nick_s

This is not a painting - it is a photograph... and a well done photograph. Moderately cliche perhaps, but well done nonetheless.

I would not characterize *most* paintings common to art shows in "hotel lobbies" as well done. The tend to be crudely executed cliches (this does not apply to all such paintings, but is merely meant as a general observation and a rebuttal of Mr. Craig's implication).

The difference is the the high level of expertise on display here in this photograph and the implied lower level of expertise in the "hotel lobby" paintings.

Love the idea Rick... I can't believe this series concept hasn't been thought of before. And a perfect choice to begin the series. If you wish to rekindle some friendly (and not so friendly) discussions of past photo.net POW winners, might I suggest Kevin Hundsnurscher's and/or Aldo De Filippi's and/or Peter Christoph's and/or Chris Battey's (2nd) POW photos next?

My kids don't look this spellbound when it's "my weekend" with them... especially when I pull out my camera!

Oh, BTW, I find most of the cropping suggestions unnecessary, offering only marginal improvement at best.

On the issue of cropping...

 

I find myself in rare disagreement with Tony D. here. This site is a critique/educational site, and I have learned more about photography on the pages of Photo.net (by a factor of at least 10) than I have anywhere else (except, of course, my own trial and error when out shooting).

 

Let me ask: what is the single most important element in a successful photograph? Subject? Light? Exposure? Film/camera format? Myself, I would argue that there is no single most important element in a successful photograph. Rather, I would suggest that there are many "very" important elements, with ther relative importance of each to be determined on a case by case basis. Among these important elements, and missing from my list, is *composition*. And one of the easiest ways to suggest an improved composition is via a crop.

 

This is not to say that I dismiss the arguments of the "full-framers" or the "respect-the-photographer's-vision" camps. I myself lean towards the full-frame camp, but, alas, my ability tends to fall well short of this ideal. Therefore, many of the photos hanging on my wall have been cropped to some extent or another (generally minimal, but cropped nonetheless). However, when making these cropping decisions, I am always nagged by the fct that perhaps I could have composed better at the time of capture, thereby rendering the crop unnecessary. In short, my cropping decisions continually force me to consider my compositions more critically at the time of capture and this, I think, improves my photography.

 

The same is true of cropping suggestion made here, in the display pages of Photo.net. A cropping suggestion should not necessarily be seen as an attack on the photographer's vision. Rather, it should be seen as a suggestion for compositional improvement... something which the photographer is free to consider or dismiss the next time he/she presses the shutter release.

A clear majority of photo.netters seem to prefer the colour version of this photograph... however, I like Douglas Vincent, wonder why this is even an issue in the first place. The way I see it, the contrast between the emotional warmth of the yellow wall and the ugly bullet scars pock-marking the wall *IS* the subject.

 

When I first saw the thumbnail, I was a little disappointed. I instantly noticed the strong graphic lines and pleasing colour contrast, but the bullet holes (and hence, emotional depth) eluded my first cursory view. I was prepared to write the photo off as a well-done, yet over-done, piece of eye-candy. During these first few seconds of superficial evaluation, I was also disappointed that John Orr's name was associated with the photo as I have long admired much of his work, and thought the elves had done him a terrible disservice.

 

That is, of course, until I opened the image up to it's full size. The peaceful, almost mind-numbing serenity when viewed small (or from afar as it would be if hung on a wall) is shattered much as the wall had been when the bullets hit. It is a shock, and a powerful one at that. As a visual communique, the subject and idea behind this photo are among the best I have ever seen. No matter how much we try to "paint over" the ugliness in the world, evil exists and cannot be dismissed or ignored.

 

However, I do wonder if the photo might be improved. I wonder about the impact that different lighting and/or shadows might have. I also wonder if we could take Phil Morris' suggestion to remove the nettle a bit further, and compose the photo without any grassy foreground whatsoever... I must say that I find it a little distracting. These are minor quibbles though, and can certainly be explored further when John reshoots this scene as I believe he might like to do. Congratulations John... you have said more about humanity in this photograph than I would have thought possible without a human subject.

You know what bugs me about many POW forums? Its photographers who fail to participate in a dicsussion of their own work. Something tells me we won't have that problem this time! ;-)

 

Anyway, congratulations Marc. I'm rather busy at work this morning, so a more detailed comment on this particular photograph will have to wait, but in my mind, you are deserving of this award as much for ubiquitous presence and voluminous contributions to this site as you are for this particular photograph. To put it less pretentiously, thanks for participating actively, honestly and sincerely. Again, congratulations.

This is one of those photos that makes you go "oooh" when you first see it, but upon continued examination, you start to reassess.

 

As with the blind photographer, I concur about the technical shortcomings - unfortunately, they drive me to distraction. More unfortuantely still is that the duck appears to be, how shall I say this, relieving itself? Nonetheless, a nice capture, and certainly a keeper, but not wall material.

Marc said:

 

I'm wondering basically whether this contradiction, Joseph just mentionned about, is not exactly this picture's main subject. Wouldn't it be meant to have us looking around for details and enjoying them while trying to find Goddot - who would of course never arrive... The magic of this image may be that it makes us dream of a God, of an Answer, but delivers nothing but dirt and earth, and forces us in the end to make do with the ultimate reality of this ground we are attached to forever...

 

Excellent counter-argument Marc, and one that I will not take issue with. You may have swayed me a bit closer to your side of the fence (I haven't started climbing over though!!!). However, I would add that to succeed on the level you are suggesting, this would have to be a large, richly rendered print, and not the scrint we are all presently looking at.

This is an interesting selection... but I'm still not sure if I like it or not.

 

Typically, when browsing the pages of photo.net, I will do so alone, and contemplate the significance, appeal, and quality of a particular photo alone. But in this instance I was compelled to ask others "Do you like this photo?" And the reactions I got were not only typical of the diverse opinions expressed above, but also indicative of my own mixed reaction to this photograph. To wit, on the plus side this photograph has a very nice abstract quality to it, is very "tactile" (if that word can be used to describe a scrint), has soothing deep colours, and is sufficiently in keeping with the rule of thirds to please those who feel they must follow the "rules", yet to my eye, has a certain imbalance that is challenging (in a good way) and intriguing. Of greater significance, perhaps, are the metaphysical questions that naturally arise... where are the stairs going? where did they come from? who traveled these stairs? for what purpose? are they "nothing".

 

However, on the negative side, I'm just not sure if there is enough here to hold my interest... and I don't think that is because I'm endorphin deficient! ;-) I can, and do, contemplate all of these metaphysical questions regularly enough on my own. I'm not sure if this photo inspires me to contemplate them in any deeper, more meaningful, or new way. It does inspire the thoughts, it just doesn't do so in a profound way.

 

Marc posed an interesting question above (actually several, but I shall focus on one only)... can anything be added to this photo to add some context that might inspire a deeper appreciation? I think his suggestion of an old pipe might do it, but how about some bones? an old pottery artifact? a footprint? Cliche perhaps, but I think any of these suggestions would improve the photo because, again, to reflect upon the metaphysical question of "nothing" doesn't really require a photo in the first place. To be successful, I think a photo should tell a little "something".

 

Actually, I would now like to clarify my very first sentence in this post. I DO like this photo. I just don't think I love it. I'm not sure why I'm using a baseball analogy (I like sports, but not baseball especially), but this photo is certainly a "double", probably a "triple", but not a homerun. Nonetheless, I too congratulate Phil whose work I have long admired.

It's been a while since I've commented on one of your photos (non POW that is), and I must say that this one is VERY intriguing. I completely agree with Jay's comment... put in my own words, I find myself staring at the photo trying to pull some sort of deeper meaning out of it, but mostly unsure what this meaning may be.

 

The best conclusion I can come to is that this boy is the embodiment of a larger societal tension. More specifically, the dichotomy between the boys's formal (buttoned down dress shirt and blazer; combed over hair) yet unkempt (greasy, wrinkled clothes; greasy, matted hair) appearance, combined with the fact that he is a BOY, has me reflecting upon the writings of William Golding in the "Lord of the Flies". Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I see a primal urge in this young man that is only partially masked by his attire. The way I'm interpreting this photo, he is the barely restrained primal side of man, always on the verge of returning to his natural state. This primal urge is being challenged (with limited success) by his parents, who have been more thoroughly indidoctrinated by society as to the "proper" ways of man. Of course, the mischevious glint in this boy's eye - and the wine I'm drinking - aid in this interpretation.

 

BTW, I also agree with the observations about the boy's hands.

I really like this.

 

Regarding the burning, I can see why it might be of concern to some... the halo effect surrounding the ship (a residual effect of burning in the sky) is indeed a little unnatural looking. However, it is obviously intentional and, in this instance, the effect enhances the photo. Very surreal.

Not much to add, except my voice to the growing chorus of "bravos" for this intriguing photo. Doug, I actually think the trash can adds a certain depth to the composition that would be absent without it (and as far as trash cans go, it is a fairly "attractive" one... at least in b&w).

To those who think this photo is too dark, please ensure you view it on a properly calibrated monitor (the gray-scales above will help you determine this). I can't tell you how many times I've felt like a fool commenting that a photo was "too dark" as a result of my miscalibrated computer at work. I would have done the same here (at work I couldn't see the two people in the back), except now I am viewing it on my ex's computer (and her monitor IS properly calibrated), and the difference is dramatic.

Perhaps a bit cliche... but WOW.

Has this been digitally edited in any way? I'm not saying it is, and my apologies if it isn't, but the symetry of positive/negative space amongst the trees borders on the unbelieveable.

 

Yes, very intriguing... mesmerizing in fact.

You know Marc, when I was typing the sentence which you have now quoted, I was going to cite you by name as one with a more "liberal" interpretation of the photographic process. This is not meant as a slight. You are a very talented photographer yourself, and a genuinely sincere contributor to this site. We just happen to draw our "lines in the sand" as to what constitutes a photograph at a different spot on the beach. You have used this photograph as validation of the editorial capabilities of PS while I have done the opposite - I have seized upon the well-worn PS debate as a method of denouncing (this particular) photo. Touche ;-)

Now I'm really getting sucked into this discussion... I need to add something else.

 

Chris, I have visited your portfolios many times, and I consider you to be an excellent photographer. Just to underscore that point, I should add that I hold Tony Dummett in very (very, very, very...) high esteem also - and I think he knows this. But, I do recall that I made precisely the same comment on one of his more notorious photographs... to wit, "what's the point" (Tony knows the one I speak of). Just wanted you to know that I'm not throwing the baby out with the bathwater here, but I nonetheless maintain my reservations about this particular photo.

 

However, thank you for joining the debate and for sharing your talent with the photo.net community.

Obviously, Chris responded in between the time it took to make the last two posts. Therefore, take my second (of now three) posts accordingly.

I need to add something...

 

Why "average" if it is not a real person? Because, on the upside, it is a well rendered, well presented "print". I like the effect. On the downside, and this should be clear, one is compelled to ask "what is the point?" I'm sure there are thousands of photographers populating this site who could produce well rendered, well presented "prints" of a cardboard box. Again, what is the point? None that I can see (notwithstanding the very real possibility that Chris is having a rather prolonged laugh at the expense of all of us).

 

To me, this is an analog example of the digital manipulation debate that consistently plagues these discussions (and one which I am all too often eager to participate in). Some prefer to know that what they are looking at is "real" (me), and some have a far more liberal interpretation of the photographic enterprise.

Until now, I have sat on the sidelines on this one because, to be honest, I just did not know what the origins of this photo were. Detective Nance may have uncovered the decisive clue though - an obvious one that we all seemed to miss. And yes, it dramatically changes my opinion as to the merits of the photo.

 

The photo does not strike me as an overtly "tongue in cheek" museum photo (ala Jo Voets), nor does it strike me as a documentary photo of a well known artistic piece (ala photos of Michelangelo's David). Rather (if it is, in fact, a wax figurine) it strikes me as an attempt to be something that it is not.

 

However, I could be wrong... and probably am since Chris would be unlikely to quote a 15 second exposure if he were attempting to be deceptive.

 

Bottom line is that the photo is great if it is "real", and only average if it is not because, to me, context is important.

Hi Jaap,

 

Your recent uploads have all been very nice. This is no exception, although I agree with D. Vincent that some border on the cliche (but what beautiful cliches!).

 

In any evnt, I have a minor suggestion for improvement on this particular photo. You may wish to consider a VERY SMALL crop of the top of the photograph. Doing so will eliminate that small (to me distracting) speck of sky between the windmill blade and the windmill itself.

 

BTW, though I did not comment upon it, I particularly like your photo of the tulip field beside the dyke which in turn is beside a row of trees and a dirt road. The symetry of that particular photo is striking and in keeping with a series of photos I plan to do (Seven Stuartson has a similarly striking photo of natural geometry in his portfolio). Good work.

Sheri P.:

 

Since I have been directly quoted for a second time in this thread ("arrogant, imperious"), I feel I should respond.

 

I fully respect your well articulated "dissenting" view. You make many valid points which we all would do well to keep in mind. In fact, your interpretation of the photograph may be closer to "reality" than the mass of critical opinion that seems to interpret the photograph as I did...

 

However, we all know that the photographic process can distort reality in keeping with the photographer's vision. Myself, I have a photograph of my two boys seeking shade under a hay roll one particularly hot summer day. However, they were not initially using the hay as a "back support" (since hay tends to be quite prickly), yet I encouraged them to do so as it was more photographically appealing - though uncomfortable. The resulting photo is one of my favourites, and appears to have the boys "comfortably" relaxing against the hay roll. But, of course, this was a distortion of reality, yet perfectly in keeping with the "vision" I had for the photo.

 

In this particluar instance though, can such photographic "vision" be bourne at the expense of simple bystanders who may be portrayed in a way that they did not willingly "pose" for (i.e. as my boys had posed for me)? That is an interesting ethical question, and may be the basis for an interesting discussion since the technical proficiency of this photograph seems to be universally appreciated and respected.

 

BTW, let me be clear that I do not necessarly believe that Sheri's read on this photo is in fact the correct interpretation, but acknowledge that it is a legitimate "possible" interpretation.

Wang, it was me that mentioned "exploitation of the homeless", and I agree that such explotation does not exist here... on the contrary, this image is more about the arrogant, imperious reactions of the middle and upper classes to this homeless man's plight than it is about the man himself. I merely raised the topic because it wouldn't necessarily surprise me if someone (not me) attempts to make an "issue" out of this "non-issue".

You know Tony, I was wondering when you would become a "two-timer". Congratulations!

To the photo.net community: while I do believe this photo is among Tony's best, there are countless other photos in Tony's portfolios that are deserving of attention also, and vastly superior to 99% of the content on this, or any other, photo-site. Not that photo.net lacks for quality content, its just that Tony's work is that good. For those who remain unfamiliar with Tony's work, do yourself a favour, and visit his stunning portfolio(s). You'll also find that he is very keen to discuss almost any aspect of his technique and methods.

I would be surprised if we have much in the way of a lively debate on this photo, because I simply can't fathom what some may nitpick at. (Well, I could make a couple of guesses... Exploitation of the homeless? Model releases?)

Clearly, the brilliance of this photo has struck a chord with the photo.net community. Equally clear is the popularity of our canine friend - Clifford.

 

Given all the ongoing changes here at photo.net, how about one more? Who's in favour of Clifford becoming the official photo.net mascot? Personally, I think it would be refreshing to see that cute little button nose, floppy ears, and of course the unbelievably chic red fur when I log into photo.net each day. Why, the administrators of this site could even use little mini-Clifford icons next to especially important links they would like to draw our attention to.

 

Of course, being the property of one Larry Spinak, copyright concerns might raise their less-cute-than-Clifford heads.