of what the POW is, is really running in neutral. I wouldn't feel a bit different about it if the monument was for the soldiers of Wehrmacht. In fact, here in Austria (and in Germany too) you can see them by scores, every little village has one, most carrying insignia of the Wehrmacht (the swastikas have been probably chiselled out of existance) . Not so impressive like the big american counterpart due to smaller bodycount - yet the bodycount is the only significant difference. Whenever I stop by for a bit of contemplation, all I think is the same I would have thought on the POW location or in front of any memorial of this kind: Nie wieder Krieg. Perhaps it's just me, but I see no reason why anybody should make a difference between people killed by their country's politics, be it USA, be it Nazi germany, Vietnam, Iraq or Serbia: knowing they're killed in a war is just an argument against war and nothing else.

What got me going about Mr. Vuksanovic' comment is the imprint of serbian nationalist propaganda drivel in it, evidently without him being aware of it at all. Looking for Holocaust Industry and its abuse of memory of the greatest atrocity of mankind for petty gains, Mr. Francey? You could have found it here, for this drivel was all about USA being nazis, doing to serbs what nazis did to jews. Not a word of it was nearer to truth than it was intended to be in the first place, of course, but the long and intensive immersion succeded in imprinting this innocent-victim pattern of thought into minds of those who haven't yet seen the real face of or been burned by the politics behind it. I've encountered this far too often, and had to comment on it. I've asked fellow photonetters to forgive my doing it, because I felt it was just as inappropriate as the original posting by Mr. Vuksanovic (which, by the way, probably done no harm whatsoever, the only one aware of the backgrounds being me).

Do not misinterpretate my opposition to your views as standing up to protect US-politics. I am critical about it, but not in the dull, wittless way some of you are. There are shades of gray between black and white, and I can make a distinction among them, but I wouldn't have any interest in teaching anybody to do the same even if this was the appropriate forum to do so. Keep your opinions and I'll keep mine, but bear in mind that you need more than just a hint of a reason to come up with them, especially in a dedicated forum about photography.

And to Mr. Francey: the mere remark about the holocaust being unique has set your mind up and going through mysterious twists to set me up as a target of your hate, forming your perception of my "position" in a prefabricated mould for antics of the representives of the "Holocaust Industry" and their brainless sycophants. Obviously, you're convinced that I'm jewish: "believe it or not, but six million people were not gassed to death and shovelled into an oven in WWII just so you can make an ass of yourself (...)" - excuse me, but this is a clearly antisemitic "argument" typically used against jews. Now, these two together fulfill the requirements for a genuine polemical warfare: if I really was jewish, I couldn't possibly reply to you without (seemingly) confirming that I really am what you accused me of being in the first place. Being really a muslim, I can afford the luxury to insist on what I said, for the likeliness of me being a shareholder of the Holocaust Industry is indiscernible compared to the likeliness of any muslim "brainless sycophant" being repellently antisemitic. I can also afford the luxury of identifying your argumentation as one of a latently or openly antisemitic person abusing this forum to give air to its questionable views, thus making an ass, a nuisance and a (selfcensored) (selfcensored) (selfcensored) of himself.

The holocaust is unique. All the other examples Mr. Francey mentioned (and might care to come up with) had to do primarily with gain/securing of power or teritory and cannot even make it to a close match (unless you resort to simple body-counting). Holocaust was pure genocide. Even if I might agree on some of Mr. Finkelstein's theses (and the observation that not allowing any discussion on the uniqueness of holocaust would be inacceptable) , everybody should be very careful about discussing them; because the fact of Mr. Finkelstein being a jew doesn't impregnate his views against the possibility of being antisemitic. I think it's a very valuable work indeed, for even if it proves useless as a discussion material, it at least will be an excellent way of baiting some naive antisemits out in the open - they'll consider it legitimate to show their opinions if they can reference a book written by a Jew. I know of at least one case where it worked perfectly.

 

 

Sorry for again posting off-theme, but I think Mr. Vuksanovic's posting deserves a reply, even though I by no means wish to drag balcanese conflicts into this forum. By all means I do think it outrageous that somebody can compare even as questionable an engagement like the american in Vietnam with the former nazi regime of Germany - outrageous, for the crime imposed on jews has no comparison in the human history, by far shot not in anything that happened during the petty engagement he's really thinking of. All those exaggerating and low whinings, pledging everybody to take their side, despite of all the facts, despite of reality, despite common sense - how unbearable, how low, how fed up I am by it all.
I know what you're whining about - please keep it out of here. It's out of place. A monument for casualities of war doesn't have anything to do with glorification of whichever politics. The monument is composed of stone plates bearing the names of those who fell - not imploring the visitor to glorify the cause they fell for (or because of), just showing their names, their number, and hopefully driving a shudder before the thought of war into all those watching.
Vietnamese might possibly be right to object to something in this monument, or the photo thereof. You are not. For everything that happened to you "on the verge of the new millenium" was something you were in for, and darned bloody well deserved, if you ask me.
My excuses to all photonetters for having to say this. I have spoken, and I won't say anything more on the subject.
As far as the POW is concerned - I don't like it very much. I don't really think there's much of a "concept" in photographing reflections, it's rather something you'll have automatically if you try to photograph the monument (unless you supress it), and something you simply have to have unless you want just brighter letters on a darker background. I would have liked the photo much more if the letters on the left hand plate weren't stepping forward, if they were without the significance they're given by being legible. I also think focussing more on the people would have done the picture good (if manual focus is available at all on this - very impressive - digital thingy). And I'll leave it entirely to americans among us to judge the emotional and overall value of it - I restrain from rating this time.

Cheers

This photo has no effect of me but to convince me that the effort I invest in photography is wasted, because I cannot judge a photo. The thing is: I don't like it. Moreover, if I was the one to take it, it would never get to be a picture of the week, for simple reason that I probably wouldn't even consider posting it (even though until now I only have posted pictures which I dislike or consider poorly done). The reasons are: it seems just too dark overall - I know this is intentional, common sense should prevent us from exposing a dark murky day into blazing brightness, nevertheless brightness I miss. Then I would have hated the photo because of the bright sky and its reflections slicing the picture in two - even if the cut is as well-placed as here, it disturbs me just like a smear of dirt on my spectacles sometimes does. I'don't want to say that I dislike it completely, but I fail to see anything exceptional about it.

This said, I wonder if use of fill flash would have improved or devastated the shot? Maybe it would have pronounced the raindrops enough to leave no doubt about the rain (which I didn't recognize at first), or maybe it would have pronounced the raindrops too much, rendering everything beyond a couple of metres invisible? I can't tell, I never used flash in rain, so if anyone did - what do you think?

I admit I've been drawn towards this one by the fact that it's a nude, but that's not all... This is a fabulous picture about femininity, and it's such fabulous a picture because there's a sound dosis of femininity in front of the lens and behind the camera. Congratulations. Those bars are such a splendid idea - if until now I had half a chance of shooting an act, envy would be oozing out of my pores for not having the idea myself.
The main thing that strucks me about this picture is that it's so free of any of so typical artificialness (artiness, art-imperativeness) always produced by men - like peaking through a keyhole, while pretending they're doing it for a higher cause. How much different it is when all pretences are dropped, especially when, in fact, there are none to be dropped at all. This is the first act after a very long time that hasn't made me wonder why on earth this pose, why this accessories, why this lighting, why taking the picture at all. It's just there, as if it has always existed, as if it has created itself - as it actually might have.
I wish we had more female photographers here. I don't say that in hopes of seeing more good nudes, but only because it's so interesting to see things in a somewhat different way.

I like the photo. The idea with leaving what everybody takes for main subject out of focus is one worth having. I'd only like to object to not having the girl as a whole in the frame. The way it is now, it just seems like the girl happened to unintentionally walk into the frame, and you happened to unintentionally press the shutter release.
- "Och, Verzeihung"
- "Macht nichts. Und jetzt gehen sie bitte gütigst aus dem Kader raus."
If she was to be seen as a whole, I would have thought anything type of: "Aha, she's the main subject, but she's blurred - the photographer wants to tell me the city/location interests him more than some nobody - or does he want to say that individuals lose their individuality in a big city?"... And so on. Here, I wasn't so sure about it.
If you care about an advice: if you do anything that looks like technically bad photography (out of focus, under- or overexposed, blurred), make sure everybody can tell right away that it's intentional, and not possibly think you can't operate your camera or the camera is broken down - which most of non-photographer casual point-and-shooters will do. As an example: a former girlfriend of mine wouldn't believe me my russian Zenit SLR at the price of 90 Euro is photographically superior to her 300 Euro-automatic-zoom-gadgety point and shoot, so we took photos of the same motive, a tree in front of a dense foliage of bushes. As the prints came out she triumphantly said: "Look! There you have it! Mine's sharp overall, and the background on your photo's all blurred." Now, you might expect your public to know about depth of field and using it to emphasise something, but the mechanisms of viewing are always the same, and the first impression is very important. My first impression is described by the above imaginative dialogue.

I suppose I just want to comment because I shot a similar motive few days ago, and it turned out to be rather horrible - quite as I guessed, because what I visualised happened to be impossible to shoot, especially in terms of composition - couldn't frame it right short of digging myself in - and I managed to underexpose it as well (it's in my portfolio, have a look, if you dare).

If you allow someone like me to comment: If I were you, I would have shot from a lower angle (aside from probably bloody underexposing it), to show at least the branch basis against the hell stripe in the clouds. And I would have either moved left, to "take aim" across the trunk to the sun, or moved right to leave no doubt that the bad "aiming" is intent. Rather the latter, with the sun in the middle of the frame, in the approximate centre of rightmost branches. Probably blowing it up? Yes, surely...

Doesn't matter. I like it, like it more than any of my own. You'll have to wait for somebody better than me to comment, I should rather be taking than giving advice to you. Congratulations, good shot.

A damn good picture, no question about this - if only you cold have dropped that disturbing copyright note in a very important area of the picture (I'd prefer the note over the dark grass in the lower right corner, if you can't avoid having one). And if only you could have left the edges unblurred...

But never mind my objections, they're bred on pure envy. Great job. Isn't this what photography - at least the artistic fraction of it - is really about? Umberto Eco once defined an artistic object as something that makes you feel there's more to it then just what it seems to represent? Stretched widely, this definition might fit to anything, but if there's a person behind it, whose intent to make you feel this way is noticeable - it's the definition of art I've adopted myself. At least one of them. I don't intend to praise the picture for more than it is - you probably won't get immortal by having taken it, and that's just right - but you have the honour of being able to say something about yourself that most of men couldn't without telling a lie - that at least once in your life you've created something artistical. And that's where my envy is hooked in. I hope I'll get to achieve this before I have to take my leave...

And to all of you fellow photographers out there: do more of this kind of stuff. I don't suggest you to run around taking pictures of birds flying in circles near trees (and that's what I think those birds are really doing) - just let us care less about the technical aspects and use our skills as mere tools, creating... Yeah, art.