[SI] Critique - Frauds, Flim-flams, and Shams

I've written before that I judge my own success with an SI submission based on
three criteria.

First, the image must meet the mandate. That doesn't mean for someone else's
submission I must understand how or why, or even that I like it at all. Just
that it addresses the topic in some way, directly or obliquely. This
criterion is the easiest to meet, since everyone has *some* mandate-related
connection when they release the shutter. Even if they are the only ones who
ever "get it" without being asked.

Second, it must be technically well-executed and presented. I really couldn't
care less how the image was produced. Or by what technology. Only that it is
the creator's best possible effort using whatever technology he has chosen.
And that it follows the Rulz, both in letter and in spirit. "It's only
illegal if you get caught" does not apply here. Remember, honesty is what you
do when no one is looking...

Third, and most difficult, the image must be able to stand on its own even if
presented outside of the SI context. It must be an engaging experience for
the viewer. It must grab and hold the viewer's interest. It must make the
viewer think. And it must do these things without prerequisite knowledge by
the viewer of the SI mandate it addressed.

Douglas Macdonald
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/100025088

I'm not sure where the deceit resides within this frame. Again, this doesn't
mean it doesn't. Just that I don't see it. (Note that I have intentionally
not read any other posts before these observations, so it may have already
been explained.)

Technically, I believe the desired mood is well served by the apparent
exposure. The feeling of early morning (or late evening) is well presented.
The image is clean, sharp, and correctly saturated for the message it intends
to convey. Framing is excellent. I like the fact the only two elements that
sit directly on rule-of-thirds intersections are the two leading posts between
which the boat is heading.

Color contrast and elongated horizontal format combine to make for a pleasing
experience for the viewer. Add to that a nicely implied vanishing point and
uncluttered composition with wonderful leading lines, and this becomes a
nicely successful image in its own right.

Bowser
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/100025089

Meets the mandate, sort of. But only in a coerced fashion which requires a
secondary explanation. It certainly does not jump out at the viewer. Well,
this viewer anyway.

Technically, I love it. Not the easiest of exposures, with backlighting from
stadium lights. Everything is in focus. Forms are balanced. Nothing is
obscured that I wish I could see. Timing for the foreground girl's wave of
her flag is perfect. Balancing column of white smoke is excellent. And both
frame the stage nicely. Very good anticipation. (Or luck. But that's always
been a part of photography from the beginning.) I really like the line of
heads - both full and partial - placed along the bottom edge. It makes the
viewer feel as if they too are looking up into the sky.

Does it stand on it's own? Absolutely. Without knowledge of the mandate,
this is still a very engaging image. Add to the above compositional elements
all of that frozen confetti, and this picture screams excitement. Makes one
wish they had been there.

Helen Silverburg
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/100025091

Although I believe I've seen this image before, it's still a bulls-eye hit on
the mandate. Even better, it's a double bulls-eye. Being fake young ladies
is about as deceitful as it comes. But appearing from a distance to be real
ladies dressed like that out on the street conjures up an entirely different
world of imagined potential deceit. Just an excellent interpretation.

Framing couldn't be better. It's in-your-face impact is both undeniable,
necessary, and successful. The stockings present a beautiful
patterned-graphic element to the eye. The "look" on the face of the
background "person" is, for me, the center of the composition, and completes
the feeling that someone is about to be taken for all their worth.

Stand alone? Well, let's see. It could be a fine advertisement for several
products. (Not necessarily all legal in most jurisdictions.) It could be a
fine street documentary statement. It could be a fine piece of
photojournalism, either spot news (depending on what was *really* going on),
or photographic essay (could have been plucked directly out of a 1950s or 60s
issue of Life magazine). It could be a fine portfolio shot for a product
photographer. Oh, and it also makes a pretty good SI submission. My favorite
for this mandate.

Jim Kramer
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/100025220

If a photograph falls down in the forest, but no one is around to see it, is
it really a photograph? Tough to know without being there. This could either
be a very, very oblique meeting of the mandate. Or Jim's way of telling us
that he's finally throwing in the towel with the SI. (I note that no new
mandate went up on Friday.)

Technically, if one needed an 18% neutral gray card to convert a reflected
light reading into a pseudo-incident light reading, the framing for this could
only be considered prescient.

Depending on the meaning Jim intends to convey, this may actually have
significant, stand alone meaning beyond the mandate. But I hope not.

Ken Nadvornick
http://www.whineralert.org

A second consecutive mandate with no submission. Unfortunately, Ken has
gotten himself involved at his job with a very high priority, very tight
deadline software development project. Ken is working some stupid hours right
now. Ken's wife has just been forced to cancel the second - and probably
final - attempt at a vacation for this summer. Ken has a freshly refurbished
8x10 camera sitting and staring him in the face and laughing at him for not
having the time to use it, now that the last ten straight months of winter has
finally ended in the Pacific Northwest. Ken is hoping sanity returns soon...

Ken

"Ken Nadvornick" wrote in message
. ..


Jim Kramer
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/100025220

If a photograph falls down in the forest, but no one is around to see it,
is
it really a photograph? Tough to know without being there. This could
either
be a very, very oblique meeting of the mandate. Or Jim's way of telling
us
that he's finally throwing in the towel with the SI. (I note that no new
mandate went up on Friday.)

Technically, if one needed an 18% neutral gray card to convert a reflected
light reading into a pseudo-incident light reading, the framing for this
could
only be considered prescient.

Depending on the meaning Jim intends to convey, this may actually have
significant, stand alone meaning beyond the mandate. But I hope not.


I think "Paint It Black" pretty much sums it up.

Good luck with the new job.
-Jim

Ken Nadvornick wrote:

Ken Nadvornick
http://www.whineralert.org

A second consecutive mandate with no submission. Unfortunately, Ken has
gotten himself involved at his job with a very high priority, very tight
deadline software development project. Ken is working some stupid hours right
now. Ken's wife has just been forced to cancel the second - and probably
final - attempt at a vacation for this summer. Ken has a freshly refurbished
8x10 camera sitting and staring him in the face and laughing at him for not
having the time to use it, now that the last ten straight months of winter has
finally ended in the Pacific Northwest. Ken is hoping sanity returns soon...

Ken: pls e-meil me: Remove the free lunch.

"Ken Nadvornick" wrote in message
. ..
I've written before that I judge my own success with an SI submission
based on
three criteria.

First, the image must meet the mandate. That doesn't mean for someone
else's
submission I must understand how or why, or even that I like it at all.
Just
that it addresses the topic in some way, directly or obliquely. This
criterion is the easiest to meet, since everyone has *some*
mandate-related
connection when they release the shutter. Even if they are the only ones
who
ever "get it" without being asked.

Second, it must be technically well-executed and presented. I really
couldn't
care less how the image was produced. Or by what technology. Only that
it is
the creator's best possible effort using whatever technology he has
chosen.
And that it follows the Rulz, both in letter and in spirit. "It's only
illegal if you get caught" does not apply here. Remember, honesty is what
you
do when no one is looking...

Third, and most difficult, the image must be able to stand on its own even
if
presented outside of the SI context. It must be an engaging experience
for
the viewer. It must grab and hold the viewer's interest. It must make
the
viewer think. And it must do these things without prerequisite knowledge
by
the viewer of the SI mandate it addressed.


Bowser
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/100025089

Meets the mandate, sort of. But only in a coerced fashion which requires
a
secondary explanation. It certainly does not jump out at the viewer.
Well,
this viewer anyway.

Technically, I love it. Not the easiest of exposures, with backlighting
from
stadium lights. Everything is in focus. Forms are balanced. Nothing is
obscured that I wish I could see. Timing for the foreground girl's wave
of
her flag is perfect. Balancing column of white smoke is excellent. And
both
frame the stage nicely. Very good anticipation. (Or luck. But that's
always
been a part of photography from the beginning.) I really like the line of
heads - both full and partial - placed along the bottom edge. It makes
the
viewer feel as if they too are looking up into the sky.

Does it stand on it's own? Absolutely. Without knowledge of the mandate,
this is still a very engaging image. Add to the above compositional
elements
all of that frozen confetti, and this picture screams excitement. Makes
one
wish they had been there.

Chalk one up to pure luck. I like the shot, but as far as meeting the
mandate goes, well, it's thin--as you correctly noted. But the compositional
elements were pure fluke; I didn't have a good vantage point, so I held the
camera up over my head, guessed at direction and leveling, and got lucky.
Makes great wallpaper, if nothing else.

The concert, by the way, is the "almost the fourth" concert put on by the
Boston Pops at the Hatch Shell on the Esplanade. It's a rehearsal concert
for tghe fourth and the one CBS tapes in case it rains on the fourth. It's
always a good take.

Thanks for the comments!

"Annika1980" wrote in message
...
On Jul 13, 5:48 pm, Jufí wrote:

So Bowser is Jufi.

The plot thickens.

Yes, and it's not something I've been hiding, really. You didn't know? I
thought you were Dick-f'ing-Tracy?

"Annika1980" wrote in message
...
On Jul 14, 7:33 am, "Jufi" wrote:

So Bowser is Jufi.
The plot thickens.

Yes, and it's not something I've been hiding, really. You didn't know? I
thought you were Dick-f'ing-Tracy?


No, you misunderstood. I'm F'ing Dick Tracy.

I think either form is OK. Kind of like the pronunciation of the word
"creek."

Anyway, there's a real easy and non-technical way to find out who I am. I
bet you can figure it out, since you're the House Dick.

"That Rich" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 21:58:14 GMT, Jufì wrote:


"Annika1980" wrote in message
...
On Jul 14, 7:33 am, "Jufi" wrote:

So Bowser is Jufi.
The plot thickens.

Yes, and it's not something I've been hiding, really. You didn't know? I
thought you were Dick-f'ing-Tracy?


No, you misunderstood. I'm F'ing Dick Tracy.

I think either form is OK. Kind of like the pronunciation of the word
"creek."

Anyway, there's a real easy and non-technical way to find out who I am. I
bet you can figure it out, since you're the House Dick.


Hey Bowser, you mean you're NOT Rita!?
Damn, Bragika had you nailed last week )

Sigh.....

Definitely not Reata, the fat ass troll. I don't have any sock puppets;
couldn't be bothered. I do change my screen name from time to time out of
sheer boredom. I've been Kinon O'Cann, Bowser, and a few others. No rhyme or
reason to it.

Bragika? Brett? He really thought I was Reata?

Cryptopix wrote:
On Jul 13, 5:27 pm, "Ken Nadvornick"
wrote:
I've written before that I judge my own success with an SI submission based on
three criteria.

I thank you for the critiques and posting the links. Nicely done and
educational as well.

Thanks for taking the time to comment Ken.
I guess if you didn't call it as dawn or dusk I must have missed (or
hit) the point of fraud. All the island's around here display a false
sunset in the east when the cloud cover is just right. This shot was
meant to tease those who know about it. It is actually a true dawn
shot A HDR with super saturated colours.

It certainly reminded me more of sunset than dawn, and some boats do
take off at that time, maybe 4-5% of most harbor exits. So, the
flim-flam suceeds for me.

--
john mcwilliams