Scenes from Postwar Bosnia (Protected with a digital watermark by Digimarc ®)

IMHO colour wins this time round, not only for its punchiness, but on a deeper level the irony this shot captures of a yellow almost dollhouse-esque innocence ripped by deadly fire, the stairs are just there to give a rational balance to the tumble of emotions.

Now here's a POW I agree with. Congratulations to you Mr. Orr.

 

What strikes me about this is that Mr. Orr's fine portfolio is all about perspectives and geometric relationships. There is a mechanical precision and order to everything, even the color palettes. You might think that the images would be pretty sterile, but most of them are emotionally compelling, as is this one.

 

I think it's too simplistic to say it's moving because of the bullet holes.

Le mur d'Or ®

Or the murder of innocents?

The question is not "what does this image mean?" -- the question is "what does this image stand for?" In other words: How can a certain political attitude influence perception of a photographer, and how can a certain political attitude influence perception of a viewer?

John Orr (the author of the photograph) took this picture from the position of a rifleman (the author of the picture on the wall). The rifleman's gaze (possibly through a riflescope) penetrated the building, while John Orr's gaze (through a viewfinder) penetrated, intentionally or not, a conceptual structure significant to his audience. This conceptual structure is rather simple: the gold wall and the curvaceous staircase, which can be found on a large number of amateur "fine-art" pictures, contrasted with the less obvious, but nonetheless pretty, bullet holes. Such a picture could have been taken anywhere in the world where spiral fire escapes are present. For how can the viewer know that the photographer himself was not the rifleman who spitted on the wall? There is no clue that would explicitly suggest the "exposure location," except the photograph title ("Version II Postwar Bosnia") and a corresponding photo.net database field (Bosnia and Herzegovina, "BiH").

The photo.net viewer's perception is foremost aesthetical. The photo.net viewer first notices a warm yellow wall, then an elegant staircase, then some bluish pits, then finally bullet holes. From then on, the viewer's opinion on this picture depends on his stance on War. For some the image depicts "the grim reality" of War; for others it depicts "a story of redemption." Of course, there are also people with a Freudian worldview, for whom this picture is a product of phallocentrism: the "open to interpretation" photograph; the open to penetration wall; the "warm, inviting, open" yellow color; the feminine staircase; the vagina-like door; the space to be explored; the rails to be touched.

Although this photograph can make people think of War, it does not depicta war -- only its alleged traces, which may or may not constitute reality for the viewer. It puts the viewer in the position of a rifleman, as Max Ernst's painting The Massacre of the Innocents (1920) puts the viewer in the position of a pilot.

It is interesting to compare this photograph with other pictures in John Orr's portfolio. There is a tendency  in his work to "pacify" war. He could have developed it for entirely apolitical reasons, but it does seem to permeate the Version II Postwar Bosnia. If we adopt this viewpoint, then the black-and-white Postwar Bosnia appears to be closer to the photographer's intent, or his "mind's picture." The previous sentence should not be considered a value judgment, however.

I much prefer the contrast that hte color version of the photo offers. It is one of those types of pictures that speaks not through its complication, but through the simplicity that it offers.

(sigh...) Once again I find myself more inclined to critique the critiques rather than the image. On the whole, tho', ignoring the usual handful of folks suffering from that peculiar form of visual attention deficit disorder that plagues only photographers, by far most commenters have said whatever I'd say.

 

I'm surprised there was no general outrage over the square crop. Typically I'd expect more people to suggest a tight vertical crop to emphasize the spiral staircase, ignoring the context of the entire photo - one of the first symptoms of VADD.

 

However the number of votes for the b&w version definitely indicates that VADD is alive and rampant. If I won the lotto I'd make a donation to the Cure VADD Now fund.

 

I suspect this is a damned near perfect photograph. The artifacts in the scan are rather distracting, tho' - considering this is now a POW I'd like to see a better quality JPEG. While the JPEGging has softened the detail almost to the quality of an impressionistic painting, which is an attractive option that fits the themes of ironic beauty and order in chaos, I'd still like to see a better scan or a JPEG with more detail.

 

Even if this were just another photograph of stairs and doors incongruously placed (a popular artistic theme), this would be striking sans bullet holes. The colors and textures are lovely. And the pockmarks are so artistically distributed, as tho' begging to be photographed.

 

Good job, John and elves.

Wow - thank you Eugene.

In reading the POW discussions week after week, I have come to the decision that some people think that no photograph (except maybe their own) is worthy of photo of the week.

 

In which I say, Congratulations John Orr. Your photo is definitely POW worthy. This is more than a wall. This is a wall with a story. And as someone else pointed out, the contrast between the bright happy color and the gloomy gray bullet holes is quite compelling.

 

I cannot rate it today, for I had already done so when the image was first posted. I liked it then, I like it now. It is good to see fine photographs get this extra level of recognition.

The thumbnail attracted me because of the dominant color and the simple, centered composition. The larger photo has the same attraction, but at the same time is disturbing, because I can identify the bulletholes for what they are. Powerful photo, better in color!

Color for sure :) The yellow is part of the mood so much you can't take it off.

I cant say, like Eugene that the first thing that attracted me here was a warm yellow wall, more like a dirty, flaking, sad yellow wall, camouflaging a stark, blank wall, punctuated by a strange staircase leading to an unwelcoming door that hides God knows what. It seems to belong to a rather forbidding culture thats skirts the edge of nightmare. The bullet-holes look almost at home here. You shudder and pass by, not wishing to look too closely.

A clear majority of photo.netters seem to prefer the colour version of this photograph... however, I like Douglas Vincent, wonder why this is even an issue in the first place. The way I see it, the contrast between the emotional warmth of the yellow wall and the ugly bullet scars pock-marking the wall *IS* the subject.

 

When I first saw the thumbnail, I was a little disappointed. I instantly noticed the strong graphic lines and pleasing colour contrast, but the bullet holes (and hence, emotional depth) eluded my first cursory view. I was prepared to write the photo off as a well-done, yet over-done, piece of eye-candy. During these first few seconds of superficial evaluation, I was also disappointed that John Orr's name was associated with the photo as I have long admired much of his work, and thought the elves had done him a terrible disservice.

 

That is, of course, until I opened the image up to it's full size. The peaceful, almost mind-numbing serenity when viewed small (or from afar as it would be if hung on a wall) is shattered much as the wall had been when the bullets hit. It is a shock, and a powerful one at that. As a visual communique, the subject and idea behind this photo are among the best I have ever seen. No matter how much we try to "paint over" the ugliness in the world, evil exists and cannot be dismissed or ignored.

 

However, I do wonder if the photo might be improved. I wonder about the impact that different lighting and/or shadows might have. I also wonder if we could take Phil Morris' suggestion to remove the nettle a bit further, and compose the photo without any grassy foreground whatsoever... I must say that I find it a little distracting. These are minor quibbles though, and can certainly be explored further when John reshoots this scene as I believe he might like to do. Congratulations John... you have said more about humanity in this photograph than I would have thought possible without a human subject.

Usually, as in 8 out of ten times, I'll go for the b&w. But this is a rare exception. The color makes this photo great. Truly.

Now, this is my kind of photography! My compliments to the photographer, 7/7 without hesitation!

 

Herein lies the beauty of photography, no sooner is the war over when along comes a fellow photographer who sees beauty in the iron-y of mans battles and takes one more shot at this wall which stands between two opposing points of view. What a metaphor for last weeks POWs hostility. Now the question remains: are we going to seize this peaceful moment or let it escalate into yet another clash? Interesting how a little bit of lively color can shine a gleam of hope to even the most deadliest of events.

 

The color photo is by far superior as it denotes the contrast between construction and destruction, a separation which is not present in the black and white. I guess we could say that the color rendition provides harmony, and promotes healing, while the black and white could be taken as just a bloody photograph. (Note: Im not referring about anyone in particular, but rather in general to all who engage in the heat of the battle).

 

Peace!

Out of all the ugliness and destructions of war comes the elegant simplicity of this structure, it is a deeply moving image; more toward the hidden sadness it did not express than the image it shown.

I was hoping this might be brought up but it hasn't. There are a lot of photos posted on photo.net that are first posted in color and then because the artist doesn't trust his/her own innate sense of what film medium should best represent the subject matter, decides to photoshop the image into black and white.

 

This practice (a bit disappointing with this image as POW) is a rather aggregious offense to the possibilities of black and white photography. Taking a color slide and turning it into black and white is roughly the equivalent of taking a delicious velvia transparency and removimg 50% of the color detail in the image. Who would do that?

 

Yet when you turn a color slide into black and white you've already compromised about 50% of the subtle densities (the possibilities) available to you had you actually used black and white film.

 

For the unintiated. Color transparency films go from black to white in approximate 5 stops (which is about the best digital offers right now too). Black and white film goes from black to white in about 10 stops. That 10 stop range is Black and White's power, the ability to hold intense contrast and create images of wonderful subtlety and tonality.

 

I wonder how many photographers (particularly digital enthusiasts) haven't the faintest realization of the possibilities?

 

Bringing this full circle, why would John compromise a wonderful image whose color is absolutely essential to its emotional power by suggesting a muddy and rather lifeless black and white rendering could somehow possibly be better? Especially when the rendering to black and white is inherently (by way of the method) a huge compromise in itself?

The original colour photo is in my eyes the much stronger one.

Great photo.

 

Congratulations

B&W for me ... despite Douglas Vincent's argument. We are looking at a small electronic version of what is no doubt a much more impressive work in the flesh, and any subtlties in both formats will tend to be diluted by the process of preparing an image to post here. In this case, the weeds in the foreground stand out more clearly in the B&W version, indeed the whole image in this format has a slighty sharper and definitely starker feel to it than in colour.

 

Despite the bullet holes, I do not find any real power in this shot. To me this is mainly because, other than the title, there is no context (particularly human) in which to place the image. For all I know, without the title it could be a firing range. I am also do not find the central placing of the stairs as pleasing as a lot of other commenters have found it to be.

I also think this photo has to be in colour. There is an ambiguity about its statement - the photographer taking a careful picture of a staircase, worrying about light, colour, creating an attractive composition out of a relatively meaningless staircase, while surrounded by bullet holes. It is an uncomfortable image: the aftermath of war, where touring the local sites of conflict becomes almost a tourist attraction. I don't mean this as a criticism of the photograph; I think the photographer clearly recognized the ironies here, but this irony is most clearly evident in the version which is full of colour.

 

Douglas Vincent brings up the point that a desaturated colour image cannot be compared to black and white film. Is this true? I have tried to find a definitive answer to this question, and the best I can come up with when looking for this information on the internet is that many colour films (Provia 100 for example) actually have as much tonal density as black and white film, however these tones are compressed within a smaller number of steps. So, logically following from that, a photo that falls within the five-to-six-step range of Provia would have greater tonal subtlety than the same photo taken with black and white film. This would explain why I am sometimes surprised at the subtlety of tonal density of some desaturated images, which I really wouldn't expect of a film designed for colour, and the reason may be because photographers who are used to slide film probably consciously limit their activities to lighting situations that fit within the range of the film they are using. I'm not saying this is always a good thing, as I think one of the most fascinating things about b&w photography is the dramatic way it can deal with a wide range of light, but I would like to know if there is any independent research done on this subject because it isn't always possible to have a b&w film at the ready and it sometimes make sense to make the colour vs b&w decision afterwards.

I think the colour version is far more effective. The happy yellow and blue shades and the green grass give no forewarning of what you see when you look more closely. Catches one off-guard, rather.

A very clever wolf in lamb's clothing.

Doug Vincent, I've been waiting for this question. Thanks for posting it.

 

When I was first learning photography the options were : Shoot it in color. Or, Shoot it in black and white. Sure, there were products that could take a color negative and produce a black and white print ( on Resin Coated paper, not fiber), but the results were barely passable. Going from a color transparency to the same RC black and white print called for an inter-negative and its accompanying degradation in image quality. So, the options were still: Shoot it color, or, Shoot it in black and white. The photographer had to actually think before making a film commitment. In some cases, where film backs could be exchanged behind the lens, a photographer could shoot it both ways.

 

Now adays, it's too simple, but there are legitimate advantages: On a recent trip to Yosemite, with children, grandparents, luggage, etc, I didn't feel I had the luxury of bringing all of my equipment, different camera's, lenses, all kinds of film, etc, so I brought only 35 mm and color slides with the idea to convert them to black and white in the digital darkroom. In my opinion, that's a compromise based on reality. Not ideal, but for the circumstances, a worthwhile compromise.

 

I also understand that with digital recording equipment, you don't have to commit to color or black and white. That's a blessing, in a way, for today's young digital photographers. With Photoshop, I can look back at old color negs and slides and easily convert them to black and white. In some cases, that's a true bonus. In my case, I'm learning that my vision is stronger in black and white than it ever was in color.

 

But, I think it's a little cheap, this practice of posting it one way, then, if it gets good ratings, two or three weeks later posting it the second way, as if it's a brand new image. John's case is different because he's posted both versions to obtain feedback on which is the better image. No problem there.

 

To answer the question of why did John propose a black and white alternative: Maybe he was unsure. That's just a guess, but since converting is so easy, why not consider everything? The idea behind photonet is feedback, so sure, ask the question. see what people say. How many of us here know of members that post solely for praise and admiration? Yuck. Arrogant show-offs, in my opinion.

 

Or, if not uncertainty, maybe John was trying to stimulate conversation. I do that at times: Make a decision, then post the elements of the question to see how others would have handled it.

 

So, my stance on Doug Vincent's question is not so much on the technical aspects of the color/ black and white issue and how much better or worse an image could be if recorded properly in the first place, but rather on the anemic artistic vision the technology tends to foster.

 

I want to be quick to add that I am guilty of this weakness too, and struggle constantly with the question of how best to record a photograph. Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose, but in either case, my vision is strengthened by the act of commitment at the time of exposure.

I like this, in colour or mono, tho I'd have preferd to crop out that bit of gras at the bottom.

It's a great shot tho, a mix of extractist pattern(the stairs) and photojournalism(the bullet holes in the walls)

Upon reflection, I am struck by the ironic elements in this image.

The image depicts a fire escape as its central element. "Fire" normally refers (in civilian society) to flames emanating from

combustible material. But it can also refer to ordinance discharged

during a military exercise, as in "fire in the hole!". The irony is that this "fire escape", rather than offering an escape from attack,

would seem to have subjected the person using it to the "fire" emanating from assault rifles or other such ordinance, In such a scenario the person on the "fire escape" would be transformed into nothing more than a target in a shooting gallery, moving back and

forth in the sights of the rifleman while attempting to descend the staircase.

I like this shot a great deal. It has a quiet contemplation of atrocity that reminds me of Sebastao Salgado. Like Salgado's work, this photograph doesn't take pains to impose words or thoughts upon the viewer -- rather you are drawn in by the color and simplicity and slowly new things are noticed. The pockmarks from gunfire, the few marks in the door (random or evidence of something more sinister?), the odd stairway (what sort of a building has an entrance like that?), the green grass. To me these things suggest an undeniably non-military building, something that could hold no interest for combatants. In other words this building is another victim of collateral damage.

 

Truly an image that is suggestive, but one that lets the viewer tell her own story.

 

Scott

It's a fine abstract photograph.

It works best in colour.

I do feel though that to put a copyright statement, and to plug the sale of an image of a war torn village/town is just a little tacky.

Gareth, inferring from other posts made by John this past fall, the copyright notice is to protect the image from unauthorized use by Internet pirates. I apply a notice to my scrints as a matter of course, as do many other members. The notice itself may not be strong enough to prevent theft by a determined individual, but at least it's present. I don't think it necessarily indicates a commercial mentality. Maybe John will clarify this later on. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with the selling of this image as it would only increase the exposure of its message.