PDN Photo of the Day

Los Jardines de México (Four Photos)

Los Jardines de México (Four Photos)

All photos © Janelle Lynch

Fine-art photographer Janelle Lynch’s work explores themes related to the life cycle and representations thereof in the urban and rural landscape. The images shown here are from Mexico City and Chiapas, and are part of her forthcoming book (Janelle Lynch: Los Jardines de México, Radius Books, Spring 2011).

The publication came about after the photographer was nominated for the Santa Fe Prize for Photography in 2009. As a nominee, Lynch was also invited to participate in Review Santa Fe, where she met acquisitions editor and Radius Books co-founder Darius Himes.

Posted in:







  1. Sorry, not quite sure why these are so special. They really say nothing of the space to me, and are rather dull in composition and colour to boot. Maybe an explanation would be in order for those of us too diminished in brain capacity to understand. Thanks….

  2. I loved these pictures, especially the first one. Such a beautiful light… I don’t understand the people asking for an explanation, not because I don’t believe their taste might differ, but how could an explanation make them enjoy something they didn’t enjoy in the first place? Either you like it, or you don’t, and if everybody liked the same thing, life would get quite dull.

  3. @Lounalune – No need to explain what the photo is about, just to explain why they were chosen as photo of the day, when there are about 40,000 similar shots in the amateur pool on flickr… I suspect yo might be a friend of the photographer, or of the person in charge of doling out this privilege…

  4. Also – I noticed that all four of the photographers that Jaqueline has promoted here have been women. I do hope that PDN isn’t condoning this sort or favouritism….

  5. Sorry “Confused” but you are incorrect (and confused). I’ve chosen many more than four photographers’ work to feature on POTD, both by men and women. I feature work I am interested in and captivated by regardless of whether the photographer is male or female.

  6. I meant to have said ‘the last four’, which is correct. It has been months since you chose a man’s work. Can you please give some sort of input as to how you picked these rather mediocre photos? There is nothing about them that distinguished them at all…

  7. Well again, I don’t go by the gender of the person in choosing the work. If I love the images, then I love the images. Maybe you need to see these in print to really appreciate their lushness and exquisite light. Radius Books is publishing a book on the work so I’m not alone in being a fan of Janelle Lynch’s images. That said, I’ve posted work I really like…I’m not saying everyone has to. I met Janelle once at Portfolio Review over a year ago and this is the first time I’ve been back in touch with her.

  8. Perhaps then it should be called “photo of the day that looks really good in an expensive print, but might not translate all that well to the venue that we’re presenting it in”. Catchy, no? Sorry – this is the type of photography that is designed for the artist who is as good at networking as they are aiming a camera. These could be taken anywhere, by practically anyone – I’ve seen literally thousands of similar photographs. I’m glad she has enough networking prowess to interest a publisher, but I bet if you hooked up 1000 photographers to a lie detector, you’d find the majority were in agreement with me.

  9. Eli – why? What gives you the authority to assume the mantle of judgment in this situation? You provide no context to your identity, you have said nothing in your comment that adds to the discussion, but you try and be clever. Why? It’s like playing pool with a rope….

  10. I like the third picture. There’s juxtaposition of the bench, which should be a place to relax, with the backdrop of power lines (encroaching industrialism). The addition of what looks like a desire line in the lower righthand corner adds a bit of mystery as well…

  11. Eli – don’t assume what others are just because you can’t muster up a better adjective … I at least made comment that was fleshed out – you have said nothing, not even an opinion – which I guess just leaves you merely a dick…

  12. Hey Confused – Most photographers make images because they love what they do. The images come from their heart, and you should respect that. Whether you like them or not is up to you, but you should not act like a 13 year old idiot by posting such inflammatory and ignorant comments. If you were actually a competent photographer who dedicated himself to the craft, you would not have the time or the need to say such things. It’s obvious that you’re angry because you tried to submit images for this feature and got rejected.

  13. Bloody hell Mike, you’re just like Kreskin! Why do you assume I’m a man? And I didn’t know you could submit things here – must try that some time if I decide to be a photogrpher….. thanks!

  14. Sorry for you “Confused”, I know you have some childhood issues to deal with, just know that someone out there loves you just the way you are. I hope that you will find someone to help you. I appreciate your need to reach out and vent to get the attention you need, although misplaced. Anyone can make images in any way they see fit. If this was your website and if you were Tobin, you could put up any images from any artist you see fit. Your opinion is duly noted. I would suggest others out there to ignore responses like yours since you have other problems that have nothing to do with photography.

  15. This sort of backlash toward anyone who expresses a negative opinion of something is what keeps almost all photo sites LAME.

    There’s NOTHING imflammatory or ignorant about : “I don’t get it. Maybe someone can explain why these were chosen.”

    Lounalune: There’s immense value in having context provided. For the person who looks at some photos and isn’t struck by them, having additional information about the motivation behind the photos allows that person to consider the motivation, goal, etc for a different perspective than the initial one.

    That said, Confused: Give up if you haven’t already. It’s clear nobody commenting here other than Boris has any interest in actual objective discussion.

  16. Jeff B, I don’t know if Confused was being entirely objective in stating his/her case. I don’t see what you’re meaning by backlash, since the dialogue seemed to spiral downward on both sides. I never mentioned whether I liked the images or not, but I also don’t think anyone here has to be socially distasteful (kind of Nietzsche-esque, although he had slightly more wit.) I particularly don’t understand what the whole statement here (I am referring to the images now, not the pointless and divergent conversation) is about. As far as a critique I feel that these images aren’t particularly strong. Some of the images place the compositional elements right in the middle – not always important, but in this case I don’t think it works. The subject matter is very intriguing, but I am not drawn to the images for very long. That may have something to do with the weakness of composition. I also disagree in terms of color. Color in nature isn’t usually vibrant as some magazines and pictorial essays would have you believe. Greenery is usually very drab and colorless in the type of lighting we see in these images, so I think the color is not an issue. I do think, however, that there needs to be a greater depth of image that could be achieved with a little more contrast. That alone would make the color pop a little more. Just because the prints are technically masterful doesn’t make the image just as masterful. I find the format – nearly a square – to be inhibiting the composition as well, it’s just my preference to have a landscape that’s a little wider than what is shown (i.e. panoramic.)

Top of Page