Untitled

too late to edit.. the dryness of the woman at left .also a touch of surrealism to it in contrast to all the rain and umbrella, on third thought. If an image provokes me to think like this, it is a good image, congratulations!

If the sign and post were not there I would like it so much more but I assume it was a quickly taken shot without time to pose the people or get a different viewpoint. If it was posed etc I guess it would be a portrait, not what I assume, is a street shot.
I like the grittyness to the shot and by that I mean harshness, nothing to do with grain etc and would have been pleased to have taken it. In fact the more I look at it the more I like it. Is the nearest woman about to turn round to see what the person behind her is doing? Will she wait for the rain to stop or just run for it? Would it make it to the wall or a frame? No.

After watching it now a few times, and reading the other comments, I think I get why the image does not entirely work for me. What Ken wrote, above: I like the lighting on the rain a great deal.... So do I. It's epicly wet, and that's very well caught (better than in the PoW that Luca linked to, in my view, though I prefer that photo as a whole). The way the rain lights the scene is really cool.
To the point where the foreground (where the story should be) becomes distracting.

Initially, the foreground story seemed a nice contrast; the umbrella turning away from the other woman without (visible) protection against the rain. But she looks away... would she have stared at the umbrella, the story would be there. Now, it ends up being a photo of an extemely wet street with 2 women blocking the view.

What I like about this photograph is the sense of anonymity and isolation. That's why not being able to see either woman's face works for me. The women are together in the photograph, but they are alone...which makes me wonder are they lonely as well.

They are on what you'd think would be a crowded street, but there's no traffic. If there are other people, they're well hidden. So where is everyone? Where are all the cars and trucks that would normally make up an everyday scene like this one? This heightens the sense of isolation for me. There is a lot of detail in the background, even though it's partially obscured by the rain and overall atmosphere.

I think this is one of those photographs where the viewer should sort of disregard what they might perceive as technical or compositional faults, and let the imagination take over. Is there a "story" here? Sure there is...you just get to make it up yourself.

I like this a lot, and needless to say, I love the black and white.

Sébastien

Sorry, the street sign and post ruin this shot for me. Otherwise it’s the kind of photography I pine for.

 

Jim, I understand what you're saying. I have a slightly different take on it. I don't want to make up the story myself. I want to do it in conjunction with what the photographer (the photograph) has given me. In this case, the story isn't there but enough "stuff" is in the foreground to prevent me from getting to a story. I think a photographer doesn't have to come out and tell the complete story, but I think there has to be some sort of coherence within the picture that allows the story to unfold as a story. That doesn't happen for me here.

I'm hesitant about disregarding what you refer to as technical or compositional faults. Many of us have pointed out faults with the content itself. I don't disregard wrong notes when I hear a piano piece, though I can recognize them as wrong notes and may enjoy the piece despite those wrong notes. But if passages and phrases get jumbled too much and there's a lack of clarity and coherence in the presentation of the musical piece, it gets harder and harder to hear what the melody actually is. That's what's happening to me here.

+1 to what Jim Adams said. The elements to allow us to imagine are presented in this photo without an idea being driven at us. (25 words)

I saw some complains about the street line and the post. However, I feel these two make a ordinary photo to an outstanding photo. They bring a lot of dimension and geometry to this image. Congs!

I do like the idea of the photo. technically it is well done however there is something clumsy about the photo? the people appear too large in the frame to me.. too close as it they are not part of the photo but trying to take over the photo. they should be made to be included as if they are part of the rain the greys the archietecture. it would have been more intense if the 2 persons were in the mist of the storm part of it farther in the distance and not infront of the distracting pole and sign. take care sam

I think it would have been a stronger photograph it were just of the woman hiding under the umbrella, and the lady on the left and the signage were not there. Opening up the dark tones a little more would have been beneficial as I can see two characters sheltering from the rain in the background, just about.

I believe the person under the umbrella is coming not going, which gives a different view to the photo.

Samme is right. There is something clumsy about the foreground. Unfortunately, in such situations and with the subjects so close, a different composition would have been very difficult.
Overall it's no easy shot. Very little space. The need to avoid that the camera gets wet. A small space.
Almost impossible to "chase" any subject into the rain, as in this photo. :-)

TO: Fred G.

What you say is valid, of course, and your "piano piece" is a good analogy. Looking at it from your point of view, I can't really disagree with what you say.

That said, I'll stick with my initial assessment. And this, for me, is what makes serious photography critique so interesting. Some of us simply see things from a more technical view, while others (like me) lean more to the sort of esoteric things in a photograph...like when I move past the visual and more into the things that could be implied.

Plus, my own life is often (as you say) "jumbled too much" and takes on a "lack of clarity and coherence", so maybe that figures into why I like this photograph.

It sort of falls into that whole "eye of the beholder" thing in the end, doesn't it?

Jim, thanks. Sure, eye of the beholder. But I think we can specify it more directly, which is very important in looking and in providing a critique. You gave important information as to why you and I see this differently when you said "when I move past the visual." That's very different, for me, from moving past the technical, which most of us commenting negatively and positively did. I didn't hear anyone here getting hung up on the technical. People were disappointed in the content, story, and/or composition, which is different from commenting on noise, stuff being out of focus, or blown highlights (none of which would apply to this photo, which is technically quite good).

I think it is the composition that makes this one interesting. One has to think of it I believe as a pleasing balance of tonal masses, the relation of the whiteish blouse and the whiteish umbrella, punctuated by small masses of black and other tonal harmonies and their relationship to the more obscured buildings and street forms. The rain is frozen onto the glass of the enclosure and its texture blends well with the atmospheric background. The predominance of curves in the image is also interesting, umbrella, the tilt shape of the umbrella, the slight turn away of the foreground face, building fronts in the background, the woman's head, the rounded Market Street sign, round translucent shopping bag, other complementary shapes (the pole doesn't matter at all in that context, and in fact adds some tension, perhaps hinting at us to attempt to separate the otherwise complementary two major subjects of the photograph. The black and white rendition is very good, not often a strong point in digital B+W images (I didn't check what type of camera Sébastien was using, but presumably it was a digital).

So from the sensory point of view and particularly its fine composition I find it quite interesting, significantly better than another rain photo referenced above and which strikes me as perhaps less static but quite jumbled from a composition viewpoint.

Does the subject matter tell us anything or mean anything in a narrative or metaphorical sense? No, I don't think so, as others have said. But the point is, why does it have to (I know steet photographers in general wil not agree with that)? What I think is important here is just the physical beauty of the composition and the fine tonality. Many fine art photographs tell much less and don't even look as good. It's a photo that makes you want to go back and look again, not for some secret of the action but for its better than average balance of tones and forms and related artistic impact. Very nice perception.

Arthur, nothing has to mean anything or maintain a narrative or story, as you say. But I find that a story is suggested by the two people in the foreground. I can't (and won't) simply see them as shapes and receptors of light. I do think sometimes people and people with umbrellas act that way and am perfectly willing to accept them at times as compositional elements with no particular plot development. But here, where we see part of the foreground woman's face in profile, we see the arm of the other woman under her umbrella, we can almost palpably feel the tension between the two of them, I do sense a story unfolding . . . and I'm left wanting, not because I always want or think I should want, but because the photo itself feels like it's making me want. It is drawing me into a narrative and then disappointing me.

Fred, I am reminded of some popular music and operas that I have been attracted to musically but in which the narrative is of little or lesser importance or extremely simple compared to the music. In those cases I appreciate the music and ignore the spotty or incomplete narrative. It's just the music itself that carries the piece. Some examples of that for me are The Beatle's piece "All you need is love", the McGarrigle Sister's "H2O", some "opera buffa" by Pergolesi or Donizetti, or even Sibelius,s "The swan of Tuonela" or "Finlandia", the apparent symbolism or narrative of which are a little foreign to my experience.

I think there are a lot of analogies that can be made between music and photography. The use of form, color (tone), relative masses, counterpoise, counterpoint, texture, harmony, discord, silence (empty or black space) and other elements in a photo, like the imnage of this present discussion, have their equivalents in music.

Those visual elements can be partly composed of persons, without any need to attribute actions or narrative context to them. Enigma is also often more successful than certainty. There is an enigma in the POW image. As a photographer, I can work with animate or inanimate elements together and consider the effect of the composition without having to provide some strong narrative about the human elements. My point is that the work can be appreciated where a narrative is secondary, as in some music, even that music with the literal accompaniment of words.

One of the hang-ups in photography, I think, is the need to have a narrative in an image, like many photos we see in the morning newspaper, or like many many portraits or street photographs. We should be able to appreciate a photograph simply for its compositional, emotive and mood qualities, like the example I give of music. As a musician, I know you appreciate this analogy between music and visual art and photography. Much music does not have any narrative purpose, but simply incites us to react to the forms and to interprert them in a non-narrative but in a purely sensual or a symbolic and metaphorical manner. For me, the photograph of monsieur Simonot has some musical elements that are very convincing without a need to tell a story. The effect can be harmonious and also post-photographic, in the mind of the viewer.

As I said, I experience no such need. The photo itself guides me, not some pre-existing need that the medium demands.

That being said, though there are certainly many similarities between music and photography and though analogies can be made and metaphors used, I do think there are substantial differences between the visual and the musical.

I may well ignore the story of an opera if it's lame or distracting and just appreciate the music. But then it's not working fully as an opera, for me. I am making a compromise in order to enjoy it, which I often do.

Sure, I can ignore the two people thrust in my face in the foreground of this photo, or I can pretend they are just shapes, but for me that is a compromise and it's making the best of a less-than-optimum situation. What I prefer is for them to work as people, to work as part of the content of the photo (content being an integral part of most, if not all, photos) and also work on the abstract and compositional level you speak of. When all of that works together, it's great. When it doesn't, I include that in my critique.

That is possibly why some of us react positively to abstract art and photography, where there is no narrative, and others not at all.

On a more closely narrative level (as with the present photograph), when the Beatles use A-B-B-A Sonata form in some of their compositions of lesser story line, like the piece I mentioned, it nonetheless works quite strongly for me. I think we have to accept that visual art can also have impact on different levels of interest. In the present case, the form, mood and harmony of the visual elements, and a slight enigma of the human elements (which I don't need to resolve with certainty) and the contrary-to-the-separrated human characters of the linkage of the bridged two buildings in the background (something I just now re-appreciated), are what are more important for me. That is not an always present manner of reaction I have to each photograph but is case-by-case and subject matter related.

When I first looked at this image I will admit that I moaned just a little bit. As I looked at the image a few more times, I had to stop and enjoy several things about it.

From the technical standpoint, the tones and such, it has a lot of very wonderful things about it. The way the rain is described here is wonderful and creates a great atmosphere. The wonderful tonalities in the woman's satin (?) blouse create a very nice glow. The tones and glow on the street in the triangle formed by the woman with the umbrella and the crosswalk are also very nice. And then we have the atmospheric depth created by the fading density of the buildings as we look down the street.

Just getting one of these things done well in an image makes most of us pretty happy but here we have so many nice things. I think on a certain level this is what I may be hearing Arthur suggest in his entries here, that we can revel in these good things alone.

But I think the fact that the instruments are played masterfully, while it can certainly delight us, sometimes just isn't quite enough. I can certainly appreciate all of these things but if the score is weak, then even the beautiful sound rings a bit empty.

I am not saying that this is an awful photograph by any means, but I don't think it is a great one either. I am not sure anyone would be paying attention to it if it weren't for the rain itself. Of course, one might say that is the point, what IS contained in an image is what makes an image. While that is true on some level, it is really how everything works together that makes a truly successful image (unless we are talking singular historic events being captured)

For me I think it is just that the image lacks tension or connection of any sort--other than what we might feel due to the weather. The composition here is very static with the two people dividing up the frame's horizontal pretty evenly--effectively a centering. The woman with the umbrella is just standing there as she is certainly, based on the profile, facing off stage right and there is no sign of action. Someone mentioned not seeing any other activity on the streets, but my sense is that is because we have not been given room to see anything with this tight, and IMO truncated view. The woman on the left really gives us the only sense of connection or activity as she is possibly glancing behind her to see who is there (the photographer?) otherwise, it is just a shot of two people standing in the rain--what makes me want to care about this? I can only look at some of the nice qualities created by the juxtaposition of tones within the image--I do think it needs more than this.

In any case, I end up with a sense that a very ordinary and static image was created in adverse weather and, whether fully seen or not, ended up having some incredible "technical" things happen within it that make it cherished for those things as a photographer.

I have come back to this POW several times and it does not seem to slip out of my mind. And yet, nothing really, worth the attention, seems to happen. The image attracts attention and some kind of pleasure to watch and and contemplate. Why is this?

The rain is marvelously filling the frame to such a degree that the viewer, me, find himself in the company of the two ladies protected in the dry. There is not much to look at, into the rain. The street is without points of attraction and partly covered by a sign announcing that we are looking at Market Street, showing what seems to a photo of the street in 1923 ! What ever happened here some 90 years ago, it is gone and done with. A travel in time presented in b&w with low contest and slight Sepia filter ! - but not really working and seems to be a blind alley for appreciating the scene of the shot.

So, I come back to the forefront of the scene, that of the two women. The composition here seems to carry the whole scene of the photo and surely worth the attention. The white line to the right and the pole to the left, framed by the dark areas of the street corners, near by, drags our attention towards the women, that already are centered in the frame. Both with bags, both turning their heads away from each other, one securely protected by her umbrella, giving a clear message of non-communication - in full coherence with the view of Market Street. Not much to say !

People looking for a story to tell will be in difficulties. What they see is a very good image of stillness and silence in heavily rain. A moment to pass.

Overall, I like the photo very much. No sharp voices. No loud music played. Just the sound of rain.
Well done Sébastian!

It's nice to read such an enthusiastic support by Andreas.

However a remark by Elliott Erwitt comes to my mind:

the rain background is really beautiful, but I still think that it's the two ladies in the foreground which create an issue.
And I'm not looking for any story, it's just a question of balance in the frame.

Sebastien,

in terms of evoking a certain type of dreamy mood this picture is superb. Personally, I would have preferred either just having the

woman with the. Umbrella in the picture without the woman on the left or vice versa. This would have "tightened" the photo and your

concept. Also to me the phone booth is a distraction. Otherwise a wonderful concept!

 

Cheers : )

The dry and the wet, I presume.

This is one of the most interesting photos I've seen in this forum, if only because it shows how very different people see impact in a photograph and how they interpret it (the people being other photographers, and this is quite revealing in itself). The critiques are varied and show how photographers themselves see photographs in very different ways and often in ways that say clearly that it is a photographer who is speaking.

It also indicates certain paradigms of thought in looking at art or photography, which I am not convinced also exists to the same degree among sculptors, painters, poets or composers. Whether the photographer was fully conscious of it or not, and he may or may not be, there is a lot going on in terms of composition and feeling in this photo that hasn't even been remarked upon in most reviews. For that reason, I think that it is much more than just a street photograph where we want the figures to tell some story or symbolize something, however simple. It is more visually abstract and compositionally powerful than that. Whether it is a great photo or not is not as important for me as the fact that it is an image that I want to explore more than once and I get feedback from those reviewings on each occasion. While I can add to my earlier perceptions some others that I have gotten from the image more recently and that are quite different from earlier ones, I think it is best for each to analyze the photo in his own way and within the aesthetic that he or she has. If there is one thing it shows from the prior comments, it is that there seems to be hardly any common aesthetic analysis in judging photographs, or it is less comprehensive in its net of evaluation than the critiques within most other art media.