First, thank you, Gregory, for your comments. It's like a present to me on Christmas Eve. I had not started out by creating a historical image. The artist is working on decorating a takeout cup while listening to goings on; she has displayed her fantastic cup collection in picture windows of the Triangle Building in lower Manhattan and her designs are recently offered in ceramic takeout cups by Anthropologie ( see http://tinyurl.com/kfnaud5 ) So I was tickled to snap an iPad app photo of her. Later, as I worked on the image to be included with gifts of the cups, I was taken by the effect the app had applied, so I brought it into photoshop for more processing. As I said, not my usual shot.
Which brings me to this; in many cases I don't understand the strong defenses of reasonable criticism expressed in this Forum, and especially the usage of institutional collections as proof of value.
In the case of Art Faul's photograph this week, I have to say I don't really understand Gregory's comment, but Art's reply is, to me, completely off the wall. Perhaps someone could elaborate on both the criticism and reply. For instance, I feel that Polaroid liked Art's image because it is an excellent example of a Polaroid print, as well as an interesting juxtaposition of subject matter, so a strong criticism is not really necessary. But I find his comment on why museums do not accept digital images as wholly specious; museums once refused to accept photographs at all, but now they do. But that's only one example. Or maybe there is some undercurrent of which I'm not aware.
John Palcewski's photo is a dramatic formal statement. Striking, of course because of the strong half shadow (I don't mind the missing right eye). And the shadow on the wall (often my own personal quest), in its context within the opening, adds to it.
-yoram
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 4:11 AM, Gregory <fyrframe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
My interpretations:Art Faul:Sonderhavn: Why can we not see the image brand on the motorcycle? In today’s terms, focus is critical. Does Art think his expressions are without the necessity of the rendering of certain subject matter? It’s Art you know. Also, Is the topic about the motorcycle or the beautifully rendered aged building siding? The bike is in an isolated location, does this express the author’s true _expression_? Imagine a defocused rider, crawling onto this bike, would that have been a greater photograph and less boring?Dan Mitchell:Salvation: A spontaneous image of a common subject. Holidays bring us these not-so-ordinary events, otherwise seen as musicians on the street during the holidays but rarely anytime else. This image is boring, a simple “grab” shot. Or, have I missed something?John Palcewski:Selfie: Great shot. Two problems. First, it seems this would mirror a climatic moment, but there is unfortunately a “posed (stand right there!)” feel to this shot. Secondly, the right eye is gone. If there is a patch, then more fill flash would have been required. If the patch is in place (and this is only assuming the darkness of that eye area is based on something otherwise, not obviously expressed) a small fill light to highlight an edge of the patch would have finished this otherwise great image. If in fact, there is no patch, then as some may assume, there is a bad area in the shadows.Bob McCulloch:Looking At Liberty: Would this image have been stronger if in fact, the center of the Statue would have been linked to the center spike of the officers hat?Yorum Gelman:Café Artist: Wonderful image. Although it appears there is a juxtaposing of an affect plus the image, it works. The author has rendered an otherwise typical scene into something that is dreamscape. Creating an image with “historical” qualities using “todays” technology but mirroring greats such as Man Ray (Aperture Masters of Photography, No. 8 page 31 and 55) by bringing two images together that do not relate.Randy S. Little:Silly image. What’s up with the completely washed out background?As always, it’s just my opinion.GregoryGig Harbor, WA.
