Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: PhillyPhotographer on May 29, 2009, 09:41:23 pm
-
The building is the 947 foot Comcast tower in Philadelphia
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3401/3570876566_cd9d4b59f1_o.jpg)
-
Interesting image Micheal although possibly somewhat insensitive....a la the recent airforce one incident. By the way...has the wombat that allowed that to go ahead still got a job?
-
Interesting image Micheal although possibly somewhat insensitive....a la the recent airforce one incident. By the way...has the wombat that allowed that to go ahead still got a job?
This is typical on a foggy day in Philadelphia. Also there is a reason why i shot the plane heading away from the building rather than heading towards it.
-
Nice shot!
I love how you can walk right off the train and come up through the basement, only to turn around and see the huge screen with a ball game on. A very nice facility!
-
First class shot, Michael. Long lens, steady, and wait for the shot to fill the frame.
-
Thanks
-
By the way...has the wombat that allowed that to go ahead still got a job?
He resigned a couple of weeks ago. It was in all the press.
-
The building is the 947 foot Comcast tower in Philadelphia
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3401/3570876566_cd9d4b59f1_o.jpg)
First off, the technical and compositional qualities are outstanding. Great tones and excellent use of white space.
This one hits very close to home, and the similarities to 9/11 can't be ignored in my mind. Even the inset square in the building suggests at the subconscious level that the plane went through the building. I understand why you shot it after it passed the building, but it still is disturbing to me. But perhaps that adds to the power of the image. It's a disturbing but excellent image.
-
Well i got my best critique so far for this photograph. It was one of two nominated in the Architectural category for the Black and White Spider Awards on Sunday.
http://www.thespiderawards.com/presentatio...?x=a&cid=42 (http://www.thespiderawards.com/presentation/nominations.php?x=a&cid=42)
-
Well i got my best critique so far for this photograph. It was one of two nominated in the Architectural category for the Black and White Spider Awards on Sunday.
Well deserved... congrats!
-
Congrats indeed!
Mike.
-
Seems to stack up well against the others on that page.
-
Congratulations, and thanks for sharing the link. The overall caliber of work is very high, and it is refreshing to look at that many excellent images. I wasn't familiar with the Spider Awards before this, but will certainly look for them in future years.
-
Congrats, Michael. Well deserved.
-
I agree with the previous poster. Buildings and airplanes bring back 9/11 to me in a rather irrational way.
I just sort of cringe when I see them.
Michael
-
Some of the best images ever seen were disturbing? As long as they aren't obscene then they shouldn't be banned? It is up to the individual how he/her reacts to them but if they don't like what they see then others should still be allowed to see them? The famous Vietnam image with the naked child running down the street, should it have been banned? There are plenty of video scenes of 9/11 still being shown. Sorry the initial condemnation smacks of censorship.
-
Some of the best images ever seen were disturbing? As long as they aren't obscene then they shouldn't be banned? It is up to the individual how he/her reacts to them but if they don't like what they see then others should still be allowed to see them? The famous Vietnam image with the naked child running down the street, should it have been banned? There are plenty of video scenes of 9/11 still being shown. Sorry the initial condemnation smacks of censorship.
Which post was it that said it should be banned? I'm having trouble parsing your message.
-
It's a disturbing but excellent image.
My sentiments also.
Yes, it is disturbing, for all the reasons that have been mentioned. But on a second look, it transforms into a positive, "what if" kind of image, in which the plane passes through the building without doing any damage whatever. The more I look at it the more it seems to be suggesting that the future can be better than the past, if we choose to accentuate the positive.
Well, those are my incoherent ramblings. But I do very much like images that have the kind of ambiguity that makes me work at interpreting them, and this one certainly does.
Eric
-
Which post was it that said it should be banned? I'm having trouble parsing your message.
I will try and help you with your "parsing" Post 2 alluded to the wombat still having a job? Should he have his employment taken from him? This smacks of a banning of him and his works? On the other hand my remarks were a generalisation of images being posted and someone objecting to them because of the content. The tone of earlier posts was - imo - this type of image shouldn't have been posted here? That was what I took from the thread. Taking things too literal and picking out one word does you no favours? Try and see what the overall meaning of the post was.
-
I will try and help you with your "parsing" Post 2 alluded to the wombat still having a job? Should he have his employment taken from him? This smacks of a banning of him and his works? On the other hand my remarks were a generalisation of images being posted and someone objecting to them because of the content. The tone of earlier posts was - imo - this type of image shouldn't have been posted here? That was what I took from the thread. Taking things too literal and picking out one word does you no favours? Try and see what the overall meaning of the post was.
Stamper,
I think you may need some help parsing that post. It obviously referred not to any photographer but to the individual on the White House staff who authorized the use of Air Force One (the U.S. President's plane) in a close fly-by of Manhattan, with jet fighters accompanying it for the purpose of getting some nice publicity footage of Air Force One against the Manhattan skyline. The incident understandably caused wide-spread panic, and local police had not been notified of the mission before it happened.
The "wombat" who authorized that bizarre mission lost his job. I think such "works" as causing panic in a major city without notifying the authorities or residents beforehand are ones that deserve to be banned. It's a far cry from photographing a commercial flight on a regular route that happens to be passing by a tall building (and not very close to it).
Eric
-
I will try and help you with your "parsing" Post 2 alluded to the wombat still having a job? Should he have his employment taken from him? This smacks of a banning of him and his works? On the other hand my remarks were a generalisation of images being posted and someone objecting to them because of the content. The tone of earlier posts was - imo - this type of image shouldn't have been posted here? That was what I took from the thread. Taking things too literal and picking out one word does you no favours? Try and see what the overall meaning of the post was.
See Eric's post. I find your question mark usage odd.
-
Stamper,
I think you may need some help parsing that post. It obviously referred not to any photographer but to the individual on the White House staff who authorized the use of Air Force One (the U.S. President's plane) in a close fly-by of Manhattan, with jet fighters accompanying it for the purpose of getting some nice publicity footage of Air Force One against the Manhattan skyline. The incident understandably caused wide-spread panic, and local police had not been notified of the mission before it happened.
The "wombat" who authorized that bizarre mission lost his job. I think such "works" as causing panic in a major city without notifying the authorities or residents beforehand are ones that deserve to be banned. It's a far cry from photographing a commercial flight on a regular route that happens to be passing by a tall building (and not very close to it).
Eric
That wasn't explained in the original post and no link was given as to an explanation. I am not a resident of the USA therefore I didn't read about the "wombat". I made a reply based on the information posted in the post. I looked at the image as being just that.... an image. I made a judgement on it being an image and not someone else's political views. I then posted remarks about not banning images unless they were obscene. You and others are seeing the image as something different from me? The "wombat" comment was - imo - out of context with it being an image posted for a critique. I think the original comments need more parsing?
-
Hi Stamper,
I definitely see how you could have easily misinterpreted that first comment. Not the sort of event that would make the news outside of the US.