mriy

I wanted to weigh in on the appropriateness of politically weighty subjects of POW's. While I at first disagreed with Mark's initial comments on this, I agree that there is some validity to a need for some degree of restraint on the part of the elves. A picture of say an aborted fetus, or a circumcision in process or of a dog being "put down" could all stimulate conversation, just as the cardboard sign and disabled person in this one have, but to select a POW on that basis alone is pointless for this forum. I guess political and/or ethical potential should be on no more than an even par with technical or other aesthetic values when considereation is given for POW.

 

Tris, I don't know, man. I know lots of folks who get paid good money to do what they do and they still don't do it very well.

Technically, I have to agree with the camp that feels the composition is lacking a bit. The vehicle behind isn't the problem for me, and you explained the feet problem, but I think more context would contribute more to the shot. I was imagining this as a wider angle, with this fellow more the right say and some motion blurred vehicles entering from the left and/or leaving from the right with him and his sign in sharp focus amidst the moving world. His face down implies anonymity, but with him dominating the entire frame takes him out of his anonymous role in the picture.

What struck me about the subject matter is that homeless or not, deserving of charity or not, he is undeniably disabled, and somehow capturing him as trapped in his environment may be interesting (though I'm sure it may also look cliched to some).

 

Politically, the responses are predictable both from a conservative and a liberal standpoint, the sign being the crux. The fact that so many haves perceive these signs and situations to be bogus, coupled with our natural desire to not be tricked out of our hard-earned cash while on the other hand not to blow off someone in real need just creates a terrible dilemma in most peoples hearts. You give in to the charitable side and your a brainless bleeding heart liberal (and an anti-Jeffersonian?), you give in to your sense of self-preservation and you're a cold-hearted conservative. Figure out where you want to be and get on with it, blanket attitudes or case-by-case, whatever. I think folks should post their impressions of the sign since it is something that most people have encountered and that most have strong feelings about, since that is as important as any feeling about composition and lighting and motivations. I don't have problem with people telling me to hug my kids, I'd just as soon have a message like this in the world from someone with no money than have one from a corporation with tons of money asking me if I bought my kids their happy meal today. Someones always gonna tell you what to do with you life, your day, your money, this guy is no different.

 

Congratulations on your shot, not one I could take, from my car window or wherever.

I like this shot very much, but I still feel uneasy looking at it. When I first saw it, I thought the boy looked cut and pasted. The distances looked too compressed, then there were the glares and the spots on the far wall and that clock just begging to have some relationship with things, then the streaking and the vignetting. I felt my brain stretching to fit it all together, then to decide whether it fit together in a satisfying way or not. It's preschoolers and there is, as Kelly pointed out, the sentimental bias (the noble toddler syndrome) but this isn't an easy composition like most cheesy kid pix (my folders are full of cheese). So I sit unsettled, but decidedly more drawn into your picture than I was yesterday. The light is the thing for me, and you did a great job of catching it. I don't think darkening or increasing the contrast of the background is the answer, though I think a shorter DOF may improve things a bit. The girl is just a bit too clear for me and she and the boy don't looked detached, they look like they're from different pictures.

It is a beautiful shot, I think most of the elements are additive, but the sum of the whole does not necessarily create something greater than the parts.

 

I actually like some of your other shots better than Illumination, this one included.

 

One concern, up top you said you wanted to curse his rudeness when this kid got in the way, then just ahead of this post you said you wanted to laugh. I hope the latter is true.

 

Congratulations

I like this one a lot. The exposure is very good, very tactile. I would leave the dark edges in, they add all the depth and sense of space. The only thing I don't like is the red thing on the right. There isn't enough of it to tell what it is but so much that it is a large part of the composition. It feels a little unsettling. Cropping it out may look nicer. Would be nice in black and white also as it is almost monochromatic already.

I have to comment that I prefer the original post to the brightened redo. The original has a sort of daugerrotype (sp?)/ platinum feel to it that I enjoy. The redo feels too much like straight silver and makes it feel less intriguing to me. I love Silver, it's all I know how to use, but not for this presentation. I know it's digital, but it effectively imitates an older means of image making.

 

To expand on what I wrote above, I enjoy the central positioning of the poles and the near-central cut of the horizon, it is just very relaxing, it isn't contrived or forcing anything down my throat or innovative or powerful or anything, it is just a curious little picture with some very velvety elements presented in a way that makes it look very old, adding to that comfortable feeling.

 

I agree with you Tris that it seems Jeff's talents are well suited for medium or large format.

 

I don't even look at the ratings on POW pictures anymore. Scores are actually a distraction in most cases. They are not meaningless, because I check the scores on my pics just like everyone else does and the high scores feel good and the low ones feel bad, but when I evaluate someone else's photos I rarely ever look at the scores and I don't think I've rated a picture for months. How someone else rated a picture has no bearing on how I feel about it (except maybe my own, but that is my weakness) and I prefer to stay out of the fray entirely, maybe hoping that it will just go away if I ignore it.

 

BTW: interesting article on the old and new of photography in the latest Discover magazine.

 

Aloha

I really like this image. I think you captured a serene locale at an opportune moment. One of those things that seems to be just sitting there, nothing special, but with your beautiful composition, the wispy clouds and the subtle background with no blocky cloud formations and a smooth gradation to the sky tells me that you were the right person to be there at that moment.

 

Your presentation is nice with the black border and your copyright stuff along the border that suggests a full-frame negative. Not so subtle, but effective in setting a mood and enhancing the image.

 

There are some little blotches in the lower right corner that are annoying, is it something in the water? I would probably try to crop or clone it out.

 

Would love to see a real print, can imagine it to be even more impressive.

 

Congratulations

This picture, especially with the large white border, reminds me of those top-quality postcards that are sold in tropical destinations.

 

I love the colors, and have seen sunset colors similar to this once before, also through a polarizer, but I think it is rare nonetheless. I suspect that the colors were assisted a bit, not just by the polarizer, but that is my impression, I could be wrong. Most of the pictures of similar commercial style are likewise boosted in saturation a bit. The overall effect is very pleasing, true to life or not.

 

I agree with others that it is a bit dark and the rocks are just a tad muddy appearing to me. The water is too dark to appreciate the glassiness produced by the long exposure. I know you had to balance between that beautiful sunset and an increasingly dark foreground and velvety water, overall I think you balanced things nicely. Your Pink Ocean shot has terrific detail in the rock and wonderful ocean texture, but the sky falls way short of the one in this picture.

 

What I really like is the composition. The mirroring of the rock on the left with the dominant cloud formation on the right is one in a million and for me really carries my eye from back to front. The rocks are beautifully placed. THe cropping of the rock on the left is OK in my opinion, because I think the less of that beach the better. I could stand just a bit of water creeping around the rock on the right.

 

I agree that there is a bit of smudginess running vertical just to the left of center, in the sky and in the rocks. It stood out more after I read that it was stitched.

 

 

Congratulations, this is a very stunning shot that has a lot of commercial appeal. I could easily see it in a high quality book on the beauty of Malaysia. I've enjoyed your portfolio for some time, you have some of the best oceanside shots I've ever seen. Your "place in the shade" photo is as perfect an exposure in such lighting as I've seen.

 

 

I have to add that I agree with Tony's sentiments to some degree. When you first said that the scene was overexposed when many were assuming it was underexposed, I had this sentimental feeling of some shots I had done as a student years ago where I overexposed negatives with the idea in mind that once I got enough light through the negative to get the image down on paper, it would have a nice grain with intended blown out areas and nice dark blacks, all with a nice heavy feeling.

 

While I definitely use digital manipulation to some extent, it sometimes seems too easy to throw on a filter, almost like cheating. What took a whole night in the darkroom 18 years ago can be done so swiftly now (when done effectively as you have done here), in a fully lit room with my wife and kids right here, the Flintstones on TV and a glass of sweet iced tea beside my monitor.

 

Some people have said that all they do with photoshop is to recreate what they could do in the darkroom, nothing more. Others feel just fine doing anything to a picture with photoshop, taking it far beyond what a traditional darkroom is capable of. This one seems in between. The negative did not lend itself to a grainy product in and of itself, but you created a picture that very easily could have come out of a "real" darkroom, just not necessarily with that negative.

 

You applied the grain very well, so I don't have any problem at all with how it looks, but something inside says maybe you made it look a way that it didn't look in your mind when you took it. No offense, I often crop and "touch-up" with photoshop because it looks better than how i saw it in my mind on the scene.

 

I'm rambling, bottom line for me is as I stated above, the digital enhancement looks fine to me, but there is a nagging feeling inside which feels like I wish you had gotten to that 1950's feel in a 1950's way. Not to speak for him, but maybe this is what gnaws at Tony.

 

BTW: agree with others that your crop is best. The jeans have to go.

When I looked at this picture among the others in its portfolio, it stood out to me, but not in a positive way. Your other pictures are mostly very well composed with body parts cropped carefully and effectively. This one seemed forced. The delicate grain and beautiful profile beg to be presented somehow, but to me there just doesn't seem to be enough there. The crop is very uncomfortable and stands out as less effective than others in your folders. The pose, as others have said seems stiff. The greatest parts of this image; the classically beautiful model and the grain, to me don't raise this image enough to be able to consider the perceived or real technical defecits as additive to its overall aesthetic appeal. This woman and this grain in a nicer crop and with just a bit more actual candidness (and resultant tenderness) would be terrific, in my opinion.

 

I don't think the various manipulations by others add much, but do go to show that this shot really wants to work in many people's minds.

 

The texture implies tenderness and fading memories while the model conjures thoughts of complex post-adolescent relationships, but the posture and composition just don't quite bring it all the way home for me.

 

A very personal image; voyeuristic but not lurid, it just feels appreciative of a beautiful person in a beautiful moment, probably just as you felt when you saw her there, and it almost creates the complete vicarious moment, but not quite. I think it is that personal feeling that makes this seem more a portrait than a study of light as last week's POW seemed to me. Most of your other nudes lean more to the abstract or experimenting with form and light kind of images, this is more satisfying in that regard as it seems that many people are able to connect with this person and apply it to a moment in their lives, you can't do that with most images of nudes I've seen. It isn't better or worse, just a different feel that you caught.

 

Congratulations. Your portfolio is very creative with great variety and you seem greatly willing to experiment which is just great.

Great portrait. Terrific DOF, Focus, exposure, moment, lighting, everything. The pose adds so much character. Just great. I think most parents who like taking pictures keep looking for that one shot of their kid that captures each stage of their growth, even though I've never seen Isaac, I think you've got it here. The only thought that I can't get out of my head is that with this pose and his expression, he reminds me of Don Zimmer of the Yankees.

 

I think this is a very nice picture, and I certainly would be pleased with it had i taken it, but I have to agree with some others that it doesn't do a whole lot for me.

 

The composition doesn't bother me, it just doesn't seem to have a lot to draw me in. I don't see a lot of character, that I guess some assume is coming from the whiskers and the hat. He looks like a nice enough person, but there just isn't enough expression or features to make any personal connection to the person. Sort of like the opposite of last weeks POW where the people were right up in your face, no subtlty. Some folks didn't like that at all, but this one takes it to another extreme where you have to assume everything about the person if you take this as a portrait, or nothing if you look at it as a study in lighting, which I do. In that regard, this is a good job at doing what every student of photography tries to do: the person by the window (judging by the earlier comments I assume there was a window on the left that has been cropped out).

 

It is a very nice photograph, it is technically very nice and an excellent example of how natural light can gently paint a subject but to me it doesn't really stand out. Most "by the window" portraits look very staged and unnatural, and this one almost gets away from that, but not quite, and cropping out the window and adding a lot of blackness to the back doesn't quite do enough in my opinion.

 

Congratulations, a very gentle and pleasant photograph. He looks liek a very good friend of mine and I would have loved to have ahd a picture of him like this.

As most responders, I like the feel of this picture, but I don't really like the composition. Things seem pushed to the edges, from the top of her head to the musician on the left, it seems too tightly framed. The most realxed part is to the right edge behind the 'direction' of the picture. I can imagine the photographer leaning juuuuuussstt right to fit all threee in the frame. Either that or there is something that needed to be cropped out to impose this framing. I don't really like the expression on the vocalists face. At first I thought well, it's probably hard ot get a better expression, but almost all of your other concert photos caught more interesting facial expressions from the sublime to the mysterious, so this one falls short of your other works.

 

The soft appearance of the two men to the stark contrast of the vocalist works well for me, I just wish it weren't quite so tight all around.

 

I also feel like the image is a little cold. The artists are all focused on their own tasks, noone is looking at anyone or anything but what they are doing, noone looks necessarily inviting. Maybe a similar shot with the guitarist glancing at the vocalist or with the voalists eyes open would warm it up a bit. While the picture has nice feel to it, it doesn't necessarily make me want to be there. Maybe if I knew what they sounded like, my attitude may change.

 

I know nothing about concert photography, but the standard bearer for me is the image from inside an old KISS album, I think it was KISS ALIVE! from the mid-70's that showed the crowd before a show. As a pre-teen that image was burned in my head. It wasn't even of the band but it made me know that that was a special place to be and the anticipation of what the kids in that picture were soon to witness left an indelible impression. This image is nice, but beyond the interesting shapes and texture, it sort of leaves me cold.

 

That being said, there are at least a dozen other pictures in your folders and in your concert folder specifically that I find so much better and darned excellent. Trombone player and rokia are exquisite and your other group pictures are wonderfully composed. As a folder, your concert pictures are among the best my untrained eyes have seen, to me this is just not the best of the bunch.

 

Kyle, did you mean dodge the dress and burn the face? I don't think burning in that dress is going to bring anything out, it looks fairly well cooked already.

 

 

Christopher, I hope you will hang around longer. I've been here for about a year and while I do get sometimes annoyed and sometimes offended, I have taken away a lot more from this website than I have lost to it. There are a great many fine uploads and wonderful portfolios to see such as the ones attached to this fine picture. When I cruise the recent uploads, I honestly think the quality has improved over the last year, and you won't find the general quality of pictures posted here on any other similar website, at least not in this volume. There is tons of good information embedded in here, you just have to pick and choose, it is often buried in what may seem the most annoying of posts or threads, but don't let your personal feelings about others keep you from learning from this site. Contrary to what some feel, there is a great deal here to learn from, ranging from equipment to composition to film to scanners to even how to look at a picture critically. There is as much to learn from poor critiques as from good ones. You gotta have a few lousy teachers to learn how not to be one yourself.

 

Re: this picture, I really like the way the buildings look like kids blocks sort of jumbled together and the view seems to be almost in the clouds. It really is dream-like. God's view of kids. God's got to be pleased.....unless of course the kids are running from the five and dime after lifting some jawbreakers.

 

I agree with the flatness being humbug, and I'm not sure I like the way the chimney on the front house stops right at the edge. I think were the complete chimney included, it would add a bit more depth to the houses, but then you'd have cut too close to the bottom shadow. The way the corner behind the kids is curved and the way the houses receed makes it look almost distorted, but it isn't and that just adds to the beautiful composition.

 

Re: Tris and his detractors: Looking back over this week, I don't think Tris started things, but as most know, he is very loathe not to finish an arguement. I think he brought up valid points of discussion by expressing his views on the difference of color and black and white photography, agree with him or not. Seven made a ludicrous statement last week on the topic and only a few responded. Maybe we are a bit sensitized to you Tris after that first week of harrowing discussions that could have been avoided with a properly calibrated monitor, and I and others have felt verbally attacked by you in the past, but I think the jabs at you this week have been unwarranted. I have gleaned several relevant points from your posts and do not think as some others do that you have little to say. Grammatical corrections should be done by e-mail.

 

Re: Tri-X. One of my favorite pictures I ever took was on Tri-X many years ago, but alas it is of an ex-girlfriend and to post it would surely cost me a great many points at home. Great film.

Wow, Seven, I'm surprised your second to last post didn't get commented on. I thought about responding to it last night, but hoped someone more eloquent than I would, but I guess I will.

 

I was stunned to read your comment implying that this is just a wedding picture and dismissing black and white photography as something juvenile. I had to go back and make sure this was the same Seven whose POW a couple of weeks ago was of a paperweight, and I thought of the way so many defended you when others slammed you for posting a picture of just a paperweight, yet here you are indicating that there is some lack of value in this picture solely because it is a wedding picture. You can do better than that. Surely you aren't so stuck in innanimate macro mode as to dismiss other types of subject matter as passe. Like it or not, I don't care, but I would expect a more careful analysis than that.

 

And then the black and white thing. I vehemently disagree with your implication that black and white is some kind of juvenile application of photography. I would encourage you to elaborate on your statement. Black and white photography is where many photographers learn, and many do move into predominantly color, that is exactly my history, but surely you realize that a person uses a somewhat different eye when composing and creating in black and white versus color. I've found that while I mostly use color now, periodically using black and white film or at least composing a color picture in my mind as if it were black and white is a refreshing and invigorating practice. When I shoot lots of color, I miss black and white, not in the way that I miss the carefree days of college, but in the way that black and white makes me feel fresh and brave. Color isn't going to save me or make up for compositional deficiencies. Understanding black and white and using it will truly help the compositions one does in color. Black and white alone does not a classic make in my mind. Of course the pictures most of America thinks of as "classics" are black and white, so a nice black and white image is more likely to bring ones mind back a few decades, but that's insufficient to imply that nothing new or fresh can come out of shooting in black and white, it just takes a bit more thought.

 

See, I'm not very eloquent, and I don't use either medium very well, but you made some sweeping comments in just a few lines that I think you have the insight to express more thoroughly and I would encourage you to do so.

Beautifully composed. The two men and their link across the table via their postures and how the man across the table draws your eye to the man in the foreground then his gaze draws you to someone just off the right edge, barely visible by that thing just hanging on the right edge at the woman's shoulder that looks like another person's fingers just really creates a wonderful path through the picture. Then the men's seeming detachment from the bride with the baby while the two otehr women assist creates a second level of interaction that draws you down another path.

 

The sublime expression on the son's face with his dominating suit and his graceful profile posture just really makes it for me.

 

This shot just seems so well done.

 

 

The only nit I have is with the face of the bride and how it seems fairly heavily dodged. I'm not sure if it is an artifact of the bright window. It doesn't necessarily detract as technical perfection is not a necessity for a wonderful shot, and in this case one may consider it an additive effect of helping create a true sense of casualness or detachment so that it doesn't look too polished and as a result lose its subtle appeal.

 

I don't mean to fawn. I do not think this is necessarily masterful, and while I have visited Chris' folder before, this one never jumped out at me in the thumbnail version.

I live by the sea and have tried to get similar shots several times. This is by far the best that I've seen of this type of shot. Usually one or the other (the tree or the beach) appears over-exposed or you end up with a silhouette of the tree, or if you fill-flash, the tree loses its natural appearance.

You hit on a terrific combination of variable to capture a shot that is very difficult to expose properly.

 

Compositionally it is very nice. The people are a nice addition, but they look a bit uncomfortable up there. Maybe repositioning to make them look more relaxed would add to the calmness.

Frank, I appreciate the thoughtfulness with which you composed your comment.

 

While I don't like the fact that the POW was altered mid-stream, I can understand the photographer's sense of needing to post a better handled product. I don't know, but I doubt the POW recipients (or victims) are given much advance notice, and based on Haluk's other work, it appears that this picture probably was posted without a lot of attention to detail, just for fun. I would imagine he felt some chagrine at noticing this picture up there with the vignetting and all. I think that allowing the altering of the original POW selection after it is up there is probably not a good precedent, but I think the elves have to accept some of this blame for 1. choosing a photo with serious technical issues and 2. Not affording the selectee a chance to repair some of these concerns before it was put up there. Personally, I dislike the alteration as it removes any sense of the bizarre that the colors of the original scan seemed to imply. I think the change takes it too far from the impression that I would imagine the elves felt when they made their selection or that I felt when I first looked at it.

 

Perhaps the electors could consider advance notifying folks of their POW selection and, sort of like "We love this picture and want to use it for POW in a couple of days, but notice that there is a lot of scanning artifact and would like to ask if you can repair that beforehand." If the photographer agrees to change it then great, if they do not, then the elves should consider not putting it up for POW. That way something that really makes people think that the elves are picking things with about 5 seconds of review (like bad vignetting or a bad scan or the like) can be eliminated as distractions to the discussion. Such a request of a selectee should be restricted to technical issues such as this and not compositional or get into areas of subjectivity. The elves can choose what they want, but to not address technical issues or to allow serious mid-stream changes suggests a casualness, and having a lax administrator may hurt this site in the long run.

 

In some cases the photographer may use vignetting to the benefit of the image, but then at least the photonet visitors to the POW would know that the elves had given the photographer ample notice (or warning) about the technical issues and had considered them additive to the whole.

I agree with most of the above comments regarding creativity and originality, and with discussions of some of the technical flaws.

 

The colors don't really bother me as I think the intent of the picture was to be cartoonish. The hills behind look similar to old hand-tinted postcards from the 40's and 50's. Not entirely unpleasing. In fact, there seems to be a market of postcards with similar humorously nostalgic type pictures, though they are usually in black and white.

 

The colors and overall darkness and texture of the picture seem to be in keeping with many of the other shots in your wonderful portfolio, so I'm less inclined to think of this as technically flawed or the problem of a bad scanner, but that your presentation technique may not be to some people's technical delight. From your portfolio you obviously have a lot of experience and accomplishments so I'm sure you are comfortable with the technical production of your images Though the corner stuff really does detract.

 

While the subject matter is entertaining, compositionally I think it has some shortcomings. The shoe does not add much, partly because the image is dark, it took me while to figure out what that black spot was, there is not enough action to suggest that the shoe was kicked off or ripped off. While being eaten by a car, he does not look to be in much distress. His hands are almost in a relaxed position and he is not kicking or fighting to get out. It looks a bit like he is taking a nap in the trunk rather than being eaten. Placing a blanket over the trunk and letting his legs relax would give this a whole new impression.

 

I see many more wonderful pictures in your folders. This is one of the more creative, but probably not the one I would pick for POW.

 

Congratulations

Very nice photo. Sorry I don't have much to add critique-wise other than what has already been said. Of those, things I agree with would be that it is a bit too static for me, the matches themselves are very intriguing, as is the burn pattern on the already-ignited matches and the patch of flame on the upper left (is that a flicker or flame from the other burning matches that don't appear to be burning or the smoke igniting, or what) (A fun experiment is to light a candle then blow it out and hold a lit match in the smoke. The candle will reignite. I don't know if it is the smoke igniting or the smoke conducting the heat to the wick.) I also agree that different angles or waiting until the flames were further right would maybe add interest and durability. As for symmetry, it appears at first very symmetrical, but the right side is just a bit lower than the left. Nit-picky I know, and not at all important to me, just as an addition to comments on this pictures symmetry.

 

You seem to have the technique and exposure down pat, so some of the suggestions of one match burning or one match left unburnt, etc. would be interesting to see.

 

Comments not directly related to the photo (do not read further if you do not want to read anything not direcftly relating to this picture!)

 

I don't agree with the comments that we should only be talking about the photo itself. There is so much context involved in this whole process of seeing these images on our computer screens that to ignore them would be truly boring. If Tris wants to discuss critiques made by others or discuss his monitor and lighting issues, If David wants to discuss legal issues of this forum, If someone wants to challenge how POW's are chosen, then fine. If I've read the same Digital Vs film or POW selection arguements every week for 10 months, it doesn't make it any less valid to the person who posted it or to a new guest. I don't have a problem with whatever tangential content people want to discuss (as long as there is at least a tangential relationship, I don't want to start seeing recipes), if I don't want to read it, then I don't. I don't consider it pollution to deviate from the photo itself, that happens in real life, why shouldn't it happen here. When people come to me at work, they may talk about all sorts of things unrelated to their work, I don't tell them they can only discuss work with me at work, only that they should do so in a civil manner. If someone is getting unruly and swearing or calling names then I may call them down on it, but otherwise, let the conversation grow on its own and don't prune too much or you may kill the tree.

 

Last week I commented to Tris regarding his approach. It was my opinion that the way he made his point was not appropriate. I never wanted him to stop posting things or to censor him, I just felt that his approach was not all that civil, and it was eating at me so I felt a need to say something. Tris, I hope you don't consider me one of those trying to shut you down or trying to make you say only nice things, because I'm not. Just as you are a strong critic of others who post one-liners and score ridiculously, I felt justified to criticize your critiques. I'm not a censor, just an acknowledged liberal with a bent toward political-correctness.

 

Aloha

I really like this shot for particularly the reasons Ken Michelson didn't. When I look through Seven's portfolios, I see a lot of pictures that are fairly mundane, being macros of mundane things that don't really make me think there was a particualr benefit of them being macros. Some of the more conventional shots seem to suffer somewhat because of the attention given to getting up close by having way-too-tight cropping.

 

This picture on the other hand, is aesthetically pleasing and intriguing to me. The lighting and exposure are dead on and the perspective adds depth and interest. You're using macro to one of its greatest strengths, making the mundane appear abstract and interesting. Sort of like those kids drawings where they draw a tiny portion of an object and you have to figure out what it is. This could be a great market for your style of pictures, having this image on a page and then a kid has to guess what it is then open the flap to see the complete paperweight. I'd buy it, but do it quick as my youngest is almost out of the age for those types of books.

 

I would hang this on my wall if I knew it wouldn't look pixelated at 24 X 36 or larger, but I agree with Gary that whether or not it would go on my wall makes no difference in the worth of the picture.

Tris, I don't understand why you have to be offensive in your discussion, you admitted that you wouldn't give this picture more than a cursory examination, which your discussion proves, yet you accuse others of not expending enough energy to thoughtfully analyze this piece. In fact, by boiling it down to whether or not you'd put it on your wall (and implying that only someone brainwashed by vapid television programming would) is probably as simplistic an analysis as there is, sort of like saying "I don't know art, but I know what I like, and I don't like that". That's fine if you don't really care about what you're looking at, or about taking the time to understand and articulate what it is you do or don't like about it. I would recommend that you stop trying to prove your point that the rest of us are ignorant buffoons who just aren't trying as hard as you, and get on with enjoying the pictures and the comments. If we are truly buffoons, we'll do just fine proving that ourselves, and those who aren't will have no trouble spotting the rest of us who are without you pointing it out.

Tris, I have to agree with Mark. I went back and reluctantly read some of the comments you posted about the color of the water. As Mark stated, the water can have the full spectrum of colors depending on many factors. I've seen it look almost completely white in the morning on the island of Molokai due to sand beneath it and the light striking the waves head on, to near pitch black on some mid afternoons in deeper water, and a full variety of shades of blue-green, so to my eyes there is nothing unnatural appearing about the color of the water in this picture. This is very typical midday color of the water in Hawaii.

 

Anyone who lives near the ocean for any extended period of time will tell you that colors of the water change sometimes from minute to minute, and definitely from hour to hour. And on some special nights it even glows with animalcules.

 

The same goes for the sand. We have sand this color and from white to black with different colors and textures sometimes just a matter of a hundred yards apart.

 

If it doesn't look natural to you, that's fine. The colors I saw in Hawaii when we moved here seemed unreal for a long time, but just recognize that it might be an accurate representation of the actual color of the water.

 

 

 

 

Congratulations Paulo on POW,

Sorry, I haven't kept up with the discussion, and I don't have time to go back and read all the posts, so just to comment on the picture.

 

I think the ridge formed by the waves to the left makes the picture for me. This adds so much that I think the umbrella is almost unnecessary, or to say that the picture would stand up nicely without it.

 

I am not particularly drawn to the color of the sand, it doesn't look inviting if it was intended to, but I'm spoiled living in Hawaii. A similar picture on a black sand beach would be incredible. The lines on the sand don't bother me in the least and make the scene feel more alive and flowing rather than a static sort of stereotypical travel brochure picture.

 

Congrats, well done.

Chris,

Could you expand on your comment on the practice of photography and why you think the judges don't know it? I assume you mean that this picture does not meet a technical and/or aesthetic standard that POW should and that it is not one others should emulate.

I'm also not sure I understand what you meant by ordinary technique and normal photography. Is this an ordinary way to achieve an IR image? I've never tried IR but would be interested to know more about the limits of this technique. Is there a way that this IR picture could have been done to achieve better results?

 

I agree with the general comments that this is a very well composed picture and has a nice feel to it, but there are a number of things about it that seem could have been tightened up, but again, I know very little about IR photography so can only comment very generally.

 

Is this not normal photography? Is normal when you want to capture what you exactly see and other photography when you want to capture something different? Would a polarizer or colored filter be considered not normal? Not trying to be a jerk, just asking for clarification to your weighty comments.

 

Very calm and peaceful, but with the blueness, I feel more like it is an early morning pre-sunrise pic, that "blue hour" that folks were discussing a few POW's ago as compared to the "golden hour" at dusk. I feel invigorated, as if I were the first awake on a camping trip and walked to the rocky shore on cool, crisp morning.

Nice job.

Gorgeous photo with beautiful colors. I've been coming back to the picture daily trying to identify what it was that didn't feel so compelling. The color and composition are very nice, the detail is exquisite. It hit me today that it is a slight lack of depth and feeling of the relationahip of the fallen tree or branch to the ground. Although I assume this was shot with natural light, it almost has the appearance of having had some fill flash. The bark and the leaves are essentially very similar tones and the dropoff to the darkness beneath them and in the gap of the bark is fairly quick without much gradation. I don't really see much of the shape of the trunk and don't see much depth beneath the top layer of leaves. I don't get the feeling that this is a tree that has spent much time on the ground and become deeply integrated with it, even though there is obvious rotting. Maybe a little less bright and you could still keep those rich colors but add in a little more weight to really make it feel like the tree has returned to the ground instead of just laying on top of it. Touchy-feely I know, but just my thoughts after pondering for a couple of days.

Your photos are brilliant and exhibit an amazing amount of care and patience. Your Mono Lake shot blows away a fairly recent Outdoor Photography (I think) cover of the same place.