nick_s

Given the horrible context of 9/11, this ranks among the most dramatic of shots I have EVER seen. Many shots from that fateful day exploit the macabre spectacle and/or the blatantly obvious emotion of the moment (which, I admit, has its place), but this shot reflects the US, North American, and ultimately worldwide ripple effects of the trajedy.

 

Further, in any other photo with this particular composition, I would be aghast at the overexposed foreground and the resultant (too) limy green. However, in this instance, it seems to add an appropriate, heavenly like, glow to the scene with the flowers themselves acting as metaphors for the lives lost and, if you are religious (which I'm not, but can't help "reading in" anyway), their "rebirth".

 

Compositionally, the photo is reasonably well balanced (at least from left to right), and I really like the way you have framed the contrail with the prominent flower on the right. I would suggest though a bit more green hillside and less of the blue sky above the contrail for a more balanced composition from top to bottom.

 

In summary, the subject matter and concept astound me. The execution could be improved with better top to bottom balance and, arguably, with better foreground exposure (although as I said, in this instance it could qualify as a "happy mistake" if you were to buy into my metaphorical interpretation - and assuming of course that it was in fact a "mistake" to begin with).

Yes, a good and interesting composition - largely attributable to the fence. However, you may want to rotate this photo somewhat as there is a definite left to right tilt.

Would I keep this photo if I had taken it? Absolutely. The effect is rather spectacular.

 

However, this would not be a "display" photo for me. The color shift due to the long exposure has produced interesting, but rather garish, results. Further, the composition is not very compelling. Perhaps this was a necessary by-product of the moon's position and what I presume may have been a "muddled" background of campground clutter, but as is, there is nothing here to hold my interest apart from the "gee whiz" special effects. Speaking of which, I had a similar reaction to Brian, but rather than a special lens, I initially thought this was a photoshop effect.

 

Again, the effect is spectacular (even more so that it is "real"), but there is nothing particularly interesting beyond that.

I have mixed feelings on this one. On the plus side, I like the pose and the disorienting, inverted composition. The fact that it is identifiable as an "Ezra" is a plus also.

 

On the negative side though, I have to admit that the lack of sharpness which, given a photographer of your skill, is obviously intentional was a poor decision. The murky lighting is also a distraction.

 

In short, good concept but rather poor execution in this instance.

I have a photo of a dilapidated shack set against a backdrop of mountains and with yellow buttercups in the foreground near where I live here in Vancouver, Canada.

 

While I like my shot, it was taken in the Spring-time and the colours are not nearly as complimentary with the shack as you have managed to show here. While the composition and DOF are very nice, I think it is the colours that truly make this an aesthetically pleasing shot.

Brian, my reference to a "skewed" horizon was indeed a reference to the original post by Tom Schonoff. Your resubmitted alternative seems to have corrected it somewhat.

I think the success of this photo does indeed owe itself to what the elves aptly described as "great timing". The title is also "great". I appreciate the whimsy.

 

Many have noted the drab lighting (slightly under-exposed?) and, more recently, the blue cast of the photo. Brian's "adjusted" version is the best remedy so far, although I think his burn-in of "Vuk" is a little extreme, and nearly as distracting as the original because of it. And, I hate to bring it up given the shifting horizon we had two weeks ago, but this horizon is also slightly off-kilter.

 

Finally, returning to titles, I had left three posts on last weeks POW... the second of these was deleted. The post dealt with the importance (as I see it) of titles. It had *absolutely no personal attacks or innuendo*. Moreover, it dealt with an issue raised earlier by Tom M. and was an issue I felt worthy of following up on given the lack of a title on that particular POW. I would like to know why this was deleted. I am especially concerned given the notes above on this particular POW of additional comments (supposedly related to this image, although I don't know for certain as I have not had the luxury of reading them) also being deleted.

This photo has the potential to be great - and it is very good as is. However, I agree that the fence is distracting, and if you could have recomposed in front of it, that would have been preferable.

 

But the hut is an essential element of this photo distinguishing this photo from most other pretty waterfall shots. However, I find the compositional balance of the waterfall and hut to be a little too centred. If it could be recomposed with a slight diagonal orientation, I think that would be preferable. Good job nonetheless.

Very unique perspective... if I were to rate photos (I don't), I would give high marks for originality.

 

From an aesthetics perspective, I'm not sure how I feel yet. I find the overall composition pleasing (apart from the few wispy feathers hanging from the top right of the frame), but I'm not sure if there is anything here to hold my attention. Focus seems good and the shallow DOF is appropriate.

By and large, I am not a fan of flower macros (partly personal bias, and partly a reaction to their ubiquity). However, exceptions exist and this is one.

 

While I appreciate the above commentors suggestion for greater DOF, I disagree. I find the limited focus around the edge (as a result of those particular petals being closer to the lens) to be akin to a tunnel... just draws my attention in.

 

Further, the detail in the focused portions of the petals is excellent, and the color is gorgeous. Finally, the composition is very nice too, with the central focal point being just the right amount off-center.

 

(Edit: BTW, another flower macro I found appealing was that featured in the POW given to Bill Storage last year. In many ways I find your photo to be reminiscent of Bill's).

Welcome and congratulations Bradley.

 

I too would like to know if you had intended what, to many of us, are the surreal aspects of this photo. While the great thing about photography is that the results can often be interpreted in many ways (depending upon who's doing the looking), I tend to be a strong believer in artistic vision or, if you prefer, intent.

 

Now, as we all now, we can often be surprised by happy little accidents we didn't originally envision but, for me, I reserve the strongest praise for those results predicated by vision. So, was this a happy accident? an intended result? or do you think those of us seeing the surreal (existential) qualities are off our rockers?

I very much like the arrangement of compositional elements in this photo - very balanced in my opinion. I also like the underlying tension at play between the couple feeding the seagulls (light) vs. the woman sheltering herself from the elements (heavy). I tend to prefer photos that have some sort of emotional subtext, and this one certainly fits that bill.

 

However, with all due respect to Tony (specifically his second comment which, if I may paraphrase, was along the lines of "not seeing the forest for the trees"), I think this photo does have deficiencies which should not be glossed over. These shortcomings have already been noted, but the two which bother me are the the lack of sharpness (probably the scan, but how do we really know?) and the sloping horizon (easily fixed I would suggest). The bottom line is that I think the presentation of this photograph could be improved.

 

Which raises an interesting point. A few POWs ago we were discussing "Light". For me, that photo was simply brilliant in the mood it captured, and as such, I was willing to overlook the technical shortcomings which were vigourously debated. In this instance we have another photo with an interesting mood, but FOR ME, not quite compelling enough to turn a blind eye to the technical deficiencies. I raise this issue since during the course of the "Light" thread, Tony was quite vociferous in his assertion that errors in execution should not be readily dismissed... and in principle I agreed. But I couldn't help but maintain that every photograph has a continuum of interest, and at some point that interest begins to outweigh any deficiencies.

 

I guess I'm wondering if this photo has had such an impact on Tony, and if so, where do we draw the line? And if there is a line to be drawn, which is the more important delineator? Is it (the presumably) high visceral impact of the overall photo, or is it the minor nature of the technical demerits? Further, should this line be different for exceptional photographers (such as Tony) vs. midling (or worse) photographers (such as me)? Or does it all come down to subjective preference and my apparent preference for "Light" and Tony's apparent preference for this week's POW?

 

This is a genuine, well-intentioned inquiry... not a challenge. Tony's or anyone elses thoughts would be appreciated.

"I don't ever use flash, because I don't understand it and because I like the effect of natural lighting."

 

Boy its nice to here an experienced photographer such as yourself say something like this. Being in "learning mode" as I am, I should probably at least experiment with a flash, but for some reason I'm intimidated... and besides, I too like the effect of natural (or at least not obviously artificial) light.

This certainly is a powerful shot, and, for the most part, well composed. The pole on the right with those two "balls" (or whatever they are) is certainly distracting though, and would be my main criticism.

Injecting some photography related discussion into the mix, I'd like to thank Ian Greant for a thought provoking comment. Specifically, I'm now wondering if this photo might not have been more warmly received if instead of "474979" as it's title, it had instead been called "What Do You See?" or something similar. Don't get me wrong, the egregious compositional flaws are still there, and regardless of the title I would rate "thumbs down" for this photo. But can a title, or more properly, context, play a *significant* role in our enjoyment of a photograph and thus moderate my or anyone elses reaction to same? I'd really like to see this thread return to photographic discussion, and I'm truly interested in what photo.net members think.

With respect to the photo - what immediately struck me from an aesthetic perspective were the compositional flaws (not-quite centre composition, poor framing at the bottom). Other posters have noted additional technical flaws that, given time, I might have noticed also (i.e. the compressed depth due to as long lens). But what really bothered me was the grab-bag nature of this shot. Go to any large city, anywhere in the world, and you are sure to find countless opportunities to take a photo such as this. For a photo of this genre to succeed in communicating anything beyond the gratuitously obvious, it needs a "context" or some other deeper, personal connection with the subject. Tony Dummett's "Speaker's Corner, London" certainly comes to mind as an example of the former, as does "Intoxicated Man, Auckland" from the same folder for the latter. "Homeless and Pregnant" also touches an emotional nerve with me. These photos truly convey hopelessness and despair and, in the case of "Speaker's Corner, London" the vain and deplorable reaction that the priveleged will often have.

 

In short, I feel it is important to somehow identify with the subject. Unfortunately, shots like this one actually generate a negative reaction on my part. I work in a downtown office building, and what I see when I look at this photo is exploitation on the part of the beggar. As someone earlier mentioned, he is playing a "totally expected role". The "message" on his sign that many have referred to as "powerful" is merely the standard and repetitive jargon that these folks have developed to ply their trade. Perhaps I wouldn't be such a cynic if I had not witnessed a man who begs outside of my office building daily, pack up his crutches at the end of his day and *run* down the street to what I can only presume was an urgent appointment. Homelessness and poverty exist... it's just unfortunate that some choose to make the accompanying pan-handling a way of life and an industry of itself.

 

I keep coming back to this photo. Kind of like the POW this week, the photo is powerful in its mood yet the lack of sharpness in the tree may prevent the most discriminating from enjoying this photo. However, I certainly like it.

 

Am I the only one, or is the photo somewhat reminiscent of David Julian's "Dream" photo for which he received POW honours? Obviously differences exist (i.e. B&W vs. colour and the lack of crows here), but I find the mood of both photos to be wonderfully mysterious and perhaps even ominous.

I agree, it does look a bit grainy and not perfectly sharp (although that may well be the scan). Also, for me the added border - notably the green on black - seems a bit extreme. While dramatic, I think the photo alone (sans border) would work just fine.

 

In spite of the comments above, I like this photo very much. Well done!

Andre said:

 

"or "practice makes better, not perfect"?? does this still apply do you think??? are you ever done with an image?? i hear of writers who toil over the question of when to leave a work for what it is, or when to keep working."

 

About half-way up this message board I left an ill-worded comment that momentarily got Tony's dander up. While the misunderstanding has been cleared up, I think Andre's point above is essentially the same as that I was trying to make. In yet other terms, regardless of the inherent value or appreciation of the subject matter, there is a continuum of technical proficiency for any photograph ranging from (dare I bring this up?) 1 to 10 (or 1 to 100 or whatever other numerical values one wishes to assign). The great photographers *demand* only the best in this area (again regardless of the appeal that the subject may hold for them), whereas the merely good, or lesser, photographers would probably accept a photo "for what it is" with somewhat lower technical standards.

 

Again, I like this photo "for what it is" although I recognize that some technical deficiencies exist.

 

Actually Tony, I agree with most everything you say. My original comment to which you replied was more lamenting my own critical shortcomings (and lower standards). This in turn is a reflection of where I presently am as a photographer - an enthusiastic hobbyist with about one year under his belt, and by no means a professional.

 

While I still like this photo, your critique (and Tris' and a few others) helps me to recognize where deficiencies exists and accordingly help me to grow as a photographer. As long as its kept cordial (i.e. no personal attacks which are not only rude, but tedious as well), I for one, like the give and take of POW discussions and the different points of view expressed. Simply put, its how you learn.

 

BTW, you must be one heck of an early riser Tony - my clock on the wall indicates that you must have entered your comment around 7am Oz time.

I liked this photo before it received POW honours, and I still do... although upon a second and more thorough examination I certainly admit the flare under the boy's arm is a flaw and a distraction.

 

However, I remain unconvinced that the composition could be improved with some separation between the boy and the girl in the background. I know this would be the "textbook" manner to handle this shot if there were time to set it up properly, but I still maintain that the depth of this photo creates the necessary space to allow the boy his position of prominence.

 

Others have noted that this appears to be one of those photos where you either appreciate the emotion it conveys or you remain blinded by the technical deficiencies to the point that the photo is considered a "reject". And to be honest, this may be what separates a great photographer from a merely good one. Myself, I'd be tickled to have got this shot, but apparently the Dummetts of this world strive for something better.

Majority "rulz" are essential to any semblance of rational, thoughtful and logical progression in whatever field you choose - be it politics, culture, fashion, photography etc. There will always be an avante guarde minority who push the envelope and their results, by and large, will be equal parts success and failure. The "majority" needs time to assess and distill the efforts of these trailblazers and, as such, will always fail to meet the expectations of the trailblazers themselves who by then have moved on to something new. As such (and I'm sure Tris will appreciate this analogy), the "unwashed masses" are "retarded" in their appreciation and acceptance of what is "good". Bear in mind though that this serves a very good purpose, since what is "bad" is given the time to be weeded out entirely (most of the time anyways, as obvious exceptions exist - to wit, 70's bell-bottom jeans).

 

In any event, the purpose of the preceding paragraph was to underscore the following - this photograph will probably appeal to a majority of photographers out there since it is just unique (i.e. centred and minimalist subject thereby breaking the "rule of thirds") and moody enough to be considered progressive. However, those that are truly progressive (and knowledgeable of photographic art history) will probably formulate an opinion such as "nice pic, but been there and done that."

 

Since by nature I've more in common with the "retarded" majority than with the avante guarde progressives, I like this photo. But I can certainly understand why it does not appeal to all.

 

 

Mr. Owens suggested crop is far too severe and completely spoils the atmosphere of the original. While I myself suggested a SLIGHT crop at the top of the photo - it is not essential. Further, the "man in the sweater" is an essential element of the composition and adds some contextual depth to the photo - there is no need to eliminate him.

This photo is remarkable. The gushing is well deserved in this instance. In fact, I give kudos to Brian and Tony who quite correctly noted areas that can be improved. Their suggestions have led Bill to post a revised version which I consider superior.

 

The only other thing I might suggest would be a slight crop at the top (approximately mid-way between the top edge of the photo and the top of the arch). Even though Bill has lightened that area considerably, I still find this top portion a little too dark.

 

In the end though, the intangibles of this photo and "capturing the moment" greatly outweigh these minor, and correctable, criticisms. This photo is a classic, and is now among my five favourite on photo.net.

This is a great photograph. Like other commentors, I think the composition is excellent - especially with the cracks in the bench and the seams of the wood panelling on the wall leading to the boy. Just superb. And, as also noted, the complementary shades of yellow with the earthy tones of the boy's hair, skin and sandals is also intriguing.

 

However - and this is my problem and need not be anyone elses - I am disturbed by the pose. I know the boy is sleeping in one of those awkward ways that only young children can (you should see how my kids sleep sometime!) but, nonetheless, I feel as though I am looking at a boy who has withdrawn from some form of physical or emotional torment. Again, let me be clear - I KNOW THIS IS NOT THE CASE - but it is my reaction. Perhaps, in some ways, this makes the photo even more powerful.