matt_kime

I really like this photo. While its not a result of a technical virtuoso, it is a well done image with an interesting subject matter. the most important part of photography is being there.

Clearly, the mime cannot protect itself from the mighty angry red Plumb Bob.

 

Go Plumb Bob!

personally, i find the image boring. we don't learn anything new about the subject - dirt

flying around during a motocross race is far from unique. yes, its well exposed and the

subject is isolated in the middle of the frame and dirt is in the air everywhere - but you

can follow all the rules and still not have a good photo.

unfortunately i lose the trees into the hills.

 

other than that, i think this is a really wonderful photo

After reading the entire above discussion, I felt I came across one sentence which seemed to address the topic of "what the photo says". You said...

The issue is transparency. . . both in the image itself where the viewer is confident that he or she is able to distinguish between what was seen versus altered, and and in the photographer's presentation and explanation of the capture and creation process.

Is this what the image is about according to the photographer? (I want to make sure I get it right!) Otherwise, please state as best you can...

I have no doubt that Carl achieved exactly what he wanted with this image. Still, I find it

lacking. What is the image about? Color and form - in fact, I find what was photographed

is hardly important. We know its a building because of the straight lines and wavy panes

but other than that nothing says "building". I'm surprised the gratuitous use of photoshop

curves isn't questioned more - its digital manipulation on the level of compositing objects.

(that doesn't mean i'm anti-digital) I don't find the use of a camera to make purely abstract

images particularly interesting - I'd rather hear what the photographer has to say about

the world besides "its pretty."

why did you add the grain?

 

also, i think the color could be better. if you make this more neutral, the sky should separate nicely.

 

nice shot

where is the photograph hiding? this much photoshop is annoying. i wish i could wipe it off with a damp cloth to see what the original looked like

i think what is needed is several more digital frames

Marc,

I think you're missing the completely blown out background. If you know a way to do this without a white back drop, please share.

I'm very much of the opinion that the crop doesn't work. Its too much and too

distracting. The fact that its being talked about this much is a problem. I think that

the subject is interesting enough himself. I don't care for the category of assisted

living for this individual photograph - maybe thats what the photographer was

studying, but this individual is many more things.

Carl,

 

Should we change the criteria we use to judge photos because something is for an

assignment? While this probably did work quite well for the assignment, it has been

placed on photo.net. Now people are judging it by the criteria they use for all the

other photo.net pics. This is a reasonable progression.

 

True, "I don't like it" isn't very helpful in improving a photo. Neither is "Great shot!!!"

However, its important to know what people like. What good is a well planned and

executed shot that no one wants to look at?

frankly, it doesn't matter if its digital or not. are we looking for some objective journalistic truth in these bubbles? i'm not, so it doesn't matter to me.

 

they're just pretty bubbles, nothing more, nothing less. doesn't really interest me

this image has many wonderful elements in it - in fact, too many! the sweep of the walkway is nice, as is the distant bridge and the lights along the building. but they're all screaming, "look at me! i'm prettier!" if a few of them would quiet down allowing one to stand out, it would make for a much stronger image.

this is by far my favorite of your garden pics. i think you have a sense of design in b&w that gets lost when you use color.

Why does the possible assignment of the subject matter? It seems that we've arrived at the conclusion that to get access, it must have been some kind of assignment. I still don't see how that should alter the way we judge the photograph at hand. So what if its a boring assignment? Does that mean originality should be tossed out the window - or should the photographer overcome that? Also, its an incredibly important part of a photographer's career to seek interesting assignments. Finally, you could look at nearly any photo and figure out why it might be an assignment - its just not something to consider.

Again, if the nature of the job dictates that the photos be unoriginal, why should we lower our expectations? I'll agree that most clients are going to want something they easily understand, and have therefore seen before. This doesn't necessarily mean the photographer can't take the pics they want, it just means they have to do that in addition to what the client wants.

I think you're misunderstanding my use of the word "praise". Yes, he took it to get praise from the client - which insures payment and future jobs. I think he uploaded it to photo.net in order to get praise - he certainly has gotten it. The amount of constructive criticism is very low in comparison to the number of "great shot!" comments. I've stopped uploading my own work because of this.

I think the highest forms of photography in any genre are fine art. Are the POWs the highest forms of photography? I don't think so, but they're often presented and defended as such.

Moderator comment: Just a reminder to some that have not realized that the POW has not been picked as "the best" on Photo.net for quite some time now...but as a worthy image for discussion. Furthermore, the POW page is not the place for policy discussions. There are forums for that purpose. See Patrick's link for guidelines for posting at the top of this page please and let's keep the comments about the POW image.

Just to make sure we're talking about the same thing, the definition of "original" from dictionary.com - "Not derived from something else; fresh and unusual". I agree that on photo.net originality is often taken to mean cleverness, otherwise the vast majority of photos would have lower scores.

Do you really believe that there are no new subjects? Do you really think that everything that has been done is all that there is to do? No, we don't all live in one unique world. My world is different from your world and our photographs should differ according to this.

Yes, the number of photos on photo.net that have something new and different is quite small. Actually, yes, I do think these photos are better than ones that aren't as original. Should this image be judged on its originality? I don't see why not. Certainly, the image is not trying to be particularly original - but I think thats because the bar has been set too low.

It is much safer to do what others before you have done. You see a photo that has received high praise, so you take one like it in order to receive that praise. It might not even be external praise, but internal reassurance. The same thing goes for the judging of photographs. It is best not to step out of line so we agree with the general consensus. I really don't care how many sonnets you can write about the act of taking a particular photograph - all I see is the photograph and that is what I'm going to judge. In fact, I'd be more impressed if less was done to get a good image - anything beyond that is waste.

Originality is a goal you work towards, not something you achieve and put in your pocket. Are difficult goals not worth the trouble?

I really don't see how this image can rank on originality. The theme of the worker in industry goes back to the beginning of the industrial revolution - this is certainly not a new idea. Its also been well photographed - for social change in the 1920 and Salgado more recently in 3rd world countries. Yes, physical labor is tough and dangerous and we'll communicate that with dark contrasty prints.

Well done? Of course. Original? No.

i think the lighting in this pic is dead on. however, i think the shot could be improved if it was a bit more symmetical and captured all of the seats.

i don't find this to be a particularly good pic of the taro plants or the mountains. also find the relationship between them to be rather boring - its too neat and simple.

I have to weigh in on the side of "doesn't do it for me". I agree that its well done, but i

just don't see the creativity to it. Looks too much like a greeting card.

 

Story? No.

unfortunately for me, the question "what am i looking at?" completely detracts from

the image. There really aren't any clues for scale. The splotchy background sits flatly

behind the streaked rocks. Oh wait, is that water?

 

frame crtitique: its too heavy, too big. i'd rather see more photo.

did Stephane do the styling and makeup? i think thats a huge part of this photo. i'm

not crazy about the out of focus flowers, i find them a bit distracting.

 

there's no way this image avoids cliche. it succeeds at it.

You don't need to intellectualize in order see that the image does have a strong

relationship to Michelangelo's image. Michelangelo's image has been displayed to us

so many times over the period of our lives that it has changed the way we see the

world, in particular the idea of an old bearded man. That is the effect of powerful

images. It is as though we have different eyes.

i find the composition to be a bit weak and the color to be strange. While the mountain in the background is interesting and the foreground foliage is interesting, they detract from each other since they are not brought into an interesting relationship. as for the color, there isn't a good black and some of those plants are WAY oversaturated, Those red flowers are just flat red blobs to me.