IN A PERFECT WORLD

That's a great title for a great picture, David. The treatment really conveys the feeling of some futuristic vision. Reminds me a little of a movie entitled Gattaca. I think Andrew Nicchol filmed the entire movie with a color filter to alter the viewer's perception. I got the same impression here with your monochrome treatment.

 

I remember going to Berlin, Germany, with one of my classes and a few colleagues. We had invited a young Canadian assistant who had just arrived in Europe a week or so before. So, here we are in Berlin, looking through the pages of the history of the 2Oth Century at every corner of the city, you know, WWII, the Cold War, The Wall etc...Well, in the middle of all that, we suddenly hear the young Canadian girl exclaiming with a happy shout: " Starbuck's! Here's a Starbuck's! They have it here too! It's like home in Vancouver!

She was a really nice girl but she'd been walking without a word until that moment and it was quite funny to see the way she suddenly reacted when she saw the cafe. She was " In A Perfect World" I guess!

While it'd be easy enough to note and praise the attractive composition and processing, for me this image is all about these two contrasting men...and delightful for that. They're both seated and facing the same direction; all similarity stops there. Just as I think it's all about the sleeping man, I change my mind and am drawn to the young man. It's about both and the unlikely combination makes a great shot. Congratulations.

Oh boy! This is an immediate favorite of mine. I really, really like a lot of your more recent work and this stands out even among that.

First of all, it tells a great story. It fits into your overall pattern of work but goes a bit beyond in really capturing an entire narrative as well as a picture, a moment occurring as well as a moment captured, life continuing as well as life having gone by.

There are such incredibly visual elements and the potential for so much energy . . . the open windows, the great exposure of the outdoors, the composition, the design, the graphic nature of the window frames, floor, and lights. It's got a bit of reflection for even more depth and interest. The shadows are wonderful. The lighting contrasts and glow of lights that I see in the original/out-of-the-camera version are great. I see that original as a big challenge, but it doesn't seem like an insurmountable one. I think, because it's such a challenge, it has more potential than easier-to-process stuff.

I guess my first thought would be that if you wanted to work in a more "straight" way with this photo, it might be impossible to actually go against what you've got, meaning I don't see much hope in lightening up the shadows too much, which doesn't mean that expression and mood can't be read into those shadows. I often come up against two distinct ways of approaching photos as they come out of the camera. One is wishing I had something different and figuring out how to hide or cover up what I think is problematic. The other is to take what's problematic and run with it, figuring out a way to make it work to my advantage (often thinking that what I actually got may in some way be better than what I now tell myself I think I wanted).

This is a great photo for bringing up a bunch of issues about post processing and vision, not to mention critique. Some of us tend not to like a "craft"-oriented look in terms of processing. I think that probably should be filed under matters of taste, about which there probably is no objective right or wrong. I definitely would have handled this in a more straight photographic way instead of the more illustrative way you've gone. But I really think that's a vision thing . . . and personal. For instance, I notice among your top-rated photos, THIS ONE. I think it's an interesting photo (although not nearly as good as yours here which potentially has much more depth and interest) but don't care for the processing. If I were going for dreamy, I'd do it differently. That having been said, though, there's a valid place in life for this kind of treatment, a bit more graphic, creatively manipulated. For me, a lot depends on the intentionality of the decision. Is this what you want it to look like, is it really just playing around, as you say? You begin by saying you think most people won't like it. What's that about? Do you like it? Do you like the photo? Do you like your treatment?

OK, so next comes actual critique of technique. And, being no expert in this kind of technique, how it's accomplished, or what really goes into it, there's a few things I notice when I compare your photo to the photo I linked to above. Yours feels like it could suggest a lot more. When I look at the woman in Leslie's photo, I read some detail, some expression. There is virtually no face on the man sleeping in Starbucks' corner and not even really the suggestion of a face. That doesn't have to be, from looking at the original. And, although there's a clear foreground and background in your image, separated by a big honking wall of windows with geometric frames, nothing really pops out and nothing recedes. It's as if everything is taking place in one dimension and on the same plane, even though there is such a clear inside and outside. Some lighting and selective levels adjustment could really amplify the sense of space in this image. And the guy touching his ear. His tee-shirt just kind of got dirty compared to the original. It doesn't look like texture and it doesn't make much sense to me visually. Right now, not just because of my taste, the technique is fighting me. I don't think that has to be.

Aren't you glad you didn't ask?!

Thank you for taking the time to analyze the content and meaning of the image. I've received tremendous feedback on this, and now find myself trying to sort out the thoughts of the commentators ans well as my own. You guys are great!

Oh I do love it when you regale us with those stories of your past, and your social commentary. Thanks for not delving into the artistic merit (or lack thereof), because I've got more on that plate than I think I can deal with at this juncture. Yes, Walmart, Costco, Sams and Borders have taken the game to a new level. As you know, I've been traveling a bit across the land, and you can see how the big cities have stolen the populace as surely as the big boxes have stolen the business from the small guys. I ran a small business for twenty nine years, and believe me it is not the way of the future. It's a grueling and tenuous existence, and even worse for your employees who no matter how hard you try, you cannot pay more than the minimum to keep them housed , fed and covered with health insurance. Someone need to invent a new American Dream, because the old one has turned into a very upsetting nightmare.

Another great comment. I don't care if the picture really sucks.The comments on this one have been true gems. Your account is what I imagine would be typical for an American too. I apologize for painting us with such a broad brush, but there is a reason for the term "Ugly American." Yes, I know if goes deeper than that, but it still is apropos in my mind. Hope you are well. I've missed your commentary a lot.

Thanks. Lots of comments to digest here, and I'm grateful that you've seen something to keep your interest in this one.

Thanks for your detailed comments. First off, I have to tell you I'd trade fifty of these images to have captured your cross carrying believer. I very much liked that one. I definitely saw myself as using the second scenario you mentioned of working from the problems in a less than ideal image. That's what I was saying to Gordon, and have said to Ton in an email. Incidentally, I'm going to attach one of Ton's versions just for others to see. I guess my attitude going into this one was that it was a pretty hopeless straight image to start with, so let's have some fun. The only thing I'm totally negative on was the way the guy's shirt turned so dirty. Otherwise, I don't feel as negative about this one as several other very very good photographers do. Even with the sun streaming in like that this one could have been better. If I had it to do over again, I think I could do better. Even with what I have, some of you have shown me what many might consider to be better. To be honest, at this point I don't know what I think about the image. I'm really conflicted. I do know that I liked the image to which you refered in your comment more than my own. That's not treason in my opinion. I liked my previous post "Deep Water" better too, although it did not spark nearly the interest and commentary this one did. So, there really is no accounting for indiscriminate taste.

 

I'm not sure if I agree if the face can be brought out in the seated man. I'm giving you Ton Mestrom's version, and I don't think the face is significantly better. Of course he did not have th full sized version out of the camera. Gord has also posted an interpretation and I don't think that was any better in that respect. (But, again, he was working with a small compressed file.) But I've gone back to it, and the face is simply not sharp at all. Remember this is taken with a point and shoot in JPEG format.

 

So I guess I turned the image into a kind of parody. You know I have a tendency to not take my output too seriously, and, perhaps, this is one of those times. With the help you guys have given me, I will try to be more serious about what I stick out there. That doesn't mean I'm not going to yank your chains at times.

 

As always, I'm greatly indebted to you for such great and erudite comments.

 

I agree with you. I think the sleeping face, in all versions except the out-of-camera original, looks diseased and I find it difficult to look at, to be honest. That's why I was recommending not trying to get rid of shadows beyond a point where I'd consider it reasonable. I think they could be lightened a little and still work, but can't go too far at all. Going too far with the shadows means you get that awful skin thing going on. I wasn't suggesting that the face would ever be clear, crisp, sharp, or detailed. But it can be expressive nevertheless. Hell, it already is in the original. The glow inside of a shadow can give a distinct "feel" and make you think that the face has a certain degree of expression. The lighting surrounding the face, even if the face actually becomes less seen and distinct can make it "seem" as if the face is putting out a certain vibe. I would have tried just what Gordon and Ton have tried, but I ultimately think it's a counterintuitive way to approach this. I don't think you'll ever get rid of the shadows in any sort of successful way, which is why I was suggesting figuring out how to work with them. When I look at the face in the original, it looks perfectly normal to me and has expressiveness already built in. Also, look at that great, soft glow on the unoccupied chair next to the sleeping man. Look at the hint of strong highlights on his shirt, and you could introduce more of those by cloning or other methods. To me, his face and the light on the chair seat next to him are the elements (with some needed reasonable modifications) around which this image could be conceived. Nothin' wrong with a moody Starbucks.

I came again to this one as it attracted my attention, again and again. I looked at Ton's version, and I think that my reaction is pure personal taste, but I prefer your version ( maybe a tad toning down). because it is too dark and takes the FEELING of the exagereted lighted surrounding of the "perfect" world, which corresponed to the title.. I see the semi blurred face of the sleeping man as maybe a part of your saying about that perfect world where a real expressed face will be less compatible to the whole of the scene, and this way takes it to a generalization of what I think you wanted to express.( it is only IMO of course). I do see a difference between outside and inside, as the soft shadows are well separating it. The diagonal line of both figures are adding to the tension ,even the scane has no moving action.

this photo looks absolutely fantastic. If it weren't for the cars outside, it could have been taken 100 years ago. I think this is one of your best photos (if not the best), and would be worth hanging in any photo/art gallery. I've been thinking what else to write about this photo - the two dudes, the light, the shadows, but then

it would be too much blah blah blah. One incongruence there, though, is that you call it "in a perfect world" and I don't see any V8 there, just an XL cup of toxic coffee. Cheers, Micheal

Well we have a real diversity of opinions here, which I think is really wonderful. Like you, I don't feel that the man's face necessarily needs to be clearly discernible if you wish to go with the concept that he is everyman or representative of old as opposed to the other fellow more sharply in focus as representative of the new. In a perfect world though we might all become faceless. Certainly in the perfect world we would all be bathed in sunlight and, or course, cars would be parked all over the place for us to just take as needed and return to the next parking lot. It is fun to speculate. Fred hit on one thing I really agree on and that is the chair in front of sleeping man. It does have a quality of light to it that I really like more than any single object in the image. Thank you my dear friend.

Hey, easy with the "toxic coffee" comments! I'm sitting in front of this screen with a desperately needed cup of the stuff right now, wanting to stop typing and suck some up. Besides, maybe the guy's cup is chock full of V8. I'm glad you like the image. Now how about you get your jug of V8 out and go for a journey around your neighborhood and produce some images to post? There is no excuse unless you are working more than seventy hours per week.

I wouldn't want to conflate a face that's not clearly discernible, therefore representative of every man or "old" man (which seems perfectly reasonable and doable here) with a face that could be rendered better technically (even if still a bit blurred or somewhat indiscernible). In other words, I think there's well-done indiscernible and there's not-as-well-done indiscernible.

A couple of examples of the same sort of technical problem, which comes about as a result of lightening what was in shadow or shooting in low light and unsuccessful post processing are to be found in both mine and Pnina's portfolio, my photo Alex and Pnina's Rhythm V 2:

In my photo, the patch of skin under Alex's mouth looks more like some skin anomaly than like the area of highlighting within a dark shadow that it originally was. I really didn't notice it until Kirk pointed it out, although I knew I had had a tough time with this whole photo because I wanted to bring out stuff that was deep in the shadows and I probably had exposed incorrectly to begin with. (Yes, I actually am able to use the word "incorrect" when talking about art or photography. LOL)

In Pnina's, if you look at the faces of the two dancers in the back on the left, their faces have a similar look to the Starbucks' man's face. It's that digital noise look that comes from low lighting and issues of exposure and processing.

This stuff may not matter to a lot of people. So if it doesn't, just ignore me. I really get off on making technical proficiency aid in the expressive side of my photos. So, for instance, in Alex, if that light spot on his chin looked more like a lighting effect and less like a skin problem, the overall mystery of the photo, for me, would be enhanced. Pnina's photo would have more grace without the noisy faces. In your photo, David, if the face were left indiscernible, as it is in the shadow of the original, I think it would be a more effective photo than the way it looks here, which is that it looks like the processing is simply off.

By the way, regarding your photo, Pnina's photo, and my photo, they are three favorite photos of mine, so the technical stuff doesn't stop me from appreciating all the beauty that's there nonetheless. I also think a great thing about these three photos is that they can be used as a learning experience as well.

As you took the 3 photos as an example, let me please answer you what I think. Funny that your photo as well as mine recieved many comments from GOOD photographers( as well as David's, that I will refer to later) No one except kirk felt that your photo has the problem kirk talked about . Looking again at your photo the light grain can be seen on all the lighted areas, but it does not distract from the poetic beauty , originality and saying of your work, knowing that you worked bringing out details from the very low light( and I don't see a problem of what Kirk mentioned). The same thing happened with my photo, I agree with your observation about the two on the left( If you really look close, I wonder why you did not write it to me THAN....;-)) and again it was not mentioned by any comment written to it. I don't think it is the lack of observation, but people in general are getting impression of the whole, and observing faults when they are well noticed

 

I think that technical knowledge is very important, and you are an expert in finding problems, but if I have to choose between technical perfection or artistic great expression, I will choose the second.

 

Working in low light and high ISO, the grain is nearly unavoidable. I work now with RAW files and CS3 and still I can not get rid of all the noise always..( even it probably can be done.)

I agree with you about the face in David's work here, that maybe the right post processing of that detail will enhance them, I did not like Ton's example as it has changed IMO what the photo and title were telling me, for me the whole saying was more than the details of the face that gave me a feeling of generalisation of David's saying ,especially the exagerated light (done in purpose) of the whole.

 

I'm not against critique, and you know it,but in this photo, we are having different points of view.

 

Thanks for liking the 3 of them despite... I like them too ;-)) I think David's work is very interesting with appropriate title ( apropo titles...)Thanks for taking the time for the analogy

I agree with you that Ton's changed it quite a bit and his attempt didn't work for me either.

"I wonder why you did not write it to me THAN...." . . . should be THEN :-) . . .

As I learn, I am becoming more observant.

". . . if I have to choose between technical perfection or artistic great expression, I will choose the second."

Me too. But I think most times we don't have to choose. I have seen that notion of choice often (both by myself and others) used as an excuse instead of a reality.

"I don't think it is the lack of observation."

I do. Many people don't look carefully at photos. Many people, myself included, haven't yet developed the eye to see certain photographic things in a certain way, often a matter of experience. Some just don't care about such stuff. Additionally, in many cases it's noticed and not mentioned because, despite this being a critique forum, it is often not treated that way. This, on the other hand (as is the case so often with David's work), has been a wonderful critique discussion.

Thanks for the word correction, I think it is the second time you correct me this one ( really a bad English pupil....)

 

I know that I look closely and try to observe each photo that I write evaluation to, you may be right that people are not refering to faults, but I know that I personaly learned a lot here in this net.

 

Still there are differences of opinion like ours in this one. I like as well a good discussion.

 

Thanks for an interesting one, and have a nice weekend, I'm going to sleep it is past midnight here.

 

DAVID, I hope you don't mind .... I love your work and your way of thinking.

it's not over yet. I agree that my version was a bit overdone. No excuses on my part but you have to allow for the fact that it was meant to make a point. Nobody I know can make a top print of such a highly compressed jpeg. Apart from that there is a genuine difference in opinion. Would it have been a RAW file I would have preferred to lighten his face while you two wouldn't. Fair enough.

 

Fred we do analyze every pixel but the problem with digital is the same as it was with film (to a certain extent at least). Working with such strong backlight as in David's photo would have been just as difficult on film, maybe even more so. The trouble here is that it's a very troublesome image to begin with, lighting is way of the scale. Comparing it to your and Pnina's images is therefore rather useless. Furthermore Pnina photographed a group which means she had to work with different kinds of light alltogether. That's a tall order under the best of circumstances. On film you get grain while with digital you get pixelation. Your problem is rather different because I think you compromised somewhat to preserve detail that was only there in a rudimentary sense. We all do that. Nevertheless I think Pnina's statement is kind of borderline. Artisticity in a technical crappy photo doesn't work, it's as simple as that.

I'm no hypocrit. I've uploaded some like that and will probably make the same mistake again, as we all do. But the whole point is you can still have a good photo while compromising but you can't filter a bad image into a good one.

In answer to you Pnina, I don't mind at all. I'm truly enjoying three really good photographers and great intellects honoring me with their presence. Even if some of the comments are critical, I'm learning from all that is said. Only thing I ask is at the end of the day we remain friends whether or not we agree. And nobody comes away with any hard feelings.

no worries. We've been here before and we all seem to like to discuss photography . What started of with your photo has once again taken off beyond that. We should thank you for that. Some of your photo's lead to treads that wind up in an essay of sorts. Mostly Fred's and Pnina's fault of course ;-) I'm very sparse with my words.

 

But calling me a great intellect is way off Dave. I'm just an opinionated Dutchie as Pnina and Fred already know ;-)

 

Nevertheless, thanks for the compliment. Went to bed at 2 am and woke up at 5:30 am so I thought lets check on PN. Went to the races yesterday. Training and qualification day. Got some dandy photo's out of that. Today 500 oldtimers are meeting in a village nearby. Would be something for you. Gonna see if I can make some pics there before the weekend is over.

 

BTW Fred wrote me a comment the other day that was spot-on (http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7192441) If you wanna see that you gotta be quick. I'll remove it in a few days. Just goes to show. Even he is right on a good day ;-)

 

Seriously though. It's proof of what I said before. We all make mistakes, well at least I do.

Yeah, I have too many nights like that. Fortunately I have retired, so I can catch a nap later in the day. Thanks for the reference to your image and discussion with Fred. I know I'll catch hell for this if anybody reads it (and hopefully by now everyone is sick of this image and its attendant discussion), but I often listen to what folks are saying, and especially to such great folks as you, Jeff, Fred, Pnina, Joe, Gordon, and many others. I can easily get convinced that an image isn't worth a damn (I know that's not exactly what anyone is saying here), and move on. But I often show a lack of confidence in my work and then get chastised for joining the negative forces against my own work. Now to those of you who have been so supportive, please do not take this as a complaint. It is an honor to have such great support and supporters. It's just hard sometimes to know which way to go. You, while occasionally being a fierce and effective advocate of your work, also have the ability to judge your own work harshly, and downright brutally at times. Fred, tends to only put up a new image after a lunar eclipse and when it has been perfected, corrected, inspected and dissected to the nth. So, if that sounds like confusion on my part and uncertainty, well, it damn well is. But it's a happy confusion, and I repeat my gratitude to all of you folks on Pnet. I know that I am a better photographer because of you.

Dave, you are way too hard on yourself here. Besides it's not exactly rocket science is it. First of all debate presupposes that everybody listens and therefore by definition should be openminded. All those people that you refer to and some more have written comments on my poto's that got me thinking. The one from Fred was an example. If someone is right in their assesment I can be swayed also. Would be damned arrogant if you put up photo's for critique with a fixed mindset and an unwillingness to change. None of them, least of all me, are perfect and therefore prone to mistakes. So you're hardly an exception. And you can only be chastised if you give people opportunity to do just that.

 

I said it before and I say it one last time. The fact that your photography attracks so much attention is because you are a photographer who often produces images that have a social/documentary context that people react to. You've got a knack for that. I don't know about the rest but I've got far better thngs to do than waste my time on someone who doesn't know what he's doing in the first place. I suspect however that the rest of those cowboys feel exactly the same ;-)

 

Garry Winogrand once said something that could have importance in this discussion:

 

"Photography, photographers, photographs deal with facts"

 

Enough said I should think. Now let's get the hell out of here and look at my racetrack photo's so I can be the one who'll get chastised (does that come with a belt of sorts btw?)

Dave, I was going to say something clever and profound about this image, but it took me so long to scroll to the bottom, I forgot what is was. I will try to catch your next creation a bit earlier. B :)

I see a cleverly 'diffusion glow' processed image, creatively composed, aesthetically pleasing, with a story line, a 'supra-natural' feeling and a perfect title. It has amassed c.6500 words of comments!!! Gosh! that is more than lots of PN photographers (certainly me!) will ever gather in all their portfolio photos put together! [pn prevents me to rating it - will revert in due time!] All the best, Nassos.

 

 

Knowing you as I do, I am willing to take your word that you had a clever and profound thought to share. Now, if I had told you guys that that was the case for me, nobody would believe it. :)