Brilliant! Especially good is the succinct title!

few is said but not much to add. thats one of those I'm missing on MFT. great. and hey: its 16:9 (hope u don't cheat us and its a dlux shot ;)

Brilliant Andy! Nothing to add to Ferd's comments.

Love it! Great job!

Fantastico! One of the more original images (and titles) to be posted here in a while.

just one word Andy: TEN!

This is superb Andy...esp the title and wallpaper ;)

Andy, it's 6:30AM and I'm having breakfast before embarking on a 4 day road trip taking pictures for my employer. Had to log onto my computer to get some info for my trip and, as usual MFT is autoloaded for me. Just have to say "WOW10" to this before I head off. So there...well done, mate. Love the fossil patterns on the wall too. I think they're cool. PS the shirt off the model and replace with hairy skin and, voila, you have a cave man! Best wishes.

Andy, but I can´t resist to say:

Great idea and perfect compiled and

glad to see such an image on MFT again (was also missing such kind of art).

Kind Regards,

Woah and kregaah bundolo together...

This is a special photo, I can see that. It's not extremely beautiful in my opinion to get all these high ratings, so it must be technically very good. I am terribly sorry but I don't understand much of the technical comments why it is so special. Maybe someone can explain in a few laymen's words why this is worth a 10?

I have been enjoying your photos Andy, I am a fan but this one isn't my cup of tea.

Amber

Additional to the xplanation given by Doro, it is also a 10 because of the faithful representation of the title in the image. Look at the title. Look at the image. It has to be blurred. It is so well blurred with the light in the right place it has to be a 10. Do you see this?

A successful image does not have to be technically perfect. In fact, what could be considered flaws often times elevates an image beyond the norm of technique and beauty. To learn a craft well, technique is important. But after the technique is learned it is up to the artist to use the perfection possible with the learned technique to move beyond (or not)and create an individual vision or a single unique image that has impact. That is what Andy has done here. He has moved beyond the technique to produce a beautiful image that is both compelling and beautiful.

Amber: Try to imagine what this picture would have looked like if the face were sharp and with or without a background out of focus. What impression would a picture like that given you compared to this? If you look at this with an open mind what feeling, mood, or impression do you get of the person portrayed? Do you still think he would have looked like a “Head-bobbing electroacoustic composer counting out time against spectacularly awful embossed wall paper, ca 1973” if this was an ordinary, sharp, straight-on, depiction of the man?

This is a great picture because Andy has used his camera and post processing skills to make a picture which give more information than a straight on portrait of the person (or depiction) most probably would have.

Thanks for all your explanations and opinions. I appreciate it very much and I start to see what you mean. The admiration of the art of creating is what makes you like this so much. I see and understand. Thanks again!

Amber

I want to say that you have given me some hope that things might get better around here again and I greatly appreciate you asking your question and being open to the answers that came your way. It shows an openness of mind that is sadly lacking in some people who like to take a superficial look and vote really original and good images down just because they don't 'like' them. It makes me wonder if they understand what they're rating or looking at. Good on you for having an inquiring mind.

First of all I'd like to thank everyone for commenting on this picture whether they liked it or not. I'm really quite taken aback at the response to what is a very quirky image.

Also my apologies for not being around to take part in the excellent debate that unfolded...I posted this just before attending a Burn's Supper which, as these things invariably do, involved copious quantities of very fine whisky...I am suffering greatly for it today.

I am very happy with this picture. Roland has a remarkable ability to count time. Taps a finger sharply on a table....10milliseconds, a more controlled one...100 milliseconds. His music is of course derived from 'real' sounds, but digitised, compressed, stretched, and music being made up of lots of waveforms.....so my original intention was to produce a series of blurred images as his head passed through a full nodding cycle creating a sort of digitised wave. The wall paper had to be absolutely sharp against the motion blurr and the Mandelbrot-like patterns in the 'fleurs' (nice one Ferd) seemed to illustrate the digital manipulations of his music. The wallpaper is supposed to look as though it is throbbing light, pulsating with his movement. But by God it is hellish to have to live with I think!

My favourite piece of his music is called 'Decyclage'...I almost gave that title to this, but felt something more literal was required to capture what was happening. Now I think that the title and image form a whole despite also feeling a trifle self conscious about it all. Incidentally, if anyone would like to listen to osme of Roland's work, then I can email you one of his pieces. It is quite challenging to say the least, but on a good hi-fi....lets just say the neighbours also get quite involved..;-)

I respect Amber asking the question, but feel slightly embarassed by the replies as well as a little proud that so many respected photographers have reacted so positively.

I think part of that reaction reflects a growing sense of uniformity and as a result boredom with what 4/3rds has to offer of late. That is not say that many, many good pictures are being posted, they are, but their individual qualities are lost against so many others exploring similar themes in similar ways. This picture is possibly just different enough to catch that wave as it were.

So much is possible with digital as well as with the simple variation of shutter speed and aperture. Michael's great wee self portrait and recent 'blurred' series clearly illustrates what a slight tweak away from the norm can produce. P mode is underused I feel.

Finally, I'm feeling a little blurred myself today, so please accept my apologies for not commenting on too many pictures....Hopefully I can spend a little more time doing so over the next few evenings.

Once again many thanks for all your comments, the debate and analysis. I am extremely flattered to say the least.

Best wishes- Andy

but possibly better late than never. (I hope!)

Some of the comments on this image make for good reading.

For me it is the mastery of the art that you have demonstrated that makes the image special. It is not that the image is blurred that makes it special; it is that you deliberately made it blurred as you did deliberately give the image many of its other characteristics. It was not happenstance, it was not good fortune, it was deliberate, it was artistry.

I also appreciate titles as I consider them another tool in the artist’s toolbox to assist in the conveyance of the message, the communication with me the viewer.

This resulted in me engaging with the image and gaining something from it..........pleasure being one emotion!

Thanks

And a special thanks to Amber for the question that brought about the great replies.

Andrew for this picture is great not for the blur it has but for the sharpness it has in it it his a great piture and with a great title, maybe you could make a series with different wall papers (that texture alone is already something to talk...) and different head moves since your friend really understands timing someeven greater could come out of it.

so sorry i can't be around much anymore...especially when i run across something as fun as this. makes me even more sad that i don't have more time to play behnd the lens...this is very inspirational as is much of your work. i'm glad i got the chance to see it...thanks for sharing.

best, john

I have read every single word of the comments posted here. Combine that with other articles I read here the last few days, I will not dare dispute the technical merrits of this photo that heve been posted here. In fact (especially since I commented on this before and gotten some heat) I was not goin to come back here at all. But after I read Lorri's article I got strenght to speak my mind. Well here it is then : I will accept the technical know how that is calimed to have been applied here. But IMHO art is not only technical experties is personal appeal and aesthetics. And aesthetics this has verly little. Fo those reasons my rating is 7 at best.

Hi Rita,

First off, it's just a photo, one I'm very happy with for the reasons I have already given. Of course you don't have to accept that this is a good photo just because others may think it is, or like it more than you do.

All I would ask is that you try to appreciate what it was I trying to do, why I chose to treat the image the way I did and what I was paying attention to photographically. (eg., the sharpness in the wallpaper shows that the blurr of the head was quite deliberate and not some accident). You don't have to like the final result, just try to understand what I was trying to achieve.

Most of my portrait shots are far more straightforward than this one. A couple of them have gone done well at 4/3rds, others less so. My own favourite, this one: http://myfourthirds.com/document.php?id=15780 wasn't quite so well received as others in that folder were. I mention this to illustrate that I am quite capable of producing a far more conventional and possibly less challenging portrait than the one above. Do you like any of those at all? If so, then maybe it is clearer to you that I am trying something quite different here and exploring different approaches.

Finally, I don't understand your indignant tone.....we have never addressed oneanother specifically in the past. Contrary to your remarks...you didn't comment on this previously or suffer any 'heat' for it. In fact, you have not commented on any of my pictures before.

If my tone in the on-going 'excuses' thread was responsible for the way you approached your comment here, then I apologise for it. All I was trying to do there was explain how I feel and what I felt was underlying all this anger and frustration. Ultimately I think some good will come of that thread even if at present it seems unpleasant to say the least. Whatever else it shows that people care and as a result may pay greater heed to the frustrations voiced by both sides of the argument.

If you feel that all the foregoing contributions here are demonstrating everything that some feel is wrong with the site, then I would point out that both Tom and Vaggelis rated this very highly too. Further, John Roper, someone who's work you recently (and in my opinion quite rightly) enthused over, also likes this picture. You may just as well ask them to explain their opinions further as expect me to speak on their behalf. They voted for this too. I didn't.

I have spent quite a while replying to you, so I hope that you will respond as I'm interested in why you take such a visceral dislike to this picture and given that is the case, what you think of my earlier contributions mentioned above. It's just a picture afterall, albeit an important one for me and how my approach is evolving.

Best wishes- Andy

Andy,

I'll answer your questions as well as I can (even though I believe I have explained my rating well). First of all, of course it's only a photo and second, I made it very clear that I was not going into a discussion about technical aspects of this photo. I said I accept them as fine as it has been claimed by other commenters. I also can appreciate that you tried to do this deliberately. Now as I said: to me art is not only technical expertise, it's emotions and aestetics as well. Emotionally and aestetically this photo fails. Now, why did I bother rating it? That's were the article 'Excuse me' and John Roper's photo comes in. I read all the postings in that article and I felt, quite frankly, uneasy about what was said there. I also found it odd that John Roper's photograph did not receive all of the high praise and ratings that yours did, especially by what has been identified here as 'oldtimers' of the site. Another thing, it is perhaps against my better judgement to say this here, because I really want all the heated fights here to go away, but I must tell you that I did see a lots of biased behaviour about the rating by the oldtimers. I have seen it enough times to know that it is not coincidental. All of my ratings from the past are deleted along with my account and I'm going slowly replacing them. I am happily telling you that your folder is one of the several folders that I have marked for me to view. Let me assure you that it is nothing personal.

wait a minute...how did i become involved in this? *lol*

andy, you kick ass...this image kicks ass...my girlfriend loves it and she doesn't really like most of my stuff so there you go.

rita, why do i love this image, well for the reasons you said you don't. technical merit aside (i never really pay much attention to that anyway) it's the emotional appeal that makes it a 10 for me. i'm not really much for pics of bridgewires against a cityscape background with a few birds stuck in for good measure...just not my style...but something like this is challenging in a way that so little of what is posted on MFT is...and for that it wins my heart. besides that its nice to look at... ;)

all that aside, your opinion has merit but just take care how strongly you drive it home...it can be damaging after a point. i call it the 'i don't get it' syndrome. there was a member here named John Ellis a while back and very often he didn't get my work, either...but every so often he did and it just made it all the more sweet when he did. there are PLENTY of times i view a well received image here on the site and i just don't get it. but who cares...that's life, art and everything. diversity of ideas is what makes our lives so special, its just that most of us choose not to see it that way and instead diversity tends to tear us apart.

cool, i'm glad you guys enjoy my stuff, though.

best, john

Ha! Accept my apologies John and many thanks for stepping in all the same.

I used your name to illustrate that amongst all the smash - and Rita's sense of grievance does sadden me - there is common ground between us; we both liked your picture and rated it as highly as we could ;-D

Best wishes- Andy

no worries, i was flattered of course!

john

My question is about the title...

What is "electroacoustic"? If it is electric, it is amplified isn't it, so how can it be acoustic? What don't I know?

Ah, good question Edwin!

Roland's electroacoustic music is based on recording acoustic sounds (ping-pong ball bouncing, or a glass shattering, or a heart beating...paper tearing....traffic..anything). Then, he takes samples of these sounds, stretches, compresses or multiplies them together to produce 'music'. This music has little melodic structure, but when viewed as a sensory experience rather than a straight piece of music, then it can be tremendously powerful. There is a structure to it, although it is tempting to try and figure out the source sounds rather than listen/experience it as a whole.

Frankly, I used to absolutely loath and detest this type of music. Weirder and more difficult to grasp than the most outrageous free jazz, the most avante guard modern classical. Then, a couple of years ago I saw the Manchester Phil playing Luteslowski's Cello Concerto...and I was amazed at what I heard...great waves of sound rippling across the orchestra...I was stunned. CD's don't capture this properly at all....I now find that I enjoy more modern classical and also Roland's music very much.

Anyway...hope that helps!

Best wishes- Andy

Andy,

I am thrilled for you that this masterwork is in the hof. A very worthy inclusion and one of the more interesting and unusual and creative images to the grace the hof imho. Excellent work.

Well done, Andy. I'm very pleased for you. How's that bullfighter image doin'? Cheers, mate.

one of my favorites. Over some pictures the time passes away, but this still grows. Well deserved, Andy.

Best wishes,

This is an image that challenged me when I was a very new member of this site. I liked the image but at that time, it was beyond my ability to intelligently critique this so I refrained. In the past year, I've begun to develop (alas, slowly) a better understanding of photography as a means of expression and I'm in a much better position to appreciate this.

It is certainly a well-deserved HoF for an excellent image in your gallery of many excellent images.