fabriziogiudici

Crtiqueing a photo for being just "Unoriginal" is no real critique at all.

This would be true if people just said "it's not original" without givingreferences. But people gave them, and references to the work of Peter Keetmans were veryinteresting. The purpose of POW is neither to scream "wonderful work" every two minutesnor to defend/attack the photographer, but to learn.

For what concerns originality: the art of photography is older than one century and it's obvious that most of 'original' shots were already discovered. So it's very difficult (I'm saying very difficult, not impossible)to find out an 'original photo' that is 'a photo that nobody on earth ever made untilnow'. But originality is not a 'digital' (true, false) concept. I remind everybody that we can give originality a range from 0 thru 10. For what concerns this photo I would say it's pretty up in thescale of originality, even if is not a perfect ten since it's not a completely new idea.From the technical point of view is nearly perfect.

Mary Ball is right in pointing out that the raw idea behind a photo may be not original, but it canbe implemented in many different ways (and some of them may add a pinch of further originality). For instance, for what I can see following a posted URL, theKeetmans' photo "1001 faces" is a bit different than Glen's one: it seems that there are no visibledetails on faces, conveying more the feeling of a crowd of clones than a portrait, whereGlen's photo is more a portrait since we can at least guess the main characters of Glen's wife.

Thanks Flavio for the larger version.

 

Now I agree with others (I have to say that two days ago I watched the photo on a LCD laptop, and now I'm on a CRT screen), I like it.

The feelings that the author wants to convey is

"the impossibility of free sight" and the photo

accomplishes it very well, thanks to the telephoto

compression and to the placement of the buildings

that are stacked in adjacent layers (and ordered

with tallest buildings in the foreground). It was

a good idea to not include the sky, since it would

have given a sense of space (that is not compatible with the photographer's intents).

 

Is this landscape typical of San Paulo? I don't know because

I've never been there; probably many other towns around the world

are similar, IMHO this photo is a good abstraction of a typical

metropolis crowded landscape rather than a San Paulo portrait, and

so the relationship with San Paulo is not so important.

 

Finally, you understand better this photo in the context of the photographer's portfolio.

The picture is part of a portfolio titled "The impossibility of a free sight",

and this perhaps explains the meaning of the photo - the sense of congestion

induced by urban landscapes such as this. This said, I guess that the photo

was selected mainly for the technical rendition of the subject, i.e. the cited

high grain and contrast - but I it's very difficult to appreciate it since

the picture is so small (also in the "large" version). The subject per se is

- unfortunately! - quite common in our large towns... For me this is the most

puzzling POW selection since I've joined the community...

Thanks to Ricardo for his comments. I again repeat that if the author explains/replies to critique/questions as early as possible the discussion can only take advantage from it.

 

For instance Ricardo says that he deliberately choose to have the shadow and the chair lie together so to be confused. It's important to know that this is a choice of the author and not an error or an ingenuity. Still I find it to be a bit too confused also at a second and a third look :-) but it's a matter of taste - in a B/W photo I search for elegance and harmony, which I found in this image with the exception of the cited left side of the chair.

 

For what concerns originality: it's no doubt that it's very very difficult to be completely innovative, and more or less every kind of artistic work takes at least some hint from previous work. The point is if it also _adds_ something valuable and new to the old stuff.

For instance, in the cited Rachmaninov's piece "Variations on a theme of Paganini" the composer just starts from a simple piano transcription of the Paganini's violin theme and then adds a lot from his own, up the point in which the theme is inverted, achieving a completely different musical atmosphere. A hint from Paganini _plus_ a very simple but genial idea and you get a dramatic effect; this is the signature of a masterpiece.

 

While this photo is no doubt the work of a competent professional, still I don't see anything special in it. The fact that the photo was a contest winner is another proof of the author's competency but this fact doesn't change my original opinion.

I don't think it's a very original idea... I understand the concept, I have some doubts about the implementation. For instance I don't like the fact that the shadow just touches the chair, the composition would probably benefit of a lower angle of view, so that the chair and the shadow are separated. The high point of view also makes the chair a confused bag of lines in its left side.

... also because Maradona is from Argentina.

 

I was able to get home and see the POW on my monitor. I agree with others about the focus, a deeper DOF would have been better. Nevertheless I think this is a minor defect (well, we should look at a large print to evaluate it). The framing, the lighting and the expression make this shot a classic "celebrative" portrait. A good photo, IMHO, I agree that much better photos are in Paulo's portfolio.

I have to wait before giving technical comments

since I'm on the laptop for two/three days and

I cannot see colors on a calibrated monitor.

 

I took a look to Paulo's portfolio and I join others

suggesting to visit it - it's worth while, I think we have a talented photojournalist here. Again, apart from tech details about single shots, I think in many photos Paulo demonstrates to be able to catch the moment.

 

PS I'm glad that this time we won't talk about PS :-)

I agree with Tony and Brian: the right palm should be cut away, and what remains is just a single palm with a light behind that is the moon but could be something else. So I disagree with the reasons given by the elves for the POW selection.

 

 

Nevertheless, my personal opinion is that POW is not a contest for the 'better' images, but is a selection of images that foster discussion. So even a photo such as this one, shallow but which illustrates an interesting technical feature, is a proper POW selection.

First of all, congrats to Bill. I won't go in technical comments, I just say that his photo depicts very well a typical moment of social life in Italy.

Then let me digress about the funny discussion about Società Operaie ... :-)

In Italy the name "Società Operaie di mutuo soccorso" (Laborers' Associations for Mutual Help could be a valid translation) refers to free associations of workers that were founded in the second half of the XIX century to help people who found themselves in economic difficulties and/or at risk of harmful events. I think that such associations in the rest of the world are designated as "trade unions", but today Società Operaie are not trade unions in the sense that they do not deal with contract disputations and so on (the italian translation for such organisations is "sindacato").

In Italy there's at least a Società Operaia in every village, and their offices very often host meetings of different kinds, ranging from card or petanque tournaments to discussion about problems of the local community, and of course about cultural events. So we really can't know what men in this photo are discussing about. (furthermore Tony's comment about the other room is correct, such a big and ancient building surely hosts more than one association at a time...).

It is not unlikely they are discussing about music :-) but I think, judging by face expressions, they are talking about soccer or politics... whatever the matter of the discussion, Bill's photo is wonderful for its atmosphere.

Final note: Sorrento is in Campania, near Naples, not in Calabria. This makes for the singing hypothesis, since people in Campania use to sing very often... :-)

I don't like them, anyway I don't think the problem is how good we can see in the darkness, or how accurate the light in the photo is with respect to the real thing, but which is the best aesthetic approach - and/or which are the feelings that the photo conveys.

 

The darkness could have a precise meaning, e.g. a sense of mystery (dream or nightmare?) about the rocks as opposed to the serene pink colour of the sky. OTOH with that kind of soft light and subject I would personally enjoy an exposure that conveys the tactile feeling of the rocks (follow the link to the comparison picture in my previous comment for an example).

 

It would be interesting to know if there is and what is the meaning of the photo in Juergen's mind.

 

I was able to find on the web the referenced photo in my previous comment. Here it is:

http://flood.nhm.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wildwin/2001/win.dsml?catdescrip2=wp&posdescrip2=win&picnumb=74

First of all, congrats to Juergen for his POW.

 

I'm glad to see a landscape photo selected as POW :-) Juergen's photo is nice and I like the virtual-panoramic effect he achieved by combining two regular photos.

 

I agree with previous posters who think that the rocks are one stop too dark. I don't think it's a matter of the monitor, I calibrate mine once every two weeks and if I adjust the photo in Photoshop to have the rocks brighter, the sky washes out - while I think that the original sky color is ok.

 

I think that a one-stop ND graduated filter would have improved the photo: being able to see details in the rock texture would have been a plus. I would suggest to compare this photo with "Swedish coastline at dusk", published at page 92 of the 2001 BBC Wildlife Photographer of the Year portfolio (sorry, I could scan and post it, but I think it would be a copyright violation). The image is a similar concept (even if there's less sky in it) and it takes advantage from the use of a ND graduated filter.

 

BTW, with details in the rocks Juergen's photo would be better than "Swedish coastline at dusk" IMHO.

Nice shot, it is uncommon to catch both a lightning and the sun. Nice colors and overall feeling of a storm.

I forgot - overexposing would have also improved the building side that it's in the shadow (too dark).

Many people don't like over-saturated skies, but this is not my problem (if you look at my folders you'll find that I use this effect quite a lot).

 

I like a deep blue sky but I prefer to contrast it with a light subject. So my problem here is that the house is dark. Overexposing by 1 stop (or perhaps 1.5) would have improved the picture.

 

I would also get rid of the ground at the bottom (cropping just below the stairs).

The cropped version is definitely better.

I agree with Robert, Mary and Brian that technical stuff is just "means" and not an "end" (I hope I translated with the correct words). The "end" is to achieve a photo "which works". OTOH Pawel's comparison with ski jumping is very good. A similar concept was expressed by a computer guru that once wrote in a book "Style distinguishes excellence from accomplishment" (he meant a slightly different concept but I think that his sentence perfectly applies here). In general a masterpiece photo MUST work and SHOULD be tecnhically correct.

 

But POW is not a gallery of masterpieces, as I understand it: it's a gallery of photos "which work" (of course some times they could be ALSO masterpieces). Many people thinks the opposite way - from here suggestions come about selecting the POW by ratings or similar ideas. The problem is probably the crawling idea of a continuos competition between photo.net members, so that the POW owner is perceived as a "winner" of a weekly competition (BTW this idea of competition pushed to the edge is also responsible of crazy things such as the rating war occurred last summer). Maybe Pawel's idea of turning POW in POWC or something similar could solve some misunderstandings.

 

The elves select photos not on the basis of objective and demonstrable criteria, but because they like the overall picture and they think it "would be inspirational and educational to other photo.net users". To provoke discussion. If the discussion stays on the proper trail, I think they are succesful in it. For me the meaning of the discussion is not to argue if the elves were right or wrong, but just to compare my opinion with others. The very "end" of the discussion is not to judge if the POW just works or it's a masterpiece, but to learn different ways to see it other than those coming from my very personal attitude.

Really nice photo. Perfect exposition and DOF, wonderful color saturation and the complementary colors add much to this shot.

 

I saw you 4 photos portfolio and look forward your next uploads.

Mary,

 

I was not referring to you in my previous posting (actually I read yours after sending mine). I must say that your kind of comment is the normal kind of comment I would like to see on photo.net: "I just don't gives me the feel of a candid". This is ok! If you read in other comments, you find something titled "Candid my ass" :-) Probably that was for Rienk just another way to express your same feelings :-) but it could be easily interpreted in some other (unpleasant) way...

 

 

Moreover, I see that easily people who criticizes is attacked for having bad portfolios and so on, so the discussions moves on a personal (other than questionable) approach and I think this is bad.

 

We should be more relaxed, concentrate on photograpy and take it easy!

First of all I must say I'm getting more and more puzzled when I see the how the discussion level in photo.net evolves. I really don't understand why people attacks so easily other's work instead of just politely saying "I don't like it" and explaining why.

 

Coming to the photo, I say that usually nudes is a cathegory of photos that I don't understand. Some kind of nudes disturb me; others don't but I seldom appreciate them, mostly because I find difficult to evaluate them. I think that their esthetics depends too much on the beauty (or not) of the model (even if I think that in many cases the photographer should be credited for it more than the model). I think it is a normal thing: not everybody understands any kind of art.

 

Said that, I like this photo because of its overall atmosphere (I must say that I ran into it a week ago and so I made my opinion well before the POW). I don't mind if it's a candid or not (however it could perfectly be and I don't see why Jonathan should be so rudely accused to lie). I don't mind any discussion about tech details because I think that a photo should be judged for its overall aesthetics: sometimes a "perfect" exposition, focusing, thirds rule and nearly invisible grain makes for it, sometimes not. In this case the fuzzy atmosphere of Jonathan's photo takes advantage from the grain, the "soft" look and the contrast between the bright background and the dark body (I said dark but not muddy, its rendition probably depends also on the monitor settings). Anyway I think that too many details in the model's back would distract from the three main components of the photo: the face profile, the turban and the small breast profile. These makes for the portrait of an elegant woman.

 

I ever don't mind if this shot is "European" or not - perhaps because, as an European, I don't understand what others mean as "European" :-)

 

P.s. I'm rather on the puritan side, but this is a "pudic" kind of nude, similar to the ones you can find in advertisemens published in common newspaper and magazines. I can hardly imagine a context in which this photo on the front page of photo.net could create any embarassment...

Great macro shot, the subject is crisp and detailed, I like the background, blurred but not too much.

It is a nice photo of an ol' scotland town. I like the exposure and the b/w is a good idea here.

 

I would suggest cropping a bit to the left side (to cut away the five-windows building slice) and at the bottom (to cut away the roof section with the white stripe). Cropping to the left side would probably need some cropping to the right side too for balancing the composition.

 

The slight horizon tilt does not disturb me. Too bad for the crane in the background...

 

Daniel, great work as usual. I'm just thinking if the horse to the right is distracting, because of its position. Did you try to crop it off?

Yes, it may recall of some strange horses painted by Salvator Dalì - it used to paint big mammals (horses, elefants and so on) with insect-like legs, very thin and long.

... and the 'Thank you' is the most original use of the custom fields seen so far! :-)