one 2 a.m. too many

Maybe I'll modify that statement like this: "there aren't many of us [who] would say (with any credibility) they could have done this better than Mike did." And while it might be interesting to see various approaches to replicating this image, I don't think I'd call it fun (like sitting through an entire episode of "American Idol"). And I get the feeling this guy wouldn't sit still for it...

Carl, your point is sad but probably true as well, and it would be a very strange (and frightening) thing to see (this face "lifted").

Isidro, the soundtrack I hear is more bleak than the Eagles by a long shot... maybe Nick Cave and The Bad Seeds?. Or something from "Freak Out" By the Mothers of Invention. Again, sad but it probably was Jimmy Buffet: Margarita-ville (yuck) ... t

and Scott... yep, what you said.

... before the photographer steps forward. Sounds like a firing squad, doesn't it?

If the photographer chooses to print full-frame (as he so demonstrably has) then it is beholden on us, his critiquers (I nearly used the word "inquisitors"), to respect this decision, and then to examine the composition and see if it stands up full frame, as presented. Some have found it slightly askew; others think it's fine.

Consider this: if your scissor fingers start twitching and you want to crop the picture to balance out the composition, then you're unjustifiably challenging the photographer's decision to print full-frame (and isn't it his to make?). Ultimately, suggesting cropping options is beside the point. The photographer wants the picture to stand, as is, and to be critiqued as such.

A point on the Leica M3... It is one of the quietest focal-plane shutter cameras around. A skilled photographer could easily capture this photograph (especially with music in the background, if indeed there was music) without the subject hearing it go off. Likewise the focussing (I assume exposure would have been preset, discreetly). It can be done in a split second, with experience. Who cares if the subject noticed after the shutter was opened, or the camera was held up to the eye? The "decisive moment" was the fraction of a second when the shutter was open. Anything that transpires after that fraction of a second, between photographer and subject, is a social problem, not a photographic one, and requires different skills to overcome.

Finally, all the Photoshop talk is really superfluous. The simple rule is that it is the photographer's faithful rendering of his or her impression of the scene that matters. To thine own image be true. Photoshop helps him or her to achieve that, as darkroom techniques did throughout most of the history of photography. But you can go too far with Photoshop. That's the point where you may be challenged that your image is no longer a photograph.

I believe that either the face or the bottle has already gotten a facelift. I am trying to understand why the light on the bottle renders a sufficient highlight while the hand with a cigarette (which should have been exposed to the same source of light) is already muddy. It cannot be underdevelopment since highlights don't look consistently flat and the whole picture has sufficiently separated tones. There's also enough details, so it's not the underexposure problem. I think that Mike opted for a muddy look on the man's face and left the highlights on the bottle to make sure that we don't miss the point (see the caption). I still would prefer a technically correct overall contrast.

Great shot with a lot of impact. The white spot and the too tight framing kill it for me though. I would at least have darkened the spot (but not eliminated it). The tight framing at the bottom can't be fixed but I would probably have cropped off the bottle and thumb, and hidden the bottle hand by darkening the corner a little. The lighting on the face is very natural. I can't see that increasing the contrast as some have suggested will improve things. Also be aware that each viewer is seeing his or her own version of contrast depending on monitor settings. But hey - its a great shot - I only commented because you asked for it.

I am really taken w this photo. It has a wonderful sculptured appearance and great atmosphere. Congratulations on the great lighting!

It's a fine portrait as it is, but I agree with Doug and Tony that it is a tad too dark, although me myself I'm a sucker for dark printings of b/w. I think the changes Doug made in PS are easily done in the darkroom (apart from widening the frame on the left), and the result of his slight changes make the picture better in my opinion. In the original there is no real white I guess, the nearest to real white comes the beer bottle on the left, but in Doug's changed image there is some more almost real white. I'm a big fan of the Swiss photographer Robert Frank, who was also a sucker for real dark, black pictures, but he always said it's important to have some real pure white somewhere in the picture. Sometimes it was only the tie of a man bathed in black, sometimes the white of someone's eyes. Anyway, nice portrait, as I already mentioned. Bye, Rienk

In this kind of photography, if the original scene doesn't have white (or black) point then you don't force a white (or black) point.

On the other hand, if it does have a white (or black) point then you should be careful before you mute them to a gray blancmange. It can look disingenuous.

It's possible to print "dark" and to print "light". Gamma: that's a matter of preference. In the final analysis, it's whether the print has verisimilitude that counts. Does it feel right?

"Feeling right" does not necessarily mean printing with 100% tonal straight-line accuracy, as long as emotional accuracy is maintained. How to judge emotional accuracy? The picture itself should guide you to your conclusion. Yeah, it's a human thing. Photography should strip itself of hoopla and keep itself as subtle an art as possible. The urge to overdo it is always misplaced.

It's possible that the light was different between the hand and the bottle, but it's a good observation you made, Maria, nevertheless. You're talking about contradictions in the print that affect your perception of it. And you're right to do so.

What a crew we have here, especially when we get serious about an image, and don't just wow-monger. While I don't think this is such a great picture, it certainly has fostered some interesting discussion (mostly). The elves were right: it's accessible.

The moment I saw it, I thought the following:

• It's dark, so dark that it looks like a gray/black duotone. On a wall, no matter how well-lit the room is, this is going to look like a dark gray rectangle from a distance, nice as the dusty, silvery range of dark grays in his hair and skin may be.
• That light in the upper left quadrant pulls my eye away from the subject, and keeps pulling it away. It's important to the composition and would create more problems if it were gone entirely, but this bright it's a liability.
• The frame crosses from "intimate" to "tight" on the left by the bottle and on the bottom. The framing on both of these edges seems dictated by the edge of the negative rather than a compositional choice.

The extremely tight framing around the beer bottle even makes me wonder if more cropping makes for a cleaner image. Crop from the left, removing the lit side of the bottle, and I think it makes for a more straightforward composition at the unfortunate expense of the bar setting. Not good. Crop a bit from the bottom, losing the bottom of the bottle, and it doesn't look like the bottle is being squeezed in anymore (good), but even more of the subject's arm is lost (bad).

Yes, this is very good, certainly worth printing, showing and selling as-is, but there are also things here that are less than optimal. A POW that offers "teachable moments" like this is much more interesting than a POW that's unimpeachably perfect. I'm learning more about how to see from the back-and-forth here than from a dozen POWs with nothing but "Congrats! 10/10!" comments.

Thanks, everyone, for your thoughful commments, and thanks also for an intelligent discussion centered on photographic issues. When I first received an email notice that one of my images had been selected as POW, I cringed at the thought of what carnage might follow. ; )

 

To answer the simple technical questions: I exposed Delta 3200 at EI 3200 (using incident metering) and developed it in Xtol diluted 1:2. The image was printed on Ilford MG WarmTone.

 

The ragged border is largely a matter of laziness on my part--it's much easier than carefully adjusting the easel for every workprint I make. (Exhibition prints are also printed full frame most of the time but with a clean black border and white matte.) I generally make my framing decisions at the time of exposure (though this sometimes means composing with a certain crop in mind), and I get little benefit from second guessing myself. [Of course, by submitting images for comment, I realize I'm inviting people to second guess my choices--have fun!! I enjoy seeing how different people interpret and react to the photos.]

 

I don't want to dampen the discussion by going into too much detail, but I will say that the print looks the way I want it to look, and the web image is a reasonable, though imperfect, facsimile of the print. One final note re the brightness of the hand relative to the bottle: the reflective characteristics of rough, dry skin are quite different than those of a wet, smooth bottle and label.

This comment is a general statement, not intended as a critique of this particular image, just an observation.

 

Many photographer fall into the trap thinking that photographic composition / content has different

"rules" than other visual art forms. It does not. Humans respond to icons, trying to understand what appears as "abstract", trying to make reason out of what may not have a reason, trying to organize visually what seems to be chaos.

Artists have been experimenting with visual composition since the beginning of time. The understanding of composition and content has grown since early cave paintings, through medieval art, the renaissance and through contemporary art.

 

There are ways to analyze an image - whether it is a paintinmg or a photograph. There are ways to analyze how we perceive content and how we read visual images.

 

For photographers (especially) it seems to be a great idea to concentrate far less on the technical aspects of imagery and concentrate more on content and composition. One way to develop a better understanding of this would be to study art history in general, and understand and apply what artists have discovered through time.

thanks for your explanation. I agree that the skin won't render the same highlight glass will but still, look at his fingertips on the bottle --they are in the same zone hightlights on the bottle are. And the metal(?) button on his cuff should render same light glass does but it's already printed like the rest of your photograph. I am just curious -- not trying to prove anything. I also print my photographs and diluted Xtol 1:2 once but got so thin a negative that printing from it with a good contrast (even on #5+ filter)proved impossible -- whole neg was zone V. I still don't know what happened.

It is beautiful as is. The suggested modifications hurt the image significantly. Wonderful shot.

the moderator amended this comment because of references to previous posts that were unrelated to the POW. I edited his edits for even better continuity. (This moderator is a good editor and should be consulted when one reaches the memoir writing age)

Someone suggested that my earlier remark regarding one's ability to appreciate this photograph in a layered fashion might be a reference to lower intellect, but that is not what I meant, at all. It seems to me that some people are able to see deeper into a photograph than others, and I don't know exactly why this is, a combination of reasons, I guess. Robert Adams, for example, has published books filled with photographic commentary, drawing comparisons and similarities that others can't see.

In May of this year I read a Master's Thesis on Timothy O'Sullivan, who photographed the American Civil War and the American West from the early 1860's through the 1880's. I was amazed at the parallels the author showed between this and that, how O'Sullivan was a true Artist, not just a picture taker, how this picture was a work of genius, that picture was an example of an Artist at the peak of his artistic power, etc, etc. Until reading this (which took me two weeks, if anyone wants to gauge my own shallowness) I thought those old timers just went out and set up their tripods on the day and hour they happened to be passing by, mixed their chemicals, coated their plates, made their photographs, got their ass and gear and buggied off. But no. According to this thesis, O'Sullivan was conscious of light, space, time, distance, the effect of lenses, camera angle, etc., and in ways unlike any other image making artist before him. In other words, he was exercising all the critical choices that we do today. So, reading this actually opened my eyes and allowed me to appreciate in greater depth the photographs of O'Sullivan and others of his day. The reason, and I'm finally getting to part of my genteel point, is that the master's student studied O'Sullivan's pictures, and she studied other art of the day, writings related to O'Sullivan, etc, and she thought about it, and thought about it some more.

I don't think many of us really look at pictures very deeply, perhaps partly because there are just so many images available. I think we tend to look for a few seconds, wait for an internal buzzer to sound, or not sound as the picture may warrent, and then click off to the next thumbnail. If the picture is bold and colorful, for example, or if the subject is nude, we may look longer. If not, we may leave it before fully arriving at the photographer's intended message.

Until recently, I essentially took a photograph as a finished product and never really thought about whether or not it could have been done differently, or better. About whether or not Weston should have used a lower angle on Pepper #30, or a different lens, or how come it took Ansel Adams over forty years of Yosemite vacations before he produced Yosemite Valley, Clearing Storm. These days I'm asking those kinds of questions a lot more. What if Mike Dixon had leaned back another 18 inches, would he have included the elbow? Could he have leaned back 18 inches? What if he had panned to the left a little bit? Was there another can of beer there? Why is it printed this way, Why? What if? How come? I think it takes a long look at a photograph before one can really start to see the choices the photographer made,and how those choices, and the ones not made, affected the final result, and I also think it takes a lot of time photographing before one can begin to understand that most photographs are compromises, that photographing is as much about what you put in the viewfinder as what you leave out.

My point is that often it's not the first thing you see that brings you real reward in viewing a photograph. It's the 21st thing, or the 32nd thing, or the 77th thing....

Fine lighting, even a bit underexposed but I Like it.

Sorry, but this looks like it's been either underexposed, or if taken from the final print, the print hasn't had enough time in the developer resulting in muddy low contrast. In fact, the blob of light on the left hand side seems to demand more attention than the figure on the right.

 

The sprocket holes on the far right seem a bit cliched as well.

 

Over all I think this is an average image because the subject matter is something I've seen so many times before.

 

Sorry for the direct remarks here, but the image is up for crit and it should earn it's position as POW.

 

"Over all I think this is an average image because the subject matter is something I've seen so many times before."

 

This comment bothers me for several reasons. Like music - or practically anything else creative - it's all been done before, and when someone says they've never seen something, it probably speaks to their limited experience rather than the truly unique subject matter. Originality for me is more a matter of what one does with the subject - does he care about it - even if it's just something subtle.

 

You may have seen it before - or something like it - but have you actually done a shot like this? If not, it's harder to critique it, at least from the standpoint of understanding the logisitics. I have a 1.4 lens, and I've shot a few rolls of fast B&W film but have I ever shot in such low light conditions? No. And a subject like this? No. That doesn't mean I should be impressed just because it's outside my experience. But to condemn it because it's vaguely familiar seems harsh and begs the question 'what do you find original?'

 

 

Here is the site location for Timothy O'Sullivan: Shadows of Subjectivity on the Photographer's Frame This link will take you to http://xroads.virginia.edu/~MA99/paul/tim/firstpage.html.

Pretty good reading.

The weak contrast and poor framing of this image combine with the gimmicky frame to produce an image that fails to convey the meaning implied in the title.

 

so many others have done the subject so much better.

 

Keep trying.

Well said, Doug, I concur. It's the age of MTV, the NBA and the 3 second edit. If you don't get it in 3 seconds it's gone. (see the edge light along the bottom of the cigarette? and that it's tip is in an out of focus highlight? That bracket looking thing that's right in front of the face... a wisp of smoke?) Have you thought about working with / directing film, Mike? This really looks like a movie still... t

If we had to provide a list of what other photographs we found to be "original" before we could rightly question the originality of a particular photograph, then of course there would be no critiques.

When I said that this photo told me nothing new, I meant nothing emotionally new. Reducto ad absurdum arguments that there-is-nothing- that-has-not-been-photographed-before-and-therefore-originality-is-dead are twaddle.

In the "aesthetics" check-field, the same process could be applied. "Everything is subjective, isn't it?". So why bother critiquing at all? Trying to explain why you like a photo or why you don't like it could then be conveniently and validly, under the above subjective criteria, reduced to , "Wow" or "It sucks" and we could all get on with life.

Sound familiar? If you've ever visited or participated in the other site you'll know what I mean. Thumbs up, thumbs down, and nothing but out of context commentary designed to garner reciprocal visits. No cut and thrust at all. No flow of debate.

Why is it assumed that the photographer is offended by a less than rave review? He seems like a very intelligent and well-balanced guy who thinks about what he does and is extremely proficient in its execution. There's no need to jump to his defence as if he's some kind of socially challenged kid in a playground who needs constant reinforcment of his worth as a person.

Personally, if I don't like a picture, that opinion is usually formed in the first few seconds of viewing. Paradoxically, I've often been surprised that the converse, an initial admiration for a picture, can easily dissipate over time, after the initial impact wears off. Not initially liking a picture of course assumes that viewing conditions don't change. A thumbnail like this photo might really need to be enlarged to be appreciated properly. Looking at an ultra-enlargement can often involve you in the scene. You look out to the picture, rather than down on it.

I am reminded of Cartier-Bresson's portrait of Ezra Pount (1970). I'd skipped over it in books many times, dismissing it as just a groupie picture taken as a trophy of HCB's networking abilities. It uses very high-key window sidelighting. Then I saw a 20x30 inch print at a gallery, without the shadowed face being dodged, and its true worth was revealed. The darkness, with just a hint of detail, of some areas of the face, was as important in the enlargement as the well-lit features. But you could only see this in extreme enlargement and only in this courageous exhibition print that challenged the rules. I don't know who's decision it was to change the look of the print, but it was a good one.

And can we plase get away from this idea that you have to be able to take brilliant pictures before you can criticise any?

I love this photo. The dark surrounds just draw your eyes to the face which is brilliant and I think if it was taken from further away it would have lost it's impact. I am one very jealous beginner and as it is almost 2am here, I'd better go. Cheers. Carol.

...can we plase get away from this idea that you have to be able to take brilliant pictures before you can criticise any? ---What Tony said.

I agree here, but I bet logic could be used to support either view.

Also, do you suppose Tony, that your experience with the genuine HCB Ezra Pound print was a because of its size, or because it wasn't a reproduction in a book. You didn't go into much detail here as you were driving towards your point, but the immediate thought I had was that you were looking at poor reproductions. I think this might relate to us in the area of scanning, monitor gamma, etc.

Doug,In answer to your question.. I was going to scan a copy of the HCB Ezra Pound portrait I have in a book, to illustrate my post above. The book is excellently printed (and was very expensive, purchased in happier days of disimpecuniosity) using gravure plates. Nothing at all wrong with it. It's just that when I looked at the reproduction (which was largeish: full-page super A4 vertical) the face had been dodged. It seems that the exhibition print I saw was a new interpretation of the negative. The reason it stuck in my mind was that I never would have thought of that approach, and, as I said above, you could only appreciate it in extreme enlargement, which allowed for a comfortable viewing distance.

My point about the The Critic not simultaneously having to be The Artist is simple: artworks need an audience, pretty-well by definition. That is their reason for creation (even the reclusive Van Gogh reputedly wanted people to critique his pictures). Not everyone in the audience can be a great artist. In fact, most will not be. To my mind it's churlish on the part of the artist (or his acolytes) to deny the same audience that they depend on for viewing the work the right to not like it, provided they, as critics, can make a reasonable and honest fist of saying why.

Few other trades or vocations bite the hand that feeds them as much as artists do. For instance, when you get a bricklayer to build you a wall and the wall falls over, no one says you can't complain because you couldn't wield a trowel for love or money, do they? Same for electricians, bridge builders and so on. Yet so many artists (or those who claim to be artists) get all huffy when they receive a contrary criticism (note: I am not referring to the photographer here, of course).

Criticism requires honesty on both sides of the equation - the artist and the critic. The critic has a right to evaluate an artwork, and the artist has a right of reply. This is often forgotten on these pages. I don't know why. There seems to be a view going around that there is no such thing as bad art, and that therefore any adverse comments are prima facie invalid, perhaps borne of jealousy, native nastiness or clique loyalty. Not that these things cannot influence a critique; it just shouldn't be assumed that this is the case.

Like every other field of endeavour there is good art, mediocre art and outright bad art (once again: I'm not referring to the present picture, my comments are general). There should be more allowance made for and understanding of honest, structured criticism.

If you don't understand the technique of how an artwork (on these pages, a photograph) is done, but you do like it, then this does not mean you should automatically award it a ten-out-of-ten. You should try to understand the technique, take some of the mystery out of it and then make your criticism and considered evaluation. This is not only being fair to yourself and to the artist, but is one of the most rewarding tasks imaginable.

Of course, if you don't like the image then it is harder to work up the enthusiasm to analyse it. Hey, it's not a Perfect World.

"Of course, if you don't like the image then it is harder to work up the enthusiasm to analyse it."

 

That's the part I'm not sympathetic to. You are free to walk right on by, but when you decide to give a negative comment or rate - something that will actually have consequences to the visibility of the photographer - you really should know what you're talking about both in terms of content and technique. We talk a lot about the 10/10 'wow's. I'm talking about the 6/6 shrugs in a sea of 8/8s who hasn't any idea what is going on in the photo based on a reasonable interpretation of the level of sophistication of the rater's portfolio. I have asked POW low raters to step forward and explain their low rating and seldom get a response. . . . not that I expected one . . . . .

Is it my responsibility as a member to rate this photograph, whether I like it, or not? For example, if I felt I didn't like it, but also felt that my opinion wasn't valid here in the POW with all this discussion, or because I were a beginning photographer, etc. Should I still make a comment, or submit a rating? Am I being a responsible member by not rating Mike's photo if I thought it was bad because I don't want to hurt his feelings, or because I am concerned that Mike, or one of his friends, will visit my folder and trash it,?