vuk_vuksanovic

i like the picture, but i want a lot more from it. if it's a pair of stuffed birds in a studio, please put something in the background to evoke a brilliant 19th century still life in a gentleman's study. if this did take place in nature, then shoot it the analogue way so we can see the atmosphere of natural light. perhaps, as scott suggests, you were the victim of some extraordinary natural conditions--though i'll go out on a limb and suggest a leica/contax/jupiter lens on a decent slide film would have made it all far less ambiguous and quite possibly a lot more striking.

 

i am also perplexed that a 50-500mm lens would get any sort of award. that's sort of like giving a sports equipment prize to something meant to serve (at 20% effectiveness) as both a tennis racket and hockey stick. great fun for your 5 year-old kids, but not...

technical competence only matters if you've applied it to something worthwhile. otherwise, the effort is, at best, misguided or naive; at worst, tasteless or vulgar.

 

sunsets are pretty to look at but should almost never be photographed [iMO].

giampiero.

 

it's not that you've taken a bad photo, but you have to consider it in terms of the standards set in the context. first off, this is a tiny, unintersting wave. the guy hardly looks to be in any danger, confronting the forces of nature or harnessing their power: the sort of imagery/associations one expects here are not delivered. next is the colour of the water. what you've captured looks like a dreary lake, not the ocean. a matter of grey versus blue.

 

for a rare glimpse into surfing, this would would be more than successful. in light of the tradition, it's like an (unconvincing) elvis impersonator at the local, suburban mall.

the bokeh is awful in a way i've not seen before.

your camera/sensor has made this look like a photoshop montage. the framing and timing is also a little off: some separation of man and structure would be more harmonious.

it's a shame you didn't capture such a nice moment on film.

edward.

 

now that i have recovered from the shock of seeing turner mentioned in the same breath as this low-resolution montage...

 

has anyone else noticed how most of the "top-rated" photos have a white border inside a black one? it definitely echoes the oil-on-velvet aesthetic pointed out in a comment i'm pretty sure i saw above at one point. let me add to that analogy the air-brush rendering on side of van. since i really can't imagine the nice people of photonet hanging glittery elvis portraits in their living rooms or commissioning beach scenes on the side of a chevy, there must be something quite special about the production of comparable effects in a photograph that makes so many here lose all predisposition toward good taste.

the borders and signature make more than a significant contribution to the final image.

"Great, very original capture"

 

"capture"? "PHOTO" net?

excessivley cropped and 'shopped. it's also unfortunate you didn't have a cheap SLR in hand to capture the scene.

i won't pretend i know exactly what you did, but the white contour around the hand is one of the many effects that scream post-process kitsch. are they really necessary? do you have an original capture to show?

the sky is an inversion of this:http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3208814

 

...or perhaps that "picture" contains an inversion of this sky. more importantly, the first or second thing to immediately strike a viewer is how the two boats on the left look exactly like the two boats on the right (actually, the two boats on the right are clones of the two boats on the left). i'm not against manipulation, but when it fails [in my opinion] so miserably to convince, what can i say. if it wasn't bad enough, one could go on about fluffy photoshop diffusion that makes a feathered 70s haircut look positivley stylish by comparion.

i am going to go out on a limb here and suggest all of you are partially blind. the small, attacking bird is neither small or attacking. it is simply landing further behind. the larger bird (the one in the foreground) made a bit of a mess landing and is regaining its balance. very interesting photo. i know little about nature photography, but this strikes me as being quite unique and praiseworthy.

the subject couldn't deal with what was going on--especially the demands of an extended exposure--and all that DOF makes it look as if everything was staged. the perfect layout of offerings and unnatural pose destroy the whole point of capturing something "real". given how contrived the actual scene looked, it made no sense not to perfect it by removing the bottle and instructing the "model" properly. moreover, if you wanted to keep the bottle in there, some sense of irony or comparable artistic statement would have made it work.

andrew.

 

maybe you should think a bit about why this actually should be "gritty" and what's most important to have level in the image: subject or background?

bernhard.

 

i'm not too thrilled with the extra compression the site forces on picture uploads, so i prefer to simply host my stuff privately. that said, you can see a few new ones (and leave a comment) in the camera review i've just written for photonet: click here.

" Noticed I was getting 7's in the original department but not in the aesthetics one..."

 

you seem a touch pre-occupied with ratings. not a good thing if you want serious feedback.

 

vuk

bernhard.

 

if this happened to me, 10 consecutive 2-litre vodka nights would follow. do you realise you just missed taking one of the greatest colour pictures of all time?! a second earlier or a step to the right... i almost want to cry.

 

...but hey, this is still leagues above our current (as i write) stiff and kitschy photo of the week.

 

vuk.

you've turned a beautiful spot into an ugly mess, though i'm sure a teenager or two would disagree.

having lived in canada for most of my life, there's a tremendously important "detail" in this image that strikes me, yet quite possibly eludes most non-natives. the beer can carries the "black label" logo on it. the importance has to do with the juxtaposition/simultaneity of (1) a mood that no MBA would want associated with the product he's behind and (2) a capture that--in all superficial and technical aspects--qualifies as an advert. drink this and immerse yourself in an existential quandary. unfortunately, the clever tangle of meaning, image and honesty explains why ian isn't as famous as he should be.

 

i hope that critique wasn't as cryptic as the image.

this is very odd. i am completely moved by what you saw and captured, but the photo doesn't stand up to any sort of scrutiny beyond that. shared idiosyncracies?

anyone who can frame/compose this well with a zorki 4 deserves the most absurd gushing praise photonet has to offer. better yet, if those trees weren't there in the background (seriously clashing with the subject), this would actually be an image for the ages. i really think it's worth driving around for days on end to find a swing with clearer vista and redo the shot (on tri-x, please).

nour is the new globoculture which is ultimately the collective-aesthetic of our latest herd of teenagers. by most contemporary measures (and many here), nour is a great success. by the standards of guys like tony dummett, who actually know how to build a house that won't fall to the ground in a few years, this shot leaves...

edmo.

 

you have a very good eye, but your pictures look like they were taken with something just a little above a web-cam. a nice 70s SLR with two good primes can be had for under $200 these days. i even hear ilford is back in business!

 

vuk.

excellent idea, but i can't help feeling it needs more dramatic execution: she's already "hiding" with legs kind of crossed (not to mention eyes away from viewer)--you see what i mean? i'm also uneasy about the backdrop which looks like it should be black but isn't. creates a weird/partial washed-out effect.