cinnamon

OH my gosh, the elves actually chose a shot that wasn't in the TRP last week or already had a 6.3 average!!!!! They actually looked and gave us an image that has room for discussion!!!!

 

With that said. This image doesn't do much for me. What I love about the selection of this image is that I couldn't care less about the technicals but care purely on the feeling this image gives me. Which just happens to be almost none. I look at it and I see sticks. Pure and simple. But that's cool, I do think it will touch the strings of others and should generate some really interesting conversation.

 

Nice going elves!!!! And Carey congrats on the POW.

I am not sure how much character this portrait conveys. If the right most cinnamon was shorter, probably it would have indicated a family of four. Or is that particular Cinnamon a rebel trying to turn away from the group? Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is, this photograph is really very imaginative. I appreciate Carey for bringing out a simple but effective photograph out of a common household item. It is the creativity that is to be appreciated here, not the technicality. Well done Carey!

Aw Dave, you surprise me. :-) Just sticks? what kind? straight or curved? What kind of bark? oops, it's not wood. . .

 

So that's level one. . . . .

 

Level two is the symbolic interpretation that so many see (although we don't know how many are 'me too' posts, including mine.) Someone suggested that there should be one lying on the floor . . and that would remind me even more of just the kind of thing you'd think up.

 

So seriously . . . . how is this different from your setups?

G, perhaps I'm being too strict in my concept of gradation, but here's how I came to my opinion:

The diagram shows areas of identical pixel values. The first picture is the original, included so it's easy to reference. The second shows the mass of pixels where the RGB values are 250, and 249, and 248, in other words, the mass of pixels that experience a 3 pixel gradient. The third shows the mass of pixels from 245 through 250, and the fourth the mass from 240 to 250. My argument states that there is a significant area where the highlight values are essentially indistinguishable from one another, at least as far as the eyeball is concerned, and the gradation is therefore abrupt. The histogram between the first and second diagrams is from the original and shows an strong increase into the higher pixel values.

I repeast that I like the shot in all respects except for the scrinting, and that I don't know if the photographer intended to make it contrasty on purpose, maybe because he just likes it that way, which is fine, but this is what I would consider a subtle gradation.

"So seriously . . . . how is this different from your setups?"

 

Carl, usually there is an underlying theme in my images. At least I try to have it that way. There is never just a cell phone laying there, or a gun by itself. There are usually a couple players and the shot is rarely about them. I try to tell a story with it. I don't always succeed, but I try.

 

I just see a still life. So it leaves a question. Was it intended to be a shot of cinnamon sticks or something greater? Are some here just romanticising a larging meaning or are others down playing its true meaning? I would love to hear from the photographer but seeing they have made one comment in a year here, I don't know if we will...

After seeing the more subtle gradation by Doug Burgess I find the original version quite amateurish, or al least not very carefully done. I did not know why I was not very happy with this POW when I saw it; the idea was interesting, suggestive, I saw the lack of shadows as a plus, the minimalist approach is very pleasant, but I felt that something was missing. Doug?s contribution clarified for me the point, not only the gradation proposed by him makes it even more subtle and delicate, more suggestive but makes disappear the ugly texture of the wall behind, that does not fit with the sticks. I think that this is a very interesting POW, as I said a great idea that shows Carey's great sensibility.

To me a 3-pixel gradiation is subtle! But then you are also accounting for the size of area each band covers, which I am not. And which I fail to see the relevance of. I think I'll join Paulo and go back to school! Out of interest, Doug [bearing in mind I am rubbish at maths and calculations, and the logic of] wouldn't the pixel gradiation of your 'subtle' post be the same 3-pixel, but with blurrier edges? It seems then, that I am refering to the minimal number of steps between the tonal range as 'subtle', whilst you seem to be referring to smooth gradiation, where the steps bleed more gently over a greater surface area.

Word interpretations... ugh. Thanks for elaborating and explaining Doug. :)

BTW about Carey, I am pretty sure she is a female photographer.

I don't know--I like the tones in Doug's version, but it's also lost all the texture in the background of the original, which has a pleasing, canvas-like feel to it. I think I'd have to go with the original, messier version. Congrats on POW, Carey.

Dave, the only difference I see between some of your images and this one is that we aren't sure about the photographer's intentions. You put titles on yours, to help us along perhaps, but I often read your images differently than you intend. Sometimes leaving things open ended is a good idea.

Doug illustrates a problem he sees, nicely. I took a slightly different approach (DISCLAIMER: No offence intended to the photographer, his/her friends and admirers. I am just trying to learn something from this example.).

 

I put some cinnamon sticks (approximately 1/3 the height, I think, of Carey's cinnamon sticks) together and tried some shots. Here is one example. Diffused light from a flash. Camera: D70. Lens: S-Planar 60/4. Hue and saturation were adjusted.

I have a feeling that the flaw Doug has pointed out is the result of scanning. The background texture is very important in this shot, and to lose the texture over that broad a surface would be too bad. I'm betting there is more there there in the print.

 

For me, this shot is a wonderful exploration of texture more than anything else. Yes, I read a few stories (or perhaps better, analogies) into the arrangement and sizes (that's one cute little cinnamon stick there), but they are just fleeting bits of imagination, and then it all comes back to texture.

That's right, G. I'm talking about the distance taken by the 3 pixel variance. In diagram 2 you can see that it takes nearly half the distance from the center of the photograph to the right edge to pass through those three pixel values. A subtle gradation would, seems to me, be much smooher, passing through more values in less space.

On the other hand, if the gradation went from 250 to 240 all the way across, it would be different altogether, but it doesn't do that.

Other images in Carey Evan's folder show a higher degree of finese in this regard, except for a similar image titled Chinese Lanterns, which lends some support to the idea that this was an aesthetic decision, rather than a lack of judgement or skill.

ROTHFMAO I dont know about the others here but I think cinnoamn tastes great and I want to have some now. The picture makes me think of cinnamon. Good job cary evans!

This comment is not directed to any one in particular, but more so, to an issue.

I fail to understand the tendency of some to find ?human? similitude in a still photograph. Not knocking anyone down, but I for one look at form when seeing a still. If not form, then light, shadow, mood, message. If none of the above then I just simply move on. I doubt pasting a human story on a still photo will breathe life into it. It escapes me. Even it we see, or instill, humanity in it, does that make it special in anyway? Is that the sought end of such a frame? In fact wouldn?t that make it kind of caricature-ish? And how exactly is that any better? To me still life is a serious business. Granted, Weston?s clich餠pepper had human form, but it appealed to people mostly because of its nude connotation?and we all know how and why people respond to nudes. But find me a still photo of any object that symbolizes human behavior, or appearance, and I?ll show you a parody, not a great still life.

I have to agree that Doug's smoother 'gradation' is actually a 'degradation'. This is why many still-life shots are taken in front of stucco walls.

Also thanks to Vivek's example, we can see that texture plays a major role in this type of photog.

This looks like a good idea very poorly executed, though I am not sure this should be a photographic work to begin with. I think a better presentation would have been to mount the cinnamon sticks in a shadow box and hang that on the wall similar to a pressed flower display. Quality issues aside, it does remind me of stock art used to simulate how the photo of your choice would appear in an inexpensive picture frame from a discount store but I think that has been mentioned already.

I am disturbed the most by the strong crease or line that the sticks appear to be sitting on. The background looks like a piece of dirty old paper towel from a gas station restroom. As others have mentioned, the background detail (or lack of) leaves a lot to be desired.

I think the previously mentioned idea of the anthromorphism of sticks should probably include a trite title such as, The family that plays together sticks together. You could sell a lot of calendars and posters that way. The little family of sticks concept reminds me of cartoon humor, specifically Calvin and Hobbs where Calvin creates a car verses pedestrian accident using snowmen (with sticks for arms). One snowman lays injured in front of a car while the other horrified snowmen (and women) look on in shock.

Careys strongest skills appear to be in the people portrait venue but I guess it is never any fun talking about persons strong qualities. If this is a portrait of cinnamon then it appears to be a group portrait. If the subject(s) are elevated to character status it is to a low altitude and a very brief trip. For some reason this reminded me very much of Walker Evans preoccupation with collecting and arranging little bits of discarded trash such as the removable tabs from soda cans (does anyone still remember those). In other words, it almost has a found rather than arranged quality and makes me wonder how much time was invested in the actual process of creation.

I think the Doug Burgess rendering is much more sensuous but fails to convey that upset stomach at a truck-stop feeling that I get from the original. I am not so sure it was an improvement but thanks for playing. I will now make an end to my rambling piffle.

Isidro and Dave, I agree this is primarily a still life, more a study in my eyes [and particularly as Carey says it's a portrait]. Any personification of inanimate subjects are really projection on the part of the viewer, and although it might make viewing more enjoyable it is not that which makes the photo.

 

Doug, I also believe the light gradiation was an aesthetic decision. The link you sent us to does seem to support that, and I love that photo too. The detail is exquisite imo.

 

Regarding the texture of the background, I really find this an attractive feature of the photo, and the smooth bgrd samples posted just don't do it for me.

Vivek, your cinnamon sticks look like badly rolled cigars!! :)

Scott Eaton had a very valid point but it is hard to tell with all the smoke that is being blown around.

hereand hereand again here

Apparently the same background, and high contrast treatment. Perhaps the cinnamon and the chinese lanterns are part of the cowboy series?

I made this my desktop. Thanks!!!

I'd say carey evens has presented the photo exactly as intended. I see no improvement in the 'smooth gradation' example presented. It has neither the visual appeal, nor elliot's 'shock of recognition,' of the original. I'm not certain that it is 'art,' but it certainly is craft of the highest and most intentional order. If cary evens made 'mistakes' in this image, I think they were made with full attention and sensibility.

G.,

 

While I was busy setting up this shoot, Dough had done a great job with PS to demonstrate what seems to be the problem.

 

Still the question that remains (for me, atleast) is how get, say, a ridged backround and the subjects with no shadows, sharp and without blowing out highlights. I thought of a few possibilities. Will try it out later.

 

As I said, this was only intended as an exercise to portray a similar subject in a different lighting. Burnt cigars or yummy cinnamon sticks does not matter. Perhaps, I will try it with match sticks.

 

Vivek.

To me the fact this image means so different things to different people is a proof Carey has succeed. Aaron Siskind's images show how ordinary things when isolated (i.e. wall graffiti or posters) gets new meanings and this seems to be the case here. While one sees a family, another one is thinking in terms of light gradation...We are truly reacting to this image.

 

When I first see this photo it reminded me one of my most appreciated photographers, Irving Penn, and his 1972 cigarette butts. For those images, Penn choose a 5x7 camera and the detailed studio negatives were printed (not by himself) as high size platinum prints (near 1 meter long). That was a technical tour de force intended to shock the viewer with detail and gradation, but also with the strong impact of putting out of context something as usual as cigarette butts. In his last photos, that could be seen at the Philadelphia Museum of Art until last nov. 28, he even shows discarded chewing gum on the sidewalks of New York City. Is out of question this is art, but only because is the artist who turns this into an art masterpiece.

 

The Carey image deserves to me the POW, technical considerations taken apart (I have found a 253-255 bright areas at x=407px, y=620px, that yes,I find too white). Being myself a print oriented photographer, I am not sure if digital rendering can show all the subtleties of this photo, but I am sure Carey is wanting to state this tonal quality, taking into account the big images he is sending to PN.