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

Bo Jepsen
I don't remove plastic bags.
I might take or post another photo perhaps. With a utility line, I'm thinking of a potential clone in a landscape setting, but not in an urban setting.
I just done clone things out -- it's messy and I prefer to make beauty from everything, not a laundry list that doesn't include plastic bags (see Fred G's critique far above. He understands what it is I do and probably my personal rules (my 'integrity'?)
Thanks for an intelligent critique and for the wonderful compliment(s).
john
John (Crosley)

John, I think it could be a matter of artistic integrity either way. The plastic bag could be cloned out with just as much artistic integrity, though you might not do so. I just think it would be a different vision. I think, regardless of your intention or your own principles, the bag serves a certain purpose here visually, as I described above. I accept it for that and embrace it that way. Others prefer a more cleansed, orderly vision, without such a counterpoint. If that were what they wanted (and they didn't lie about it), then they would show just as much integrity in cloning it out. They would just be embracing a different vision. Over time, I think the more cleansed vision would wear thin and the vision that allowed for a little more tension and counterpoint would have more depth. ACCIDENT can be a very powerful tool for any photographer.

It's kind of interesting and perhaps even challenging that it may well be a matter of integrity but the exact opposite choice for someone else, done for different reasons and with a different vision and work ethic in mind, could be just as much a matter of integrity. Photographic or artistic depth is a different matter, and there I'll side with you.

John , a very good photographic/artistic eye ( well no news here....;-)) The timing is perfect and so is the composition. The peple are active and the shadows are telling their story... The diagonal lines are evoking a verynice tension and rhythm. The life/reality is present as well....( the bag;-))....
Congratulations!

I think this photo, more than other ones in John Crosley's portfolio, shows his extraordinary ability in seeing scenes and composing photographs.
I'm impressed by the regularity of the line-up, by the particular poses of some of the persons creating the shadows and the evident activities they are engaged in. The plastic garbage bag: if we consider the shadow line-up somehow hyper-real, the bag helps us to get back down to earth.
In brief, this photo is "objectively" good and "objectively" well photographed.
In some respect John was lucky. But luck is an imponderable factor of good photography.
Again in respect to JC's portfolio, this photo stands out because of its originality. A scene difficult to see.
The PoW is said not to be an award. This one is nevertheless an outstanding demonstration of viewing and composing capabilities.

John great photo.
You have a creative eye too find such a shot like this one.

nice composition and great use of light and shadows for creating such a beautiful moving scene in abstract mode . congrats on POW . best regards <<<amir49>>>

I'm not sure what I think of the plastic bag either. On the one hand, the picture might look better without it; on the other hand, it might seem a little empty. It might not be that easy to do a good job of cloning it out, because the bag seems to overlap with the legs of one of the shadows.
As to the question of integrity, it simply wouldn't be acceptable to clone it out if the picture were being used in the service of photo-journalism to accompany a news article. (Isn't that the kind of stuff that occasionally gets a photographer fired?) If it's not being used as photo-journalism, then I guess it's the artist's choice as to whether to leave it in or clone it out.

I know exactly what to think of the plastic bag. It is there. Therefore it belongs there. This is street photography, not sterile pictorialism. To "improve" it to conform to pictorialist preconceptions of what a perfect photograph is supposed to be would reduce this composition to a manipulated abomination. This is street. Things are not perfect. Just as life is not perfect.

I don't want to miss the bus, of this great shot. Well deserved--- Best Regards

Dear Alex I agree with you, street photography best brought out with all of its contents, this is the only way to present the originality of the capture, indeed no perfection in the street images but careful thoughts will also help to make a good street photograph.

For What It's Worth, coming from the background of a one-time hire Associated Press Photographer, one-time freelance photographer, and, finally, New York World Service Photo Editor, International Wirephoto, with many times WATS lines (wide area telephone service -- dedicated telephone lines) on my desk to London and to Tokyo, I NEVER ONCE SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED CLONING OUT THE PLASTIC BAG.
Although one photographer for a daily who flagrantly, repeatedly 'improved his photos by Photoshopping in (and out) various 'imperfections, he thought were in them, and thus probably got himself banned by every decent newspaper in the Western World aside from the National Enquirer family of tabloids, photo manipulation went on even in the early '70s when I was a photo editor.
Negatives were 'flipped' before printing to put a man's part on the 'correct side' (not the one he had chosen). I never would participate in this little insidious practice.
Wirephotos, running on European speeds different from US speeds, often were greatly distorted when they arrived in New York world headquarters and a variety of photo retouchers was on staff -- artists with their airbrushes and little white/gray paint to 'correct' errors in transmission and during the process often to 'white out' through a physical 'opacity layer' of varying density, some of the background.
That once was common practice, now I am sure banned, as being just wrong, but one could see its use in every newspaper and magazine photo where it had been used . . . . . the arrestee 'stood out' from the crowd, because the crowd (not the FBI or marshalls) had been harder to see because they were covered with a thin patina of white/gray paint acting as what we call an opacity layer in Photoshop, of varying density, all laid their by the Photoshopper's airbrush.
Features were emphasized or not by that airbrush, and the ethics often rested in the artist rather than the editor and NEVER the photographer who in almost all circumstances was hundreds to thousands of miles away and usually off duty or maybe never had been on staff, as much material was contributed by member publications who knew someone in NYC wold headquarters would subject the photos to extensive retouching.
Cropping was used extensively too.
Compositions were destroyed. The carefully laid composition featuring a person in a group with meaning would be sliced and diced to produce a 'head shot' of one or the other persons so assembled.
Things were not all rosy.
The man who lost his photographer's job for 'improving' a photo, did a large number of photos, then when questioned about it, said it was a 'mistake' and his 'personal work' but mixed in with his newspaper work, which sounded good until his work production in past was scrutinized and the 'improvements' he made were found to be the rule, not the exception.
He lied, and he justly lost his job, and in the meantime the affair spurred long-overdue rules about digital editign limitations.

I long ago imposed them on myself.
I refused to learn much photoshop so I would not be tempted to change thing, merely to bring them to their best levels or brightness, contrast and sometimes to crop them.
My method has worked, as my 'workups' are better, sometimes shining, and still people click, click, click despite all my works' imperfections in reproduction, because people can find Photoshop magic on this site, but they know not to look for it under my name in my work.
I produce PHOTOS, not Photoshopped works of art.
I try to do that successfully.
I love to do it, almost to the exclusion of important things in life.
And I love to share my results with my critics, who can tell me whether (in their view) I've done well or not.
That's a good way to practice photography and one reason I quit photography so many years before -- no community and no feedback available.
Ethics in retouching is not just a 'pictorialism vs. photojournalism or documentarianism challenge but it has roots where I came from.
I hew to the extreme, perhaps because of my heritage.
But in he past while those around me were engaging in image editing and manipulation practices such as flipping negatives and painting on opacity layers to obscure background figures, that today would be forbidden, I refused such practices and still do.
I guess it's just in my blood.
Go figure!
john
John (Crosley)

John, this statement seems significant. You don't seem to impose these things on others. You seem to understand that others' visions might justify the cloning out of the bag for whatever different visual reasons than your own they might have. I happen to agree with the decision not to clone out the bag, but as I said it's because of what it accomplishes in the photo, not because I have any photojournalistic integrity to maintain, though I respect yours.

As for manipulation, we do well to tread lightly. There's nothing more manipulative than presenting a street scene in black and white, since it originally existed and was seen in color. Black and white has a long history in photojournalism and street shooting, for a long period because it was the only means available. It is often maintained as the chosen means of presentation despite technological advances which allow us to shoot in color. I could easily question the integrity of photojournalists not working in color . . . if I wanted to, which I don't. But I expect you get my point.

Some people commenting are coming from a more personal and less genre-oriented position. Given they see a very graphically-oriented photo, the more clean lines without the bag could be something desired. The painter Mondrian, for example, would have preserved the obviousness of the geometry rather than introduce such a "distraction." A comment from someone with a Mondrian-like sensibility certainly shouldn't sway you to do anything differently but simply might introduce, as I expect you would take it, a different perspective and sensibility. I doubt you would consider his opinnion an abomination. You've probably witnessed wars, as a photojournalist (or at least many photojournalists have). You've seen actual abominations.

You are approaching this more as a photojournalist than as a street photographer. Photojournalists rightly have ethical guidelines to follow. Street shooters may have self imposed guidelines, as many of us do. I limit what I will do in my portraiture so as not to exploit my subjects and to avoid hurting people. That's my self-imposed integrity. But most street shooters don't have such stringent agreed-upon rules of the road as photojournalists. Many street shooters don't make an attempt to convey an unbiased view, which we used to expect of photojournalists. And many people shooting on the street are simply using the street as raw materials to create a photo. They may consider the street their studio, where they have no problem controlling much in order to get the photo they want. It's just that they're doing it outside instead of inside.

This particular photo, coming within the context of your body of work, certainly is likely to be considered street work. But, as a photo taken by itself, I could see someone simply seeing it as a fairly graphic, almost set-looking piece. (This shows the importance, sometimes, of context and body of work.) It has a very intentional design look to it. It's not a stretch that some would see the perfected geometric potential in it and not want the bag to get in the way of that. The point is that opinions about the bag are coming from all walks of life and all kinds of photographers who have different needs and visions.

I've heard no suggestion coming close to an abomination. And I don't sense that you have either.

Bottom line is that photography is manipulation, it is just where do you draw the line. Everything we do, including our choice of framing is a manipulation as is the timing of our shot--our decisive moment.

John, I find a bit of a disconnect in your discussion about manipulation of an image only because you have so many images where your post is very obvious. Liking--or caring if it is so-- the images with it or not isn't the point, it is just that we all have to recognize that we just have different tolerances or tolerances for different thngs. For myself, I don't like "seeing" post processing in most cases but I have no issue with working an image to where we bring it line with our vision for it.

I spend hours on a photo getting it where I envisioned it and may return days later and tweak it more. I have literally spent several days, most of each, working on a single image. Rarely is any of that time putting something in or taking something out--except dust spots or sensor goobers. I edit my work heavily and only work those that fit my needs. I spend the time I do to get the image where I want it and to not have my post work show. That is just how I do it.

The problem with the discussion regarding this bag, IMO, is that the bag is essentially irrelevant to the "truth" of this image. I don't mind it being there--I actually like it, but the only reason it is there is because it was when this shot was made and it probably wont be tomorrow and probably nothing else like it will be there either--it doesn't define the place except in one moment (it isn't a tree or bush that is planted there). It may inform the place but it is not an organic element that defines it. It does not make the site or the image more true except in this one moment--to some that is enough and for others not so much. So, I see it, leaving or cloning, as more an aesthetic issue and one that is also about personal preference and intent. I say this not to challenge anyone's desire one way or another, but this is not any moral issue in this context--just preference.

The rules in photojournalism remind me of certain types of religious stances, it isn't that all manipulation would be bad it is just where do you draw the line. So the line is drawn at very basic processing. The situation here is neither religion nor photojournalism.

I have responses now to three outstanding contributors: (which does not denigrate at all the other wonderful contributors:
1. Fred G.: If words written here were to be published, certainly yours would be worthy. Your discussion of the issues is amazingly well stated, and you and I have few, probably no differences at all.
2. John A. I am hardly impressed by the debate between 'pictorialism' or documentarianism/photojournalism' at all, because I largely was unaware of it as a diagog I carried on personally, though indeed I did carry it forward on so deep a level that it was internalized and mostly resolved photo by photo. I never struggle, or seldom, I just post and move on. If others want to struggle with genres or rules, let them, and that's wonderful and I'll follow the discussion. I take photos, and I am part of the struggle, but I make decisions rather easily and quickly -- and as discussion develops I defend them (or not) as the occasion arises. I often am informed of my own thinking by reduction into words of my own thinking process which can taken fractions of a second when shooting and mere minutes when editing.
But I also recognize that all decisions are personal choice -- I do not seek to impose my choices on others on this service, and greatly respect the work of some of those here who are digital wunderkind in transforming (or simply creating) their images.
I also work cross-genre, so one view may be guided by past work but it may yield part truth and party folly, because I may, while shooting 'street' suddenly stop and shoot something totally 'found' one minute' and the next totally 'abstract'. This is a combination (as noted) of 'street' and 'abstraction' and anybody can argue which it is or which element is strohnger.
To try to categorize it more, is interesting and has I think led to one of the finest discussions on POW in recent memory, but it also will not yield 'the truth' because there is no 'truth' to be had.
The excellent point that showing a 'scene' such as this in black and white is pure manipulation is a point I routinely make to people when I tell them I minimally use image editing (Photoshop), because I say it ironically (and so note), because when I make a point of minimal image editing, I commit one of the largest image edits of all - I take away the color and edit for the grayscale sensibility.
That's really ironic, I've always been aware of it, and the idea of 'pure' street being only black and white is so much B.S. It's just that it's 'classic' and pretty much that's all. I also happen to like black and white because it forces a certain emphasis on lines and composition.
Also, it's very hard to make a good color-coordinated street shot. Cartier-Bresson shot some color and famously as recounted by the editor of French 'Photo' was at dinner one night with friends in a restaurant when that editor took some of HCB's color work for comment, HCB tryied to tear it up, then when that was refused, went around the restaurant in a tirade denouncing to fellow diners his ersthwhile 'friend' (editor) for his alleged temerity for not allowing Cartier-Bresson to destroy those things which tarnished his legacy.
I'm one of the few to see his color work; some was published with his works by Calumet (the photography store in the '50s), has survived in PDF or other format and can be found on the Internet, but I also found some in bookstores when I was younger after I first found HCB's work.
It was not up to his standards, and in fact some so far deviated from his standard for composition one could feel that he not only was 'searching' for how to deal with color effectively but he had not found his 'vision'.
In the next comment I will show two photos (maybe more) that I think Cartier-Bresson would have been satisfied with because I think not only do they do well in color, but they also have respectable composition.
The fact is good color coordination is hard to find with good composition in 'street' -- it's very rare.
Please bear with me; software on my browser prevents me from inserting the two (or more) links here, or I would.
I think you will get the point when you see the photos.
3. Anders Hingel. You have written me and suggested you somehow have not understood at all my work. Au contraire my erudite, learned and well-written friend. I think you understand me completely. If I have initernaliized the debate between photojournalism and pictorialism, and even resolved it FOR THIS PHOTO, that does not mean I don't sometimes REALLY CROSS GENRES, and then the strictures are different - a clone might be possible in another circumstance.
I see 'beauty' also sometimes where others see garbage.
One of this year's most commented on photos is of a woman model of mine, photographed from above, presented on her back, nude but laid out (so to speak) somewhat geometrically and in a way abstractly, yet no one who commented seemed to notice the abstraction, and the discussion centered on whether in truth or not my model was a prostitute rather than around my depiction.
For that I consider the photo extremely successful, because she was a model, posing for pay - however minimal -- and I set up the post, and she helped me complete it. At last look it had 94 or 95 comments, but few understood it was a geometrically derived photo, and cropped a little to fulfill my geometric vision (I revealed the crop in comments and posting, it was much derided, but it is the reason for the geometric success of the photo and its 'appeal' however perverse and 'obcene' some felt it. The crop made it powerful; without it no one would have commented except perhaps to say it was 'crap'.
Anders, you and I are on the same wavelength; sometimes I do cross genres. Some may think of me as a 'street' photographer, a documentarian and so forth, but truth is I can do 'fine art', nudes, and other things, and although regarding my photoshop skills, I purposely keep minimal, I do have some, and in other genres, I do use them, and without regret.
My main stricture there is to own up to their use.
I highly admire your work and your writings Anders. Also your link above to the underground people in the film made above in this discusisonI have begun to look at and admire -- in part just for its applicability to understanding of this photo in aesthetic/historical context, in part because I have a lifetime of viewing art/abstraction/design and have internalized much of it, and who knows whose work was influenced by that film (which I had not seen) then that work, when seen by me was internalized and actually did influence the making of this photo?
Wondrous things happen from the internalized mind that has viewed hundreds of thousands or millions of images (and I have), I am finding. I can draw on a vast library of images and/or their aesthetics and/or their impact, and pick and choose parts sometimes almost instantaneously and many times almost inchoately -- frequently very inchoately -- and this forum helps make me shoot less inchoately and with more awareness of the elements of each shot so I can build on those elements rather than purely relying on my (ample) 'gut' instincts.
That's one reason I like this forum so much. Much is revealed TO ME about the history of what I often shoot inchoately, and therefore I have developed skill in speaking of my own work, through seeing it written of and critiqued by others for which I am most thankful. In fact,this forum over my membership here has given me nearly a doctoral level understanding of Fine Art in relation to photography something I never pretended to even understand before. (though I have been in most of the world's great museums, however much my back ached, my mind wandereed and my feet called out for sitting down.)
And here I am most thankful to you all.
I am humbled by the high level of discussion here, that my photo and my photographic decisions for a 20-minute session on the street and another 20 minutes choosing among the 100 or so captures, has inspired.
Now, you guys (and gals), you oughtta see this in color.
It'd knock your socks off. (No,I'm not going to post it or a link) Maybe some day here or elsewhere.
I had a need to post a good black and white photo in my 'Black and White, Then to Now' folder, but this photo in color is golden and extraordinarily beautiful, with a little green from fresh grass at the joinder of the sidewalk and the retaining wall, and the black bag hardly intrudes at all to my mind. It is a somewhat different photo, but composed of the same elements. It also is 'abstract' but 'fresher'.
This is a case where I may have made a decision to post what I considered might be the lesser photo and still ended up with Photo of the Week, but in one sense, its beauty may have detracted, and then again, who knows?
(I'm holding it in reserve).
Please see next comment for links)
john
John (Crosley)

Photos of mine from my 'Color, Then to Now'; folder that relate to the above discussion of 'color coordination' 'street' and Henri Cartier-Bresson with some of my works I think he might have approved of (he was an extraordinarily tough critic, though, so no real prediction can be made with certainty, except he loved some work of his Magnum Agency buddies).


http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=10572570

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8267377

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7426165

The following I consider one of my finest 'street' 'color coordinated' candid captures ever (the first link could be somewhat preplanned; this could not and will never recur again even in its elements, while one could stand at the same place in the first post and come up with something similar if one waited an indefinite time -- hours, days, weeks. etc.:
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6717545&size=lg

john
John (Crosley)

About the bag: I think removing it would alter something essential about the scene. Not quite as much as cloning the body out of a murder scene, but it would.

martin h,
I read your comment and laughed out loud.
Thank you,
john
John (Crosley)

Ninety comments and going strong!
The original photo had 38 comments.
This discussion now has 52 at last comment.
Total 90.
And still going strong.
Whether the photo is so good or not, the discussion it has engendered seems to have some 'legs'.
Since that is what the 'elves' who choose these things seek to promote, this seems to have been a good choice for that.
And, this discussion is hardly of the back-slapping, 'attaboy, great photo' kind of discussion -- it's right to the nitty gritty of the philosophy and practice of photography and being conducted on what I consider the highest level by some of the most able commentators on Photo.net.
Thank you all.
I think this time the 'elves' who do the choosing can look at each other and say 'good choice' for their own purposes -- promoting healthy, learned discussion about photography -- is one of this site's best features.
john
John (Crosley)

John's POW has left me stymied about one aspect of providing comments on posted photographs: How do I provide a meaningful comment?

The plastic bag is a good example, and Fred G. provided a good summary that also, unbeknownst to him, illustrated my dilemma. I'll simplify the real world somewhat to describe this, and it will be derived from my reading of Fred G's comment. Some viewers have a more graphic (in terms of lines, shapes) orientation to their own photography, and I suspect that orientation comes from deep within, below the level of consciousness for the most part. Their comment to this POW is likely to be, "Clone the bag."

Other viewers may approach the subject with a different mindset, and if they see the bag at all, they may see it as part of the scene at that moment, and because it's real and really there, they would likely comment that the plastic bag should be retained and that it enhances the photograph.

Now many photographs are posted to PN for the purpose of eliciting comments in order to improve one's photography (admittedly, this is an assumption, and I don't know what percentage of those posting are doing so with the intention of getting better, or are simply sharing, or are needing an ego boost, or are posting for some other purpose). So what drives a comment, assuming the posting photographer wants some genuine feedback? Personally, I usually try to comment on what I think makes a photo strong as well as what makes it weak and could be improved. When I do that, I'm trying to leave my own built-in prejudices out of the discussion (at least more so now than I may have in the past) and offer an objective, helpful comment.

The part that has me stymied is how to do this without knowing the goals of the photographer.

The plastic bag is a good example. If John Crosley is primarily a street photographer rather than one who sees lines and forms (forgive me if this is a gross overgeneralization, but I hope you can see this as an expeditious way to outline my thoughts and my dilemma), and if John saw "street" in this striking collection of shadows, then one would probably not want to suggest that the bag be removed.

But if John were a more graphic-oriented photographer, and if he saw shapes that triggered his graphic-inspired shutter finger, then a suggestion that removing the plastic bag would make the photo even more graphic might be useful to John.

So two things: 1) how can I make a meaningful comment without knowing where John is coming from, and 2) is a comment more about me and what I want to see in a photograph, or is it more about John and what John has in his photograph?

Another example from yesterday. Someone posted a photograph that, from across the room, one could see was an HDR photo in which the colors and saturation were greatly exaggerated. How do I comment on this? Some people like this look, and perhaps it's exactly what the photographer was hoping to achieve. On the other hand, many people are new to HDR and want to use the software to fulfill one of the promises of digital manipulation to extend the range of light that they can capture in a printed or displayed photograph so that it more closely resembles what they saw with their eyes. In the case of the first photographer, I would say "great job." In the case of the second photographer, I might talk about some of the challenges of HDR and ways to achieve a more realistic look.

Without knowing the goals of the photographer, I'm doubting that I can provide a meaningful comment. I love it when a post explains why the photo was made or asks a specific question about it -- that gives me some guidance when writing a comment. But most people (including myself) usually don't provide that kind of guidance to viewers. At that point, I can either 1) guess and make a comment based on that guess, or 2) comment on what I, with all my built-in and well-crafted prejudices, like or don't like about the photo and what I might have done had my eye been behind the viewfinder. If I do the latter, then my comment is more about me than it is about the photographer who took the photo, and for some reason that doesn't set well with me.

So this plastic bag has me stumped. At the beginning of the week I wouldn't have known what to say. It's only by knowing more about John that I can have an opinion that might be helpful to John and not one that simply expresses my own goals and prejudices in photography. If I've described two endpoints in the art of providing comments and that the solution lies somewhere in the middle or a blend, I won't be surprised.

Stephen wrote

For me John is special ! He shoots enormous amounts of photos and shows us some. When I see a photo of John, I would not dream of suggesting that he should have done it differently because Im convinced that he has done it differently already, elsewhere. What I normally do as viewer of John's photos is to try to put the shot, the scene, in a context of his other work, in the context of work of other photographers I admire (he is in good company!) and when I think it relevant, in an art-historical context (art being all visual arts). Very often also, knowing John, I try to figure out where he has been and try to put the scene in a social, political context of the country.
Therefore, I would, when discussing the POW, find most technically oriented discussions fairly superfluous whatever relevant they would be if the photo was not shot by our friend John. You can grasp the opportunity for concentrating on technicalities and we might all learn something, but the real discussion on a photo like this POW is, in my view, a discussion on what we see, the image, the scene.
So how does the plastic bag fit into a narrative of the phtoto. For my eye, the main function the plastic bag can play, is a wake-up call bag to reality. The scene is as staged. That's why I referred bag to something that obviously is hundred procent staged - that of historical art film, and here that of Fritz Lang, Metropolis on alienation in an industrial world of capitalism. I have no intention of starting an ideological discussion, but the scene of John, is in my eyes such a similar scene. The plastic bag would never find it's place in a film of Lang (not least because plastic was not invented at the time his films were made...).
Referring again back to the Stephen above. I'm personally very much into graphic orientated photography, but pure graphics does not make an interesting photo. Something needs to be present. A photographer like Cartier-Bresson saw "geometrics" as the foundation of all strett-photography of quality. I tend to agree with him.

"back to reality" - the "bag" seems to impose itself, even in writing, twice !! and street is spelled like street and not something else. Writing is a difficult art !

Anders, thanks for the reply. The key point is that you know John, and that influences how you view his photographs and how you might comment on his photographs. The key for me is that many of the photographers to whom I provide comments on photos are total strangers to me; I have no idea where they are coming from or where they are wanting to go. There is nothing in the background to influence how I view their photographs or how I might comment on them. Without some hint of that knowledge, I'm likely to be way off base.

I suppose the only thing to do is to briefly explain where I'm coming from so that the person receiving the comments can put those comments into some kind of perspective. Unless one of us does that, we're both flying around in the dark.

Stephen, perhaps the key is being honest yet not presumptuous. An observation like "that bag breaks the harmony of geometry" or even "I find that bag annoying or disturbing" is different fromn the suggestion "clone out that bag."

A photographer will get something out of either reaction. In response to the observation, he can say, "good, that's what I wanted" or "wow, if you're annoyed I accomplished my aim because I wanted something a bit disturbing or I see something that I understand can disturb some people." In response to the suggestion, the photographer can say, "thanks for the suggestion, but I don't clone stuff" or "I wanted this to be a peaceful photo, I better clone it because I hadn't seen that bag as disturbing."

My guess is that, in most cases, hearing the photographer's goals isn't going to change things that much. It may change what you say to them, but it may not that often change how you feel about the photo. If someone says, "I don't clone bags out of photos," and I really thought the bag ruined the photo, I would say, then you should've waited until the bag blew out of the frame or you should not have taken this picture. Photojournalism demands some things but it also isn't an excuse for bad picture taking. If the editor of the newspaper finds that the photojournalist is consistently including distracting elements in his photos, he will say to the photographer, "get in better positions."

Just because a photographer wants a disturbing element in his photo doesn't mean each viewer has to like it or even understand it. An adept and confident photographer knows that and takes the viewer's comments with the appropriate number of grains of salt, depending on the comment.

John A also brings up an important point. If someone's shadow/highlights bad use is showing, no amount of excuses will be accepted by some viewers, nor should they be. Other viewers will make allowances because they have other priorities. Again, the photographer can recognize the value in each. If the photographer wants to improve his technique, he will put more emphasis on the person commenting honestly on technique. If he really doesn't care, he might appreciate the comment about technique but it really may not make him care any more about it.

There's nothing wrong with asking questions in a critique. If you can't ask, because the photographer is absent, you go with your gut. Often knowing the goals of the photographer will affect your understanding of the photographer and, to a somewhat lesser extent, the photo. Just as often, knowing the goals of the photographer won't change your emotional response that much. When the photographer tells you what his goals are, you will likely say, "Oh, now I understand why the bag is there but I still don't like it." Of, if his goal is compelling enough or you see a certain statement developed and repeated in his work, he may start changing your taste. You might say, "Wow, at first these 'distractions' like garbage bags bothered me. Now, I'm beginning to understand and accept them more."

No one way of critiquing suits everyone and photographers learn to accept critiques for what they are. The bottom line, for me, is to try and show respect and to try to make honest observations and give honest reactions more than suggestions. I reserve suggestions generally for photographers whose goals I think I have figured out or for stuff that I just feel is plain wrong, like when highlights are blown in a photo that is obviously going for a more refined technique, which you can often see in the photo itself and don't need the photographer to tell you what he's trying to do.

Like most things, it's a balancing act.

Just another response Stephen.

When we know what a photographer's intent was it can certainly help us to understand an image and maybe understand some of the choices made in its presentation--and it may also make us question some of those choices as well.

But regardless, one of the best ways to give feedback is to describe how an image and its elements affect you. A low contrast image might feel muddy and depressed or claustrophobic. An over saturated image might leave you feeling like the image is surreal or a cartoon or make an image feel muddy and oppressive. An overly contrasty image, where it doesn't seem to fit, might seem to make the image more active or stark than restful or block up what appears would be wonderful detail. One might suggest that the abundant empty space at the top of the image seems to pull one away from what appears to be the subject or when things are jammed into an image that there doesn't seem to be any breathing room in the image and feels cramped. Of course, one might suggest that a bag seems out of place and distracts from the shadows or that it ruins the graphic quality of the lines in the image or that it introduces just the right counterpoint to an otherwise stark image.

In all of these cases, regardless of the photographer's intent, good feedback is being given and it isn't telling them what they did wrong or could have done better, but it suggests to them how what they did do is being received. How these things affect us might in fact be why they did it--their intent--or the effects might be out of their awareness. Responding like this not only gives information but it allows the person to decide for themselves what might be an appropriate fix if one is indeed needed.

When it comes to technical stuff, things can be done poorly or they can be done well. Bad technique becomes a good thing if it works in the image. But it can also be pointed out that it is bad technique that just happens to work in an image. But like any of the other elements, calling out the bad technique and how it affects the way you see an image is again good feedback. As Fred says, if bad technique seems to just be bad technique, the person can either take notice or not really care as it isn't relevant to them.

Of course, different situations can dictate modifications in how one approaches their comments, but I think what I describe above allows one to approach any visual regardless of their awareness of intent or the person's other work (which is important if we can access it). Sometimes just going through this process rather than stating something like "the bag should be removed" or "the sky should be cropped" allows us ourselves to see the image in a new light and maybe understand more about what its intent might actually have been. It also can eliminate a sense of the personal affront and makes the comments more objective and ownership with the commenter while giving maybe the best kind of feedback an image maker can receive.

The problem with this type of absolutes is of course that they are never ever objective and unquestionable. Much of what one person would consider as "bad techniques" (the examples mentioned above) might intentionally or intentionally give that special extra to the image that makes it different from the common, if it serves within the context of the imaging.