vuk_vuksanovic

i'd be interested in seeing an "unmastered" original capture. this final product looks absurdly over-processed to the point of verging on etched caricature. the overall effect makes it tough for the brain to reconcile the lighting throughout this image and come away with a convincing impression. perhaps i've been away too long, but i'm assuming the person above who congratulated your on choice of lighting (which in old-skool terms is pretty funny considering this is a landscape shot) didn't have a photoshop filter in mind.

this is outstanding. when viewing the "thumbnail" version i thought it might be a bobsleigh coming down the track.

photography:

 

it's not altogether straightforward to figure out what's going on here without looking at the title. before i did (and looked at the comments), i thought this was an on-set still from some made for TV american film. without knowing what was really going on, she looked to me like an actress hamming it up with a bit of tearful chin-stroking (reminiscent of the famous "chopping broccoli" sketch on SNL). i suspect black and white film (as suggested in an erlier comment) would have done a lot to redress some of these unintentional effects.

 

politics:

 

given that an attempt is being made to invoke sympathy and guilt in the viewer, i would like to point out the cruelty of people who know they're not likely to be able to feed children going on to produce them. a recent study (reported in a recent "guardian" article) reported average birth rates of 7 to 8 children per woman in the most impoverished parts of africa.

the ENCONE "branding" at the bottom is very stylish and brings up all sorts of associations with the lifestyle imagery pounded into us by contemporary marketing. remove the "brand" (just cover with a finger) and suddenly the illusion disappears and you're left looking at a girl and photographer playing a vapid sort of dress-up.

 

it is very troubling that even an informed cynic like me can be a victim on first viewing.

this is reminiscent of an oil painting on black velvet.

if it's actually not meant to be symmetrical, then the photographer chose about the most uninteresting and unconvincing way of doing it, which would make the effort far more mediocre than a near miss the other way.

david.

 

i didn't say that the idea is symmetry, but surely you can't deny that it is an aesthetic component? actually, it's not just the lighting that's "off" in this regard: everything is off to the left and, if you really want to be pedantic, the head is crooked/turned. for a street candid, all forgivable; for a posed studio capture, not really. i am surprised marc g finds all this accpetable--perhaps it is in the context of the air-brush fantasy novel cover "art" that passes for photography here these days.

although i am a big fan of light coming in from the left like this, i feel that it seriously undermines the effort at symmetry--one of the key aesthetic ingredients in this picture.

the smokey part doesn't look like normal smoke. even worse, it evokes a kitschy aesthetic of somewhat stiff cloth masquerading as fine silk.

 

what's really interesting, however, is the bottom part of the photo, which not only stands on its own but would have yielded a much better photograph if framed exclusively. best of all, it doesn't require the silliness of real-time gimmickry to achieve an effect.

You are right about the sense of calm, which is the typical state of nature. the fish don't need video games to be happy and generally just swim along quietly and without any sense of urgency. yet somehow the shallow water and so much sun robs the image of any deep sea solemnity (or my steretypic expectations), though i suspect getting more detail in a larger version would probably cure that too. in all, it is a very nice picture, but not something to go nuts over the way some people are.

 

one thing i am curious about is where the photographer was standing/swimming when he took this. why is there no shadow of his presence, given that it appears the sun is very much overhead. not an accusation of a montage, just wondering how it all came about.

i suspect this would work a bit better if (for purposes of presentation) the photographer would rotate it 90 degrees clockwise. it still doesn't solve the problem of looking like a rubber shark at the bottom of a california movie mogul's aquarium. OK, if that's too harsh, how about an impotent vegetarian shark in a failed bond villain's under-sea aquarium and the result of some misguided genetic experiments. any way you slice this: sure the tiny fish are avoiding it, but not with any urgency beyond shuffling around a sea sponge tumbling along the sandy floor.

 

sometimes things don't quite work out in the best possible way and the photographer is not to blame. that said, a diagonal shark could have been produced simply by twisting the camera a bit.

i like this a great deal--it really sums up a lot of what was wrong with the era (from an aesthetic perspective). well done.

this is very, very good. it would be nice, however, to try mastering it in a slightly more dynamic way--in other words, more contrast and finesse in the skin tones. another small issue is the light-coloured thing in the background that looks like a horn coming out of his head. it's a bit distracting and it may be worth the effort to clone the thing out.

bernhard.

 

have you considered canada? i have a pair of german friends (a couple) who think it's wonderful here, even though--as a big wagner fan--i can never hope to understand why. my stereotypes tell me it's similar to down-under over here, though a bit more conservative and boring. one clear advantage is that you can avoid the questionable mating practices pointed out in this thread merely by staying away from the province of alberta--where, as the saying goes, "men are men and sheep are scared."

the strands of hair over face are a huge mistake. after going through the effort of orchestrating the pose and props, there is really no excuse.

 

you have a good eye and a great deal of talent, but this photonet honour is premature and probably counter-productive, IMO. at this point, you need to attack yourself more than the critics to really produce worthwhile stuff.

this is far too deliberatley sentimetal and far too severely cropped. i also feel that the harsh lighting destroys the intended mood (although i may be wrong about what was intended).

i suspect it's very difficult for any serious photographer to appreciate this picture when he takes into account the massive crime of cropping that's been perpetrated (sorry in advance, mr. seewald). i won't even mention the tonal failures digital capture brings to the table (note: i said capture, not display).

 

otherwise, very well perceived, very well balanced, very well presented. now that you've shown the potential, it's time for a proper camera. if you can imagine, such devices can be had for as little as $25 dollars on a famous internet auction site these days.

 

vuk.

andy.

 

one thing we agree on is the fact that HCB established a monumental standard of documentary photography a long time ago which means precious little to a current art dealer. standards are old. talent is new. galleries have to sell. etc.

 

a few web-clicks ago, i couldn't help but conclude that anyone with a photo site essentially un-viewable without "flash" is seriously disconnected with the visual art he's trying to display. whilst i appreciate the contemporaneity of the gesture, the end result, much like your condemnation of the "decisive moment," carries as much insight and value as a teenager's rebellion against math, history, reading and being nice to his little sister. surely, we can also agree that the teenager hasn't had enough experience to understand, among many other things, how capturing an archetypal social moment that's decently framed and reasonably in-focus rivals winning the kentucky derby. actualy, a picture like the one above is just shy of the triple crown (the high ratio of backs facing lens equates to the donkey who nails you in the unforgiving belmont stretch run).

 

the artistic alternatives you propose may seem more complex in theory, but they're relatively trivial in execution--well, at least in my experience. ultimately, tony is a photographer's photographer and that's just about the biggest compliment a non-nature shooter can receive.

there is so much to admire here that i really hate to say anything negative, but this is really more of an outstanding experimental capture than a final product.

 

first off, as pointed out above, the white strap is an unfortunate clashing element. when we add to it the clumsy bokeh of a plastic/wobbly/japanese lens and severe crop, this excellent attempt screams to be repeated until done correctly.

 

*[in my opinion] cropping is merely the refuge of those who failed to compose properly in the first place. *[edited by moderator]

the verticals on the right half are simply too big and dominant. the curvy stuff is far more interesting and aesthetically pleasing, yet given only a bit part in the background. artistic piorities are so thoroughly reversed one can only conclude this was a case of poor judgment combined with a severe lack of creativity with regard to angle and camera orientation (one of the two photographic missionary positions in play here). you know, you don't have to have it level to ground at all times.

this picture is so good that, even though i find the aesthetic a touch too morose for my taste, i can't help but admire the brilliance of execution. i suspect photoshop had a hand, but quite a contrast to the ersatz/airbrush goth look-of-the-moment stuff to be seen in the current featured portolio (http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?include=top&user_id=1427936)

carl.

 

99.9% of my pictures are shot in natural lighting. on VERY rare occasions, i supplement with one little hot light.

 

btw--it's one thing to see a sunset/rainbow/fireworks, quite another to take a picture.

i am genuinely shocked that people find this picture attractive (though i'm quite sure the original scene had its merits to the naked eye). the clashing red and yellow make it all very disturbing to me--like a badly done sunburst guitar decoration. throw in the unresolved black of the middle into the mix, along with the kitschy border, and it's not far off from a velvet oil-painting [iMO].

"He does note in this particular case, however, that only one flash was used from the left side to balance the natural lighting...."

 

well, i guess that explains why they look like stuffed/fake birds to scott (and at least one other member). btw, the "only one flash" apology is brilliant bit of spin. lannie, if the photo business doesn't work, there's always stand-up comedy.

 

it's still an effective picture in many ways, though a sense of irony must be assumed, even if not intended by the photographer.

"I've always loved colors from the D70 --Nora Haniff

 

i hope my reply doesn't come across as unnecessarily argumentative, but this if this sort of comment isn't confronted, it will help promote a great deal of misconception.

 

the d70, like all digital cameras, has some firmware inside it that converts what the sensor REALLY captured (a pathetic approximation of reality) into colour and dynamics. anyone who shots seriously, will wish to intervene by capturing RAW images and deciding just how to interpolate upon import to photoshop--where even more can be done subsequently to get exactly the colour you want. what i want is rarely that which any digital camera assumes and i'd like to think more capable photographers hold similar views.

 

if what you meant to say is that the d70 is a very capable point-and-shoot, then i withdraw my comments but you will risk offending the photographer and a large crowd of brand loyalists.