New Construction

All are great and friends are said all the things.I can just rate it 7/7.Compliments.

Elegantly and accurately stated, Jeff.

I am so glad that I was able to rate this the way this deserves.

 

The light, the colors and the textures, in this one they all are in so vital part. In a way this is two dimensional and flat (in a good way flat ;-D), but then one notices the upper left corner and this bursts into a awesome 3D-image. Remarkably well seen, when you shot this image!

 

Alpo

Excellent creative image and interesting dialog between you and Fred. The strange thing for me when viewing this image is that it's almost equally divided between the grass and building yet it works so sublimely. And of course PN says I can't grace it with the 7/7 it so well deserves....kuddo's to you.

Such a beautiful capture and lighting, Jeff!! Lot of interestind discussin here! Regards

Jeff as all your raving fans have made abundantly clear. This is a photo to be proud of.

All philosophical elements put aside,I think you've done a magnificent job! You've really coaxed out every bit of beauty there was in this scene. The light is gorgeous and the capture perfect. What I appreciate even more in this shot is that fact that you even thought of taking it...let me explain...had I come across this scene, I would have simply thought: "pretty light...too bad this darn house is standing in front of me" and I would have simply moved along and what a mistake this would have been. Again congrats on a superb shot and I will leave the philosphical discussions for another day (I have this painful file at work that's giving me headaches, so quite frankly I am not going to start another one :-D).

Superb !

You all have been kind and generous in your comments on this shot. I can narcissistically review and savor each comment in a thank-you or click over and see what you all are doing and become re-inspired. I'll choose the latter and offer thanks that way.

We agree about photography being a construction. I, like you, believe that the minute we pick up the camera and decide on an exposure and framing, we have begun manipulating. I have said this many times in various forums on photo.net in answer to people who think photography should remain "pure" and tell "the truth." We probably disagree about just how similar painting and photography are. I think each art form (each medium) has its own unique qualities, idiosyncracies, and nuances (albeit surely there are many overlaps). Certainly, as you suggest, both painting and photography are visual arts. But I do think there is a sense of immediacy in photography's relation to the world around us that is of a different quality than the relationship that painting has to that world. I think the raw materials of each are different and that makes for some different considerations comprising each.

 

My problem, on further introspection, with your photo here is not so much the "constructed" nature of it ("constructed" by means of altering the sky and clouds as you have done), but the integrity of the final product (and I don't mean any kind of ethical or moral integrity, of course, I'm talking only of the internal integrity which allows a photo to work). As Alpo has noticed, there is an unusual dimensionality going on here. That, in my opinion, is very well handled. The flatness of the house and the obvious depth of the background in juxtaposition provide me a surreal feeling that I love and that's what made me think of Magritte. The lighting is my problem. The clouds, I believe, to be lit in such a manner, would have to have the sun behind them or at least much lower in the sky than it would be for the water to be lit as it is and the ray on the front lawn to happen as it does. How is the rest of the sky dusklike and the water so bright? How does the cloud and sky allow for the light in the foreground scene? Now, since I'm talking about Magritte, I did consider one of my favorite of his paintings (a homage to which Jackson Browne's wonderful Late for the Sky album has on its cover), L'Empire des lumieres. Magritte's painting successfully uses impossible lighting toward its surreal and effective end. But I think Magritte has adequately conveyed that that was his purpose, especially by including the lit windows in the houses and the illuminated street lamp. There's nothing in your photo that gives me a clue that your lighting situation is intentionally impossible and that's what I mean by integrity. I think this is a flaw in the internal consistency or integrity of your photo.

 

I think in your statement above, you make an excellent distinction between truth and fact, and I think I mostly agree with you and probably lots more can be said on those subjects that would be enlightening. I am a little concerned, though, about the notion of subjectivity which you bring up in one of your closing paragraphs above. Of course much about art and photography is subjective, as is much about the "truths" we purport to tell in our photographs or experience in others'. But I do worry that, particularly on photo.net, there is too much talk about subjectivity and photography and that such talk may keep some or many photographers from actually getting better. If too much about photography is subjective, then there are few if any criteria upon which critiques can be made and improvement can be sought. Not everything is a good photo just because either the photographer or a viewer thinks it is. More importantly, I feel pretty strongly that not everything is a good photo just because it was taken at a good or important or momentous time in the photographer's life. As I've said in another recent post, I think there are some things on which you would find most experienced photographers agreeing. I think dozens of photo.net photos could be shown to several experienced and acclaimed photographers or photography critics and they would agree on their criticisms. Those would be made based on certain objective criteria. I think we can water down the notions of both art and photography if we make them too much about personal opinion and subjectivity. I think there can be certain fundamental qualities that can be assessed (and the greats among us will always figure out a way to change those or push the limits) and acknowledged. I think it's also important to remember that a "good" photo can be liked or disliked. I don't often like macro shots (a very personal matter) but I believe I can still recognize whether one is well done or not (a less personal matter). The case with your photo is that I happen to like it quite a lot. But I also think it could have been done better.

I agree with Fred that there are certain standards and theories to judge or critique every form of literary and artistic artifice, but I think there are visceral qualities that emanate from the mythology or universal aspect of subject material, the points of reference. Perhaps they are simply certain combinations of techniques. But when I think of some of the photographs that hold great meaning for the photographer, there is something that is transmitted that trumps the theories and rules of techniques. I suppose that too can be analyzed. But Fred, look at Jeff's photograph of Phil, which, I think carries a meaning that is so universal and as old as time that while it is art, its beauty and meaning transcends art just a bit, or at least should be critiqued including other criteria.

If you could provide me the link to the photo of Phil, I'd love to take a look at it.

Came late to the party Jeff( vacation time....)After reading the discussion, I will say only this, photography has many ways of expressions. Art photography imo speaks of creating and creativness,painting is not only oils canvases,papers and colors, it is a way of thinking and execution, Photography for me is the same thing : creating ,but with another medium.If a photographer wants it to be as is( fact , reality- puristic)he can, but for me it is taking a subject and working to bring it to the best result of my way of thinking and my ability to execute a work of a special meaning, and not anything else.I do think that as when the photographer is more advanced he will see a photo and will know why it is a good work or not.

 

For me, a photo has to evok feelings, the whole has to have attraction to explore it for more than a second, and the last result has to " talk" to me.

 

Art has many faces, and I don't think it has to have one criteria, also rules in the art s are important to know, and later on, break them if it serves the purpose.

 

I think that the construction of composition here works well with the line of light that enters you to the house, the eye go's to the lighted window, than to the blue one and the sky. I think that your sky is well treated, as it gives ballance to the great part of the house , and it has a "roundness" of way for the viewer to " walk". The colors of the whole has a nice attraction as well.

Fred--

"Here's to Phil--One Year Gone" in Jeff's "Family Album"--this folder.

 

Jeff, compliments to you .

That photo of Phil and the baby is art, it's good art, and it's art that I like. It may have great meaning for Jeff and that comes through the photo loud and clear. They also might have been strangers to him, in which case he would be telling his "truth" about the way he sees such love, connection, and the coming together of generations. That all comes through so powerfully because Jeff has handled it so well as a photographer. The close cropping, the composition, the moment he was able to capture, the incredible ethereal lighting, the very able conversion to black and white. This is my favorite kind of art because the artist chose a subject near and dear to him and expressed his closeness to it adeptly. I always encourage photographers to photograph what they care about. Most photographers, I believe, would do the same. Writers are traditionally encouraged to write about what they know. There's a reason for that. It makes for better stories. I think Jeff's emotional tie to this photo is the foundation and the beginning here. All the good technique he has used supports and enhances the expression and emotion. Without the good technique, I would not care as much about it nor do I believe it would convey as much expression or emotion. I might still, as you suggest, recognize the deep emotional tie inherent in the universal nature of such memories, but I would not feel it as much. I have seen many photos that I know are extremely meaningful to the individual photographer that are lousy photographs and, although it's clear the emotion was there at the time, the emotion itself does not get passed on through the photograph. If you're interested, Donna, I can link you to countless examples on photo.net. I prefer not to site examples here out of respect to the photographers in question. You are right, Donna, those are important personal photographs to people but they will never be what this photo of Phil is. Those other photographs are not good art and they are not good photos. I don't think, simply because of the deep emotional connection, they "transcend" anything. They simply are what they are, a recording of a wonderful memory which is universally recognizable and which might be shared with others. They probably shouldn't be put up for critique because they are not about that. Photography has many uses and many reasons. Recording is an important one. I do believe, however, there are still good and bad "record" photographs and feel able to separate what I know was felt at the time the photo was made and whether I think what was felt is well conveyed or makes me feel anything. If it's a photo of someone important to me (I have many pictures of my own grandparents and long-gone relatives that are not very good photos), I cherish them. But, in my opinion, my cherishing them has little if anything to do with art or good photography. It may have more to do with why photography, itself, is good.

Fred, I'm asking the question, "What gives art monumentality" or a sustaining universal standing of "great art" that can be explained, using systems of overdetermination, including myth and reference to universal themes. The artist's ties to his or her work are important, but it's not the main point that I'm trying to make. I am certainly not discounting technique. Of course, I agree with you on that. Without technique, one does end up with snapshots that have importance, most likely, only to the people involved. I want to elaborate, and I also want to read more conversation about this, but I've no time right now. I'll log in later tonight. Good discussion.

I am truely enjoying reading along with the discussion here. As someone who is fairly new to photography, and has no where near the skill of most of the people commenting on this photo, I find it interesting to hear the different opinions on what make a photograph good or great.

 

Personally, I love this photo, I like that it is an impossible light, I like the geomotry, the colours, and the light. At first, I thought that it was the light leading to the doorway that had been created, and I thought that Jeff had done a great job at creating it.

 

My 2 cents on the discusson that is going on.

 

I think that this is a conversation with no end. There are too many different reasons to take a photograph, and I believe that each reason has a different set of guidlines as to what makes it good or even great.

 

I've read time and time again on this site about how Photography is "truth", this is something that I hate to hear, I feel that photojournalism is about truth, about capturing an important moment and displaying it to the world as it happened, but that's where I feel "truth" in photography ends. I feel that when taking a photo, we as photographers already have the image in our minds, the same as painters do when looking at a blank piece of canvas, from there we create what we want to see. In the image above, Jeff obviously saw an image that was very pleasing to the eye, and very artistic, something that would make a great painting, but because of the angle of the Sun, it wasn't exactly what his minds eye was seeing, so in Photoshop, he was able to adjust the image to fit what he wanted others to see. I see no problem with that, because if he hadn't, as good as the origional is, it just doesn't have the emotional impact that the created one has (for me at least anyways).

 

I am sorry for not being as good with words as others here, I hope I was able to get my point accross.

 

Just to be clear, when and if I use the term "truth," which I do sparingly, I don't use it to mean any kind of correspondence to reality or representation of anything. I use it to mean kind of a personal way of seeing things that can translate somewhat universally for others. I agree with much of what you've said and think you've stated it well. To flesh it out, for instance, many of my own portraits don't relate the "truth" in the typical way of defining "truth." They, hopefully, convey a more universalized "truth." In a good portrait, one catches a moment of expression that both photographer and viewer can relate to, that moves us. That is done with the subject, the photographer, the lighting, the framing, etc. It is not necessarily what others would have seen or felt had they been at the original scene of the picture-taking. So, on that level, it is not necessarily representative of exactly what the observable facts were at the time. Perhaps the model was in a foul mood that day, but I happened to catch an expression in a certain light with a certain hand gesture that looks as if he or she were engaged in some great spiritual moment. That has, for me, the makings of a good photo and is a kind of "truth." But it is not necessarily the kind of "truth" we mundanely speak about if we want to accurately represent what that person was feeling at the time. And even if we wanted to, I believe we could only portray what we think the person was feeling at the time or what that person was feeling from our point of view. I would also question the notion of "truth" as regards photojournalism. While a good photojournalist is in many cases doing something different than an art photographer (again, with a lot of overlap as well), the photojournalist is still shooting from his or her perspective. Consciously sometimes, and unconsciously often, the photojournalist represents only a point of view. That's why every journalism student is taught not necessarily to "believe" every image or word they see in print. Imagine two photojournalists covering and shooting a suicide, one who has suicidal tendencies him or herself and one whose father has committed suicide and resents the act immensely. They will both shoot what is in front of them, but their biases will quite likely slip in . . . in some way. One may shoot it from a darker perspective, one more objectively. The angle, the exposure, what's included in the frame will all determine what will be conveyed about the scene. I believe there really is no stagnant or ultimate "truth" or "reality" (believing instead that those kinds of notions are mostly relative). For me, what photography portrays, among other things, is perspective.

One additional comment. I often don't envision what photograph I will create. I let the moment capture me (allowing, of course, that it will be from my own perspective that I will see it and process it). Many photos I am pleased with were very unplanned, except for the post processing part. And even the post work sometimes feels like it happens by happy accident. I often go out to discover what's there for me, not with an image in mind and not really to create.

I have the feeling that this is going to be a lengthy reply, so I apologize ahead of time. These are discussions that would seem natural over a cup of coffee, but seem artificial in a venue such as this. To start, I'll comment again about this photo-the instigator of this debate. Honestly, as I mentioned before, I think this particular photo is merely a pretty photo. I thought it was nice enough to post, even though I realized it had flaws, as do all my photos because I'm still learning. I appreciate your review of the quality of the light, which seems troubling to you. For me, I thought the unusual treatment of the light, though admittedly not realistic, gave the photo some extra charm and uniqueness because it was a touch surrealistic. Basically, how I handled the light with a dusk-like sky against brilliant water was a very deliberate choice. This is not the type of subject matter or treatment that you choose to use in your own work, and this is not a photo that you would have taken. The same is true of your photos for me. That being said, we can still comment, think about, enjoy, and even criticize each other's work. I truly believe that posting a photo gives permission for the world to comment, good and bad. I concede that the photo could have been better, and I appreciate your honesty in telling me so.

 

I've reviewed several recent posts of yours, and I feel that you have raised some important questions. You've voiced some significant questions about the nature of photography in general, as well as some specific questions regarding our purpose for posting and critiquing on PN. I apologize for being blunt, but I get the sense that you feel you're a lone voice in the wilderness and that the rest of us are mired in subjectivity, wrapped up in an "anything goes"/"it's all good" attitude, which simply isn't true. There are many photos I see that in my opinion fall flat because of compositional, color-related, focus failures, or post-processing errors. I'm using the term errors instead of choices because I do think there are standards by which photos can be judged.

 

Harkening back to your comments on Roger?s ice cream photo, I don't always know where the line is between a snapshot and a work of art. I peruse the works of photographers past and present trying to find some unifying theme or approach that signifies greatness, and I can't find it. There are rules and techniques, true, which serve as guideposts, but there are also elements that transcend rules. All I know is that great photos stir up something in me that is either deeply emotional or deeply visual. They seem to fit like love at first sight. This is the subjective part of appreciating art. I think your idea of having a panel of experts review photos would be enlightening in many ways. I would expect considerable agreement and extensive debate because there are so many criteria for evaluating works of art.

 

The concept of reviewing the intentionality of the artist is an intriguing one. Did the person accomplish what he or she set out to do? Did he or she achieve the artistic statement that was intended? In the absence of an actual discussion with the creator of a photo, these are questions that often go unanswered unless one is very familiar with the artist's body of work. Most of time, deciding whether a photo has successfully expressed a particular artistic vision is a matter of speculation. Pardon my reversion to subjectivity, but frequently all I'm left with is whether the photograph fits what I believe to be technically, aesthetically, and emotionally pleasing and meaningful to me. I think what is disheartening is that in the absence of truly knowing what the person was trying to accomplish, definitive statements that "you should have done this or that" sound more like pronouncements than suggestions. I think there's strong value in give and take discussions regarding our photos because it helps define and hone what the artist is trying to convey. And for those still learning, it helps us to improve.

 

There's a line from Alice in Wonderland in which the Dodo proclaims, "All have won and all shall have prizes." Perhaps your concerns reflect this dilemma. Should we simply pat everyone on the back, issue gold stars for participation, and believe that in doing so we have done anyone a service? However, the converse is equally frightening. Would-be critics sit in catbird seats while rigidly defining what is deemed "true art" and measuring everything against this contrived yardstick, chewing into each and every part of a photo that falls short of this ideal. Okay, I'm exaggerating a bit, but there has to be some balance here between completely lacking a discriminating eye altogether and following the letter of the law, while missing the spirit of it. (I'm in no way accusing you of this, by the way)

 

I often wonder what the purpose is for photography. I can define my own purpose, but does it apply to everyone? I can define what I think is art, but does everyone share that point of view? I think not. There are many famous artists whose work I detest because they do nothing for me, though technically impressive. There are many modern artists whose work is so esoteric and beyond the human experience that they do nothing but repulse me (perhaps intentionally so). There are pieces that are deemed great by the art world that thrill me, and others that make me yawn. There's the whole genre of outsider art, which I find fascinating. Bottom-line, there is some subjectivity in art, which is why there are infinite ways of expressing oneself, unlike mathematics or science that tend to search for the one right answer. But as you and Donna both mentioned, there are also objective aspects that if followed and respected can significantly improve one's communicated vision and if ignored can turn an artistic statement into gibberish.

 

Photo.net purports to be a photo critique site, but in actuality operates more as a photo-sharing site much of the time for better or worse. Because photography is an extension of us, I think it's a valid conduit for connecting with others. Perhaps it's important to be honest about why we post. Do we want criticism with a goal of improving? Or do we simply want to show works of which we are proud? A similar question could be applied toward those of us who critique. Do we want to be helpful? Do we want to connect? Or do we want to show off our knowledge?

 

Fred, I don't feel lost in subjectivity. I do recognize that some photos are simply bad, some are mediocre, some are personally meaningful, and some are universal. I try to keep in mind that people photograph for different purposes (as Darren mentioned)--some to pursue grand artistic pursuits and others to simply document interesting sites and memorable experiences. It's in the discussion that these purposes are discovered. To me, that's not a matter of subjectivity, but of understanding and valuing they "why" behind the photo. Fred, I think you are fantastic at facilitating these philosophical discussions, so I appreciate your diligence in giving these matters attention. Photography without thought, purpose, soul, or analysis seems an empty pursuit.

 

Okay, I'm starting to feel like a dog chasing its own tail. If you knew me personally Fred, you'd know I like these discussions and don't take offense by any question or criticism, but find these discussions to be incredibly inspiring and energizing. We'd eventually agree or maybe agree to disagree, have a beer, and life would go on.

 

Please never apologize for lengthy responses, especially when they are articulate, honest, and well-reasoned. You are right to pick up on my attitude of feeling like a lone voice in the wilderness and I'm sorry if it comes across as surly or setting up a me vs. them situation. That may be less about the "subjectivity" issue than it is about a frustration of what I perceive to be a lack of honest and helpful criticisms on photo.net to balance the pats on the back. I don't always look for criticisms either. Honest emotional reactions can be very helpful when one doesn't find anything "wrong" with a photo. Your such reactions are usually classics! And I must say I've been gratified by and thankful for the many emotional reactions I've received on my own recent submissions, so my disappointment is more about what I see as I look around the site than what I've personally experienced lately. I don't, though, want this discussion to become about personalities or ad hominem argumentation. I do think we would get along just fine since we both enjoy this type of discourse. I needn't agree with my friends and colleagues, especially on philosophical matters about which I have both long-held and ever-changing opinions, and enjoy a healthy debate as long as respect and decorum are maintained, neither of which I worry about with you. I appreciate what you say about your own thoughts on photographs and your ability to find fault, etc. I will say (and this is by no means a scientific study, just observation) that I have seen many, many of your comments and can't think of instances where you found and mentioned something you thought was wrong or not working. That may be either bad memory and some generalizing on my part or a matter of my not seeing a good representative sampling of your comments. Because of that I did, as you surmised, assume you were in the "subjective" camp and reticent to be critical (in terms of finding fault) of others' work. I'm sorry if I was mistaken on that score and take you at your word. I desperately hope neither of us comments or is critical just to show off our knowledge as opposed to having a sincere desire to help others. I haven't felt that way about anyone's comments I can think of at the moment. By the way, I am not totally selfless in the heavy amount of critiquing and viewing that I do. I learn a lot myself both by viewing others' work and by forcing myself to put into words my reactions, good and bad, to other photographs and photographers. Critiquing others in depth helps me a great deal to focus on and learn things about others and also about my own approach to photography. I always hope others will respond to my critiques, especially if they disagree, and am happy when dialogues even fractionally this stimulating ensue.

 

I actually do have a couple of photographs that I would put in a similar camp to this one of yours. They were not done as intentional homages to Magritte or surrealism at the time although they were obviously influenced by my love for the genre. They are both early photos but I still cherish such influence and would overtly like to pursue such avenues again. They are in my "In Town" folder along with the photo of Mark, which I intentionally placed in that folder along with the other two because I saw some theoretical and visual similarities in the three of them and Mark is, as you know, quite recent and I was glad I had rekindled a bit of what I saw as surreal or maybe absurd. Please have a look if you'd like. While I found flaws in your current photo and also understand your own feelings about it, I certainly respect your endeavor and feel you've accomplished quite a lot here and also like it a lot despite my hesitation about how well the lighting aspect works. I hope I have sufficiently communicated that already.

 

Thanks again, Jeff, for the honesty and willingness to discuss these things. I learn a lot from you by viewing your photos, hearing your reactions to mine, and discussing these kinds of issues with you in such detail and with such candor.

Hey Fred

 

Just to follow up quickly with you... Thanks you for the clarification of the word "truth" as you meant it.

 

Also, most of (what I feel) my best shots are normally from at least a week of planning everything that I would like to accomplish. The Suicide shots were something that just hit me while he was visiting (actually his idea) and to be honest, after viewing them time and again, I felt that if I had given the thought more attention, they would have come out better.

 

Now I'll get out of this conversation, as I don't have nearly the expertise to add anything of value to this discussion (not a shot at myself, I'm just not delusional enough to believe that I am anywhere near the level of the two of you)

Hi Fred, I feel the same way as Darren. I can't add anything more to the discussion either.

...for any of you who have suffered through this intensely philosophical and wordy discussion.

 

Two friends of mine were having a heated discussion. Julie, an intensely serious psychologist given to analyzing every interaction, was trying to discuss a matter near and dear to her heart--something very Freudian and not terribly exciting. Frank, a practical software guy, made a rather sarcastic remark in the middle of Julie's monologue.

 

Julie exploded, "Frank, I could just shoot you."

 

Frank dryly replied, "Well, I don't think the bullet would hurt as much as all the processing we'd have to do after you shot me."

 

Wishing you all peace and happy shooting.

Beautiful light and great colors wonderful work Jeff,best regards