Towards the Unexpected

I love the pov, the movement and the animated feel to this image, it really feels alive!

Compliment! 

Alf 

On the surface, this looks like a picture that was snapped in an instant at insufficiently high shutter speed to freeze the movement. And then there is the, what looks like fixer, stain creeping in from the bottom of the image. Also people walking away from the photographer rarely seem to make for a strong image. Likewise, the title seems to imply the picture has some deeper significance than is immediately apparent.

Having said all this, for some reason, the photo has more appeal than my above analysis suggests. The strong central, leading composition helps and blurred faces like this can imply turmoil or uncertainty (a la Francis Bacon). However, I won't go too far, as walking the dogs hardly seems like something that would induce Francis Bacon-like trauma. My overall feeling is that this is an ordinary pic that has had a portentous title attached to it, in attempt to transform it into something that it is not. However, I do like it more than my critique suggests, although I'm not quite sure why.

Agree with Robin that there is a visual appeal to the image that one might not expect from a simple man-walking-dog event. I'd really like to see what the original looked like prior to the processing. I don't particularly like the 'stain' at the bottom, as I don't think it adds anything, though it might if there was the sense that the man was in a hurry (i.e. being chased by an unknown substance, as in 'the blob' or 'the fog'), but I do like the juxtaposition of the trees and the wall, and might interpret it as symbolic of the decisions we often have to make in life (one direction, we run into a brick wall, another, and we have more choices), though I doubt the photographer had that in mind given the title.

I don't think this shot provides the same opportunity for interpretation that last week's did in terms of storytelling, but it does provide some in terms of what the photographer was trying to convey.

I'm not quite sure anything in the photo is in focus and not quite sure why that would be. There seems to be something off in the toning of the photo, magenta patches here and there. Or it could be stains along the lines of what Robin is thinking of. It's most prominent in the foreground but is at play elsewhere as well. While I don't think motion blur has to be of the psychological turmoil evident in the work of Bacon (great reference, by the way), and think it could certainly be appropriate in a scene like this of a man walking his dogs, it would be a lot more effective if the wall behind him were in focus, as well as the foreground. Good study in depth and the leading lines give this ordinary and everyday task a kind of iconic flavor, which would read as more iconic if the technique were more down pat. The overhanging branches make for a nice canopy and add a sense of protectiveness or a bit of a shield from that outside world which seems unable to enter this walkway.

Focus is one of those things that can often be overrated. It is important when it is but its absence can take an image to other places when used effectively--alla Sarah Moon for example.

I agree that this image is a pretty ordinary scene but that it does have a "something" about it that is also pretty nice (not the toning, however).

Having had two golden retrievers--which are some of the most independently minded dogs--I relate to this scene and I think the less than extraordinary setting and nonchalance of the second dog pulls the image back from where it might have gone. (I realize these aren't Goldens)

The magenta appears more to be a vignette gone wrong as it wrap around the outside like a "containment" procedure (edge burn) would. This can often happen if one is working a b/w image in rgb and works above a neutralizing layer.

I tend to ignore titles, but I think this one portends what might have been if the setting was a bit more mysterious. Right now, "the unexpected" seems only the when he will need to pull out his doggy waste bag.

That said, I still find the image interesting, but maybe just because the treatment (blur) is so unexpected for such an ordinary event.

Good point, John. Focus can certainly be overrated and I agree that it often is. It all depends on the context. In this picture, I think the motion blur is effective and the lack of focus elsewhere is problematic, which doesn't translate, of course, to a general rule but rather a specific observation about this photo.

Fred, and that's the wonderful thing about all of this. For me, the overall lack of sharpness is what helps this. I think it gives it more of a sense of immediacy rather than being more staid. It has its problems either way, but for me these things end up helping it.

I actually look through Marta's images a few days back and actually look at this particular image since I was wondering what's it's about. Just like some folks had mentioned, it's not your usual photograph ... it's seems to have motion blur, the tittle suggested the main player is the dog (that looks at something) was my take at the time (now I am not sure). There is a mood to the image the way it's presented and that's what rouses up some emotion is what I think it is.

Photo on an old paper, processed in exhausted solutions and not rinsed properly is not impressive. So is a dog without a head. Eye cannot rest on anything which is sharp. Christian Andersen would say that the king is naked.

Interesting, this works for me - the off vertical, the blur and motion, the composition, even the miscoloring towards the bottom reminding me of my old days of dark room processing errors. Kind of antique and beautiful.

Fascinating week, IMO. There's a divide between those who think the "stains" and lack of focus are simply a matter of mistake and others who at least think these things are expressive gestures. Not something that will be or even needs to be resolved or agreed upon. This kind of disagreement can be instructive. Heck, even if the photographer said they were mistakes, if these things struck me positively as a viewer I might still consider them happy accidents and still think they make this a better photo than if it were more "straight." Others will say it's just a matter of learning to refine how to tone a photo and get a better handle on focusing. Technique is a tool and it can go either way.

It may show the progression the medium of photography has made that these things are currently even questions, for I suspect it has to do with a general trend in picture-making toward not making picture-perfect (tack sharp and perfectly rendered) photos. A more raw, unpolished look is nowadays pretty acceptable and even desirable. And I'm all for it. I like raw and non-traditional aesthetics, and I like expressiveness that defies tradition and technical restrictions. And yet, still, these things in this photo strike me as mistakes, plain and simple. They may have been intentional, but they still look and feel like mistakes to me. It would be interesting, though not ultimately conclusive IMO, to hear what the photographer had in mind and if these were intentional decisions, happy accidents, or simple mistakes, though as I said that still might not (and shouldn't necessarily) change people's minds about whether or not they work to help this photo.

One tough issue this brings up is how much we might use a contemporary trend toward a raw look as an excuse not to develop our technical skills, and I'm NOT saying that's the case here, because as I look through Marta's portfolio, regardless of my aesthetic sympathies with her work, I see a degree of technical proficiency that tells me she knows more than the basics of photography. As a matter of fact, this photo stands out in her portfolio as having that more unkempt quality and it's hard to imagine why she'd post this if it was a matter of simple mistakes and maybe, in fact, she was being expressive in her decision-making. That doesn't make it work any better in my eyes.

As John and I were saying, there's no general rule about focus or, for that matter, about blotchiness. Anything can be used to advantage. It's a matter of balancing personal initiative and creative decision-making with the ability to continue to refine our work and mature as creative photographers. And what can be done in one instance to be expressive might fail in another instance, for a variety of contextual reasons. I don't think we need to reach a solid conclusion here, as much as pay attention within our own work to the balances and degrees of technical machinations for expressive purposes, honoring our own subjective visions while also stepping back from these decisions enough to really get a handle on them.

Interesting dicussion, In my point of view if the man was focused 'the rest of composition with the other blured area 'was adding a lot .

Two things I like here 'the area itself, and the every day feeling the composition is showing to the viewer.