michael_ward1

This is an awesome picture. The way the stairs and the stonework draw the eye up into the garden (or whatever) in the back is wonderful. The muted colors of the wall and the arch give it a pleasant, tranquil feel. It might have been just a little better if the gate had been open just a little more, but maybe not. It's really hard to imagine this being better.

Well, it's not the Constitution of the United States of America. It's the much more subversive Declaration of Independence. And anyone seeking to understand this bewildering behemoth of a nation could do worse than to actually read the document that stands at its very beginning. That said, this picture is a perfect vehicle to carry the discussion of artistic merit.

 

I think this picture lacks artistic merit precisely because I don't dislike it. Nor do I like it. My first inclination was to just pass it by and let others do the commenting, but I think I've been doing too much of that. Also, the exchange between Charo and Sally, added to the one between Guillermo and Sally made me want to jump right in.

 

This picture has the look of an icon, poorly rendered. I feel as though the photographer is trying to elicit emotion just by pointing to a symbol. In this case the pointing itself is so poorly done that the effect cannot possibly be what is intended. But even if the picture were framed magnificently, it would still be of dubious value, just because the subject matter itself comes with so much baggage.

 

All that being said, we still have the issue of the tone of these critiques. Are we to expect each other to approach each offering as though it were the precious child of the photographer, allowed only to coo, "Oh, how darling"? I think we'd all agree that this would not be desireable. On the other hand are we to loose all the bounds of restraint and put up with vile name calling? Again, I would hope we could forebear.

 

This discussion is valuable (though this particular part of it is getting way too long), and I hope it continues. I hope we can get to the point where we all give not too much offence, yet be not too easily offended. Only both will result in a dynamic that's of value to all.

I've often been told I'm too full of that which should be purged, and not usually as politely as PT has managed. I expect I'll continue earning such scorn since, I must face the facts, it is true. Still, I will beg some forgiveness from PT for going somewhat overboard in my comment. In a pathetic attempt at self-justification, let me point out that I never said the picture was bad. Just that I was overwhelmed by my dislike of it. In fact, for a piece of artwork to elicit such a strong response, negative or positive, that work of art must actually be quite good. So I must now continue to gaze upon this wretched image until I have delved deep into my soul and drawn forth whatever foulness it has touched, whereupon my heartfelt thanks will go out to PT. But until then, I still don't like it.

I'm not sure if I like or dislike the way the picture blends into the page. I think I don't quite like it, but that I would if the stuff on the right edge were gone. And maybe the red in the upper right.

 

The colors are delightful, as are that pathetic tree and flowers. So close, so very close.

I didn't want this to dominate the previous comment, it being so minor a point. But I do want the point made, so I'm putting it here in it's own comment. You can see what sharpening does to things like bare tree branches. Once you start seeing things like this you just cannot stop seeing them.

This is a very nice architectural shot. I especially like how the colors of the towers harmonize with the colors of the sky. A couple of very minor points: The whole picture seems tilted slightly counter-clockwise, and the branches of the trees show the effects of over-sharpening. I'll put up a detail in my next comment.

I ditto what John says, and add that the way the ears and the fabric of the couch wrap around Lady's face are wonderful. Excellent shot, great composition.

Hmmm. I don't like it. Not like the car crash, where I didn't like the thing being depicted, but I don't like this photo. So take what I say with a grain of salt, but... I don't like the fact that the dolphin is out of focus. I don't like the way the strong light blows out the texture of the scales. I don't like the way the (I really want to say fish) marine mammal is so centered. I don't even like what is supposed to be funny, that the weight shown is so wrong (and so the scales are broken). OK, I'd probably like that part if I liked the rest of the photo, but I don't. I don't like it.

First - yech! I don like it. Makes my skin crawl.

 

Second - I guess [ Z can be considered a "drive by" commenter and rater.

 

That's a joke, son, that's a joke.

I really hate to come in late to a discussion and say "me too", but that's pretty much all I've got. Just consider this a vote in support of those who think this needs no improvement. And, by the way, the probability that an infinite number of monkeys pounding on an infinite number of typewriters would produce any work of Shakespeare is zero. Within minutes they would have jammed all the infinite keys and would be producing an infinite amount of nothing.

I can just imagine these two pausing, and freezing in place for a moment, just to check you out. Just another damned fool with Big Glass. Very well caught, and nicely composed. Ordinarily, I am distracted by things like the twig in front of the critters, but in this picture it adds a touch of realism.

Nice capture of the dog, but there's too much stuff in the picture that's not at all interesting. If it added to the composition it would be ok, but it actually makes the composition too centered. So crop this one tight, and it will lose that snapshot feel.

This camera (G5?) and lens really do bring out the best in this turtle. Here, I think the DOF is just right. The OOF foreground thingy is a minor distraction, but I doubt that it could be effectively cloned away, so I'd be happy to live with it. This is a very good shot.

I'll add a resounding second to Liv's comment. Idongetit neither. Also, as an abstract it leaves me kinda cold. Too centered, too static. Maybe it's like Peter suggests - just a bunch of broken rules. But the rules are there for a reason, and there's gotta be a better reason to break them. Better than some dumb assignment, anyhow. (Yeah, I know, I know - this assignment is one of the best we've had. But even so...)

I'm pretty sure lightbulbs do not contain a vacuum, but are filled with nitrogen or some other non-oxidizing gas. Turning one on in the presence of oxygen should result in a very bright, and very brief light. The trick is to get the timing right. The easiest thing would be to just set the shutter to bulb in a dark room, and let the vaporizing tungsten provide all the light. But in this picture, there was obviously other lighting providing the blue of the glass. This is feindishly clever. How was it done? Double exposure, maybe?

 

Oh, yeah, and it's a terrific image all on its own, too.

This is terribly clever, I'm sure, but I have no idea what the cleverness is all about, and the title just adds to my cluelessness. It's really hard to evaluate this without knowing, at least a little, what it's all about. Any help, here?

This picture would be well nigh perfect, if it were not for that ring. It's clearly not a broken wedding band. Melissa identifies it as a toe ring, which is even worse than I had thought. It does eliminate any possibility of the image eliciting any great feelings of shared grief. Personally, I feel more confusion than anything else when viewing this picture.

It seems to me that Guillermo got it right, and the blur is focus, rather than motion. This picture is all about motion, but it's not easy to tell just what motion PT is trying to convey. The viewer has to supply just too much of this picture's tale for it to really work.

I like this every bit as much as I did the last time I commented on it. And if PN's disks go south again, and I get to comment on this yet again I'll still like it just as much. I'm not sure if I like best the full color of the day-lit courtyard contrasting with the red-lit shop, or the deep blue baubles in the foreground. Both are delightful and the absence of either would diminish the wonder of this image. This is a work that would proudly hang anywhere.

That's a great expression on that turtle. I don't think I'd want to put my finger anywhere near. What I would like is to see either more or less DOF. Since a shallow DOF is hard to achieve with a Powershot camera, I would be inclined to ask for more.

That lens and camera combination really render the hair and foliage attractively. But the missing chunk of dog is disconcerting. Since we cannot bring back parts that were left out, let's just leave out some more, and concentrate on the best parts of the photo. That way nobody can think we left out parts due to an oversight.