Guest WPalank Posted March 16, 2012 Share #1 Posted March 16, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) LFI Gallery - Startseite Top/Left. Processed in LR4 through CS5. Thanks for looking. Addendum: FYI, this post was originally in the “Customer Forum”, as I felt it was more in tune to the examples below that were allowed to remain in the Customer Forum. Perhaps Mr. Barton might care to explain his decision. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/224979-m9-pix-take-2nd-place-pictures.html http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/221497-i-got-short-listed-sony-world.html http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/222047-antarctica-photos-posted-our-site.html http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/219326-some-great-photos.html http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/215375-huffington-post-pictures-year-2011-a.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 Hi Guest WPalank, Take a look here LFI's "Editors Picture of the Week":. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ldhrads Posted March 16, 2012 Share #2 Posted March 16, 2012 Remarkably beautiful photo William, Be proud of that pick! why it got moved? I have no idea, but glad I looked at it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sellitto Posted March 16, 2012 Share #3 Posted March 16, 2012 William, Congratulations on the recognition of this very striking image. Frank Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vdb Posted March 16, 2012 Share #4 Posted March 16, 2012 So brilliant William. Takes my breath away. Bravo maestro! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted March 16, 2012 Share #5 Posted March 16, 2012 Congratulations. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WPalank Posted March 16, 2012 Share #6 Posted March 16, 2012 Thank you Lawrence, Frank, Virgil, and K-H. I'm moved by your comments. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earful Posted March 17, 2012 Share #7 Posted March 17, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) wow! i clicked on the link to your winning image, too. also wow! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
azzo Posted March 17, 2012 Share #8 Posted March 17, 2012 Addendum: FYI, this post was originally in the “Customer Forum”, as I felt it was more in tune to the examples below that were allowed to remain in the Customer Forum. Perhaps Mr. Barton might care to explain his decision. I, probably would have missed it had it not been moved. ... My sincere congratulations William. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnfell Posted March 17, 2012 Share #9 Posted March 17, 2012 Great image! However I would have liked to see it without the overly darkened background and sky. Most of the subject interest is on the girl, her demeanor and clothing. The background has less interest, and serves mainly to give a sense of placement. In other words i would have liked to see more subject and background separation. Especially the way the back ridges go flush with the top of her head. A less darkened background would have diminshed this effect. There is also a strong "halo" around her. I doubt the lens created this. The trees on the top left corner also eats up some attention because they are so dark. Lastly the clouds look overly darkened, as to suggest there was a storm coming. Again, its a great image, but excessive photoshopping takes away from the main subject. The high contrast/low saturation look is very popular at the moment, popularized by for example Pieter Hugo (see image). In this image we can see that the background is much more mellow - we still see it but it is much lighter than the foreground - just like in real life. Because of this, the man´s head and the tree in the background do not compete too much for attention. In daylight, the further away something is in - the lighter it is. Its easy to get tempted in photoshop to bring in those details that perhaps border on being blown out, but do it too much, and you start messing with our brains´natural ability to judge distance by lightness. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/174999-lfis-editors-picture-of-the-week/?do=findComment&comment=1956546'>More sharing options...
Riccis Posted March 27, 2012 Share #10 Posted March 27, 2012 Congrats! Oh, and thanks to this thread I saw there is also one of my images in there, ha Cheers! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fluff Posted March 27, 2012 Share #11 Posted March 27, 2012 Again, its a great image, but excessive photoshopping takes away from the main subject. All down to how you want your work to look of course, but I have to say I agree. You seem to have added a de-saturation gradient from the top of the image which extends into the girl's hair and forehead, giving the top of her head a bluish tint. If you'd wanted to darken the sky, no problem, but if you'd confined your treatment to the sky itself the result would have been far superior. Not wishing to detract from your success, just an observation about your PS work, which clearly is noticeable to others too, which, as noted, is a bit of a shame. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuny Posted March 27, 2012 Share #12 Posted March 27, 2012 William - A wonderful, touching shot. Please send my regards to your charming, beautiful wife. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted March 27, 2012 Share #13 Posted March 27, 2012 Amazing shot. You've caught a wonderfully curious expression. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted March 27, 2012 Share #14 Posted March 27, 2012 Great image! However I would have liked to see it without the overly darkened background and sky. Most of the subject interest is on the girl, her demeanor and clothing. The background has less interest, and serves mainly to give a sense of placement. In other words i would have liked to see more subject and background separation. Especially the way the back ridges go flush with the top of her head. A less darkened background would have diminshed this effect. There is also a strong "halo" around her. I doubt the lens created this. The trees on the top left corner also eats up some attention because they are so dark. Lastly the clouds look overly darkened, as to suggest there was a storm coming. Again, its a great image, but excessive photoshopping takes away from the main subject. The high contrast/low saturation look is very popular at the moment, popularized by for example Pieter Hugo (see image). In this image we can see that the background is much more mellow - we still see it but it is much lighter than the foreground - just like in real life. Because of this, the man´s head and the tree in the background do not compete too much for attention. In daylight, the further away something is in - the lighter it is. Its easy to get tempted in photoshop to bring in those details that perhaps border on being blown out, but do it too much, and you start messing with our brains´natural ability to judge distance by lightness. William is a good photographer with a large body of work. He has clearly *chosen* wether conscious or subconscious to represent this image in his way. Instead of telling an artist to try something different the viewer needs to stop and ask why he or she has done it. Not think and project what they would do differently. It is irrelevant how you would do things differently it wasn't your experience. You then only become a photographer imposing your own style or rules on someone else. You are not listening to the photographer just talking over the top of them. Be affected by it. Talk about it openly and as an artist listen to it openly also. I don't agree in one artist projecting their taste onto another though. In this case the treatment is an impression of the environment from the perspective photographer. Which in this case is the same as the viewer who is a visitor/alien to this environment. It is the story of his experience and it outlines that the camera really does look both ways. It show vulnerability of the photographer and the resilience of the child. The harsh environment and the photographers experience reflects how we are supposedly "better off" in western civilisation but how fragile or false that security based on materialism really provides. Harsh and for boding, we would most likely perish in a couple months. That is the feelings I get from viewing the image. You must stop and listen to the photographer. Not to tell him his experience was different from what was HIS or her reality WAS. If the child had the camera, his photos would look very different. I'm sure he would take a photo and depict it as more real with less impression. That is why people get bored of taking photos in their home town. Because to them it is normal there is nothing to experience from it any more except for what it truly is. In turn this is why "boring" photos such as Egglestons (in another post on this forum) are so successful. To anyone not familiar with the environment they are full of things to experience. Take one look at Salgado's work and you will see he made the same impressionistic view. Anyone knows how a desert looks, but it's most likely the viewer doesn't know how it *feels* to experience the moment depicted. I also like the treatment of the clouds in William's image which at one point ghosts, or mirrors the hills and land. For me it added to the haunting image. The photographer is affected by the personal experience of being there and conveys that message visually. The very things you propose such as background reduction etc can infact be the main protagonist of an image and help convey the experience. Also the image you posted with the Hyena has a large amount of finishing. It's really quite impressionistic also and to compare it with excessive photoshop really isn't accurate here. Rather than sticking to any look that is popular or otherwise, I think it needs to be said that we need to treat each image as individual. Of corse one has to be most careful that their style doesn't impose on the image. It's finding that balance and that is the journey for the artist alone and no one can decide for them what their message is, but encourage them to find it. Define what it is you want to say. What was your experience? Sometimes there is nothing to say...It's just a story. You then "print" the image to suit the image and to suit the message. Not to suit current taste or how people may pigeon hole the image by popularity. Be affected by art but make comment through your own art. I hope this not understood as an attack. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpalme Posted March 27, 2012 Share #15 Posted March 27, 2012 Outstanding image and don't change a thing with your processing. Opinions are like A$6#@912... we all have them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fluff Posted March 31, 2012 Share #16 Posted March 31, 2012 William is a good photographer with a large body of work. He has clearly *chosen* wether conscious or subconscious to represent this image in his way. Instead of telling an artist to try something different the viewer needs to stop and ask why he or she has done it. I think I know what you're driving at here, but the implication is that William's work is, in a sense, beyond comment because it is his. Personally I think it's quite a strong picture, with some rather intrusive Photoshop work (as both skinnfell and I noted previously). Are you suggesting that this isn't a valid observation because of who took the photo? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted April 1, 2012 Share #17 Posted April 1, 2012 I think I know what you're driving at here, but the implication is that William's work is, in a sense, beyond comment because it is his. Personally I think it's quite a strong picture, with some rather intrusive Photoshop work (as both skinnfell and I noted previously). Are you suggesting that this isn't a valid observation because of who took the photo? No, I'm not suggesting this at all. It doesn't matter who is taking the pic, it just matters that you look and listen before suggesting what the artist should do instead to make it better for you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.