single photos Untitled

Maybe it is too late for that, but it would be instructive to hear Patrice's experience of making and perception of his image. If it is a question of language, I venture to think that Anders or I might be happy to translate.

(Patrice, si vous suivez cette discussion, et si voulez faire des commentaires relativement brèves en francais sur la création de votre photographe, il me ferait un plaisir de les traduire en anglais afin que vous pourriez les inserrer ici, ou dans un sujet ultérieure dans la rubrique "Casual Photo Conversations" (par exemple, "Photographer's comments on last week's POW").

Je suis d'accord, Arthur.

I have been following this thread most of the week and found it rather interesting, especially some comments that seemed to indicate the differentiation in the gifts one might possess for reading a photograph.

I pretty much agree with Fred's comments posted here regarding most of the discussion. With reference to my own suggestion that this image reminded me of certain deco illustrations, here are some references to the type of image I was referring. Those like the first image and several on this theme came to mind when I saw this image.

Regarding seeing an image as enigmatic or not, I do think one has to recognize that sometimes a boat is just a boat as well as that a shadow is, in fact, often just a shadow. My comment regarding this particular item, the shadow, did not suggest the need for more light but rather questioned if its blankness was intended to serve a purpose or not. I don't particularly connect with the reading of this image by some nor do I think something has to be featureless, or dark, to be enigmatic. Here, I was just suggesting that a bit more light would resolve some of the visual anomalies that had been mentioned before I posted, if that were of any concern to Patrice.

Aside from that, my comments were about an image that I find pleasing but which just seems to have some loose ends to its finish, things which I felt would strengthen the "story" (and maybe contribute to an enigmatic reading :)) ) I just don't find myself getting lost in this image as I am being pulled around to much by what I see as an imbalance in the handling of the light--not fatal but underperformed IMO.

As to reading an image as enigmatic or not, I think, as Fred suggested, that is something that is individual. How one sees the world can be on a long continuum from very concrete to very interpretive, but even for those who are predisposed to see the content of an image beyond just form, there will be images that move us into a different realm and images that don't. It may be that one image will move some and not others while another does the opposite to each group and then a third, all are in concert one way or the other. For me, I certainly think this subject could transcend itself but maybe because I have spent all but the last few years of my life in port towns, I find this image more common than extraordinary. Certainly, familiarity can blind us to what is there but it can also allow us to see more clearly. Which it is really doesn't matter in these discussions as each can own and appreciate their own interpretation.

John A,

You have resumed quite well your previous thoughts and those of Fred. What I find important in what you say is not what you previously said but the point that enigma, or as I would add, an image that transcends the obvious, is something that is perceived quite subjectively. Agreed. I see no problem in some seeing and some not seeing the enigma or sense of unknown in the present or any other image. We get that or we don’t. The why of that is more complex than the yes or no. It is more or less locked in the mind of the viewer, and certainly somewhat difficult to express in simple terms that another might understand.

The subject matter is important in enigmatic images, as well as how it was treated photographically. So I wonder how many photographs of a commercial ship have been made that come close to being enigmatic? I don’t refer to those moody, foggy shots of ships that I often think of as simply moody, foggy photographs of ships, and nothing more. If you have some enigmatic photographic examples of otherwise bland commercial vessels at port, I for one would appreciate seeing them. I doubt that there are many out there, whereas enigmatic images of other subject matter are perhaps easier to come by.

Question: Do the elves inform the POW winner of their choice? I hope so, as some are not always thethered to the same site or even to the computer, and it is always beneficial to hear the view of the photographer, after those of a number of viewers have been made. I do know from Reading Patrice’s blog that he made the series of port photos at 2 or 3 in the morning of a particularly cold (for Belgium) winter night. The atmospheric effects are part of that ambiance, although that type of artificial lighting and the effects on the camera sensor/software in handling that (not sure if it was a jpeg or RAW image later color balanced) might be similar in other seasons (excluding of course the snow on the dock surface and on the left-most buildings). Hopefully we may hear from him on his image, here, or in a later forum post.

As far I can see, there is nothing endemic (Prevalent in or peculiar to a particular locality) about this shot of a boat and a port. If it is indeed shot in Belgium, it is probably shot in the harbor of Antwerpen, the second largest harbor in Europe. You will find similar views throughout Europe, however. The place in this particular harbor is somewhat special, taking into account that large scale container traffic is the main activity. The few containers here, seem somewhat out of place. So maybe it is somewhere else, if it is in Belgium. Zeebrugge for example.
This is all only important if one believes that such a shot should show, as it was seen, with the logic that: a boat, is a boat, is a boat. Nothing bad in this, but in my vies a rather simple way of appreciating this weeks POW.
I fully agree, and even respect, those that therefor suggest to improve the shot from such a point of view. For those others that believe to see other dimension and other potentials in this shot (cartoon, comic, bande dessinée for example) other suggestions might be more appropriate, but I have not seen any. The shot seen from the latter point of view, seems to be somewhat perfect.

I always find it fairly disappointing when a discussion ends with someone declaring that, after all, we have all our right to any interpretation and that one is as good as another, because we are all different and our subjectivity is what is most important. Surely we are different, luckily so ! - but the POW stays the same. As far as i see it some shots are more likely to be shots of a boat, and others, more likely to go beyond the obvious, independently of what each of us sees at a first glance - and even at a second.

"someone declaring that, after all, we have all our right to any interpretation and that one is as good as another, because we are all different and our subjectivity is what is most important." (Anders)

Anders, if you are referring to my last post, let me hasten to mention that the italicised part of your comment does not represent what I said. I mentioned, in respect of a deeper meaning in any photograph (in this case, the enigma I feel, and what some others feel as well), that some will get it and others not. Nor did I say that those who don't get it have an interpretation that is as good as another. I also didn't say that subjectivity is what is the the most important in evaluating an image.

I hope this clarifies for you my comment.

Anders, he photographed at the port of Anvers (Antwerpen) in Belgium.

I love the photo, Patrice. The shadows on the bow do lead to the impression of distortion. Neat because it makes one look.

And that is the problem, it is "as far as I see it". Think about the discussion on Gursky's recent auction thread and the radically different opinions. But when it comes to an image like this, who is right--you or me or someone else? The beauty of art is that these sorts of judgements become individual. If there was a body of work available like that of someone like Minor White's, then certainly one would have to conclude that the image was most likely made with an intent that would make one look deeper to see what they might be missing--we don't have that here.

Also, suggesting an image is under worked can be more objective than a qualitative reading of an image, but there is also room in that also. That is the reason I suggested why I saw what I saw as then it will either make sense to the reader or it wont. To the maker of the image, it gives feedback as to how the image is being read--they may agree or disagree or even recognize that their treatment is getting the result (viewer reaction) they were after. Such a suggestion has nothing to do with place or faithfulness to anything, it has to do with the reading of the form of an image. How that can be boiled down to a need to represent a specific place is beyond me.

Arthur, I only suggested that I do believe the subject matter here could be made into an enigmatic image not that I knew of one specifically--but this image wasn't doing that for me. I do think at some level a simple yes or no is appropriate, I am not sure something can be "sort of enigmatic". That said, I do think images can take on degrees of depth beyond their subject but when one sees an image that truly reaches beyond itself (from their own viewpoint) there is no confusing that with an intermediate experience.

I really like it, but it does indeed remind me of a cartoon, or a frame from a sci-fi movie. Here is a shot that I just found elsewhere that evoked the same response in me:

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6873930

--Lannie

Arthur, I did not refer specifically to you in my comments on subjectivity but made a general reference to a type of arguments we often encounter in discussions.
Thanks for the confirmation that Antwerpen/Anvers is the place.
Landrum, yes, the link you provide is indeed a shot in line with the aesthetics of the POW. Thanks.

John

Obviously, John, none of us ! Nothing prevents you to wish to see a boat, and nothing but a boat, if that is what you have decided to see. Same for me, when it comes to a cartoon like image. However, as mentioned, when we have one appreciation (view of a boat) that clearly invites for a series of "improvements" and another appreciation (a cartoon like imagery) where everything seems to be right - I would give Patrice the benefit of the doubt, on what he intended to do. Wouldn't you?

Anders, did I ever say that I just saw a boat? or even just a shadow? What I said was that I didn't see this being an enigma.

Your answer here continues to somehow anoint your opinion as being sacrosanct and the statement "I would give Patrice the benefit of the doubt, on what he intended to do" is a bit presumptuous. The rationale leading to this statement is quite a leap IMO, since we have no idea what Patrice had in mind, let alone that he intended to create a cartoon-like image. But even if that were the intent, do you really believe that your feeling the image is right trumps another's sense of how the image reads from a technical point of view? It is just another difference of opinion. As I said above, the explanation of why one sees an image in a certain way is different than telling someone to fix their image this way or that.

The logic you use here would relieve any image that appears as a POW from ever being analyzed on technical grounds as there is always someone who loves it as it is. As a POW and how this forum works, I do think that technical issues should be addressed if it is felt worthy of comment--good or bad or just how a given decision is read by the viewer. Even if I found this image to be profound as it was, pointing out a technical issue would not be out of line in this forum. In fact, often perceived technical deficiencies, like even blank shadows, can be pointed out and described in terms of why they work in a given image for that viewer. That doesn't mean anyone has to agree but it is an exchange of ideas and such exchanges are what lead to growth.

John, with all respect, I'm quit convinced that you are totally aware that the difference between your point of view and for example mine, has next to noting to do with whether we also discuss technical issues or not. We surely both discuss technical issues when we consider that a shadow is too deep or total appropriate for the image to function in one or another way. Just like you state above.

Arthur and Anders are both quite sure that there is enigma here, and if you don't see it you don't get it. They fail to realize that they are as likely to be projecting the enigma as someone else is as likely not to be getting what they are seeing.

As John said, it's not even a question of wanting or not wanting, seeing or not seeing enigma. It's a photographic question. One way to have established enigma for me would have been to make the shadow side of the boat enigmatic, which for me would require some kind of dimension or depth, something to the shadow which would have captured my imagination. A more or less graphic and flat approach to shadow will rarely pique my interest as much as a shadow with some reach and dimension, some hint of depth and detail. There are, of course, excpetions to that. Additionally, the content will play a role in creating enigma for me. The content here doesn't do that because of the presentational nature of the shot.

I am happy they see enigma. I don't.

I think this kind of thing may be subjective and personal, but dissecting why we do or don't see things the same can be enlightening not just because it shows differences, but it can sometimes inform the grammar and vocabulary we use to view photos. We can become better viewers, more discerning, more critical. That presupposes that all viewing is NOT alike. The play between that situation and the fact that we may have different tastes and emotional responses is part of the wonder of aesthetic reactions. But I DON'T think it's completely subjective and I don't think all opinions are equal or as valid.

"But I DON'T think it's completely subjective and I don't think all opinions are equal or as valid."

Fred, it is interesting how you speak of others projecting their views, as you clearly do in your last post, and yet you seem to have difficulty in accepting that other views may have validity and that there may be some viewpoints that may be a different benchmark than your own in terms of valid opinion. I do not accept that my own views are superior and I would prefer to engage in this forum to see, discuss, learn and understand how others see the same object or work of art, even if my own aesthetic is different from theirs.

Anders, maybe I misunderstood you, but this statement seems to suggest (at least to me) that only one point of view is worth considering--and one irrelevant:

I am not sure exactly what Fred is suggesting, but in the end it is only our own opinion that matters--the trick, certainly, is to understand the limitations of this regardless of what we think we know, there is always more to learn.

John, there are surely several points of view that are worth considering. After all if we discuss together it must be because we find it worthwhile considering other points of view.
What I tried to express is that any photo can be taken, and so to speak, run away with by any viewer for his or her's personal appreciation. No-one can neglect that this is what mostly is happening when we present shots in a place like PN or hang it at home or in a gallery. Some believe that this personal and subjective appreciation is the only aspect worth considering. I don't agree. What I personally see in a photo like the POW, at my very first glance and even my second and third glance, is important for me - and sometimes, but probably rarely, for others.
I think we owe as a respect to the artist/photographer, that we do at least one more effort : try to understand his or her's intentions, especially if we launch ourselves in proposing "improvements".
This is why I suggested above that one way of detecting intentions is to see how our alternative impressions of the photo, invite for more or less radical "improvements". On this basis, I believe, that out of the two alternative views, that we have been discussing here, one understanding of intentions is more likely more in line with the intentions of Patrice, than another.
However, as Landrum has mentioned earlier, the point of view of Patrice is lacking and could certainly clarify our understanding of the POW.

There is something magical about it. The way the light illuminates the ship, makes the whole composition magical.

Excellent work! The division of the image in bright side and dark side made it very interesting! Congrats! Dener

Arthur, you're not using "projection" as I would. It MAY BE that you and Anders are projecting enigma into the photo. I'm not doing that. I am, however, suggesting that all opinions aren't equal, though I didn't specify that that's the case here and don't care enough about this photo to worry too much about it. I don't see that as projection.

John, what I'm suggesting is that some viewers are more visually literate than others. I have learned a lot by listening to viewers who have honed their viewing skills and who have more experience and better eyes than me. I feel I have become a more sensitive and more understanding viewer for it. I think some on PN (not necessarily those contributing here) think that each viewer is as good as another and deserves equal weight in presenting their opinions. I fully believe in freedom of speech and in everyone having the right to contribute to these discussions. At the same time, I assert my right to listen carefully, learn from those posts which back up their ways of seeing and make visual sense and to dismiss a lot of what I consider to be claptrap which gets bandied about on PN as subjective license. Not everyone drives as well as the everyone else, not everyone photographs as well as everyone else, and not everyone sees or writes criticism as well as everyone else. That, to me, is not a projection, Arthur, it's a strong and probably controversial opinion, which I don't mind having.

Anders, I don't think anyone suggested any "radical improvements". This seems to have become a red herring in this discussion.

I don't disagree that we should try to understand an image beyond just our gut reaction and I champion that point of view all the time. I don't disagree that we should try to understand an image by getting as much context as possible including viewing available portfolios and reading what the artist suggests the work might be about. But I certainly don't find any veracity in your statement:

This just puts us back in the position of somehow having to give extra credence to the opinion of the person who admires the image the most "as it is"--which is ludicrous. We should certainly consider other views and then make rational arguments for our own conclusions as to how we read an image--which includes those factors we know from our other investigations. Others then consider those views and can decide how they affect their own reading in concert with the other information they have.

But even if Patrice's intentions turned out to be in line with the viewpoint you suggest, it doesn't mean that the image conveys that in the absolute or that anyone should have to accept that it does. If that were all it took, a person or two--or even 10--agreeing with the person making the image, then everyone would be a freakin' genius artist--especially those with large families! :))

Fred, I agree with you regarding what you are saying here, we all come to the table with varying skills in different areas. It would be naive to think everyone here has the same background, knowledge and skills. I don't know that that is, or at least should be, controversial nor would it assume that a novice to photography can't have something important to add to the conversation that could be of great relevance. Everyone has some expertise or world view that can enlighten these conversations even if they are just learning about photography or art itself.

Photography has many hats (many fields of activity) and many of those involve undertakings that require a high level of craft skills as well as personal creativity. One can judge an image mainly on the basis of how well those craft skills are employed. My own previous experience as a competition judge (limited but very informative) allowed me to appreciate the importance of the successful application of those skills. They are the baggage of good photographers, whether they have a formal photography education (BFA or MFA or the like) or are self-taught. Notwithstanding a number of successes in competitions I do not consider my acquired craft skills to be quite the equal of many professionals who are obliged to be excellent in that domaine in view of the fact that that iswhat puts food on the table and assures their continuation.

One or some of the hats of photography are similar those existing in fine arts, writing, science and engineering, philosophical thought and other creative fields. These are the activities of creation, where it is as important to master the aesthetical and emotional aspects of creating an artistic image as it is to gild the lily in terms of the good practice of craft photography. One can also acquire this ability via good formal instruction, experience of the doing and experience of observing and analysing thework of others. Like some others here, I personally feel the study of museum hangings and such theories as the art of visual perception and the significance of point line and form in visual art are important adjuncts to forming a good critic. As we all have experienced, I think, many images succeed extemely well technically but lack the emotional and intellectual (read artistic) power, whereas others succeed well in the latter sense but have shortcomings from a craft or technical perfection viewpoint. It is often easier to judge the technical characteristics of an image (lighting, control of color or B&W gradations, focus, resolution, contrast, equilibrium or not of masses and other basic compositional aspects), but more difficult to judge, in a manner that will find acceptance with all viewers, what other emotional or artistic qualities an image may have.

There are obviously some who are better in judging these artistic attributes. I feel it is right to criticize the artistic qualities of an image according to our own particular viewpoint and experience, but also to be humble about its more universal value to other experienced viewers. There is I believe no absolute standard in that aspect of critique.

I guess I see the image as tending toward characterlessness, rather than as being enigmatic. The broad areas of darkness, which don’t show much detail, seem a little bland. The texture also looks a little smoothed out, as if a little too much noise control had been applied.

I’d like to see more of the kind of detail that you see in this picture of Patrice’s: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7376367

But it's pretty nice, and, if well printed, might look rather impressive.

John it might be a little late, but one more word from me on this. In my view, herrings or not, any modification suggested, that change the stylistics of an image, is "radical", as far as I see it. Technical improvements can almost always be done by the artist or suggested by viewers, but that would mostly be made to enhance the stylistics chosen. This brings us of course back to our original exchange: that of identifying the original style used and intended.

Excellent use of lighting. The massive size of the ship is reflected well. Nice composition. Well done...