Three thinking

Black and white is a good choice here - the sense of sober seriousness that it conveys is appropriate to as historic and tragic event as the 9/11 attack was. The central panel is lovely - the photographer did well to create narrow depth of field; the tonal range in that photo looks just right and the level of detail in the rose is eye-catching. But I don't see this working well as a triptych. There's no flow across the three images; the transition from one to the next is jarring. There are also important weaknesses in the two outside images. In the left-hand image, I find the perspective distortion of the tall buildings to be a major distraction - I would have tried to correct this. I also see a halo around the edges of the buildings - usually a sign that more care needs to be applied to use of the Shadows/Highlights tool in Photoshop. As for the right-hand image, I would have cropped it from the top to remove the excessive white space, and from the left to remove the distracting edge of a building.

These interesting structures (reminiscent of the famous "Aqua Tower" in Chicago) are well-chosen subject matter for a black-and-white study. The photographer has done a good job of following the competition brief of presenting "a physically focused three-part view" of an object. The images flow nicely from one to the next, and each one presents a unique aspect of the towers. The progression from landscape to portrait to landscape format also works well. In architectural photography, where lines, curves and shapes are the key visual elements, I think that contrast is critical to evoking maximum visual appeal. But the photographer has produced all three photographs with muted contrast, which I see as an important weakness. Similarly, he/she might have waited for a day with blue skies - again, to create more contrast. I also see some compositional weaknesses in all three images. I would have cropped all of them more tightly to remove uninteresting background. And in the central image I would have cropped out (or positioned myself to eliminate) the building that intrudes into the lower left-hand corner.

There's something odd, unsettling and mysterious about this triptych, which is what elevates it above the realm of tired cliche ("little girl and her beloved doll") and makes it an outstanding piece of work. The girl holds the doll by the hand - a sign of affection - and yet she also looks away and lets it drag on the ground as if she is indifferent to her plaything. Her expression in the right-hand panel is inscrutable. Is she content? upset? about to go to bed? plotting to behave badly? The lighting and muted colours are perfectly moody; the girl's costume just right. Each pose is unique and adds its own value to the whole piece (though from a narrative perspective it might have made more sense to reverse the left and right-hand panels). Well done!

I admire the attention to detail that went into the production of this triptych. The photographer captured three distinct phases of the bird's flight and then arranged them carefully in an upward diagonal line. Nicely done! The choice of bird species (magpie??) is also worth noting - the highly contrasted black and white markings add visual energy. The overall effect is eye-catching. In future the photographer might consider applying his/her skill to more original subject matter. Birds (and dogs) were heavily relied upon as subjects in this particular competition!

Anyone who has children or has spent much time around little kids will look at this triptych and laugh. It captures a moment - and something about very young children - that is so true and familiar. Until they reach a certain age, kids can be totally oblivious to each other - each entirely absorbed in their own world - even when they are in close physical proximity. In the top panel the girl in pigtails appears to have eyes only for the camera, and seems completely unaware of the sleeping child. In the middle frame it's as if she suddenly discovers the presence of the other, and the third panel nicely completes the story. (Meantime, the other child remains oblivious throughout - perfect!) In addition, the level of technical execution of the three images is top-notch.

My only hesitation in awarding this triptych, is that cute kittens are the most tired of tired photographic cliches. (I say this as a cat lover and as someone who has taken plenty of photographs of cats!) But the photographer has managed to overcome that significant obstacle by producing a piece that manages to capture the essence of kitten-ish cuteness without being cloyingly kitschy or sentimental. And it works as a triptych - the sequence of images conveys the idea of a kitten being constantly in motion, curious, exploring. I appreciate all the work that must have gone into making this happen - cats CANNOT be posed! I wonder if the blue-ish color cast was intentional - if not, the photographer might have tried correcting it. Also, I would have loved to see this photo in black and white rather than color. Finally, I would have brightened up the images - they all look a little underexposed. But a fine effort overall.

The colours, textures, shapes and subject matter come together well as an abstraction. On the one hand it's not difficult to figure out that this is a swimming pool; on the other hand, the piece works well as a montage of lines, rectangles, reflections and contrasts. The three panels also work well together as a triptych. The arrangement is also a pleasing mix of symmetry and asymmetry - the left and right panels are identical in their components but differ in their proportions; a nice touch.

This works well as a play on a "real-life" triptych that so many of us have been involved in ourselves - the three shots in the automatic photo booth at the shopping mall where we try to look as ridiculous as possible. The model's poses are reminiscent of the kinds of silly faces any one of us would have made in the booth, and the photographer was careful to ensure that each pose was significantly different from the other two. The model's messy-bun hairdo adds to the overall whimsical feeling, as does the lighting.

There are interesting things here from both a technical and a narrative perspective. Technically, the photographer has created what could be (but isn't) a "virtual" triptych. In other words, I can imagine a scenario where this could have been one single image composed to look like a triptych, with the photographer standing between two bluish-white posts. But the photographer's notes suggest that he photographed the border image separately and then superimposed it (twice) over the central image to create a "real" triptych.

The narrative element is intriguing also. The composition implies an observer, but the beach is empty, so what is he observing? The Nivea ball hoop suggests people and play, but the beach in winter is empty, with only footprints to remind us of summer crowds.

I would have loved to have seen this image done in black-and-white. Also, I would have used the left panel to crop out the distracting headland at the edge of the central image.

The narrow depth of field here is a good decision, and the colors are enchanting. However, this piece has important weaknesses. The photographer's notes say that this is a single photograph split into three parts. So technically it doesn't meet the competition's key criterion for "triptych" - "three separate images" - as specified in the brief. But let's put that aside and suppose that these were three separate photographs. Presenting them as a triptych in this case adds no narrative value. The underlying story is "here is a bird sitting in a tree". You don't need a triptych to tell this story; it can be told with a single image. Also, the most interesting part of the triptych - the bird - is underexposed