nick_s

Wow, now I really feel special. To be on a colloquial, first-name, basis with the great Lawrence Spinak! Hi Larry!

Thanks for your input Volker, and for being open to constructive criticism.

 

While I picked on this photograph in particular as being derivative, upon visiting your portfolio, I have to agree with Marc when he says (and you concede) that originality is not your strong point. But if this sounds overly harsh, let me add that I, like you, also classify myself as a hobbyist, and my work is not terribly original either. When I get around to uploading some photos (later this year/early next), this will be apparent for all to see.

 

Just wanted you to know that my earlier comments were intended in a "constructive" spirit, and that I respect you for being active in this discussion.

 

Cheers.

Well, I'm from Vancouver, and have a family pass to the Vancouver Aquarium (my boys and I are regular visitors). A few observations:

 

First, the mammal in question is a Beluga Whale, not a dolphin.

 

Second, as the poster above noted, this photo is highly derivative of a very large (maybe 5' by 7') promotional photograph that greets visitors as they *enter* the Vancouver Aquarium. This promotional photograph *cannot* be missed. Now, I don't blame the elves for not knowing of this "coincidence", nor do I necessarily blame Volker for emulating that particular photograph... I, myself, have emulated many a photograph (as Im sure most, if not all, photographers have done at one time or another) and find it to be an effective method of learning, but POW selections should certainly be held to a higher standard. While aesthetically pleasing (upon initial glance), originality must be given very low marks.

 

Third, regarding aesthetics, yes, the photograph is pleasing upon initial glance. However, as presented (i.e. small), it is difficult to judge the technical proficiency. To my eye, the focus looks soft. Additionally, the whale is so far away from the viewing window that one is unable to appreciably gauge its size. These are large animals some 20 feet long (rough guess) and weigh several tonnes, but as presented, it may as well be a salmon that the man is looking at or, as others have mistakenly thought, a much smaller dolphin. In addition to the difference in their environment (i.e. aquatic vs. teresstrial), a more powerful photo conveying the reciprocal interest these intelligences are showing in each other would also have emphasized their differences in size.

 

And fourth, on the plus side, the framing provided by the walls, ceiling, and floor around the viewing window is a nice touch. The curve of the window accentuates this framing nicely.

 

I will now visit Volker's portfolio, as I am sure he is a fine photographer capable of more original work. It's not his fault the elves selected this particular photo as POW, but is undeserving in my opinion.

 

Again, I'm late to the party. Don't you guys know by now that I don't yet have a home computer? An originally sublime, technically proficient photograph like this gets uploaded on the weekend, and I'm left without the benefit of basking in its glow until I arrive at work on Monday morning? C'mon, I know I'm not the only one in this position, so Lawrence, in all fairness, a masterpiece like this should only be uploaded on a Monday so that the full photo.net audience can be suitably enlightened.

 

I'm not going to drag this discussion into our weekly PS vs. non-PS POW debate. Though certainly deserving of POW honours, this photo does not deserve the characteristic mire of such a debate. The detractors above (Brian, this one's leveled at you) should get a life, and leave such worry's to the photo.net higher ups who clearly know what is, and what isn't a photograph.

 

In fact, the sheer brilliance of this photograph has led me to reconsider my long-standing practice of not rating photographs. It deserves nothing less than a 10 and 10. Hey wait a minute, what's this maximum 7 and 7 crap? Site management... justifications please! Can you direct me to a thread where this heavy-handed, totalitarian and fundamentally undemocratic change of course has been disclosed... with feedback from us, the membership (and the true OWNERS of this site)? Besides, I need some good bed-time reading (reading 5 or six comments on this topic might be interesting).

[ mod. edit ]

Regarding this image... interesting I suppose, but with all due respect, I really think you are reading too much into it Marc.

I really like this Seven. In fact, of the photos of yours I have seen, this is my favourite.

 

I have been pursuing a similarly themed photo for some time now (with very poor results I might add). I live in Vancouver, Canada, and we are fortunate enough to be surrounded by mountains. The mountains are covered with evergreen trees, but there are isolated stands of deciduous trees also. I have often noted in winter-time a similar geometric pattern as to what you have captured here... the difference being the top layer is white from snow, the middle layer is very dark green from the evergreens, and the bottom layer is a light brown from the deciduous trees which have lost their leaves. Problem is it is VERY difficult to find such bands in pleasing proportions or with suitably regular demarcation lines - your choice of natural phenomenon was the better I'm afraid! But I know some day I will get the shot I'm looking for.

 

In fact, your photo here has me intrigued about the possibility of doing a series of photos on this theme.

Thanks for the reply Jen, and sorry for the very delayed response. You were probably precise enough, I just made an incorrect assumption. And yes, giving it more thought, I see why the waves were not motion blurred... they were flash lit by the lightning hence "freezing" their motion. Again, thanks for the reply.

Someone said it earlier, and now Ilona has said it also... "It was just fun".

 

I am a serious hobbyist, others here are serious professionals and semi-professionals. But at times, we do tend to be too "serious". I think this thread should end here, with Ilona's wonderful bit of insight... "It was just fun".

As I said in my pre-POW post, I like this photo very much.

 

However, having seen the colour vs. B&W treatment, I would be inclined to go with the colour version. Not because it is inherently more appealing - in fact, from a pure aesthetic perspective, I would say it is marginally less appealing - but rather because it adds an extra layer of interest and mystery in that it appears to be B&W when in fact it is colour (like Bruce, I saw almost no difference until I looked VERY closely)... just kind of neat, thats all.

I withdraw my earlier comment about this photo being "too dark". I always knew my monitor at work was miscalibrated, but holy #$%^!!!!! I'm at my "ex's" right now looking at this photo on her monitor, and it is precisely the way I would have printed/displayed it. Fabulous photo. Period... well except for those street signs others have commented on:-)

The alternate version referred to by Dave Nance has about the level of colour saturation and brightness that I was seeking... less muddy while maintaining a pleasing contrast between the two halves of the photo.

 

Carl... you're right, many of the photographs displayed here at PN are likely darker than the prints for the very reasons you mentioned (and it doesn't help that my monitor - here at work - is probably one of those that is miscalibrated).

 

 

Marc, you're absolutely right, the desaturated outdoor, apocalyptic view contrasts nicely with the rich warm tones of the interior, "ignorance is bliss" view. I would certainly choose to print it in a similar fashion. We are likely splitting hairs here, but I think it is overdone in that when I give a quick glance at the photograph, my initial reaction is that the left hand side is in black and white. I tend to find that black and white images splashed with color tend to come accross as "kitschy" (personal view only). While I acknowledge the desire for desaturation on the left, I would prefer that it remain readily identifiable as a colour photograph (in fact, this is one of the main reasons I initially questioned this photograph's authenticity).

 

Edit added about 15 minutes later: In fact, the "desaturation" on the left probably isn't desaturation at all, but rather a product of the overly dark printing/presentation I commented on earlier.

Remarkable photo... I have to admit I origianlly suspected some type of manipulation (composite and/or PS), but Nestor's brightened version allowed me to see enough detail to confirm it is not. And to reiterate to all those people seeing a powerwasher rather than a fire truck, look at the rising smoke coming from the lower portion of the building BENEATH the supposed powerwashers. It is a firetruck.

 

Since the discussion of this photo has been almost exclusively of the type "is it real or is it PS", how 'bout we get back on topic? Personally, I love the composition of the photo, and the irony is obvious for all to see. My one complaint would be with the printing/presentation. It is too dark, and the desaturation of the outdoor fire scene is over done. I understand that Paal was going for the dramatic here (i.e. emphasize the irony of these two incrongruous slices of life), but a *little* more colour and light would add a bit more contextual depth for the viewer to immerse in.

Doug asked:

 

"Is photography being used rightly when it is used to simulate old masters' style paintings? Of coures, there is no "right" way to use photography, however, the old painter guys, Rembrandt, et. al., have already made pictures like this. Isn't photography's destiny to create new styles? Or at least to firmly establish its own character?"

 

My response to this would be that nearly all forms of art borrow from the past, with varying degrees of cyclicallity. One art (?) form which most would be able to identify with - and which operates on a very short cycle - is fashion. Fashion designers are constantly borrowing from the past, yet progressively developing the style each time by adding their own unique twist.

 

Here we have a photographer who is developing a style that clearly borrows from painters of the past - his cycle is measured in centuries, not decades. Whatever, many have wondered how original any photograph can truly be, since literally every subject that one can possibly photograph has been done before. To me, originality stems from the treatment of the subject and, if applicable, the (continued) development of a style with roots long established by artisans (including other photographers) of the past.

Most Macros tend to leave me cold... but this is spectacular. My one qualm would be the bright highlight in the water drop. But other than that, the strong lines, composition, and exposure make this a truly wonderful photo.

 

Just out of curiosity, how much cropping was done?

Initially, I liked the effect, but I have concerns... You say bulb at 4.5 (I presume 4.5 minutes) - why then are the waves in the water not severely motion blurred? Is this a composite?

Congratulations Chris. I don't have a whole lot of time right now, but let me simply say that I have visited your portoflio many times in the past, and I am enthralled by both your process and your results... although I imagine a GREAT amount of luck is involved as well.

 

In any event, while I prefer the photograph of the "s" wave with the back-flow of water, I am very happy to have seen your efforts recognized. I will return later in the week to offer a more coherent comment.

Interesting idea, even though some have said it has been done before. However, the concept is not yet fully developed. Echoing certain comments of Scott Blair and Tommy Marks, I would suggest that the slide mounts actually contain images and that a loupe - instead of a cable release - be used as the foil. In addition, a more readily identifiable "lit" image would continue to add to the theme. This is a concept that begs to be explored further.

 

... and yes, slide mounts do come in grey.

Morwen said:

 

"It also raises an interesting question, namely what does it take to stop a photograph of a drab and boring scene from being a drab and boring photograph."

 

Thank you Morwen for putting the issue more succinctly than my contribution two posts up. While you think the photographer has successfully avoided this dilemma, I, on the other hand, think she has been only partially successful (existential interpretations notwithstanding). In other words, I'll sit on the fence on this one.

In this instance, I find myself largely (though not completely) agreeing with Samuel Dilworth.

Specifically, I am intrigued by this observation:

 

"Taking pictures of the inside of a hotel room, even waiting for the screen to have the right image; that strikes me as something you would only do if being pushed to the edge of boredom. This picture can tell me a lot about the photographer. I can think of photographers who would feel nervous showing themselves to the world by presenting such a picture. It is a self-portrait; not in the trite sense of the girl in the screen, but in a more meaningful and infinitely more exposing sense."

 

I too get that heightened sense of awareness, that "buzz" if you will, when finding myself trapped within the confines of a generic hotel room. Obviously, not because of the room itself, but because of the anticipation of what lies ahead. In other words, I am excited. However, Samuel's comments remind me that not everyone (particularly the well-travelled) shares this emotion. In fact, I think Tony's comment (essentially confirming his boredom with hotel rooms) says in words, what this photo says with images.

 

A sharp and creative human mind naturally rebels against boredom. While Tony combats this boredom by "getting the hell out of Dodge ASAP", Dominique fights this boredom by making the most of the situation - if only by documenting it - and has done a commendable job in this instance.

 

My particular reaction is mixed. On the one hand I find myself experiencing a similar set of existential emotions as those I felt with the "woman with umbrella" POW a couple of months back, but on the other hand, the photo may have been too successful in conveying the boredom of the moment. And I ask, who wishes to be bored... let alone contemplate it?

 

 

You know, ever so little off the bottom, and a more significant crop on the left hand side (to where the ridge would now meet the bottom left corner of the photo), and you would have a perfectly square crop which I think MAY be preferable. My only caveat would be that I think the left hand side provides some depth and scale to the image that gives one the impression of an "abyss". In other words, the composition might be improved somewhat with a square crop although it might lose some of it's impact.

 

BTW, I like the title.

Hi Milos,

 

I'm not sure if you are responding to Paul, who raised the issue of a model release and subsequent publication of this photo, or me. To clarify, *I do not think a model release is necessary*. Further, *I have no problem with the publication of this photo*. BUT, I think that the photo suffers because we, as viewers, are forced to look at this older gentleman as if we were spies lurking behind a post or something similar. As such, the gentleman in question is rendered incomplete, and we certainly have no idea of what is *really* going on without the additional notes you have supplied nor what we imagine *might* be going on because we simply cannot see enough of the man's expression to even begin to formulate our own story.

 

Again, regardless of whether the subject is aware of your presence or not, a direct, head on approach would be better. Or at least, not so obviously from behind.

Lucas cites a photo by a member of photo.net who is truly a master of candid photography - Tony Dummett. Somewhere in Tony's vast contributions to this site he states (and I paraphrase liberally here) that shooting candid subjects from behind is a photographic cop-out. While I'm not particularly concerned about the issue of a model release, I do feel that you have done the subject of this photo an injustice... and the injustice is that we have no clue as to what this person is really feeling. All we have is a small portion of the side of his face. I fail to see any story (actual or implied) here at all.

 

Furthering this notion, I should point out that I have attempted street photography all of one time... and at that, I was unable to push the shutter release even once! I came across an interesting subject sitting at a park bench smoking a pipe while appearing to "contemplate life", but I just couldn't work up the nerve to confront this subject head on (or even close to it). The best I could manage was a perspective much like this one, and to me, it felt cheap to take such a shot. Good street photography is tough, and that's what makes the works of photographers like Mr. Dummett all the more impressive.

 

Sorry, I'm not trying to be overly critical, but I'm simply not impressed by this particular photo.

I know its rather late in the week, and this comment is unlikely to draw much notice, but I have been giving more thought to this photo, and would like to offer the following (bear with me though, as the logic may seem a bit perverse):

 

*IF* this photo were created in photoshop (I will take Gabi's word that it was not), would this photo still hold much, if any, appeal? I would suggest not. Again, the effect is spectacular (only because it is real), but if one were to create this photo via digital manipulation I think many would quickly amend their view(s). Specifically, you would be compelled to ask "what's the point?" As a digital manipulation it would be rather bland, mostly because of the lack of any real substance. So, does the fact that this was not digitally manipulated magically offer the viewer this missing substance? Of course not.

 

Also, as Chris Battey noted earlier, the fact that the moon is not visible denies us the opportunity to fully appreciate the captured phenomenon (i.e. it could just as easily be a floodlight) and as a result, further minimizes the substance of the photo.

 

I'm really not trying to be overly critical as I can assure you that if offered the same opportunity, I would likely have attempted the same photo... and probably with poorer results. But this does not change the fact that what the photo offers in visual impact it lacks in substance.

I find it difficult to believe that the tilt is *entirely* an illusion created by the fog, BUT, accepting that as so, it raises an interesting question. Should a photo, technically level but APPEARING decidedly unlevel, be rotated to fit what we ultimately perceive, or be left as is? In most cases I would suggest the latter, but in this case the illusion (again, accepting that IT IS an illusion) is so powerful that I would want to make an exception in this case.