Engrossed: In the Station 1979

Once again I'm astonished at the knack some photographers have for making good images while failing to recognize good images taken by others.

 

Too dark? Heavens, some of you likely would see unattributed photos at the current Amon Carter exhibit, walk away, shrugging, with a dismissive: "Too dark." Ah, but if a card beside the photo attributes the work to an Adams or Stieglitz, well, that's different. Must be genius.

 

Rule of thirds? Must get mighty uncomfortable walking about with that ruler always telling you what to do, whacking you right across the creativity.

 

Nice job, Doug. Don't change a thing.

Above is the approximate crop that lay in my garage for years, finally succumbing to mold and mildew. I thought is was fine at the time, but have since changed my mind, opting for the square. I'm not sure if I mentioned it in this thread, or another one from this series, but this was taken with the camera over my head, upside down and aimed at the woman. I was trying to be unobtrusive.

Two versions of the Coalter crop are also above, one with all primary and secondary subjects, and one with the primary and just one secondary. I couldn't open Josephs' attachment, so these are guesses based on his earlier post.

This is outstanding. A great image in the same vain as the famous Minimata series. I like the crop as it was presented in the original Doug. The upper empty space here gives it a spacious feeling helping to make her much smaller, isolating her against the world and conveying the emptiness of the room. The barely discernable people behind her exagerate this spacious atmosphere and by allowing them to go to almost to black it isolates her very well. The deep black works very well here giving her a luminous quality lost in the other renditions. I love the metaphore about her ageedness. Lovely idea well executed. congratulations Doug.

Sorry, Mr. Burgess. You're a good sport, but your crop is not what I had in mind. Sorry you couldn't open my modification of your photo. I tried to upload a capture of your photo on borrowed equiptment that I am not familiar with (windows picture it!). Its a poor tool for this business but its all I have available at the moment. I double clicked on it and it opened for me. Your estimate of my intentions is off quite a bit. If you are willing to continue, please crop more drastically on both the top and left side, leaving very little black space remaining, but retaining the square format, essentially creating a portrait. I am aware that this drastic cropping takes the photo in a very different direction from your original vision, but it makes for a very pleasing image in my humble opinion.

I like the image as posted. All the crops are poorly balanced,

IMHO The rule of odd number of elements works pretty well

most of the time. Here, we have the subject, the window, and the

couple on the left. (OK, would be better if the 'couple' was closer

together and I can see why cloning her out was considered, if

you're into that sort of thing).

 

As with the highlights in last week's photo, it's hard to tell how

much detail is in the shadow areas. Large areas with no detail

at all would be a problem, but again, I suspect there's more

there than we can see on our monitors.

It wouldn't be special without the lighting but it is very nice with it. The window is important to set the scene and the man looking the other way to show it is a complicated space and leads the eye into the shadows. The high contrast range suits the subject and picks out just enought important elements to hold it together.

The cleanliness of the shot emphasises the contrast between the man, who knows how to present a well-turned out and neatly dressed appearance, and the woman, who is careful about her appearance but does not have the same sense of how to dress stylishly. A long-term-appeal photo

It's a lovely picture. I'm not a photographer, I'm really just a looker, and I think this is a strong portrayal of the inclusive independence that comes with old age. The woman is "traveling" literally and imaginatively. Such travels always provide enlightenment as well as a certain darkness that includes strangers.

 

The picture captures the mystery and adventure she's experiencing, without compromising her grip on reality. It's marvelous.

 

Kathy

I agree that the original is the best version. Even the trash can in the corner adds a certain realism to the image. Also, I like seeing the window which is the light source on the right. Loneliness? Maybe to the elves that picked it but that doesn't come across to me. Great shot, congratulations.

Above is the image that illustrates my understanding of the Coalter crop.

Doug - Congratulations on POW. I am squarely behind all those

who believe that this image should not be cropped. The space

given in the original post gives the shot a sense of place, and

adds to the overall atmosphere. It also helps to isolate the

woman in a figurative sense much more effectively than literally

isolating her with a crop. In short, the closer you crop to the

woman the less compelling the image becomes. But hey, that's

just my opinion.

 

It is interesting how differently you cropped this image was all

those years ago. Your revised approach shows a more

sophisticated eye for composition. I guess there really are some

things that improve with age :-)

I love this image... (although I've been crossing my fingers and waiting for a "popping" great color image ;-( -- just for a change of pace~?

I've been watching this debate regarding cropping and I've been withholding comment while I watch with some amusement. I'll contribute my "opinion" for what it's worth.... Doug's is the best rendition... (in my opinion) Don't crop out the two most outstanding "complimentary" aspects of this image which is the wonderful strip of window on the right and the dark negative space in this square image at the top and left side - with the slight hint of the man and woman behind...(Although I could see the image without the woman)... Such balance - such mood... Strikes the gut.. Well done.

Sometimes I think we can "overwork" an image - "intellectually" hmmm. Happy holidays..

Doug, I think all this exploration of cropping is entertaining but perhaps you are trying too hard to please everyone. The square version is the best by far, for several reasons. To my eye, this photograph is all about the opposing forces of light and darkness, content and emptiness. Even the rim of the trash bin helps to anchor the strong diagonal composition formed by the arm of the bench directing our eyes to the couple behind the primary subject.

 

This photo really speaks to the subject of being human and that makes it a superior example of the art of photography. The strong vertical lines help create a boundary and set limits to the composition while the black empty spaces make you feel there is an endless void waiting to be filled. There is essentially a Yin and Yang quality to the composition, set in a square instead of a circle. The older looking woman could have been looking out the window or staring at the floor but we see her here at the beginning of a rather large book which tells us that she is still focused on the future and is proactive as opposed to passive. There is also a strong contrast between the woman who is alone (and self-sufficient) contrasted by the other two characters that appear to be interacting with each other. We are forced to wonder if they arrived as a couple or if (judging by the relative space between them) they are just having a brief conversation about the weather.

 

This is a fine photo and one I would be proud to own. It's great to discuss the merits of how it could be changed but in my opinion those changes would not improve it. Enjoy the accolades, separate the wheat from the chaff then move on to the next one.

Mr. Burgess, you are getting closer. This exercise has been a great example of "a picture is worth a thousand words." I am surprised that you are still willing to humor me, but if you are willing, put the window and trash can back in. Based in measurements in "her world" crop the left side of the picture to about one inch from her right elbow. Crop the top to about four inches from het hat. Leave the format square. The window and trash can should be included similar to your original POW image.

 

This should create an image which is based upon the classic "Thirds" rule of composition. When viewing the total image, a vertical line through her nose would be about 1/3 of total image distance from the left edge of the image. Her left hand and forearm should create a visual line which would be about a 1/3 of the image distance from the bottom edge of the image. Thus, we have a a classic "thirds" composition along with a wonderful natural window light mood which I find very interesting. The textures in her clothing come into pay, and the natural backlighting work very well, at least for me.

 

This in no way is a suggestion for a replacement of your original POW submittal. It is only my suggestion that we have another "picture within a picture" contained within your image. I think I know where you were going with your original post, and I don't think you can improve on that, as it works pretty well, reminding me of numerous classic Dutch paintings of the 1600's. I just see something else in your image that either you don't see or you don't like. But I like it, and I think its fun to explore photopraphy in this manner. Being able to manipulate images with our modern technology is a wonderful thing, as we are not locked in to a fixed vision as has been our past. Thanks for your willingness to respond to my suggestions. Or you could email me a "jepg" version of your image and I'll do the work and resubmit. Happy holidays.

I'm grateful for the recognition this photograph has recieved as a result of its POW award, and am grateful, very grateful, for all of the comments, praise and congratulations I've received on its behalf.

 

I apologize if any thing I've posted within this thread, or any other thread, has been offensive. Although I normally try to be civil, I, like any of us, have those moments when my emotions get the best of me and say something stupid, rude or offensive.

 

I would like to think that I was fully in control in the making of this image, and of others made at this location, but the truth is that I was an inexperienced 20 year old with a big camera and a basic understanding of light and photography. In a sense, I was lucky, yet in another sense, I was just responding to what any of us would have responded to: Great light and interesting subject matter.

 

I've been accused lately of photographing by formula; of evaluating photographs based on how they fit within accepted conventions of composition, lighting and exposure. My response to that is to say that by these conventions the very youngest of us is able to understand and appreciate photographs made not only by masters, but by ourselves. I can't say that this photograph was made with a firm handle on those rules, as some in the Station series were literally shot from the hip. But I can say that it's a deep respect for those rules that I think should drive all of our work, that we should always strive for technical AND artistic mastery of our images, even those we made 20 years ago. As a beginner, I was satisfied with the long horizontal crop. I thought it was the best, I printed it that way, and it stayed that way. In 2001 I began to take a closer look at my early endeavors, reviewing thousands of negatives and discovering that there were images there that I hadn't even known I had taken, let alone images that could be improved by a simple crop change.

 

One of the reasons I like this image so much is that it can withstand so much alteration yet still impart a strong impression on the viewer. It seems to be able to be trimmed to within a sliver's width of the main subject, and still have appeal. For me, it's a representation of photography itself, and photography's place in my life. It's engrossing. It's mind gripping. It holds my attention in the warm glow of afternoon light, allowing me to go places I haven't been to in years, or in my imagination when I'm tooling around the back yard, poking a camera at weeds, wood or dripping water.

Dennis is right, Doug, you're trying too hard to please everyone.

I've read most (but not all) of the posts above and the main theme seems to be, "How many photographs has Doug taken here?", as evidenced by all the cropping suggestions. There's the horizontal version that had a currency until recently in your own mind. There's the facetious vertical version. There's the small square version with just the Little Old Lady and nothing else. Too many versions!

This is what you get for having doubt about your original shot. You're making excuses about it: "I was young", "I held the camera over my head", "I never really looked at it properly until recently"... and so on. These all sound to me like you're trying to divorce youself from responsibility for this picture, as if it was some kind of found object, or the camera went off accidentally as you were winding the film. You have to make a decision, Doug. Did you take this picture (and responsibility for it) or was it pure happenstance?

Oh, I know you look at the shot now and find it "engrossing", "mind gripping". But that statement was preceded by your seriously discussing some of the cropping suggestions. In part, you had to do this, because you've still got a few months to run on your fully paid-up subscription to the Photo.Net Cropping Society (you're caught in your own trap there). But my suspicion is that you're masking your personal doubts with feigned broadmindedness about your own picture. I'm wondering whether the real truth is that you can't fully make up your mind what this picture is about, or even whether it's any good. My feeling is that you're scrambling over its boundaries, via cropping experiments, trying to find elements of a composition in it and that you are neglecting the impact of the whole image. If you, as the photographer of the original scene, can't make up your mind, how do you expect anyone else to evaluate it?

Having finally presented what seems to be the full frame, you have finally decided, after many years, to expose the picture to proper scrutiny. Don't chicken out now, Doug, please.

The excuses go in one ear and out the other, at least of my empty head. So what, you were facing the wrong way? So what, you had a square format camera for a vertical shot? So what, you were young and inexperienced? Step up and take responsibility for your actions. Take a position and defend it. We're not commercial buyers of your work. You don't have to swallow your pride and give us what we demand. You're in control of this image, not the kibbitzers who (if you let them) will crop the heart out of it and reduce it to a collection of mosaic tiles, or a Curate's Egg that's good in parts.

"Doug's real good at Little Old Ladies, not bad at old pensioners' hats, OK at windows and he does a mean burnt-in black wall. Oh, the photo? Yeah, I s'pose that's OK. But have you seen that silk scarf? The detail's superb...". Pretty ridiculous, eh?

Look, you were there. You had this camera and that film. There were these people and such and such a window. Unless you were going to hire them as models and set up lights, unless your seeking to become an amateur, this is what you had to work with. If you didn't have the gumption to stand up and position yourself properly (because you thought you'd be detected) then you had to make the best of a challenging scenario. It didn't only involve your characters and the room they were in. You're the unseen protagonist, Doug. If this picture works - or doesn't work - you're as involved as they are. You're in it up to your neck, and you can't squirm out of it by allowing others, and (disappointingly) yourself, the easy escape of trying to make a picture out of it after the event.

The Old Masters (painters, that is) had apprentices in their workshops who "did" "clouds", or "doors" or "eyes" - in and out all day. But to my mind I don't think you can look at an artwork and say, "Wow, great clouds. Neat door. Pity the 'eye' guy was sick that day," and still have respect for the artists vision.

It's not a "win-and-place" bet, Doug. You're the creator. Tell us which version is the real photograph and then stand behind it, defend it and sink or swim by virtue of your position. If it has some interesting bits, that's not good enough. It has to work as a whole (as soon as we know which "whole" you've chosen). It has to tell us something about you, and what you were thinking at the time. You're the most important person in this image.

Tony, but what about the shot (in it's original glory as posted)?

 

(Where were you last week? We really missed you in a POW cropping brawl.)

You have been sorely missed, Tony. Where have you been ? :-) I am a bit surprised by what you wrote here, as I expected more about the image itself, but as usual, you've got a point here, and I must say your post was very interesting to read.

Something quite essential has just been said. As a matter of fact, we all ought to take responsability for our pictures. I plead guilty for not always taking that responsability as I often try many versions before deciding on one. Such responsability is indeed quite the same as the responsability of a chess move in a competition game. If you touch that piece, now the rule says you have to play it, and it's too late to change your mind. Damn good point. I've learned something again today, I must say.

I may just add that I feel it can be very difficult to make up your mind on a particular decision. And maybe it takes your level of experience to be able to say "that's it, stop". But it surely also takes your determination and attitude, which we can only salute. Not easy for us, poor mortals...:-))

Now if we assume - or if Doug confirms - that the original post awarded this POW is the actual image to be judged (as I believe it is), I hope we will finally get your opinion about it, Tony. Regards.

Congratulations Doug, well deserved POW The subject, levels, crop all work for me.

Doug, another shot where you show your completely master the art: light, tones, composition are very pleasant. Again, some people may criticize this or that, but nothing is perfect. Congrats for the POW, totatlly deserved considering the whole body of your work. IMHO, you are one of the most valuable members of the Photo.net community in terms of participation and trully maintaining a high level of interaction with other members with the objective of bringing your contribution to the art. Thank you Doug.

I'm paying for time by the minute, so excuse the typos. I've already lost about 300 words to the timer, and now I can't remember what the train of my thought was because I'm a little angry at being kicked off.

 

Anyway,

 

I'm not trying to please anyone with this photo. I have very little intention of changing it from anything other than what's posted. However, I dont think I'm the bonafide authority on photography and so I am open, always, to a good argument in favor of , or against anything. I did what I thought was right 20 yeras ago, and now I've changed my mind. I see no fault in doing that. who knows if in 20 more years I decide on the Coalter crop? It's still my image and it's still therefore my perogative to make the decisions. the advice received, and solicited, is not so I can make my decision, but rather to obtain feedback relative to the decision I've already made.

 

So, I guess it does appear as if I'm trying to please everyone, but that's not the case. I hope this doesn't come across as deception. I apologize if it does. I enjoy how people can view the same thing, and still have different ideas about how it could be improved. Sort of throws the idea of the "perfect" image out the window. Is there any image, any at all, that EVERYONE would agree should not be changed in some way, or another? So, I dont know how this comes across, but I'm not sitting here with a cropping guide and a score card trying to figure out what to do. I've made mydecision, and posted it. At the time of this POW award, the thread had pretty much been through the mill and I have still the square posted. So, in spite of the suggestions, I am happy to please myself.

 

My comments about this being found are rooted in self-doubt, sure. But also in the relative ease in making photographs. Push a button, pour a fluid, wave my hand under some light. Easy. When someone wants to buy a print that cost me $25, but are willing to pay $500, as has happened, I'm shocked! . I've gotten over it in later years, but it has taken many many mistakes to get there. I have just a minute left, so I have to end here.

We also have to undrstand that this image was not hidden because of anydoubts. I learned phtography from technical poeple, not from artits. I was taught about sharpness and lightinge before I was taught about feeling. I was taught to anticipate payment for usage, as in, how much to charge for a day's work,or for a full page image. I was never, not until about 3 years ago, taught anything about a photograph that means anything other than how much I could charge for it. This is how I started. After photo school, I had no idea what to do, so I "opened" a business and took any job that came my way, even if I didn't know how to do it. I either learned how to do it, or did it already knowing, or failed. this image, and the rest of them from the station, sat unnoticed because there was no one I knew of who wanted to buy them. All of my photography from 1979 to 1997 was for one purpose: income. Survival. Expenses, bills, etc. When my wife's injury in 1997 put me out of business, I couldn't stop being a photographer. I couldn't run a business, but I could still take pictures, and I managed to find time to study under a photographic artist. From him, I am learning about this other side of photography, the art side, the side that looks in a photo for meaning and value beyond the dollar. I'm new at it, and am sometimes laughed at by the other students because I am alway insisting on sharpness, or depth of field, or because I'm asking questions about what the photographer was thinking when the exposure was made, rather than what he was feeling. All knew to me to make a photo based on how I feel. But, with the abrubt and drastic change that occured in 1997, I suddenly had time and reason to examine photography as more than just a paycheck, but as a way to keep myself from going under the waters of so much stress and despair. I found photography under stress and despair in 1978 (another story) and I found it again under stress and despair in 1998.

 

So, Lookikng back on this image, and others from its time, is not, in my opinion, a question of indecision, it's a question of not having made some of the decsicions in the first place, and it's a quesiton of re-rooting myself in the elements of photography that suduced me in the first place.

 

This past september i undertook a project that was against everything I ever was taught about photography. I pulled off the road about 20 minutes before sundown and photographed in the corner of a horse field, by a wooden fence in the waning light like a mad man, not thinking, not worrying about depth of field, not being concerned with getting everything in focus, but instead, trying to feel what the wooden fence would want me to photograph in it, trying to feel how a dead plant would want to be remembered, all dried up and shriveled before the coming of winter. The results were not what I would call excellent photographs, but then again, I was the one learning here, and I wasn't trying to make 'excellent' photographs. I was trying to learn how to feel the photograph being made, or something, I don't even know, and I'm out of time again, and this time, out of money.

 

I hope this makes some sense. The photograph here in this pow was felt, then forgotten. What I'm trying to do is feel it again.

I like the image, I like the composition, I like the light, I like the window. I can't

believe people have now resorted to re-cropping and messing with your

original!?! I haven't logged on for a few months, and I'm dismayed at the

source links (i.e. messed-with photos) within the text. Did we just learn some

HTML recently, or is this now how we do it on POW?

 

The only thing (technically) that jumped out at me (that I didn't see anyone

mention) is the excessive burning required in this image. Maybe required isn't

the word. It's obvious that there's been excessive burning around the edges of

the people. I realize it was necesary, but burning (well-done) shouldn't show

in the edges of the lighter area (i.e. the people).

 

Great image, though!

Doug, I hate to argue with you after you related such a poignant story but I find it hard to believe that you worked as a photographer for eighteen years without ever having an emotional connection to your work. Assuming you are not a drone I will take you at your word and chalk my doubts up to the fact that I was born in Missouri. The photo you posted speaks for itself and I believe you are the authority of your own work if not all things photographic. There is no need to be modest or humble on our account.

 

I admire your plan to upload your photos in chronological order. I think you may have to use numbers at the beginning of the folder names to have them appear in proper sequence. Photography can be an interested (and hopefully useful) tool for introspection when shooting to please your own interests without trying to earn a buck in the process. I do not believe that emotion and technical proficiency are exclusive to each other. I do know that lot of so called art is in reality just trite nonsense trying to take the path of least resistance to the impulse buyer's wallet.

 

I suppose we have beaten you up enough for now so, allow me to respectfully wish you good luck with all of your future endeavors.

Sorry Peter.

Thanks Jeff, I kind of asked for it in the original critique request, posted in July, August or September.

Thanks Dennis. I'm sure i had an emotional attachment to my work, but I didn't feel I had much time or money to do "personal work," which would have been just me out finding my own images without the help of art directors, brides, agency heads, or business owners. This image was a personal work in that I was at place, saw something, and went for it. other images from this same time were for school assignment. As I look them over, of course I'm finding that those shot on my own inspiration are better, but...what the heck is better? This discussion illustrates, if nothing else, that "better" is very subjective, that one person's better is another's worse.

Tony Dummett is expressing in a different way the point I made earlier about Doug's artistic decisions - make them and stick by them. Once the photo is published what is the point of other people mucking around with it,figuratively at least.As someone who has never sought to make a penny out of photography, I can understand how professionals like Doug might feel that their Muse has been compromised by the need to generate cash. Ps. Any chance Tony will answer his mail?