|
|
Mitra Nademi-Nassari
{K:28234} 5/5/2009
|
Bravo! :))
|
|
|
|
RC. Dany
{K:64104} 5/5/2009
|
Excellent .
|
|
|
|
Matt Hopson
{K:1340} 2/23/2008
|
Very surprised to see so many responses to this shot.
A lot of fancy smancy words by a lot of pseudo intellects, who are exercising their strongest suit, which is genuflection, in hopes of pleasing certain people who have powers to bestow awards.
After all is said and done,and not withstanding all the bla bla bla, this photograph is basically a piece of crap.
Just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Mitra Nademi-Nassari
{K:28234} 9/12/2007
|
Everytime I see this goofy photo on the "Home" page, it brings smile to my face as well as a hope that someday I might win :). Many congratulations to Brian for submitting this photo and winning for it.
|
|
|
|
Tristan Bowersox
{K:133} 8/25/2007
|
Very fun composition. Fun and totally unexpected.
|
|
|
|
George Tam
{K:416} 11/26/2006
|
Whoever set the rules that in order for an image to be great or even acceptable, it has to be sharply focused, not grainy, brilliant in color, or that the subject is presented wholly? Some of the most intriguing images are those that went against convention. Is this a great abstract? Not to my eyes. The reason, however, is not that it broke the rules, but despite of breaking the rules. In my opinion, the image is not yet fully developed in its visual language. At this point, it is just a random collection of "words", but it's a good start. I suggest that he plays with them a little more and see what else he will get. Whether one likes the image or not, I commend Brian for thinking out of the box and taking creative risk.
|
|
|
|
|
Deb Mayes
{K:19605} 11/26/2006
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Stockley
{K:1067} 7/10/2006
|
Brian - well done on 2 things.
First on getting the EC for this picture and second for all the very interesting comments left behind by so many people. I have never before since joing UF studied a picture with such detail as this one here. I both agree and disagree with a lot of the comments but I have to say I'm on the fence as to what this pic is really all about. But that in itself is part of the beauty of this picutre. "Not getting it" works here and if this picture was "normal" it wouldn't deserve the EC.
Well done again and I enjoyed looking at your pictures and reading eveybody's comments.
Regards,
Paul.
|
|
|
|
Winston Hawke
{K:912} 3/31/2006
|
I would like to see the editor's comments on this.
Brian - I'm sure you've achieved what you set out to achieve, and that being the case, well done. The depth of this is lost on me, I don't mean to be abrasive but I feel that this lacks technical talent, but then I guess abstract is not about being technical. Creatively - well, I guess you look at world somewhat differently to a lot of us, and you've captured and delivered that, so again, well done.
I try to look at a photo objectively when I don't find subjective aesthetic merit, but I am struggling to find an objective point of view to offer constructive critique from - whether positive or negative. Perhaps this is like cryptic crosswords to me - I simply 'don't get it'. To me this reminds me of times I have accidently hit the shutter release.
Nonetheless, you are expressing your creative visions through the medium of photography, and for that I cannot fault you. Keep up your good work in your own unique way.
|
|
|
|
Randee Armstrong
{K:-820} 3/31/2006
|
I LOOOOOOOOOOOOVE THIS.. I am so happy you got an EC.. if not I would have missed this photo!
I think it is beautiful... a complete different perspective, out of the ordinary and wonderful.
Love the colors, love the composition and love the blur. It gives me the feeling that if i were to have a glimps of my moms childhood this is what I might see from her perspective (feels like it could have been taken in the 70's to me).
Congrats, and Welcome!
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Veleker
{K:17} 1/30/2005
|
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
Uyen
{K:878} 1/30/2005
|
Beautiful!
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Veleker
{K:17} 1/18/2005
|
Thank you for your kind words.
|
|
|
|
|
Kristy Campbell
{K:-399} 1/16/2005
|
awesome, I'm fascinated that this simple shot can be so superb.
Kristy
|
|
|
|
|
delete my account
{K:3679} 1/6/2005
|
unbelievable abstract well done!!
Best wishes abel
|
|
|
|
Roberto Arcari Farinetti
{K:209486} 12/17/2004
|
superb fine and wonderful!
roby
|
|
|
|
zosia zija
{K:11106} 5/17/2004
|
nice work!
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Veleker
{K:17} 5/4/2004
|
Thanks. Your portfolio is awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Ameet Mallapur
{K:1575} 4/12/2004
|
I LOVE THIS ERIKA!!!!!!!
the blurness just adds too the whole image,
i so wish u uploaded a whole bunch more!!!!
(WAKE UP PAUL!!!!!!!!)
|
|
|
|
|
Taher Bazoun
{K:157} 4/7/2004
|
I am so sorry but did not understand ????
shutter?
colores?
suject?
|
|
|
|
|
Daithí O' Donoghue
{K:838} 3/31/2004
|
Editor's choice? Why Not?
Without a doubt this photo is perfect for the editor's choice. At least it has stimulated real interest and honest commentary. I've been reading over comments and some like the photo, some don't. Personally, I'm more intrigued by it than anything else and maybe that's the objective of an abtract. Clearly, as the editor chose it, the editor liked it but given the range of commentary to date on this image, it's also clear that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Anyway don't they say that all art is subjective? If so,thank God for that as without subjectivity there probably wouldn't be creativity.
So thanks to the editor for choosing this image, and to Erika for the photo itself. Keep on snappin'!!
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Cuasito
{K:94} 3/30/2004
|
ok im sure im not the only one.. but i dont get it.
|
|
|
|
|
G L
{K:1676} 3/30/2004
|
Don't like it...at all...but...congratulations on your EC and welcome.
|
|
|
|
|
Ahmet Baki Kocaballi
{K:13618} 3/30/2004
|
i like it as an abstract ..
|
|
|
|
Angelo Villaschi
{K:49617} 3/30/2004
|
I wouldn't crop a Polaroid either, let it be said. The sugestion was made with "tongue in cheek", although I do find the wall corner distracting and somehow not in keeping with the abstract nature of the image --- perhaps it is too easily recogniseable, whereas the rest of the frame is more abstract.
Erika, perhaps you can try another Polaroid, slightly recomposed so the wall is unbroken? Just a thought...
|
|
|
|
|
JP Zorn
{K:533} 3/30/2004
|
I wouldn't crop a polaroid - and certainly not this one. Everything seems fairly essential here.
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Beltran
{K:32612} 3/30/2004
|
This type of media has a quality all its own. It makes me glad to know that photography does not rely solely on a perfect piece of glass. And that quality is not defined by a rigid set of criteria; one of them being a sharp rendition. This is a photograph I can be comfortable with and yet it challenges my seeing; that part of me that does not verbalizes all that well. This really deserves Editor's Choice.
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Veleker
{K:17} 3/30/2004
|
Angelo:
I see your point about the crop. Being a Polaroid, I wanted to leave it as is. If I expand this photo outside it's Polaroid frame, I'll try the crop out. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Phil M
{K:11526} 3/30/2004
|
Great shot, congrats on EC! :)
|
|
|
|
|
Angelo Villaschi
{K:49617} 3/30/2004
|
I'd like to echo Paul Lara's comments. In fact, with due respect to Steven, Altaf and the others who have posted, but the "volume of criticism" seems to have been spurred on mainly by Paul's initial post.
Don't get me wrong: this is MUCH better than the usual inane and vacuous list of "great shot" comments one usually reads. However, I feel this would not have happened if someone did not have the guts to question, to sincerely criticise. Kudos to Paul.
And I guess congrats to Altaf for choosing it. I wonder if Paul would have commented on it had it not been EC. However, after his two posts, I am left wondering whether the image was chosen because of its beauty or because of its debate-generating value.
No matter: the editor's choice is, after all, a choice made by the editor. (Pun intended)
Yes, I can see some beauty in it. Yes, I might consider hanging it on a wall, too. Maybe if that wall corner on the left was cropped out... :-)
|
|
|
|
|
Andreas Wolkerstorfer
{K:5090} 3/30/2004
|
a good example for the confusing reply system here ... but its about the photo more than about words.
So I want to add a further interpretation, found with a friend, viewing this photo: its like waking up, first glimpse in the morning, you dont want to know the time ...
and a technical note: I guess, you wanted to capture more of the clock, but you didtnt get all of it what the viewfinder showed ... (parallax) ..
its a pity that you deleted your first Polaroid posting here ... hope to see more
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Veleker
{K:17} 3/29/2004
|
I agree Randy. Please keep in mind I haven't paid my dues. This is only the second or third image I have posted here. I feel proud of it though. I feel proud because of the reaction this photo as brought. I didn't ask to be on the Editor's Choice. I'm so new to this site, I'm not sure how it works. I am happy to be acknowledged. Good or bad.
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Veleker
{K:17} 3/29/2004
|
I agree. This is truly the first shot of mine that has brought about pro and con reaction. This is what I seek. I value to pros as much as the cons. Thank you everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Veleker
{K:17} 3/29/2004
|
Thank you. With all humility.
|
|
|
|
Randy Lorance
{K:24769} 3/29/2004
|
Well, I think it has a lot to do with...how you say...'the kings clothes'. How many people would consider this as something of a special image if not first chosen as editor's choice? I see way too many wonderful photos go by unnoticed as photos such as this bask in the light of the main page.
I would love to see the effect it would have on comments and ratings if ,say for the first 24 hours, submitted photos were anonymous, judged purely on their merits, rather than influenced by names or other's opinions.
I have been unimpressed by several choices lately of what is displayed on the main page. This is just my biased opinion, but I don't really feel that MANY very good photographs are getting their fair chance. Especially when several photographers are repeatedly chosen by editors for prominence at this site. If I am wrong, just check the ratings,comments, and favorites of editor's choices, prior to(or even afterwards) compared to so many other photographs as judged by Usefilm members as better images, but never given front page attention.
Randy
|
|
|
|
|
al shaikh
{K:15790} 3/29/2004
|
Well said steven, I hope that there are many more images like this that generate useful discussion on the images. I would like there to be at least one per day if not more.
Usefilm will be heading more in this direction and encouraging debate among images.
|
|
|
|
|
Steven H
{K:7142} 3/29/2004
|
I have found reading through the comments really very interesting. This may be an example of a "perfect" Editor's Choice purely by virtue of the substance and volume of criticism it has generated . . . Most Editors Choices give birth to dozens upon dozens of virtually identical, and almost invariably positive, comments . . . this one, by contrast, created a real controversy, and for that reason alone, justifies the EC designation . . . so congratulations to Erika, and to the Editors for an interesting, and controversial choice.
On the personal side, I think above all the universe of color and form tightly bound into the body of this shot justify an EC from an aesthetic point of view. It is a simple, elegant, and uncomplicated concept and image, and sometimes beauty is just that, unadulterated pleasure of sight, without the need for "meaning" behind the pleasure.
|
|
|
|
|
JP Zorn
{K:533} 3/29/2004
|
Very, very cool.
|
|
|
|
Paul's Photos
{K:35235} 3/29/2004
|
I like the photo.. the esp the colors and the lighting. nice abstract. I would not choose it for EC but that is a very subjective thing anyway. Besides,....I am not the editor LOL. I wish the clock face was in view to show the blurriness of time.
|
|
|
|
Phillip Cohen
{K:10561} 3/29/2004
|
I like this image a lot. I can see why it is an editors choice. The image has a very painterly (is that a word) quality to it. The brush strokes have been replaced by a little grain and fuzziness. It is abstract enough but you can almost tell what it is. The colors are nice and soothing and the lighting is spot on. It all works very nicely. I would hang this on my wall.
Not all images have to be Weston sharp. This image is definitely a piece of fine art. The fact that it was totally made in the camera with no after the fact modifications via photoshop makes it even that much better in my mind.
Good job Erika, well seen and well captured. Keep working at it and post often. I look forward to viewing more of your images. Don't be affraid to experiment and go for that masterpiece.
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
al shaikh
{K:15790} 3/29/2004
|
Why Editor's Choice?
If Erika does not mind I will answer the questions here.
This image possesses several qualities, which make it an editor's choice image. The first of which is originality, the ability to see a scene differently than what in my opinion the average photographer would make of it. The second would be honesty, is the photographer trying to artificially manipulate the viewer in some manner. (This one is a bit more difficult to describe verbally but quite obvious to the observer). The third would be surprise, after seeing so many images, being surprised is a rare and special thing.
What I liked most about this image was that it is original, beautiful, and just abstract enough to be recognizable but not common.
|
|
|
|
Brian Rueger
{K:7341} 3/29/2004
|
Sorry, I don't get it. Editor's choice? Why?
|
|
|
|
Maja Gligoric
{K:13528} 3/28/2004
|
Obviously I am crazy,but I can't see here nothing
special.Blury image without some point.
Congratulations for editor's choice.
I like pictures taken with polaroid.
Regards
|
|
|
|
Paul Lara
{K:88111} 3/28/2004
|
"what is it about the photo that may not deserve EC?"
Well, it just seems to me a shot that is blurry, out-of-hue and and lacks any coherent message (to me). I am a HUGE fan of abstracts, but this doesn't seem to take the message anywhere.
Is time vaporous?
Is my initial morning vision of my clock one that's blurred and angry?
Is my night stand something that's devoid of anything except my reminder of when to wake up?
...all those things could be valid concepts behind your image, but alas, all I'm left to go with is 'anothe polaroid shot' in your comments.
Hey, congratulations on garnering EC for this shot, Erika, I just wish to understand the notion behind the image. Something too many Usefilm uploaders seem to neglect. ;)
-Paul
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Veleker
{K:17} 3/28/2004
|
Thank you much!
|
|
|
|
|
Andreas Wolkerstorfer
{K:5090} 3/28/2004
|
thought processes of scanning sounds interesting :)
For me this Polaroid photo shows the magic of photography more than an abstract composition or the clock. You could photograph the clock with a digital camera and so on. You could get a good composition with cropping in Photoshop. but all this is not the thing I see here. I see the fact that we see something and dont see nothing so to say. This Polaroid photo is like a small lamp in my brain that shows me whats going on seeing a clock. I am not on drugs :) I had this feeling already when you posted your other Polaroid photo here. Its more than a photo.
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Veleker
{K:17} 3/28/2004
|
Thought process: Capture an abstract image
Scanning: Is how I get the image onto my PC
Uploading: Is how I post it for others to see
I just bought a Polaroid to change things up. It will give me a break from 35mm and medium format. I figure this will help me discover a new side of photography. I know the images produced by Polaroids aren't as crisp and detailed as conventional SLR's or digital cameras, but it's fun. My question then Paul, is what is it about the photo that may not deserve EC? This site is for critique. Your comments and suggestions about how I can improve this photo are appreciated. Is it the picture quality due to using a Polaroid? Is the composition weak? Lighting?
|
|
|
|
|
Randy Lorance
{K:24769} 3/28/2004
|
Paul's comments nicely summed up my thoughts.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Lara
{K:88111} 3/27/2004
|
My question of 'why' was not one of criticism, but of attempting to understand why this is such a phenomnal shot. Please don't take offense Erika...I'd like to know your thought processes of shooting, scanning and then uploading this shot.
|
|
|
|
|
WALT MESK
{K:10691} 3/27/2004
|
molto interessante.walt.
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Veleker
{K:17} 3/27/2004
|
Thank you!
|
|
|
|
|
michelle k.
{K:16270} 3/27/2004
|
(great job btw, Erika) my comment was to Paul Lara for obviously missing the point of what a good abstract this is.
|
|
|
|
|
michelle k.
{K:16270} 3/27/2004
|
why NOT?
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Veleker
{K:17} 3/27/2004
|
I agree. Shutter speed and such shouldn't be required. I don't have any idea what the shutter speed is on this Polaroid.
|
|
|
|
|
Andreas Wolkerstorfer
{K:5090} 3/27/2004
|
PS: did you see this: http://www.usefilm.com/image/322825.html
|
|
|
|
|
Andreas Wolkerstorfer
{K:5090} 3/26/2004
|
WOW - perfect in every aspect, presentation, too. I know the joy to take such photos with Polaroid and not with a digital cam (you can see first results on my website) - and sometimes the colors are just amazing ...
[this posting is an example that there should be Shutter (n/A] or do you hear 1/60 ? :)
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Veleker
{K:62} 3/26/2004
|
Great shot. Simple. The color range is good for a Polaroid. Great composition.
|
|
|
|
|
jo pez
{K:2958} 3/26/2004
|
...nice colors and compo!!...well done Erika!:)
|
|
|
|
|
Todd Miller
{K:16464} 3/26/2004
|
nice abstract. seems really noisy though-maybe just the scan? congrats on EC.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Lara
{K:88111} 3/26/2004
|
Editor's choice? Really??
Why?
|
|
0 
