'The Bus Stop (V)' (BW Ed.) PN Photo of the Week, May 28, 2011

Nice shot John in a huge portfolio of great work. Kudos on photo of the week.

I agree with Tom Holte regarding John Crosley. This is as close to street photography that the dwarfs have gotten to in a long time. This is an interesting photograph. It is to the cliched and suffocating pictoricalist rubbish that tends to make Photo of the Week. But having said this, I think that while this is refreshingly good photography, John's photographs of people and places are better than this. Much better. This shot is amusing--which is just fine. but I have seen many of John photographs that are profound. They are the ones I prefer.

Alex, the realms of the amusing and the profound are not mutually exclusive:

--Lannie

When I first looked at this image I was both pleased and troubled. I couldn't put my finger on the troubled part for awhile and wanted to wait until I got my good monitor back before commenting--and to sit on the image for a few days as well.

Anyway, the main think that I like here is the fact that the people are doing something and we can elicit stories--irrelevant as to what the stories are specifically, but key to this images success IMO.

I can almost see the first lady's features, she is so classic as she wades through her purse (looking for her fare?), the second shadow seems like two embrading while the third is maybe stealing "her" purse, the fouth checks his messages with one hand--I wont speculate what the other is doing and so on. A great catch of a scene where something is really happening to capture the viewers interest instead of just a line of static shadows.

The even spacing of the line wouldn't have led me to the conclusion this was a bus stop as it feels more like a queue to some event--maybe they were loading?--as generally I see people sort of bunched together or at least layered, which we don't see here when they are just waiting at "the bus stop". The ground/sidewalk, which appears to be dirt, is very textured (oversharpened?) also seems odd to me as generally, at least where I have seen large groups waiting for a bus, it would have a more developed, urban sense to the space. My point isn't that these inconsistencies that I see are problematic, it just raises questions to ponder as I look at the image in light of the title. This certainly can be a good thing as it means the image isn't solved by just looking at it.

But my pause on this image was just that it felt to me a bit manipulated too much which ruined the aesthetics of the image for me. Most of the time I don't see what a lot of others see in this regard, but here I must or at least what I see is a sensitivity I have. But there does seem to be some conflict for me in the brightness of the rocks in the shadows. A sense that these have been brought out in post to such an extent that I find them actually to be distracting and obtrusive. This opening of the shadows and then a sense of over sharpening both combined to somewhat diminish the image for me on a purely aesthetic level. (I looked at the New New New etc folder and saw several that were oversharpened, with halos and such that also seemed to have something like shadows/highlights applied rather strongly, which would be my guess here).

Bottom line, I think the image has a lot of nice things about it but I do feel it should be pulled back a bit in the processing--I do like the contrast level overall.

John, putting aside the sharpening issue at the moment, do you think this could simply be a case of overexposure?

Double post -- sorry.

Stephen, no, I don't think that would be the case. In fact, although I wonder if shadows and highlights wasn't in fact used, the area also seems to exhibit the signs of having the contrast lifted as well--curves or levels (I have seen these sorts of artifact working my own images and needed to back off).

If it had been overexposed I believe we would see blown out areas in the light rock wall and we don't, it has been managed very well. Also, there is only about a 30-40 point difference between the rocks and the grout in the sun and sometimes more than 120 points with those in the shade (RGB readings in PS info window). i just don't think we would see this sort of thing naturally.

I just found these words up above by John himself. Although he suggests he didn't work the stones specifically, there is a discussion of using shadows/hghlts, levels as well as some dodging and burning and a couple of plug ins to make things snappier. I think we just see the effect of not doing too much photoshop, but doing enough to create something that is a little too much.

The very textured ground, I saw as a fairly natural phenomenon due to the clearly very low and strong light casting extremely strong shadows and the clear features of the stones on the silhouettes I saw as again fairly natural result of the shadows. That these elements of the photos have been reinforced by sharpening (but not necessarily "over-") and lightening of the shadows is like to be the case, but I find it a minor technical question concerning an image that has so strong naratives to transmit. My experience with the photos of John is that they always have a messages to transmit (feelings, observations, stories) that go beyond the superficial immediate picture we see.
Therefore notwithstanding technicalities that obviously have an important role to play out among photographers, the main questions for me when looking at the POW is not aesthetics but the narrative. The intended narrative and the perceived narrative.

I'm very pleased to see one of John's photos chosen as photo of the week. John has a gift for 1) seeing photogenic situations, 2) having a camera with him when he sees them, and 3) making a successful and interesting photo of the scene.
The diagonal perspective here is a good way for the photographer to avoid getting his own shadow in the scene, and I think it also makes for an interesting composition. I like how position of the wall evenly divides the human subjects between their legs, elongated by the angle of the sun, and their more normally-sized torsos.
So, "chapeau", John... or at least the dramatic silhouette of a chapeau!

I am noted for lengthy responses, but will keep this to the point and try to let the discusion flow, as it seem to be going well.
The discussion about sharpening/artifacts issues came to a correct resolution, I think.
I did use Nik (not Imagenomics) on this particular photo and use shadow/highlight filter quite a bit, but do much work in Adobe Camera Raw beforehand and now am better guided by a Lynda.com on raw processing I just saw.
I did not select the stones at all.
The important thing, to me, is the image; I do not pretend to have any serious skills a a photoshopper, and those who have followed me and my work know that for a certainty. If I exhibited I would leave the Photoshopping to experts. I am too prolific to spend hours and hours 'enhancing an image -- my motto is 'if it doesn't work well, go take another'.
Special thanks so far to all who have contributed - this is a very high level, 'right-on' discussion which really needs little or no feedback from me, except perhaps my letting you know you have come to a correct resolution of the technical issue in your discussion.
Believe me, if I'd known this would be Photo of the Week (again) I'd have spent a great deal of time on it, rather than just pushing it through, or perhaps have reworked it and substituted. I frankly almost never do such things. WYSIWYG with me.
I only started using 'filters' within the last four or so months, and find they add something special to photos I seldom can achieve with my own image editing work without them, but accept the criticisms and am well guided by them. Thank you for the discussion so far; it's very instructive.
I will have some special thanks her or by e-mail for individual contributors at the end whose wonderful contributions have not gone unnoticed.
john
John (Crosley)

Great shot John! Pleased to see you on the home page when I returned to PN today. Check out some of my new black and white "off the cuff" style photos I just uploaded today. You inspired me. Best, Matt.

Could not be more deserving for a POW! Bravo, everything an excellent photo can present, give, teach. Food for thought, goal to aim. Needless to say, goes to my favorites! Much of that is already said, but I find it as a wonderful that this photo extends well beyond its physical borders. It does it by clever use of perspective, camera viewpoint is still outside closer edge of the photo. On top of that, surface textures just lead your eye around. Shadow spacing deviates just enough from uniform to provide the photo with an inner rhythm, without even coming close to random and unruly. It would take a lot of effort to set up a scene so naturally, but probably there is somewhere out there a theory on how things get organized. Isn't the bus stop a perfect place for it?

One little nitpick, not about the photo, but about Photoshop and post processing. Using Photoshop (or any post-processing darkroom work) doesn't have to be, though it can be, "enhancement." Whatever I do in Photoshop IS part of the image, which simply isn't the image until I've processed it. The image itself is a process: a process of creation, from conception to composing to snap of shutter to processing to post-processing to display.

I think the photo would LOOK better with a little less sharpening. I don't mind the exaggerated stones, given the graphic nature of the shot to begin with. That's a matter of John's vision. With less intensity of those shadowed stones, it's more organic. With the intensity he's given them, the graphic nature of the photo is emphasized. This is a photo, and therefore VISUAL. How the photo LOOKS is extremely important. So I don't discount the LOOK as if it were something separate from the rest of the photo (whatever that would mean). That being said, processing and post-processing is not everyone's cup of tea and that's understandable.

As usual Fred G. makes a wonderful point (or series of points).
The basic photo is finished when it is displayed, here or in print, but I consider printing the END, however I don't print.
I often do not 'finish' to completion my work which I display on Photo.net to the final way I'd like it to be.I truly do value the feedback of Photo.net members and especially in those instances in which cropping, contrast, and other issues are before the critique audience, I often tend to make decisions, but leave my final judgment for AFTER the critique session.
If I made all the judgments including some tight cropping I might wish to do at the end, then some critiques of my judgment would be forestalled -- no one could see the fuller frame to determine IF it should be cropped tighter or different. I might envision a different or tighter crop but post something fuller frame (or different contrast, etc.), so I get feedback about whether I am making or will make an appropriate choice. Members who critique my photos can do so from a place of very high skill sometimes, and it is frequent. I try to value that and post with that in mind, and not necessarily my 'final product'.
In other words, WYSINWYG (what you see is not what you get) If I were to exhibit the photo as a print -- it would be professionally photoshopped to my vision. I highly value the feedback I get here. I am a numb skull about printing; I don't do it, it's too cumbersome, I move around a lot, the only printing that would be available to me would be Epson and that's too expensive for what I want, and my mentor tells me 'silver haloid' only. No one serious will display archival giclee yet, despite Epson's and HP's claims, at least for gallery/museum serious collections. so does one high-level exhibition quality printer that prints for many of the major museums of the world as well as galleries, etc.
So I don't print, and as a result. I can't make the distinction between what will show on a digital screen and whether and how much it will show on a print.
The Lynda.com tutorial (referred to in my remark above) made a good point. Just because you can see pixels or larger 'imperfections' on a monitor with good resolution doesn't mean it's going to show up in a print. That is a matter of testing and experience. The male instructor's point (it's the tutorial on how to do landscapes), was that even if something appears to be a 'defect' on your screen, it may disappear when it's printed.
I'm guided by that, and would ally with a good printer and photoshopper if I were to exhibit. Last year when I had money I had some of my work professionally photoshopped (but not for posting as I do that myself, per the rules). That was for eventual display, exhibition printing, not for Photo.net or my personal use. It was done for inventory because abroad it was inexpensive and done well.
In my vision, I am also subject to change -- and there may be more than one possible vision.
In a photo of a bent woman with cane in front of a street violinist the caption said something like 'oh, money, how I wish . . . '
My mentor looked at it and said it was a 'play on two sticks the active, blurry violin bow and the straight, whitish cane of the bent woman'. In a sentence he cut to the heart of the photo's vision AND how it might better be worked up.
Voila, he had changed my 'vision' of my photo and how I would finish it.
That from a man taken seriously by many famed photographers. Sally Mann used his suggestions. Helmut Newton. Nan Goldin. And I think Herb Ritts plus a host of others. I am so lucky to be a recipient of such good advice, but also value highly the good advice of Photo.net's able army of good critiquers.
Instead of highlighting the money in the hat in front of the old woman, I'd work on the bow and the cane to make sure their contrast (active vs. passive) are clearly visible in that night photo. That's the power of good critique and how it can affect photographic vision.
It's an extreme example perhaps, but still such things happen daily in my life and from this forum. I value very highly some of the high level critiques I get here.
Fred G. so often is right and again here is correct. I saw what I liked, and therefore I did not seek to burn in the stones as I might have done, as I liked them that way, but if they detract in a print, then I would have to bow to the distraction and modify a final print.
That's a good example of the power of a great critique and how amorphous the final 'vision' is when faced with the interpretation and idiosyncratic visions or filters of others critical eye(s).
Fred has a good, critical eye and if my photo were to offend him and others like him in terms of sharpening, I might have to consider 'my vision' versus tempering it to conform to their standard of what offends them in terms of sharpening vs. dodging (which I did not do -- or selecting and lightening, etc. or even leaving more natural).
I think you get the idea.
I'm a highly active participant in this forum because of this, and frequently when I shoot I think (or even laugh to myself) at the reaction of critics (even this photo). It may be a laugh because of how I think a photo will be laughed at but I take my photo my way anyway. After all this is for me, and the critiques are to help me be better for myself not clones of themselves.
I take the good critiques very seriously.
Very.
Fred is a great example -- he is one of the reasons for me Photo.net is THE place to be to 'help improve my photography' (and you thought those were just words I put on my critique requests, didn't you?) I ALWAYS listen, even if I sometimes I seem to reject, if you don't feel acceptance right away, if I express it poorly or don't accept until later.
Thanks Fred and other critiquers and commenters.
john
John (Crosley)

Aesthetically, it's OK. But, I really like it's originality in the very long shadows & aligned figures. There's many who would not have seen this. Congrats, John

I just realized I made an "amusing" typo. The third sentence in my posting should read: "It is like a fresh breeze after the cliched and suffocating pictoricalist rubbish that tends to make Photo of the Week."

Drat the gremlins in my computer.

Great photo! Very Cartier-Bresson!

I have no critique, just a question: What's that thing on the ground center-right? A plastic bag?

Shadows and Highlights is probably one of the most powerful, and destructive, tools in the Photoshop arsenal IMO. Even in the hands of experts it can quickly ruin an image's integrity. Applying it globally will rarely work although the effects might be subtle and acceptable at times--until its printed. The tell tale sign of the halo can quickly ruin the organic nature of an image. (There are subtle halo's in this image but the other sign of it is the exaggeration of light areas in shadows--although my comment here is directed more at the tool than this image).

Several years ago, I printed one of my images to about 6 feet wide and had it hanging on my studio wall along with about 5 others all the same size. It had been up for several weeks when another photographer came over. He immediately went over to that print and said, "Oh, you used Shadows and Highlights on this one". With his comment, there might as well have been neon signs pointing to it, he didn't even have to tell me where, his comment had knocked me off my being so emotionally attached to the image that I couldn't see what was blatantly before my eyes--and on the screen! I was totally embarrassed, post work should never be seen unless it is meant to be seen. I had probably worked that file for over 8 hours and then spent another 8 correcting the issue, it was worth it to me.

Sometimes what might be perceived as technical issues can work with an image and sometimes they don't. Sometimes it is preference and sometimes it is just bad technique.

Very well done!
Apart from the technical quality, this scene seems to me like a "tunnel of life", everyone is in a queue since the birth until the final day...(sorry if the image is more black than the photo...)

I think this is old hat now and not relevant. Major museums and high end galleries show, and major photographic artists now make, digital inkjet prints. You generally wont see the word giclee used as it is really pretty obsolete except in the tourist galleries (it doesn't really mean anything). The last show I saw by a friend of mine, who was curator of photography at a large Art Museum and a black and white photographer, was totally done on an Epson. But here is a list of images in various collections that are in fact digital inkjet prints:

Museum of Modern Art--NYC:

Paul Graham--from major show I saw there:

http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?criteria=O%3ADE%3AI%3A4|G%3AHI%3AE%3A1&page_number=125&template_id=1&sort_order=2

http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?criteria=O%3ADE%3AI%3A4|G%3AHI%3AE%3A1&page_number=18&template_id=1&sort_order=2

http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?criteria=O%3ADE%3AI%3A4|G%3AHI%3AE%3A1&page_number=59&template_id=1&sort_order=2

http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?criteria=O%3ADE%3AI%3A4|G%3AHI%3AE%3A1&page_number=44&template_id=1&sort_order=2

http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?criteria=O%3ADE%3AI%3A4|G%3AHI%3AE%3A1&page_number=63&template_id=1&sort_order=2

The Metropolitan Museum--NYC:

http://www.metmuseum.org/works_of_art/collection_database/photographs/the_met_rainy_evening_new_york_ny_robert_i_weingarten/objectview.aspx?page=1506&sort=2&sortdir=asc&keyword=&fp=1502&dd1=19&dd2=0&vw=1&collID=19&OID=190038422&vT=1&hi=0&ov=0

bw print--several by this person

http://www.metmuseum.org/works_of_art/collection_database/photographs/private_prayer_with_krishna_bhajan_ashram_vrindavan_fazal_sheikh/objectview.aspx?page=1276&sort=2&sortdir=asc&keyword=&fp=1272&dd1=19&dd2=0&vw=1&collID=19&OID=190042997&vT=1&hi=0&ov=0

Chicago Art Institute:

http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/181635?search_id=5

http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/184496?search_id=6

http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/195457?search_id=11

John A.
You made two points extremely well, for which I am thoroughly grateful.
My point about the 'silver' was made by one of the world's finest print shop owners who will print Epson if requested, and he prints for many of the world's major artists who show in galleries (and charges commensurate, sky-high prices. Works, I am told, printed in his shop hang in all major museum s of the world from the Louvre on down.
That was his advice to me a few months ago in a reasonably detailed discussion. But I'm no expert.
However, I agree, that Epson giclee looks great and the issue is archival quality and acceptability by buyers. I understand the latter is somewhat of a hurdle with some buyers.-- whether or not well-informed.

I understand that giclee (missing accent) means 'spray' in French but Google Translate's no help, it translates the word the same in English as French though with wildly different pronunciations (the French of course sounds correct to me since I speak some French).
Petite or grande LaRousse, anybody, to break the mystery?
Is giclee a word with meaning and does it mean spray?
If, so, then John, I think it is apt because that's what ink-jets do -- spray.
But the 'issue' is of small moment, I think we both can agree.
Thank you for loading my arsenal with ammo for a few rounds to return this printer's way next time we speak and also to look for 'secondary motives' -- perhaps the high cost of printiing with Epsons compared to developing in a traditional darkroom or with Lightjet et al. (from digital).
john
John (indebted to you for much work) (Crosley)

John, "gicler" (or jaillir, éclabouser) in French can best be translated into "spurt" in English, so you are near by suggesting "spray".

A history of the use of the word "giclee".

When I suggested that word meant nothing I was referring to the fact that it has become a very generic and often misleading word. Originally it did mean something specific but lost that meaning over time. The fact that it referred to any inkjet print and not necessarily archival prints is likely at least one reason it lost favor with artists.

Most artists refer to their inkjet prints as Digital Pigment or Archival Pigment Prints, Pigment being somewhat synonymous with archival. Many artists also use the brand of inks they use, such as "Ultrachrome" before the rest, which could include "inkjet print", "pigment print" or whatever. Varying nomenclature for the same process has been common in photography, however, you rarely see*Giclee used in museums or higher end galleries. Surprisingly, some print houses still use the word.

*I have never seen it a Museum but did in one gallery, an "Iris Giclee", which seemed particularly odd to put the two together considering the genesis of the word's usage.

Very beautiful and entertaining photo. Great composition, which almost makes it feel alive, if that makes sense. I like it better and better the more I look at it. My only slight 'beef', as it were, with this photo, and it definitely is a slight one, is that I find the wall a tiny bit bright. In a perfect world the plastic bag leaning against the wall would also be missing :-)