Woman with umbrella #2

Why some people like this and others, like me, don't has got to be a matter of taste. The point about the subjects on the left and the right being disconnected and irrelevant to each other is the most striking and dissatisfying characteristic about it. Whether staged or not doesn't really matter. It may be technically deserving, but the photo doesn't make sense for me at all - it just seems uninterestingly odd. It must do something for the elves and the rest of the positive posters, and hence I take it as a matter of subjective taste. On the postitive side, the poto will serve nicely as foil for the next POW that I do like.

No doubt, there's something compelling about this photo. It reminds me, slightly, of that photo of Dali throwing a pitcher of water through the air, and a cat, and a chair, or something like that. Except that this one looks like you didn't have to pay or coerce anybody into posing for it, or wash them off afterwards.

 

That said, I have to agree that you've taken better. The xpan folder is beautiful, especially.

If you use a PS ruler from the horizon at the left to the horizon at the right, it becomes apparent that the "tilt" in that horizon is mostly, if not all, optical illusion. There is very little drop-off in the sea line at all from the left to the right. This illusion may have something to do with the landforms (one hazy or fogged-out, one dark and definite) overbalancing each other, the vignetting, or simply our human brains which have amphibian baggage down deep and like to see everything as a nice flat pond replete with tasty flies, and no complications.

That the illusion has fooled everyone (including me; I only checked it out after the "flaw" was first commented upon) just adds to the photo's interest, in my opinion. It amplifies the Dali-esque nature of the shot (with a dash of Fellini thrown in). And yes, there's Bergmann in there to. This really is like a still from a film, complete with cinemascope aspect ratio (which to us is new, but lighting photographers have been struggling with it since The Robe in the fifties).

The "tilt" also begs the question: should we get upset with a picture that appears to be tilted (or appears to have other types of flaws), when it can be shown empirically that it does not?

I liked this pic before the "ruler" torture test (and continue to like it after it passed with flying colors), because it needs a little (of my) brainwork to figure out, and invites me to concoct a story to justify it in my own head. Mark Richards used the word "engaging". Just so.

Bradleys other pictures are also very good, but this one was the most stimulating for me.

On a technical note, the vignetting in the Xpan is an unavoidable function of its lens system, which is basically medium format. Hasselblad reckon you can get rid of it (without using the compensating - and quite expensive - CWND filter) by stopping down and/or use of an enlarger to print. In my experience, the "stopping down" advice is hopeful at best on their parts, and the enlarger compensation is fine only if you use an enlarger and not a scanner. The CWND works best every time, but slows things down a lot (by a stop, actually) leaving you with an f5.6 lens to go on with. In short, you have to pick your shots. The XPan is no poor man's Leica with a motor drive. It requires a learning curve.

 

As someone who shoots a lot at the beach, I think it's a very nice shot, with what appears to me to be a lovely tonal range- the darkness of the image (perhaps my monitor, as always) really give it a darkness and ominous foreboding/strangeness that really appeals to me. It makes the jump from just a candid landscape to a symbolic one, with enough ambiguity to let you come back and view it again.

 

The sloping horizon is a bit of a bother, but I must admit that it took my coming back and looking a second time to notice it- probably the landmass at the right threw my eye off. I also agree with those who said that the seagulls at the left seem to interfere- but I would probably say to photoshop them out, rather than crop- the expansiveness of the shot seems an important aspect of the composition that would be injured by cropping. A larger image would help, but i would prefer even more to see a really big print of the thing; the squareish monitor always frustrates my viewing of panoramic prints, even at high dpi.

 

Though it is doubtless fat in the fire, I would also point out that these things are *always* a matter of taste, and perhaps humility from our weekly critics would be appreciated... Your own photos, Tris, seem extraordinarily banal and predictable to me, so perhaps you should carp less. I am certain there are those who find my own work (and certainly the little bit I uploaded however long ago) terrible as well, but I'm not claiming to be the world's prime arbiter of taste.

..and even better folder. The staged quality works great (even if it was unstaged).

Thank god for POW to point me to the nice stuff amidst 1/4 mill. pictures.

 

And also interesting to note the linear inverse relationship between the amount of criticism of some POW posters and the quality displayed in their own folder.

 

 

At first I thought that the horizon was level, but Photoshop proved me wrong once again, so I tried a 0.5 degree ccw turn and this is what I got: the same picture rotated 0.5 degrees. It's ironic that Tris' example is about the same size as the POW, although I too desire a larger image. However, the size is adequate and necessary for photo.net.

In the thumbnail format, this photo seemed to be a very promising work. I was expecting a painting like, moody and romantic picture. While looking at the full size, I was a bit disappointed . The main point that bothered me is the fact that the woman was watching the camera. One could say the photographer just didn't have the luck that his subject didn't take a more candid and elegant pose if he had no chance to speak to her while taking the picture. As a whole, this is a deserved POW, much better than some we saw in the past. But, for me, it's not an amazingly "great shot". Regarding the painting character of this shot, I can imagine a painter wouldn't pose the woman this way.

The woman asked if you were taking her photo... so when she realised that you were, how did she react?

I'm a '0 boat'- no uploads. With all due respect, and inspite of my weird writing style, I wish to

get involved.

 

Earlier in this thread I asked Brad Hanson a

question about whether or not 'candid' is, or should be an important element in his photo. I

asked it not as a challenge, or as a criticism.

I asked it because it appears the gal with the

umbrella has blown his cover; she sees the camera,

she's aware of a picture being taken, aware to the

point of exposing herself to the weather by lowering her umbrella. Now, compared to #1 her entire attitude has been affected by the presence of the camera. If this was intended fine, but it seems to me the surreal, or 'Dali-esque' quality that so many see here would be much more convincing if this gal was back under her umbrella, and not ogling the lens.

 

If the choice were only between umbrella #1 or

#2, I would take #1; it's sharper, has better tone, the bloody horizon looks straight, and the woman with the umbrella is left undisturbed.

 

My opinion, with all due respect.

 

 

http://www.grady.org/images/annoying_guy.jpg

Regarding the composition: At first I felt so-so. The horizon thing, bugged me yesterday, less today. The placement of the major elements seemed less interesting to me yesterday than it does today. My favorite part is the person sitting with their back toward us. That person is the bizarre element, the omen, the unsettling part. The regular-looking guy is stiff and easy to reckon with, the forground lady is doing whatever, and the inability to identify her expression is a bother, but there is enough there to assign no strong feelings or emotions. The standing birds are just doing their thing, oblivious on the log that looks sort of like a ray of light, and the main flying bird does add a nice dreamlike element...but then there's that third person.... that really makes the shot for me. While the overall image is kinda creepy, he or she is the part of the dream that makes it almost nightmarish (in a good way).

 

This looks like something from the inside of a Black Sabbath album.

 

Technically, I don't see so much the beauty of this camera in this shot, but then again I've long coveted one, but never have had one, so I can't say much about how this image compares to others that fall out of it.

 

I don't like the stick on the bottom, though it does sort of serve as an axis between the two seated persons who do mirror each other in another compositionally interesting component.

 

This is not among my favorite images and I really didn't agree with the initial raves, but it is growing on me.

 

Please post a bigger version somewhere. I really don't mind scrolling side to side if I can see more of the details.

 

Congratulations

It has potential...

There's something in the setting, that bothers me. I would have tried to go closer or somehow else tried to grow the distance between woman and two men, cause open space in left doesn't give so balanced picture. Or then i would have cut more out from right edge too. It's unusual moment, but the setting is what bothers my eye.

I like the work.. But "love" the rest of the folder. Thank you for the inspiration.

Sorry to be so harsh,but this photo really grates on my senses.

I'm still learning about my own responses to pictures,so i can't get the words together to explain most of my feelings about it.I do know though that B&W is VERY unflattering to the older women.

Oh one usefull thing i can think of -the two seperate 'stories' of the photo don't match and are being squeezed together by the vigneting.I wish we could see it much bigger.I know i would like it more then

Since today I find myself with more time, more energy, and, more important, more interest in this image (I was thinking about it during the day), let me see if I can take a crack at explaining, for Bruno's benefit, what there is about it that's "surreal" - and why it appeals to me. First, it's really almost two images in one; two scenes that are different, yet echo each other in somewhat subtle ways. We have the woman and the man and the seagull to our left; and the woman with her umbrella and the seagull to our right. The scene on the left appears to be completely unrelated to what's on the right, and yet the black figure sitting there looking out to sea could very well be the same figure that's looking at us on the right (we would be seeing the figure on the right from the seagull's point of view); meanwhile, the man has turned into her umbrella a la a dream. Got it? As a perhaps more technical aside, I like what the moderator said about that hovering seagull lifting this beyond the mean; I agree wholeheartedly; that's exactly what puts magic in this shot. In fact, its disparate elements work together to such effect, that, when I first saw it, I was sure it had all been arranged in Photoshop. It might still be interesting if it had been - but to capture all this together out of one true moment is a feat that gives it, to me, a greatly enhanced value. Why? For the same reason that a picture of purple pigs flying might be trite - unless they really were purple and really were flying, in which case the picture would be, while not nearly as subtle as this one, every bit as miraculous.

To the "panoramic" vs. "letterbox" question: a true panoramic camera uses a rotating lens. This pic could have been made with a 6x7 Pentax or suchlike and then cropped, a la "letterbox" format. I think that is what the elves meant by "letterbox": a cropped (or could'a-been cropped) medium format picture.

 

As to those who say that if a subject catches the photographer making the picture it disqualifies the resulting image as "candid": this is not true. As far as I know there is no "rule" that synonymises "candid" with "covert". To me, "candid" equates more to the concept of "unposed".

 

Re-look at the shot (as some have done already). There is a reaction there (in the woman with the umbrella), but to what stimulus? You could be banal and unimaginative and just say, "Well, Bradley said she was asking why he was taking her picture", or you could use your imaginations and read into the image another story altogether [insert favourite story here].

 

Bradley has associated the foreground with the background in an intriguing way, asking us to find the connection. I still haven't found it, but it keeps me interested. These people were there for a reason: what was it? The way the seagulls interleave between them is also cleverly captured. My guess is that Bradley waited for the right moment and didn't go off half-cocked like so many here think "candid" photographers should. He waited a second and made a more interesting composition than he might have if he'd just banged away. The woman realised he was taking photos and reacted a little. Where's the crime in that?

 

Your're looking at the work of someone who knows how to make a photograph interesting. Pity some of the louder-voiced above don't realise that.

The title is incorrect as my eye is drwn to the man feeding the seagulls, which to me is the main subject. You really have two pictures in one frame which is not acceptable as the eye is going back anf forth trying to decide where to land and enjoy the image. Next time pick one subject for the picture frame.

This picture grows on me more every day. I'm finding myself looking at it for a longer period of time every time. I would, however, like to see it quite a bit larger, as it seems everyone else would. Congrats on POW.

 

I'm also a little disappointed to have not seen the other version of this, "Woman with umbrella in pimp hat".

' "Candid" equates more to the concept of "unposed" '.

 

I agree. And we can also say the person who is unposed is not prejudiced or biased. However, I still feel the woman with the umbrella's behavior has been altered by her knowledge and awarness of the camera, which for me weakens the presentation.

 

The couple and the seagull suggest a relationship

with the scene- surreal if you will. The gal on the right is clearly involved in a relationship with the camera- hardly dream like. The main elements in this photo lack a common realtionship bonding them together to form a convincing, strong presentation. How about this: The woman with the umbrella is unbiased, frank, and shows no prejudice....concerning her relationship with the camera. For me this lack of cohesion renders the image haphazard, therefore less engaging.

 

For all I know there may be an umbrella #3:

'Woman saying cheese whilst waving her umbrella.'

 

I enter this with all due respect.

Mike, you have missed my point (because I didn't put it well, or fully). Marc Gouguenheim completed the argument when he correctly pointed out that the fourth protagonist in this picture is the photographer, by virtue of his being detected.

When I first saw this pic a couple of months ago the thought didn't cross my mind that the woman was reacting to the camera (although I agree that it looks like she is, now that I think about it). I was intrigued by the expression on her face and preferred to believe that there was a scenario to the image that invited my imagination to participate and fill in the details. "Preferred to believe..."? Better to say that I suspended disbelief.

Much of the best "candid" photography includes reactions to the camera. I am reminded of Cartier-Bresson's portfolio: there are numerous examples of subjects catching him out and he makes the best of it, turning the situation to his (and our) advantage. The HC-B classic posted above, Brussels, 1932, shows a less gross reaction to the photographer than in this POW, but is used to support my argument that it is possible to make great candid photography and also to participate in the scene from behind the camera. There are numerous examples of the same phenomenon among other great "candid" photographers.

I thnk that the photonettari (thank you for that word Morwen) are being a little too purist (if not puritanical) to expect every candid shot taken to NOT include reactions to the photographer. As long as the reaction is genuine and candid I have no problem, nor, I suggest, should you. "Reacting to a camera" is just as valid an emotion as any other. I know this sounds like sophistry and might be taken by some to mean that I am now defining "candid" photography too widely, but I'm prepared to defend the definition (or to amend it) if anyone wants to take issue with me.

"Candid photography" is a term that needs defining and discussion. It's proper use has troubled me for as long as I can remember.

'Reacting to a camera is just as valid an emotion as any other'.

 

I am in total agreement, and Bresson's example is one of the best. But, I'm here plugged into Photonet's PoW wondering why I can't see what so

many others are raving about.

 

I appreciate your thoughtful response, and look

forward to more of your comments.

This is really a rather wonderful image-probably one of the best I've seen "annointed" as POW. The eye is drawn between the woman with her enigmatic umbrella and the characters with the gulls. There is nothing discordant about the two points of interest, which is a nontrivial accomplishment. The surreal quality that it posesses is, I think, more of a cinematic quality (no doubt enhanced by the letterbox format of the image). One feels as if it were a film still or, more accurately, a film frame. As a result, we feel anticipation as though the action will continue to evolve.

Nicely done. You have a very full, impressive portfolio. Your Xpan work is fantastic and unique! I am also very jealous of your camera gear. All those Leica's... You have good taste. HEh, anyways back to the photo now. The DOF, focus and brilliant composition all make it great like any other good photograph. However, the objects have a randomness to them, the way they are placed that just makes me look and think about just what the hell is going on! It's like there's ten scenes in one. This looks like a great location-very photogenic. Congrats, and enjoy your week of fame.

From the Dictionary: of a photograph taken of a person or people, not artificial or posed; informal.

Synonyms spontaneous (1) , informal (1) , unplanned {plan (vt)} , casual (2) , unposed {pose1 (vt 1)} , impromptu

Similar Words unceremonious , improvisational {improvisation (n)} , unstudied , unaffected , unprepared , natural , extemporaneous. I'd call the above image "unposed", informal, natural -- even though the women is aware of the photographer. It is not as if the photographer placed people where they are and had them "pose" in a certain way... I think this kind of work can be called "candid". When I shoot people during an assignment - some images are completely "candid" and others are natural enough to look candid but are somewhat "planned". These, my clients' jokingly call "posed candids".. Posed because we are shooting the couple or a group at a specific location....but candid because I ask them to interact with each other as if I were not there. Happily, some people are able to relax and forget the camera. That is when I do get some precious "candid" emotions and interactions with a group or a couple as opposed to carefully and delibrately "posed" photographs.