fmueller

Interesting (but not surprising for me), to get two comments from Aussies on this shot, who find it hard to accept that this is an Aussie family.

Nice shot!

This is wonderful. Techically perfect. The window really makes this photo. I can't imagine this with a dull even lighting.

This is the least static photo I have seen in my life - photos are always static, you must use your imagination! There is so much going on. It is one of those pictures that you can look at for a very long time and keep on discovering new details.

If it hadn't been for Chris' comments, this could have been the party in which the elves choose the POW ;-)

I took this photo while experementing with an old Minoltina-P finder

camera and trying to use a little second hand flash unit for fill

flash. My dog Jody is my most patient model - especially when he is

asleep ;-)

I reckon the creaminess of the old lens and the fill flash work very

well in this shot.

What do you think?

Possibly the best ballon picture I have ever seen! The scan needs cleaning up though. There are a number of white smudges up the top.

My ratings are bases on a clean scan.

As an aside, was this taken at the Reno ballon festival? Coincidentally I am currently taking quite an interest in Reno since my wife has a job interview with the Unversity of Nevada in a couple of weeks :-)

Michael,

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 could not agree more. Certainly I dont post photos on this site with the secret wish in mind that they might be chosen as POW - well, at least not all of them ;-)

I would die from embarrassment if one of my test shots to check out a new camera, or one of my equipment photos would appear on the front page one day, but the way things are looking, this becomes more and more likely!

I think the elves have to accept some of this blame

I would have to disagree, they have to accept ALL of the blame. A photo that needs touching up before it can stand up to the challenges of being on the front page should not be chosen as POW, period.

Haluks shot is a wonderful humorous photo that will get a laugh out of anybody who is into this sort of thing. It will appeal to a lot of VW lovers too, and there is nothing wrong with up-loading it on Photo.net to share it with other people - but it is not a good choice as a POW.

Hallo Juergen,

Soll ich jetzt auf Deutsch oder Englisch schreiben - ach, bleiben wir lieber bei Englisch.

I admit that I was a bit hesitant when I hit the 'submit ratings' button, because I realised that my ratings were quite a bit lower than the average ratings for this photo, and this doesn't happen to me very often.

I sort of felt that I needed at least to provide an explanation, but at the time laziness got the better of me. Thanks for getting back to me and reminding me of my obligation.

Regarding originality, I can't see how people can give 8 and 9 ratings in this category for this photo. It is a seascape like many others - water, rocks, sunset. The smooth water thingy with the long exposure time is quite neat, but even that has been done a gazillion times before. Admittedly, you don't see the smooth water and the sunset combined very often. So maybe 4 was a bit harsh.

Regarding aesthetics, I just had a look at the photo at my home computer, which is probably quite a bit better calibrated than the one at work, which I used earlier today. I believe I now see details in the rocks on the left-hand side, which I did not see before. Also, the shadows that the rocks throw on the water are a bit clearer. However, there is just too much smooth grey area in the foreground on the left-hand side. I don't think even the print would help here, because apparently that's the effect that you wanted to achieve. For me there is a little bit too much of it, and the sky has it easier to hold my interest, but of course this is just personal taste.

What impressed me most about your explanation is that you were obviously after a certain effect and achieved it with quite a bit of hard work. Together with the fact that I am always in for a good haggle, as well as being a generous person, this has made me correct my ratings from 4/6 to 6/8.

Don't get your knickers in a twist about photo.net ratings, mate - just go out and shoot some more great photos like this one!

Viele Gruesse aus Australien

I am not convinced that it would have actually been better to have the flying butterfly fully in the frame. The way it is, it is 'just coming into the picture' - literally ;-)

For balance I would probably crop the bottom as tightly as the top.

I love the title! - maybe the 'The Intruder' would have been even better?

I keep on coming back for several days now to have another look at this picture - beautiful!

I agree with everything Maria said about not beeing able to take my eyes off, but also the cropping.

I hesitate to rate this picture. Instinctively I want to give it 10/10 because it's the most captivating picture I have seen in a long time. However, it's beauty seems to transcends the given criteria. Is it original? - probably not, I bet hundreds of photographers go to this Hindu meeting every time. How about aestetics? - the composition sure is not perfect. However, the colours and the unbelievable scene capture me.

Thanks, Swapan, for the cultural background.

Photography for me is a hobby that I thoroughly enjoy, but I have no intention to become a professional and I have no arts background, which would probably help to improve my photography. I visit Photo.net almost daily and have been reading the POW comments for quite some time. However, this is my first comment on a POW.

Looking at recent POWs and reading the comments I started to ask myself what makes a great picture.

For me, in a great picture all parts contribute to the whole; ie there are no unnecessary, let alone distracting elements in it.

All else follows from there; ie composition, exposure, sharpness etc. have to contribute to the whole. If, for example, sharpness if off, but this contributes, or at least does not distract, from the picture, this is not a problem. If, on the other hand, the picture is so blurred that the viewer is distracted by the lack of sharpness, this is a serious flaw.

A further consideration is wether there are any elements that could have been included to significantly improve the picture as a whole.

An added benefit for a great picture is, if the whole is something other than a beautiful flower or a fast motorbike, ie if the picture carries a deeper message or evokes a certain feeling. This is extremely hard to achieve and I wonder if any POW has been able to do this yet.

While it is possible to randomly take a large number of pictures, and come up with at least one in which all parts contribute to the whole, this is extremely rare. Taking a picture that holds up to this criterion is usually the result of careful planning, and requires some level of technical proficiency as well as appropriate equipment.

A snapshot is characterised by a lack of planning and will usually contain some superfluous or distracting elements.

This criterion is by no means new, it has been used a lot in the POW discussion. However, to my knowledge it has never been clearly spelled out, and a lot of people keep on wondering according to what sort of criteria the POW is judged.

Reviewing the archived POWs with this criterion in mind, I believe that the overwhelming majority of them hold up very well. Of course the judgement is still highly subjective. While one person might think that following the rule of thirds, blurring the background and cropping tightly all contribute to the whole, another person would have made different choices. At least in almost all cases a convincing argument can be staged that the choices, which the photographer made, were made to contribute to the whole.

Unfortunately this is difficult for the last two POWs. Last week Tony Dummett had a good shot at defining what the whole in this picture was - and I was impressed: ;-)

"We see something such as this and a nagging, unsettled feeling eats away at our bones, whispering to us that we (in our comfort zones) are just a PART of the grand scheme of things, and a small part at that."

However, I find it hard to see how the big brown fence in the foreground contributes to this message. I could construct something, but it would be far fetched. Also, the shabby scan on the left-hand side is difficult to explain away.

This weeks POW had a fantastic chance to be even more than a great picture, because it has the potential to evoke a feeling - it aims to make you laugh. However, I for one was distracted by the less then ideal background and perspective, as well as by the severe vignetting. What tops it all off is that the photographer actually altered the picture halfway through the week, changing not only the cropping but also the colour balance of the picture, which previously contributed very well to the comic like nature of the picture. This clearly demonstrates a lack of consideration and planning and confirms that the POW has moved from great pictures to snapshots.

Like previous posters I suspect that the people behind the scenes take the POW much less seriously than the Photo.net users, which is sad considering the first class work that you can find when you have a look at the top rated photos .

I loved the old version and this one is even better! Is there more detail now in the shadows? It certainly is sharper. Did you scan it differently or just rework it in photoshop? I'd love to know...

Frank

For me this photo captures the natural beauty and typical rainy and

overcast weather of the area around Dunedin on the South Island of

New Zealand very well.

Any comments and suggestions appreciated!

Frank