Martha, in between brain surgeries

<center>

<img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display.tcl?photo_id=32547&size=lg">

<p><i>Martha, in between brain surgeries, May 2000.</i></p>

</center>

...looking to find out just how much information I need to add to

make these images stand out on their own... part of a series at <a

href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation.tcl?

presentation_id=14965">http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation.tcl?

presentation_id=14965</a>.

This is one of the most poignant portraits I have ever seen. So

straight, so unembellished, so honorable. How have you come to

this?... t <p>I needed so badly to see this image tonight, please

tell Martha I will think well of her, and often.

I don't think you need the heartstring-tugging label. The photo is

powerful enough on its own, and has that sense of grace and empathy

that I love in all my favourite portraits. Congratulations.

The title is bare necessities information. It informs without

constraining the imagination. To leave this image untitled would be

almost mis-informing. <p>After seeing this portrait last night, I

wondered about the date of exposure, and what had come before, and

what might have happened after and what might yet come to be. It made

me want to know, it made me care... t

<P>Buddy, I've been looking at your site. You got the touch, dude, if

you're only 19, you totally rule. Follow your eye, trust it,

it's good. Here's a few things-</P>

<P>Don't show the ones that aren't lit right, are too dark, or have

nothing in focus. (Maybe its your scanner, but you've got

a few of these.) Maybe you've figured this out already. I keep these

almost-theres in a "sketchbook", I look at them

often for ideas, but i don't show them like they were finished. Some

people on this list think technical failures are artistic,

and maybe they're right, but you've got other work to do than spending

time defending that position. </P>

<P>This one for example doesn't look sharp, and it should. The print

probably is. Every time you scan you should run the sharpening

command on whatever program you're using before you save the file....

</P>

<P>You don't have to add any information to these images to make them

stand out- they're doing that already. An image should work

without a caption- Like songwriters who spend a half an hour

introducing a three minute song- let the song explain itself- if it's

good it will. You almost can't get around not having captions, but

keep them short and in the background....</P>

<P>I just read a biography of Diane Arbus by a woman named Patricia

Boswell. There were many insights into what makes a photographer

an artist in this book. One of them was (paraphrased): "In great

portraits, there is a moment of connection, or transference

between the photographer and the model that is visible in the

photograph..."</p>

<p>You've got this going on all over the place. Don't look back...</p>

<p>Scanned on a $45 budget flatbed. Some of the unsharp ones are due

to the fact that I was using my hand as a shutter. The shutter

problem is solved (this one I used a Packard), and eventually I'll

get the negs scanned commercially. Also, take into account the DOF of

a 300mm lens on 4x5.

<p>With regard to captions-- some of the feedback I get is that my

images don't always stand on their own-- that more information is

needed. I partially disagree about images working without captions; I

can think of numerous examples where the caption absolutely makes the

picture (some of Avedon's American West series images come to mine).

<p>I think that it's not just the image that speaks to the viewer,

but often the entire presentation: is it large or small, in what

context is the image presented (a crowded gallery or your bedroom

computer screen), what images immediately precede and follow it, the

frame/mat, any previous information you have about the photographer,

and, indeed, the caption-- all these factor into how much and what

kind of impact a photograph can have. That said, the image *is* the

most important part of the equation, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum.

<p>Do you think the image above would have had the same impact had

the caption not accompanied it? This is an honest question, not a

rhetorical one.

<p>mine == mind...

<p>boy, LUSENET sure does need a preview function...

I absolutely think it would stand on its own, especially if the print

is better technically than the scan. It could just be called "Martha".

Let the viewer bring the meaning, man... it's worth a try-

A little more-

>Do you think the image above would have had the same impact had the

caption not accompanied it?

<p>

I think you mean the same intensity of impact. It would not have had

the same impact because we would not know she was dealing with a

serious medical problem. I think it would have had a different impact

but just as real and as intense- and you would be responsible for it,

not the fact of her brain surgery. When you bring her surgery into it,

the focus goes to her as a person and as a story, and you start

talking about "how is she now?" and "how's she taking it?" and the

picture is, well, less considered. I mean, this captions OK, but I

think you should keep them minimal. I think "story-captions" are

cheating, even when Avedon does it. Probably especially when Avedon

does it.

<p>

One thing about young artists who are good is that sometimes they

don't know how good they are. Trust me, you're good without the help.

I like some of the dark ones, particularly Kristen S. and Julia W. I

think they are very strong, just as this one is.

This is a beautiful and powerful portrait that portrays warmth and a

deep sense of caring and sweetness in your subject, title

notwithstanding. I am immediately taken with her eyes and the sense

of calmness. It may actually be therapeutic to simply gaze into this

photograph! I hope you are proud of this nice work, and I wish her

the happiest outcome.

"Q. Do you think the image above would have had the same impact had

the caption not accompanied it?"<p>

A. "To leave this image untitled would be almost mis-informing."<p>It

doesn't matter a rat's ass that this image is not sharp, except to

another photographer. This image is not detail dependant. Her

expression of experience is incredibly eloquent (take <i>that</i> Mr-

Alliteration Gray!) and any softness from subject motion that may be

evident (I didn't notice) only enhances my vicariously granted

knowledge of who she is, and what she may be feeling. Unsure, perhaps

a little clouded and living simultaneously in her past and future,

and not so much the "now". Unsharp? So what? Less? Not!<p>As for

Chris's suggestion to "Let the viewer bring the meaning, man.." what

message might a veiwer bring, that could have the impact of this

"title", that carry such importance to her, yet actually changes our

lives so little. A uniquely solitary experience that we observe, from

so far outside her life.<p> Hold your hand up to bifurcate her face,

and see the duality of her life...t<p> p.s. Hey!... is <i>is</i>

dated! That's all I need.

this is indeed a lovely piece of work, for which technical excellence

is the least important factor. the most striking feature of the

image is its utter lack of artifice.

btw, t meyer: your perception of the "duality" was very

moving. it is the precise reason why the picture needs no title.

A good caption can add meaning and greater significance to a great

image, a good caption can do little to save a mediocre image. This

image is truly honest, wonderful, and powerful without artifice. It

reminds me of a quote from a movie "I must not fear. Fear is the mind-

killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I

will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me."

Paul Atredies in Dune

<p>

As for the technical comments, well from my humble perspective there

is NOTHING you could have done to make this image any better, I'll

leave it at that. A work of art is completed when your mind is

satiated, not when you run out of material.

Your subject popped into my head as I was recently pondering other

things. One of these days I may have to endure brain surgery to

remove a colloid cyst, and I have a friend whose wife just had some

different kind of brain surgery, and she is fully recovered. But the

point of my post is that your photograph here has a lot of power and

staying effect to remain in my memory after viewing it some time ago.

I think there's a lot in this photograph that transcends most

people's impressions or expectations of what photography really is, or

what it can be. Thank you, Josh.

I've been wanting to respond in more length to this, but Real Life

keeps interfering with my internet surfing and has stopped me getting

beyond the factual and easy in my photo.net dabblings.

<p>

I'm sure part of the reason I like this so much is that it feels

honest. She has that look of chronic worry which, sadly, most of us

have at one time or another seen on the faces of friends, relatives or

collegues, if not in the mirror. It is a very different look from the

usual nerves and awkwardnesses which bubble up when 'real' people are

put in front of a camera. There is a clear feeling of genuine angst.

<p>

Tom seems to think I was being flippant in my first response, but I

was really just answering the question. The film-holder marks and

feathered edges says this isn't just a 'straight' presentation of an

honest portrait, but is the product of a photographer thinking about

how to present an image, and prepared to use props which are mostly

appreciated only by other photographers. As such, it is not

inappropriate to go beyond the raw empathy stirred up by the photo,

and think explicitly about its presentation.

<p>

First, this doesn't have to be a portrait of Martha at a particular

time of her life. It is strong enough to stand as a depiction of

gnawing concern in general, and then the title reduces the potential

range of responses of the viewer. I also get an annoying feel that

I'm being told how I should respond emotionally, when the image simply

doesn't need it.

<p>

One of the rewarding things about photography is how different people

can love the same image for different reasons, and allowing this one

to resonate with those who have seen or experienced this emotion,

whatever its cause, would make it more of a universal photo and less

of a frozen moment in one specific life. In this line, I don't

actually care if Martha is a model - it doesn't detract from the power

of the photo.

<p>

I also, and this is a personal thing, strongly dislike the way that

well-meaning society aids a serious disease in taking over a person's

whole life. Catharsis is an undoubted boon, but it's very easy for

people to become nothing more than a symbol for an illness. The

important thing in this photo for people who don't know Martha is that

she is deeply worried, the cause of that worry is secondary.

<p>

I hope this doesn't sound callous or snide. Thanks Josh for an image

which goes well beyond the ordinary.