Memories

Lovely image, Pnina, one of your better dance picture, IMO. Now, I did read Fred's analysis, and may I comment briefly. The issues he raises are valid, but therein lies the rub of photographing someone else's creation. Unlike a street scene where you arrange a haphazzard scene into something you hope has cohesion, balance, and focus, photographing a CHOREOGRAPHED dance presents its own set of problems.

 

First, there is a set of predetermined movements, unlike in basketball or football where the flight of the ball and the players reactions to them vary somewhat from second to second. Secondly, the photographer is not totally at liberty to create an image herself, as the picture is of an event, and neccesarily has to somewhat relate to what the dancer is trying to say. I mean a picture of the ghost scene from Macbeth, for instance, NECESSARILY has to convey a feeling of dread, no matter that one of the actors might have been distracted for a second and cracked a smile.

 

While catching that smile might be a photographic achievent of the photographer showing the actor as human, running such a picture as an illustration accompanying a review of the play would be grossly inappropriate, no matter how interesting the photograph. Here, while Fred's points are well taken, the low energy of the subject, the muted tones, and the selective focus may all well be elements of the performance itself, and, conversely, could not be legitimately monkeyed with.

The heaviness of the dancer in the frame is due to perspective, shooting angle, and distance of the photographer. That aspect of the photo doesn't appeal to me. Even if I knew the choreographer made the dancer seem bulky, I might still not like it translated to a still photograph, even if done accurately. Many landscapes are true to nature but don't appeal to me. Just because a photo of art accurately represents the original medium doesn't mean it will be a compelling photo. Low lighting when viewing a stage performance may be very effective and atmospheric and may at the same time not make for a good photo.

 

I am able to separate what is a function of the dance and what is a function of the photo. I know the shadows on the legs come from stage lighting. At another moment, the dancer's position might have caught the light differently, or a slight movement by Pnina would have changed the feel of the shadows. Awkward shadows on the legs of a dancer for a fleeting moment during the course of a dance would likely not bother me. Preserved and so noticeable as they are in a still photo makes a big difference esthetically.

 

A photographer may not want to convey dread in shooting the Macbeth scene. He might convey irony or expose the actor as just a guy playing the character. He might intentionally capture the actor cracking the smile and want to remove all dread from the scene. Or he might want to capture the counterpoint of both the dread and the momentary lapse of character. The creative photographer does not NECESSARILY do anything, unless he's hired by the theater for some purpose. Pnina has said she approaches these photos creatively and personally, not as a documentarian or publicist. Photographing a performance comes with certain limitations or parameters, but not the ones you are suggesting or the ones I criticized.

 

You may agree or disagree with my assessments about this as a photograph, it's just my opinion. But it sounds to me like you're not offering an alternative opinion so much as using the fact that Pnina is photographing a dance as an excuse.

Thanks for continuing the discussion. I have to add some points that were uploaded while reading your comments ( and I hope I understood your point of view).

 

First, we are different people and have different points of view. I respect the pro and against of all the comment I get. I learn and it enriches my horizons.( Fred, we talked before of what I say, so I'm sorry if you will have to read it again..).

 

It is right that photographing a work of art that was created( or in the middle of formation) by another artist is a co production, BUT , it is two points of view. The second is the "viewer/photographer interpretation ( for sure in this instance). Another point is what you Emmanuel called" predetermined movement ", well there are post movements as well , what is called a dance sentence, now it depends what the photographer takes from the whole sentence, he /she can take many frame from the sentence following the choreographer, and another way is taking one fraction of a second from the whole sentence, that has his/her interpretation and taking it to another direction, not exactly the choreographer story.. I work a lot while in rehearsals (mostly ,and later while in general rehearsal, and sometimes while the real show), what the choreographer I work with the most told me, is that my photos is helping her creating more directions of the dance building.

 

Another point is the stage lights, which are usually very strong and dazzling ,so finding a way to overcome them choosing the corner of light and special frame ,and than post process the frame, changing tones of colors adding/deleting elements( like in this one eliminating other dancers)) strengthen / weaken points,and interpretation of that fraction , all these points are crucial for creating something that is related to the dance and different at the same time.

 

Fred, I understand your points, as well as Emmanuels,Aesthetics is also not a united feeling and taste, and that is what critique is about.

Yes, we all have different points of view. But Emmanuel seemed to take exception with my opinions because this is a performance-based photo. As you've said here, much of this photo is your own decision-making, gut feelings, and desire to express yourself.

I was critiquing your photographic expression of your point of view. Emmanuel seemed to be saying that, because this was a dance photo, these criticisms would not apply, because the elements were happening in the dance and by design of the choreographer. But, in fact, these are things that you had control of to a great extent or at least particular moments you chose.

Yes, we are each allowed our point of view. Emmanuel offering a different opinion, based on his own perceptions and aesthetics, is great. But he justified his opinions by suggesting they are more consistent with the situation of photographing performances, and there I think he's wrong.

"Another point is the stage lights, which are usually very strong and dazzling ,so finding a way to overcome them choosing the corner of light and special frame ,and than post process the frame, changing tones of colors adding/deleting elements( like in this one eliminating other dancers)) strengthen / weaken points,and interpretation of that fraction , all these points are crucial for creating something that is related to the dance and different at the same time."

These are the very reasons I critiqued you. I don't think you successfully dealt with stage lighting. I also found the tones you used lacking and commented on the balance of strength to weakness, all things you recognize as qualities somewhat within your control. I actually felt Emmanuel was suggesting less "liberty" than you and I both know you have and he was discounting what could be considered areas for improvement because of the type of photo it is. I think what may be problematic in one photo may not be so in another, because of style, genre, or some other consideration. I don't think that's the case with the things I was talking about here. Emmanuel may think you did a better job with the elements of the photo that I commented on. That would be because he has a different opinion from me about what you've done, not because this type of photo had to be or should have been treated the way you treated it.

You know that I appreciate your point of view and your evaluation, and I hope you appreciate mine. Emmanuel is entitled to his point of view like both of us ,and he started with this:

 

"The issues he raises are valid", so he agreed with you, and than wrote his way of seeing this photo. I don't think he was against your point of view, but wanted to express his way, which saw this photo in a different manner, and explained his reasons.I can agree or not ,but I respect both your ways of seing it, and taking the time to write it.

 

I understood your critique of MY approach to this photo. But I thought that it met my thought while working on it.( BTW The shadows on her legs are from her dress, and I have decided not to touch it.) I liked her body form, the soft lighting on her vs. the strong light on the toy, so her body was behind her memories . You have criticized her body, I took it into consideration, but I wrote my reasons for it, you can accept( or not) my explanation, and they will not change your point of view, and it is accepted and honored by me. I can only explain my reasons and think of yours for future works.

 

"I think sometimes, what would be considered an area worth improving in one photograph is not one worth considering in another, because of style, genre, or some other consideration. "

 

Thanks for this sentence, that's what is guiding me too.( also in this one even though you see it in a different way)

 

Thanks Fred , I appreciate this thread.

 

 

 

I am much more in tune with your point of view (if not your photo) than with Emmanuel's. I keep saying that what you say about your work seems more to my way of thinking than to what Emmanuel has said. We clearly don't understand Emmanuel's comments the same way. I stand by what I've said about his comment about my critique. I am responding to more than his view about your photo. I am responding to his views about dance photos or photos of art in general, which guided his feelings about my critique. I think you're missing an important point. You're focusing on your photo and our opinions of your photo and missing what I'm talking about, which is what Emmanuel said about photographing dance and other arts in general. It's not his opinions about your photo that I think are mistaken, those are his opinions to which he's entitled. It's his thoughts on what the photographer's role is and what liberties the photographer has or doesn't have when shooting dance or other art forms that I disagree with.

I think I understand what was Emmanuel's idea, the lack of liberty in the dance/theatre or other arts forms interpretation/photographing. I understood as well the differentiation he did between street/ sports/ theatre/art. I understood, I think, both of you, and I have tried to explain the difference through MY work in that area. He may be wrong , but that is the way he sees photographing art, you can think he is mistaken, but that what he thinks. I hope he will read this thread and will continue, if he wants.

 

"I am able to separate what is a function of the dance and what is a function of the photo."

 

I feel the same way myself,Fred. I would like to ask you again to remember that it is not easy for me to express myself in English.... I understand both your points of view, and I agree that we have a lot in common with our general approach, (not depending on this particular photo....;-)).