Foggy November Night

A second look !
The strong contrasted shadows in the light from the first lamppost could be seen as creating a sphere for the main object of the scene: the road and the mist with its atmosphere of: "stillness and solitude", as Stephen rightly calls it. If so, it functions, but seems to be a over-effective mode of framing.
On the other hand if the photo was shot mainly because of the shadows in the light and the rest being of relatively minor interest, it all leaves me cold as any other snapshot.

The elves have done well this week, as last week, in choosing an image that borders on success but which contains elements that seem to deny that. In the portfolios of Michael and Debra we see companion images that are more persuasive than those chosen. This appears to be the central aim of the POW, to choose an image that is "interesting and worthy of discussion", as opposed to one that attracts summary comments like "it's perfect" or "it's banal".

The diffraction of light by the smaller tree branches in front of the nearest lamp provides interesting rays that are highlighted in a foggy atmosphere, analogous to what is sometimes seen with the sun breaking through clouds in a brighter daylight scene. I have trouble with the composition, particularly with the inclusion of a massive and irregular black tree branch which seems disjointed from the tree's delicate backlit leaves. An equally large branch of more harmonious form might have worked better here, as the punctum here appears to me to be the smaller branches and the fine leaves, contrasted to the dark and foggy scene (Without those bright leaves, the image takes on a more enigmatic or moody effect). Another point of composition difficulty is the forced point of interest created by the incongruous highlight on the otherwise quite well exposed and well included fence to the left. What does that add to the scene? Other than the visual effect of a cobblestone road I have trouble identifying other major subject matter of interest. Fog is very evocative of mystery in an image, but here it seems to be shown in more of a technical than a strong poetic sense. I do not linger very long wondering about the place of this scene or what the very large mass of dark area suggests. The photo is close to being appealing for me, but suffers from its compositional problems and misses a sense of magic. Like Debra's image last week, it is not as good as some of the author's other work, but that is perhaps welcome in terms of a well chosen subject for discussion.

Too much going on where the light pole and the tree branches intersect, especially with the bright light shining from behind the branches. Detracts from the mood established elsewhere in the picture.

No Martin, I absolutely disagree, it even sounds like you are having a Joke, a kind of game - like "How will they react if I say this" - well I'll be your first sucker. What you have above just said is the whole point of the image. Without the interaction of the tree and post this would be just another fog image of a path between boring trees. This image has stepped out of the mundane and is far more engaging aesthetically than the image that you have just described. The attraction is on the illuminating leaves and the lamp post and the sharp delineation upper right between the light and dark, this crisp sharp cut-off enhances the mood and alters the atmosphere from foggy image with morning feelings to middle of the night where a bit of fear is subdued by the cosiness of the bright rays, whereas in a foggy image the eyes wander all over the place, the mood is predictable and the attention span short. We have all seen those laborious Mist images - I've even made them and deleted them rather promptly. PS: (I'm not shouting at you, just imagine me interrupting you in a class room and then buying you coffee afterwards).

I'm not sure Chris is right and that's the main point of this image or the main aesthetic draw but, of course, there is no right or wrong here. In any case, though, it is certainly a good way to look at this photo. The thing is, when I do look at it that way, I am drawn into that area Chris is considering and I do like the idea that it is disruptive to the normally more mundane peaceful fog shot where nothing much is happening (though if those are done well, they don't have to be mundane). But when I'm drawn into that area of the main streetlight I, like some others, am disappointed. Simply put, for me there are some very inelegant aspects to it, not least of which is the shape and feel of the main branch itself and the lamppost which, again to me, has little charm or character or visual interest. So, although, I think the instinct to introduce a foil to an otherwise tranquil scene is a good one, what I'm seeing here just doesn't do much for me beyond the idea of it.

Actually, what I said above was my initial response to the picture, and I was waiting to see if it changed before saying anything (but it remained the same). It still looks like a tangled mess, what with the bright light and the pole and branches commingling. My favorite part of the picture is along the the other side, with the metal fence, the gates, and the tree leaves above them.

But I see Chris's point. Without the contrast created by the bright area in the upper right, perhaps there is not enough there there (but I still don't like it).

Suppose Michael had moved forward so that the second light in his photograph was now the first. The tree limbs would be gone, and perhaps even the fence on the left would not be visible. Presumably the "cobbled" path would still be present. I'm trying to imagine this with my mind's eye, and yes, it does look less cluttered but a lot more boring. What I like about the messiness of the limbs (especially the biggest branch) is what is implied but not seen beyond the limits of the light. For me, what I know is there but not seen adds to the attraction of the image. IMO, Michael chose the right street light to begin his photograph (although I'm less certain about having the fence show up on the left).

As a by thought, interrupting I suppose, I don't like image sanitisation, imperfections that are often seen after a minute or so are sometimes welcome, they lend authenticity to an image. I often am reminded of so many images from the 50's and 70's that are respected, yet upon analysis would never live up to our 21'st century analysis or aesthetic appeal. In fact they would not even be picked by the elves...and yet they sold. I am actually trying so hard to see what it is that Fred does not like, nicely of course.

<<<I am actually trying so hard to see what it is that Fred does not like, nicely of course.>>>

Chris, I appreciate your efforts but it's also what makes horse racing. We may see this differently or we may see it similarly and feel differently about it. I'm not sure if this explanation will help any, and am definitely not trying to convince you of anything but rather to explain how I see this. The modern, sleek street lamp just doesn't do anything for me visually or design-wise and the three of them taken together are an important feature of this image. Since the rest of the photo has a more classic, atmospheric feeling the lack of character and charm in those street lamps seems to work against the mood of the photo. Now there are times when I like a contrast like that. This is just not one of them. It's difficult to explain any more precisely why. The biggest tree branch seems like it was recently hacked off at the "elbow." That's what I mean by inelegant. It seems a place to me, in this photo, for a more sensual main element and instead I'm turned off by the visual, even though I like the idea of the lack of sanitation or lack of a strictly monotone mood which you also seem to appreciate.

I don't see the light and the branches as a tangled mess. In fact, I see these more as a pictorial device--the sunburst sort of thing and those rays of light, not unlikely, the motivation for the framing--and the shot. This area is rather insignificant, IMO, to the overall image but not irrelevant. I just don't see it as grabbing a lot of attention or blocking our movement through the image. My eyes end up resting down the path with an occasional glance up at the detail there. I actually think the dark, essentially blank areas at the edges are effective here with things like that trunk trailing off into it letting us know there ARE things hidden there.

But, it isn't always a bad thing to have an area that might be confusing or create some tension due to its "difference". It depends on the nature of the image and how that area functions to support the idea of the image. I am not saying I am crazy about this image (it's nice and well done technically), but I think--as Stephen said--it might get pretty boring without that light. Also, opening up the darkest shadows might take away what I feel is its strength, mystery.

What we like or don't like really is irrelevant and subjective in the larger context. How things are constructed and how they effect us is a bit more objective as to how an image works or doesn't. The thing we don't like might be the exact intent of an image--or what supports it.

This has become on of my favorite quotes from recent reading:

(Fred hadn't posted when I was writing this, so this isn't in response to his comment, which I will read now)

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=16609534&size=lg

Take a look at the version of the picture at the link above. Here, I don't see the intersection of the light and pole and branches as being messy at all. I rather like this version.

John, I understand you weren't speaking in response to my post, but I want to address your points still. I also don't see the tree branches as a tangled mess. And I agree with you that "liking" something and its being a success may be two different things. I don't, however, think that liking is irrelevant by any stretch of the imagination. This is about photography and art and taste is, of course, going to play a role. While I like to be aware of my taste and how it may bias me and I hope my tastes change over time, I don't intend to deny my tastes or sublimate them to whatever a photographer's goal is. I may recognize that a photographer achieved his goal while still not appreciating that goal or liking it and that is, IMO, an important part of one's reaction to a photo. It seems perfectly OK to me to say, you've achieved your goal and that's laudable, but why was that your goal to begin with? Not that I would say that in the present case.

When I get reactions to my photos, I want to hear everything and there is very little that I find irrelevant in someone's reaction. "I like it" and "I don't like it" especially when backed up with reasons, are very special for me to hear. I want to know the gut reactions. That's part of the connection photography offers me. If someone's reason for not liking it is the very essence of what I think the photo is about, I have simply learned about the other person's taste, which I am interested in. What I'm not interested in is a purely clinical and objective analysis of the construction of my photo without an honest and individual emotional response, which will often include liking or disliking.

Sure, I eat broccoli because it's good for me, but I would choose it over green beans because I like it more. I see that as an important part of life.

By the way, there's a little bit of a red herring in the quote you provided. No one here has said the photo was "bad" and certainly no one said it was "bad" because they didn't like it. As a matter of fact most of the negative critiques showed at least some appreciation for the photo, while also expressing personal opinions about it, a good way to comment on a photo, IMO.

"But, it isn't always a bad thing to have an area that might be confusing or create some tension due to its "difference". It depends on the nature of the image and how that area functions to support the idea of the image."
------------------------------------------------------------
Well, how about this: if there's a deficiency in the part of the picture that adds tension to the picture, but without that part, the picture is boring, perhaps the picture just doesn't work very well at all.

Note that the placement of the light in the version at the link above is a little lower in the frame, so the composition is better balanced. Also, the contrast between the light and what's around it is somewhat lower: there's still a nice change in contrast, but now you can see leaves around the light. The light rays emanating from the bulb in the version at the link also act as a unifying element for the entire picture.

I also think that the mustardy yellow tones of the color version add a little more interest to the picture.

Here's the link again: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=16609534&size=lg

I would guess that John's quote was directed more or less at my comment.

Well, I didn't say it's a bad picture because I don't like it. I gave a reason for not liking it, which John doesn't happen to agree with and which he may think is a bit flimsy and not well thought out.

But it is a bit of a different situation than I think is described in the quote.

Well, enough from me for now.

Fred, I do think the quote addresses what you said in your first paragraph. We don't disagree.

I think the issue I was trying to address was more the fact that often what we don't like, because of our own tastes or inferences as to what we might want to see in an image, might actually be relevant to the intent of the image. If we separate our objective analysis and what it seems to objectively infer to us (what is actually there, how it is structured and thus what we actually see as being inferred by these things) from our more subjective thoughts and inferences, we end up with a more complete analysis being delivered. Both are important, but they are different. We can totally despise a very well done image but we shouldn't confuse the two. I may have overstated the "irrelevance" of taste, but I was just making a point! :)) Often, I think taste/preference is over emphasized without a nod to what is actually in front of us.

I think your post did a good job describing things as you saw them and felt about them and very on point to what you were doing there. But the function of these posts might be a good example of what I am suggesting here. The modern posts aren't a distraction as to design but maybe more to particular interpretations of the scene. They might be odd inf a period piece were being created but totally relevant in a documentary shot of the area. But just from a design sense, managing the frame for the scene, there aren't any issues at all. I might find the "sunburst" a bit trite, but it was handled and seen well. We could certainly argue over the complete drop off of light at the edges and I am not sure that even on a technical basis there is a "right" answer. This is sort of a preference in treatment. It is a failure if Michael really wanted those areas open but didn't have the information in the file but a success if this was how he wanted it--these sorts of things are what is in our control more than the physical elements of a shot. In this case, the treatment ends up affecting the overall feel of the image but, I think, can be just as effective going either way. On the other hand, in a traditional landscape, such large blank areas are rarely effective but certainly could be used to effect in the right situation.

Martin, the quote wasn't directed at you at all. My comment was, however, stimulated by your comment but not even directed at it specifically, just that it tickled an idea that I thought was important. Just the idea of an area being confusing isn't always a bad thing but often can be intentional or effective, even if not consciously thought out. The fact that I agree or don't with your opinion wasn't my point or what I was trying to support or convey.

I believe that an important aspect of critiquing work is to consider the more objective values (composition, balance of forms, the effectiveness or not of major points or forms of an image, the relationship between areas of texture and those that are either featureless black or white, the use of light and obscurity (in this case the fog and black areas), the various interactions of point, line and form), and secondly how these interact, support or negate, the subjective values or appreciation. As explained in part earlier, I don't see the objective elements as being particularly successful, even if disequilibrium is considered a positive objective value, as they don't for me add up to a convincing composition, although it is perhaps not too far from the latter.

I don't get a subjective high from it either, as any sense of emotion, of enigma, of powerful mood, symbolism, or of a reaction to a brilliant discontinuity (which is there but unrealized to my mind, and which could be a positive factor if handled in a more convincing way). That leaves neither a reaction in me as viewer of peace and tranquility, or that tempting curiosity, or demonstrating enigma or drama (stress, cleavage, the power of the unseen, or whatever).

I don't care about like or dislike, as appreciated generally in regard to an image, or even in reference to some mildly important details such as modern light stands versus 19th century ones. If it can tug at me, after having evaluated the photo with the above-mentioned parameters, that can be good enough.

Photography is a continuing apprenticeship with art history (including photography), with the structural and emotional elements that go into making good photographs, and with ourselves and how we approach the world. Michael is not alone in that quest, but it is evident from his series of fog images that he is seeking to find responses to the three elements that define that equation.

It seems to me John and Arthur are making the mistake of thinking the things they are emphasizing are the more objective values, when in fact they are mere mortals just like the rest of us, talking about their opinions of this photo. Arthur's analysis of the composition of this photo is no more objective than what anyone else has said. And John's talking about the design issues as if they were an objective fact he has access to is his opinion just as what others say is theirs. We may introduce academic concepts like punctum to sound as if we know something others don't or we have access to an objective view others don't, but other viewers can see through that and know that their own opinions are no more subjective than anyone else's.

I'm happy to disagree with all kinds of things about this photo, and I've said as much above. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I was asked to explain the way I see this and I did, by someone who's view of this photo I think is every bit as valid, objective, subjective, and personal as mine.

What I'm not happy about is being told by a select few that they have special access to some objective way of looking at this that the rest of us don't seem to get. I'm not happy that Arthur can claim that there is some objectivity in determining that the detail of the lamps is a "mildly important detail" and all about like and dislike but that his OPINION of the tree branch and its relationship to what he sees as the "punctum", the smaller branches and leaves, is somehow more objective or oriented in compositional considerations which he doesn't see the lamp posts as having.

Please, disagree and let's have all different flavors of ice cream. But don't tell me you've based your critique of chocolate on a more objective viewpoint of the flavors of the world.

Henri Brassai immediately comes to mind. The difference here, though, is the photo simply isn't noir enough. It's too smooth and processed looking. Maybe it's the fog, but the blacks (shadows) are not deep enough to suit me. That doesn't mean I don't like the photo, I do. I guess this one falls into that category of "if I had shot this..."

Fred, please take a deep breath, then breath through the nose. None of us have a better method of critiquing than another. Ultimately, most critiques are quite subjective as well as objective. To react to someone else's values in critiquing rather than to the result of their appraisal is a misguided and unproductive approach to participation.

I have no interest whatsoever in bringing yours or anyone else's values into question, as you are doing in one of your last multiple posts referring to John and myself. I prefer to let their critiques stand as a valuable part of the overall reaction to the POW. Many critiquers, like Stephen or Wouter, are quite gracious in accepting another's values and opinion and may state a different view or simply do not respond when they don't value them. Such a non confrontational yet productive attitude is fine.

If you don't like the values exhibited by another critiquer, just let it go. Relax. Enjoy what others may bring to the discussion as distinct human beings, rather than trying to counter everything they say and every value they espouse. We are I believe operating within a democratic activity here.

I have a very mild response to this image. To me it falls in an indecisive area of not beeing a documentary enough (it could have been taken at many places and times around the globe) and not vague enough to take my mind and/or emotions for a ride. Reading the discussion it appears that there is also a confusion about importance of various elements in this photo, apparently it is hard to read and grasp. What is it about?

I don't like this picture. This is an interesting image with unique lighting effects and a somber, theatrical mood. Initially, I felt the light itself was the subject, beautiful as the light rays are, as I survey the scene ultimately the lighting's main function is to illuminate the foggy street. Neat effect though. I thought maybe the empty street, but then no, nothing on the street really draws my eye. The fog perhaps? Maybe but still not what I would call a dominant element. Looking at it with a cinematic eye, I see everything combines to create a lovely, well seen, moody, theatrical setting.... in need of a subject.

Since I'm late in the critique process, I'm sure this has been discussed. Similar to not looking at other pictures the photographer has made, I prefer not reading other critiques till I've made my own lest I be swayed in my opinion away from my most personal and honest reaction to the image under review. I'll go back now and read the rest of the thread.

I'm new to photo.net and I have to say the bickering within these photo critiques has turned me off a bit. That being said, here are my thoughts on the photo:

• I like the black and white filter. There seems to be enough contrasts to show certain details while leaving others where they should be...in the background
• The 'starburst' from the light in the fog is also intriguing.
• I can't quite put my finger on it, but the composition seems slightly off. Wondering if a zoom in on the lights, eliminating the left side of the photo, would help focus the eye. Just a thought!

Overall, I thought it was an interesting photograph, and I enjoyed reviewing.