single photos Tia Maria

The light behind the woman and in the back kitchen is extremely warm, rich. The woman is more isolated in shadow, presented as being a bit colder, in her coat, arms wrapped around herself just a bit. The strong highlight on the left side of her face ties her just enough to the room and hints that there is still some warmth for her to find. The lighting here is a narrative unto itself, intentional or not. It provides a photographic sense of longing or desire, bound up in the tension that she is not fully bathed in the warmth of the room. There is more than complacency here. This bit of disturbance invites us and envelops the mood. It makes the image bittersweet and multi-dimensional. It invites me to reach out to her.

the dof and the handling of light and shadow in this picture are superb.... but it stands outside me as rather flat and lacking any drama; in fact, to me it's more of a stock photo than Floriana's because we see old women propped up in a chair surrounded by poverty and boredom all the time. it's a stereotype. this photo is a lovely little portrait for the family parlor table, but it begins and ends there. nothing dramatic, nothing moving my emotions, the same old women i've seen in a million photos, so it seems this photo can only have power to the people who know the subject, because to strangers the photo provides no depth, no story about the woman. Floriana's image, so controversial for its stock imagery, is much more provocative and poetic than this rather well done mundane snapshot. awesome technicals here, Paul, i must say... but as for human element, it needs some drama, some movement, some poetry, some insight, an angle as it were. congrats on a nice photo, Paul. dp

Strengths: environmental portrait with a nice arrangement of shapes.
Weaknesses: a bit crooked, a bit too cluttered, the light is blown at the very back of the scene, the woman is not looking at the camera and so it is difficult to connect with the image, her arms are crossed which implies that she may not be comfortable with having her photo taken or that a rapport was not sufficiently developed.

It is, after all, an environmental portrait, and I think it is an effective one at that. We see her in her house, her age and her expression is one that makes me think she has seen a lot in her life.

While a photograph should stand on its own and viewer's can make their own interpretations, I've always been interested in why the photograph was taken, or what the photographer wanted the photograph to reveal or represent. That was the case last week, and I think it's the case again this week when Paul stated Tia Maria's surroundings were just as important as Tia Maria herself -- it's an environmental portrait. I almost feel that a comment suggesting she, as the main subject, should have had more light is equivalent to saying Paul didn't look at this scene correctly and should have had a different goal when the shutter was tripped, which of course is utter nonsense. Perhaps this is where an introductory comment from the photographer when a photograph is posted would be very beneficial.

As an environmental portrait, I think it is excellent, and the single more interesting photographic element to me is that she is not looking directly at the camera. The fact that she is looking away takes away the sense of her waiting for the photo to be taken, and instead she's free to be interested in something else in her living space, which supports Paul's primary goal in making the photograph. I think that decision on Paul's part was of primary importance in making this a successful environmental portrait.

As an environmental portrait, this image has quite a few clues about the person. Here's what I read into the image ( I chose not to

read other comments or the artists statement ) the woman seems to be comfortable in herself and her home, the home looks like a

place she has lived for most of her life, she appears to be of Latin descent and has a strong catholic faith. I would say she has lived a

simple life without indulgences. She looks like a proud woman who by her dress appears to be widowed. The surroundings for me tell

a lot about this lady. The composition places her well in her surrounds but I think the light on her could be a bit stronger, perhaps a

reflector to fill some of the shadow. Overall a very sound environmental portrait and worthy of discussion as POW. All the best for

2012 RJE

Sorry, double post.

Paul I am amazed by this image double presentation of the GUADALUPANA your adorable protector! Resently I read the scientific studies conducted during many years and the many miracles related to her. Diego's manta is not in the wall, but it is in the calendar and I think he is a great element of her presentation! As Cuban I feel very close to the Mexican people having work in Homested Florida with the chidren of La Labor worker for ten years I feel Mexican in many ways! This image has a feel of hard work and many years of loving care to her Family. Tia Maria could be in her 90"s or older and she still strong. Congratulation for having been selected with an image that presents wisdom as Tia Maria represents the woman of Mexico and their constant love.

Stephen, I didn't need Paul to tell me the environment was important here or that it was an environmental portrait. I'm happy he addressed us, but I already knew this was an environmental portrait from looking at it and that the house plays an important role.

I happen to disagree with those who would like more light on Tia Maria's face, for the reasons I gave in my earlier comment. But more light on her face wouldn't undermine this as an environmental portrait. I've made environmental portraits where the subject stands out quite a bit more than in this photo, quite a bit less, or has a very equivalent role to the environment. I think suggesting more light to the face may not be what Paul wanted but that doesn't make it an invalid or nonsensical suggestion. It's a valid alternative view and one that I would certainly have considered, though I would have gone the way Paul did.

While I'm an advocate for honoring the vision of the photographer whose work we critique, I'm not one who wants to shut down reasonable and thoughtful alternatives to what is presented, even if those suggestions have a very different goal. I can think of one environmental portrait I made where another photographer suggested a very severe crop, to where it became a detail photo much more than a portrait. It is a much better photo that way, and the goal was completely changed. Sometimes, a radical suggestion is just what it takes to get us to see where we may have become focused on only one way of seeing the potential in a given photo.

None of the suggestions about the lighting and the woman's face have been in any way radical or would really change the goal of this as an environmental portrait. They have simply changed a bit of emphasis, and seem to want a little more harmony, whereby the woman would be in a more similar or revealing light as the rest of the house. I prefer her being isolated lightwise, as I mentioned, but neither way changes the fact that this is a photo of a woman very much in and/or with her house.

__________________

What I find interesting is that Asher and I seem to have a similar emotional response to her folded arms and her not looking at the camera. There is, for both of us, a slight bit of discomfort. And yet we react differently to that similar emotional response. He would prefer not to feel that discomfort, thinking that the subject of a portrait must be engaged and comfortable. I don't. I think a subject's discomfort can be photographically quite moving and evocative. Music includes counterpoint and discord as well as harmony.

Fred, I'm still reacting to a comment made on a photograph of a winter cemetery scene in which I was told that my view of cemeteries was entirely wrong and I should be taking a happier, lighter view of these places. Perhaps your notion of "reasonable and thoughtful" is key. I agree with your thoughts on reasonable and thoughtful comments that may change the original goal of the photographer.

To me this is a well produced snapshot. The strengths for me are the range of light which is critical for me when viewing a BW image and the sharpness and detail. These are very well done. The weakness is that for me the subject I am drawn to is the women who is at first interesting but appears to be uninterested in the whole thing. Her face is a little dark for me and I would have lightened it a bit. Also, she is looking away and with her arms folded she seems a little disinterested in the whole thing. Nothing in her expression or body language connects with me.
Paul states the rest of the room is important to him and I can understand that if it a subject and place that had some connection to me. It just does not come across as interesting to me. I just see clutter. I don't think it would matter to me if the door was open or closed. I think that this is probably a meaningful image of a memorable woman in her house to the photographer, but for me this looks like all of the BW portraits I see in little artsy shops and street fairs.

I understand the photographer's comment on this being more about the place than the person, even though I perceive it more of a personal portrait than one of the place. Best portaits for me are those that add elements that complement the sense we get from seeing the person, the latter mostly being vehicled through their face. In this case the position of the woman says a lot to me as well, as is her regard elsewhere than directly at the photographer.

However, it is the environment that more fully describes her. Something that has not been noted to date and what I find particularly powerful is the imagined triangle that brings together the woman, the door and kitchen behind her, and the image of the Virgin Mary. The eye is incited to revolve through this triangle and this effective triangular point composition, as much or more than the well contemplated lighting, makes the image for me and informs me what is important in the life of this lady - namely, religion and the provision of daily needs. That forms an effective sprinboard to possible other thoughts about, or perceptions of, the person.

I like it. Very few photographs I have seen here at Photo.Net effectively exploit the power of point compositions or a balance of masses as this one clearly does (intended or not).

It reminds me of Sam Tata's very fine environmental portrait work of the mid to later 20th century.

Paul, Your photo is interesting because it is technically very well taken (DOF and lighting are really good) and interesting also because of the original construction of subjects in your photo. It is the portrait of an old lady slightly on the side in the forefront and her environment with a lot of elements in the background. There is good natural lighting but it's all behind her coming from a window on the left side and a lot of light coming from the room (perhaps a kitchen) behind her with the door wide open and inviting but I can't access it because the lady is ignoring me, her eyes looking somewhere else and there is no smile, she seems to be waiting with that inquisitive look with her arms inwardly almost in the defensive. As much as there is life behind her (her past) there is resilience and detachment on her face. The Madonna and the flowers are behind and above her do fit the environment. It is perhaps the guests that I can't see that are more intriguing me. Perhaps again the lady is waiting for a more human touch... but who am I to say that! Anyway, Paul your photo is very touching indeed! and Thanks for sharing it.

This seems to be a central feature of the photograph. I think the assumed "disinterest" (I'm willing to assume there was interest, but Paul managed to find a more natural look) is an important component, and can be best described by comparing it to the alternative: a smiling person looking directly at the camera, more strongly illuminated, the typical look of a true snapshot of someone in their home fully engaged in having their picture taken. Because she is looking away, I feel more free to let my eyes roam to the other features in her home. As I stated previously, to me her looking away is a central feature of Paul's photograph, a feature that contributes much to its success.

Donna suggested this image as being more of a typical stock image and I think I can understand that. This was one of my first thoughts when I see certain "types" of images but I found the image to transcend that common "exoticism". No, the image isn't dynamic but what I see is more of a sense of simplicity. I don't see poverty either, I just see simplicity. I sense a connection here that I don't in the more opportunistic/exploitative images we often see.

Stephen said: "…should have had more light is equivalent to saying Paul didn't look at this scene correctly and should have had a different goal when the shutter was tripped". I am not sure I agree with this as maybe it ignores too many things. I do assume Paul knew what he wanted but there are many choices and compromises that are made along the way to making a final image presentation. On location, we evaluate the composition, the available light (and how it might be modified) and what we might be able to do in post (analog or digitally). Often, we might under perform an image back in the darkroom. When I read Paul's comments pre-POW I not only read how he saw the image but an indication that he also felt that the image might not be optimally presented.

Without those comments, I might not have made any comment myself about the light on Maria. I think the image is fine as it is. That said, and I don't think I read the image any differently than most here, I did immediately feel that the light on Maria was not optimal. The problem with suggestions about such things is that people mean different things while those reading the comments also have their own ideas of what the person writing means. In my case, I don't know that most would notice the change I suggest, even if the images were side by side, but I do think it could be felt. Often times it is just these subtle changes that make the difference in an image. That difference doesn't have to be a change in the reading of an image but can be significant to its impact.

Perhaps not the best example of the environmental type portrait, but this one by Sam Tata of André Kertesz in NYC gives an idea of the type of image that I think the present POW exhibits (albeit with the added feature of a triangular point compositiion that I mentioned).

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6BfXcmq8vyk/TBFjadDVuvI/AAAAAAAABjw/-_Dq08RWLEo/s1600/55205.jpg

To me, conveying the impression that one has captured a decisive moment is very important in this kind of work. I immediately get the feeling looking at this that Tia spends many hours in the day looking and sitting like this. So I don't feel that there is really a moment here. I see the amount of light on Tia, the open door, etc., as small issues in comparison to this one. I need a little more to make me feel that something special is happening (something where a camera is needed....as opposed to a paintbrush or pencil....if that makes any sense)

On the other hand, I do think this portrait is authentic and very well done technically. Happy new year everyone. JJ

Jeremy, interesting points. Though I think the concept of "decisive moment" is significant to the history and understanding of photography, I also think we make way too much of it. We've come a long way since HCB and there are, to me, many other reasons to make photos. We can capture a narrative. We can capture a metaphor. We can capture a gestalt, none of which need to be dependent on a decisive moment. I spend a lot of time these days with my father, who is probably around the same age as this woman. Dramatic or exciting or significant moments are not really what it's about anymore. In a way, this photo can be looked at as the antithesis of drama and of a decisive moment. But it is no less genuine or moving for that, IMO. John A and a few others have observantly used the word "simplicity." I might add that, for me, it's got a kind of mature simplicity. A simplicity that absorbs me.

Were I the photographer here, I'd be quite satisfied and honored by all the comments, which have been varied, respectful, honest, and insightful. The reason I'd be moved by the variety of comments is that even the negative ones show that people "get" the photo. It has reached them just as it should. That doesn't mean they have to like it. But they have been touched by her at least partial disengagement. The photographer successfully conveyed that and, believe me, you hang out with people this woman's age and you will experience a fair amount of disengagement first hand. Were I the photographer, I'd be thrilled that some were left wanting. That would mean some of the feeling of this photo got through to them. There IS a wanting here. Some would prefer a smile and connection. That's fine. But they are getting exactly what the photographer and Tia Maria were giving them. That's what a photographer hopes for. Whether people like what they get or would have preferred to get something else is out of the photographer's hands. Were I getting these comments, I'd feel that all the warmth, discomfort, softness, lack of engagement, the harmonies and tensions of how this woman is in the world and in her home had been expressed and received. This is almost epitomized by the way she holds her arms and hands against her, with a bit of awkward self protection. I find that gesture incredibly telling and moving, though it is far from comfortable. I know that some find these feelings OK and others prefer to be moved a different way when looking at photos. But I think it's reached us all very effectively.

Jeremy Jackson wrote: "I immediately get the feeling looking at this that Tia spends many hours in the day looking and sitting like this. So I don't feel that there is really a moment here."
i feel Jeremy has put has finger exactly on the effect of this picture, on the meaning of it, and perhaps it may be Paul's intent also. She is old, bored, has probably had no opportunity to pursue herself or a life because she's stuck in this mundane stereotype of religious, compliant, dutiful, having little interest in anything beyond her domesticity. it's stock, it's stereotypical, and if i'm moved at all by her it is my sadness for her lack of life. a simple life can be a beautiful thing, but i see simplicity without energy here. perhaps this is all Paul intended this very technically good snapshot to be. a document of a woman's life that we've seen a million times... but the times have changed, and i doubt that baby boomers will succumb to Tia's brand of aging. Tia needs to get out of that chair, and she needs a visitor to make her express something else than her stasis. sorry, but i've seen too many pictures of sad resigned old women, and we should have learned by now that their place in life has been honored, but can no longer be admired, and certainly is no longer in need of being documented with some sort of macabre romanticism. dp

Donna, your construct about the lady and the impression that her life is one of religious "monotony" and stereotypes, as you say, is only one of many plausible interpretations. Her look could well be one of sadness but could perhaps be something quite different, like quiet defiance, like caught in serious thought, or one predicated by her conscious removal (abstraction) from others about her (of which one may well be the photographer himself). She may have hardships in her life, but that may be part of the reason why she seems to embrace a religious faith (if indeed the environmantal surroundings are her own rather than those of another, something we don't really know). If the surroundings are her own the photograph is more important I think, as we can read beyond her expression a little, to learn more, but not necessarily in the manner you mention.

Photographs take but a fraction of a second and capture that extremely small interval in a person's life. Do they always represent well the person photographed? Much depends upon the photograher, his mental and practical approach and the relation between himself and the person. I made photographs this fall of people in a seaside mediterranean village. Street photographs or portraits, instantaneous perceptions (made after choosing the subject of course), without a relationship having been made between me and the subject. Not the best method for depicting the real nature of the person, perhaps. The slice that is the image can sometrimes be very interesting nonetheless, but not something one can read anything real into, other than some symbol of "anybody" in a particular expression, mood or state.

What is important to learn here is whether Paul had any close connection to his subject, or the time to absorb or incite different expressions. I would prefer to take the photograph as a whole, with the environmental indicators within it supporting the interpretation. Apparently he mentioned that the overall scene is what interested him. In such case, might the lady not simply be thinking, "OK, another photographer, so I will just bear this and wait untill he has done his thing, and then carry on". Of course, all this is another supposition, but unless the photographer has been extremely fortunate or has worked closely with his subject to recognize or incite her personality, an image may be misleading if the woman's expression is all we see and react to (which some comments seem to be based upon).

Arthur.. you wrote:
"Street photographs or portraits, instantaneous perceptions (made after choosing the subject of course), without a relationship having been made between me and the subject. Not the best method for depicting the real nature of the person, perhaps."
i disagree, Arthur. if we photograph a street picture of a stranger's facial expression, i believe the expression emanates from somewhere inside that person, and it's our job as street photographers to capture the "environment" or context in which that person is reacting. we can individualize it as belonging to that individual, or we can universalize it as something "human". our job is to see and render as close to the bone of truth as we can in that instant of our photographing.
i believe Paul has rendered a truth. look at the picture Arthur; your sentimentality is noble... but that is the face and the environment of an unhappy and unfulfilled old woman. she certainly is not comfortable exposing whatever it is she suspects is being exposed about her and her home. she has every opportunity here to reveal a part of herself that we'd want to connect with, but there's nothing there, Arthur; nothing in the least. dreariness. illness, perhaps. maybe that's what she wants to reveal to us. that is the "truth" in this image. a tired old woman. my point is that whatever else she is, (the plethora of interpretations that you imagine), cannot be inferred from this photo.

Seriously Donna, if you can get all of that (your comment before your response to Arthur) out of this image, it is a much better photo than you are giving it credit for--well, probably better than anyone is giving it credit for.

Jeremy, if this would be better for the brush instead of a camera, how would you reconcile landscape, architecture and still life as viable photographic subjects? Most of the time we seem to be at odds about what photography should be in the sense of truth and an image like this is maybe one of the best examples of where a photograph captures reality and in a moment of time.

What the picture shows is an old woman not looking at the camera. Further descriptions of what's actually shown can be made, such as that her arms are crossed in front of her. What Donna has said here is not even an inference, it's a projection and a fabrication. We do a lot of projecting when looking at photos. It's good to keep that in mind, and not fool ourselves into thinking we, alone, among all the viewers, have access to the "truth."

My subjects and I read a lot of different reactions to my photos. We are often amazed (and thrilled) by the imaginative projections that viewers have upon looking at the photos. One of the great joys of making photos is hearing what gets stimulated in people's imaginations. But it's often about as far away from fact as one can get.

Reactions like Donna's are truly wonderful. But they say as much if not more about Donna than they do about the woman in the photo. Just as my own reactions say a lot about me.

Paul, nice image overall, as expressed by many above. I like the door open, as do many, adds depth.

But you mentioned you posted this to see if someone might help you 'figure out why it did not seem to get the kind of response, from your viewers, that your other pieces of this genre did'. Personally, I believe it's because the balance is off a bit. I've studied it as is, and get about 10 seconds of interest from my eye, after that's it's forced to 'stay in'. I notice the escape hatch, as I call it, is the upper wall with no detail (meaning it's the last place my eye looks, mostly because it keeps getting drawn there). But with a bit of cropping you'd lose the blank top of the wall. Question is, is that the end of the world? Hardly, although a lot of folks, after seeing this or that in a photo, could never imagine 'it', what ever that might be, to be 'cut'.

What's gained? Well, I look at it 50% longer, and notice a lot of new info, which I had not seen before with the extraneous info (blank wall) constantly grabbing my eye. Like what? Like the interesting pattern in the flooring, or 'extra' info in her hands and face. From each I get an extra second or two. I go around the whole scene one extra time too, now that I'm not being dragged out.
I've cropped it, and burnt in the 'paper white' wall a dash, as well as lightened her dark coat that, basically, had no detail. Why? Well, the eye loves detail, so throw fido (fido is the 'eye' as I call it), a bone.

I notice you mostly show 4x5 or 35mm formats, none were square. But as I've shot all three over many decades, I favor what ever works, due to empirical data (counting seconds of looking). I could care less about the final format, what's important is that folks now look at it longer, thus making it 'work' better. Hope that helps.

Micheal, the crop certainly makes you focus more on the woman, however i think vital clues are now missing that put herinto context with her surounds, these bits of information help build a profile of this woman, Being an evironmental portrait (thats what i see it as) these are important. ie the religious pictures on the wall say a lot about the woman. Also i dont mind the light at the top right of the image, although as you pointed out, it does draw your eye to it, but thats a good thing for me, its that what leads me through the religious images. I always come back to the woman though.
I think your crop while it works, changes a lot about the image and tells us less about her.

Regards Richard