matt_kime

I can't help but feel there is something wrong with the color in this image. Look at the rocks in the foreground. They're not neutral as they should be. The rocks on the left side of the frame look a bit washed out. I'm not sure what caused this, but i tend to believe its improper color balancing.

 

i don't care for the frame. i think the black is too thick and heavy for the image. also, the one pixel line doesn't work for me. i'd rather your photograph take up those couple of extra pixels.

i just really don't go for the selective decoloration. i feel the effect is so strong and obvious that it detracts from a very well composed photograph.

well shot, but i think we've all seen it before.

 

and do we need the frame and shadow? its a computer screen, not a wall...

I don't really care for the fog effect. i find it distracting since it doesn't have depth, so it just emphasizes the flatness of the image and adds no detail to the objects.

overall, the image falls flat with me. it catches the eye because of all the lines but when i take a closer look i notice that the wheel and the lines overlap and have been brought together by the photographer. its people on a ride at an amusement park with another ride in the background.

what i like about this pic is the way the flower sits in relationship to the leaves and how its reflected in the water. i think pretty flower pics are a dime a dozen but i really like how you placed the flower in a space

.

he looks like he just pooped!

i like how the haze separates the tree from the background, but the whole image is washed out because of it. i find the dark corners distrcting

too green. i bet there's a lot more color here that you're missing

the composition is interesting, but where there is much detail there's not enough contrast. i want to look at the trees more and see the building a bit more separated, but it all greys out a bit

its like looking at flowers.....and i'm drunk

very good. perhaps a bit too ansel adams.

Is it wrong to have a child make such a face for a photograph? It could stay that way.

with all the talk about the previous versions of the photo, could someone post them

so we can see the progression?

more specifically, I've opened a thread in the Help and Feedback section:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0052gC

 

please be reasonable though. (no nazi references)

i think leslie deserves to be thanked for stimulating such a great discussion, even

apart from taking the photograph.

 

now why don't we head over to the Featured Portfolio? 39 pics, 39 times as much to

talk about.

my complaint about the choice of this image is: "what does it say?" the idea of flower

macros as abstract images is hardly inventive. I just don't see this image as anything

other than pretty.

 

I largely agree with the photographer about her feelings about her pics. I like her

Meat series a lot more. I think this image:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1208362

 

says a lot in an unexpected manner. i believe its one of the most original images on

the site. i feel like too many of these images get overlooked for praise and discussion

Geraldine Allen said: Should the story of a documentary shot always be blatant in one capture in order to be successful?

Blatant? It doesn't have to be blatant per se, but it definitely should NOT be confusing. I find the question of what is going on in this pic to be so strong that it detracts from everything else. I think captions are fine for answering the five "W" questions but ultimately the photo should stand by itself. I think part of my confusion comes from the post of the man. He's standing over the camel with his hands resting on his head and neck. At this particular moment, he's not helping the camel.

I don't feel this image is the best of the series. I had no idea what was going on in the shot until I read the comments. I wasn't even sure if the camel was alive.

Also, whether or not the shot was posed, the man definitely looks like he's posing.

as for "astounding range of tonal values" - there's black, there's white.....so? Its definitely well, shot, but i don't think these pics are trying to make a formal statement.

I find the image gimmicky. Simply, the distortion doesn't relate to the subject. Its a clever visual trick that doesn't communicate anything. Ultimately, this is the point that frustrates me the most about photo.net - there isn't enoguh discussion about the relationship between image and idea - this usually becomes an issue over the POW.

 

As far as originality is concerned, the image is certainly a creative use of materials. However, I don't see an original message here - and I do think originality is best measured in the message.

i'm in the boat that isn't too crazy about this image. i don't find the image quality particularly attractive, nor is the composition all that interesting. it may be different if i saw it in person. also, i'm not a fan of the white border. I think it just makes the images look smaller.

 

that being said, i think the folder of images is much stronger than any of the single images. i think the rating of single images tends to encourage one hit wonders. more dedicated and detailed projects get ignored. its good to see someone that is dedicating themself.

 

finally, its my belief that the photographer should say the bare minimum necessary about their own work. that is, they should say only what is required for the images to make sense. whenever you state directly what your photograph is about, you close off personal reactions that others may have. while this image may be about the impossiblity of free sight to you, it may be about a million other things to other people.

he's creating a planet size mess in his diapers!

This looks like an excellent shot. You've really worked at these puddle shots and its paid off. Unfortunately, I think its a gimmic, so i think you should only display one.

 

My last complaint is that you used a digital camera. You should have been shooting medium format - then you could make a poster size print.

I'm not a big fan of this one. While it is pretty, I don't think it goes beyond that. The building is distorted beyond recognition. I think it becomes about the distortion which i don't find particularly interesting.

I wouldn't blame the green cast on your film. You should be able to correct for it. I do long exposures - eight minutes - and i've never had a colors i couldn't correct for. there might be more detail there than in this green copy.