LPS#3 Irregular: Linens from the Outlet

urbanaries

***link fixed***
My latest interpretation of "Irregular" ...comments welcome. This is an interesting challenge theme for sure!

richtersl

HAHAHAHA! I was wondering when someone was going to use "irregular" like that. Nice photo and nice conveyance of "irregular".

kingmamaof2

Wow, I love this picture, the exposure looks good and the conversion is awesome. Beautiful.

urbanaries

kingmamaof2 wrote:

Wow, I love this picture, the exposure looks good and the conversion is awesome. Beautiful.

thank you guys! glad the interpretation wasn't completely obscure!

I have worked a lot on the face shadows (it was almost completely backlit...had the flash inside the bathroom, and he's stepping out of it) so I'm glad I left them alone at a good spot. thanks for the feedback!

urbanaries

richtersl wrote:

HAHAHAHA! I was wondering when someone was going to use "irregular" like that. Nice photo and nice conveyance of "irregular".

thanks for the comments! its been floating in my head for a few days, just waiting for the right moment....lol

Robert

can't get the connection
Not being a parent, looking at the picture, lovely child – absolutely, but what has it to do with the theme? I am at a total loss here.
This is not actually meant as a critique. I am truly wondering.

richtersl

Robert wrote:

Not being a parent, looking at the picture, lovely child – absolutely, but what has it to do with the theme? I am at a total loss here.
This is not actually meant as a critique. I am truly wondering.

In the States we have stores that sell "irregulars" (items with slight flaws) at a substantial discount from what they would normally at regular retail store. To indicate that the items are irregular the tags would either have a small slit cut into them, or they would have the brand name crossed off like the towel in the picture.

photogmomma

I *finally* got it. LMAO!

Amazing shot.. I just love it. I like how you can see your son, but the towel is what stands out.

Can't believe it took me so long. *blush*

Robert

Thanks, no wonder I couldn’t figure that one out. I did notice the label. Thought it was an attempt to hide the brand name. I guess you got to know that to get the connection. Nice shot.

urbanaries

photogmomma wrote:

I *finally* got it. LMAO!

Amazing shot.. I just love it. I like how you can see your son, but the towel is what stands out.

Can't believe it took me so long. *blush*

well, it is definitely subtle....:D and i hope even if irregular doesn't hit the viewer over the head, he does look somewhat picturesque...(although I am obviously biased

glad you like it!

ChrisJ

I'm still not sure I see the irregular, but I really like this shot. Very nice B&W conversion.

urbanaries

ChrisJ wrote:

I'm still not sure I see the irregular, but I really like this shot. Very nice B&W conversion.

Men don't shop at 'outlets' as much as women do, but the interpretation does seem to be going over a lot of people's heads.

Have you ever bought something from Filene's or TJ Maxx that has a label cut off or marked through? That's what this image is about.

But if i have to keep explaining it, maybe the problem is the image's and not the viewer's?

Here's an edited version, does this say picturesque more than the image with the "irregular" label says irregular???

richtersl

Just a thought: take a look at the judge's list and see how many men there are versus women and then decide? Or caption the photo so as not to leave any doubt in anyone's mind?

But then your son is quite picturesque.

I thought the irregular/label idea was rather clever.

amy wilburn

hi lynne
I don't know...I really liked your take on irregular. I think it got the idea across and was a beautiful pic to boot. Of course I AM a woman, and one who lived next to a mini capital of outlets (Lancaster, PA). Have you checked? Are the judges predominantly male or female?

I, like many, have read definitions of picturesque since this contest began, and although accordingly a beautiful pic of your son should qualify we just can't be sure of what the judges will be thinking.

amy wilburn

hee
lol richtersl and I did NOT consult each other before posting

richtersl

Lmao!

amy wilburn wrote:

lol richtersl and I did NOT consult each other before posting

Nope that we didn't! :giggle

VisualXpressions

I'm a Guy, and I got it right away...
I wouldn't underestimate the things guys are aware of... any way I love the shot either way... the only question is... I don't see the label? am I missing something or just blind? It would be better as irregular if the label were visable...

Winston

urbanaries

VisualXpressions wrote:

I wouldn't underestimate the things guys are aware of... any way I love the shot either way... the only question is... I don't see the label? am I missing something or just blind? It would be better as irregular if the label were visable...

Winston

Thanks Winston, Amy and Linda for your feedback , I think I am going to leave it as is!!!

Winston, I cloned out the label in the second one entirely, so as to underscore a "pictureseque" interpretation...check the OP in this thread for the image I entered re: Irregular.

But linda is on to something...the title. apparently "Linens from the Outlet" isn't cutting it. any votes for:
"Check the Label"
"Items can not be resold"
"Seconds and Slight Irregulars" (ignoring Shay's request to omit the theme from titles)

or "A Manufacturer's Mulligan" (HA just kidding....well, maybe not.)

LiquidAir

"Seconds" is the term I know for goods not up to new quality. I am male, and I certainly have bought discount goods sold as seconds (I got a great Gortex jacket that way). This thread is the first place I had heard them called "Irregulars." Now that you say it, I realize that goods often become seconds because of some irregularity in the manufacturing (that was the story behind my jacket), so "Irregulars" makes sense. However, your shot doesn't actually tell that story; rather it relies on the viewer to know it. In that sense it comes precariously close to telling its story solely through the title which is what Shay warned us about in the OP for the entry thread.

Sadly, I don't have any real advice. It's a great shot one way or the other. The composition with the face and the lines in the towel is wonderful. Themes aside I think removing the tag makes it a better photo.

urbanaries

LiquidAir wrote:

In that sense it comes precariously close to telling its story solely through the title which is what Shay warned us about in the OP for the entry thread.

you may be right, that is certainly the question I was getting at. It seems to ride the subjective fence quite squarely, which isn't always a bad thing, just risky.

LiquidAir wrote:

Themes aside I think removing the tag makes it a better photo.

Yep, for the purposes of parenthood, the tag removed entirely is the keeper, for sure!

ChrisJ

urbanaries wrote:

Men don't shop at 'outlets' as much as women do, but the interpretation does seem to be going over a lot of people's heads.

Yep, I do understand irregulars, but like VisualXpressions, I just don't see the tag... can you describe where in the frame it is? (Or am I just hopelessly blind!)

amy wilburn

your titles
things that make you go 'hmmm,' winston and chris...

but anyways, lynne, it bothered me, too, during the last contest that so many of us were using 'humble' and 'stately' in our titles to explain the pictures...so much so that my daughter and I, apropos of nothing, laughingly took to inserting the two words willy nilly into our everyday conversation for some days to come (no offense intended, anyone)

it, however, did seem appropriate to use the words in some instances (like when vandana used an actual quote containing the word 'humble')

with that thinking, since towels such as these are actually called 'irregulars' I feel you could and should be forgiven for using the word in the title...my very long-winded way of telling you that I really like the title: 'seconds and slight irregulars' ...especially with the word 'slight' in there, just the way you may find the items advertised

amy wilburn

but...
...I would still check to see how many judges are male, and maybe how many are from the states:)

ChuckWC

ChrisJ wrote:

Yep, I do understand irregulars, but like VisualXpressions, I just don't see the tag... can you describe where in the frame it is? (Or am I just hopelessly blind!)

She edited it out, so the tag is no longer visible anywhere (even in the original post, the tag is gone).

ChrisJ

ChuckWC wrote:

She edited it out, so the tag is no longer visible anywhere (even in the original post, the tag is gone).

Got it, thanks. I must have been too slow to see the original.

System

FWIW ~ the tag is the only cue to irregularity. I liked it IN the pic. It stood out with the black line and really drew the eye from what is a wonderful image of your son. Would I leave it in for any reason other than the theme? No. But this is about the theme. With it in, the image needs no cheeky title leading the viewer toward the concept. IMHO that's a good thing. I don't think the image works as picturesque, at least not by definition.

Robert

I don’t recall that you have to specify the title when you enter the picture. So by leaving the tag on you could just leave it up to the judges to decide which, if not both themes apply in their eyes.

I do think though that you should have kept the original picture in your first post so that people can actually see the difference and judge by that rather than by something they are having explained to them.

amy wilburn

that's weird guys (Chuck and Robert) I still see the tag in her original post...there must be some difference between our computers???

ChrisJ

amy wilburn wrote:

that's weird guys (Chuck and Robert) I still see the tag in her original post...there must be some difference between our computers???

It's probably in your browser's cache. If you clear your cache and reload, I bet it will go away.

saurora

Well, Lynne changed the original post before I had a chance to comment. I totally understand the concept of the 'irregulars' in linens (hey! I'm a woman, aren't I???) But when I looked at your photo the first time, I was so awestruck by your sons' gorgeous eyelashes and the overall scene that I totally missed the black mark through the label. Then I read your comment about it and went back, and once again I was blown away by the shot in general and missed it again! Good grief! Finally.....I saw it. It just wasn't quite noticeable enough to compete with the strong image and it just seemed to get 'lost'. I didn't comment because I wanted to think about how you could make it more noticeable. So you've already solved the delima and I can quit fretting over it! Really nice image, Lynne, and why do boys have all the long eyelashes anyway??? :saurora

urbanaries

Robert wrote:

I don’t recall that you have to specify the title when you enter the picture. So by leaving the tag on you could just leave it up to the judges to decide which, if not both themes apply in their eyes.

I do think though that you should have kept the original picture in your first post so that people can actually see the difference and judge by that rather than by something they are having explained to them.

That was completely my error, I accidentally replaced the wrong image. The link should be fixed now. My apologies! Tag is in first, cloned out in 2nd.