Distinguished Forum Members, I would like to side with Andy on this issue. I think his comments were not only right on the mark, but they wre needed to put the Forum back into the proper perspective. The discussion did prompt me to review the PhotoForum images this week, which I hadn't really had a chance to do until now. And I did go back and re-read Davis' remarks after having been prompted to do so. They were short (perhaps that was their downfall, I don't know), but critical and seemingly reflective of Davis' opinion. I found them to fairly appropriate, even though I don't agree with everything he said. But I don't agree 100% with anyone else on their reviews. I don't have time to review the entire set of work, but since the thread noted in the subject above was started by Joseph, I figured I should offer my thoughts on his photograph: King/Arthur: "Shoe Repair" http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/gallery/kingarthur.html While in general, I actually thought this was a pretty good week of photographic offerings, King/Arthur's "Shoe Repair" was not one of my favorites. While there is much to like about this image, especially the lines all leading into the subject, it is a bit too Photoshopped for my taste. It comes out with a slightly overdone "Candy Apple" look, that seems to be the trademark of King/Arthur. Sometimes I like it, sometimes not. This particular image has good color. I like that. There are strong primary colors of white (oh my, is there ever white), red, blue, green, yellow, brown. As a guy, I can appreciate that. "Fuschia" is a word with no meaning to me, and if there is any fuschia in this image, I wouldn't see it. But the strong color loses its appeal as the blond hair of the subject (locked squarely in the center of the image) begins to meld with the white and yellow of the rear wall. Perhaps this is an attempt univeralize this person as being EveryMan. But the abnormally blond hair ruins this concept. ONe good thing about this image is the white shirt. It grabs the attention. It may not be the lightest part of picture, but all lines lead to white, so it captures the eye and almost will not let it go. But the eye can escape momentarily. Where can it go? Not to the background, where the head is lost into an indistinct white wall. There's no interest there. The lines above and from the side simply force the eye back to the white shirt. So the only direction the the eye can travel for a second look is down into the tan of the pants. The legs begin to darken the color, forcing the eye to linger for a second time at the buttocks. WAIT! I've got it. Here is the true subject of the photograph! No wonder, with this sort of fixation, that King/Arthur used the expletive he did as he expressed his dissatisfaction with Davis' comments. And I didn't even see this until I started writning about the photo. Quick coments about a couple of the other images. Dalrymple's "Chasing Shadows" is interesting in composition. In fact I like that a lot. But the starkness of the wheel and shadow is a bit much for me. I like Elizaga's "Assassin." And I am amazed that "no animals were harmed during the filming of this image." I like Mason's flags, and I would have liked Mitchell's "Mill" a lot better if it weren't for the white fuzz between sky and trees/buildings. The black was a bold move. It worked. Ramos' "Ascending" is interesting, but it loses a bit as the little guy's head starts to blend into the shade-thing in the background. The timing for this shot was perfect. Small's bleacher shot is well composed, although a bit of Photoshop contrast work may have injected some more life into the image. But in steet photography, you take what life offers you. Strevens' "Busker at Kingston" is an enigma for me. As with King/Arthur's work, I don't really care for obviously Photoshopped photographs. But Strevens seems to consistently put more effort into his work to completely take away a fixed photo effect and do almost art. I enjoy the results. Vincent's work is strange, at least to me. The lighting on the woman's face gives it an almost doll-like quality, but the arms are human. A most interesting piece of work. Hey, thanks everyone for your submissions this week. Thanks also to Andy and his crew of valiant ForumFolk who put the Forum together for the rest of us to view, think about, and occasionally to comment on. peace and pixels, rand
