SEEN BETTER DAYS by GERRY GENTRY

A statement of intent might have avoided some of the unpleasant exchanges, but it would have also defeated the notion that a picture should speak for itself.

I think if someone wants to make a statement of intent, they absolutely should. Viewers can either read it or not. When we upload a photo, we can always choose to make the first comment about it and when we ask for critique we can specifically say something about our photos.

A statement of intent might very well have avoided some of the hurt feelings and misunderstandings in this thread. That would have been a shame. Because it also would have meant that the opportunity for learning (which was not seized on by the author of the photo but which was available to anyone reading) would have been lost. This week's POTW was a great study in how a photo does or does not communicate what the photographer is wanting to communicate or is feeling. Sure, it would have been easier without the passionate struggle that took place here this week. But too much would have been lost.

Passionate struggle, hurt feelings, negative feelings, tension, discord . . . all vital things for photographs and photographers to experience. No one said it was going to be easy, whether for a viewer or a critic. When we make a photo public, we are exposing ourselves to a lot. When we publicly write a critique, same thing. It's great to see passion in one's photos and great to hear passion in one's critiques. Photos can deal with ugly emotions . . . they are not all pretty and can be difficult, even confrontational. Same for critiques.

It's not always best to avoid difficult situations.

This philosophy will not be shared by everyone, just as my style of photography and my choice of subject matter will not appeal to everyone. Do we want to be popular or do we want to grow as individuals and forge our own ways and discover our own voices? Do we want everyone to treat us the same way or do we embrace a diversity of visions and a diversity of responses to our photos?

I, for one, am most moved when I see someone expressing themselves passionately, as if they take it personally, as if it really means something to them. That's the case both when I view photos and when I read critiques.

YMMV.

Michael and Fred, I apologize for the created confusion.

The purpose of the Statement of Intent is not to avoid unpleasant exchanges, hurt feelings, or misunderstandings, but to focus the attention of the reviewers on what was the task set by the author.

Obviously Gerry is not the "snap" kind of guy, so this shot must have been planned with definite intent.

While "viewers" shall never need to know or read the Statement of Intent, the reviewers shall always read it, thus putting themselves in a position to judge how well the intent was achieved, how appropriate are the means used, and how well a "viewer" may perceive the work and grasp the intent.

Not only the author, but the entire PN community would greatly benefit from this approach, in my opinion.

Alex, those are good points, but wouldn't a statement of intent amount to self-critique which can just as well be absent but come to light in the ensuing discussion?

The primary problem I see here isn't the lack of an introductory text, rather the very nature of this type of image - one which doesn't lend well to critique or discussion beyond the level of the applied effect. It's also a highly controversial effect which can easily seed contentious exchanges.

I think the issue of HDR photos have been beaten to death here and elsewhere that we really didn't need another discussion on it. Unfortunately in this case, we can't strip away the effect to discover the underlying original.

non mi sembra una foto fatta con il cuore,e mia madre non vorrei ricordarla cosi !
il buon gusto è l'unica cosa che non si può comperare ! distinti saluti paul

Paul, vorresti accendere il fuoco di nuovo? ;-)

Fred, I very much appreciate your last comment. I'm torn as to whether it's sad or revealing that this thread has probably only been so popular because of Gerry's reaction to the critique and not Gerry's image.

I had a look at the histograms of the last 12 pictures of the week. With the exception of this image, they all exhibit at least one noticeable peak (in statistics, highly peaked distributions are called leptokurtic). The histogram of this image is what we would call platykurtic. This means it is unpeaked and has relatively "fat" tails. The distribution is sort of uniform looking so that there is no one place in the image where there is a high frequency of a specific brightness. The histogram for this image is also highly symmetrical and centred half way between the darkest and lightest levels. This shape is unique amongst the last 12 POW images. Most of the other POW images exhibit a leptokurtic shape in which at least one brightness has a relatively high frequency.

I think this reflects the perception of the "flatness" of the light that John and I mentioned earlier. Even though there are very bright and very dark areas in this image, overall the light is actually very evenly distributed here. That is probably why the image looks like an illustration and not a photograph. JJ

Michael Chang: "Alex, those are good points, but wouldn't a statement of intent amount to self-critique which can just as well be absent but come to light in the ensuing discussion?"

The Statement of Intent can of course slip into self-critique, for example the previous imaginary Statement of Intent could have ended with "This image has received over 20 awards and is now hanging proudly in my mother's living room."

But all this would show is that obviously the author considers that the intent set forward was achieved brilliantly. Still for the reviewers to judge, isn't it?

Jeremy, I used the adjective "caricatural" in my early description of the lackluster uniformness of the B&W.

We often get hung up on technical details and technical perfection of the image on this photo site. That's OK but it is very limited in regard to what the image does or doesn't. The technical preoccupation often leads to specific criticisms of the type we have seen here and which often put the effect of the image, its artistic or communicative power, at a disadvantage. What Gerry is doing with HDR, color saturation, etc., is not liked by everyone, but it is of a certain aesthetic.

It might be good for the readers to take a look at the article in the recent "Black and White Photography" (UK) regarding the current photographic exhibition at Tate Modern in London, placing together the works of Klein and Morayama, two street and society photographers of somewhat different approach but who learned much from each other. In these photos we see blur, high contrast, blown out highlights, and other "vices" that would no doubt get critical comment in a POW. However, the images have a communicative power that goes well beyond what is seen. Too often in the POW (And I like Stephen's penning of the acronym "COW" for a postulated replacement of "POW") the aspect of art and communication gets buried under the technical considerations or reactions to the title.

The viewer should I believe be able to accept or simply reject a title or statement of intent and consider only the image itself, and what it means to him or her. Yes, we can state whether we are sensitive or not to the title or artisy's statement, but ultimately it is the photo that should be speaking to us, and in some exceptional cases we may be excited to see that the image transcends its apparent visual content or title.

"ultimately it is the photo that should be speaking to us"

Well, certainly if you have the framework to actually understand it. This is a big issue with art, there is no way that one person will have the ability to look at and understand all that they look at. There often needs to be context--external information. One can certainly ignore contextual information, react to the aesthetics of the image but those reactions are "limited" to the viewer's level of awareness and understanding of their world--not any sort of understanding of the author's world or concerns. Certainly, one might get new insights looking at something new and different but just as often, the work is ignored or undervalued because there wasn't an informed confrontation with the work. I think most of us have had those experiences in other aspects of our lives. We see something we don't have a clue what it is--and so are a bit indifferent--and then someone explains what the object is or does, and then it has immense interest to us. Visual art is similar, we just often think because we recognize something about what we are looking at that we actually know it--we don't, we only know what WE know.

This is rarely an issue on sites like this, the work is often pretty mainstream but I don't think many would have even considered that this woman was someone known to Gerry without his claim to that effect. I don't think the evidence here would have concluded that the woman was not the primary subject without those claims.

Technical execution is a primary factor in how a work communicates. Often, what can appear to be awful technique can be just the thing that puts an ordinary visual into an extraordinary state. It isn't technical perfection that matters but the marrying of the technical factors with aesthetic considerations such that the message/intent is reinforced, not over run.

As I said above, like or not is really pretty irrelevant, that is just opinion. It is they why, the objective analysis of technique, application of aesthetic considerations and such that give usable feed back. I remember showing an in-progress body of work to a friend. He liked where it was going but hated one image and suggested I remove it. His reasons were interesting, but more to the point of what I was doing not contrary to it. A year later, I saw him again with the completed series, he liked it and told me how THAT image was still his favorite! He had processed his own issues between viewings and they had morphed into something consistent from something that was, in fact, not.

I think that the word "immense" here is overdone and might be better replaced by the phrase "an enhanced". Early in our life, say in the primary and high school eras, we can have new experiences and observations that when explained to us often do create an immense interest. It is not because we are more curious and explorative when young, but often because we are on the early portion of the initially steep learning curve in whatever discipline of knowledge that might be. Of course, we can always, in exceptional cases, be greatly impressed following an explanation. While my remarks were concerned mainly with the predominance of technical issues that are invoked when many of us are analysing a POW photograph, what is more important I think is to cut through the technical aspects and to consider the aesthetic and communicative value of an image. Even if we haven't a clue about what the photographer or artist is doing our former experience of art and the factors that go into creating it are often sufficient to suggest to us that even if we don't fully understand the artist or photographer's intention, the visual elements suggest that something special is going on. I don't think we should so underestimate the ability of the viewer to be intrigued or impressed by something that he or she does not fully understand. Maybe only some elements of the image are understood, such as the relationship of colours (Itten's colour wheel) or the dominance and relationships of points, lines, masses or particular forms, or the balance or contrast of them, or other parameters of composition, but we sometimes sense that art irrespective of technical quality and appreciate at least apart of what the author intended or happened upon. Obviously other symbolic elements can reinforce some emotional response. In the extreme case of art presentation, we might understand absolutely nothing until it was described to us in detail. Except in some rare and revolutionary examples I think that would be quite sad.

Back to the present POW. I will not make a case, and maybe cannot construct a case, for its appeal beyond the apparent (as so consistently pointed out) critique regarding technical "correctedness", but I simply would like to see more opinions on the impact of the image itself as something that we might not appreciate at first sight using a bag of conventional photographic criteria.

Hey Arthur, you use your word and I will use mine! Just kidding, but I was making a point that it can be extreme and not so subtle--I personally know situations where I didn't even notice something seen until I learned what it was, then I wanted it!

I don't think technical considerations can be any less considered than things like line, empahsis, color, balance etc, in fact, it is often those technical concerns that affect tone and color. It is a symbiotic relationship not an isolated one. We talk about exposure and that affects mood--over brighter, under darker--they convey different things and affect the elements of art like tone, contrast, color and such.

But I understand what you are saying, often the technical considerations are looked at without reference to how they actually embellish what is presented but more as if they exist in their own predetermined vacuum.

Jeremy, the evenness of the light might indeed be a reason, but I shoot outside on gray days all the time and don't get that magic wonderland effect. My emphasis throughout has revolved around what I perceived to be over-processing. I would have to reaffirm after all this that, to my eye, it is indeed over-processed, and that that is what keeps it from being even better.

Reasonable people have differing views and differing tastes, but at least Gerry will not likely over-process so casually again.

If there is a real lesson here for all of us, though, I would have to say that it is this: when faced with a bad situation, try not to make it worse.

--Lannie

John, I do agree with what you have described in regard to criteria and perception, if only with a slightly different emphasis, although admittedly that itself can vary in respect of the particular nature of the photograph (and intent of its author).

Jeremy and Lannie have discussed the flatness of lighting, which I admit also to have mentioned, but sometimes flat lighting can provide a useful effect, provided it accords with and is consistent with the approach of the photographer to his subject matter. I would disagree about over-processing as an artistic tool, where it can surely be of artistic value (like blurring) in certain cases. In many cases it is overused and doesn't work with the subject matter.

Last night I spent a little time after a concert (of our new orchestra chief) to see the work of a landscape painter hung in an anteroom to the lobby of our Grand Théatre hall in Quebec City. The city and country landscapes had an intriguing quality wherein she detailed a bit more the lines of some artefacts, usually building features, and left blurry other painted lines of the overall painting (trees, mountains, skies, people). At close distance, only the more sharply defined features were discernible, whereas at greater viewing distance all came into more recognizable forms (not fully realistic, but distinguishable elements). An interesting phenomenon, which I think she unfortunately overdid by using highly lustrous and shiny colours (spatula and brush). An equivalent perhaps of the over-use of Photoshop or HDR tools when other factors of the photographic image are seemingly sufficient. Maybe that is pertinent to Gerry's image, but maybe not. Elsewhere, his wharf and rescue boat images do seem to take well to the high colour saturation (which some of his portfolio viewers had interpreted as being great light, not vibrant colour) and extended dynamic range. Too bad that he has apparently withdrawn from this discussion as he would seem to be confident enough to take the opportunity of being part of it.

I'll bet if Gerry really, really likes the processing of his image, especially if he can articulate why he likes it, he will continue to do so, but we probably won't see them posted on this site.

I wonder if that means that the world is in for more of this:

[LINK]

--Lannie

Sometimes what we see from any photographer is simply a slice in time of their continued developmental journey.

Arthur, I think if you re-read the thread (and, to that end, I might suggest quite a bit of skimming through the detritus), you will see a lot of the aesthetics of this image discussed, from composition to emotional impact, to content and subject matter. I think there's been a good balance of technical consideration and aesthetic consideration, though the two are often inseparable and symbiotic.

Fred, I agree it is not either-or, but I see a lot of discussion centered on details, whether technical, compositional or composition+technical (in which one is driving the other), that are not analyzing the possible value of the overall approach of Gerry Gentry and the aesthetic of that sort of approach, rather than the negative tact that implies how it doesn't match the usual appearance of a photograph.

There are paradigms related to much photography and breaking those paradigms often simply obtains some of the more extreme reactions from many who do not wish to see them broken. Sort of like the case where some reject the photographer's approach of modifying the subject matter to achieve a desired result. ("It ain't natural!"). I am OK with such divergence of opinion, while I personally don't appreciate the majority of over processed images. However, there are cases where technical or even compositional values have to be put aside and an attempt made to understand a different aesthetic.

Erratum: I meant "re-interpreted" rather than "put aside" in my last sentence. That makes a difference of meaning.

Arthur, you seem to assume that the reaction to the technique here is based on technical reasons--it isn't within some norm--rather than the fact that one doesn't think it works and explains what it is that bothers them about it.

This is not a new technique, it has been around for quite awhile. It has been a popular technique in commercial work going back 5-10 years. It is still used in some cases, but it has gotten--well, always has been--a bit more refined than what we have here. In the early 90's, there was another process that created very similar feeling images, although it was a technique that was more limited to smaller scenes. It also could create very cartoonish scenes, it was light painting and often associated with the Hosemaster, Aaron Jones' invention. It had a great run until it hit a crescendo where almost every other photographer in the source books was showing a set of near homogenous images, it pretty much fell over the cliff and in the last several years been picked up by amateurs as if it were something new. It was not a technique that ever really garnered much notice outside of the commercial world. More sophisticated uses of light painting have been used, and still are, forever, but those are rarely something one can detect from just looking as it is just good lighting.

The point isn't that these things don't have their place somewhere in the continuum of photography and for many of us, we have seen both good and bad uses of the techniques for years, this isn't something new and different.

I applaud folks trying things and playing around, but that doesn't mean it is new, different or sophisticated. Often, it is old, familiar and just out of date--and not done with a level of sophistication that gives it much substance.

On re-reading Gerrys comment " This PLACE has seen better days" Would that have made a difference?The fact we have the freedom to express our emotions and feelings in a chosen form will result in a range of comments.I do not have the photographic skills that Gerry has in that medium, but I did learn to use my eyes to spot a scene that is worth looking out for and present it for others to comment on. An interesting thread Regards Miken

I think the woman's awkward relationship to the structure has been discussed as has her expression as has her relationship to the environment as a whole, all of which is quite aside from the badly-applied technique.

The fact is that the photo shouts technique and it can't and shouldn't be ignored, unless we want to critique a purely hypothetical image which has not been placed before us.

When technique screams, it is going to be heard.

This is very much the image the photographer wanted his viewers to see. He's been quite adamant about that. I think most have addressed precisely the image the photographer wanted to be seen. What went a bit awry is that the photographer didn't communicate what he would have liked to or what he said he intended. I'm not one who necessarily judges a photo by the achievement of intent, as I said earlier. Had he communicated something meaningful to me, even without intending it specifically, I would have appreciated the photo more. But that didn't happen.

Fred, it's often the case when we go through a batch of freshly acquired images is to immediately separate those that have an opportunity of succeeding from those that are duds.

Those that have a fighting chance will get into Photoshop often without preconceived notions and tweaked through an improvisatory process. The end result will reflect a photographer's taste, and can often be just as surprising to its maker especially with candid people shots.

In other words, it's often what it is because of an unintended iterative process rather than a preconceived one.

On the other hand some photographers can be hooked on a specific treatment. A friend recently sent me a link to a batch of circular panorama pictures which she was impressed by because the technique was unknown to her. I, on the other hand, had the same reaction as seeing this picture - one trick pony.

Michael, yes, as I said, achieving intentions is only or can be only part of the process. Very often, surprises occur or we have no specific intentions we are looking to communicate.