'The Squatters' [B&W Ed.]

Probably my standard for critiquing images here on p.net is different. I respond to what is shown me - not an imagined enlarged print, not a much-zoomed in version to study its pixels. The image, as presented. Does it communicate with me, does it tell me something, does it tease me to study it, does it inspire my imagination?

Whatever camera is used to shoot it, is completely irrelevant. It's the image that counts, and not the image that could have been, but the image that is. But I guess that is just a matter of different approaches and interests.

This images captivates, for a relatively simple, graphic composition with nicely hidden treats (the second guy on the left in the cellar-window), with interesting juxtapositions (well-dressed woman, in front of a door that seems in good shape, versus the guys and their open hole in the wall). It inspires to think, teases to try understand the scene one is looking at. For me, that makes a good photo.

You are very fair in your analysis.  I accept your compliments, as they are exactly the way I hoped this photo would be seen, not through some imaginary presentation as you suggest others would have it seen taken by some imaginary camera and perhaps processed or post processed in some imaginary way.

I thank you for a breath of fresh air.

You are welcome here any time.

john

John (Crosley)

A couple of “key phrases” in your comment are (a) “my standard for critiquing images” and (b) “what is shown me –not an imagined enlarged print”.

(a) Is your standard which is okay for you but not everyone and I think you agree

In (b) you reversed reality. The thumbnail photo shown to you on the monitor is the “imagined print” of what you would like to see if it were enlarged. And the enlarged hard-copy print would be the “zoomed in” photo that for some reason you don’t want to see.

Outside the internet world a finished image is the print; the “zoomed in” (as you call it) version with all its pixel flaws if any. One cannot hang a photograph on the wall if it does not exist beyond a hard drive.

“Squatters” probably got a decent rating as a thumbnail (I did not look but based on comments). As someone above wrote, content is most important. If the original multi-megabyte file of this image were somehow available and displayed on the monitor in Photo Shop at “actual pixels” one would agree that this photo could not exist beyond the hard drive.

And so Svetlana, you wrote (paraphrase) there is a story so there is a photo. Yes, maybe, but not necessarily beyond the hard drive and so then what use is the photo?

In digital versus film photography:

1. The original on the hard drive is to digital as the negative is to film.
2. The thumbnails on photo.net are to digital as contact sheets are to film
3. The multi-megabyte jpg viewed on the monitor in “actual pixels” (NOT “FIT TO SCREEN”!!) is to digital as the negative enlarged on a light box and viewed with a loupe or better making a ‘test print”.

The merit of content of a photo is evaluated in step 2 above. The quality of a photo is evaluated in step 3 above.

John and I have discussed content versus quality many times I think to no avail.

And John, what you termed above as "imaginary presentation" is the presentation you should be shooting for -not some thumbnail on the internet.

I am not putting down the internet or photo.net just saying shoot "as if"  the internet was not the "end game".

For what you wrote essentially would have been entirely and almost 100% correct 10 or 12 years ago and almost without question.

Nowadays it's the day of the Internet, Instagram, file sharing and photos that are taken, then shared by wi-fi instantly to one's friends by wi-fi (or other Internet means), and nowadays photography has other meanings than the ones that dominated when photography consumed you when you were trying to become a star in the photo firmament.

I am not denigrating at all what you wrote, but printing nowadays is more a rare thing, except for those who will be exhibiting in galleries and museums, and for those who will be making illustrations for billboards, magazines  (not e-zines), and other media.

That does not denigrate in any way the worth of the final print, or the worth of a photo that prints well, but the necessity of judging a capture only by its print worthiness has seen its days numbered and probably its star eclipsed (to mix a metaphor).

(also, please remember, this was not cleaned up by using plug-ins that were available, as I save that stage for last and did not use readily available plug-ins to 'finish' this shot, nor did I start with the original capture but with a thumbnail of the color version for desaturation.  It would have had different characteristics if I had been able to find the original capture, full size then proceeded to process it from the start (that will happen but it just didn't happen this time.  I hadn't stated that before.)

There still is print hope for this capture as well as just photographic merit in pixel form.

Thanks for putting in the work and sharing your analysis, though it's getting a little dated in this cybersharing age where photofinishers are rare, photofinishing of quality is expensive, and the ordinary means of sharing photos is to send them digitally to others (not to print them at all, except for galleries, museums and SOME commercial work . . . and I do emphasize SOME).

Best to you, Meir, and thanks for your thoughtful analysis.

john

John (Crosley)

Meir,

Actually all I wanted was not to intervene in the discussion you weer having, so it's with hesitation I respond, but only because you addressed me by name. As you may have gathered from my critique, I hold a different opinion than yours and that's not going to change.

You are on a website. We are not looking here at print, we're looking at images in varying sizes - too small to decently sized. We respond to those. Considering how this image would look in print is an extrapolation - after all, we have no idea what kind of paper John would choose, for example. And I think we both know that has a lot of impact.
 So, we cannot know what the print would look like, we can guestimate at best. An assumption, no more - in my view, further from reality, rather than closer. But I guess that's the core of where we disagree and will have to agree to disagree.

A. Without reference to any specific photo, the criterion for "what is a good photograph?" did not change because I am now on a website.

B. If the thumbnail is soft the print will appear worse. I use "print" as a means of enlarge. There is no hypothetical.

Of course you do not actually have to print to know. Just zoom in.

I'm glad you clarified about 'printing' actually meaning a synonym or 'standin' for 'enlargement' because as was pointed out, there is so little printing going on.

And, I hope you also recall, that I desaturated this from a long-ago processed thumbnail, rather than from the 'original', and that if I had the original to start from, I probably could have eliminated much of this colloquy and the original plus a plug-in to suppress 'noise' and to 'smooth' would have given us little to talk about.

Remember, also, that when I do have plug-ins available, I just don't use them until just before final use; since unless you're using layers (which can't be done in 8-bit JPEGS), you can't go in and undo, the smoothing and other anti-noise destructive features of such a plug-in.  Sometimes plug-ins do a spectacular job, so their use becomes almost mandatory, but their use is best reserved for just before FINAL USE, and frankly I don't regard usually (any more), Photo.net posting as being a 'final use'.

I have other plans (still).

In any case, the clarification finally made the issue clear (it clarified), and now I get your point without obfuscation -- I suspect Wouter will too, but will let him 'speak' for himself if he chooses.

Best wishes.

john

John (Crosley)

A little joke

I print only a tiny fraction of the photos which I have archived over the last 25 years -much less than .001% if negatives are counted.  However, excluding the bathrooms and kitchen there is not an iota of empty wall space throughout my home SMILE and I occasionally rotate from closet to wall and back again.

Printing is not archaic to me.

Obviously I am a big fan of myself.

I print up to 16" x 20" so I am very picky about focus and resolution.

.

While we are on enlarging, I hope the attachment amazes you as much as I am amazed.

The image was shot with a 35mm Nikon D700; 28mm Nikkor 2.8; without tripod.

The bottom panel is or approximately is full frame of the shot.

The upper panel is: 1. Open jpg, 2. Click view->actual pixels. 3. crop out small selected area and save.

I am impressed; amazed. Resolution, no noise. Hope you are.

Note the horizontal compression, the bus for example. Perhaps a photoshop artifact or lens abberation?

Cannot get the enlarged resolution with film.

So printing is the same as pixelpeeping? That is new to me. Meir, as said, let's agree to disagree. You can post more samples, it really will not change my mind. Resolution, sharpness, contrast - all important, but to put it ahead of content to me is just the wrong way around. I'll stick to that point, and I'll leave you your opinion. And let's please leave it at that. Please.

New to me too Woulter.  Perhaps we have a language barrier?