Pinakothek der Moderne #2

Peggy, Sometimes, when great care is taken to align all the elements, people tend to disbelieve that life can be that orderly. The thought crossed my mind when I noticed the careful separation of the two heads with the frames behind them. To achieve that and still get the perfect framing in the first two large prints took great care, luck . . . or perhaps was a set up. . . .but I doubt it. I've been in galleries when no on else was around and I assume you have too. I also assume that putting an information plate next to each print is common, but not mandatory. I would expect frames to have the same size if the images were fairly small, no? The exact curvature of the wall is hard to gauge because of the lens used. (here we go with the cathedral :-)), but I wouldn't expect to see them reflected in the same way in each image, the radius is too large, and the angle of incidence changes. It's not that the reflected frames are larger, it's that the relfecting images are smaller. Optical illusion, perhaps.

In any case, the reason it was chosen remains different for different people and is one reason I wish the elves would stop referring to themselves as 'we' since we've been told before that there's no discussion, only a vote. I assume they all see different things in each image that they are attracted to, just like everyone else. Some people really like this image even though the reflections are considered a minor distraction. I think the reflections in all their complexity are believable and separate this shot from the other common 'looking at my alterego in the painting" pictures we've all seen. The only reference to another image 'like this one' in this discussion saw the reflections as superfluous. Any other comparable 'reflection' images out there?

Could someone enlighten me on: why anyone would bother to shoot with a color print film and go to the trouble of converting the image to black and white?

 

Are there not better black and white films with far nicer

qualities (someone commented above on the niceties of the tones in this image!)- like tonal variations, sharpness, resolution...

Yes, we're reading the same. I just happen to find this a rather mechanistic photograph and really don't read much into the reflections, other than that they are clever.

Hello,

 

Regarding Peggy Jones' commen I provide an url to some more pictures from that place to make you sure that the photo was NOT manipulated at all: http://lukar.net/www/pdm/ (rather small but I hope it's enough)

 

Feel free to compare it with this one and ask if there are still any doubts.

The finished product here is good,however the photographer shot this image in colour,point being was he thinking at the time of composition in colour or black and white or both??or just as an afterthought with a colour image he was not pleased with, he converted it to black and white to get a so much stronger image.

Some people like the flexibility of having either a color or bw version of the exact

same image. It has been possible for many years before the digital age, but never

has it been so easy.

 

Yes, if you choose this technique, you will lose some of the characteristic grain

structure that many of us have grown to love in traditional bw films. But rarely will

this absence turn a good photo into a poor one.

 

I, for one, try to shoot with the film which has the characteristics that I want to stick

with to the final print. But sometimes, I grab one of my cameras and its loaded. And

since I usually don't have any real intentions when I grab the camera, why not just

leave it loaded and see what I can get?

Just to strike up some discussion,Ihave three camera bodies one is always loaded with B+W film,and I really do find how I approach black and white to be quite different from my colour work,I compose with shapes,and contrasts I really find myself looking for subjects that will appeal to the B+W medium,before I shoot,not after the fact!!!Any more opinions on this out there???

I had a feeling that this might happen when I saw this photo on Monday. Its very

good, don't get me wrong, but it may be a little too precise.

 

Everything in the photo seems very measured and somewhat perfect. Its hard to say

bad things about perfection, right? Right. Unless you see the perfection as the

problem.

 

I like this photo but, as Marc said, it really doesn't move the heart. It makes me think

of a 1970's depiction of what the world would be like in the future after alien robots

took over the planet and enslaved us. This photo seems like a documentation of

humans being let out to go potty in the robot's backyard, so to speak.

 

Again, I really do like this photo. Maybe it would work better as part of a series. But

wait a minute. A photo in a series, depicting people viewing a photo which is part of

a series? And the topic of the series could BE series'! ugh. cheers

excellent composition and very good tonality. I like it a lot and it's definitely something I'd hang on my wall! grats! wirklich ein super bild!

 

Cheers,

Milos

Kelly, thanks for giving one explanation. Sure, having as many options available is useful.

 

I guess, for a 800 pixel image it does not matter whether it was shot on Techpan or a Fuji color print film.

 

There is grain structure in color films as well. Digital manipulations in Scanning/PS can take care of a lot of the "undesirable" aspects and does add more flexibility.

Its pleasnt to agree with Marc for once! His was an acute analysis of this image. When I first saw the thumbnail on Monday I had a feeling of deja vu - it was so remiscent of the cleverly set up but sterile images that were so common in international photographic exhibitions when I was a lad in the early 1960s.

This is a very nice photo, though one with limited ambition; I do not think it seeks to move the heart, but is instead an intellectual exercise. It excells at what it does.

 

Interestingly, last week's photo also was an intellectual exercise, and has the same virtues of seeming simplicity with underlying complexity. Last week, though, we were too wrapped up in discussing the process of producing the image to delve into questions of whether the photograph had a heart or not.

 

I am not tempted to try to make this photograph more than it is. The gallery IS a somewhat sterile place, and so is well depicted here. To try to make it more would be to try to make it artificial.This work is a pleasant and interesting academic exercise, and I appreciate it for that.

simple subject with an excellent work. I like it very much.

I really don't understand the comments about it not being emotive, or moving the

heart. Do you really have such a limited range of emotion? Must it all be children or

tragedy?

 

Yes, it is sterile; it stills the heart. It is calm. It is mechanistic. It is minimalist. It is

wonderful; it is all those things so well and it most definitely elicits a response, even if

that response is a stilling of the "hotter" emotions and brings you to a calmer, more

intellectual place.

 

Wonderful photograph and every bit deserving of the POW.

 

PS: I think the reflections are gimmicky and would be my only quibble.

Well done and I agree with Paul 100% (including his remark on the much disputed reflections). Also, wouldn't this work just fine in color? I think that desaturation only 'mushed up' B&W tonality here.

To me, sterility is the primary point of this image, and a jumping-off point for where to go next with your interpretation of this photo. The wall is so white that it may or may not be there; the geometry of the exhibition space is clinically perfect. Despite the barren setting, the two men are so engrossed in the same photo that they ignore the camera trained on them. In a way, they are the only imperfect elements of this image. That they themselves are reflected in the photographs may not be overly subtle, but it helps add complexity to their relation to the art they are viewing.

I do not think it seeks to move the heart

However, it does move your eyes all over the place. In my opinion photograph need not move your heart.

Damn near perfect. I'd like to see the original color version. 7/7

With so much praise as to the abstract curve of the row of photographs and the curve of the wall, perhaps this award should really be given to the architect who designed this gallery and the person who hung the pictures. Is a photograph of the Mona Lisa a great photo because a masterpiece is framed within?

 

That being said, I do find this aesthetically pleasing, I do think black and white was a good choice, and I like the exposure and composition, so I guess that's what matters most as a viewer of this shot.

With all due respect, I think this pictures is strikingly overrated. It's a sterile, average formalistic snapshot with the most foreseeable framing imaginable, illustrative at best.

If I should design a folder/leaflet or an exhibition catalogue for the Pinakothek Moderne this picture would be a nice uncluttered choice were the photographer has captured a simple expression of what the whole concept of watching an exhibition is about. I think that in that light the photographer has got the most out of a fairly boring exhibition layout with to old [men] looking at a picture. Seen in this light the photo does the job and is acceptable for a pow, though it does certainly not hold a lot of artistic nerve.

There is no way you can use the word snapshot to describe this image. There is so much precision that a few of us wondered if it might be a setup. The arrangement of the elements is carefully controlled not just by framing, but lens choice and camera angle ( the latter is especially critical with parallel vertical lines). Avoiding merges was no small accomplishment given the many frames within frames and the possible merges with the gallery viewers and the frames behind them.

 

It's easy to take this sort of thing for granted. Maybe it's just that I find it a bit off putting when people equate precision with sterility, as if it was a dirty word. Then we see an impulsive grab shot and call it art. Art and craft are not mutally exclusive. Check out Lukar's other images on the roll and tell me if you don't think this rises well above the others.

 

http://lukar.net/www/pdm/

Finding and shooting these kinds of images are a lot of the pure fun of

photography. I keep looking for them but never quite finding them. I applaud

some who has discovered one.

 

My editorial comment -

As opposed to last week, our intrepid photographer used a camera instead of

a scanner and it worked. I no longer have the nagging urge to run out and

buy a scanner. thanks. (the forgoing comment was not meant to be

disrespectful of anyone or image, I just like photography with cameras)

I had no intention of putting anyone down here and I don't want to insist too heavily. But...

"Snapshot" is maybe inapropriate as the roll shows that Lukar spent a couple of frames on the subject. My point is, that eventually within a couple of minutes the shot presented _will_ come about. Amongst the shots shown it is the clearest, yes, the most balanced, yes, and the one with the verticals most aligned. So? Where is the personality, or ambiguity, or tension, or humour, or decisive moment, or individualistic aproach? Many would have seen this shot and well been able to produce it as the geometry of both, architecture and photo display, had already been created by others to produce the effect reproduced by the picture. All it took was waiting for (any) visitor(s) to stand in a fovourable spot. As has been pointed out above, the shot would well serve as an illustration of the exhibition/gallery. Period.

I find myself quite often trapped in just the reproduction of visuals created within my own culture. Maybe that's why travelling far or emotional involvement can produce more surprising and/or personal pictures...? Again, all I was trying to express was my surprise re the generally very high rating of a quite basic exercise in perspective. (BTW, cropping part of the leftmost frame would _really_ add to the picture, IMHO.)

Precision is not a dirty word for me, nor is sterility (how could it possibly...?!) - I just think that neither concept is sufficient for creating a striking image.

Just one man's thoughts.

Thanks for your response. . . .

 

I would say that the term snapshot refers to knowledge and care in the process. The number of images has little bearing on it. In fact the comparison images do appear somewhat careless and for me, this one stands head a shoulders above the others. Perhaps we would all previsualize this one and wait until we got it, but there are too many things that work in this image, several of which do require precice timing and positioning of all the elements. You can easily control the line of images, but placing both viewers and their reflections in the composition with this degree of precision is a combination of skill and luck, so I disagree with your failure to recognize the 'moment' in this image.

 

The humor that I see is perhaps more of an inside photo.net joke, and maybe that's why the ratings are so high. How we look at images is a reflection of who we are as much as what the picture shows us.

 

If you crop even just the edge of the frame of the left side print, you spoil the spacing of the elements on all four sides relative to the edges . . . or are you part of the group the wants the entire left image gone? If so, I think you're saying that you want the image to be about something other than what the photographer offered. I think most of the people who like it see far more than a couple of guys looking at some pictures.