something murky

greenspun.com : LUSENET : People Photography : One Thread

Nobody's posted a new picture in a while, so I thought I'd toss one into the mix. The single criticism that I run into the most often is that my photos are too dark. Here's one for the critics.



-- Mike Dixon (burmashave@compuserve.com), August 29, 2000

Answers

well, mike, my monitor displays a very murky image which fails to represent any known reality; if the exercise was meant to present an abstract concept, i confess to failure to discern its meaning. all of which means that it will be received with great fanfare by most of the other participants in our little forum. one suggestion for the future: at least one area of the image should be blurred, not just underexposed. :)

-- wayne harrison (wayno@netmcr.com), August 29, 2000.

I think what has been happening here is that we are discovering the diversity of expectations from photography. In particular, Wayne says that this is an "image which fails to represent any known reality."

I have about fifty pieces of non-photographic art (unfortunately, I have to rotate it since it doesn't all fit)in my home. This comes from growing up in an artist-oriented family, knowing artists most of my life, and occasionally buying things that were appealing. None of them "represent any known reality" in the way in which Wayne intends it, and very little (non-photographic) art does this outside the commercial realm.

I would guess that Mike and I share the view that the photographs we take/make/create (I don't want to get into that rat's nest) are closer to the art that hangs on my walls than to National Geographic. They show reality at a very different level, one that is evocative of a variety of emotions, that searches for a deeper meaning than the physical. Because of this, it becomes not a record of something that was but a record of things we feel and think.

This doesn't deny the validity of record shots - as this would be if you could recognize the woman walking down the street after viewing the image - but it puts them in one specific place, which is outside of art. It's the difference between fiction and non-fiction. Maybe it's a closer analogy to the historical novel, or the autobiographical novel. Ballard's Emperor of the Sun (not the Spielberg movie which missed the point,) for example.

I commented on Mike's image in another forum, but let me say that it is not underexposed, there is a wide range of tones placed in a way to suite the image, and it succeeds at doing something that a "straight" shot wouldn't. It captures a mood, or a series of moods, and it does it well enough to make me imagine being somewhere else (now I'm not going to tell you where :-))

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), August 29, 2000.


The Murk Manifesto: More soot! More whitewash!

This is nice, but pretty conventional. It successfully creates a contemplative mood, there's too little individuality or character showing through the gloom. I can see it selling cures for vaguely embarassing intimate problems in the small-ad pages of Good Housekeeping.

-- Struan Gray (struan.gray@sljus.lu.se), August 29, 2000.


Well I4ll have to say that there4s some difference beween my first viewing of this image - which was in the morning with sunlight hitting the monitor at full blast - and my present viewing in a pitch dark room. Let4s just say that I4m seeing a little more now :) I think it shows a moment of great realism. As the same time it is dreamy. I assume that the subject is a woman, but I can4t tell for sure which is a really great attraction for me.

-- Christel Green (look.no@film.dk), August 29, 2000.

Wayne,

Do you ever look at clouds? (And see anything other than impending rain?)

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), August 29, 2000.



to john kantor: as a matter of fact, i have looked at clouds from both sides now. aside from that, i have seen cloud formations that are sufficient unto themselves to constitute a wonderful photograph. and i have never seen a bank of clouds that could have been improved, in terms of their visual impact upon me, the viewer, by bad focus, underexposure, or canting.

-- wayne harrison (wayno@netmcr.com), August 29, 2000.

murky

I find this image very nice. Different from most people images. Nice to see something out of the box. James

-- james (James_mickelson@hotmail.com), August 29, 2000.

I like this photograph, too. It makes me want to more thoroughly study my own pictures that first appear unprintable and maybe are too soon dismissed. Maybe if they are "worked" a bit more. Cool one, Mike!

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@alaska.net), August 29, 2000.

Thanks to everyone for their comments. A small ad in the back of Good Housekeeping concerning intimate problems? That's a pretty good one--I don't come across an original criticism very often.

Here's some more soot and whitewash, though with a different mood. This was shot a few minutes after the "mama's boy" image below.



-- Mike Dixon (burmashave@compuserve.com), August 29, 2000.


I have no idea why that didn't work. Let's try again.



-- Mike Dixon (burmashave@compuserve.com), August 29, 2000.



I like them both, having an affinity for mystery. Are you darkroom printing and then scanning the print? or going straight from the neg? You may have told me before, we talked about edges somewhere before...

I just wonder how much the technology you employ for reproduction influences the final appearance/characteristics of the image... like your signature color and film edge... and possibly tonal range/local contrast. Dodging/burning and "print" coloring/toning are such different processes in halides and pixtels... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), August 30, 2000.


"Sorry Mike, I don't like this one" would have been dull, wouldn't it?

I wasn't *just* trying to be clever. I like a lot of your images that I've seen here and elsewhere on the net. They have a coherence of mood and execution, but no sense of style for it's own sake. The first one maintains the grade visually, but not conceptually. The second is much better: the feeling that I'm looking at a real person makes me actually care that she's in a particular mood.

-- Struan Gray (struan.gray@sljus.lu.se), August 30, 2000.


Struan: Thank you for a very useful critique. Your first was funnier, but this one is much more informative. You seem to object to a sense of "art for art's sake" in the first one, and I recognize what you mean. One objective of the photo was to abstract her face down to the minimal features needed to convey a mood. Definitely an arty thing to do. I may try another print with greater facial detail (it's on the negative--it wasn't far underexposed) just to see how a less dramatic but more factual version of the image works. It's a valid criticism, but I don't think it's a serious flaw. It's a bit different than what I usually do, but they're my photos and I'll do what I damn well please. ; )

Tom: Almost all of my b&w images on the web are scans from prints. I can usually muddle through and get the computer to almost do what I want it to, but in the darkroom I can usually nail what I want pretty quickly. The jagged border on 35mm and the smooth black border on 645 come from negative carriers that have been filed out. I don't have any kind of objection to digital imaging (I may even be getting a good inkjet in to next few months for color printing and experimenting with b&w); I'm just much more comfortable and efficient working in a wet darkroom.

-- Mike Dixon (burmashave@compuserve.com), August 30, 2000.


I'm not sure a less dramatic presentation would make me any happier (unless she turns out to have a five-o'clock shadow). I *like* the way this is printed and I love your use of shadows and subject placement in general.

My problem with your first image is that there are loads of intimate, informal portraits of a beautiful girl looking thoughtful and pensive, and the technique is not enough to make this one stand out from the crowd. It's good, and successful, but for me it doesn't light a spark in the same way that, say, your ghost woman does.

I'm not on crusade, and I can live with people rejecting my opinion (happens all the time :-). Thanks for paying it some attention.

-- Struan Gray (struan.gray@sljus.lu.se), August 30, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ