Thx...:)

I had exactly 3 seconds to compose this one....:)

Tanja....:)

I know a lot of people who have the same opinion and therefore the problems with weeklyshot like I have.
I think a theme is just a little hint what maybe present in a presented photo....but in the end all viewers of weeklyshot should be willing to use their illusion and accept an image which mentions the topic but has no rightintheface-relevance. For me those photographs are much more interesting.

Furthermore....different photographers have different techniques. I never use zoomlenses....I only use 35 mm for my streetpics...and I am completely analoge. Of couse it is not easy to capture a perfectly composed pair of hands with perfect light....but I think it is at least as difficult to capture a MOMENT....where in my eyes the technical aspects do not matters that much.

All these things should be considered before rating a photo....

It was a very difficult light there...very bright in the backround and dark in the foreground....I think this causes this effect.
Was not that easy work in the darkroom...:)

well said Jen-s!
and i did consider kindof (to your thought) into my ratings. no worries relevance was high! as i see that point!
i do have to say that sometimes even though the one posting an image, feels it is relevant, it can/could not be. know what i mean?
i really respect analog photography! and having said that makes me adore this pic even more!
moments are great! i dig them!
cheers!

Tolle Aufnahme! Und den Gesichtsausdruck kenne ich sehr gut...

Gratuliere! ;-)))
i was hoping for it to make the front page!

Thx a lot to all :)

Tanja concerning a version without the hands...

http://www.look-s.de/index.php?showimage=191

For this I had a few seconds more to compose...:)

i think i have seen that one before..mmh have you posted it somewhere? i didn't check around.
love it alot! one that would go up on my wall! very large!

Jens,
I agree with you completely regarding the concrete emphasis on Relevance...e.g., the Theme is Hands and only about 3% of this image has a hand in it--therefore 97% is not about hands, so this image is not Relevant. You said it very well, and I have posted several short essays on this topic.

This is a super photo. Congratulations on the feature.

<ACADEMIC ASIDE> Now I want to discuss referring to the light/film/chemical process of creating photographs as "analogue." Is that just as opposed to digital photography? the way that "analogue" is used in sound recording, where the term is much more appropriate?

If by analogue you mean that one thing is like another (the definition of analogue), then digital photography is also an analogue process. Film and digital sensors respond to light and, in the end, produce an image that is *like* the scene viewed by the photographer.

If by "analogue" you mean film, why not say film? Is this a term that is widespread in photography circles? I don't know, but it seems to be euphemistic and unnecessary. Film and digital are terms that are substantially distinctive, while analogue is a vague term that doesn't improve communication and does not honor the long history and accomplishment of film photography, in my opinion. </ACADEMIC ASIDE>

you have captured such a tender moment. lovely

Jens,

So glad this is featured as I think it is completely relevant to the theme. Yes the persons hands don't overwhelm the frame of the photograph but these are the kinds of photographs that have more meaning to me and should be featured on Weeklyshot. Someone mentioned to me in one of my photographs what King said:

"Some people don't get Weekly Shot.
Weekly Shot doesn't get some people.

I agree with this comment as users here take things too literally and have a tendency to not look beyond what they see to find more meaning in a photograph. Maybe it's users rushing to rate so they can post a photo maybe something else but I wonder sometimes why some photos are featured and some not. Anyway enough of my rant but this is a fantastic photo the way it is. Long live analogue ;)!

My original comment was in response to something Jack (kadenajack) said at the end of his comment on one of Vernon Trent's submissions:

http://www.weeklyshot.org/theme/looking-through/response/35/

kadenajack said 117 days ago:

I usually really like Vernon's stuff. With all the raters in addition to myself who had issues with this shot, I'm really surprised it still got featured.

I never would have guessed in million years that was the same face from the curves theme. Maybe because I couldn't see it here.

Congratulations on the feature. Once again, I seem not to get Weekly Shot.

King said 115 days ago:

Some people don't get Weekly Shot.
Weekly Shot doesn't get some people.
To paraphrase a quote I read somewhere, "The artist refuses to see the world as it wishes to be seen, and the world reciprocates."

King,

My rant wasn't meant to slam you as we all have our opinions and ways of seeing things. Thankfully that's the way it should be and hopefully will always be.

Also thanks for adding the complete context/quote as I missed that.

agi,
I was just contributing a new reference to the discussion. I didn't interpret your comment as a rant, and I was pleased that you had remembered something I said.

First of all....thanks again for your remarks.
Unfortunately I have a lot of work in the moment but I am happy that some of you liked that image.....:D

King: Deep breath first! :)

Analogue....isn´t this a wonderful word?? :D
A lot of people use film....and that´s all in their "analogue" live. I wanted to underline that I very randomly scan negatives....but do the whole processing of the material by myself in the darkroom. Developing the film, drying it, preparing prints, toning the prints....and finally having an analogue print....that is what matters most....for me.....not the scan of the print for the internet which is in the end not half as beautiful as the print in my hands.

Believe me (and maybe if you browse my protfolio you will) I used different digital cameras for a longer period and did all the processing with PS but in the end I never liked it really....neither the images nor the processing at the computer.

When I decided to go back I did this to be honest to my self and to do exactly what I wanted to do and NOT what I did before when I thought shooting digital is so comfortable...and sooo fast and soooo on.....:)

Is this not a good reason to accept the word "analogue" instead of "film"...;)
Furthermore I am a musician too and I always prefered (at least at the recording studio) to use analogue equipment ;)...and I never understood why people try sometimes so hard to reach old-fashined aims with the help of the newest digital equuipment. But that´s just my opinion....but it is one....

I am indeed a bit old-fahioned but please keep in mind that I am not a native speaker of your language....this just as an completion.

Greetings!

Jens

First of all....thanks again for your remarks.
Unfortunately I have a lot of work in the moment but I am happy that some of you liked that image.....:D

King: Deep breath first! :)

Analogue....isn´t this a wonderful word?? :D
A lot of people use film....and that´s all in their "analogue" live. I wanted to underline that I very randomly scan negatives....but do the whole processing of the material by myself in the darkroom. Developing the film, drying it, preparing prints, toning the prints....and finally having an analogue print....that is what matters most....for me.....not the scan of the print for the internet which is in the end not half as beautiful as the print in my hands.

Believe me (and maybe if you browse my protfolio you will) I used different digital cameras for a longer period and did all the processing with PS but in the end I never liked it really....neither the images nor the processing at the computer.

When I decided to go back I did this to be honest to my self and to do exactly what I wanted to do and NOT what I did before when I thought shooting digital is so comfortable...and sooo fast and soooo on.....:)

Is this not a good reason to accept the word "analogue" instead of "film"...;)
Furthermore I am a musician too and I always prefered (at least at the recording studio) to use analogue equipment ;)...and I never understood why people try sometimes so hard to reach old-fashined aims with the help of the newest digital equuipment. But that´s just my opinion....but it is one....

I am indeed a bit old-fahioned but please keep in mind that I am not a native speaker of your language....this just as an completion.

Greetings!

Jens

Jen,
Thanks for the detailed response. What is your native language?

I am 62 years old and do not yet own a digital camera. I started shooting film around 1954 and was a professional photographer from around 1972 to around 1994. Film was my entire world during that time.

Now I'm a big fan of digital photography and am attempting to learn as much as I can--there is a lot to learn.

However, my first love was film and prints...and working in the darkroom with film, enlarger, chemicals and paper is a different world, as you so well described.

Thx again for your explanation...:) I am a German....from Bonn, the former Capital...:)

By the way....my name is Jens. I was a member of WS and left the group some month ago. When I asked Vernon to send me a new invite my old username was not available again...:)

Fiml oe digital....I am not going to convince people with my words....but hope they like my pictures....at least sometimes....and enjoy very much some of the outstnding digital work from other photographers....:)

happy that you joined again, lens :-)
"smash the pics around their heads until they like them" *LOL*

Jens,
I just mistyped...sorry.

Vernon...LOL indeed.