Woman with umbrella #2

i believe two great questions STILL stand. i think it was nick who, what seems like eons ago, asked to some some effect (and morwen who succinctly broke it down) :

 

*when and why are we able to overlook technical deficiencies in an image?

i also wonder about tris' beef with the focus. when is lack of focus excusable? i don't know his work very well, but about Robert Frank?

 

and Tony's question (who should get extra credit, by the way, for excellent use of the word "cockamamey"):

 

*when is a candid a candid?

 

andre vuski

 

I'm thinking about rotating it 0.5 degrees counterclockwise every 24 hours, just to provide something else to discuss. It actually wasn't shot with an XPAN, but rather a Holga, which had such low resolution that I was able to cleverly disguise the wires holding the bird, and the slight beard growth on the man I hired to play the part of the woman with the umbrella. I thought it would pay off, but so far, the royalties haven't been enough to pay off the actors. I really didn't need to hire Gary Oldman to play the man on the left, but I wanted the best! All in all, a bad investment. Live and learn!

Regarding the size of the image, I chose the original size out of courtesy to those with slower connections, and the understanding that most viewers use less than 1024x768 resolution, which is also why almost everything on my own website is 300 pixels long. I no longer have the image to scan as it's framed and hanging locally in a show, at least until the end of the month. I'm therefore limited to my original .TIF, scanned on a crappy HP ScanJet 5200c. FWIW, I do not recommend that scanner. It's knockin' on heaven's door, and clutching it's pacemaker, begging for a few more precious moments of life. I'm thinking about pulling the plug when no one's looking...

Besides congratulating Mr Hanson for the most amusing post of the week, I just wnated to say a little thing to Kyle:

 

How much time people have depends on how they decide to organize their time and on how much money they can make in a short time, and on how much money they need, and on how much they care about this community or certain things that are going on here. No further comment.

 

Now, thanks to Andre Vuski for bringing back the very interesting topic proposed by Nick Scholte a millenium ago. i tried earlier, but it didn't quite work...

 

Dennis gave an highly precise answer to one of your 2 questions:

 

" We can overlook technical deficiencies in a photograph when they constitute the best compromise between our artistic vision and the limitations presented by our subject. The why part is explained by limiting factors that include equipment, film, time, motion, light and other environmental conditions. The skill part is in understanding these limiting factors and how to best use them to our advantage and not to our disadvantage."

 

I think this is just perfect.

 

I agree with Trish, and think the scan should be a larger file...I would really like to see the woman's face. Without that, the scene looks too anonymous..no point of connection.

 

However the style reminds me of Mario Giacomelli's work. Quite haunting

To take Tony Dummet's question in a slightly different direction: do people think it's getting harder to take candid photos without annoying people? I have a suspicion that once upon a time people were more relaxed about being photographed (unless they were in a Munich beer tent urinal)... whereas now there is so much awareness of papparazzi, the (dubious) belief that photographers can make money by snapping innocent passers-by and selling trendy BW prints, and a greater general defence of privacy and self.

 

If so, there are likely to be two consequences: 1. being an arrogant sh*t will be a qualification for street photography; 2. Eventually a politician in need of some votes will enact legislation to restrict photography without consent in public places. Opinions?

Welcome and congratulations Bradley.

 

I too would like to know if you had intended what, to many of us, are the surreal aspects of this photo. While the great thing about photography is that the results can often be interpreted in many ways (depending upon who's doing the looking), I tend to be a strong believer in artistic vision or, if you prefer, intent.

 

Now, as we all now, we can often be surprised by happy little accidents we didn't originally envision but, for me, I reserve the strongest praise for those results predicated by vision. So, was this a happy accident? an intended result? or do you think those of us seeing the surreal (existential) qualities are off our rockers?

I've never liked the term "candid photography," because it implies that the subject(s) of the photograph need to have been unaware that the photograph was taken. I guess the idea is that people are more likely to be themselves, to be in a 'natural' state of repose or activity if they are unaware of the photographer. I personally don't think this is the case. Personally, I prefer to say that I take pictures of people in situations - situational photography. Sometimes I do 'situationist photography' but that's something different altogether and would be very much off-topic.

 

I don't think that pictures in which the subject(s) are aware of the photographer are any less truthful than ones in which they aren't. They may be very different, but I don't think there's something intrinsically superior about candid photography.

 

The reason I said that I would be disappointed if I found out that this had been posed or contrived in some way (in my initial post WAY up on the top of the page) is that I think there's a big difference between saying: "Here is the world as it is, I have captured this slice of it for you with my camera," and saying, "Here is the world as I imagine it to be." I'm usually more interested in the world as it is than I am in the world as someone else imagines it. It makes me feel GOOD to know that somewhere in the world there is a woman sitting on a beach looking like she just came from a rainy-day funeral in Eastern Europe while other people hold conversations with birds.

 

As for arguments that the seagull could not have been posed: seagulls are surprisingly easy to manipulate using pieces of bread or popcorn. I had an interesting afternoon last summer with the seagull photographed above in Atlantic City, New Jersey. This wasn't a candid photograph.

 

 

 

 

I have no problem, as I said, with any rating system. But having all the same one would help. And anyway it matters very little in fact, because the whole thing is pure nonsense in all aspects as it is used.

 

This rating topic is not the most interesting I know of, by the way, and if some people would just stop MANIPULATING the system - I'm refering here to fakes and such -, I would just be happy enough...

 

I look at ratings as encouragements to people who show what the viewer calls interesting or good work. Period.

 

Other considerations about the system that I have already made elsewhere have absolutely no place here. So, I'll stop right here >>>>.

When you think of it, the word "candid" is more about openness of feelings in the subject than a technical matter of whether the camera's presence was detected. You might also consider the element of unpreparedness of the subject: a photograph taken in that time between detection of the camera and the setting-in of the subject's defence to the equipment's mini "invasion" of their life. In that short period between the detection and the freeze-up it might be said that many subjects are reacting to the person behind the camera in a human way, rather than as proprietors of a private property subject to the morality of trespass.

I nearly always use a normal focal-length lens for my candid work (as Bradley has done here). One of the unavoidable results of this is to force me to become physically closer to the subject than I otherwise might be with a telephoho lens. The normal lens forces me to become more involved in the subject and the scenario, sometimes to become part of it. I also very rarely crop my photos. These two disciplines (first only undertaken in unthinking conformance to "the rules" of candid photography as I saw them) have helped to keep me honest by forcing me to mix with my subjects on a human level and , as far as the no-cropping rule is concerned, to report back to base with an unedited rendition of what I saw and judged to be relevant at the time of making the photograph. This is a self-imposed method of making sure that I don't become merely voyeuristic, a photographic sniper picking off victims from the comfort of a safe "hide" off in the bushes. It doesn't always work and I disappoint myself on occasion. Sometimes I disappoint the subjects and they turn nasty on me. But what am I going to do? Open the back of the camera, pull out the film and give it to them by way of apology? No, I beat a hasty retreat (if possible with a "charming" grin on my face) and keep my film as evidence of the brief encounter between the recorder and the recorded.

Someone asked above about whether people in public are getting more and more touchy about having the pictures taken. No, I don't believe that is so, at least in my case. It's me who is becoming more self-conscious, not the people I photograph. The reason for this lies simply in the difference between being 48 and 24 years old.

I think Bradley's picture qualifies on any level as a "candid" shot. He has interacted with the woman with the umbrella on a human level. What she was saying to him exactly doesn't really matter. He has assembled what the elves called the "geometric objects" of the scene well, by hesitating before pressing the shutter button. If you've ever tried to capture a seagull flapping its wings (whilst juggling with other elements of a scene) you'll realise that this is no mean feat of reflex. There is craft and experience here, as well as his photographer's eye.

BEST PICTURE ON PHOTO.NET SO FAR

 

Each has his own opinion of the best picture on photonet, but by far the best picture on photonet I've seen is Daniel Bayer's Horses Under the Rainbow.

Smart and unusual picture.Very good catch.

Condradulations, Bradley, on a very unique and beautiful "moment in time". The picture and concept are excellent. I love the composition - just as is! However, I am a little dissapointed in the print. I know the XPan as well as other panoramic cameras tend to under expose on both ends. In fact there is a graduated filter that is designed to compensate for this! A tough problem to handle in printing. I guess what bothers me the most is the light sand in front of and around the lady with the umbrella. It looks like an attempt to dodge the lady and bring out more detail. If it is, might I suggest Photoshop for a more precise dodge. I also see burned out highlights in the log. This is such an outstanding image I would love to see a better print!!!!!!! Just one man's opinion.

Originally, I was attracted to this scene because of the unusual and dramatic lighting, which is pleasant byproduct of life in the Pacific Northwest. The background was dark (over Bainbridge Island in the distance) and the foreground was hazy but very bright. It looked like surreal cinematic lighting to me, which I enhanced further by pushing Tri-X one stop and using a medium yellow filter. It wasn't raining, nor did it look like rain, so it immediately struck me that the woman on the right was covering herself with an umbrella. I first took a shot of her, just on the right 1/4 of the frame, with a few of the omnipresent seagulls scattered on the left of the frame. I liked the cleanness of the shot, and stopped shooting. As I was putting my camera back into my Domke shoulder bag, I saw the couple on the left walk into the frame. I still didn't take my camera out until the seagulls came up to him. I immediately pulled out my camera, and when the gull was next to his hand, I composed and fired. The XPAN shutter release is smooth and quick, but still has a noticable lag compared to the Leica rangefinders, so this is probably 100ms later than I had originally intended. At the moment of the shutter release, who's sound was certainly muted by the wind and waves, the woman pulled away her umbrella, looking directly at me. At the time, I felt like this movement might have ruined what would have been a very Ingmar Berman/Seventh Seal film noir moment.

 

Honestly, I still feel that the shot would have been better if she had remained oblivious to me (and to the couple behind her), not to mention the fact that her movement caused me to jolt the camera just enough to tilt the horizon just enough to make it the topic of discussion. ;-) Like Tony, I prefer to print all of my images full frame (as evidenced by the thin black or sloppy borders, respectively), as that is how I shoot them to be seen. This particular image could not be printed full frame to level the horizon, nor could the two infrared shots (last in the folder) as the XPAN uses in infrared counter that fogs the bottom 15% of the film and sprocket holes as it advances infrared film.

 

In short, it is nearly always my intention to best capture real moments without direction or detection, which is precisely how I approach wedding photography, and why it continues to not only be rewarding for me, but a great source of practice as I am shooting 40 rolls of film every weekend, focusing manually and using manual exposure. This photograph did not come out *exactly* as I had envisioned it, but I still like it.

 

I shoot pushed Tri-X almost exclusively, in conjunction with Fuji Neopan 400, running them both in Rodinal as I prefer the enhanced contrast and slight boost in grain. To my eye, this photograph doesn't have my preferred tonality either, which I think is best exemplified in the image "Ferry worker resting", but it wasn't shot under ideal conditions, and I considered myself fortunate to have captured it at all.

While this is certainly an interesting image, it has some serious technical flaws. But on the other hand, i suppose the people choosing the photos obviously are choosing photos on whatever criteria they see fit. The image is fuzzy, highlights are washed out, shadows mottled and deep: no visible detail. Even as a work of "candid" photography, i think it has a way to go to achieve even close to what Cartier-Bresson strived for. While i think this photo certainly has composition and subject matter going for it, i find it disconcerting that it attains POW. Doubly disconcerting is that there are so few critical opinions of it. It seems that on photo net, once the "master elves" choose something they like , the majority of the viewers just go along for the ride. I've asked no less than ten professional photographers/printers/and photo editors to see the photo, and all are somewhat bewildered as to why it was chosen as POW. all in all, i give it 6 originality 4 aesthetics.

It's good to see that some of you are looking for something as a source of knowledge and growth, and if photo.net can provide that for you, that's a great thing. If you're patient and willing to do a lot of wading, there is knowledge to be found here, in the midst of what seems to be an increasing amount of noise. I've found, in looking briefly through some of the threads all over the site, that personality issues and ego often dilute and in some cases, can even negate the value of the original question, issue or image. There seems to be a strong tendency towards adherence toward rules, something first learned in grade school art classes, reinforced later in future art education and endeavors. One of the things I've learned over the years is that it's important to learn these rules, so you can break them, either consciously or merely by the nature of your personal vision.

 

Personally, one of the things I don't see given enough attention on this site is the value of what Ralph Gibson calls a "visual signature". You can look through a number of portfolios, both online and in books, and see hundreds and hundreds of photographers all trying to hit the same target. To me, it's important that I personally distinguish myself not only in the way I conduct my photography business in terms of customer service, but with my personal approach to making images. In the words of an actor, "If you are not different from anyone else, who needs you?". Do we need any more shots of the Grand Canyon with Velvia and a warm polarizer?

 

In other words, if most of the images that people are pursuing are the usual rocks, flowers, trees, mountains and color-drenched landscapes that seem like most young photographers first pursuits, what's the point of looking at that photography, or even or taking those photographs, other than to say "You see, I can do exactly what is expected of me."

 

I'd guess that many of my favorite photographers (Lillian Bassman, HCB, Ralph Gibson, Elliott Erwitt, Sebastio Salgado, Anton Corbijn) wouldn't stand a chance against the Ansel Adams workshop filter that many young photographers apply to EVERY image, irrespective of it's content or it's perceived intent. I recently revisited many of my photographic books, and noticed something. Strict adherence to technical vision over the value of content means nothing. As one photographer put it "A sharp photo of a fuzzy concept is meaningless."

 

Most of my favorite photographers probably also had a heavy influence on me, and perhaps their irreverence toward technical pursuits in lieu of content rubbed off on me. Read any of the writings by Henri Cartier-Bresson; the photograph's composition, light and emotional content are everything. If you don't have something worthwhile to photograph, the rest is irrelevant. In Cartier-Bresson's book "Tete a Tete", which are his portraits of subjects such as Picasso, William Faulkner, etc, at least 1/3 of the images are not sharply focussed, or there is subject or camera movement. I'd say about 1/2 of them are clearly underexposed, based on the grain in the shadow areas and muted contrast. Who cares? The images are powerful, beautiful and timeless because he knew how to capture *something*.

 

In short, take a look at the rule-breakers as well as the more traditional photographers. What is it about each of them that you like? The answer to that will help guide your photographic journey toward your own personal vision. Blind adherence toward convention and rules only yields mediocrity, and there is no shortage of that.

 

One of the things I've learned in life, referenced also in the book "The Four Agreements" is that you can see someone's intent in the way they conduct themselves, and that as David Julian has noted, those who rant and rave the most often have mediocre skills. When someone appears to be frequently complaining, it tells you more about their personality and view of themselves than it does about the subject of their ire; if you are unhappy, it manifests itself in everything you do, particularly the way you see things and your ability to look for the good things in life. It's easy to be a movie critic, but rather difficult to write and direct a movie. Roger Ebert did that once...

the objects are all small and far away (for my taste)- but i do like many of the photos in your folder. good luck. great effort.

The horizon as you can see is now level, it wasn't before when I rated this picture. The claims by some in this forum that the horizon issue was an optical illusion are just preposterous. A crooked horizon is indeed one of the easiest flaws in a landscape photograph to fix and it's one of the most glaring if it is not. Claims that it is unimportant are ignorant of landscape photography. There is a post above that I think well illistrates when technical flaws are acceptable and I agree wholeheartedly with its premise. Crooked horizon can always be fixed.

Bradley.

 

I think the scene is brilliant and certainly good enough to hold up even after the technical "deductions" have been applied. The small JPEG makes it hard to form a proper opinion of such things as focus, though I should say that the fuzzy look has grown on me over the course of the week and I think it compliments the mystery that has been captured.

 

Part if the success of this photo is that it's quite cinematic, although this doesn't really have to do with the panoramic perspective (at least to me). In fact, a regular 35mm frame would have been preferable (IMO), especially if you took a step in and to the right.

 

Cheers,

Vuk

Bradley, your mention of Picasso leads me to a first venture onto the POW forum. First of all congratulations on the nomination! I am glad it made me visit your portfolio and website, both of which are very good. Thanks!

 

Second, I wanted to recommend everyone to visit the Picasso Museum in Barcelona (the city itself of course too). What struck me in the chronological exhibition was the amazing skill he also possessed in 'traditional' painting! Truly like Rembrandt. After that he got obstinate, the rules went out of the window and he started making blobs and strangely shaped women. Point is of course, that you can't break the rules without first acquiring the skills to abide by them. That's why for people like me, who have the learning curve loom large over their heads and know next to nothing about art, photo.net is such a great place. It features the rules as well as the exceptions. We are in the fortunate position to learn from both.

 

It is a reassuring thought though, that you can misfocus and still get art. Right? Guess I am just glad I am here and all of you are too! Without a riot shield, Jeroen

About four weeks ago I viewed the travelling Tete a Tete exhibition. I had seen all the photographs before in various places, but this was the first time as large prints (some up to 36 inches on the long axis). I came away profoundly moved by the high quality and the unique perceptions of the photographer as he snapped the famous (some universally, some merely in their own lunchtimes) and the downright obscure. I loved the prints and admired the way that the printer(s) had broken rules to achieve effect (the almost completely dark shadowed print of Ezra Pound - with only a few flecks of sunlight from a window as counterpoint - dumbfounded me with its original approach as I admitted to myself, "I never would have thought of that!").

As Jeroen put it so well, "Point is of course, that you can't break the rules without first acquiring the skills to abide by them". I don't think there's too much doubt that Bradley knows The Rules and is thus entitled to break them. The other point is that I don't think he has broken The Rules, not to any damaging degree. Tilted horizons (and there have been so many versions of this horizon posted that I'm not sure which one is the "authorised version" by now) and soft focus don't disqualify a picture from being worthwhile. I'm not so convinced about my "optical illusion" theory (expressed somewhere above) on the horizon anymore, but I'm pretty confident that this is a well-focussed image. It's just a small "0" level JPEG. We all know what happens in that combination. It's difficult to tell whether focus is there or not. As an owner of an XPan I've faced the same problem myself: a combination of a squareish PC screen and an elongated image format is difficult to reconcile. You either hog bandwidth with a huge file containing all the details, or present a thumbnail version just to get your basic idea over. Bradley has obviously opted for the latter alternative. Criticism of his decision is unfair. I don't believe there is any way that poor focus can be conclusively proved from the version available, certainly not with the vehemence and outrage that some commenters have employed.

Some of the discussion on this image has been intelligent and thoughtful. Some of the ideas brought up have been worthwhile. Intersting paths have been walked upon. Other participants have been nasty and vicious, revealing (as Bradley suggested) more about the utterers than the utterees.

As one who has been outraged by a POW choice myself (and who has expressed that outrage) I understand the emotion. I concur that some of the more flattering, even sycophantic comments are embarassing to read. But I'm not sure that constant manifestoing is good for the site. Already several photonettari whom I respect and like have informed me that they wish to leave the site as they can't stand the unsupported and bombastic tirades any more. They're sick of the fake ratings and the instant accolades generated from them. They're sick of the cosy nepotism. I reached that crossroads myself but continue to participate as I don't care too much what anyone makes up about me or my motives (mea culpa: I admit to the odd angry shot, though). However, some have fallen by the wayside, secure in the private knowledge that the ideal of Photo.Net is neither as it seems, or as bad and in need of verbal carpet bombing as it seems. It goes without saying they are also secure in their own abilities.

The site is starting to become irrelevant to many of its most productive members, people who have something to offer. The concept of this site being a democracy is gradually being transformed into something akin to its being a centre for moral vandalism, cheating, back-biting and license. To be blunt, sections of Photo.Net have been hijacked by a decadent rabble out to exploit and self-aggrandize rather than contribute; to destroy rather than build. It's becoming an unpleasant place and good people are leaving it for fresher air and fresher fields.

To me, this is a crying shame.