Skyline at Dusk

I have been looking for the right film to do some dusk/night shots here and I think I'm going to give this a whirl...nice picture.

 

I gave it a 7,7 -- Started with 8,8, gave it a +1 in aesthetics for the blue tones and then subtracted 1 because the building in front is a little 'messy' compared with the rest of the skyline and another because of the burnout in the front light...Even though I know that might not be fair given the type of shot it is, that's typical of the type of thing I would subtract for starting at 8,8...

 

I subtracted 1 for originality because it doesn't stand out from most competent night skyline shots in composition, so I moved it closer to 'average'

 

As a small nit...I had to work to convince myself that the scene is level because of the optical illusion created by the pyramid...

Again, interesting approach.

The foreground building in my opinion makes the shot. I have another photo (taken later in the evening from a couple months back) from the same corner on the street of this same view. When I saw how that one turned out I promised myself I'd come back and do it again, only this time earlier with more light to see how that would work off all those flat angles. It does work, for me at least. Better than I imagined, actually.

This shot is a little flat or "normal" for the way I like to work--power lines going every whichway, odd buildings along the line of sight, etc. Still, the colors turned out allright. NPC is a good emulsion in its own way. (The irony is I've never used it for its intended purpose, portraitures, and probably never will.)

As for the streetlight blowing out . . . that's a given, almost a feature of this type of photography. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Yeah. I know the street lamp is nitpicky, but I think the picture might work better without it. If you could have moved slightly left or something....anyway, it's all based on feel anyway and it's really difficult to be consistent on ratings. Sometimes I go back through my ratings and look at pictures that I rated in the past and would rate them completely differently today than I did.

 

But comparing our starting points, I would guess that you would objectively end up rating this photo a 7,6 or a 7,7 as well...

You're missing the point. Not only do I normally not move the tripod a little bit left or right or whatever to avoid lights and other obstructions but often enough move the tripod a bit left or right or whatever to include these details of the night in my shots. As a rule I want the viewer to see what I see on site. I'm not after pretty images, I'm after first of all technically proficient street photography which exhibits some of the excitement of color at play with form, and also pictures to remind me where I was and what I was doing at a given point in time, pictures to allow someone else to share that sense with me . . . of having been there. You speak to an image suitable for a nickel postcard to send home to mother; I stand out there working for some other purpose.

As for ratings, yes, they are pointless all the way around. There is no consistency and no hope for that or anything like it. Except, of course, we will continue to consistently watch POWs be treated to high scores, normally a slough of 8-8's and the like, but that is more a function of group think, a silly script read over a social production of nonsense by a school of playwrites for fools.

How would I rate it? It's impossible to say. I know too much about the image, how it was captured, what I thought at the time, what I wanted to achieve and how close I came to that goal. Were I to rate a similar image by someone else then yes, I might be expected to rate the image somewhere above 5-5 as it's clear that technically the photographer didn't completely bungle the shot, and the scene itself is not especially undesirable to look at. On the other hand, there is nothing special happening and we've all gazed at similar-looking cityscapes without number--there is nothing groundbreaking about this picture. A 7-7? Perhaps. Perhaps 6-7. But anyone can check my grades previously given around the server, there are over 1,800 of them still up, afterall. Those ought to speak for themselves and for my view of the process, from one image to the next.

I didn't miss the point. I actually like your photography for that reason and it's a trait that I share in some ways. But, as rating is subjective, I do tend to mark down for things like that. It's obvious in your work that you are not a 'ratings hound'...nor am I to be sure, but I do want to become more technically proficient, especially when it comes to metering...so I value comments that have little to do with what I was trying to accomplish just to learn where I am from the 'norm'.

For example, this shot Looking at Ocean from Waimea Canyon is one of my favorites, but is far from my most highly rated. I can tell it is exposed incorrectly according to a standard on photo.net, but I don't know if I could have metered it better and still had the detail in the foreground.

Well, I've left a comment on that image, Regas. Please don't take offense at the grade. I wouldn't have left one but you bothered to grade my work so I thought you might expect this feedback. It's on the low side but you could, I think, easily correct that by reworking your image. It has good potential, just needs a little more "expansion" in the shadows and such.

I appreciate the time you've taken to afford me feedback on my submission here. I enjoy talking about photography. It doesn't always go as smoothly. As often as not I am required to put up with feedback of the follwing variety (St. Ignatius Through the Panhandle), an old Schuler story. Of course it goes with the territory and I don't complain exactly, though I do admit to frustration at times--tomfoolery does get old.

No matter, thanks for your input.

I actually did not start off to look at your images (though I've looked at some of your work in the past). Anyway, just happened upon this and really liked it! Then I saw it was yours... Decided to comment because I was impressed with it. The building in the forground with the magenta cast to the lighting was a nice element here. Also like how you composed the shot with the TransAmerican Building on the left. The whole Monochromatic feel is very appealing to me and that blue is fantastic. Nice work. As you say, the streetlight is a minor annoyance.. was there any way to crop it out? Please don't feel like you should go and comment on my work Tris... I'm pretty sure it isn't your taste. I'm not commenting for a return favor. I don't operate that way. ;-)

Tris,

 

Thanks for your considered commentary on that photo. As for the low ratings, I don't really mind them much especially given the time you took to explain them. btw - I've reworked that image and left the new version in the comments, I think using your feedback it's an improvement.

 

Cheers,

Regas

Could I crop out the street light? I suppose I could at that, Mary. Why would I want to?

Look, that's part of the scene. I energetically look to include (when appropriate) street lights, power lines, parking signs, odd corners of buildings, you name it. These details are part and parcel of life as it actually is on the street and anyone who objects to this realism has, in my view, consumed too much pablum for far too long.

A couple of months ago someone left a similar comment on another image of mine (Grace Cathedral). Please go read what this person had to say, then read my reply. And my attitude hasn't changed one whit.

Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

You go guy! Hey, you have every right to your artistic vision.. And, your taste. I checked out "Grace Church". I find I like your nite work very much. It is clear that you like a bit of reality in your shots. I am just different. What you call "pabulum" I call something else. My vision is to find the beauty in people, scenes etc. In-camera I conciously find ways to eliminate distracting or unattractive elements. To ME they are distracting and unnatractive. To YOU - it adds a bit of reality and life. That's fair. The way I shoot makes me feel excited about life and art and how I like to interpret the world around me. That is a choice of mine and it makes me happy -- as you have made a different choice. I respect your right to your way of seeing the world and documenting it. As you are a champion of people expressing their opinions, I'm surprised to see you get so defensive.

 

Look, that's part of the scene. I energetically look to include (when appropriate) street lights, power lines, parking signs, odd corners of buildings, you name it. These details are part and parcel of life as it actually is on the street and anyone who objects to this realism has, in my view, consumed too much pablum for far too long.

I think part of the problem with this thinking is that all "reality" (as it exists through "realistic photography" or just "photography") is still constrained by formal photographic aesthetics.

So even the most "realistic" shot (if such a thing even exists) -- complete with streetlights, pavement, apartment buildings, and office buildings -- is still constrained by "formalist" rules. Your rules may be different than mine -- or Mary's -- but somewhere, somehow they do, indeed, exist.

So I suspect this is why some folks have an objection to the various apartment buildings or office buildings or stoplights or whatever else. I mean, you're certainly free to reject the rules -- that's fine -- but you can't position yourself in a spot where rules don't exist. (And I won't mention that it's, er, not exactly "good faith" to try and explain away the rules by claiming your aesthetic contains rules of your own making. You can certainly claim it -- as we all sometimes do -- but no one will take you seriously when you do! It's like Freud, right? Construct a system in which every possible refutation is already refuted and therefore refutation is impossible. But that's an argument for another day ...)

And you can't escape rules by saying, well, rules don't apply since I''m photographing "reality as-it-is". (Obviously, the photograph itself is its own "layer of reality" over "reality as-it-is" -- so that's a slight problem right there.)

Or you can't say, well, since I want "reality" -- and I actively seek realistic images complete with "realistic" composition-- I'm above the formalist fray. :)

You can take a snapshot of a wall, a photograph of a wall, or a digital image of a wall. But there's only one real wall. (And even that's debatable.)

Well, all of art is a tradeoff, Chris, and photography at its a core begins as a mere reflection of reality. No argument there. But why should anyone be afraid to show life as it actually is, why should anyone be offended when they find life so depicted?

I like tension--in my real life, my work, my photography. For me this adds interest and a sense of adventure, for others it might be only an unsettling factor, perhaps even a threat. Different strokes, and there must be room out here for more than one approach.

Mary, I'm hardly defensive. You asked me about the possibility of cropping out a street lamp, I answered in the simplest manner I knew. No offense was taken here, none was implied in my response.

 

Tension is good. I like it, too. Heck, that's why I shoot with a Holga.

 

The problem is that tension isn't something that just appears. You gotta work to get authentic tension in a formal image. Reality doesn't look very interesting when it's jumbled onto a photograph. I think that's the crux of the various "building out of place" comments.

 

There's reality. And then there's a photograph, right?

 

John Casavettes -- the filmmaker who made 'Woman Under the Influence,' 'Killing of a Chinese Bookie' -- worked long and hard to give his film a "raw" look, filled with tension. If you told John, wow, you're films are so "raw" -- he'd love it. That's what he wanted to hear. But he made sure you understood that it took an enormous amount of work to get that raw look. It doesn't just happen.

 

That's not to say you're not working at your images. I mean, obviously, I have no idea. But I think that's where the various comments are coming from: that there's a photograph and then there's a reality. To depict "reality" in a photograph takes more than simply pointing a camera at "reality" and taking a photograph.

 

It's odd. You'd think photography would be a lot simpler than it really is.

That sounds like mumbo jumbo to me. It isn't that complicated, just isn't. You sound preoccupied with the work of others to an extent which will inhibit, even prohibit, your creativity. Shoot what you see or shoot what you want to look at later on but don't worry your subject to death.

My work is as simple as my life philosophy. What I offer is an opportunity for you to see what I saw. If you like this view of mine, fine. If you don't like my view, that's fine, too. Take a hike, find another and better vantage point that more closely matches your taste and interest. Stand there for awhile and take it all in and appreciate that view. While you're at it, why don't you make a picture of this vision and send it to me? I'll look at it.

<<>>

 

 

LOL.

 

Show me a good artist or writer or photographer who's not preoccupied with the work of others.

 

The tradition is a hard thing to put out of your head. H. Bloom's 'The Anxiety of Influence' sees it as some Freudian battle that every artist undertakes and then spends the rest of his or her life fretting over.

 

I'm not sure I buy completely into Bloom's thesis, but I *do* think that photography is pretty complex.

 

I mean, no, it's not stuff you think about when you're walking the streets in search of a photograph, but at some point -- if we want our images to reach a wider audience -- don't we attempt (maybe unsuccessfully, maybe successfully) to grapple with the "tradition?"

 

Gosh, if it's merely "mumbo-jumbo", that would surely suck.

Screw the wider audience. If that's what's on your mind you're not an artist to begin with and have no vision per se in your head but rather just some agenda pre-conceived elsewhere.

Do your work, Chris, and let the details sort themselves out. Anything inside of you worth getting at is unique to you. You'll live longer that way into the bargain, by the way.

Well I'm floored by your technical expertise but I love this shot, especially the rich blue against the black. All those lights give a depth to a skyline that you just don't get from a daylight scene. But with your high standards, how do we novices ever get to a level where we get noticed enough to have our requests for advice answered?

Unfortunately, this server teems with everything but a willigness (or ability) to help anyone. It poses as an instructional venue, and it does have a wealth of material to research (if you've the time), but the users themselves are not all that helpful (for whatever reasons) in the main, and by the time one wades through the sheer volume of low-grade bullshit it's a wonder anyone learns anything worthwhile. And I often wonder if they do.

You want help? If so, what sort of help would you like? I'm not sure I'm qualified but I'd be happy to discuss photography with you and it might be that our conversation would serve to help both of us.

Let me know, I've the time.