vuk_vuksanovic

I have a feeling you're going to get the "photo of the week" prize/curse in about 15 minutes.

 

This shot breaks many rules, but does so with purpose.

Don't worry, Saul, it's debatable if it's a photograph, and it's not worth finding anyway.-- Samuel Dilworth

Saul.

You should see how difficult it is to find a Samuel Dilworth photo!

Is that really his hair?

I like this, but it seems to need some more processing to get the best out of it.

Maurice.

 

You really don't know where to stop with digital travesties do you ? ;-)

Casey.

 

If you upgrade to a better turntable, it will sound quieter than a CD player.

Fred.

 

Many of your pictures appear to be leaning to the left. I also think they look a little flat--most digital cameras require a bit of post-processing to get the best out of them. You've got an excellent subject here, but it is a little let down by the above and the strange aspect ratio. Perhaps there was some intrusive object on either side that's been cropped out, but the space above, shows that you could have moved in closer (and lowered the camera a bit).

Mary.

 

I own a very expensive high-end system and my primary source is a record player. On top of it all, 12" 45rpm singles are the best sounding bits of vinyl ;-)

David.

 

I did not mean to suggest any fixed, a priori rules or standards. Just look at the image and react to it. Do you like it or don't you? If necessary, analyse why. It's very simple.

 

BTW--if you think that somehow film is more "true" than digital, you are very mistaken. In its very basic mode, my E-10 routinely captures images that are quite pedestrian, by virtue of looking so much like the real thing. Doing them up to the more interesting standards/traditions the legacy of film has established invariably involves some Photoshop work, in particular "curves" and especially for a proper B&W look, which demands it a lot more than colour.

Maurice.

 

I am a fan of your work and there is much that I like in what you've done here, but the chopping of the feet and clumsiness of motion "effects" around/on the head are rather serious technical flaws. Strangely enough, I'm tempted to overlook them because of the strengths of the image (wonderful grace and fluidity in the body and moving background), but the more I stare at the picture, the more intrusive the flaws become. You obviously have a strong sense of visual aesthetics and I look forward to viewing your future images here.

 

As for those complaining of the picture looking "fake," I wonder what they would make of the Velvia nature kitsch I see paraded around here all the time. My opinion is that it should be a matter of taste rather than reality. In fact, I found a lot more objectionable artificiality in the "water drop against Ikea plate" POW a few weeks ago than what's being presented by Maurice. To opponents of the digital darkroom, perhaps we are approaching an era in which the divisions between painting, "imaging" and photography disappear. So what? Are you proposing some sort of artistic fascism to counteract it? It think our brains are sophisticated enough to appreciate the specific merits of both traditional photographs and those manipulated beyond recognition, as well as anything in between. In much the same way, many of us can enjoy paintings that rely on verisimilitude or abstraction, although we probably apply somewhat different standards in evaluating them.

 

P.S. Just posted, viewed and noticed above that Daniel beat me to the punch--well at least the right hook, if not the jab. Cheers!

In terms of composition, this is a complete mess.

Jim.

 

I was merely defending Michael Spinak's integrity. I actually agree with you for the mostpart in that it's far more rewarding *for me* artistically to entirely fabricate the photo (which is what I do most of the time). I accept that it's very different for other people and certainly not an absolute. As a viewer of photos, the end result is all that counts.

 

Probably had some of your pics stuffed under my bed a long time ago--OK,OK, not that long ago. If there's a chance of getting me involved (behind the camera) in your next shoot, don't hesitate to write. I may even bring along a fresh model.

Nancy.

 

If you'd explored Michael Spinak's contributions to Photonet, it would have become clear fairly quickly that his "bio" was a bit of humorous self-deprecation. He actually composes some of the most interesting and well thought-out critiques that I've read here. As for your comment regarding "style":

 

"Obviously, Jim's art is very different from yours and many others on Photo.Net. It is not my intention to compare who's style is the more difficult to create. Nor do I believe that this is the purpose of this forum."

 

If I may be a teenager for a moment, it is your husband who began all this, Mr. Spinak merely voiced an objection to such statements--so, ironically enough, you actually agree with Michael on this one.

Jeff.

 

There are some things we just don't need to see ;-)

Bert.

 

I think this would have been much better with far less DOF. As it is, the picture verges dangerously on the sterile, corporate-calendar aesthetic. Being a proper Canadian, I assume re-shooting for you should be as simple as stepping into the garage or workshop...

The frame admirably reflects all the attributes of this photograph.

I like this one quite a bit. Wonderful pose that brings the viewer into the psychological space of the model, yet at the same time places her in some mysterious, unreachable location.

Taking artsy, detail shots of classic cars is so cliché ;-)

Bert.

 

Had you called out to the chicks before you clicked this would have possibly been the best photo you ever took.

I think it would be cheating, say, to drive around with the chair in the back of your pickup and set it up in front of likely looking walls

 

Cheating??? Was I cheating yesterday when I drove my model out to a location I'd picked out? If anything, driving around with the chair in search of likely looking walls would make me think even more of the photographer's artistic sense if he ended up getting a good composition out of it.

This photo beautifully reminds us of nature's power over all living things

 

Hmmm, it reminds me of the power of teenagers at minilabs to scratch your negative, which is what that bottom row of white looks like. I appreciate the concept, but the buildings are simply too miniscule to work. Yes, I understand the notion of scale, but that could be achieved with bigger, more recognisable structures which I think would communicate the human element more effectively and probably invoke a greater emotional response. In the end, to me it merely looks like a heavily filtered picture of some storm clouds.

 

Sorry to be so critical, I do like some of the other photos in the folder.

Andy.

 

You seem to be sitting on the fence here: on one side is the the idea of keeping the chair recognisable, on the other pure abstract play with shapes and colours. Given the palette and how tightly you've come in, I think the second option would have been my choice.

I never seem to run into spontaneous scenes like this which make for excellent candid shots. Well done.

I like it better than the photo of the week!

Good idea, but it would have been nice to have the guy on the left entirely in the picture and perhaps a little more of the cyclist.