Bridport Jetty Version III

Hehey John. Well done. I'm well chuffed for you. I'm beginning to wish you had autographed that lens! As for composition and centering, it's not centered (obviously) it's not a rule of thirds shot and it's a good bit short of a golden mean. The only thing that "centres" it (sort of) is the pair of lead goal posts, but then even they are not perfectly measured in from the margins of the picture. That said, forgetting the margins the words measured and equal spring to mind to describe how the mass of posts are grouped within the confines of the lead goal posts. I'd hazard a guess that the intention was to centre the mass of posts within the lead ones and thereby provide the essence of regimented symmetry that everyone adores and appreciates but at the same time sneakily wrong footing the viewer and masking that symmetry by the lowered horizon and slightly askew lead posts. I've liked the picture for ages. Shooting from a crouched position helps give a dominating presence to the lead posts and speed to the water. It's a handsome piece of work.

I agree the horizon is not far from the centre but, since we tend to be rather good at detecting symmetry, I still contend it is quite obviously placed off centre. It's placement also nicely bisects the two front poles into something resembling a rule of thirds. I don't think a dead centered horizon (assuming the same camera position) would have done so quite as nicely, and would have weakened the composition imo.

I hate this photo 'cause it makes me want to go up there, to see what's up there, and to look at all the posts, but I'm stuck. It really draws you in, doesn't it?

This is a great photo, although I have to echo previous posts on the seemingly

unoriginal subject matter. This is something I've been considering a good deal as I

grow frustruted by my own work. It does seem that for those of us that photograph

subject matter in it's natural and uncontrived state (no studios, models etc...) there is

almost a percieveable limit to the number of ways that we can render our world

photographically. In this era of media saturation, we have all viewed millions of

images. While I certainly take pleasure in creating a beautiful photo such as this (or

attempting to, at least), I have to wonder at my own ability, or anyone else's for that

matter, to create a truly original image. On the other hand, perhaps the originality of

art lies more in the fact that every artist is an individual rather than in the uniqueness

of every piece of artwork.

 

All in all, a great picture though. In response to concerns about framing the posts

with a longer lens to achieve uniformity, I would disagree with such a technique. The

posts are perfectly uniform in the picture (they were laid out for a straight pier, were

they not?) The fact that they appear at different distances is because some of them

aren't there any more. For me, this adds another layer to the photo. If the posts were

not in a state of disarray, I think the photo would lose a certain "narrative" quality,

and decline into more of a simple graphical exercise (which it already is to a large

extent).

The vertical lines create new and repeating frames, literally, in the image. While the horizon is near center in the overall image, it is found at places other than center in these various frames. In fact, the space is repeated divided both horizontally and vertically throughout the image creating a compelling tension between stable and unstable visual forces.

Some are mastering the art of teaching ... how to properly manipulate and light a cigar, how to open a (said-)good bottle of wine by the book, ... enjoying more the academic and traditional ways rather than the taste of the product. Some also need such rule to enjoy the art and somewhere their appreciation of art is prisonner of rule set by such called 'authorities'.

The content and the form. Both are useful I agree. May be that could be a suggestion for a new rating system, instead of Aesthetic and Originally (last one still being particularly unclear for me).

 

Back to this picture - sorry for disgression - really interesting because it keeps systematically on the edge:

- it's not centered but almost (the horizon is not really at the mioddle, the most left wood is closer to the border than the most right one),

- it's almost balanced but not so (height and shape of wood are slightly different, so is the interval between some of them),

- the spectrum of light is clear in the center and get darker up and down but still down is much darker, and so on...

 

Making such picture, John looks like a tightrope artist to me; and I like such people.

Firstly, thanks for the congratulations everyone, and for all comments positive and negative, I welcome them all. Im here to share and learn. Secondly, thank you elves for this very exciting honour. What a hoot!

A few words about my usual upload practice will shed some light on a few issues:

Once my negatives are dry, I have a quick look at them on the light box, and being too impatient to do a proper proof sheet, I scan the ones that look like they have the most potential, then have a quick play with them on the screen to help decide how I intend to print them in the darkroom. If theres one I want to share on photo.net, I put it in a frame, and upload. Thats more or less what I did with this one. An experimental burn and a little USM is the extent of the tweaking.

I have printed this one a few times in the darkroom, and I do the burn more gently than here (a suggestion first made by Maria). Backshooter and others have pointed out that the burn is too crude and rectangular here and I agree. It is a result of my basic experimentation in PS prior to heading into the darkroom, and is not as smooth or subtle as it could have been.

Regarding the elves' question, Backshooter again points out that the vertical lines are more important, the horizontal lines can fall wherever they will. Basically you just back yourself to go with what feels right, as Andrew wrote. The tripod placement was in about 12 inches of sea, with waves surging to about 24 inches. I wanted to get in amongst the piles. Version IV is still in the folder, and shows the scene from further back with no burn for those interested. Version I and II were quickly culled. When I saw Dougs cross-haired versions, I thought perhaps Tasmania had been added to the Axis of Evil!

The frame, well, it would appear that frames are going out of fashion on photo.net, when only a few months ago they were all the rage! Fashion is such an unpredictable thing. The frame I can live with or without, but I thought it was a good idea at the time. (Doug Burgess taught me how to do better ones later, but if theyre out of fashion perhaps I should drop Doug as my frame coach!)

I am always dismayed at how unsharp my scans are from my Epson 2450. This one I am particularly disappointed with, as I think the detail on the piles is an important micro-element for extended viewing. Yes Trevor that is a seagull, and he did stand fairly still for the several-second exposure.

Now, on to the most important aspect: the subject, and any emotional stimulus it may provide. I am at a stage in my life where I am assessing my past, and trying to shape my plans for a satisfying future. I feel the passage of time quite intensely at present, and I am drawn to themes which to me portray the passage of time, provoke me to think about where my life is going and what worthwhile achievements I can squeeze into my remaining years. This jetty is one such place where I feel the rapid passage of my life in juxtaposition with the very slow decay of these old piles. The jetty burned down in the 30s, and it hasnt changed at all since I first spent my summers there as a kid in the 70s. I like to use motion in images, to evoke the rush of time, motion of water, grasses, stars, people, etc. Similarly, freezing the motion of the waves here by piling on 5 stops of ND filter evoked to me some kind of subconscious emotional stimulus, perhaps the smoothing of the choppy waters is a metaphor for smoothing out the ups and downs of our lives. Perhaps Im rambling too much. It certainly has to also appeal on a basic visual level as well.

Marc asked me offline which one I would have chosen. This one is a bit of a surprise, but surprises are fun. Id have gone for Aurora Australis and Star Trails Over Cradle Mountain for the pre-visualisation to bring back a unique picture of one of Australias most photographed travel icons, or Prince of Wales Range, because Im pretty sure no one had previously brought back or published any quality pictures from that difficult and rarely visited peak, but its exciting to be selected at all, so Im delighted that theyve chosen this one.

Cheers for now,

So once again, congratulations John -- my previous comment was deleted because I forgot to say why I congratulated you (sorry, Mary). So, there it goes it: I am very happy to see that integrity, persistance, and skill still count. And I am even happier that this recognition went to you, one of the most helpful and gentle photo.net personalities I met around here (am I crossing any boundaries again?). This is a splendid image and my favorite of the three takes, as I already said before. Many more, John.

congrats john. Rules, there are no rules. Sometimes when we compose a shot it just happens its hard to say why, we can analyse it to death if we want. Sometimes or eye just leads us to the exact spot we need to be in, as yours has here. Its not always a conscious decision.I for one just enjoy this as a great picture without getting to into too many details. beautiful pic.

John, congratulations, I think your whole portfolio is fantastic. About symmetric composition, there's not much controversy I think. Unintentional symmetry can look bad, but strong intentional symmetry can produce very strong pictures like this one. Good thing you didn't know about David Fokos or you might not have taken it.

Smashing photo John!

 

Interesting point about the composition as well. Yes, the horizon

isn't quite in the centre, but it's close enough to ruin many images

without the compositional strength of this one. Mostly, of course, central horizons are to be avoided because the image starts to look like two unconnected similar sized rectangles rather than a single one divided into two. Here though - the very strong verticals hold the composition together, particularly by the contrasting of horizontals and verticals against each other. Compositionally it hangs together

very well as a result.

 

Cover the two big posts with your fingers and instantly the image

falls into two sections. The distant posts just aren't strong

enough to hold it all together, and are overwhelmed by the strength

of the horizontals.

 

Anyway enough of this academic stuff. A good image and a POW

well deserved.

 

Best regards,

 

Adrian

hmmm, perhaphs I should drop John as my pupil....

Very good composition, DOF, and good contrast. Congrads John.

I see, as with every PoW, commentary regarding photos that have been "done before". Most everything that is portrayed on the earth has been done at one time or another. Just try to come up with an original idea for a horror movie! Originality comes with the way an artist presents a scene that has been done and redone. Take the Simpson's sitcom for example. Just about every skit in that show has been done in a movie, on the news or in a TV show. Yet the creators have found amusing ways of presented the same old stuff in a new way. Granted, that may not apply to every photo in PoW that has been "done before" but I wanted to merely illustrate that a simple statement such as that holds no ground when considering the environment we live in. To those who still cry "unoriginal", I tempt thee to create a photo, in an environment, with unique framing that has never been portrayed in a painting, photo, film etc. It can be done, but not everyone here has done it, and not everyone can.

This a rectangular symmetry inscribed in a circular vignetting type of burn in along the edges. This burn in, or darkening effect, is not justified, it does not add anything to the picture. It is too light to significantly contribute to overal geometrical impression, and too dark in the present state, to justify the logic or reason of being there.

The extra, outside frames with cast shadows are commercial gimmicks.

I find disturbing that no one has commented on this image simmilitude to the famous David Fokos' image "Eastchop" (you can see it here: http://www.lexingtonartgallery.com/1d12c2c0.jpg). Was "Bridport Jetty v.III inspired by it or is this a mere coincidence? Whichever is the case, congratulations on this exremely beautiful image.

Jorge remarque is quite interesting indeed ... but the correct address is:

eastchop

Nice shot John and congratulations, but let's get down to the real

question, how's the fishing?

The 'golden rule' you know is a shiny thing, all maleable and

pretty. We're attracted to it because it makes us look good. But

most importantly it teaches us value, the value of being clean

compositionally, clear in our thinking. Probably one of the best

learning tools ever described for a profession. The reason it is

so great is that the more we learn from it, appreciate what it has

taught us, the less we need it and the less we use it. The

lesson is learned, the foundation is laid, now intuition can take

over and allow personal style to emerge; as John beautifully

demonstates here. I think the 'golden rule' lives in every good

photograph. Long live the 'Golden Rule!'

 

Thanks for sharing! DL

Jorge, Re Fokos: Leigh Perry was the first to make the connection. Scroll up to Leigh's first comment, (prior to POW), and my response a few posts later. I openly admitted my ignorance, I had never seen his picture or heard of Fokos, and I doubt he's heard of me either.

For your interest, my main influences have been Frank Hurley,Olegas Truchanas, and Peter Dombrovskis, particularly Dombrovskis, one of the world's most significant photographers prior to his death in 1996. His incredible pictures helped save vast tracts of the wilderness I love. Amongst living artists, I'm currently admiring the work of Chris Bell, and reading Dykinga and Rudman for technical tips.

Cheers,

Read here: "Prince Of Wales Range"...:-)

Well, congrats to you for this POW, John, and also for picking the stunning "Prince Of Wales Range" picture as one of your favorites. Doug Burgess managed to suggest a minor printing improvement on that other image of yours, but besides that, it's imo one of your best shots, if not THE best - and probably better than this POW.

Now what about Bridport Jetty ? Well, I think it's a good shot as well, but your own self-criticism of it is imo perfectly valid, just as valid as most of the criticism I've read in this thread. I still have a problem with the burning and the bottom's dark area on this uploaded version. If this picture breaks a rule, it's mostly at the bottom in my view. I would be highly interested in seeing, before the end of this week, a scan of the final print you said looked better. I perfectly understand your way to upload images here as a "test" somehow before printing the final version, and I think it's just the post production which is lacking here - and NOT the picture itself at all.

I think this POW pick by the Elves is a very good example of the fact that an ordinary subject can be "made different" - in this case with the appropriate slow shutter and a great choice of lens, then finally with an extraordinary tonal range on the sea and woods. This POW also tells me that a picture where each small decision is so important and where some of the decisions might perhaps be questionable is perhaps the best possible choice to provoque a thougthful discussion.

As for the originality issue about this POW, I think that there are 2 types of original images - one of which is often under-estimated. Some images are obviously novel and stand out immediately as such among many others, but that there is another category of images, which are a lot less original at first glance, yet different from other similar images IN A VERY SUBTLE WAY. This particular image - and most of your work - belong imo to the second category. The type of originality that's "in the face" may or may not be long-lasting, but subtlety often is...

This is for intereseted people to see the image as it appears in the negative, get at a feel for the way I interpreted it in the darkroom, and offer any suggestions, no matter how different to mine, I'm open.

 

6x7 neg. Epson Perfection (sic) 2450 Photo scanner. Vuescan software. Adjusted the black end of Levels. Cloned out about three spots of dust. Sharpened.

General rules are just that - "general", and should be abandoned when appropriate, such as with this photo. To my eye, the horizon in this photo is a visually only a secondary concern. The post on the left dominates my atention at first, with my eye traveling from its top to bottom. Then, crossing the photo to the post on the right, my eye then travels up that post about half way, and from there switches back to the left and onto the depth prospective created by the disappearing posts in the center of the photo. Thus, this composition creates a spiral effect which captures the eye very well. For me, the horizon does not come into play. I find this to be a very successful composition.

John,

 

>> Re Fokos: Leigh Perry was the first to make the connection <<

 

Missed his comment completely. In any case, I think yours is better in many ways -for instance, the barnacles on the poles make the image much more interesting.

 

Congratulations on this and the rest of your gallery images, excellent most of them. I specially enjoy Misty Myrtle, The stream... and tasmanian Pastorale.

Honestly, I don't like this image, technically. Although the composition is nice, the tonal separation and value placement does not qualify the image as one that is masterful. The barnacle values are blocked out and has little to no detail.

 

If I had shot this image, I would do it during sunset/sunrise (as long as the light source is not in the frame). That way, I could pop in a yellow filter to darken the sky and contrast the barnacles. If I had it my way, the sky would be on Zone V, the Barnacles on Zone II, and the poles on Zone VI.

I have no doubt that the image is very dynamically framed, but if I treat the two columns on both sides as the frame to the viewer's central of attraction, the horizon is still about 1/3. Maybe I'm wrong, but I give it a try anyway.