jeremy jackson

Hi Pnina, I think it's an aboriginal name deriving from the "healing" powers of the water. The lake actually sits on top of one of the largest unexplored cave systems in the world. The water drains in to this system and the lake virtually disappears in late fall and winter prior to runoff. JJ

My sense is that the snow on the tree branches should probably be a little brighter than the snow on the ground because light would pass through the snow on the branches from all directions thereby illuminating it more fully. Light does not pass through snow on the ground in the same way. I think I see a shadow cast from the foreground tree (behind and to the right), it's just subtle because the light is not full sunlight. Zsolt, you said exactly what I was thinking. JJ

Hi Pnina, the area of grass in the mid-ground is a lake at some times of the year. The last time I was here, the place where I stood to make this image was under water! Thanks for your interest in my images. Jeremy

Thanks again John. I'm looking at the following page from the course:

http://char.txa.cornell.edu/media/evaluati/evaluati.htm

It says on this page:

"we will be looking at objects from the point of view of function. This means that the first thing we need to determine in each case is the real intended purpose of the object. If we are not clear about the function, we will not be able to make a sensible judgement."

Let's replace the word object with image and just clarify that "sensible judgement" means according to the author:

Employing "a set of criteria that can be used to make objective judgements about the success or failure of the visual components of functional design".

Is there general agreement that we need to know the intended purpose of an image in order to use these 11 criteria to judge its success or failure?

The reason I ask is that, in this case, if the intended purpose was to make an illustration for a children's fiction book about storms and sailing, our judgement of the success or failure of the image would have to be completely different than if the intended purpose was to make a photograph representing a real storm event at this location. If the purpose is a use in a children's book, then would'nt concerns about digital rain and fake men in windows be irrelevant to whether the image is successful or not?

But since we almost never know the intended purpose of the photographer, how is it possible to use these 11 criteria in an objective way (the earlier promise of the author that I cited a few posts ago)? JJ

Thanks John, I found it. The author suggests 11 criteria for judging the success of a visual design but only for functional objects. Do you know of any such course/material for judging the success of photographs? Jeremy

John, thank you for the link, I think you have provided that to us before in this forum. I noticed that the author of the course promises:

"There are objective criteria by which we can determine whether or not a work is successful ("good"). We will be looking at these criteria later in the course."

So I read the course (is that the whole course...this page and the links?) and I found only one specific reference to these criteria:

"some form of balance can be identified in most successful compositions."

Did I miss something? JJ

Virginia, I never defined photography so I'm not so sure how you can take issue with my definition of photography. By the way, I don't

have my own definition of photography. I don't play that futile philosopher's game. JJ

Virginia, I think that you are absolutely right that photographers are free to do whatever they want and explore their own artistic vision in any way they desire. That's none of my business. But if I ask for a play and I get a movie, that is my buisiness.

Fred makes a good point that photo.net allows this sort of thing so I really have no grounds to object to it as a POW. It just seems to me at least that we never really get going with photographic critiques when we are presented with this sort of thing (yes, we sometimes have lots of interest as Gerry Gentry can attest to, but it's rarely of a substantive photographic nature). There are so many incredible photographers here on this site and so much to learn about the craft of photography that it seems a shame to me at least that we are so often bogged down here with these hyper-manipulated art projects.

But at least Arthur did say that this image is more art than photography (I completely agree with that Arthur) and Fred implied that this is a denial of photography. I guess I'll just have to live with that for now. Best, JJ

Fred, language matters. What we call this would not change this obviously, but it would change how this is involved in our lives. We are not required to critique sculpture or line drawings in this forum just because they aren't called photographs. A line drawing looks the way it looks, but we are not asked to critique those here.

Maybe, if we got our words to match the new reality with which these sorts if things present us, modern photographers might more readily recognize what they are doing and stop doing it....or at least do it in a different forum so photographers aren't put in the impossible position of giving a photographic critique of something that isn't photograph. Of course Fred, if you wanted to, you could go to this forum and give critiques. The audience would certainly be different though...I for one would not be there. So that would be two things at least that would change Fred. JJ

To me, it is plastic and sterlized. All of the great potential of photography to reveal the true sole of reality is stripped away.

Arthur, I am glad to see that you think language matters in this. It's as if we refuse to see the difference between a mannequin and a human. If we would allow language to follow it's natural course and just develop a term to refer to this kind of thing, it could then have it's own forum. Those that it interests could share with each other and photographers could proceed without such needless distractions. JJ

Arthur, I appreciated your framework for image critique. It made me realize in a very clear way how differently we approach photographs. Your framework strikes me as much more appropriate to visual art in general than to photography in particular. That is perhaps appropriate for this piece of "digital art" (the artists description). I have always felt that photographic considerations should be primary in any critique of a photograph. They appear last in your framework and only in the secondary sense of how the photographic medium was used to achieve the artistic objective - please correct me if I'm mistaken here. Since this DAOW (Digital Art of the week) might as well be a painting to me, photographic critiques seem besides the point. That's why I'm not going to give one. JJ.

Wouter, I suggested earlier that the image lacked a context sufficient to give the mother-child act a greater significance or deeper meaning than the act itself. Could that be it? There is nothing else in the image to cause us to fantasize about things outside the image. It is all there in this case. It's sort of like reading the book vs watching the movie. This is the movie. I'm not suggesting this is an error on the part of the photographer, just that the context could have given more than it does.

Fred, I am acquainted with two senses of the phrase flat light. One is diffused, even light and the other is direct light coming from the lens axis. The light is flat according to the first sense and that of course is the sense I was using when I said earlier that "my reading of the light this image is made in is that it is uniform shade - either cloudy sky or shadow of a building". Is this what you disagree with? Do you think the sun is shinning on the subject or a flash was used? Or do you disagree with the use of the phrase "flat light". If it's the latter, change every instance of "flat light" in my posts and replace it with the phrase "diffused light" and nothing else changes. There is another possibility and that is that we are disagreeing about the difference between the light itself and the way the light has been rendered in the image. As I said earlier, I think the light itself has an ordinary quality that I called flat but that it had been pushed in post processing to give the sense that the light had more depth than it actually had. I suggested it had been pushed too far.

In case words are failing us here, this is an example of what I mean by special light.

http://photos1.blogger.com/hello/191/2091/1024/Salgado04.jpg

The light in this POW is a non-starter in comparison. It's not perfect in comparison, it's not the best ever in comparison and it's not even very good in comparison. Since light is one of those qualities of an image that tends to give it deeper significance (more mystery), perhaps this is one reason why some of us are not fully connecting here. JJ

Arthur, I was not nitpicking about the light. I was suggesting that the light was not special or challenging for a portrait like this. That's amongst the most important issues in a photograph - the light. The point of this was to counter an early claim that this image was the best ever POW, not to criticize the photographer for making an image in flat light. I also suggested that nothing particularly special had been done with the flat light here. Again, a very important issue in photography - how one deals with light. But I did say about this that it was "besides the point". I then said that subtle judgements about the rendering of light should be made of prints. I thought that should have been sufficient to suggest that I was not, in fact, nitpicking about light. My last point was made specifically to Fred about his comment on challenging light. It was just that the way the photographer dealt with the lighting conditions here did not strike me as an interesting feature of the image. I stand by that and think it is worth considering....that is, what we do in flat light to elevate our images. Not sure why you found that so objectionable. JJ

Fred, I certainly would not say either of the following about this image:

1) It's impressive how the photographer has created such shaping, depth and dimensionality in such flat light

or

2) It's interesting how the photographer has used flat light to convey a lack of depth or dimensionality in the subject.

Sure, any light/subject/etc., can present a challenge depending on the objective or approach. But if one is just making basic, pleasent images of mother and child, flat light is the easiest. JJ

Arthur, I think we view this image in a similar way really. Good but not as good as "perfect" or best ever. But my reading of the light this

image is made in is that it is uniform shade - either cloudy sky or shadow of a building. We all know this is the easiest light to make basic,

pleasant images in but it is not challenging, special light. That's all I am saying when I say the light is ordinary. I think my monitor is ok but

it could be the problem for me. My sense is though that the tonality, contrast and dodging and burning are all pushed a bit too far here so

as to make the most of the flat lighting conditions. But, really this is besides the point. It's only a print that tells the full story and I would

want to reserve final judgement on these issues for the print. JJ

Alex, as far as I can tell, the justification you have given for this being the best POW is that it's not over processed, it's not cute and the background is "perfect". Putting aside the question of what could possibly be meant by a perfect background, I just can't imagine that these make sense as criteria for a "best POW".

I must say, this POW thread seems to me at least to lean much too heavily on the implied meaning of images (abstract philosophical hyperbole relating to what the image and all it's connections might mean) that are wanting on numerous basic photographic grounds. In this image, the composition is ordinary (not bad but not special, unusual or interesting in any way), the light is ordinary (just flat light in the shadow of a building), the expression is good but obviously awkward and contorted and the story is ordinary as well (it's a mother kissing a baby but there is no contextual story to give any deeper significance to this act than what it actually is). For me, the tonality is not actually that great. I don't see rich blacks but rather a lot of muddy, brown, kind of blocked-up shadows. So, based on these criteria it's fine as a sort of street snapshot, but how can it be very good with so many ordinary features? How can it be the best POW ever? That claim makes no sense to me at all. JJ

Incredible Adam. It's rare for a Canadian landscape photographer to introduce American photographers to a new location but you did it with Mount Seymour. I just love the way you approached this area. Truly unique and creative. My parents live in Blueridge, so someday I'll try to make a trip here when the conditions are right. Do you take the chair up or snowshoe from the parking lot? Best, Jeremy

Hi Adam, I think this is the best image of yours I have seen. Burnaby Lake area right? For some reason it does not work as well here as on your website. Maybe a bit overexposed here? In any case, this is an image I want to spend some time with. The textures, tones and colours all work so harmoniously. To make this image at Burnaby Lake.....WOW! Talent! Best, JJ

Hi Adam, I first saw this image in a home in New Westminster. It was printed huge and hung in a front room/studio. The web just does not do this justice. I have to admit to being absolutely stunned when I saw it. It is so much more impressive printed large and viewed in person than here on the screen. One of my favourite landscape images of all time. Masterful. Best, Jeremy

Adam, I have been a big fan of yours for some time now. I have seen your images of this area posted on your website and am impressed by what you have found here. Your execution is impeccable in all your images and this one is no exception. I'm not sure that American landscape photographers really appreciate how difficult it is to photograph landscapes in BC and how much effort goes in to discovering new places. I have the feeling you are probably the first really good landscape photographer to ever photograph here. That can rarely be said of good locations down south. Thanks for the inspiration and showing me some new and wonderful locations. Best, Jeremy

This is a classic colour landscape image done very well. It is professional in approach and style. That is, simple, clean, nice light, not pushed too far in post, pleasing subject, and well exposed. So, I would say it's a good image and I would be happy if I had made it.

This image started me thinking about what would have gone through my mind in this place 10 years ago and what I would be thinking/feeling/seeing now. 10 years ago, this is probably the image I would have made here. Now, the rule of thirds approach might strike me as perhaps too obvious and the inclusion of the branch with yellow leaves might seem too documentary. Now I might try a less predictable approach by looking for a way to avoid the rule of thirds placement of the branch and to extract a bit more mystery and meaning from this place. There is the sense that there is something deeper here. If anything, the mystery and meaning for me are in the tree trunks on the right. Perhaps an abstract composition with just the play of light on the tree trunks might be more interesting to me. That's not a criticism at all, it's just what I thought of when viewing this image.

The title is a shame for me. Rarely do titles elevate images in my opinion. In this case the title makes the whole presentation just that bit more predictable and perhaps even trite to me.

In any case, a very well done image which is only lacking for me in originality of approach and depth/meaning. Best, JJ

WOW! It's so hard to do this kind of thing well. You have taken a messy, ordinary subject and made it sing. The trees curve and flow beautifully through the frame. It's like they are ripples in a lake the way they flow from the top to the bottom of the image. There are interesting tones and contrasts in the different colours and densities of the tree bark. And then the evergreen provides an harmonious point of colour. Wonderful. JJ

Fantastic image Evgeni. I'm struck by the contrast between the crisp, detailed foreground branches and the soft, more subdued background forest. It's a risky, unusual and brilliant idea. JJ

Hi Arthur, thanks for your post. We agree mostly I'm sure. All you say about the kind of discussion we should be having here makes sense to me. Was this what you were doing in your first post about this image? Just curious because I'm not sure I understand the difference between technical discussions and artistic ones. To me, light, composition, tonality, etc. (all things you mentioned above) are technical, photographic considerations.

By the way, I think you might be being a little pessimistic about the ability of science to give us insight in to why we do or do not respond emotionally to images. I agree that science can't explain art but only because I don't know what that would mean to be able to do that. Can chemistry explain apples? Best, JJ

I read somewhere that "philosophy does not answer questions". This exchange is evidence of that. Curious how the author of that quote is trying so hard here to give answers. :)

Arthur, when you said earlier that we have too much technical discourse here I nearly fell of my chair. I think it's the other way round. Look at this POW as an example. It was justifiably pretty much done after 25 posts. Now the artistic argy bargy (mostly a rationalist style debate about the nature and relevance of art that has nothing much to do with this particular image) has got us up to 71 and counting. Art 1, photography 0.

From my own experience, the existence of an extensive empirical literature on a subject does not slow the philosophically minded down much at all. But for those of us that think science might have any answers, check out: http://www.jar-online.net. JJ