Jump to content

Looking at a photo for more than ten seconds


Recommended Posts

<p>When was the last time you looked at a photo, <em>other than one of your own</em>, for more than ten seconds?</p>

<p>... one ... two ... three ... four ... five ... six ... seven ... eight ... nine ... ten ...</p>

<p>Ten seconds is a pretty long time. <em>Why</em> did you look at it for that long? <em>Exactly</em> what were you looking <em>at</em>? In detail, please.</p>

<p>I am, this second realizing that my own report is not of a masterpiece of fine art (maybe I should quickly find one ... ). Oh well, I shall be honest and tell what is in fact the last ten-seconder as of this instant. </p>

<p>I was reading the recent <em>Aperture</em> article to do with Eggleston and sound, and in it, the author says something like "You do <em>not</em> want to leave your wife or girlfriend alone with this man." I'm thinking, "Huh?" Eggleston has always looked like kind of a lizard to me, but not a lady-killer. Anyway, at the end of the article, the author tells that he <em>did</em> leave his wife alone with Eggleston, and his recounting of what she told him happened then made me go and look for more than ten seconds at the picture that accompanies the article of the seventy+ year old Eggleston. He sure doesn't look like a hotty to me.</p>

<p>That's my ten-second look. If you've got one, please post. <em>Why</em> did you look at it for that long? <em>Exactly</em> what were you looking <em>at</em>? In detail, please.</p>

<p>[if requested, I'll quote what happened between Eggleston and the author's wife.]</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 208
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>Julie, are you looking at the <em>photo</em> of Eggleston for more than ten seconds or are you looking at <em>Eggleston</em> in the photo in an attempt to see why he's considered a lush to women which I imagine will require more than ten seconds? I guess sex really does sell but to see why from a still photo would seem to require more complex methods of examination.</p>

<p>I've done the same thing. But with regards to your OP I guess with your opening example you've set up a more compelling if not a bit more complicated situation for discussion by mentioning a written backstory accompanying the photo that seems to make it difficult to separate which of the two inputs influenced the amount of time the photo was looked at.</p>

<p>Though I've posted this photo before I know I've looked at it for more than ten seconds... http://s14.photobucket.com/user/andynuyen/media/gap.jpg.html</p>

<p>...but a large portion of that time has been viewing it stuck in my mind weeks after I closed the web page, so technically speaking I've looked at it way longer than I should.</p>

<p>In that time I kept asking myself why I hadn't I seen or noticed this aspect of the female figure as a teenager in the '70's where now it's become a "thang" starting some time in the '90's. Has the female figure evolved or morphed in that time span to make their "gap" more noticeable or does the gap represent something metaphysical similar to why there's a hole in a doughnut we don't pay attention to but yet we buy and eat doughnut holes. I admit it's a philosophically crude subject, but I can't get it out of my head for less than ten seconds. And I've REALLY TRIED!</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>... hmmm ... looking at Tim's picture, you can tell I'm not terribly interested in looking at women's asses, especially ones that are better than mine ... because I was mainly struck by the fact that she's standing in front of a toilet (why?? we don't pee that way!) and the toilet is *very* clean, which mine is not, at least not *that* clean. So, exiting my ten-second look, I'm basically feeling very inferior.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does a photograph reproduction of a

painting count? Three weeks ago, I

looked at a photo of a painting of a

beautifully drawn Muslim Obama with

long beard, large ears and them little

cap. It was wonderfully done, only with

slight embellishments, very realistic

unlike some badly drawn cartoon

characters. I looked at it three nights in

a row, each maybe 15-20 seconds,

debating whether to purchase it or

not...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Julie, moments before I read your post I was looking at one of Steve Gubin's latest shots here on PN, and it engaged me for at least a couple of minutes. Much of Steve's work is not quickly understood by me, yet there is something to it that is engaging. Specifically, I was looking at the characters in the shot, looking at expressions and interactions, looking for meaning below the surface, and wondering why Steve found the shot worthy of posting. Eventually, I hope to comment on the photo, but it's going to take more perusal. I find that it's often the case with me, that I'll spend some time with a photo, and come back to it later for more looking, before commenting on it.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>... hmmm ... looking at Tim's picture, you can tell I'm not terribly interested in looking at women's asses, especially ones that are better than mine ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My intent behind choosing that image, Julie, was not to entice as a gender specific item to ogle over, but to confront and understand what I perceive as a portion of my reptilian brain. It's one of many variety of reasons why anyone would look more than ten seconds at an image.</p>

<p>I am not one who seeks out these types of images. I may come across a nude maybe once a year. Even if my linked sample image was done in an artful style or as a painting similar to Leslie's example, I'ld still be looking and pondering over it more than ten seconds. There's a design aspect in the anatomy I've seen in industrial designs from automobiles to kitchenware I've spent some time attempting to dissect and analyze and I come up blank.</p>

<p>But then there is this landscape I've posted in another PN thread... http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=111143.0;attach=146110;image</p>

<p>I've looked at more than ten seconds and have bookmarked it. I just like the quality of tonality that gives this particular landscape a unique presence and sense of tranquility. I've not come across anything like it on the web.</p>

<p>So maybe another reason for looking at an image more than ten seconds is that the viewer knows or gets a very strong sense they're looking at something that's truly one of a kind that defies explanation.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Tim, your linked landscape requires me to log in, and I'm not registered there.</p>

<p>Just thinking about the variations in response so far, some seem to be because a picture <em>confirms</em> what one already feels while others are about discovering something new that one didn't feel before (Mark Zell's post in particular). On the latter, from poet Marianne Moore: "That which is able to change the heart proves itself."</p>

<p>I'm not sure how much one can really verbalize what or how something changes the heart, but I do think we know when it happens. Talking about such private inklings can develop the feeling, keep it from escaping or being lost/forgotten; but they can also displace it by wordy dissection.</p>

<p>If you've got a good ten-second picture, but don't like to 'why' it to death, I'd still be interested in 'what' you notice yourself looking at in that particular picture. </p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Julie, I have looked at quite a few images right here on PN for longer than 10 seconds. I've provided 2 examples.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/18274574<br>

This image is one of Alf Bailey's. Indeed, I have been following his landscape work for quite a while. This one, though, differs from his usual bill of fare because of its abstract quality.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/18276925<br>

I've also been dialed in to Jack McRitchie's work. Although he doesn't appear to engage in postprocessing, he nonetheless picks subjects that are off the beaten track enough to encourage me to not just to view their capture with my eyes but also with my full attention. This image fits that description.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Tim, your linked landscape requires me to log in, and I'm not registered there.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry about that, Julie. I sent a message over at LuLa to Erik Kaffehr, the photographer, where he provided a link to it from his personal gallery... http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Dolomites-West/i-xkLZ9tp/A</p>

<p>There are others in the Dolomite West gallery folder that are rendered with the same subtle tonality and color... http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Dolomites-West/i-85K7sdc</p>

<p>Of course I spent way over ten seconds looking through all of it. </p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I sometimes find it difficult to look at any art for an extended period of time. Especially upon first viewing. Greater appreciation for any photo or other art works for me comes from repeated visitations to the work. Yes sometimes something is so good it just captivates the eye but more often several visits have me looking deeper, contemplating more and seeing the things that avoided the eye in previous viewings.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>While Eggleston may not be considered movie star handsome, he is a very successful living artist and that alone can be very attractive to some women. Generally speaking artists, actors and musicians do not make enough money to make a living but something about being in these fields is attractive to some women and if you are one of the small percentage who achieves success then women will beat down your door.</p>

<p>As to the 10 seconds question, sure I do. Most of the pictures I look at these days are in museums so I have time to look and contemplate without distractions. I used to visit a lot of online forums especially those dedicated to street photography but I don't anymore. To be honest I didn't find much of the work in these forums any good. Furthermore, some of these forums tended to be curated by people with a particular taste that isn't my cup of tea and others were so cliquey that the same small number of people where the only ones posting pictures. I made the mistake once of pointing out some obvious flaws in one picture and I caught holy Hell for it not only from the photographer herself but the other clique members who previously gushed over the picture. Oh well, so much for constructive criticism I guess. Some pictures don't need more then ten seconds to figure them out. Some don't even need five. All great works of art reveal themselves slowly. For what it's worth I visit museums on a regular basis. I observe my fellow patrons when I do and for the most part 10 seconds is about the length of time most of them stand in front of a painting or sculpture or photograph. I'm talking about work from some of the biggest names in the history of art. They may add a few extra seconds to take a selfie in front of it as well but very often they rush from one work to the next. I wonder when they leave if they remember any of it. <br>

</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Tim, that landscape does have a nice atmospheric 3D quality to it. Can you tell me *what* you were looking at in the picture for ten seconds? Same to Michael Linder: <em>what</em> were you looking at in those two photos? Not what makes them good or bad, but simply <em>what were you looking at</em>.</p>

<p>What I really, really want is not just "I looked at this" but what you were <em>looking at</em> when you "looked at this."</p>

<p><em>Of course</em> everybody looks at some pictures for more then ten seconds. What I'm curious about is, taking your most recent ten-seconder, <em>no matter what it is</em>, and noticing what you were looking at. Something about it made you linger. If you did so for ten seconds, surely you can notice *what* it was that you were looking at.</p>

<p>For example, this morning I was leafing through two new books I just got. In <em>A Brush With Reality: Figurative Painting Today</em>, I passed <a href="https://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/bard_lacroix.jpg">this image</a> by François Bard, and paused. Then I continued. Not ten seconds, but a hiccup of interest. Got to the end and went back to it.</p>

<p>I stayed, thinking "Why isn't it a photograph even though it looks exactly like one in many ways? Why can't it be a photograph? I think it's the edges -- photos, no matter how sharp, always have a certain syrupy-ness to their edges, you can't get this kind of crusty color in a photo ... and he gets to pick out those specular notes on the face that don't cooperate in photos ... and he gets to have a uniform bluish tint with just that certain yellow ... boy does that face stare at me with force! ... that firm but not quite angry lower lip ... the 'maybe' quality of his friendly but stern stance, especially the shoulder ... " [<a href="https://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/bard_lacroix.jpg">link to the picture</a>]</p>

<p>That kind of thing is what I wish would be posted about your most recent ten-seconder.</p>

<p>The other book, Joel Meyerowitz's <em>Seeing Things: A Kid's Guide to Looking at Photographs</em>, I'm sorry to say, I just whizzed right through (I'll go back and read it closely later). This even though, or because all the photos it contains are very famous ones I know pretty much by heart; the two that I paused over were an Atget that I didn't remember (<em>Organ-grinder</em>), but I mainly looked at it to follow Meyerowitz's reading of the picture; and the well-known Winogrand picture of three (and a half) pairs of young people (five white women, one black man, and half of an older unpaired white man) on a park bench -- I'm looking at the feel of the interactions within and between the pairs -- as I have many times before, but it seems to attract me every time.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Not long ago, I was viewing Noah Weiner's "<a href=" Moving Through Trees 008 Through Trees 008</a>" for quite a while, on a tablet. I found that the parallax effect was greatly enhanced by zooming in quickly, then back out slowly. It made the entire viewing experience more immersive, putting me into a sort of dream state...driving along half asleep and watching those skeletal trees go by over and over again. As I wrote to him, I'm not sure if I could or would have tried that with a print, or if it's something that was revealed through that particular combination of content and delivery method.</p>

<p>Another recent image that held my attention for considerably more than 10 seconds was A.Ola Schmidt's "<a href=" Made alive  *A.Ola Schmidt Alive</a>". It's a nightmare in beige, connecting our world to Hieronymus Bosch's through writhing tentacles and matching tones. Is that inadequate fence keeping something horrible out, or in?<br>

<br /></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Tim, that landscape does have a nice atmospheric 3D quality to it. Can you tell me *what* you were looking at in the picture for ten seconds? Same to Michael Linder: <em>what</em> were you looking at in those two photos? Not what makes them good or bad, but simply <strong><em>what were you looking at</em>.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>In the landscape I was taking in the extreme realism of the overall image as if I was being transported to that place. My eyes wondered around noting the texture and warm green of the grassy rolling hills thinking I could role around on them without discomfort of any kind.</p>

<p>I looked at the construction and size of the small log cabin structures and marveled in their toy like smallness from their sharp detail against the wide open space and softness of the huge majestic mountain peaks in the background.</p>

<p>The random placement of elements within the composition projects to me an unassuming honesty from the photographer as if he was showing us how he was taken aback from coming upon the scene unexpectedly and resting a bit to take in the splendor and beauty as if discovering for the first time a hidden away part of Earth.</p>

<p>This helped me not interpret the intent as just another stock photo cutesy commercial contrivance in an attempt to pander to a broad audience. I think if I detected a rule of thirds or golden mean ratio within the composition I'ld most likely pass it by as just another commercial looking technically perfect stock image.</p>

<p>How's that, Julie?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Outstanding!! Just what I was hoping for. I have to tell you, though, the paragraph "The random placement of elements within the composition projects to me an unassuming honesty from the photographer as if he was showing us how he was taken aback from coming upon the scene unexpectedly and resting a bit to take in the splendor and beauty as if discovering for the first time a hidden away part of Earth," made me laugh out loud. You and I both know how incredibly hard one has to work to get that kind of nonchalant, just-happened-upon this look. Like those fashion models that the stylist works on for five hours to look like they just got out of bed looking that way ...</p>

<p>Thank you!!</p>

<p>Sean, the Schmidt picture got me for the full ten seconds (I feel like I'm in a bull-riding contest, though they go for thirty, I think ...). On first look, all the pipes seem to be with the fantasy group, which seemed to be <em>behind</em> the screen, but then I noticed the *real* pipes at the top and had to sort it out visually.</p>

<p>I really like those fat pipes, for some reason (have you seen the movie <em>Brazil</em> -- the scene where Robert DeNiro as plumber goes into Jonathan Pryce's apartment wall ... ?). Almost more than the creatures. I'm not crazy about the thought-balloon porcupine (and if that doesn't get the rest of you to look, you need another cup of coffee).</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>You and I both know how incredibly hard one has to work to get that kind of nonchalant, just-happened-upon this look. Like those fashion models that the stylist works on for five hours to look like they just got out of bed looking that way ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I thought the same thing and found from perusing Erik's gallery and in LuLa discussions with him over the years he's just a hobbyist photographer who has no art training. In fact he's more a technical person who likes discussing camera performance. He's not a personally complicated guy. </p>

<p>A better way to describe why Erik does by accident and ease what you and I try to do with great effort can be related to the plane ordinary flat look and feel provided by the actors in the movie "Napolean Dynamite" where the director used real people from the town (or at least it seemed to me) without acting knowledge to provide the spontaneity and lack of cinematic stylization. Rick Linklater used real people including some of his own family in his movie "Bernie" to great effect.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Why can't it be a photograph?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That Bard image really made me linger more than ten seconds and I got the same take on it as you describe. But then your mentioning why it can't be a photograph really got me to think about the internal and somewhat hidden language of intent in the actual creation of an image.</p>

<p>Paintings already convey a more personal and intimate connection to the subject in expressing intent through the language of interpretation by brush strokes of paint on canvas by the artist where a photograph projects a separation and distancing of the artist from the subject/scene by way of the technical process and the knowledge by the viewer that it's a recording of photons on light sensitive material or electronics, not a spontaneous response of brush strokes by human hand.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Now since Eggleston was mentioned here I'm going to turn the OP question around and ask whether a photographer should look at the scene they are shooting for more than ten seconds. As an example looking at Eggleston photographic excursion in this YouTube documentary segment makes me question whether we should as photographers stop over thinking (and gazing at scenes too long) our approach to what should be photographed...</p>

<p>

<p>I mean the guy just points and shoots. Not a very complicated guy it appears at least in the way he shoots. I don't know if I could do it like that. I think I wouldn't enjoy it much doing it that way.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Julie, Tim - In Alf's image, I was taken by the presence of areas of monochrome and other areas of slightly desaturated gold or yellow. Also, the detail seemed to lessen the closer my eye got to reflections in the water. Jack's image was totally a different story. In this instance, my attention was mainly on the composition - four framed portraits sitting on the floor of a school storage room and a chalice sitting on top of a student desk in front of the portraits.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Speaking of Eggleston, I have enough banal pictures of my own. When I shot them and looked at them, always longer then ten seconds, I thought they were the <em>cat's meow</em>. What I was impressed about, thinking about it in retrospect, was that I was forever capturing a slice of time which if you think about it is rather impressive just in itself. Even God himself doesn't do that as far as I can tell. I'm still impressed by that act, especially my own.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...