Doubt

<blockquote>

<p>I don't believe there are dull subjects, only minds unable to interact with them at that time & place, for whatever reason.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. It's not where you are but who you are. It's changes. It changes. One day you got the most beautiful girl in the world and the next day you're down in the dumps. And it goes back and forth, back and forth. It's expectations. Something goes unfulfilled, something goes fulfilled.<br /> Chicago was my Paris. Maybe it'll ever be.<br /> Brussels is a city for surrealists and not for romantics looking for the ideal, <em>c'est la Belgique</em>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It was dawn when he said :<br /> ' Sire, now I have told you about all the cities I know.'<br /> ' There is still one of which you never speak.'<br /> Marco Polo bowed his head.<br /> 'Venice', said the Kahn.<br /> Marco smiled.<br /> 'Every time I describe a city, I say something about Venice.'</p>

<p>Italo Calvino, <em>Invisible Cities</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I hate to upset Newsweek polls, Paris afficionados or Venice visitors of some 800 years ago, but it is not a secret that the ultimate objective of many seeking a honeymoon trip may be Niagara Falls, although those newlyweds who also seek a sense of place to inspire them choose the walled city of old Québec.</p>

<p><strong>Phylo - "</strong>It's not where you are but who you are."</p>

<p>You know I agree with <em>that. </em>BTW, I love Calvino's Invisible Cities.</p>

<p>Ultimate objectives aside, here's a good essay on Niagara:</p>

<p>http://www.alecsoth.com/niagara/pages/frameset.html</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The temptation is to photograph the Golden Gate Bridge in the fog, because that is so quintessentially San Francisco. That often makes pictures of the Golden Gate Bridge postcard-like. A more personal story of the Golden Gate Bridge could capture it's uniqueness, it's uniqueness for the photographer, and transcend that uniqueness when viewers are moved by the universality of the feelings being expressed. The particular, the Golden Gate Bridge, is then imbued with personal but also universal emotional content. The Golden Gate Bridge in the fog, on the other hand, is simply the collision of two universals, and universal clichés at that. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, Fred, I think that I might have to debate you respectfully on this point.</p>

<p>I have a couple of photos of the Golden Gate Bridge in the fog but I didn't take them because I wanted to mimic a <em>cliché</em>. In fact, the sun was shining and the whole bridge was in clear view when I arrived that day. I could never have anticipated the wonder that I was about to witness, and I have never had the chance to witness it again even though I visit California frequently.</p>

<p>I was trying out compositions along Conzelman Road with my 4x5 - it takes a while to switch lenses, re-focus, and re-compose with a view camera - when I began to notice the slightest whisps of what I believed to be haze enter my view. At first I thought my eyes were playing tricks on me, but more and more fog floated in from the west. Over the course of about 20 to 25 minutes the bridge went from being clearly visible in bright sunlight to being fully engulfed in eerie fog. The temperature dropped 15 or 20 degrees as this happened.</p>

<p>I photographed the whole event with my two cameras (film 4x5 and digital SLR). It was amazing. I'm from the Northeast and I've never seen anything like it. Most of the people I know have never seen anything like it.</p>

<p>I display those photos proudly and I find them very pleasing. If some Californian wants to call them <em>cliché</em>, well, I'm sure that we have all photographed things that others have photographed before us. Their photos of Times Square and the Wall Street Bull seem cliché to me. </p>

<p>Someone could conclude that my foggy bridge pictures are officially the worst photos ever taken and call me the laughing stock of the photographic world for taking them, and it wouldn't bother me at all. Just being there to witness what happened that day was one of the great visual experiences of my life, and to have photos of the event, especially the ones on chromes that I raced to focus and meter as the fog monster was eating up big chunks of my subject, well, I love those shots unconditionally, I think that a handful of them are absolutely stunning, and no criticism from any quarter will ever make me think differently about them.</p>

<p>:-D</p>

 

<p><strong>Luis </strong>the "we" and "all of us" whas not meant literally but just meant that it is not delimited to a few individuals. </p>

<p>When it comes to surrealists in Brussels, <strong>Phylo</strong>, I'm not sure I have met many surrealists walking around in Brussels these days, just like I don't meet many impressionists in Paris. It's gone years ago. Whether the whole question of essence is a romantic idea of places, might be right. However "romantic" does not mean nice and beautiful but mysterious and something more than what you see immediately and spontaneously around you, like in <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Caspar_David_Friedrich_032.jpg"> Casper Friedrich</a>'s paintings and in the Byron tradition as he saw Venise or high mountains.<br>

<br /> <em>I live not in myself but I become </em><br /> <em>Portion of that around me; and to me, </em><br /> <em>High mountains are a feeling</em></p>

<p><strong>Arthur</strong>, if you for a moment go just one step outside your daily horizon you will discover that there are worlds out their where no-one, not one single newly married couple would never ever dream of going to the Niagara Falls for a honeymoon (sorry ! you might find one or two exceptions to the rule). Take care, they might not speak American out there. It is somewhat strange.<br /><br /></p>

<p>Dan, I think photos of a stunning visual event are one thing and photos that are themselves a visual event are another. That is meant to take nothing away from your photos, obviously because I've never seen them. Your confidence in accepting no criticism whatsoever from any quarter is noteworthy, though I certainly hope you know I wasn't criticizing you or your photos.</p>

<p>If anyone is still interested in Paris after the discussions above I would recommend reading <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Parisians-Adventure-History-Graham-Robb/dp/0330452444">Graham Robb</a>'s book "Parisians" (Picador), which is a well researched and written book on the history of the city, or his previous book on France. Here is a good <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/7521268/Parisians-by-Graham-Robb-review.html">review</a> of the book.</p>

<p>Anders, like French cooking, anything dealing with Paris is worth savouring, especially if it is written from the viewpoint of a countryman of Peter Mayle. Having a Frenchman's (or Frenchwoman's) viewpoint would also be of great interest (like a Belgian's of Brussels, or the country).</p>

<p>In the same sense, I doubt many non-North Americans would think twice about celebrating their nuptials at Niagara, unless it was perhaps in the pretty town of Niagara-on-the-Lake, in the nearby wine-growing region, but many North American newlweds seem to think quite otherwise (it's a tradition for some). Perhaps the motive power of the falls is stimulating?</p>

<p>Condé Naste publications rated (I don't have this year's figures) la belle ville de Québec as number 4 on the tourist (conference) wish list for N.A. It certainly has an unmistakable essence, and that doesn't at all smell of poutine (which you should go to Drummondville near Montréal to sample). But we locals like to keep Quebec a bit secret.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Arthur I have visited your secrete city and like it very much. Don't tell anybody!</p>

Fred, no worries. First of all I realize that you were not critiquing any particular photo and that you have never seen the

photo that I mentioned.

 

Secondly, I know that there is plenty to criticize in my portfolio. I proudly accept the title of My Own Worst Critic because

without criticism we never improve. I welcome criticism in the vast majority of instances, but in a few cases, such as this

one, critical words would not matter to me. The event of watching the bridge disappear in fog was a special thing to

witness, and I shall always savor the memory of it.

 

Finally, you are a bright fellow and since I have neve detected in you any type of axe to grind (a rarity on the web!), I

would welcome your criticism on any image or any other topic at any time. I have no doubt that it would contain valuable

insights that come from a thoughtful examination of the subject.

Anders,

 

I wanted to say that your photos of Paris are wonderful. I don't see photos of a famous city so much as I see your own

unique, complex, and sensitive reaction to that city. You have made a statement well beyond 'this is what Paris looks like'

and more into the dimension of 'this is who I am, and I'll show you who I am through my impressions of a famous place,

impressions that will give you an entirely new perspective on a place that you thought you knew well'.

 

Thanks so much for sharing these delightful images.

<p>Dan, thanks for that!</p>

<p>There is a more important theme regarding doubt. All people doubt, but when they do, is it an appropriate time? When I am working (shooting weddings and events) if I doubt, I fail. I cannot spend my energy questioning "how" I am doing, rather I need to be totally in the moment of "what" I am doing. There is no place for doubt there. Then, if you are finished and you begin to doubt what you've just done, it is a clear indication you need more practice. If the confidence is not there, the performance will suffer. It is no different in music. I was a professional musician for many years. After a while I was no longer nervous on stage. Why? I was prepared.<br>

The antidote of doubt is preparation. But then again, there are many forms of doubt and self-doubt is only one kind. You can doubt others as well. Or you can doubt the intentions of others. So doubt exists in many forms and I'm sure we have all been there.</p>