jordan2240

Beautiful shot, and I really like the glow around the father and son, but I'm a little bothered by how straight the cloud formation is. Might be perfectly natural, but it looks unnatural to me, and also looks like it is about to compress the man and then child. And it also makes the shot look like two different pictures (the cloud part and the human part).

I think the dark corner actually draws the attention more easily to the main subject of the frame, so think it is appropriate as is. Not sure that bringing more out of the shadows there would be a positive addition.

Gail,

Good of you to offer some insight on the shot. Not sure what 'Billy' was getting at, but sometimes it's hard to interpret comments on the net.

I've not tried focus stacking either, but not sure it works well with moving subjects. I don't think you've lost anything by not having everything in focus. The 'story' is obvious. Macro is a very enjoyable genre of photography, and flash often helps with getting the depth-of-field needed, though it's obviously not always necessary. I don't have much new stuff out here, but I post fairly often on flickr and my own website (which is identified on my profile page, I think).

Capturing the right light is a key element of photography, and I think you've done it here. Good eye to catch it.

I really like the lighting in this shot and the texture of the flower. Overall, gives a nice sense of how large the world is for the little bug.

I also do not see any exploitation here. People have been riding animals for about as long as there have been animals, and it's highly doubtful the girl's weight would cause the elephant any hardship. Perhaps if she had a whip and hook in her hand, exploitation would be a consideration.

Not sure how you could tell by looking at this that the elephant was from a zoo, but I don't have an issue with zoos anyway.

I also find the photo to be 'cute' and with a dream-like quality, and think it is well done for the most part. But in looking at it closely, something just wasn't sitting quite right with me beyond the lighting, and after viewing the larger version (which I wish the 'elves' would provide a link to), at the risk of sounding like a perv, it's the processing of the girls rear-end. It just kind of disappears into the elephant, and looks much flatter to me than it would naturally. But the 'photo' does accomplish what it set out to do, and I'm sure the little girl would be very happy with a large print of it hanging on her bedroom wall.

Thanks for the comparison photo Fred. I agree with your assertions, so can't find argument to discuss, but I do wonder if the POW photographer was even considering DOF and such, or if he just simply came across this scene and shot with whatever settings he had on. I know I've come across humorous scenes and am typically much more concerned about capturing the scene than what my technique is. In fact, I've recently taken to shooting in program mode often and letting the camera figure it out - plus, it's easy to slip into Av and Tv modes as needed. The Erwitt photo looks like there was definitely some thought to technique as well as subject matter, and I agree the latter is enhanced by the former.

Agree with Fred about the man in the water. Easily cloned out of course with today's technology. But it doesn't detract much from the main impetus of the photo, and I wouldn't have even noticed him if I wasn't examining this closely as a POW.

Technicals seem fine, though for this type of photo, where the humor is the focus, I don't think they are particularly important as long as the main subject stands out. Not sure if anything is added by it being B and W, though perhaps it provides for more emphasis on the humor aspect.

Chuck has a nice portfolio out here with some really stunning stuff. In this particular shot, I'm not quite sure, like Louis, what he is trying to convey. It's an interesting idea, but I think it's over-sharpened and the gaze of the model makes it look like she wasn't ready for the shot. I think perhaps if her head had been turned the same direction as her gaze I'd find it more appealing. I don't mind the blown highlights because I think the significant parts of the image are exposed well, but I also agree with Louis that a tighter composition on the model would work a little better, unless, of course, Chuck's intent was to make the tree the focal point, in which case, I think a young child playing on the tree would have been more effective.

Apologies to Janine for not viewing the larger version first. It does indeed show the plane in better focus. Some very nice shots in her portfolio. Perhaps the 'elves' would consider linking to the larger versions when posting.

I would like to see this image presented for the weekly-post-processing challenge to see what others would do with it. Not sure I agree with Robin that the crop should be different, as I think the color adds much of the drama to the image and conveys the extent of the fire (though I'd have probably thought this was a plane crashing at sunset without the title), but it's certainly something to consider. I think a bit of 'clarity' and 'levels' adjustments might also work in the image's favor, and maybe a little bump in saturation (though I'm well aware of the overuse of such).

As presented, I don't find this to be as dramatic as others I've seen of similar subject matter, perhaps because there are no discernible flames, and because, as Robin notes, the plane is slightly out of focus. I think a little more separation between the plane and the retardant would add to the photo's impact.

Bill, the POTW is not an award or honor, but a selection the selectors believe can generate conversation (which they rarely do it seems). Some respondants might think it a great photo while others might not.

Agree with tony's assessment. It's a very interesting homo-erotic creation that feels both sensual and mysterious and, I think, is very well executed. I, too, found the "elephant's trunk" out of place and a bit disturbing, as it actually looks like it's either coming out of the woman's ear or is a rather strange arm-like appendage on the other woman. Ruins the mood a bit for me and turns it into some sort of alien encounter. My initial take was to dislike the masks as well, but the more I look at it, the more I think they might have their place, as I do like the clarity of the faces and think the mask maintains that air of mystery. Otherwise, it might have just looked like sets of misplaced eyes.

As for the treatment making it look like damaged and scratched film, I'm not sure all of the blemishes were necessary, but they aren't a major point of contention.

Internet conversation is tiring and often difficult, so I'll simply make this last point. Any photo can be commented on with regard to contents/technique/feel etc., and the POTW conversation will go in the direction that it's lead. The first few comments here addressed the photo, then it went astray. The moderators asked for suggestions, no doubt in response to some of these conversations, and I have no way of knowing if this was a photo suggested by a 'learned' photographer or one selected by someone who knows nothing about photography. My main point is, I don't think it matters. Fred and EOD think otherwise. I have no idea how you intend to have 'acceptable' photos selected each week when what's 'acceptable' is subjective even among the 'experts.'

Fred,

I commented on one of those linked photos when it was POTW, but I don't see where either generated any lengthy discussions, but those that do generally wander off into a sidebar discussion, much like this one.

As you may recall, I started the Weekly-post-processing challenge that is in the digital darkroom forum for the very purpose of getting ideas from other photographers on how they would process an image. The idea was to experience the vision of those with varying degrees of skill and experience. How would they make the photo better? I think the POTW photo falls within the same lines - why do you like it or why don't you like it, and how might you make it better. I think some are making the mistake of thinking it is an award of some sort to be chosen POTW. I don't believe the 'elves' are choosing photos because they think they are good necessarily, but because they might generate discussion. Several recent ones generated none. I don't know why, but I know I personally didn't comment on them because I didn't know what to say beyond 'I like it' or 'I don't like it,' which applies to the majority of photos I look at anyway.

I think that's asking a lot of someone. I believe the POTW is usually chosen from images that have been fairly recently uploaded, and for someone to go through them all and try to develop some theme to be followed through the weeks would be difficult, though I believe I suggested in one of these discussion recently that it would be interesting to see multiple images of similar subject matter from different contributors posted side by side for discussion. We had another recent boat shot that could have been compared to this one.

EOD, love the not-so-subtle insult. Feel better? If you don't think there is a difference between judging art, which pretty much everyone does and which many even create with not an ounce of study, and studying civil engineering and building bridges, then perhaps you should re-evaluate your stance. But I agree there is some benefit in learning more about an artist, though I don't think it typically changes your opinion of the art, and is therefor not really necessary in evaluating it. If, for example, I heard a piano piece that I absolutely hated but learned the artist had only one hand, I'd be very impressed, but still probably hate the music.

I like tony's example of the subjective nature of art and Charles' comment on the potential for these discussions regardless of the shot.

Your example is a bit ridiculous Mr. Days, as there isn't a lot of subjectivity in bridge-building, whereas if I'm not 'studied' enough to appreciate Jackson P., it's not likely anyone is going to die.

I do agree with Fred that you do put more weight on the opinion of someone who is experienced in a particular field of art, and if Weston liked one of my photographs but none of my friends did, I might still think it a good photograph, though in terms of the value of the piece, only Weston liking it probably isn't going to do much for me.

Not sure what you guys would prefer to see in terms of POW selections. I've seen some Ansel Adams stuff I didn't particularly like, but I suspect if some of those were identified as POWs some would think them swell simply because of who took them. I wonder what the 'elves' who make these selections think they need to do after seeing some of these conversations. I think it's very hard to discuss a piece of art and not stray off to side-topics.

The moderator asked for ideas for POWs, and I don't know how many were received, but I think the issue here is less with the photos chosen and more with a general lack of interest in discussing them. Going back to January (the number of POWs that show up when I go into the forum), the most discussed one has more to do with the label placed on an unsuspecting subject than the photo itself. Other than that, there aren't any with very significant numbers of comments, and they don't all appear to be 'kitsch' photos to me (though perhaps I don't know what 'kitsch' is).

What's a 'good' photo? Would this one be good if the execution was better (i.e. components were better matched in post-processing)? Or is it 'bad' regardless because the subject matter is fairly common? Can I take a 'good' picture of a flower, or are all of them considered bad because, well, they're flowers.

I can see where there could easily be some discussion on this one on how it might have been made better, even if you (i.e. anyone) want to immediately write it off as 'kitsch.' And given this is a 'photography' forum, I also think it appropriate to discuss how closely it fits what one considers 'photography.'

The 'study' of art is something that has always baffled me a bit. What does it do for someone, exactly? Does it make them better able to judge something as 'good' art? If I like something as an unstudied person that a studied person doesn't like, does it mean I am wrong to like it or that my opinion about it is any less valuable?

Using this picture as an example, I can see where some 'study' might be useful with regard to identifying whether the light is right, but if someone else comes along and likes it as is, who's to say he is wrong? Many people believe there are no rules in art, and maybe the photographer, in this instance, purposely blended the subjects as he did for impact, as it does make you feel a bit uncomfortable to look at it.

For me, I base what's 'good' on its aesthetic appeal or, in some instances, my knowledge of how difficult it was to create the final product. I don't know how else one is to judge art.

Just for the record, this is from the 'About this forum' blurb for the POW:
"The Photograph of the Week (POTW) is chosen by a group of 15 Anonymous Elves."
That's why they've always been referred to as 'elves.'
And again, the POW is supposed to foster discussion. I don't know how much discussion you can foster with something that is considered universally good, if there is such a thing. Much easier to discuss something that might be seen as a bit controversial or 'kitsch.' Maybe what would be interesting would be for the POW to ask for examples of photos of a specific subject, and we could post examples of such that we liked, though that would require posting other artists' works and I'm not sure how you'd find them anyway.

Interesting opinion by Fred though as to our ability to foster a more refined taste in art through education. Does that mean we would have never been treated to Elvis on velvet or dogs playing poker? I think there will always be people who like that stuff, and I think even those have some merit from an aesthetic and talent standpoint.

Would be interesting to know what elements of this are actually 'photographs' and which are solely computer-generated. We had a similar discussion about 'digital art' a few weeks ago, and I think the same applies here. Just because the components of a final product have some relationship to photography does not make the resulting image a 'photograph.'

This one just appears a bit too unrealistic for my tastes. The bright colors of the boat do not coincide with the color-cast I'd expect from the moon, and, as tony pointed out, one would expect to see some sort of rays or reflection from the moon.

But I'd also like to point out that a work that is selected as POW is not being bestowed some honor, but is something the 'elves' thought would generate discussion - as this one has.

Clever concept and well executed, though I find it just a little bit creepy (the idea of being trapped in a bubble). I do think the feet showing would have been preferred, and I'm wondering if I'd like it better if they were on the bubble rather than in it. Either way, I applaud the imaginative effort.

Really like the tones in and the tone of the shot. Not quite sure I like the look of scratches in the sky. I'd have to see it without those as comparison. Bela exhibits a nice eye here. Agree with tony that a bit more separation between the house and tree might have worked slightly better, but again, I'd have to see it in comparison to get a better idea.

Interesting points to ponder. I personally don't like labels because we often end up trying to fit everyone into one neat little category when it rarely applies, but I'm not sure 'photography' is really a label more than a means of defining a process, with a 'photograph' being the result of that process.

Here's a definition of photography from Webster. Seems accurate enough:
"the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (as film or an optical sensor)"

By that definition, a photograph is pretty much what is recorded on the film/sensor. Anything beyond that is something else. I'm not suggesting we ever apply that limited of a definition, but in purely scientific terms, that's what a photograph is.

Michael, with the WPPC, my intent was to get different ideas on how the same image would be 'developed' (or processed/post-processed). I've lurked in the forum ever since I bowed out, and some of what is produced would indeed be 'digital art' or 'photo manipulations' or 'photo illustrations' in my book. I agree with Fred that 'digital art' doesn't necessarily or even typically involve a photo, so some term with 'photo' in it would be more appropriate. Or, others are free to call them 'photographs' if it suits their definition. There is no right or wrong, and in the end, all art is appreciated by someone, even black-velvet Elvis, so it doesn't matter how it's labeled unless there are restrictions on what is being presented.

I'm assuming 'Gordon' is aka 'EndofDays.'

Art has no boundaries. Labels do.

I don't think my hypothetical shot of alligators jumping from tree-top to tree-top is a photograph, even if photography was used in its creation. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't think it was 'cool.'

But we are, Fred, in a 'photo' context (re 'Photo of the Week'), and while it truly doesn't matter to me that this is a photo that was significantly manipulated (because I appreciate it for the artistry involved no matter what it is), I thought it appropriate to discuss the 'photography' aspect of it and what defines something as a photograph.

Black and White is the reality for some people as is limited DOF and blurred vision and glare/flare etc., but that's not what I was considering in referring to the 'realness' of a shot. It involves both the subject matter and what techniques were applied and how.

I can take a picture of an alligator an do no manipulations to it, and it's a photograph because it is the capture of an image that existed and was not significantly manipulated beyond the camera's image recording capability. I can take the same picture and shake the camera around while holding down the shutter button, and I get a different result, but it's still a photograph because it is an image that existed and was created using the camera's image-recording capability. I can take my first image, combine it with an image of some trees, and make a composite with alligators leaping from tree-top to tree-top, and I no longer have a photograph because what I've created goes well-beyond the camera's image recording capability and what could exist. What I've created is a 'photo manipulation,' which for me is a different category of art.

Now, I realize that nearly all photos are manipulated in some manner outside of the camera, but there is a generally accepted standard of how extensive the manipulations can be before crossing the line from 'photograph' to 'photography illustration' or 'photo manipulation' or 'digital art.' That standard is somewhat subjective depending on who's setting it, but I do think some works cross nearly everyone's line.

There is no practical application for such a line, Mr. Days, other than perhaps in photojournalism or any application where modifications are restricted to the 'basics' associated with a photograph (such as a contest, for example). And in those instances, I'd suggest that it is a judgment that determines if the criteria has been met, and judgment almost always requires an undefined line.

Fred, in terms of aesthetic appreciation, what I call it doesn't matter at all, though there is a huge difference in the skill level of one who can create what Anabela creates and one who is purely a 'photographer.' What difference does it make what we call any art? Why call a sculpture a sculpture or a lithograph a lithograph or a screen print a screen print or a watercolor a watercolor, etc? Basically, it's just what we do, and I think there is a difference between a 'photograph' and 'digital art,' for lack of a better term. I just don't know exactly how you deliniate them. It might be slightly different for different people, and it's kind of a you'll-know-it-when-you-see-it feeling.

Arthur, very interesting and imaginative creation. I'm sure this has been discussed in one forum or another (perhaps multiple) a number of times, but feel it is appropriate here as well based on the chosen photo. I would not call your shot a photograph. I would call it an artwork with a basis in photography. For me, there is a line that gets crossed in manipulations, whether it's in a darkroom or with current technology. I don't know that I can define that line, as it's pretty subjective. Much of Anabela's work crosses my implementation of that line, primarily, I would say, because it presents a picture in a way that cannot appear in reality.

But again, to be clear, I really like her work, including the shots that I would identify as 'photographs.'