It's so flawed, but I like it

I'm putting this here because it isn't suited to the No Words forum. I think each image needs some explanation, and critique is welcome too. If you've got something not quite right, but still enjoy it, here's the thread!

 

I shot this many decades ago at a school board meeting in Vermont. It was probably Tri-X and Accufine or something similar. The negative was destroyed in a darkroom accident so all I have are scans of a print. There are blown out areas, the expressions are all different, but I've always just like the thing.

In the old days (why do so many of my responses start off thusly?), the goal was first of all to get the picture.

Details like sharpness and grain were not the be-all and end-all that they seem to be for so many today.

I think the picture captures the nature of such meetings.

 

I, personally, would kick up the contrast, etc. so:

 

but I consider the 'thin' look of your original print to work fine, too, since so many 'available darkness' shots at the time had that 'look'.

Having sat through many board meetings, this image "speaks, no screams" to/at me. The guy in the stripe shirt is thinking, "Will he ever shut up?" While the guy rubbing his eye is thinking, "My girl friend isn't going to wait much longer." The person rubbing their eye's on the right is is thinking, "I'm not paid enough for this." The gal in the middle right is thinking, "I may throw up." etc, The speaker is saying, "Bueller, Bueller, Ferris Bueller...?" This kind of stuff can really go on for hours. They're probably debating changing the milk vendor.

 

Conrad, this would fit perfectly in the No Words forum, but thanks for dropping it here first. I do prefer JDMvW's interpretation.

 

In No Words, start a thread, "Long and Boring", just for fun.

 

I see why you like it. It screams a story. The eye rubbing and the posture of the speaker vs. everyone else speaks volumes. Having shot back then, with all the limitations of the time, I have no technical advice. Perfectly timed, back when you had to time your shot!

I like t his simply because of the imagery but there are so many different ways to read things into this and that is really what makes this photo. I imagine it's a lot more mundane- as DC says above, "probably debating changing the milk vendor"- than it looks, but there is an air of tension along with fatigue, boredom, resignation,... Meanwhile the guy in the center looks as if he is indeed going on for hours.

 

The imagery is great all by itself, but consider all the directions one's imagination can go with this... and it takes it to whole other other levels.

It is flawed and I'm glad you like it. The higher contrast version posted brings out the flaws, especially the blown highlights, even more, so I'm not sure what the point of that was. But your original seems like it would be important if it documented a historical meeting, something newsworthy, etc. I can see why, if you know the people involved, it would be of importance to you. For me, not so much. Yes, good expressions captured, interesting gestures, a sense of what such a meeting might look and feel like and, as you say, a very flawed representation of it. I think you've described it accurately and no more needs to be made out of it. As the young-uns say, it is what it is.

For some people, inevitably, the technical always seems to be more important than the aesthetic. That's just the way we are.

For some people, inevitably, the technical always seems to be more important than the aesthetic. That's just the way we are.

If that’s in response to my comment, it doesn’t apply to me. I respond to each picture on its own, not to a generalized favoring of any element or aspect. Sometimes, aesthetics will be important, sometimes story, sometimes subject matter, sometimes technical quality. Most often it’s the interrelationship among them and not the priority of one of them that most affects my response and certainly my critique.

 

I thought my critique communicated some of the interrelationships of those aspects I’m talking about. I hope the photographer understands it as such.

The reason that this doesn't fit in the "No Words" section is that this is a news photograph. It's purpose is not to stand alone but to enhance or be enhanced by, words.

 

I don't think that a contract increase is what was needed. A better image could be made with a Levels adjustment to reset the black point without losing the mids that the contract adjustment effects.

 

As what it is, it's a fine image but there's not much to really say about it.

f that’s in response to my comment, it doesn’t apply to me

 

Then no need for your response.

 

And, BTW, the correction was actually done by setting the levels, not by tweaking the contrast slider. I was not trying to suggest any necessary way to achieve the result. It was by way of a quick illustration, not a finished edit.

Edited June 10, 2019 by JDMvW

Then no need for your response.

There was no need for your response either. It seems to me this forum is less driven by need than by a desire to engage with each other and be helpful to one another, which happens most often.

less driven by need than by a desire to engage with each other and be helpful to one another

 

so true.

The reason that this doesn't fit in the "No Words" section is that this is a news photograph. It's purpose is not to stand alone but to enhance or be enhanced by, words.

 

....

 

Not to argue, but I think that this image is more than news. It tells a story. To head up a No Words Thread titled, "Tedious or Boring", it'd be ideal.

Appreciate the comments. This is exactly why I didn't put it in No Words, as, in spite of being a photographer, or at least claiming to be, I need and want words. My hope was that others might also post examples of their own images they still have an affection for, in spite of not being quite perfect. The images of course, not the photographers!

It feels like a still frame from a film noir genre or one of the Oliver Stone movies set in the 70s. The thick rimmed glasses and back brushed hair speak of a different era. I find the postures of the people interesting and dcstep’s Interpretation too.

What is "flawed" anyway? Technical imperfection? A failure to convey intent? A violation of some 'rule'? I think this works pretty well, although it might benefit from some selective burning in the shadows.

Having sat through many board meetings, this image "speaks, no screams" to/at me.

This, I think, is the key to this image. Regardless the technical details or nuances of composition, this image captures a moment in time with which so many of us can identify. This is it's power as a documentary image. While I'm very sympathetic to JDM's adjustment, the original is all I really need. I can't tell how many meetings just like this one I've sat through, and I've been every one of these characters (caricatures?) at one time or another. I don't find this flawed in any way when approached as a documentary/journalistic effort. It grabs me and makes me feel guilty for every meeting I've ever let get out of hand. Like JDM, we could probably find ways to "improve" the technical presentation, but none of them will make the image more impactful than it already is. This makes the case for "f/8 and be there."

Edited June 11, 2019 by DavidTriplett

For some people, inevitably, the technical always seems to be more important than the aesthetic. That's just the way we are.

 

Some of us know little about the "rules" and technicality of photography, yet we know what we like when we see it (or shoot it), however "flawed".

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all "art" is subjective anyway.

I think it’s really worth thinking about all the ways Art is NOT subjective. What’s subjective are opinions about art. But art has many objective cultural and symbolic references, it has an objective and verifiable history, and much more. One of the most intriguing things about art is when the technical is used and experienced as the aesthetic and vice versa. There is much crossover. No one needs to know a lot about the technical aspects of photography or painting to be affected by them.

Yeah right o, Sam. I guess what I meant is that the viewing of art and the emotional responses of the viewer are subjective in nature. The rules and norms of any particular medium need not be known to a viewer of any art; anyone may like, dislike, or be affected by any work regardless of how "correct" it is. Or is not.

No one needs to know a lot about the technical aspects of photography or painting to be affected by them.

But well-founded knowledge is sure a big help when making or critiquing art. That's what makes the difference between dilettantes and masters. Even a rank amateur can sometimes get lucky (my own portfolio is ample evidence of this), while a master can and will predictably produce excellent results. Likewise, any doofus can say whether or not he likes or dislikes something, but it takes knowledge and insight (and experience?) to really evaluate art in a meaningful and useful way. This is not to discount the doofus' opinion. It's valid to him and to his experience. Yet there can be so much more in play than a simple gut reaction.

But well-founded knowledge is sure a big help when making or critiquing art. That's what makes the difference between dilettantes and masters. Even a rank amateur can sometimes get lucky (my own portfolio is ample evidence of this), while a master can and will predictably produce excellent results. Likewise, any doofus can say whether or not he likes or dislikes something, but it takes knowledge and insight (and experience?) to really evaluate art in a meaningful and useful way. This is not to discount the doofus' opinion. It's valid to him and to his experience. Yet there can be so much more in play than a simple gut reaction.

Absolutely. Again, the point being that subjectivity only gets us so far, in art and most other things ... even self-reflection which often comes with a sense of the other and our own other-ness, can demand some objectivity.

Edited June 13, 2019 by samstevens

a master can and will predictably produce excellent results

I think this is the rub. Nobody is obliged to “like” the master’s work but many who don’t like it and can still be objective may appreciate the mastery that went into it. “I like” is subjective. “It’s well done” can be much more objective. “The music suits the mood of the scene in the play but I don’t like the music” relates a more objective and less objective assessment. “The colors in that photo are reminiscent of early Italian Renaissance painting but I don’t care for the photo itself,” again, relates a more objective followed by a more subjective assessment.

but I don’t care for the photo itself

Being able to explain one's own aesthetic response is sometimes the most challenging issue, but it can also be enormously empowering for both the critiquer and the critiqued. Witness the responses we see in the Seeking Critique forum. Explicative critiques are the easiest to take without offense, while also offering the best learning opportunity. Still, I too frequently find myself having to acknowledge the technical qualities of certain photos while simultaneously admitting they are simply "not to my taste."

I guess what I meant is that the viewing of art and the emotional responses of the viewer are subjective in nature.

This is what I’m saying is worth thinking more objectively about. Not all emotional responses to art are subjective. The artist may work hard at eliciting an emotional response and is often successful. Emotional responses to Hitchcock’s Psycho vs. a Tracy-Hepburn romantic comedy are decidedly different not so much due to subjectivity but directly due to the character of the films themselves. We respond to cultural symbols and archetypes in art which are shared as much as subjective. I’m not denying the subjective aspect of individual emotional responses, but they take place in conjunction with much more objective aspects inherent in art as well. Artists work a lot within a language, even as they change and sometimes defy that language over time. Such a language depends on shared and recognizable, objective features. “The emotional response of the viewer is subjective” is as incomplete a statement, in my opinion, as “the emotional response of the viewer is objective.”

Edited June 13, 2019 by samstevens