This photo is the off-product of a recent photo shoot. I was wondering how well you think this conveys a certain message (and what message is that? ) thanks

peace_ martin

-- Martin Ceperley (martin@ceperley.com), September 16, 2000

Answers

I don't believe in "messages" - unless the art director puts them there himself in text!

But this would make a good editorial or advertising shot for any number of serious subjects involving young adults.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), September 16, 2000.

message

I looked at her expression and thought, "don't be looking at my boobs pervert." No really. That was my first thought about her expression when I looked at this image. The next impression I had was that of the typical teenager. Bored, tired, apprehensive? James

-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), September 16, 2000.

what's up with the disappointing tendency of many posters in this forum to consider poorly lighted images to be of such value? i don't think the photograph conveys *any* message, with the possible exception that opaque shadows are not inherently pleasing.

-- wayne harrison (wayno@netmcr.com), September 16, 2000.

yeah, I'd say the message is "the pin spot slipped down about 18 inches..." C'mon, this is what I'm talking about... hidden face pictures drive me nuts... they're not mysterious, they're just non-informative... I can't belive how many of the indie-musicians I know think the backs of their heads or hands in front of their faces are cool.... Meanwhile, they want to be famous, but no one could pick them out of a lineup based on their presskits... I'll never get it....

-- Chris Yeager (cyeager@ix.netcom.com), September 16, 2000.

Wayne, the term "poorly lighted" is subjective in about any kind of photography with the exception of a product shot.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@alaska.net), September 16, 2000.

tony: well, what expression of opinion, which is what any critical forum must comprise, is *not* subjective? surely you don't take the position that the impenetrable shadows on this girl's face are not a matter for fair comment, do you? mind you, tony, i don't expect to have my admittedly subjective observation of this or any other image accepted without question or disfavor; but i do believe such interaction is the only reason this place exists.

-- wayne harrison (wayno@netmcr.com), September 17, 2000.

I'm with wayne on this one. I can't think of a way to make this shadow contribute any line of thinking other than "whoa... that can't be right".

Even wierd cropping can't remove the lack of association between this fresh faced sophomore in her too tight tank top and the film noire/ Nosferatu lighting.

Can someone offer an explanation of what this lighting contributes to the image? What is the message, other than this is an "off-product"... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), September 17, 2000.

I think James M. nailed it. It's actually kind of amusing. The dark shadow on her face prevents it from grabbing your attention, so you're eyes are drawn to her chest. Then her expression becomes more meaningful!

-- Mike Dixon (burmashave@compuserve.com), September 17, 2000.

Re: Message in image?

thanks for the responses. after shooting several rolls of "well" lit shots, I saw something in this one not in the others, several elements combined to hint at something symbolic that (to me at least) had some deeper meaning; the masked anonymity of the face, the piercing eye, the blinding white chest, the prim straight hair. so I guess you guys are preoccupied with the dark face? (and yes, i had total control of lighting with reflectors, etc, this was not a mistake, very intentional, if unconventional) -martin

-- Martin Ceperley (martin@ceperley.com), September 17, 2000.

Yeah, this photograph does remind me of a movie still from one of those 30's horror flicks. So Tom I think you answered your own question, film noire, which is the message you seek. I can even hear the stringed, creepy horror music to go along with it. The provocation of other senses (however slight) is a legitimate factor in judging value, too. This sort of shot can be just as skillfully executed and enjoyed as art as the more commonly accepted, well lighted portrait. If there is the tendency in this forum to view photography taken with more obscure styles, I don't regard it as disappointing. The main reason I value this more than, maybe Wayne, Chris, and Tom, though, is the fact that it is a catch shot and not a posed one, er, that's what I assumed by "off-product" but maybe I'm wrong. I do respect your opinion, Wayne. The only reason I brought up the artphotoesque term "subjective" is maybe because there is a bit of a tug of war going on here between candid/photojournalistic/decisive moment kinds of shots, and, um, the "photo shoot."

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@alaska.net), September 17, 2000.

oops. I guess not. Still a cool photo, though! :-) (I don't know what "off-product" means.)

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@alaska.net), September 17, 2000.

Aside from its pragmatic uses, I really do like it a lot. At the very first I was tempted to say something about the shadow, but on second look, it's very imaginative and very striking. The hardest part about doing something truly original is not the criticism you'll receive from others, but getting past your own internal critic in the first place.

Since I'm trying to get started in wedding photography, I've been hanging around the Zuga discussion board (http://www.zuga.net/zuga/home/netset.htm). It's a very interesting perspective compared to both this board and my interests in fashion and celebrity portraiture. They are so hung up on traditional portrait techniques (ca. 1955) that they won't even consider really striking fashion or photojournalistic shots.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), September 17, 2000.

Hi Martin... what meaning do you ascribe to this image? It seems you get something that is not readily apparent to other viewers.

And John K, in what way would this be a "good editorial or advertising shot for any number of serious subjects involving young adults."? This observation seems to imply the possibility of a resident message. Or do you believe a message could be implanted by some omnipotent art director, that would legitimize this photographic treatment? (And as an aside, do you really believe that messages cannot be conveyed by a photograph without the art directors text? You really don't believe in messages? In any visual art, or is it just photography that has this lacking?)

Two points relevant to this photograph... Were the contrast lower in this "print" or the light more even (not both), more interpretive possibilities might come to my mind. And for this to be a still from some slasher flick, her expression just doesn't have the qualities of extreme character employed by that genre of movies, hapless victim or unwilling ditzy hero.

Wayne, regarding your observation regarding our willingness "to consider poorly lighted images to be of such value". This is probably due to the appreciation of subjective qualities even at the expense of objective qualities (no, Tony, this is not ArtSpeak, check the dictionary). We want to viewers to consider something of our subjects other that their objective qualities. A real challenge for the visual arts with which tangible objects attempt to convey intangible qualities (not ArtSpeak). It's why there is so much unsuccessful art creating in the name of good intentions, we don't always know what we're doing! It's an ongoing, intuitive process. But we can't help (and won't stop) trying. Contrast this with advertising which has a very specific goal... create desire.

And by the way, in the history of famous photography, are there no effective images made, in really bad light? Arnold Newman's photo of the Nazi Industrialist comes to my mind... bad, but perfect for the subject, light...(a considerable contrast to this image, which utilizes bad, but inappropriate light, in the attempt to convey an intangible, subjective quality not actually in the young girl. Maybe that's what the real problem is here, this girl looks like she's pretending ("Acting!" says John Lovett). Keep trying Martin, Wayne will let you know when it works!... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), September 18, 2000.

No, I don't believe photographs can have "messages" without, for example, a headline to give them context. However, there is a semiotics of photography which we all draw upon. (And there is a big difference between the two.)

Analyzed as an editorial shot, this offers several obvious, almost cliched, elements: a young, moderately attractive woman (attractive enough to desire/identify with without obviously being a model and therefore artificial), a serious expression, and a partial masking of identity: the perfect combination to accompany a serious article on a senstive subject.

Analyzed as a portrait (without the added context of an accompanying article) the semiotic field becomes much larger and hence more problematic. Now we start to question why each of those elements is there and handled in that particular manner, and now we have multiple, often conflicting interpretations (messages), including the one that there is no message at all, only bad photography.

Analyzed as fashion (with the necessary adjunct of only a brand name - perhaps a Tommy Girl logo), the semiotic field diminishes again. We know the picture has been crafted with a great attention to detail and is directed at us explicitly. Her inscrutability is purposeful, as is her mundane attractiveness. Ironically, fashion photography, as all good advertising, is primarily about attitude and not product. How better to declare our individuality than to wear the logo that we identify with this girl's problematic attitude? (Regardless of the fact that thousands of others are doing exactly the same thing.)

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), September 18, 2000.

Jeez, sorry I asked...

What is your opinion about "reductionist thinking"? Do you find it productive? Useful? Stultifying?... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), September 19, 2000.

I love it. The message I get is "Your wife is about to slap the back of your head". In regard to the technical qualities- I think it like a dropped beat in jazz. You're boppin along with him, and he doesn't play that note, and you're like cool, baby, cool.... Or you don't dig it. Either way. Perfection can be boring

Andy

-- Andy McLeod (andrewmcleod@usa.net), September 19, 2000.