# Glove and broken shadow by Pascal Riben



## pascalriben (Nov 20, 2013)

Seoul, Sud Korea - Click on the picture!


----------



## DiskoJoe (Nov 20, 2013)

So how much do you make from advertisiers for each hit?


----------



## pascalriben (Nov 20, 2013)

DiskoJoe said:


> So how much do you make from advertisiers for each hit?



? Sorry, I didn't understand...


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Nov 22, 2013)

:roll:


----------



## DiskoJoe (Nov 22, 2013)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> :roll:



I had to poke the bear.


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 22, 2013)

one _*last *_warning folks, and this is it. 
back the **** off this pascal thing.

if you dont like how he interacts on the forum, don't open his threads, or put him on ignore.


----------



## Juga (Nov 22, 2013)

I like the shadow but otherwise, to me, the photo isn't very interesting with the glove having no real merit on the overall photo.


----------



## mishele (Nov 22, 2013)

I see the point of the shot. Your shadow is interesting. It's a little bit like a hidden picture.


----------



## kathyt (Nov 22, 2013)

I think the main subject looks overexposed, and the overall image is soft. The car in the backround is distracting.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Nov 22, 2013)

Depends what you consider the "main subject". To me the main subject is triangles. So many freaking triangles!
I disagree about the car being a distraction. I looked at this several times, and never noticed the car. What I did notice was the dappled sunlight forms it's own triangle, across the car, and behind the girl.

So. Many. Triangles!
It almost seems kaleidoscopic, and I get wonderously lost in it.


----------



## pascalriben (Nov 22, 2013)

mishele said:


> It's a little bit like a hidden picture.



Thank you for your comment mishele: I'm so shy :blush2:


----------



## pascalriben (Nov 22, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> I think the main subject looks overexposed, and the overall image is soft. The car in the backround is distracting.



Thank you for your comment kathythorson. I'm sorry, but I disagree with everything: the main subject - my shadow - isn't overexposed, but the "white" girl isn't too - nothing is burn, I can't find the image soft and the car is not distracting in this kind of picture.


----------



## pascalriben (Nov 22, 2013)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Depends what you consider the "main subject". To me the main subject is triangles. So many freaking triangles!
> I disagree about the car being a distraction. I looked at this several times, and never noticed the car. What I did notice was the dappled sunlight forms it's own triangle, across the car, and behind the girl.
> 
> So. Many. Triangles!
> It almost seems kaleidoscopic, and I get wonderously lost in it.



Thank you for your comment Bitter.


----------



## kathyt (Nov 22, 2013)

pascalriben said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > I think the main subject looks overexposed, and the overall image is soft. The car in the backround is distracting.
> ...


Alrighty then. I guess it is a stunning masterpiece. Hey, I tried.


----------



## mishele (Nov 22, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> pascalriben said:
> 
> 
> > kathythorson said:
> ...



Is it possible even if all those things were accurate that it wouldn't matter. The reason the shot works is beyond technical perfection. You might have to take a little deeper look at it.


----------



## pascalriben (Nov 22, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> pascalriben said:
> 
> 
> > kathythorson said:
> ...



Don't be sarcastic Kathy (or at least, if really you want to be sarcastic, try to be funny and imaginative): have you a so big ego and are you a so experimented and talented photograph that you think your non-argued comments cannot be discussed?


----------



## pascalriben (Nov 22, 2013)

mishele said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > pascalriben said:
> ...



Thank you for your comment mishele


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Nov 22, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> pascalriben said:
> 
> 
> > kathythorson said:
> ...



Why do you have to jump to "stunning masterpiece"? 
We could argue back and forth whether a soft image can still work and be a wonderful image to look at, or not.
I said wonderful, not stunning, or masterpiece.

What is the subject in this image, I think depends on the viewer. 
You are a portrait photographer, aren't you?
Does that make you tend to think of any person in an image as the subject? 

So much more in this image demands your attention. The girl, far from overexposed, actually gets a little lost in the white wall with dappled sunlight behind her. Heck, the line of the bottom of her purse, and it's tone, match the line and tone of the wall behind her. This further camouflages her.

What sticks out, to me, is her shoe! Her pants are even a similar tone to the pavers. But that bright white shoe! At an area of intersecting lines, that pretty much point right to it!

Further, look at the line of the girls coat, how it lines up with the line on the side walk... Squint at that image, and tell me you don't simply read a large, white, tilted, square.

While squinting, what is most prominent is indeed the photographers shadow. It's large, bold, and runs the length of the image.
It's even larger than the white "square" of lost girl.

To me, the glove is a "neat find" in the shadows. It's a little bonus. I personally don't find it important, but because it's in the title, many people may place too much importance on it.

And look at all the angles!!!

I find this to be a joy to look at. It's a wonderful image. "Stunning masterpiece?" Nah.
Would I hang it on my wall? Nah. Would I enjoy seeing it in a book? Yes!

Frankly, Kathy, your critique sounds like you simply tried to come up with as much wrong with the image as you could.
Did you find absolutely nothing appealing here?


----------



## Derrel (Nov 22, 2013)

I've always referred to this type of a photograph as "shadow play". There is a long tradition of making such photographs, where the photographer's shadow plays a central role in the shot. In some ways, this type of image, a shadow play image, can be considered a type of "in joke". The kind of image that will not be fully understood or appreciated by many viewers. Shadow play images...you know, I just typed in the term *shadow play photographs + define* and OMG...look what Shutterbug magazine ran in the September, 2013 on-line issue....a small featurette on Shadow Play Shadow Play | Shutterbug

*Shadow Play*


By Jill Rahn  Posted: Oct 1, 2013  Published: Sep 1, 2013

This months Picture This! assignment was Shadow Play, the role played by shadows in a photographs composition and, often, meaning. Shadows define form and shape, but they also can add an aura of mystery and intrigue, one where the recognizable subjects are altered by their presence. They can also be the subject of the image, and dominate the frame to create an abstract view of the world. Readers sent in images that accomplish all the above, with photos of people, places, and things that are enhanced by the sense of depth and space created by these light-formed elements.


----------



## pascalriben (Nov 22, 2013)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > pascalriben said:
> ...



             I never could write so much on my own photos - or somebody els photos.

Thank you very much for your full comment Bitter: it's really appreciated


----------



## Juga (Nov 22, 2013)

Derrel said:


> I've always referred to this type of a photograph as "shadow play". There is a long tradition of making such photographs, where the photographer's shadow plays a central role in the shot. In some ways, this type of image, a shadow play image, can be considered a type of "in joke". The kind of image that will not be fully understood or appreciated by many viewers. Shadow play images...you know, I just typed in the term *shadow play photographs + define* and OMG...look what Shutterbug magazine ran in the September, 2013 on-line issue....a small featurette on Shadow Play Shadow Play | Shutterbug
> 
> *Shadow Play*
> 
> ...



Pascal is good at it...this isn't my favorite of his but the shadow is definitely interesting. He just isn't very open to critique...granted Kathy's critique on this image were a bit harsh.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Nov 22, 2013)

I think sometimes others see more (and sometimes less) in our photographs than we the photographers do.


I've enjoyed the images you have posted for quite a while. It has often been the only reason to pass through the forum.


----------



## pascalriben (Nov 22, 2013)

Derrel said:


> I've always referred to this type of a photograph as "shadow play". There is a long tradition of making such photographs, where the photographer's shadow plays a central role in the shot. In some ways, this type of image, a shadow play image, can be considered a type of "in joke". The kind of image that will not be fully understood or appreciated by many viewers. Shadow play images...you know, I just typed in the term *shadow play photographs + define* and OMG...look what Shutterbug magazine ran in the September, 2013 on-line issue....a small featurette on Shadow Play Shadow Play | Shutterbug



I had a look: there are some very good pictures. Of course, as I use myself frequently shadows in my work, I'm receptive to this kind of work!

To come back to this thread, this photo is part of the gallery/serie "The Selfportrait Game" where there are mainly "fake" selfportraits with my shadow... which is the reason why there is the word "game" in the gallery title.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Nov 22, 2013)

Juga said:


> He just isn't very open to critique...



You know...so what? There's plenty of pretentious blowhards, plenty of people who think they know what their talking about, but don't have a clue.....so yeah.....full spectrum.


----------



## pascalriben (Nov 22, 2013)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> I think sometimes others see more (and sometimes less) in our photographs than we the photographers do.



I agree 



Bitter Jeweler said:


> I've enjoyed the images you have posted for quite a while. It has often been the only reason to pass through the forum.



Thank you very much for this very kind comment Sweeter Jeweler :heart: !


----------



## Derrel (Nov 22, 2013)

The Online Photographer: Great Photographers on the Internet


----------



## Juga (Nov 22, 2013)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Juga said:
> 
> 
> > He just isn't very open to critique...
> ...



He isn't the first nor is he the last...

...and you don't NEED to be an expert to critique something. Hell I am a HUGE noob but I like to give critique because I believe it is part of the learning process. So throw me into that pot of people that don't have a clue. With that said I am going to go about and noob it up somewhere else on this forum.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Nov 22, 2013)

Juga said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > Juga said:
> ...



My point was, if it's perfectly acceptable for people "without a clue" to critique, it should also be acceptable for people to not really care what anyone has to say. So neither really needs to be pointed out.


----------



## pascalriben (Nov 22, 2013)

Derrel said:


> The Online Photographer: Great Photographers on the Internet



Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! I'm dying!!! I knew this one:
Why You Shouldn't Give Too Much Weight to Anonymous Online Critics
but your link is by far better!... "Bonjour Henri, assuming you are French, or at least understand it... Your problem here is that your AF has focused on the wrong place."  Who said the M has not autofocus?  And the one on Alew Webb (I love this photograph): "Only two thumbs up But I like some of your other work please vote for mine too." 


BOOKMARKED: THANK YOU 100 TIMES DERREL!


----------



## pascalriben (Nov 22, 2013)

Juga said:


> ...you don't NEED to be an expert to critique something.



In fact, it's better if you know nothing about what you're talking: it's a good raison, when people politely disagree on your critic to act like a... heu... what is the english name of this dog who barks all time but is too small to beat?... 



Juga said:


> Hell I am a HUGE noob but I like to give critique because I believe it is part of the learning process. So throw me into that pot of people that don't have a clue. With that said I am going to go about and noob it up somewhere else on this forum.



 How old do you think he is?


----------



## Juga (Nov 22, 2013)

pascalriben said:


> Juga said:
> 
> 
> > ...you don't NEED to be an expert to critique something.
> ...



What does my age have anything to do with my comments? That is very condescending and what I normally would expect from you.


----------



## pascalriben (Nov 23, 2013)

Derrel said:


> The Online Photographer: Great Photographers on the Internet



But the best of the best is the one on Bill Brandt :banghead: :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:I hope there is a life after the death and that Bill Brand can read the comment!

Unfortunately, if they comments are not real, they are very close...


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 23, 2013)

pascalriben said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > pascalriben said:
> ...




You know Pascal, so far I've pretty much stayed out of this whole thing but seriously, this was just uncalled for in the extreme.  You posted the photo and asked for C&C - Kathy gave you her honest opinion.  If you disagree with her or have different "artistic vision" or whatever that's fine, that's your prerogative.   But you have zero right to get snippy with her for offering an opinion that you yourself asked for - that is just not right at all.  If you don't want critique, then don't ask people to give it.


----------



## DanOstergren (Nov 23, 2013)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Juga said:
> 
> 
> > He just isn't very open to critique...
> ...


Agreeeeed.


----------



## pascalriben (Nov 23, 2013)

robbins.photo said:


> pascalriben said:
> 
> 
> > kathythorson said:
> ...



I think it was a good idea to stay out "of this whole thing" instead of eventually trying to be provocative with a trolling comment.


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 23, 2013)

pascalriben said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > pascalriben said:
> ...



Oh please.  You've behaved like an ass and that much is perfectly obvious to anyone that can read.  If you're not mature enough to handle critique, don't ask for it.  It's that simple.   There was nothing "trolling" about my commentary and you know it.  You owe Kathy an apology, it's up to you to decide whether you can man up enough to offer one.


----------



## DanOstergren (Nov 23, 2013)

robbins.photo said:


> pascalriben said:
> 
> 
> > kathythorson said:
> ...


This is an issue I often have in this forum: Someone posts a photo, and someone critiques it, which is all fine and dandy and they have every right to. That being said, if they have every right to critique, the artist also has every right to disagree with said critique, which is exactly what Pascal did. The person who left the critique get's butt hurt (something I've been guilty of both when receiving and giving critique) and says something rude and sarcastic simply because their critique wasn't agreed with. At that point, how is it inappropriate for the artist to point out that the criticizer was getting sarcastic and seemingly rude? Even still, Pascal was being nice by suggesting that she at least try and lighten up about it. 

I think it's perfectly fine to disagree with critique; people need to quit getting so butt hurt about that.


----------



## pascalriben (Nov 23, 2013)

DanOstergren said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > pascalriben said:
> ...



I COMPLETELY DISAGREE WITH YOU DAN!


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 23, 2013)

DanOstergren said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > pascalriben said:
> ...



As I stated earlier, if he chooses to disagree that's fine and dandy with me.. this, however "_ have you a so big ego and are you a so experimented and talented photograph that you think your non-argued comments cannot be discussed" _was rude and uncalled for - if he doesn't want actual criticism then he shouldn't ask for it.  If he gets what he's asked for then he should at least be an adult about it.  If he wants to disagree with Kathy about her critique, fine.  If she feels like there is no purpose served in debating it, that's her prerogative as well.  The snottiness was completely uncalled for, period._

_


----------



## DanOstergren (Nov 23, 2013)

robbins.photo said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > robbins.photo said:
> ...


How is it uncalled for to point out that someone reacted poorly to their critique being disagreed with? That is a display of ego, so from my perspective his comment was not untrue or uncalled for. If anything, Kathy making a snotty and sarcastic comment in which you are projecting on Pascal was uncalled for.


----------



## Juga (Nov 23, 2013)

It is a lost cause to argue either side. This of course only coming from my inadequate child like mind.


----------



## mishele (Nov 23, 2013)

Let's get back on topic please!!:banghead:


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 23, 2013)

DanOstergren said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > DanOstergren said:
> ...



Projecting?  Oh brother.  Save the dime store psychology, it's wasted on me. Was Kathy being a little sarcastic?  I'm sure she was - hardly surprising under the circumstances.  She was asked for her opinion and when she gave it she was told she didn't know what she was talking about.  So she used a bit of sarcasm as a way of illustrating that there wasn't really any point in debating the subject.  Which of course, there isn't.  If Pascal isn't willing to accept anything she had to say it's not like there is anything she could say at that point that would make any difference.  He obviously thinks the shot is beyond reproach, something made perfectly clear in his snotty, over the top response.  So maybe you might want to analyze that for a moment.  I think you'll find what your looking for in the DSM-IV under the classification NPD, or you can refer to the WHO's ICD-10 for further information.


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 23, 2013)

mishele said:


> Let's get back on topic please!!:banghead:



Apologies Mish, was formulating my last reply prior to seeing this.  I will cease and desist as requested.


----------



## mishele (Nov 23, 2013)

robbins.photo said:


> Apologies Mish, was formulating my last reply prior to seeing this.  I will cease and desist as requested.



Good, because I'm cranky!! It's effin 4:30 in the morning and I can't sleep. Hehe Next off topic post gets smacked.


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 23, 2013)

mishele said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > Apologies Mish, was formulating my last reply prior to seeing this.  I will cease and desist as requested.
> ...



Ok, so would now be a bad time to note that guys pay big money for that sort of thing in Vegas?  Lol


----------



## Juga (Nov 23, 2013)

mishele said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > Apologies Mish, was formulating my last reply prior to seeing this. I will cease and desist as requested.
> ...



...like in a good way?

couldn't resist...it was staring me in the face and after 12 hours of work I just had to.


----------



## mishele (Nov 23, 2013)

Juga said:


> ...like in a good way?
> 
> couldn't resist...it was staring me in the face and after 12 hours of work I just had to.



Test me and find out! Lol


----------



## kathyt (Nov 23, 2013)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > pascalriben said:
> ...


I stated my critique. I didn't care for the image. Period. Nothing more. Nothing less. Should I have made up something pleasant to sugar coat it? I gave an honest critique of the image based off of my initial reaction of the image. I know now not to critique this members work. I have given this member positive critique in the past, but I just wasn't feeling this image. End of story.


----------



## kathyt (Nov 23, 2013)

DanOstergren said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > DanOstergren said:
> ...


Dan if you need to hash something out with me I would prefer you take it to PM's and leave it off the forum. Thanks.


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 23, 2013)

all righty folks...
obviously a few Mod warnings are not going to be sufficient...
You guys are just hell bent on forcing us to lay out some temp bans..

here's how I see this. 
Kathy gave honest technical critique. period.  Pascal took it poorly. 
now, i don't want to hear any crap about "poor pascal" because i have been almost violently _*defending*_ him over the last two of his threads, so when I say that Kathy gave proper critique and pascal was out of line with his comment to her, i think i am objective enough here to say it. 
yes, Kathy's comment afterwards *was* pretty sarcastic, but not nearly as much as pascals comment to her, _*after*_ she took the time to view and actually critique his photo. 

that is exactly how these threads start spiraling out of control. 
if you cannot comment in a civil manner. don't hit the reply button. 
if you cannot accept critique for work you post on an open forum designed for critique in a civil manner....dont post your work here. not everyone here will agree with, or like your work. this is a forum of many tastes. I myself do not care for B&W, so i very very rarely comment on those types of photos. 

I am going to leave this thread open, and make this one last appeal to the forums better senses. 
I expect that everyone, including the OP, will make the effort to give and receive critique in a civil manner.
the next warnings will not be on this thread, but via the infraction/temp ban message.


----------



## IByte (Nov 23, 2013)

....bacon & eggs anyone?


----------



## slackercruster (Nov 23, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> one _*last *_warning folks, and this is it.
> back the **** off this pascal thing.
> 
> if you dont like how he interacts on the forum, don't open his threads, or put him on ignore.




I thought with all the feedback this was something interesting. But alas it is just like the rest of his pix.


----------



## Juga (Nov 23, 2013)

IByte said:


> ....bacon & eggs anyone?



Bacon...of course!


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Nov 23, 2013)

slackercruster said:


> I thought with all the feedback this was something interesting. But alas it is just like the rest of his pix.


Well, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle "ilovemycam".


----------



## michael9000000 (Nov 23, 2013)

IByte said:


> ....bacon & eggs anyone?



Bacon...  with a side of more bacon...


----------

