Old City, Kashgar

Stephen, I disagree with this characterization. It seems posed to me. I sense the man was placed here and, if not, it still appears that way. It is also structured from the standpoint of perspective and the geometry or the winding alleyway. This is no random shot. It seems thoughtful. There can be an authenticity and genuineness even in consciously posed and set up photographs. It looks natural but it took some doing to get there.

Fred, I don't doubt the man was placed in this position -- as I said, I think the primary reason was light. Obviously he is standing there waiting for the photo to be taken. However, there is a pose and there is a pose. I totally agree with your last statement: it looks natural but it took some doing to get there. I think we're seeing and meaning the same thing.

First of all, reading Stephen's comment I know that Bobby actually posted a link, my own result is the download of a text file and no image--not sure why, but if there is an answer or better link, I would be interested.

As to the pose or positioning, I think we can't underestimate what happens intuitively or naturally. Looking at Iker's other work, as well as doing this sort of portraiture myself, I don't think "it took some doing to get there". That isn't to say that there couldn't have been a request for the man to move this way or that, but I wouldn't be surprised if this shot happened very quickly and intuitively. What people can give us naturally, and recognizing when that happens, is the difference between great photos and ones that fall flat. Even my suggestion of how the lines all drive us to the man wasn't a suggestion that this happened consciously, I personally believe that it is when all of these things happen intuitively that we get the best results--the image that results is less self conscious, as we see here.

I completely disagree with John on this point. I also completely understand that photographers will (and probably should) disagree on these things. Being deliberate, conscious, and methodical can produce significant results, as significant as those that can result from a more so-called "natural" way of doing things. Quickness is not a panacea to creativity. Not in this case, by any means, but quickness is just as often used as an excuse for laziness and lack of intention or coherence.

Thanks for the good comments above that underline a series of aspects to this photo that makes it speciel: the light, the textures of the walls and the pavement, the contact with the subject, the tones, the composition etc. I agree with many of these comments and find them enlightening.

There two aspects that I mentioned in my first comment, concerning the position of the man and concerning the place of the shot that I would like to explain further.

I have no problem with the composition and would personally have seen (placed) him where he is in the POW, to the right. The main reason is the difference of light (texture) of the walls to the right and left. Not only is the walls to the left with more information (the variety of old brickworks) and worthwhile seeing in full, than the wall to the right, but the man's dark suite is better presented on the lighter background of the wall to the right. I have however a question on the extreme sharpness of the figure that cuts him out from to the background, that I don't doubt is real, but to my eye it makes the man almost detached from the rest of scene (also because of the sepia that is not repeated on his shirt, as far as I can see, or am I mistaken?). A softer border line between the figure and background would maybe be preferable.

My second question concerns the mentioned good observations that makes this photo special and of especially high quality. I ask myself whether the observations made concerning contact to the man, softness, light, tones composition etc, are not general observations that would fit to many a shot of excellence. The reason I mention the geographical, historical context was exactly because those various factors making this photo especially good are factors that fully serve the "story telling" of the place and its context and would not necessarily be the same that would make a photo from California or New Mexico of the same quality. Such features of good photos are context defined and not objective categories of quality photos. Or are we back to the rulebook?

Anders, I wouldn't say it's so much a matter of general location (such as California or China) but it might somewhat be dictated by a combination of specific location and feeling. California has no alleyways that look like this, especially considering the age. But there are certainly locations in California that could warrant the same treatment. You do bring up an interesting point. How much does the place influence how we photograph? I think it does, along with a lot of other influences, such as atmospheric conditions, etc. Some will find a hazy scene and will be disappointed that there isn't more high contrast. Some will go with what is given them. I think what's important is integrating the various elements visually: the place, the person, the weather conditions, the lighting, the textures, the composition. If that is done well, it should make the viewer feel like the essence of a place has been captured, because it is the confluence of a lot of things. But another photographer's eye might have captured this very scene in a totally different manner that could still read as if the place and conditions dictated the result, even a very different result.

I shoot the same people many different ways and viewers often react by saying I've captured different sides of the person. (Of course I have also imposed my perspective and view.) The same is true, I think, of places. They have different characters, even in the same time and place.

"Not in this case, by any means, but quickness is just as often used as an excuse for laziness and lack of intention or coherence."

Although the last part of this statement might be true in some cases, I think it is a bit extreme to be used in the context of this work and seems maybe a bit pejorative. I also am not clear if there is a definitive statement embodied in these words regarding this photo--that it was not done intuitively? My own experience with this sort of work would suggest that it could certainly be and done rather quickly. That isn't to say that it was, or that other shots weren't done, but it isn't rare for me that the one shot I initially saw--but changed because I wasn't sure the lighting was working--isn't the one frame that I end up using because it is more special than the others.

Certainly, everyone works differently but I think there are instincts that photographers employ in any process and that is where their magic often lies. The problem is sometimes for the newbie who is trying to figure it all out. I had a student, legally blind, at art school who always presented images with a quality of light that was just superb and rare. Another student, more seasoned technically, was drooling and asked how he got that quality. The first student stumbled on the answer and I looked at him and said "you don't have any idea how, do you?" He agreed, it was just the way he saw things not the result of something he learned.

My suggestion isn't that working deliberately doesn't produce great results--sort of ridiculous if it were as I am also a commercial photographer--but I think there are certain things inside us that come out spontaneously whether we recognize it or not. I also know that working with environmental portraits of strangers--which maybe is an assumption here--that quick, intuitive work is not out of the norm for such results. And as I suggested above, Iker's other work seems to point to a rather intuitive approach to his work in general.

I specifically said that it didn't refer to this work. (That's what I meant when I started the sentence off with "Not in this case, by any means . . .")

Yes, it was meant pejoratively, but only by way of counteracting your own pejorative statement about the way others might work, when you said, "What people can give us naturally, and recognizing when that happens, is the difference between great photos and ones that fall flat." I took that somewhat personally since I often work with subjects who don't give me what I want "naturally" and/or what they do give me naturally may not seem to give me good raw materials for a photo. So I am often in the position of coaxing something from them, even manipulating and being very "unnatural" about my approach with and to them. And most seem to like it, respond to it, and the results I get don't seem to fall flat . . . to me. It was Hitchcock who said his actors were just cattle. That is surely extreme (and confident), but his way of approaching things has as much merit as any other. There is also a lot of territory in between the extremes. I work differently in different situations and with different people. "Natural" is often not something I aspire to. (Hitchcock actually said, "I never said all actors are cattle; what I said was all actors should be treated like cattle.")

As for this photo, I don't care whether there was a lot of thought and intention put into the placement of the subject or not. I care about the result. What I was suggesting is that there could have been such deliberateness and arranging to get this kind of result.

I'm currently reviewing 35mm slides I took 10-20 years ago, and I'm culling those that no longer appeal to me. I'm finding that I'm left with about 5%-10% of those old photographs. The photographs I take today are somewhat different than what I took 20 years ago in terms of composition and light. I also don't think about composition and light as much as I did back then, and I can more instantly recognize a photo that I want to take. It has become more intuitive. I wasn't one who was born with this as in the example John A. described, but experience has enhanced whatever ability I might have to more intuitively recognize what I like to photograph. I suspect mine is a common experience; it's just that I'm seeing it in a very real way as I clean out my file cabinets and cart rejected photos to the trash can.

To the extent that one can see common elements in many of Iker's photographs, I suspect this is another example of intuition guiding the photographer, assisted by personal preferences for composition, light, and other elements of the photographic process.

I've always likened people (including photographers) to icebergs: there's the 10% above the surface that we can see, but much more below the surface, in the subconscious, that we (including the individual) cannot see. We think we may be moving according to the winds we can feel or according to our efforts to paddle in a certain direction, but it's usually the deeper currents that are moving us along in a given direction. It's very difficult to see below the surface, but those who make the effort (often assisted) and are successful in seeing at least some of those hidden aspects of personality, motivation, emotional sources, etc. are indeed fortunate -- they simply have a greater understanding of themselves and of their actions, choices, and other aspects of their lives. All IMO, of course.

Stephen, I have a somewhat different experience. As time goes on, I can't immediately recognize (and don't want to) the kind of photo I want to take. I want to explore different kinds of photos, different ways of seeing. When I start to begin recognizing too much, I challenge myself toward something different, also liking surprise and accident. Yes, I recognize my past failures or mistakes. I also find in many old photos a potential I simply wasn't yet able to see at the time. That's why I save a lot of old stuff. But, generally speaking, it's because of different desires, needs, and approach, as we've discussed before, and no way is better than the other. I don't tend to recognize photos or types of photos I want to take. I tend to make them happen. It's when I don't immediately recognize something, but still let it in and start maneuvering with it, even forcing myself at times, that I can really get energized and experience new discoveries.

These pretended differences between photographers are to a large degree, as far as I can see it, just differences in self-perception. My own experience is that whatever the result, my own perception of what, and how, I shoot today is totally different from what I did a year ago as what I will shoot tomorrow is sure to be different from what I shot three days ago. Whether this happens by deliberate decisions of questioning myself or by unintentional learning by experience, is not that interesting to others. What matters is the result, my photos - as the photos of others, like those of Ikers
The recognizable features of Ikers's work is a sign of style and strength as photographer and should not be interpreted as a weakness and indice of artistic stagnation.

Fred, those are good points, and I can recognize some of that in myself. I went with a square format for a period of time primarily as a new challenge in finding compositions. More importantly, it's also why I want to include informal portraiture in the range (now very limited) of subjects that I choose to photograph. For me, however, that's quite difficult.

One one point we do differ: I do tend to recognize photos or types of photos I want to take, and I tend to let them happen by being in the right place, at the right time, in the right frame of mind, often after several previous visits to the same area. This contrast between our approaches may be one of the primary differences between photographing landscapes and photographing people. I'm looking for something that is there, and you're approaching something that might happen (I hope that's a fair characterization).

Folks make jokes about photographing brick walls, but that is now my current photo project: photographing the great variety of brick walls in this very old town (the state of Washington had its beginnings on the second floor of one of our downtown buildings). I have a collection of about 75 sections (generally 3' x 5') of brick walls that show surprising diversity in color, age, and character. Those brick walls in Iker's POW would be a perfect addition. I have no idea what I'll do with this or if anyone other than I will ever see the results, but it has been an interesting alternative to what I usually photograph.

Some good points, Anders, though I suspect we are all being genuine and not pretending anything. I think there are very real differences between the processes of various photographers. It's also clear to me that no one has either suggested or implied that Iker's work is either weak or stagnant, but your reminder is salient.

Anders, I think these differences in approaches are very real. They may arise from different personalities, different backgrounds in photography, or different preferences. They may also, to some extent, be dictated by the nature of the subject matter. It's one thing to approach a forest; it's quite another to approach a group of musicians. From my own point of view, my large-scale approach to landscape photography is evolutionary and does not change dramatically over relatively short periods of time (several years). I agree that having a recognizable body of work can be a sign of style and strength. IMO, artistic stagnation can usually be found only through self-examination.

wonderful shoot, beatiful colors and compotition, and well done

I don't really see that much of interest in this setting. The buildings look dumpy, ordinary and visually uninteresting to me. There is also a sort of fog over much of this image that I find unauthentic. I see the composition as very predictable and ordinary. The road leads us in to the image as is the case for many images in this style. The man seems placed in exactly the right spot (as the rue of thirds would suggest) in relation to the diagonal lines made by the alley.

It's obviously a good image but so was the image we looked at last week. The question is whether it warrants all of this unbridled praise. No-one wondered what was at the end of the stream in Marc's image last week, but we have people wondering what's at the end of this dumpy alley - a dead chicken is my guess. To me, this is just a picture of a guy in an alley. It's been done before, it's not technically special, it feels a bit unauthentic (staged or constructed) to most of us, it's not a very special place, the light isn't that interesting, the post is a bit too evident, it does not seem to invite of multiple interpretations (any more than any other image of a human does), it is not especially insightful in any way, it is not compositionally brilliant IMO (sorry John I just can't see it as brilliant although I very much respect your opinion here) and the light on the end of the man's nose is really a faux pas.

This image simply does not make me stop and wonder how it was done or what kind of brilliant, creative mind was behind the camera. So, for me, there is less to be impressed with this week than last week. Cheers, JJ

Jeremy, why would a staged portrait or any other kind of staged photo be inauthentic? Does Avedon's work strike you as inauthentic? Do Steichen's photos of Georgia O'Keeffe strike you that way? I can understand referring to such a photo as not being candid, but inauthentic?

Excellent!! Great composition, interesting pose and beautifrl lighitng.

Bien compuesta, bien medida...
Resulta evocadora, muy interesante. Nunca la veríamos como una típica imagen de China, quizá es ese su punto más fuerte.

Un gran trabajo.
Saludos
Pedro

Fred, I think your word authentic might be a better description of my point above. In these situations-generally-you can't approach them like a photo shoot and you look for that authenticity coming quickly-naturally--or you don't get a photo you can use. (I am assuming this image was the result of a chance encounter) Working a shot/model is generally to get to a point of authenticity that expresses the intent--I just called it "natural"--as the opposite of contrived--authenticity might have been better. My comment there was certainly not pointed at your work or way of working.

--by the way, did you maybe mean Steiglitz above?

Jeremy, I like your post here as I do think it raises a lot of issues that are relevant. In fact, I don't know if you did it on purpose but I think your words, describing this image, could have been written under last weeks POW and I wouldn't have found anything to disagree with.

Last week's image also got a lot of praise--by most--and you are right that no one wondered--at least in their comments- what was down at the end of the shot--even you, but some do here which is probably significant--a pointer to a difference maybe.

Simplistically, I suppose one could answer the sense of your post with the same conclusion you proffered as the reason some didn't respond to last week's image. But I do think that might be over simplification.

But to be clear, I love landscape imagery I just don't generally find a connection with that niche of the genre. Similarly, as I suggested in my opening comment above, I don't find any connection with much of the imagery created in these exotic places that I might awkwardly refer to as more voyeuristic or opportunistic. I don't generally find it revealing or interesting even when it is good "photography", although it is also very popular with many. Had the rest of Iker's imagery been more in that vein, it probably would have influenced my own reading of this image as context is important to me as to how it informs an image.

I am sure there will be more discussion about this as we move forward.

I am taking a second look. Yes, I still think this is a very good photograph. I still like it. I do not, however, think it is a great photograph, un gran trabajo. It is very good as an informational photograph; and as I said, it would probably be better appreciated in a series of photographs. Some images are like that.

Taking a second look, I find the sepia cast mildly annoying. It is easily toned down. I also find this photograph a touch dark. It should not be lightened too much. I would prefer it this way than have it too light.

This is simple reportage. It is not art.

So what are the elements or characteristics that one sees in a photograph that tell me it has crossed the boundary from "reportage" to "art" (or vice versa)? If this particular photo is "reportage," what about last week's POW (while it is still fresh in our minds)?

I should also ask why it matters (re: "art" vs. "reportage"). That's probably a more important question.

For the purposes here, I don't know that it does matter really. Certainly some might see something as art or maybe just artistically done. Sometimes things are good photography but maybe aren't art nor were they created to be nor do they have to be art. I think that is the importance of trying to evaluate what is before us and how we react to it. To recognize the qualities, technical and aesthetic, that we see and hopefully learn from how others look at images. Admiring the way something was done, that it was good photography or an aesthetically pleasing image doesn't equate to it being art or not. I think one can get lost in worrying about that rather than learning to produce images that connect with and express our concerns and interests, whether it is art or not will take care of itself generally.

Images framed in this way or images being framed anyway, shouldn't be a POW at all. Objectivity has gone. About the scene and person, if being my late uncle Chi I would appreciate the shot. The scene, doesn't especially stimulate my longing for shooting overthere, a longing I have had for years. The shot is rather mono tone in it's aspects and doesn't show the light and tones of the moment. I'm sure the photographer must have better ones, yes I will visit the portfolio..! Adventure..! :)