Sorry, George, I'm in a cranky mood. See my posting on the WS Google group.

King, mi amigo. I love your comments almost as much as I love you. And I totally disagree. I SO feel like I'm near that window...not right next to it, but near it...peering out. Perhaps because I took the shot? Maybe. But evidently the same sensation resonates not only with me. Of course, perhaps...just perhaps...taking heed let number 60 fly...?

This is one of the few "tiny images in a giant frame" where I would disagree with King's cries of "off with the head" (extra space). Here I feel like it does lend an important element to the image - it draws the viewer away from the window, forcing him to peer through it's tiny opening. If it were cropped, you would loose that sense of compression, or perhaps claustrophobia is more accurate. It would just be another shot of clouds with no real context.

@SeekingFocus
I have traveled around the world (literally) on airplanes and have taken tons of photos out the window. The window frame (the area around the plastic window) has a curve, texture, shape and tone. In the absence of something that would make this photograph stand out without the wide black border, simply masking or paint (etc.) 150 pixels of solid black around the window is a gimmick. Why not mask or paint (etc.) 300 pixels or 900 pixels of solid black round the window and *really* say something about negative space or minimalism.

@George
But I *love* number 60. Compared to number 60, this is a poor cousin. In my controversial opinion, this is a common, unexceptional photograph of the view from an aircraft window. No offense intended--I've taken plenty, myself. It is not representative, in my opinion, of your best work and, much as I like and respect you, I see no reason to praise something that has no particular appeal.

One man's opinion.

@SeekingFocus (again)
I have set myself up to be the whipping boy of this theme. I feel misunderstood, which is good, because it's a feeling I'm used to. So to equate my persistent and consistent intellectual argument with "off with the head" is an overstatement, at least. But I don't mind, really.

@George (again)
If I thought this was a superior photograph, irrespective of the theme, I would praise it to the sky (pun intended). If we were sitting together and you asked me to evaluate your portfolio, I would tell you to your face that this image is not a worthy example of your work. That would be an act of friendship and kindness, IMHO.

@King,

Don't worry. I agree with your persistent cries for cropping %95 percent of the time.

(Though I see we disagree conversely in Vernon's beautiful photograph!)

http://www.weeklyshot.org/theme/negative-space/featured/121/

And I do understand (intellectually) exactly your argument, and the equation was merely an expression. A bit of a pun if you will. I know you like those.

King, I can only imagine you know I was pulling your leg re: my comments in #60. I respect you and your opinion, and almost always get a kick out of your style, both in word and image. And one of your strengths (among many) is your simple yet gentle honesty. I'd have it no other way. And I expect nothing less. Thanks.

I continue to disagree with you on this image, which isn't to say I think it's an especially fantastic shot. Does gimmick have no value? What about gimmick for gimmick's sake? Ana's "negative space" feature is a gimmick, and it works, partly because it doesn't take itself too seriously. And maybe that's your beef with this one...do you feel the black space "takes itself too seriously"? I'm not asking this question because I need more of an explanation about *why* you find this to be a common, unexceptional photograph. I want to make that very clear. Our banterings back and forth can sometimes be misinterpreted. I have zero ill-will with your opinion, as I have stated already. So...my question is this: do you feel the black space "takes itself too seriously"?

And King,

Why is it you left so much black space in this image?

http://www.weeklyshot.org/theme/negative-space/response/139/

I believe your point would have just as acceptably been made with less of it. Sometime (*sometimes*) gimmicks can have value for producing one certain effect, if nothing else. Is not upping contrast a gimmick, or increasing color saturation, etc. I don't really see the difference, other than weather or not it WORKS for a particular image. If it works, the artist has succeeded and his tricks become 'technique'. Otherwise, he has failed and his tricks remain mere gimmicks, used only to trick the viewer into believing the image to be something other than it is.

So, I suppose the question is really, would the effect (the one George intended in this image) be as successful with or without the extra black space. My answer is it is more successful with it. I could do with just a bit less, maybe, but I do like what he was going for.

And your comments about the missing details around the window are noted. However, here we are left with not a question of cropping at all, but rather, exposure, lighting, etc.

George, I glad to see that we understand each other.

Ana's photograph succeeds because it is farce, in the literary sense of the word. As a farce, it reveals and comments on the gimmick. It is aware of itself. It says, "See! The emperor has no clothes!" You could say it is gimmick for gimmick's sake (which I like, btw), but I think it is more than that.

As for why your image is common and unexceptional, I mean as a photograph taken out of an aircraft window. As one reference, see "Window Seat: The Art of Digital Photography & Creative Thinking" by Julieanne Kost. (Amazon). Her work doesn't blow me away (she's a Photoshop expert and the book is largely about her Photoshop techniques for enhancing photos taken from commercial aircraft), but it gives some pretty good examples of looking at something other than wings, engines, clouds and sky--the dominant, prosaic elements of your photo.

As I look at the out-the-window aspects of the image, I don't find the lighting, the tones, sharpness, contrast (both color and grayscale) to be particular pleasing. I don't think it would gather much notice at all if the theme were something like "What I saw out the window during my last commerical airplane ride."

My argument is that although I'm sure that you were honestly addressing the theme as described, I simply don't care for the variety and arrangement of the pixels in the middle.

Some people think Kyra Sedgwick is beautiful. I don't.

Peace brother. I *love* your work. I'm just not crazy about this shot.

SeekingFocus
You taunt me, and you know it. But, for what it's work, here is my response to your taunts:

I didn't leave *any* black in image number 138. I simply copied Blizzard's photo, extracted the negative space, inverted it and posted it. I see no reason why my extraction of Blizzard's negative space should not be featured unless her photograph was about a lot more than negative space. I jest, because it is blizzard's exceptional *subject* that gets our attention, not the sheer quantity of empty space surrounding that subject.

There are plenty of featured items that have a large proportion of negative space, but most of those are excellent photographs where the negative space is not superfluous.

If, as you state, "...tricks remain mere gimmicks, used only to trick the viewer into believing the image to be something other than it is," then I agree with you that the photographer has failed. When I use the word gimmick, that is what I'm talking about.

Regarding this photo, see my remarks to George, above. But this is not about exposure, lighting, etc. George has deliberately removed all detail. He has not merely burned and dodged to emphasize some parts, minimize the effect of others. He has removed the negative space inherent in the situtation and replaced it by something else.

Now his featued car window image is another thing. I believe that image could be created by simply printing down (old darkroom term) the image, in which case the inside of the car would be come black. This, above, is an artificial addition to the image.

You ask, "...would the effect (the one George intended in this image) be as successful with or without the extra black space?" I agree that the black space enhances the photograph. I think that the photograph is mediocre without the black and only slightly better than mediocre with it.

King,

you're right, I was taunting you. But hey- your taunting is what keeps everyone else on their toes. Thanks for the response. =)

...And I would agree thoroughly with your last statement.

Anyway... Good work George, and even better for the conversation that ensued.

George,
I see I misread your question...there's a lot to read on this page. I explained what you didn't want explained again and didn't answer your question: Does the black around your window take itself too seriously? I think I pretty much answered this question in my response to SeekingFocus. Not too seriously. I just think it's superfluous.

But hey, that's just my opinion, and what do I know?

King, yes you pretty much answered my question in your response to SF. Muchas Garcias.

By the way Jason (SF), thanks much for your participation here and in WS in general. I appreciate your comments and observations and opinions muchly :-)

Thank you George. You can think King also for that by the way. I've enjoyed my time here so far as well, and enjoy hearing comments from both you and King.

Yes, Jason, I had noticed that King had invited you, which makes this all the more interesting :-)

Blizzard, if we ever see a "Lee Press On Nails" theme, I now know which shot to submit :-)