1.

Dear Robert, I'm sad to see that this was rejected for the lack of impact. Maybe we are too much saturated with such images. Anyway, it's a nice capture and I'm sure you were only joking about staging it - no self-respecting street photographer would do such a thing and judged by your portfolio, you do have the ability to become one. It's all but perfect except a few little flaws. The DOF seems to be on the girl's hand rather than the faces, and the lady in their background is very dstracting. You should clone her out, as well as the other figure behind her who's blurred anyway. Same goes for that gentleman with the lamp mast growing out of his head. You could also skew the whole photo vertically because it is seriously tilted towards the left. I wish I could see more of that car in the background - I love old cars. The vintage atmosphere is nice and the BW conversion is also OK, apart from the empty and blown area on the top left. After all, it's a promising image minus the disturbing elements, the wrong focus point and the blown highlights. Keep them coming, but please take more care in photographing people - I hope you asked for their permission to take this photograph. Imagine what happens if their wife or husband see this!

Robert Doisneau: Baiser de l'hôtel de ville, 1950

I voted against, sorry to say. The pole on the left comes out of that person's head. That is a deal breaker IMHO.
I am sure the photo is not staged, though, that I am positive of.
Anyway, nice vacation snapshot, for sure, but not really 1x material here. If you have any doubts, read the guidelines for submission again and you will see what kind of pictures 1x looks for.
d

That's no seriuos photo. Every kid can do this kind of snapshot with a mobilephone cam.

:-)

Peter

apart from the technical quality - thankfully these days it is not necessary anymore to have blur, grain, tilt and no colour in images - the composition is much too cluttered and I can*t connect to what is happening. maybe if you had the woman or the man look into the camera to make some eye contact? nice snapshot though :-)

I don´t believe this masterpiece of the master will be rejected in this site, or everything was wrong here ! And who say this photo have no impact, no mood, no decisive moment, no quality, no intemporality, no story maybe are in wrong business and is bether to start other hobby/work :)

OFF


This is another rejected masterpiece. Title was: "Hello, Rui!"



:))

ON

Blur, grain, artifacts, strange tint! I love it!:-)))

Robert

ahahahha+....anyway this is among Doinseau's photos I like least, staged or not, it looks too 'cinematic' and I lose that sense of the real moment which excite me the most in Street. But of course, who would vote against ! :D

yes, I voted for this one. eye contact!!! :))))

Oouch ... you have one of my goats with you there ???? It´s your new pet ? :))))

Thanks, Balazs, take very good care of that beauty ! :)

I voted against this picture in screening - Reason = "Impact" :-)

Hi Robert,

That is a good capture. One thing that bothers me here is the PoV. Seems like you were just sat at a café terrasse (not sure, but the forgeround gives me hint on that) and did a mere snapshot. Don't get me wrong, it is a very nice snapshot. But you were lucky enough that the couple did not rush too much and finally you got them a little less blury than the other people around. But streetphotog shouldn't work this way. Furthermore I can see very little effort in composition: subjects are centered, the scene is somewhat cluttered, DOF is so-so.... Otherwise you did a nice editing out of it - though the man's face could have benefit from a little dodging and the background building looks a bit fake IMO. Also I find the chair area being blurred in a weird way. I can see no valid reason for that - except if you messed up with some filter.

Robert,

Not bad - has its faults. You can take it from me - Street Photography - this kind of photography is known as "Street Photography" isn't just learned in an afternoon! Oh no - you have to be prepared to work at this - work and dedication is what is the difference between an Amateur and a true Professional. Professional, this aint.

So much of this image is not focussed - the focus is on the man in the frame on the left. What does HE have to do with this scene, I ask you? The girl's face - you cannot see that!!!!! You need to see her face, she has to be looking at the camera - you have to see her eyes - this kind of picture, yes picture that you've sent in here won't sell - I've told you why.

Go back and practice - technique, focus - use a better film - too grainy this is!

Oh by the way - work on the background - too high key - as if it presents some sort of tension in the scene.

Like I said - be PROFESSIOINAL in everrrythung ye do.

The Editor - Amateur Pictures Montly in 35mm Format

This is Robert, the author writing. Sorry guys for trashing the website, I should have posted them in critique first. Next time will do, but I'm afraid I got to wait some weeks until some new slots are available...Will try practicing more in the meantime.

Thank you.

Lacks sharpness, but that is not a real problem in 1x :)))

I too voted against because Blurry Object in front is very distracting and takes attention from the couple.

:p

Oh for crying out loud (AAAH)! Not another pretentious Parisian street scene!
Where to begin? Why not with the 1x screening criteria (in alphabetical order)

-colour
Blue toning=Scary atmosphere. What do you think this is macabre?

-composition
Need I say anything?

-disturbing objects
Only the 15 elements in this scene.

-editing
A rare case where more is need IMO! This would look great as a HDR photo.

-exposure
Oh please! See that white blob in the top right hand corner? No, didn't think so.

-impact
Pssht, this happens to me every morning. Impact no thank you!

-light
Over(cast)!

-motif
A quick snog is hardly a fitting motif for your pristine photography website! Maybe you should try deviantART. They'll like your kitten photos there.

-sharpness
What shutter speed. 1/10? 1/20? You need a higher ISO then use a very handy plugin called neatimage for your editing, removes all that horrible noise. I love it.

story
I don't know. Ask the lamppost my eye is radiating over 110% of the time!

technical quality
I've already mentioned that.

So overall, a poor rating of 0/10. I think we all know the answer to this one.

Dear Robert,
I am very disappointed that you've ignored my advice, regarding good street photography. And yes offcourse i had to reject this picture! Everything you could have done wrong, you did... Please read all the critiques that were given above very carefully and LEARN from them. These very fine artists that wrote them know what they are talking about!

About that other picture that you have uploaded for screening. Photo nr: 870530, title Picasso and the loaves. It is simply a wase of your slot. Doesn't have any chance in screening, It is cluttered, i hate the pattern in the table cloth and using croissants as fingers is just silly.

I told you to look for good looking blond models. Why you have picked this old not very good looking man is beyond me. Who is he anyway?

sincerely,
Petra Oldeman
Head screener of 1x, the best and most beautifull photo's in the universe

oh dear Petra...

didn*t you know..the mice can only dance if the cat*s out?

:)))

Hmmm, now i understend so much people argue against photos from Mars here in 1X ... soon we have a lot from Saturn and some nudes with four legs and two head ladys ! :-)

... and without claiming it's creative edit :)

Well, Robert, I find myself having to go against the trend here. I like it a lot! Regarding composition, I think the central placement of the couple is the right choice, to draw the eye to them among all the busy scene. I like all that clutter, it allows the eye to wander and yet stay interested, to relax momentarily from the intensity of the couples' kiss, and come back to it with whetted appetite. The man's shoulder in the FG left leads the eye to the couple, and the bright upper right corner gives direction to the light which illuminates a chaotic collection of angles and planes. I love the tension of opposites in the image, from public and private, the intense observation of the camera and the inattention of the couple and the passersby, the rich sauce of the couple and their kiss and the crudites of the street, the suspension of the moment between the couple - it's an eternity - and the transient life of the street, the tenderest of human moments in the mechanical city, right down to the clashing of the soft dark tones with the assertive highlights. It's an abrasive image, which you can't stay with for a prolonged time. The tensions, the energy they generate, the abrasive light from a cold sky, the impervious, unsympathetic city - all of that drives the observer away. Only to helplessly return to the mesmerising drama of the kiss. That you have captured all this in a shot which is so casual in execution is a miracle, and makes us aware how much of the sublime we can miss in front of our noses every day! So much photography tries so hard, and overstrains itself to present a fraction of what is here. So much photography lusts for the acclaim of the photographer, while here you the photographer with your camera is awed as much as we by the significance created by anonymity, by two ordinary young people, living ordinary lives in an ordinary street. You give the fame to them, and so teach us the humility of all great art, humility in front of the sublime.

Don't be concerned by its rejection here. I predict that this photo will become famous! Congratulations, and good luck!

brose

I think all of you here who voted against this image in screening, you are not sincere. I voted against this image in member screening, reason of course "Impact"... because it was the first image in screening after one of my pictures was rejected :-))

Well no one asked me for my permission FIRST before taking any of these photos.

"SHE IS MY MUM! YOU ASKED?!" ;-) ... and believe me I do have a french accent.

LOL jacques!!

Mum jokes are the sole domain of rugby players, so I can't get the correct tone in a photographers forum. ;-)

Crop and flip!

I thought you Aussie guys were making jokes about POMS...

I see shoulder pads were in fashion in 1950, at least the fine example in the foreground.

:)

Well technically WE ARE the poms... 'P' risoner 'O' f her 'M' ajesty...

2.


Henri Cartier-Bresson: Rue Mouffetard, Paris, 1954

Hi Henri,

wow nice shot - the Snapshot group on flickr would love this! You made a decent photograph even if you obviously didn't have much time to compose. Unfortunately, this is not enough. Maybe you're viewfinder doesn't show 100% but this incredibly painful crop across the boy's legs is a huge flaw. One basic rule of photography is to NEVER ever crop legs, necks, hands or fingers. Too bad - without this, it could have been a magnificent picture. I also find the blurred children in the background disturbing, as well as the girl on the left side (I mean, that little piece of her which you shouldn't have even included in the frame). Bottomline is, it's a nice snapshot but with serious flaws in composition.
Another thing that's not OK is that the boy, who obviously must be a minor, is carrying wine bottles. Not one, but TWO wine bottles! This goes against the law. You should have called the police instead of photographing. Not to mention that for taking such a shot you need the legal guardians' approval. Try to obtain it before you go to prison.
Neither can I understand the title. Why do you call it "rue Mouffetard'" if nothing can be seen from that street?
As a last thought, it would be much better if we had eye contact with the boy. He is looking out of the frame and this is not good for impact. You should have done something to attract his attention, like blowing a whistle or doing something funny.

:-)

Number 2 in this series, curious how far you will take this, Balazs ;-)

2: This is a clear case for a horizontal flip and a look in the RAW-file to see, if there is more to add in the bottom! :-)

Henri,

Fortunately I am french and have been a Paris resident long enough to understand the title of your pic. But next time think about the international audience here. Paris is not the navel of the World! I won't elaborate too much on the obvious flaws that Balasz alreay mentionned. I hope you did not expect to be published here with that pic. To be fair I would say it is a very good capture. A boy carrying wine bottle and smiling that way is not encountered every day. But you should seriously consider to learn the basics of street photog. Have your lens (preferably under 50mm) set to f8 or so if light permits (seems to be the case here) so that you can be sure that most what you shoot will be sharp enough. Also make yourself less obvious as a photographer. The girls on background seem to smile at you which is distracting and spoils the innocence of the capture in some way. You probably had the eye on the viewfinder for too long before clicking. Good luck with your next shots.

***

On a more serious note I think this pic is a concentrate of HCB's genius. It has this typical "cinematic" climate, as if there were indeed motion. And a unique way to cut things/ compose with parts of people/object (mostly people BTW) that is unsurpassed. Plus here a bit of absurd (young boy carrying 2 big wine bottles).

You know Jack :)), it's not without reason that I opened this thread in the "Philosophy of photography" channel. All the time when I see people criticizing a shot for cut-off legs, toes, feet etc., this photo comes to my mind. To me, the crop of this picture is a fine example of the saying "rules are there to be broken".

The funny thing about this topic is that most of the critique is justified. Here the crop, in Doisneau's shot the flawed composition etc. (The original landscape format of R.D.'s photo is even worse composition-wise). And we keep judging each others photos by all this criteria, for example: "this photo is bad because you've cut off the model's toe" while many of the most iconic photographs have plenty of the same flaws. Or even worse.

But it's impossible to compete with these old masters - ultimately the only real factor which decides if a photo is forgettable or not, is time. And lots of luck.

Wise words, Balazs!

...BTW Balazs, is that a lapsus ? :)

Actually, flickr came to my mind because my subscription expired a few days ago after I didn't look up my account for about... half a year or so?

Oh Balazs, ba**s! You want to separate opinion and preference and prejudice and plain old stuck-in-a-rut habit, from stuff that pushes buttons in the viewer, but you don't! The key idea which you don't get is that "art" is not in the object, but in the relationship of the artist+object+observer+time. The creation of art is a communal, consensual and time-historical dependent process. You don't look for the art in the object alone. So, of course, photographs like this can be flawed, of course the critique is justified, of course it's somewhat irrelevant. Still the photographs can be great, because the greatness is emergent not inherent! Great art is unpredictable and unfathomable, it is not amenable to reductionism, like how much the bottom of the frame excludes from the image, for G**'s sake! And that should cut all the pompous critiquing down to size!

Second, who is competing????!!!! Is art a contest and a race? What is the prize? Who will be crowned? If art is a process which takes many players, and time, if it is emergent, as I am sure it is, then all that kind of thing is wildly astray! We use art to sustain us, analogous to food. Do we put good eating on the racetrack?! We know when we eat well, each occasion is a distinct event, involving many factors. Each occasion we eat well is unique, satisfaction is complete. There is no hierarchy of such experiences.

It's about time some nonsense is removed from the way we think about such things!

PS And I also don't agree that the RD pic's composition is flawed, so there! ; )))

brose

brose

A word of advice Monsieur Cartier-Bresson, if I may, never leave the house without a spirit level attached to the hotshoe mount of your camera.


joking aside, I think this is wonderful and I'm not into this type of photography at all.

JP

Brose, I kind of get the feeling that you are missing the joke somehow. . . ? I may be wrong but you appear to be reacting as though there was serious critique going on. . .
Jon

I think both images are streets ahead of their time!

Do you?????!!!! How s t r a n g e???!!!!! Hehehe... So, do you want to limit this thread to inane and predictable pleasantries? Still, I enjoy all the comments, very much, be assured. I love some fun! I am having fun, but you seem, well, maybe a little... what?... unwilling to let go of some ways of thinking??? Serious thinking can be very, very fun too. Destruction. Isn't that what this thread is about, the truth told in jest? Did you see that new kids' movie, something about wild things, is it not?

brose the earnest

Hi brose. I suppose it's already weekend down under. Why don't you relax a little?

What is the funniest thing about this thread, perhaps, is that while we are attacking "formula" photography, we are doing it with those very same formulas.

Aren't we all searching for the 1X formula, and the formula which will get us fame, immortality?

I commented in the thread about the 10 necessary things for street photography, that what we were being invited to do was provide the formula, the recipe. Well, if we actually achieved that goal SP would be damned, would it not?

And here we all are now, messing with the recipes, the formulas. All in good fun, yes, and it's great for me to see these photos again, and read how you guys approach them. But at the same time, let's learn something about ourselves, and let's step outside the formula mentality, not, ironically, reapply it even while we joke about it.

brose the earnest

ME?! Not RELAXED?! Whatever gave you such an alarming idea, Balazs?! Do football players look relaxed when you watch them on TV? Are they having fun? Careful, don't do the knee-jerk thing, Balazs. Life is too strange!

I am not in fact down under, and the weekend where I am is almost over ; )))))) = having fun NB, in case you find it hard to understand...

But the above is true.

brose the unrelaxed

Quite possibly. Insulting though that inference is.

I would rather continue enjoying the joke of pretending to critique a well known photo or two in terms of the critique section of this forum. . . a bit lame perhaps, but there ya go. Some of us are having fun playing our little game.
Jon

Hi Henri, others here might apply formulas to your photograph, in earnest or ironically, but I have no such intention. I can see you did not have a recipe in mind. On the contrary, reality created the photography of you and you were in its hands. Your POV shows you were flying above the pavement, higher than your subjects, and I believe it is a case of what your compatriot, Michel Tournier, calls phoria, which his fictional character Tiffauges discovered in Le Roi des Aulnes. The children and their antics and hilarity have lifted you up so that you could take this photo from a floating height.

Then too, the boy is too much to be contained in the rectangle of the camera frame, his jollity spills into the street, exciting the girls, and it spills out of your frame, you have him and you don?t. You have him for part of a frame, he cannot wait while you fill your frame with him, less than a moment of him and he is gone, gone on his bacchanalian mission, the cupid and Dionysus in collusion in Paris. He is the cupid of the wilds, disguised for the street. The rural workers? cupid, in his proletarian sweater and roughly belted shorts, the sandals of the artisan class. He cocks a snoot at the elite and the toffs, at the bourgeoisie and their genteel and snobbish pleasures. He is off to the woods, the leaf-scented wildness, where sandals can quickly be thrown off, with loosely belted shorts and unfussy sweater, and there can be indecorous dancing, passions uninhibited pouring out of hearts like the claret from those Marie-Jeannes he is carrying, balancing him as he traverses the vicissitudes of civilisation. A cupid, and a piper, too, taught by Pan, with pipes upon each arm, each sounding a liquid low note which holds all the high notes to come. He looks aside to see, curious who will follow.

Henri, you saw, and here you show how, like this child, we all carry with us the substance of our own initiation, when we reach the stage, that mythical wood, where it can be tasted and understood and can set us free!

I like it!

Brose the inebriate

Why insulting? All humour is founded on the familiar and predictable!

Now you miss the point yourself, Jon. I said and reiterated that I enjoy this thread. The humour works for me as well as it does for you, I can assure you. I have said so, and reiterated. Why not, I am normal! But there is more to be said, and this is an opportunity to say it. And enjoy that, too. Critique the photos in the inane and predictable way that is so enjoyable, but also attempt critiques that do not run on those shiny, shiny rails, those formulas and recipes. Can we get off them?

Ah! Can we?!

brose the misunderstood

brose who's your favorite photographer? Because he/she comes next.

:)

Don´t do that, brose needs a peacefull weekend :-)

Brose has had his weekend Rui, he must be in the Middle East if I remember my days in the Kingdom. Can we have an Ansel Adams next Balazs please, I might actually learn something about photographing mountains. :-))

JP

Hmm ... Ansel photos are soo technical that i never see a good critique to it ... let´s see we here in 1X will do a good job :)

For do a good critique to Ansel works, is necessary to understend very well lab techniques and film, or you only do a pictorical critique and that is incomplete in Ansel Adams works. but let´s see , this is for joke :-)

Actually, AA was on my mind together with Martin Parr. The problem is, talking about AA on the basis of a 900*600 jpg is nonsense, and Parr - frankly, at first sight his photos look like trashy snapshots (as he intended) but the more you look at them the more perfect they become. I browsed through several MP galleries today and didn't find one single photograph that could be even remotely be criticized for compo or technique. Every freaking little detail is on its perfect place like numbers in a mathematic equation.

The whole idea, that if you are once famous, like some people here seems to think, then you are entitled to publication on all photosites in the world! - Is that not like the thinking in the One Party State? Totalitarian Thinking? Knowing the Absolute Thruth?
Anyway, it would be plain boring IMO! :-)

Oooookay, let it be Ansel Adams then :D

There are also some 'local' candidates, I think! :-)

How large is your mind, Balazs ?


I´m not one of them, Lars. My camera isn´t big enough for that run and no Yosemite in Portugal ... pitty ! :-)

AA? What can you say in the face of so much inanimate matter? AA is Mineral. I am most definitely Animal! Has anyone ever tried to live alone among mountains for a long time, or in similar isolation elsewhere? You can't do it! Too much AA and you begin to feel queasy, just as when you imagine being banished to the moon. There is nothing to mountains, nothing to the moon, but rock, matter. Pretty, yes, in the right light, and at a distance. But inevitably poison. What's more, AA is photography without responsibility. It is one-sided. Photographing mountains, you can be just an eye. In AA's case, a sensitive, intelligent and creative eye. In the case of the couple of photogs so far here in Balazs' entertaining thread, you can witness a transaction, a price paid, something gained. The image is the prize, as much for us as for the photographer. AA's images were entirely free. So, they belong to nobody.

And so on, and so forth...

My suggestion? Edward Weston.

brose at work

ooh yeah. The toilet shot! ;-)
Jon

Ansel Adams: Jeffrey Pine - Sentinel Dome, gelatin silver print, 1940

Hi there! Not bad, especially if I consider that you intended us to look at this photograph in a huge print and not this little jpeg. It's nice how you managed to show details in the dark areas without blowing the highlights. Did you use a fill-in flash? Technically seen it's well done, but you know, a photograph is like a car - the overwhelming majority likes it because it looks good and drives good, and not because the suspension is a masterpiece of engineering. I mean, if we disregard how you overcame the technical challenges, in the end we have a dull picture - a lonely tree and almost empty sky in the background. Probably you missed the right moment here, because by the time you pressed the shutter the clouds moved to the left side and as result half of the background is a boring empty grey area. You have also left too much foreground in the compositon - probably to connect the tree with the lower right corner. This idea is understandable, but by this composition you included too much of the grey foreground and eventually this compromise is not too convincing. Might I suggest to read the "top then things to look for in landscape photography" thread? You don't need to have everything in a photograph but I do miss dynamism and a perspective to lead the eye. In such cases it's better to have an assistant at hand who can act as a nude model to turn an average landscape shot into something more interesting. And finally: black and white is nice but just magine how much better this would look in colors.

Ansel Adams: Jeffrey Pine - Sentinel Dome, gelatin silver print, 1940

Too grainy.

Boring.

This one http://kpk.1x.com/photo/14080/1016/

is much better :-)))))))))))

I know it's sacriledge and politically extremely incorrect and insensitive and so on, but I actually do think yours is better... Ansel exposed too late, when the dramatic clouds were all but gone.

hello ansel, thats a nice tree you found. for me the photo is a bit boring, the light is too hard, one thing you must know when doing nature or landscape photography you should take pictures early morning or in the evening. this will prevent to get this dark shadows in the tree with no details. maybe you could also think about the zone system and learn proper exposure. one other advice, just to take a snapshot of a funny looking tree isnt enough to create a great photo, you have to frame it wisely. give some more space around the tree, this way it feels like the photo should be bigger. always have a look at foreground and background, be carefull with the composition. getting so much boring grey sky is really not interesting. from what i see i believe you still are a beginner, maybe you think black and white is quite fancy, but i think you are just affraid of the strong colors that could be in this photo if you wouldnt have changed it to b/w.

Too much foreground. That tree dominates too much. That and the strong shadow distracts from those mountains in the background. They would have made a nicer shot don't you think? The sky is a bit grey and dull. You need to do some work in Photoshop. Come back at sunset and take a nice colour shot of the mountains. Maybe take several exposures and try some HDR. This shot really has no impact or story, you should have called it Lonely Tree, and written a long explanation about why the tree is lonely. That goes down well at 1X. Good luck,
Jon

LOL!

I appreciate your effort but frankly I don't get it. crop is much too tight, or the POV wrong here. My point is that the tree is way too prominent wheras you have a gorgeous background that could provide a "wow" feeling of space. I think this shot is typical of a portrait or still life photographer - absolutely not from a landscape specialist. You can shot bonzai in your kitchen and come up with very similar result - with much better exposure (oh yes I did not even talk about the harsh light here... be aware that genuine landscape photographers wake up early in the morning). Sorry...

The b&w conversion is not bad, but could be improved. For me the film look does not work for this one. Which plugin are you using?
Maybe reshoot the scene with a full frame camera, I've read the new M9 is a good camera, although it lacks auto focus. :)

Hi Ansel, welcome to 1X, don't be too despondant that your first upload was rejected. I know you are a beginner and I think there are signs in this image that point to you having an empathy for the outdoors.
This particular image lacks a few things I feel.
Firstly the tree as a subject is a little too overpowering, it takes up a large proportion of the frame and I don't get a sense of context from it. I'm forced to just study the tree, a good study but I think you could make a better image if you had shown the tree in it's surroundings a bit more, is it isolated, is it clinging to bare rock for life, does it command a majestic view for example?
Secondly, it would have been more appealing to me in colour and if you had used a polariser to create nice rich and deep colours, shooting a bit later in the day would have helped here as well.

I've shown an example how a lone tree can fit into a landscape scene in soft filtered light and accentuated by the subtle surrounding colours.

Hope this helps.

JP

lollll

(off topic). I would like to create a dedicated page in my personal HP out of this thread. are you guys OK if I do that ?

Fine with me.


:) You know, it's sooo much easier to find a good landscape by you than a bad by AA... because you have many good ones and he has few bad ones...

Hi Ansel,

I'd love to make a comment, but this is way too small to be able to really see anything. 1x allows you to upload an image up to 950 pixels wide, so why wouldn't you use that?

I suspect that maybe you resized so small to try and hide the technical imperfections that are visible at a larger size.

:D :D :D

Nice with a real colour landscape instead of all this B&W crap! :-)

Say it as it is Lars don't hold back!

Ansel its so nice to see you using an everyday camera it helps put your large format work into perspective. I am guessing here that this is a snap taken on your return from a foray into Yosemite. Its a shame the time of day makes the light so harsh but yes without it you wouldn't get the shadow effect on the rock which I imagine is why this image caught your eye. I like the way you have isolated this from the landscape but given us a hint of how fragile the trees existence is precariously hanging on the edge of a wild plateau open to the elements which we can see from the deformed shape of the tree as its whole shape is shaped by the wind. This image is clearly something personal to you since it is hardly in the same league as most of your breath taking landscapes but what it does do is show us how the camera is the ideal tool to use in recording our surroundings for posterity & or aesthetically in the name of art. I see it as a sketch a tinkering out loud a test shot much like a painter makes various sketches for a later for a much grander work. Since this was taken & you as a photographer have shot to fame (excuse the pun) this image has been peddled amongst your great images I imagine you may be chuckling to yourself in that knowledge as it was not one of your favourites & was never meant to be seen as an example of your exemplary work. I sit here in awe of what you achieved with what you had the attention to detail the effort in the darkroom the way you pioneered the zone system (took me years to understand it) you left a great legacy to this world a rich vein of work that is still the benchmark in B&W landscape imagery. Sometimes we all take idiosyncratic images that mean so much to us but little to others. Please don't stop doing this it tells us more about you it opens up the bigger picture. I would not vote for this to be published here because I know somehow it would offend your sensibilities & it just does not sit well against your more expansive often breathtaking work.

My Dear Dear Ansel,
This looks like two Rorschach Ink blot's blended with a faux sky, and I see you cloned in a woman onto the tree. Naughty, naughty man.
Put this into Creative Edit - resubmit.

Then call me, for an appointment - I have session hours available for telephone therapy. Good price.

Signed: Dr. Doowop De Mole.

Edward Weston: Nude, 1936


A very nice and graceful pose Edward. Such images about female fragility look best if you use a fragile female model, and your model choice was excellent. Unfortunately, you could have had a closer look when composing the shot - the model's leg is very hairy even by 1930s standards and this pose puts this hairy leg right into our face. Models often have anus piercings, tongue tattoos, fake beard and so on but they should remove this before a shot. You could have gracefully offered her your razor, because now the photo reminds me to an epilator advertisement ("before using"). But OK, if this was your preference than it's just the way it is I guess. This leaves us with the lights. Two remarks here: you should have put her just a few inches to your right, because the intense shadow on her arm makes it look thin as if she'd suffer from anorexia. Of course, models are often anorexiac but self-respecting photographers shouldn't use them in order to promote healthier and more ethical fashion and nude photography. If you had a daughter, would you like her to take this photo as a role model and become an anorexiac with hairy legs? I doubt so. (Talking about proper education - don't let your daughter ever look at photos like this!!) Head shadow is always tricky and you should have used something reflective to fill-in the shadows below her head and arm. Finally, the whole picture would look better if properly centered. Now it's too much to the left, almost unbalanced, and if you had centered the composition you could have averted the shadow problems too. But it's not bad after all - her hairdo looks good enough, the problem is the rest of the photograph.

Hi Ed,

Some like old cars, but me I like nudes.

Overall a decent shot. The model is fine. Oh yes her hairy legs... quite bothering indeed but I like her pose very much. Very statue like. What I don't get is the set up that seems somewhat improvised... Do you really think such a cheap blanket is appropriate for fine art nude ? would work well for me if it was part of a larger and trash sort of context but as it is it just looks unprofessional. So is the light. Not bad per se but quite harsh for such a subject.

Anyhow a very promising shot for a newbie in the style.

PS: I love that pic.

Steve McCurry: The Afghan Girl (revisited, 2002)



Hi Steve! A masterpiece of politically correct photography: you took her portrait without offending cultural sensitivities. A nice idea - too bad one needs 17 years to put such a shot together. Respecting other beliefs and traditions, you made this in color too - it is simply lovely how you managed to convey the colorful life of Afghan women! Of course because you work for NatGeo, we all trust you and believe you that the person under the burka is actually your model and not a bearded male relative. The original picture ain't too bad either, although I must say that without the title she's just a girl with a distressed look - the background doesn't provide us with any context and if we don't know it's an Afghan girl, with all the related associations about Afghanistan, we could think she's just afraid of the camera or even you or is just having a stressful day. Colors are really nice in the first version and you really, really turned this documentary portrait into a piece of art - I have never seen a suffering person photographed so beautifully. Because who the hell wants to see human suffering as it is? If I did, I would watch the latest Saw movie. But in photographs, especially NatGeo photographs, we want to see wonderful colors and tack sharpness like in your image! A feast for the eye. Truly a photo to hang on my wall and look at when my own life gets too stressful!

Hehe, nice you picked this one for this great thread. Attended a lecture by Mr. McCurry a few weeks ago, which was very interesting and talked in great detail about this photograph as well. Interesting detail is when he went back to Afghanistan all those years later, many, many women were actually claiming to be the Afghan Girl (and obviously were not). In the end, the girl/woman's brother finally stepped up to Steve McCurry himself, saying "You're looking for my sister, I'll bring you to her." McCurry showed the audience a photograph of the brother, and his face and especially of course the eyes, were a perfect match.

Not sure if everyone already read this story a million times, but when McCurry told this during his lecture, it was new for me... :-)

WOW! You attended a lecture by Him - man, how do I envy you. Because whatever I wrote, I of course admire his work and his Taschen-issued portrait collection is my portrait Bible. I wouldn't pick the photo of an artist I don't respect - except maybe Doisneau for the staging controversy. Maybe it was not the best pick for this thread though, as it might be too much an icon to criticize. Or maybe my cynicism was over the mark (however, I still believe there's a little-little truth in what I wrote about the aestheticism of suffering). We'll see.

Ohno, nothing wrong with this entertaining thread :-)

Lecture was great indeed. Did you know by the way it's a tiny little bald man? (for Dutch standards, at least ;-) )
Johan

Frankly, I had a suspicion that McCurry is not a 2 meters tall blond woman with long legs and big breasts :)

Surgery could get him some of the way there. Maybe write and suggest it Balasz? ;-)

I dunno. Probably if he got that Heidi Klum look it would be more difficult for him to blend in with the locals in Asia. And his POV would be always too high even if he gets down to his knees.

:-)

Edward Weston: Nude, 1936

(Not screened photo)

Steve... alright already... the afghan girl... we get it. Please stop hedging your hole career on one shot. Try something else will you!!!

What cell phone did you use to take this photo Robert :)

Annie Leibovitz: Classics Redefined series - John Mayer for GAP

Hi Annie - you have found a great model, he's really hot (although I'm hetero myself - apologies for that, I know I'm outdated and behind the trend). I love the lights although parts of the face are relatively dark (maybe it's my screen). You could improve it by applying a soft light or dodge brush in PS. However, that's just nitpicking. What would be more complicated to improve are the missing fingertips. Annie, Annie, what were you thinking? OK probably it's difficult to concentrate on all details with such a handsome model in front of you but that's still a flaw. Look at all those inspiratonal portraits on Flickr for example - you see how neatly they include all the fingers? This is why so many folks find them nice and wow. Overall, you have made a good attempt here but next time don't forget the fingertips. Remember: every poem must have rhymes, and every portrait should include fingertips, toes and ears to be successful on sites like this!

Oh my what was she thinking cutting those finger tips....and she wants to make money from selling that??? good luck!

Not fond of the composition either, too much empty space on the left and the model too cornered on the right. At least the model did his part....pros hmf!

:p

She ewen cropped into his haircut. I hope the stylist didn't see Annie ruining her work!

Instant reject.

The image goes from right to left, you need to flip in PS horizontally left to right.

Now that I think of it, I believe the model's hand are too long, no wonder she could not fit in the fingertips....a flip would work perfectly John, good of you to notice.

This is the funniest thing I've ever come across.

Thank you, I'm still peeing on the floor laughing so hard....

Brian

I'll leave the technical evaluation of your attempt at a portrait to my peers dear Annie.
Just a few tips from a pro :

1. if you ever want to mean something in this business, better change your name into something people can pronounce. I mean, you don't see a formula one driver racing around with a name like that, now do you? Need I say more...

2. don't be afraid to tell your model to smile. We wouldn't want folks to see he's bored, now would we?

3. Sex sells Annie. Drag a girl in there, have them kiss. I bet that would put a smile on his face.

Regards,

Darren Papastathopoulos
"Your Professional Wedding Photographer - cheapest in Leeds area"
Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III
Canon EOS 7D
Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye
Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM
Leica M9
Leica X1

Just thought I would share this with you...When I first joined One X you left a comment in Critique on a photo that I have never forgotten, and have actually stolen a few times - giving you credit of course. The quote is funny, true, and remembering it - I has stopped me in my tracks - on more than one occasion from writing something very very stupid. Though of course not all the time.

And it was this..

"There is no photograph where one couldn't find something to improve - what is all too often just a well-meant effort to force the critic's own preferences to your subject - and when a photo gets rejected and ends up here, it's like a bunch of coroners around a body trying to find the cause of death. And if the dead rises and says "I'm alive and kicking" they just beat him unconscious and keep on talking, because that's what's expected of them"
Balazs Pataki
2009

This really made me smile and feel an awful lot better about my current image in Critique with the missing fingertips

http://1x.com/v2/#forum.php?action=viewtopic&tid=26734&openall=true

Thanks Balazs :)

See Kim, the whole point of this topic is that we shouldn't get lost in details. Perfectionism is good but should never stand between an image and our appreciation of it. Like Glenn Gould's or Keith Jarret's piano playing. From a professional musicians POV, their playing style is dreadful. But they are still among the musical geniuses of this century. It just doesn't depend on the details about which only fellow professionals care. At least that's how I see it.