I think I've finally figured out how to post a photo online- this is my first try, so don't flame me if I got it wrong. I don't know how to add the link directly, so here's a cut and paste:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=608412

I'd love to hear some feedback. Enjoy!

-- drew (swordfisher@hotmail.com), March 02, 2002

Answers

I don't know, Drew. Not terribly exciting. I immediately started imaging how it wd look if shot differently. For instance, what was in the foreground that you chose not to include? Too much sky for my sense as you shot it. Cdn't figure out the significance, if any, of the tank. Colors sort of dull throughout--I was surprised you had shot Sensia. No vibrancy, unspectacular image... Hate to be negative when you're obviously enthusiastic, but this one passed me by. Take another 10 rolls of film; be your own incredibly harsh critic; post only what you think begins to complete with photos that turn you on; & spend some weeks studying photo masters...

-- Patrick (pg@patrickgarner.com), March 02, 2002.

Ohh, I don't know. Is it a GREAT picture for all time? - like, say, Gene Smith's Minamata mother and child in the bath, or Cartier- Bresson's 3 Indian women? No! - but for me it was worth at least a one- time look.

It would be a nice part of a Nat. Geo. package on the Great Plains - magazine or book. I like how the angled line between the fields echoes the tilt of the water tank. And the interplay of the extreme horizontals against the two canted lines.

The amount of sky is up to interpretation. As a Plainsman myself - it says 'big sky country'. A panoramic crop would work too, but would change the emphasis and the story a little. That's where an editor comes in (even if it's you.)

I think the composition is about right in terms of the scale of the tower and the amount of empty space to the left - it maintains the tension of the tilt. Centered, the tilt would lose some of its impact.

The colors are a notch dark and drab- probably partly due to transmission over the Web - I've found that my scans that are just right for printing tend to look very heavy once posted to photonet - so I tweak the contrast, brightness and saturation on a copy when going to JPEGs for viewing, and have a special screen calibration (using Photoshop's "Gamma" control panel) so that I know how it should look online.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), March 02, 2002.

Personally, I liked this image. Strong graphics. Good sense of desolation. Gave you 7/7. To get really rave reviews, remember to always include starving third world person(s).

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), March 02, 2002.

Sorry it doens't work for me. Too many people try to make photogrpahs out of nothing and call it creative art. Please don't head down that path.

-- kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), March 02, 2002.

Drew, I like the picture. I think, though, its value very much depends on other things you do, other pictures, its context. it looks like part of a photo essay, not like an independent picture. it might be that "Too many people try to make photogrpahs out of nothing and call it creative art" but that can be said nearly about any picture that was shown in any of Chelsea galleries in the recent years, not to mention any of the sculpture works. some of them end up being "nothing", many have momentary existence, and some become or initiate grate works of art. BTW do you know the photograph work of Wim Wenders? (the movey director?) he belongs to that "nothing" trend, and he is a grate photographer (your picture reminds me of the atmosphere in his work).

-- rami (rg272@columbia.edu), March 02, 2002.

The lighting is interesting but the picture did not grab me. I want to see more of the water tower. Thanks for posting.

-- David Enzel (dhenzel@vei.net), March 03, 2002.

Hi, Drew:

In the Administration Section of this Forum (all the way down the list) are Tony's instructions on how to include a clickable access to your photos. Follow them carefully. It is not a difficult art to master.

Regarding your photo: I use a 50mm Cron too and I have learned that in order to get the most out of it you've got to walk your subject around. Don't get me wrong, please: I mean that this particular subject seems to have a greater potential than shown on your image but you limited your effort to get the intended field of view shown in your viewfinder, accomodated your point of view to get a pleasant image, got sure about the exposure, and fired your shutter. OK, that is good. My point is that I think that if your interest was taken by this subject to the extent that you decided to make the photo and post it, most probably you could make it better if you do your homework and figure out a more meaningful treatment for it.

Sure one can speak to one's own experience limits only. And this photo reminds me of many I did not too many years ago when I used to point my SLRs to anything I found interesting and then wondered why the original scene looked so much better than my photos. Not that it doesn't happen to me anylonger. It does. But now (and though I already gave up trying to be the next HCB) I try to get the most out of my own capabilities along with best I can out of my subjects. And most of the time I try to remenber some simple advices that have been very productive for me: "your feet are meant to walk" and "your knees to bend". And, to my best understanding, the greatest benefit I have received from using my Leicas and the 50mm Cron is that now I do try to follow those simple advices. And many times my photos come much closer to what I intended them to be.

Ooops ! ! Excuse the lenght, Drew. I just sat at this screen and still feel perhaps a little too energetic after swiming for half an hour this morning. You know, I have to enjoy the short time we still have left from this summer, specially since I won't be able to have a real vacation this year. And then I'm still very motivated by the couple of hours I just expent doing street/architectural photo earlier this afternoon. Results still left to be seen . . .

Regards, Drew. Keep posting, please.

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), March 03, 2002.

I'd crop out some of the sky, and have left a bit more dirt in front, but I basically like the photo, if not precisely this version.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), March 03, 2002.

I think I would have moved in closer, so that the writing on the tank (the only real detail of the photo) would be clearer. The angle of the tilt would be more pronounced then too.

As someone mentioned, Wim Wenders likes the kind of stuff. He had a portfolio in DoubleTake a few issues back. William Eggleston is also working on some West- and Southwest-flavored stuff you might enjoy.

Your photo might seem stronger if it were part of a series, or if you tried a few different angles on this tank. It's a weird thing. You can make it look really weird if you want to.

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), March 04, 2002.