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

I like the way the stones in the shadows can be emphasized and made graphic. That could have been done in a more organic way that wouldn't draw attention to the technique in a photo where technique doesn't seem to be the point. There are photos where the photographer consciously integrates technique so it become part of the content. It doesn't LOOK LIKE that's the case here.

Agreed, there are no ABSOLUTELY objective cases of bad technique, there are degrees of objectivity and subjectivity to bad technique. Let's say someone produced a stellar Ansel Adams-like photo of a landscape. The shadowed areas read beautifully, with detail preserved. The grayscale is classically handled, with a richness of tone and a generally elegant approach. Then the highest of the highlights are blown, with no detail, etc. That is about as objectively a mistake as one could see. John's shadowed stones are somewhat less objectively bad, but they are not well done. The same emotional and visual effect could be achieved without the digital artifacting and the strangeness of the rendering of the shadows. John wants to preserve the integrity of the content (the bag). It might be consistent, then, to also preserve the integrity of the way shadows read and the way raised surfaces even in shadow can quite naturally catch the light and become more emphasized and graphic.

John or another photographer might have wanted to maintain the reality of the moment, yet with a surrealistic twist might have played with the processing enough to undermine that reality and real moment by processing it with a very artificial flair. That would have required more deliberateness and consistency in the artificial processing, so the photo would actually read that way. As it stands, it doesn't look like there's a commitment to either the integrity of reality or the creativity of reality bouncing off artifice.

For me, the technical glitch which John A originally pointed out does impact the photo and detract from it, though I simply chalk it up to John Crosley's lack of experience with post processing and his being more in touch with the shooting part of his work than the back end part of it.

"bad technique seems to just be bad technique"

Anders,

Well sometimes that is just what it is. The problem with suggesting that one can't identify this is that then there would be no basis for learning or instruction in the craft of photography.

As said above, and in your comment, if it is applied such that it works in an image, then maybe it isn't bad technique but a purposeful application in the service of the image.

But I do think there are clues to whether it is a purposeful application of something that would otherwise be bad technique or just a coincidence that it works. In the absence of words or direct knowledge that someone is not skilled in post work, looking at more images can point one in the right direction. If the technique is applied systematically and works with the bulk of the images presented--embellishes them in some way, then one can assume the person actually is doing something with skill and intent. If the technique is applied in only a few images and it works to help to distinguish that image, then it is probably being applied with skill and intent. But if it just appears to be a clumsy or naive application of various tools that might work at times but in most cases hurts more than helps the images, then one can feel pretty sure that it is just bad technique.

We learn our craft, the technical aspects of our medium, as well as the aesthetic principles so that we can apply them in informed ways. Serendipitous use of something doesn't make it good technique, but purposeful and skillful application of something that might be bad technique in other situations is a different story.

No, there are probably no absolutes but to insinuate that these things can't be determined or differentiated would seen to be an absurd conclusion.

John A, as mentioned earlier, our technical discussion are marvelous occasions for all of us to learn so that we are able to take more informed decisions when shooting and carrying out post-processing.
However, I don't find it of the greatest interest to judge the photographer as you seem do with the following formulations:

This type of argumentations are relevant, if one is judge in a jury trying to evaluate the quality of the photographer. However, we are not in such a situation. We are trying to discuss and eventually evaluate a photo, and in the case the POW of John.
In such cases our first and foremost challenge should be, as far as I see it, to open our eyes with all our knowledge and experiences and try to "read" the image, its qualities and its limits and eventually come with recommendations on how this reading could be even stronger or maybe different if certain alternative photographic features had been chosen - and among these maybe some technical features.

Anders,

First of all, my response--your quote of me-- here was a response to the ideas around bad technique (your last post before this one), not directed at this POW or John specifically. But regardless, why can't one feel free to judge someone's technical skills in post as either purposeful and skillful or, alternatively, clumsy and naive--even in context to a POW. I don't know that I have ever used those words or words like that when discussing a specific POW or a specific person's work and don't know that I would. I used them here to make my point in a more global way about bad technique. Being clumsy or naive when beginning or learning something (or not fully knowing something) is probably par for the course anyway. If you have never used a Wacom tablet try one to experience clumsy--if you have, you know what I mean. When I look back at some of my first Photoshop creations, naive is probably a kind word! So, let's not go making the proverbial mountain out of a molehill here.

As to the POW, I think I did a good job analyzing the image in my first entry. I covered how pleased I was with what was captured in the frame, but also covered my concerns about John's application of his post tools. Using such powerful tools and not having the underlying skills to temper their effects did affect this image. As I suggested in that post, it also affects many of his other images as well, and in a negative way IMO. I wouldn't call his post work skillful or purposeful to be sure, but maybe expedient for his purposes as I read his own accounting of his post skills and intent-- and the work suffers because of it. This certainly doesn't mean the work can't be enjoyed on some level, but I have been upfront and honest that it affects my enjoyment of the images even though I do think John has a good eye for things. If this method serves him, then I am not going to judge his methods except as they relate to my own enjoyment, or lack thereof, of his work. But in the POW setting, calling out these things is what this is about as I understand it.

You did. It was an excellent insight. It covered a lot of relevant territory including the "technical" aspects of what the photo actually looks like in addition to what it conveys and what emotions it might effect. What it looks like, to me, is kind of important in a photograph.

John you are surely right. In fact, my argument was not what you did or did not do, but was an argument of approach. My only message is one of recommending not to get diked down in a purely technical discussion, but to subdue technicity at a certain moment - and in my eye early on - for the benefit of an analysis of the photo as image.
We are all surely also welcome to grasp the opportunity of the POW to inform on our appreciation of the photographer in question, and you, John A, made a series of very well argumented points that I'm sure John appreciated.

Anders, I think my comments about the technical issues were, except for my initial analysis where it comprised maybe 1/3 of what I said and very relevant to this POW, were largely--if not entirely--responses to extensive discussions that had gone on before I entered the conversation--and some correction of misinformation.

As to talking technical versus aesthetic issues, I think people talk about what is the dominating factor with any image that is presented in the POW--or the most controversial. In the case of this POW, I don't see it has having been any different than any other before it in that regard. On a learning site, the discussions should probably gravitate to those issues that seem to most adversely affect the quality of an image in people's eyes and alternative positions can then be discussed--which happened here in all cases.

I think your effusive fondness for John's photography has overly influenced your opinion of how this POW discussion has unfolded--or should have.

Reminiscent of Platos' cave (an allegory expressing that what we we take as truth is but a shadow of the truth of the nature of things)

Brilliant.

well balance of weight... bravo indeed!