one 2 a.m. too many

Rick, I agree that it is the result rather than the process that should matter. What concerns many traditionalists is that they know that the lure of PS can lead to relying on it for impact. The discussion above deals with subtle changes. The impact of the image - his expression, the lighting angle, smoke, bottle - represent the truth of the image and none of us would change that.

 

But when a favorites folder is full of images where composites - PS or traditional - are the primary source of interest and comments, then many of us think that the eye of the photographer has been left behind. If all the mouse painters also had a portfolio of images like this POW, some of the purists and semipurists might not be quite so judgemental.

I've just spent a short while - yes, in PS, sorry - to try to find out whether Doug's version was better than the original scan of this POW uploaded by Mike Dixon. And I found that there was a very fine line, between Doug or Mike's version of this POW, that I shouldn't cross, in my attempt to brighten the image.

At a certain level of contrast, the image started to actually loose its intimacy, its mood. My conclusion is that Doug went a bit far in his attempt, and here is what I believe to be my best interpretation - but I'm not that sure, to be honest...

As for the spot, Doug did, I think, about the same as I end up with... So, here's just another try on this issue...

What fantastic light here and an interesting subject to go with it and I feel this is captured best in the original post than in both the altered versions (sorry guys), because the tonal ranges in the original best reflects the ambient light and hence more importantly the mood in the frame. The manipulated versions have harsh light with too much contrast and greatly removes the tranquility (or whatever is conducive for a thoughtful stare at 2am) from the ambience or destroys the much desireable feel of the original.. While Doug's version is much too harsher, Marc's version though better but still harsh, IMO. The circular hotspot while it is a distraction definitely adds depth and makes the picture MORE REAL. So it is very important for it to be seen, but only after getting a little burnt, not so much as in the modified versions. The placement of the bottle along the edge and the chopping off the elbow somehow go together very well by making the man in the frame and his stare even more CENTRAL to the frame. And the bottle wonderfully just fills the frame without being a compositional element in the original post. And any closer it gets to him than in the original, lesser comftable a posture does he look to be in, IMO.

 

Congrats on the good work, Mike..

Very nice lighting on the face! Expression is wonderful. The texture in the hair and beard adds to the facial expression. The eye is the center of the image.

 

The composition however is problematic. There are 5 visual elements calling for your attention:

face, hand, bottle (label especially), upper left corner and white "dot' in the center. The two brightests spots in the image are the label on the bottle and the "spot". Both detract from the main content = the expression on the face = the soul of the man. Especially bothersome is the label. Your eye wanders to the bottom left corner constantly.

 

In a simple image with few recognizeable elements each element becomes extreemely important. We tend to read into simple images, looking for icons that we can interprete. The lack of connection between the different elements: bottle, hand, upper left corner, white dot and face creates a weakness that could be solved by omitting all distacting elements - just leaving the face.

I'm not trying to trash Mike's work. I agree he should be congratulated.

 

My version wasn't intended to be The Fix, but to show a variation and open the possibility of alternative treatments to this image. That's the first step in beginning a critique, don't you think, to entertain the possibility that something could have been handled differently?

 

The facial light probably is too hot in my version and I'm not offended by comments regarding this. Balaji and Marc both assert that the brighter light kills the mood. I'm not sure I agree with that, but I'm also not sure I disagree. I definitly don't like the bottle being brighter than the man's face and I would need a good reason for leaving it brighter. Dodging the face in my post was to illustrate a closer balance in light between the bottle and the face.

 

As for the bright spot above his hand being so very important to the reality of the atmosphere, as Balaji maintains, let me ask this: What is the bright spot? A lamp? Let's say it's a lamp. What if it had burned out before Mike happened on the scene? Good Gracious! The scene would not be real according to this line of thinking. Reducing the intensity of the lamp by burning is the same as if the lamp had burned out in real life, in my opinion, so what's the difference? On many occasions I have turned lights off, unscrewed bulbs, etc, that were in the camera's angle of view. That wasn't changing reality, that was photography! Photography is not just what is on the film, it's also what you allow to happen on the film, and in turn again, what you allow to happen on the print. The difference, I claim, is not in not in any requirement to be faithful to reality, but in the photographer's desire to direct the attention of the viewer.

 

We see hints of Mike Dixon's desire to be faithful to reality: The full frame print is the biggest and loudest assertion. The bright spot is another. A question derived from this obsrevation is: Does Mike Dixon want us to look at the bright spot? What is his purpose in leaving it as it is? Reality? Balance, maybe? Did he not see it?

 

There is little we can do regarding the framing issues raised above, which are interesting in the extreme and fun to conjecture. However, regarding brightness values, which any of us would have control over in printing or clicking, darkening the spot and/or lightening the man's face, and/or fiddling with the brightness of the bottle are all considerations the printer makes in the darkroom to achieve the effects the photographer desired the print to possess. In most instances, the printer and the photographer are the same person, quite evidently. The viewer, or the intended viewer, could be anyone. In this case, as I am writing the viewers have numbered 8793, and I'm sure this number will rise far beyond that.

 

What does a straight print of this negative look like? Let's consider that. Was the man's shoulder burned down? That would be a departure from reality according to some The other bright spot in the top left, the middle grey one-- was it burned?

 

What did Mike want us to see? And how faithful is this image to that goal?

 

 

 

Congratulations Mike! I like the photo as it is. I'm not sure I like any of the improved framing versions (and certainly not the vertical improvement) because they appear to change the posture of the guy, which is key to the mood. The same with the lighting-the eyes would be squinted/different if he were facing much brighter light, as in the 'truck light' improvements.

 

But these are minor quibbles.

 

I rarely participate in this critique forum, and then only somewhat superficially, but may I humbly congratulate everyone in the discussion above? This has to be one of the most solid, cogently argued POW discussions I've seen.

 

Both the picture and the discussion are a real example of what the POW could be, week after week. Well done folks!

A terrific photograph killed by bad printing. Lack of contrast and the white spot on the upper left are not minor quibbles. Nothing in the mood or message of this composition would suffer had the contrast been increased. You can't argue with this.If that was a photographer's intention, then I am afraid his was a bad choice.

This photo has something in common with the POW two weeks ago, in that the framing is very tight and confining. I think that treatment works well for this subject and location. You get the sense that you are at a bar elbow to elbow with the subject. While I liked the proposed revisions based on technical considerations, I think the original has more emotional impact. It simply looks less contrived and more like location photography. The subject does not seem to notice or care about the camera.

 

I'm not sure if the bright spot adds or detracts. In a way, I think it emphasizes the main subject's isolation by letting us know there are other things happening that he is not a part of. The tight framing makes me imagine that his world is closing in on him while the shadowed forms of disinterested people in the background are moving or dancing without a care. I think we need the spot whether burned in or not.

 

I have to respectfully disagree with the 5-element theory. There are two hands in the photo and one is on the bottle. I think hands are often as important to a portrait as a face. I'm not certain what the light area is in the upper left corner, though it looks like it might be smoke hanging in the air. It might be dodged a bit to make it less intrusive, but it is still an element that belongs in the scene.

 

At first glance, this is not something I would choose or even think to photograph. I have been impressed lately that a primary merit of this site is the accessibility to a diverse range of photography and photographers. Thanks Mike (and everyone) for helping me to see beyond my own preconceptions of what photography should be.

 

As a side note, I'm not sure, why so many people think editing photos digitally is such an easy task. In my experience, it is not. I have worked for hours on a single photo just to discard the effort in disgust. Photo editing does not transform bad photos into great works of art. The digital verses chemical debate makes me wonder what it was like when early man went from stone axes to those made of steel.

 

As it is apparent in the background, there is a bit of a bustle surrounding this man and the muffled light from the lamp only exemplifies this in an excellent way and the blur adds depth. This is why it looks more 'real' to me, plus these kind of spots are almost guaranteed to feature in shots from a bar or from places with a similar ambience. And hence my proposal to retain it, ofcourse with a milder burning than suggested by you in your post.

 

Amazing how subtle variations of light levels here are swinging the overall mood to different extremes, as it was evident in one other instance with Doug's photo. And the image attachments only aid this debate in an effective way.. So I hope everyone takes them in a constructive sprit.

Subtle variations are what makes a photo. A combination of lensmanship and darkroom skills (or Photoshop skills... they both amount to the same thing... if used in moderation) result in the final rendering of the photographer's impression of the scene. If that rendering results in a material change then the picture is still a picture, but may not be a photograph.

 

Coming to the present image, in this case the picture is well and truly still a photograph, and for that we may be thankful.

 

I just wish it was a better photograph.

 

To my mind, the discussion of details and subtleties of shading above are fair enough, but they bypass the possibility that this is not as strong an image as it might have been. I'm not going to fall into the trap of suggesting how it might have been improved... I wasn't there... but as a depiction of a late-night bar scene it tells me nothing new, or if not new, then at least nothing surprising or really interesting. Sure, it's very well-focussed and pretty sharp (a good effort in low light, especially with an M3 rangefinder). The exposure seems adequate to the scene too...but is that enough?

 

The composition is square, a little too far to the right... somewhat reminiscent of a photograph taken from simply the wrong position. There may not have been much choice as to positioning (commensurate with being discreet), but that doesn't change things. Plenty of pictures don't work, for all kinds of reasons. They end up in the archives, and stay there.

 

I think the print's a shade too dark too, and I wonder whether it wasn't printed dark to hide unhelpful elements in the background scene. Printing dark is OK but here I think it's just too dark.

 

Considering this not so much as a slice of life, but as a portrait, I find that the expression of the man's face is devoid of interest. He may be fatigued; he may be drunk (or both)... but there's nothing to grab onto in his expression.. it's just dead-eyed. There are ways of catching dead eyes that depict the life behind them, but this shot doesn't do that for me.

 

Some of the other material in the portfolio of downtown shots is much better, with more action and interest, for example, the evocative picture of the rockabilly man and woman, and the poignant (but not at all kitschy... and therein lies its success) shot of the little girl with the flag.

 

This one for me, while technically very good, is just too bland.

While I enjoy the image as it is, I also noticed that if you open it in Photoshop, and hit autocontrast, it stays EXACTLY THE SAME. This is because the white borders 'confuse' photoshop.

 

However, if one removes the borders (via cropping) and hits autocontrast again, the contrast boosts up automatically. What this makes me believe is that the image's original (medium) contrast is caused by the borders, and not necessarily because it was the photographer's vision.

 

P.S. Im not suggesting border-cropping, I like the borders.

And the man in the bar goes -- shrug --. Its damn dark in here at 2:00 a.m. Good thing that light above the bar is there. There's another empty bottle behind the first one, so perhaps the light has gone out of his eyes. Realism, I like it.

Tony said: " Considering this not so much as a slice of life, but as a portrait.... " and then he went on to interpret it as a portrait. If we were given the negative to print and told: Print this slice of life negative, would we print it differently than if we were told: Print this portrait?

A great shot. I knew the photographer when I first saw this photo show up on my monitor.

 

Excellent as usual Mike.

 

I really didn't mean that as a personal attack, but it was too good an opportunity to pass up. You're a fine fellow with a good sense of humor and a finely skilled photographer, as well. I understand your intentions were benign and conversational, as were mine... although perhaps a little more bellicose. Old codgers can't be any other way, by definition. Please continue to doctor images for conversational examples, I do it myself frequently (like you, with apologies and disclaimers). Do you recall the same observations I made concerning back seat driver criticism of your b&w Bamboo Grove photograph?

"Are we saying that because the proposed modification was done digitally that it somehow contaminates the image, but if it had been done in the darkroom, that we would readily accept it?"

No, but I doubt that (as he says) Doug would have made a negative of the CRT display (or wheedled it out of Mike) and taken it in his darkroom, made a print, scanned it and posted it here... and if he had, I would have whined about that too. Photo Shop just makes it too convenient to get lost in techical issues, rather than addressing the real issues at stake in the making of many photographs. The important issues presented by this photograph are social, psychological and interpretive ones. I don't think any of us would say they could have done this better than Mike did. That you call it the "photograper's choice", sort of makes my point. In addition, I'll bet the actual print is spectacular. Here it might be more appropriate to discuss our monitor settings, rather than Mike's apparent choice of tonal range.

"Providing a facelift - or replacing the bud with a can of coke - is an entirely different ballgame, and for anyone to equate the two misses a distinction that so many of us on this site are trying to make." I'm not sure what point "many of us" are trying to make, but I was being sarcastic when I suggested that someone might actually do that (is there a smiley face type emblem for sarcasm?)

"My 'truck' reference was not a joke"

Well maybe not to you, but it sounds absurdly funny to me. This guy could be Elvis, too.

"But when a favorites folder is full of images where composites - PS or traditional - are the primary source of interest and comments, then many of us think that the eye of the photographer has been left behind. If all the mouse painters also had a portfolio of images like this POW, some of the purists and semipurists might not be quite so judgemental"

Amen, even if captured on a CCD.

"but as a depiction of a late-night bar scene it tells me nothing new..."

That's because there's nothing new in the late night bar scene, and this picture, as well as it's title, show that quite literally. This guy would probably tell you the same thing. It's a classic image, not ground breaking, but done very, very well. A beautiful rendering of a classic topic/ subject.

To me this is an effective "candid/environmental portrait". A portrait because the clear focus is the man and although some environment is evident - not enough of it is there to make it a "slice of life" image. Slice of life would include other people - perhaps a bartender and more background -- a wider angle shot altogether. Just my interpretation of "slice of life" vs "environmental/candid portrait".

As to the lighting -- I see a bit of muddieness in the blacks which to my mind points to slight underexposure. I do have a calibrated monitor and when I see a properly exposed print (or scanned and adjusted properly -- I see the blacks as black with no muddy/milky quality. The truth can only be known in the quality of the negative and a properly adjusted image done by someone who has the right software and calibrated monitor. I'm not bothered by the lit areas of the bottle or the back light as it brings in some atmosphere which helps the mood captured here.

Tom, it looks like you were responding to several posts at once &nbsp &nbsp I saw a lot of humor in Carl's truck lights, too, but after he explained it I could envision it as a possibility, which was fun to do, and added a lot of dimension to his comment. &nbsp&nbsp If the first paragraph of your post is directed towards me, aka the second guessing artist, never fear, I took your post as that of the devil's advocate, even though that might not have been your intent. Iron sharpening iron.

Now that Ive said a few nice things, I will add that I disagree with your statement that there arent any of us [who] would say they could have done this better than Mike did."

I'm sure there is someone here, perhaps many, that are thinking that very thought, but only because&nbsp better is a subjective term, &nbsp and Ill say that again because I dont want anyone to suspect I am saying Mike did a poor job: &nbsp better is a subjective term &nbsp But, like Tony pointed out, we werent there and so we may never know. &nbsp It would be fun to put it to the test, wouldnt it, and wouldnt it also be fascinating to see all the different versions we could produce on this negative, or any negative, for that matter? &nbsp The score/ the performance. &nbsp There is no such thing as a perfect print.

Mike, Great Shot. If you took this image with out him knowing it, Then you really caught the man thinking about some serious issues. I really like the play of light & shadows and the whole misterious,pensive look. Thanks for sharring.

Mike, very nice shot. Congrats on POW. You've been one of my favorite photographers for years.

 

I can really feel the suroundings. I like the contrast. Any more and he would pop out of the shadows, changing the whole mood of the photo.

 

The grain looks really good for 35mm Delta 3200. Willing to share how you managed that? Recently, I've been playing around with microdol 1:3 with added sodium sulfite to bring back the solvent action that is lost with dilution. The results have been smooth grain, slightly increased speed and good shadow detail.

These POW discussions never cease to amaze me. A dot of light is distracting, a bit of elbow is cut off...good lord, the first thing I saw was a sharply focused eye, and it wasn't looking at any dots or elbows. What has happened to photography, and to photographer/critics? Is everyone so caught up in the idea of a photograph as just a file to open in Photoshop, and so jaded by the daily onslaught of hackneyed Pulitzer wannabes of disaster and irony, that a shot like this is uninteresting and unoriginal? No one seems to see, or wants to see, the milieu; just the subject, no pieces missing, perfect lighting (according to your favorite book), perfect contrast. It has to look like Photoshop autocontrast, in other words. The photograph is not supposed to recreate the experience of being there, it's supposed to be a trophy. "I went into this dimly lit bar, full of the regular drunks, and came away with a perfectly composed, perfectly exposed photograph of an especially unusual person doing something especially unusual." Continually, a war is raging about "pure" photography versus digital art; yet whenever a "pure" photograph is being discussed, someone has to make it "better" with Photoshop. And this damn obsession with distractions...

I said: "Providing a facelift - or replacing the bud with a can of coke - is an entirely different ballgame, and for anyone to equate the two misses a distinction that so many of us on this site are trying to make."

 

and then you, Tom (to avoid possible confusion) said: I'm not sure what point "many of us" are trying to make, but I was being sarcastic when I suggested that someone might actually do that (is there a smiley face type emblem for sarcasm?)

 

PS facelifts are done on photo.net all the time. Some are subtle. Some are grotesque, IMHO. Some are probably done without anyone being the wiser. We all seem to have different tolerance levels for facelifts . . . notice the different opinions on the white spot and the amount of dodging in the face. This style of photography - and more importantly, photographers at this skill level - tend not to replace the bud with coke, or paint just the bottle red, but the number of people who would (OK, I've tried it too, but only just for goofs . . . really :-) is sizable and the crowd just loves it!!!!

 

Sorry, I'm on my soapbox again. Let me instead go in a different direction . . one which will probably drive Tony nuts.:-)

 

I did not contribute to the cropping discussion on the POW two weeks ago, so I feel like I have a little credit saved up. I do not see how the viewing experience is enhanced by including the edge of the film in the print, but more importantly, I don't understand why photographers see any benefit to the viewer in showing full frame, and even more important than THAT, why not back up just a hair so you will have the choice of including more space in front of the bottle or more of his arm? What is the harm in getting more than you need, concentrating on the moment, rather than the frame, and then cropping when you can take the time and have some choices? If the moment was NOW, however, with no time to back up or reconsider the frame, I am in complete sympathy and would be very much interested in the timing of this shot . . . . but it's only Tuesday and maybe we need to get more out of our system before the photographer steps forward.

 

I was just wondering the same thing myself, Carl, what will happen when/if the photographer steps forward. I mean, is it better for the forum for the photographer to keep silent, or better for him to participate?

 

To Scott, you're right, these issues are never ending, and full of useless words. Although, I wonder....Is there any agreement that last week's Cris Benton shot was so perfect, or so unusual, or so....something...., I don't know, that it didn't spark any serious controversy and the majority of the comments were simple (and well deserved) praise? As of late Tuesday afternoon of last week did anyone else begin to get bored with the dialogue (but not with the photograph), and by Wednesday night, was anyone coming back? At the end of the week the total was 43 comments, most of them stating the obvious: Beautiful, colorful, creative, etc. This one is up to 47 already after about 36 hours. That's because something is going on other than us laying down wreaths. We're thinking. We're wondering how we would have done the shot differently, how we would have handled the negative differently, and so on.

 

Besides, and I don't mean this as an insult, maybe the way you are appreciating photographs is not as layered as it could be and you are missing rewards you are not aware of? To over-simplify your apparent point of view, there is certainly more going on in this photograph than a sharp eye.

 

We're exercising our ability to create, or construct an image by de-constructing this one. We're developing our potential to make equally good photographs when we are next behind the camera. Our damn obsession with distractions is what we hope will change our next photographic opportunity into a great photograph, rather than a pretty picture.

Part of me wanted the out of focus light in the back removed. Then I noticed that in thumbnail size it didn't bother me. If I take take my nose off of the monitor--back off a bit--I actually like it. It adds context to the picture and seems to isolate this fellow.

First I'd like to say that it's refreshing to see un PSed photos here.

As I look at the photo, it reminds me of all my PJ classes in college.

Catching real people as they go about their daily lives.

This photo represents just that: a man at a bar having a drink after his day's work is done.

The little spot of light doesn't bother me at the least and the contrast seems fine. I'd add just a touch, a reallly light touch.

Good capture and congrats on POW.

I was going to get all wrapped up in the discussions of Photoshop vs. no Photoshop; purism vs. after the fact changes, and I certainly had my ducks in a row as I thought about this photograph all day and as I contemplated how Ansel Adams and other greats performed after the fact changes in Their work. Certainly there has to be much control after the fact since we work with a film which can only capture a limited range of tonesthe rest has to be done after the fact if one is to convey what was seen at the time of pressing the shutter. But getting all wrapped in this meaningless discussion would take for ever, so I decided to talk about the photograph itself. So here it goes! The use of Photoshop is unnecessary in this photograph, and I can certainly agree with the person who said that Photoshop freaks (I myself partly one) can certainly and easily screw this photo up. Photoshop certainly has its place in photography and it is here to stay and Im thankful for it, for, had that hot spot been on the subjects forehead or chin it could easily be taken away and still salvage the photograph, but this photo needs no saving; no retouching; no cropping; and it certainly needs no addition of extra room next to the bottle or under the subject's arm. This photo stands alone, by itself, and stands far above most of our own photography, not in execution, but in subject matter or content. One thing to add is that you cant take a photo this close with a 50mm lens and a hard to focus rangefinder camera and not be noticed, you literally have to be within 5 ft from this guy, so obviously the photographer asked for permission or at least carried on a conversation with the guy and let him know what his intentions were; so, no decisive moment here! The use of a camera for the sole purpose of expression is not, and should not be restricted by preconception of purism or manipulation; the only thing that matters is whether the photograph conveys a message, and in this photograph I think I hear The Eagles in the background playing You cant hide your lying eyes and your smile is;I guess every form of refuge has its price. I think I also hear "It's another tequila sunrise..."