vuk_vuksanovic

Tony.

 

I'm with Andrea on this one. It's almost a wonderful photo, but the execution is terribly off and the picture belongs in a shoebox, not on public display--there is no excuse for it and you, of all people, should know better. I'm simply not buying the post-capture rationalisations dude ;-)

 

What you needed to do is adopt Maurice's camera-as-revolver approach and hold the thing above your head pointing down at the subject, thereby excluding the unnwanted heads behind him.

On the subject of POW discussions: it would appear that the POW is being treated by some as a general, high visibility, thread where the aesthetics of photography is discussed every week--Brian Mottershead

Brian.

I actually find this to be a good thing and perhaps the fact it keeps occuring suggests a need for a better system to chat about photos in this place. POW allows a discussion to develop far more easily than regular critique, mostly because contributors are likely to check back and read replies to what they've posted. I also think it's grossly unfair to pin the blame for "unpleasantness" here on those who expressed a dislike for the photo or wished to talk about the reasons. It is the people who (over)reacted with personal attacks who need to be scolded, not the individuals who've taken the time to type out a critique. Speaking of taking the time to explain, it would be nice if the elves set aside 5 minutes of their precious time to compose an intelligent paragraph explaining the merits of the picture (from their point of view), instead of tossing us a one-liner. The whole thing (choice and comment) seems to betray a thankless task that gets carried out at the last minute, with little thought or effort. I may be completely wrong in this assumption, though I would be glad to stand corrected and have the entire procedure explained to me.

Donna.

 

Offering a critique of someone's photo does not constitute an attack on the person. Indeed, Seven is very much a gentleman and I respect him a great deal, both as a photographer and a human being. Nonetheless, he's taken a photo of something resembling what you're likely to find air-brushed on the side of a rocker's van and I fully intend on slagging him off for it ;-)

I wouldn't mind seeing this rotated 90 degrees counter-clockwise and then flipped horizontally. Also, the framing on the left (as you have it) may have been improved by including the curving dark gap (I realise this may not have been possible due to the intrusion of other elements).

You've turned something very ugly into something very beautiful. Well done!

is your jealousy above motivated by alcohol or simply plain unresolved envy-- Marco Carbone

Marco.

I have explained my reasons for rating the photo the way I did, yet you've done little more than attack my character with your posting. Seven and I have exchanged several comments on Photonet and I consider him a friend here. I like several of his pictures, but not this one and I'm giving him a good ribbing about it. There is no envy or malice in it and I would expect the same in return. I really think Tris has a serious point here about the way some of you react to criticism.

Seven.

 

I've been following your work and there is much that I like (as my past comments indicate), but what on earth compelled you to bother with this? Yes it's very clever to see something in the trivial objects in front of you which completely transcends reality, but when that something is, in the end, the rough equivalent of what you'd find on the cover of a cheap sci-fi/fantasy novel...

 

I also agree this should be judged in terms of hanging on one's wall, because it is fundamentally painterly, abstract and decorative. I imagine it would be very popular on the walls of 1980s teenagers with mullet haircuts and IROC dreams--teenagers who have apparently grown up to be elves. I also imagine other fans would have quite a different reaction if someone *painted* a picture that looked exactly like this. Shiny, sparkly, plastic things are generally the domain of kitsch and most of us have little difficulty spotting that in other art forms, yet somehow when you get a photo of it (like water drops and crystal decanters), all taste goes out the window.

Darron.

 

You are the only one continuing to discuss politics here, not to mention that your comments are simplistic, arrogant, patronising and offensive. At the very least, I would expect a Photonet moderator to be more "diplomatic" about all of this, especially considering that I removed my tangential comment several days ago and almost immediately after it was posted.

 

Apologies to everyone, once again.

Darron.

 

I am not a Bosnian refugee--in fact, I have never even set foot there. After living in Serbia and Croatia for a while, my immediate family moved to Canada in 1973 when I was almost 7 years old and I've been a citizen of the country for about 2 decades. As for open-mindedness, I truly doubt you are in any position to lecture me about it: you have absolutely no idea about my eductation, the things I read and what I believe in. It does seem, however, judging by the assumptions you've broadcast concerning my background, that you're rather quick to jump to misinformed conclusions about people.

 

Vuk.

Sorry about that little slip. It was late, I'd had a few drinks and just finished reading about a young girl in Afghanistan who'd had her legs blown off. I'm only human. I will delete my posting above right now, then remove this explanation at the end of the day.

David.

 

I haven't a clue why you've brought this up here.

Actually, I would like to see considerably more vacuum at the top and the left (which would include the hand that's been cut off). I feel it would add more equilibrium to the composition and allow the tangled human sculpture you've captured to breathe. We have subjects entering the picture nicely, but are being hurried out of it on the other side, so I guess the framing and cropping are letting the side down a bit in this respect (IMO), though, to be fair, it's not as if you had time to ponder artsy finesse of this sort. You did freeze a very interesting moment, which is simultaneously violent and graceful (like Mohammed Ali's boxing), and the technical aspects, such as sharpness and exposure, are perfect. Congratulations.

 

NOTE TO THE ELVES: With all the excellent photos that are submitted to this site each week and considering the talented photographers below the top 100 who receive little notice, perhaps it would be a good idea to try to spread out the POWs a little more. In some ways, it is even a matter of politeness--implicitly, you are saying to everyone else that their submissions are so inadequate you were forced to select the same person again. If you insist on the big boys, then how about Stephane Bourson? This is nothing against Daniel Bayer (or his photograph), but we all know who he is and he's already got one trophy ;-)

This is more clever than it will look to many. It's subtle and dynamic. Great eye!

Luciano.

 

This shot appears simple, yet there are quite a number of forms inside it playing off against one another. For example, the chimney top (???) which looks like a face could be a picture on its own. You've done extremely well to spot and compose this photo.

Hold on everyone. I think people are falling into the same trap that I did to some extent and it's even less forgivable now that Tris has explained himself more clearly. In simple terms, his view is that our current POW masquerades as a "real life" or "straight" shot while relying on extra saturation for effect. I agree that the colours are somewhat unrealistic, but I am not bothered by it, primarily because this shot verges on the abstract and is original (at least to me). I view the photo as a play of colourful shapes in space. Tris sees a beach scene that has been compromised by poor technique--insofar as technique can be used to account for a failure to capture precisely what was in front of the lens. One could argue that I'm being generous and that the photographer has not convinced everyone, or that Tris is being difficult. That debate can not be resolved objectively. At least the critic has explained his position in great detail. To some of you it may seem like "noise," but to me it's a lot more interesting than cheerleading. It's fine to gush over the POW, but at least tell us why!

The glare in the upper right distracts somewhat from an otherwise excellent picture.

How did Ugly Dougly get so close to such a pretty woman?

David.

Although I am a fan of Jo's, I think this guy provides much better example of realism. As for Tony, he gets enough attention already ;-)

To my eye, this is, by far, your best image. I think it could benefit from a bit more finessing of the embedded photos or bits of photos (I assume that's what they are) that are in the middle portion so that their edges blend in a litle better to the background object.

 

BTW--for those us us running 1024x768 resolution (which, is probably most people), all the shots you've uploaded do not fit on the screen in "medium" size. This requires scrolling to see anything but the puny version in it's entirety. You may want to consider making your maximum dimension 800 or 900 pixels at the time of upload. It seems to be what most people are doing.

Tris.

You are correct. I missed the tiny little part about your theory applying only to those images you've decided were "implicitly photorealistic." Either that, or you have edited in this caveat after my initial reading. Nonetheless, the entire thrust of that posting, your desaturation efforts with the POW and most of the comments you've left on photonet show a strong bias toward "photorealism" as the essence of photography. Anything else comes across as a begrudgingly approved of luxury that's OK in those rare circumstances where you've judged it to be appropriate. In one comment on a photo, you start off with "peaking for myself I'd guess a reasonable notion of what is a photograph would include the sort of street photography I most often engage in, which ultimately boils down to photorealistic pictures of one sort or the other depicting life" but then go on about the merits of manipulation and conclude that "the bottom line remains the same: it's all about the result." If that's the bottom line, what is the point of all the lines above it? Do you not see how schizophrenic and confusing your postions can appear?

Sorry about the implicit emotions, this is an international forum and not every culture has the same standards for human interaction. We have to respect one another in this regard.

Peter.

 

Assuming I am one of the two parties you're referring to, I have not told anyone what photography should be and am merely challenging what I see as a very narrow view of it presented by Tris. For you to chastise me and then end your letter by saying basically what I have tried to express at greater lengths seems stange. Have you read through the postings carefully?

 

As for the point you make about this being a place for critique, Tris has offered an opinion concerning perceived limitations of the picture above and suggested ways of improving it. Furthermore, he has backed his views by offering a detailed explanation rooted in particular aesthetic standards he feels are important to maintain in photography. Several of us have challenged these ideas and, apart from a few reckless insults by some and recent skirting of issues by Tris, it seems like an incredibly high level of "critique" compared to the usual. It's fine for you to be opposed to the handful of impolite comments, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss the entire discussion with your own blanket insult about "high horses."

Tris.

 

I have asked you what I believe to be a series of intelligent questions, yet you are choosing to avoid the issue(s) by ignoring the spirit and bulk of my replies and instead picking out a single word such as "odd" and getting all wound up about it. If it makes you feel better, what I meant by "odd" is perhaps better expressed as "at odds with what most people think of photography, as far as I can tell, though I'm prepared to be proven wrong."

Tris.

 

Why don't you try adressing my questions rather that trying to "stop me" from discussing your rather odd perspective on photography. Also, please lighten up about my "anti-intellectual" snipe, as it was fundamentally a rhetorical gesture and a bit of a playful jab.

 

Vuk.

Tris.

Although I agree Terrance could have been far more polite and rational, I must say that your views on photography and human perception can easily be construed as "anti-intellectual" too.

While it's perfectly acceptable for you to enjoy only pictures resembling reality (the way you see it, I should add), such an approach explicitly dismisses almost every photograph that, over the years, society has deemed to be great. Certainly, if this POW fails on the grounds of not faithfully reproducing the colours (as you imagine they were) then all black and white shots must fail even more miserably, before even considering the other "distortions" such films impose on the scene. Igoring for a moment the fact that no film is capable of recording light the way the human eye can, have you ever thought about what the brain does to achieve a perception? Are you aware of the huge body of empirical research showing how rudimentary affective/motivational factors can alter judgements of very straightforward physical reality?

Then there are issues of intelligent expression and communication. Have you any sympathy for or sensibilty towards what artists in all fields have been doing for centuries to make "reality" poignant and meaningful for their audience (and themselves, of course)? Have you considered that the essence of something, such as a beach scene a person has witnessed, can sometimes be more elegantly and faithfully conveyed to someone else by presenting an interpretation rather than a dissection?

Finally, I am curious how you react to photographs of objects and scenes you have never seen in your life? I would be interested to know what you make of the folder I shot yesterday, in which things suddenly become very strange (and lit up by a really weird, pollution-filtered, late-day sun). Can you guess which images, if any, have been "done up" a bit in Photoshop and, if so, are you able to restore them to their original state? If you're interested, click here.

Cheers,

Vuk.

Richard.

 

Your comment implies that looking realistic is always desirable. I am not a fan of over-saturated nature pictures, but it really works here, mainly because it's not your standard nature shot and relies quite heavily on a mildly abstract element. Desaturation would lessen the impact of the shapes that drive this photo, IMO.