giallo Mascagni

I find the different elements here and the way this image been constructed is appealing while the present of the man at this position of the frame work do bring the composition to a very highly skilled lever.
I do have some preservations about the sky and may or not been manipulated, the contrast of the sky and the move of the clouds do look like being brush work, never the less thats do not makes me change my mind about the over all quality of this well designed image.
All of the best to all, bravo for the photographer and thanks for the Elvis.

The photo is a tribute to the artisans that built this space. The choice of angle/location allows the linear and diagonal patterns in the tile work to be seen. The stone railing is magnificent. I wonder what is to the left of the photo? For me, the inclusion of the individual on the right is necessary. They act as an additional reference along with the lampost. The yellow bumbershoot is a bit of fun.
It appears that a ND filter was used (actual or virtual) at the top which has made the globe of the lamp unusually dark. I suspect that the reflections are imposed rather than real because the reflection of the lamp post is a bit wobbly for such a smooth surface (there are no waves on tiles). Even though, these elements contribute to the image and Martino did well by including them.
Regards, John

Great Composition, Superb Reflections..LOve the Scene...i think you should try to convert it B&W it may give a stronger mood...

My Best Regards
Seb

A simple and perfect composition, with a token of color in the umbrella! Very interesting! Very nice!

Martino has made many of the right compositional and chromatic moves in making this picture. The balance is very good and there is little doubt that he has a fine eye. However, like John A, I am left a bit cold by the image. What is it saying? What are we to take away from the image of a man and his surroundings, other than the graphical prettiness of the scene. For that I agree it is impressive, certainly, but apart from the graphical and chromatic niceness that would be welcome in say, a fashion or product shoot, I am not sure what the photographer wants to communicate. Maybe I am missing something and perhaps Martino or others will enlighten my viewing experience.

Phineas mentioned something that I also agree with. Although the subject of discussion is the POW, I think readers should also look at the work that is more typical of Martino as photographer. Martino has an excellent portfolio to my mind, one that shows a sensitivity to subjects that is not that common. For me, there is little similarity between most of those images and this one, except perhaps for the chromatic exploration of Martino's still lifes, which are only a part of his work. The fine urban and landscape images, many in black and white, seem to me to be much more connected with the subject and subject matter than this one. Thanks to this POW for that opportunity.

This is simply beautiful. It evoque peaceful and a sense of calm. This is beautiful.

Technically speaking, the shot is perfect. But otherwise there is a patent lack of a subject - is it the guy with the umbrella? the terrace? the skyscape? No matter what it is, and all technicalities set aside, I find this picture devoid of emotion, cold and composed, and a bit overcooked. Those blue and yellow gradient filters are too blatant for my taste.

Beautiful and well thought through composition. Very good colours (I especially like the yellow umbrella :-).

Very beautiful photograph.

There have been several comments regarding the "purpose" of the photograph -- questions about what Martino is wanting to communicate or what comprises the primary subject. That was my initial reaction as well; I was looking for the meaning behind the photograph or an answer to why Martino made this photograph. While many photos are based on communicating a concept or a feeling to the viewers, I've long felt that other photographs are meant solely to depict or illustrate a slice of life. It's as if some photos show a story unfolding on a stage, while others are focused on the elements of the stage itself. I don't want to make any value judgements about whether one avenue may be superior to the other (assuming my thought and analogy has some truth), although I will say that I greatly admire those photographs that can tell a story or communicate a strong feeling because I think that's more difficult to accomplish.

I prefer to look at Martino's photo as simply an exercise in setting up a graphical scene with a striking contrast (the human element). The point of focus is not any particular element in the photo, but rather the photo itself taken as a whole. This is similar to my favorite subject, landscapes, in which often the photo as a whole is intended to represent a beautiful part of this world we temporarily inhabit, and to do so with an image that is aesthetically pleasing and that captures the essence of the place. Again, there may not be a specific point of focus or deeper meaning, but there is nevertheless great value in a photo that can convey the idea of stylized contrasts in a striking way (Martino) or wonderful landscapes captured at a decisive moment with great compositional elements that form an aesthetically pleasing image (many landscape photographers on photo.net). Some of these may develop into photos that have deeper meaning for some viewers based on their life experiences and photographic / artistic backgrounds, for there is no sharp boundary between the two purposes. To use my analogy, some viewers will find a story being expressed on a stage while others will see only the stage itself (but strikingly and beautifully constructed). This is simply a reflection of the great diversity among viewers regarding their life experiences, their backgrounds in photography, and their their own goals in photography.

This is how I view Martino's photograph, and it does not change my initial comments about the man in jeans and coat holding a woman's umbrella seeming to be an odd component of the stage that Martino has assembled and photographed.

Stephen, hopefully I won't totally miss your point here but here are a couple of thoughts.

First, I think Michael Seawald did a fine job delineating what was done well here--better than my "nothing is particularly wrong" comment. For a lot of photographers getting such a nicely balanced composition, the lines of the horizon and the wall lined up (the bane of photographers) and the handling of the light would be a great accomplishment. Then, to do it with such a surreal, if you will, setting would make some all giggles. There are a lot of things that are good here.

But at some point, as one progresses down the road, maybe that isn't enough. More to the point about the "elements" you mention in your post. Once you introduce an element, then regardless of whether you are telling a story or not, they have to be read in the context of the image. A beautiful, pristine landscape with a once in a lifetime sky is going to be compromised by an incongruous and/or distracting/unsightly element that is included in the scene--unless that is the--obvious--point of the image. If it doesn't add to the image or complement it, then it is probably a distraction.

So, story intended or not, the man becomes something we have to read and respond to with regards to its effect on the image. The conclusion regarding such an element, in this case we seem to agree, is going to be a personal reaction to what is presented. But I do think that once you introduce an element that is not benign to a scene--which I think this man is as is that element I mentioned above in a landscape--I think a story does emerge whether we intended it or not--and stories don't always work.

An excellent image. Beautiful colours and great composition. Very well seen and executed. Congrats.

John, I'm not sure about your final point, that once an element that is not benign to the scene is introduced, then a story emerges, whether the photographer wanted it to or not. It may be that we're simply defining "story" differently. Currently I'm looking at this as more of a vignette than a story. At the moment, I'm sitting on the fence, not sure where to go with respect to this photograph. What impresses me most about this conversation is that viewers have their own impressions, interpretations, and points of view (and very rightly so), while the photographer may have had something entirely different in mind when he made the photograph. While it may not alter what I find in the photograph and what I think about the photograph, my understanding always seems to be enriched when I hear directly from the photographer regarding his/her vision or story/vignette that was intended to be told in their photograph. It's only Wednesday, so I still have hope.

I agree with the last comment about the desire to hear the photographer's viewpoint. When I find the image compositionally and graphically interesting with an apparently intended chromatic research/exploration, but quite uncommunicative (to me) beyond that (and on other more subtle planes), I need to hear other viewpoints that might counter my impression, and especially hear the views of the photographer (if he happens to be aware of the selection).

If the photographer didn't have other images in his portfolio that I find more interesting, I would probably not even care that he interact with the discussion. But that is not the case.

Surely, among the many marvelous photos of Martino, at least one would have to end up in the POW forum and this one is among the obvious candidates. Looking at his portfolio, as I often do, this photos, "giallo Mascagni" falls, in my eyes, among his extraordinary still-life shots in the NM folder and his Toscana shots. Same, somewhat mysterious light and colors as Meyerowitz' Cape-light porch shots that make the viewer enter into a second state of dreams and admiration.

The man and his umbrella are therefor, for me, an intruder that the photo would have been better off without - unless there is a "story" that I did not apprehend (I'm personally not that much into stories of the kind). In compositional terms, and still according to my modest opinion, the man would have been less lost if he had been advanced 6-7 "squares" - in play with the lamppost (yet another !).

Sorry for the English ...
Thank you all for your comments sincerely appreciated!
This photo has no history ... It was raining and I was in Livorno, Mascagni on the terrace was empty ... then suddenly came this person with the yellow umbrella ...
The geometric composition of the floor, the skyline in the background and thebalustrade lanterns were too perfect! The human presence is in contrast to all this, butat the same time, in that position, opposite to lamp-posts, for me it was right! In ascene almost "perfect", the man breaks with his imperfection, the scene geometry, butbringing value and life in it. The world can be beautiful, but not perfect ... beauty lies in imperfection and frailty of human presence.
There have to be a story in a picture ... can like it or not, and can be read andinterpreted in a unique way for each of us.
Thank you very much and sorry for the delay! Only now I'm back and I saw all this.
Ciao.

Stephen,

Indeed, we might have different ideas regarding story, but what I was suggesting is just that we all read a photograph and the elements it contains--some more maybe than others. And some things just stand out more than others. Take the prisitne landscape I described above. Without the unsightly element, most would probably not think much about it whether the foreground was a stream or a meadow or if there were trees on the right or a mountain--it would just be pleasing and restful let's say--something to relax with and savor. Now, introduce a pile of trash in the foreground--not many are going to see the image as restful and pleasing. Immediately, one would wonder why it was there, is the photographer commenting on the environment and polution, was he/she too lazy or not paying attention to have eliminated it and so on. So, some sort of rationale (story) for the image sort of arises in a more extreme way than when just looking at that totally pristine shot of the same place.

That is what I think we have here. In fact, Ander's may have alluded to it, that almost any figure in this scene is going to generate a story or inject a meaning of some sort. A beautiful model will push it one way, a business man in a suit another and a skateboarder, yet another. We would, I believe read the image totally different with each type of person--or even if it were full of people. The lack of a human here would again change the sense of the image--in my sense, these different readings based are what constitutes "story".

John, I understand what you're saying, and it seems Martino has told us the circumstances behind his photograph that supports your point of view. Martino, thank you! When I initially saw this photo, I thought it might be a staged photograph where someone saw the geometry, saw the potential to add contrast to that geometry to make a compelling photograph, and asked someone to help him realize what he saw in his mind's eye. I couldn't understand why a person in jeans was given a woman's umbrella to make the photo. But I was so completely wrong in my assumptions. it wasn't staged; it was a spontaneous happening. What impresses me the most is that Martino, with a true photographer's eye, saw all of this immediately, almost instinctively, and was quick enough with his camera to catch the very brief moment before the man walked out of the scene, at which point all possibility for a compelling photograph would have been lost.

In past weeks I've argued against making too many assumptions regarding a photographer's intention behind a photograph. I've violated my own advice. I made an assumption that was not correct, and it prevented me from appreciating the photographer's ability to immediately recognize elements that would make a compelling photograph and then capture the scene which lasted but a few short seconds.

There are many photographs that I don't "trust" these days. We have such ability to modify the light, to add or subtract elements, to process the image in the name of making a more compelling photograph, that I seem to view photographs differently compared to 20 years ago. My willingness to believe the photographer and to believe the photograph has been reduced. I've joined the ranks of the public whose first question is, "Is it real?" I think that's regrettable, because it has taken away my ability and willingness to appreciate a compelling photograph at the outset. I first have to be convinced that it is, in fact, real; that its compelling nature wasn't created and wasn't staged; that it is, in fact, the product of a photographer with a gift for immediately recognizing an artistic composition that may have been present for only the briefest of moments or that others passed by without ever seeing.

To drive this point home, I want to ask you: would this photograph have been "different" in your mind if Martino had asked a companion to take an umbrella, walk over to that spot, turn around, and then walk toward the camera as if he had just walked up a flight of stairs from the beach, compared to the fact that Martino saw this stranger, immediately recognized what was occurring, and captured this real instant in time? The two photographs would look identical, yet the process of obtaining each photograph would have been radically different. Would the process, after it had been told to you, make a difference, or is it just the final result that matters?

Stephen, I didn't see Martino's reply before I posted--or after until reading yours--I must have been writing as he posted.

But I don't see reading a photo, that it looks staged, as an assumption--it is a feeling based on the way the elements of the shot read. If it looks that way, it looks that way and being spontaneous, to my way of thinking, neither enhances or distracts from the image. The image is what it is and in most cases we never know. My own sense is that too much importance is put on how images are made and not on what an image conveys to the viewer--it either speaks to you or it doesn't. When this sort of thing comes up, I often think of the enigmatic image of the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima, a staged recreation not discovered until years later--does it really matter? It doesn't to me. This image has transcended journalism (where it does matter) and has become so much more.

On another point you made, I do think it might be an assumption that there was some "completely" spontaneous reaction here--but certainly there could have been. In many of these cases, and noted in many of Bresson's photos, the setting was chosen, the framing set and then something happened in the frame--because the photographer expected it or maybe just hoped it would or maybe it just happened. This does not diminish any skill involved on anyone's part, but sometimes I think we set up unrealistic ideas on how photos are made and it can mislead those who haven't gotten there yet or done this sort of work. I personally had a very powerful experience with just this happening. I set up a shot with a specific idea in mind, as I waited, a solo woman walked into the scene with her odd dress and interacted with an element in the shot in a way I could not have even hoped for. I had sat there for probably a 1/2 hour or more waiting for something else I had seen earlier to reoccur, I left after getting this image.

BTW, the "you" in my previous post is meant to be anyone who may look at this photo.

Dear John A, I believe you killed 2 and half hours for an image ( wasted ) finally captured with most of the basic photographic elements are missing, the exposure value, the details, the sever shaded zones and of centering this image in the frame work.
Regardless of a story telling atmosphere, this image couldn’t be compared or related to this POW technical wise or even taste wise.

When an image captured with luck of know how, it is of no much value for the viewers, this is what makes this week POW a very much different and very much attractive and so well connect with its viewers, even if it opens up a wide field for discussions.
Best wishes and respect dear John.

John, whether an image speaks to you and the process behind the image are two separate issues, but both are (or can be) important aspects of the image. Even though it's true that we usually never know how an image was created, in those cases where we do know I think it makes a very significant difference -- at least it does for me. The example of Iwo Jima you cited is, I think, an extreme; the significance of that event was so great that it overshadows the fact that the photo is a re-take. A more pedestrian photo wouldn't, IMO, be given as much leeway.

You make a good point about spontaneity, and I glossed over that too much. You offered an example where you saw the potential and then waited for the elements to come together. I did the same with my attached photo. I saw the potential, waited for some 45 minutes in the cold while others passed me by with a look of "why is that guy just standing there?", and then the geese took off as I had expected. That wasn't really spontaneous, there was a strong element of planning, but it was all natural. That last point is, to me, the most important.

Stephen/John, Wonderful discussion. I particularly appreciate and agree with what John said about assumptions. Reading a photo is not making assumptions. This shot could be as spontaneous and candid as they come. That doesn't mean it can't be described as looking staged. That's one of the beauties of photography. It is related to the real world but it is not the real world. It is a new photographic world. And in the photographic world something not staged can look staged. Something moving can look still. Something with a lot of depth can look flat. Whether it "really" is staged or not may on occasion make some difference to me as a viewer. More often it won't affect how I see the photo at all.

Speaking of assumptions, the assumption that a yellow umbrella being carried by a man is a woman's umbrella brings a smile.

Fred, very good points, and the woman's umbrella brings a smile to me as well because I was aware, when I was writing, that I was making an assumption. I pretty much agree with everything you say, with the single exception being the degree to which knowing a photo was staged (and I would add largely dependent on computer manipulation for its existence or even just for important elements within it) makes a difference. To me, it often (but not always) makes a significant difference. And on the other side of the coin, knowing that a striking photograph was not staged or created makes the same kind of difference in a very positive way.

that is why I used "seems to be a more feminine sort of umbrella", the kicker for me was what appears to be some sort of ornamentation at the point above the fabric (too thick to be just the metal protrusion from something like a golf umbrella).

Stephen, we'll again seem to have to agree to disagree on the point, however, I want to point out that many times staged photos do look staged (or overly manipulated) and that certainly affects the reading of the image and therefore my opinion.

Rashed, I prefer wasting my time on such things, oh well......thanks for your insightful comments...

John, a lot of points have been raised, and I've lost track of what we're agreeing to disagree on! However, your final point that many times staged photos do look staged (or overly manipulated), and that affects my reading of the image as well and also my opinion of the photo. That we agree on. What happens if we later learn that the photo was not staged or manipulated? Does that change your opinion of the photo? It does for me; maybe that's where we disagree. However, I can understand that other point of view if an emphasis is placed on an image standing on it's own merits, regardless of how it came to be and regardless of the photographer's intentions. I guess I'm in a middle ground on that point; I would agree that an image must stand on its own merits, but at the same time I admit to being influenced (but not guided solely) by the process of its creation (if I learn of the process) and of the photographer's intention (if I learn of that intention). Perhaps looking at a photograph solely on its own merits and looking at a photograph while adding the perspective of its origins are two different ways of viewing and critiquing photographs.