cinnamon

I love this! Texture of the cinnamon makes it stand out from the background. Surrounding background "texture" seems to frame the subjects.

 

Alvin

"I'd say carey evens has presented the photo exactly as intended. " Walter Hawn

 

I only wish I could be so accurate in my own work. I can hardly think of a single image I've ever created that I haven't had some misgivings for here or there.

Will hopefully find the time to read the thread later, but at first sight, well... I'm tempted to say, that in my view, less can sometimes be... just less... In short, and although this picture is well taken, it doesn't say a thing to me... Is it nice to look at ? Well, it is indeed very subtle, but subtlety without a clear and/or interesting message leaves me very, very cold - in general, and here specifically...

I think this is an excellent choice for the POW. Can less really be more?

I think so, and the selection and presentation of these particular sticks of cinnamon creates a effective compostion; no weaker for its simplicity.

 

I like Doug's version for the isolation it gives to the sticks, and the improved tones, but I also like the "canvas like" background that one poster mentioned. Maybe a compromise somewhere between the two would work?

 

Cheers - Josh

There is a vocabulary of visual analysis, wherein a viewer could describe the image in objective terms. Instead we have a lot of "I think it's good," "I think it's bad," nondescriptive comment. Nondescriptive comments are opinion not analysis, and are counter-productive when trying to come to terms with an image. And, it's a highly-diluted opinion at that, because well-meaning viewers with no talent have as much to say as ones with very good seeing.

I think what makes this portrait-like is the lighting and minimalist approach. To try to see the cinnamon sticks as "characters" is a natural extension of this, but to me the sticks don't have enough character to warrant this. In order to personify an animate object, it has to have some distinctive features that suggest human-like qualities, or even animal-like. More than one of them being short, that is.

Some of this discussion about the technical qualities of this photo remind me of discussions of literature where the subjective response to a piece is theorized into meaninglessness. Of course, other theories would say that there is no possible objective analysis because we?re all caught in our own various perceptions. What one might consider ?analysis? may, to another, be meaningless jargon and pointless minutiae. I have never understood what is wrong with the subjective reaction?simply liking.

Is there any real difference between what I or what the other untrained viewer thinks is important or what someone who has been taught what is supposed to be important? The whims of the academe are likely to change just as popular cultural tastes and trends. Sometimes, it gets too easy to flip the primacy of theory/analysis and the piece which is being analyzed. I?m not immune to this ?error??I?ve had my pet theories in literary criticism (in fact, I?m in the midst of creating one as I write this).

Of course, it?s completely fair to say, ?I don?t like this and here, within my bag of technical, analytical, and theoretical wizardry, I have the language to tell you why.? It is a referent to which it is possible to look and understand. I, however, and probably other amateurs, aren?t familiar with the formal aesthetics of photography. I can look at something, enjoy it, and reach into my store-bought tool box (no bag of wizardry) and pull out a box-head wrench (and maybe a cheater bar) and try to work in the same garage as a bunch of mechanics using impact and torque wrenches (wow, this metaphor is wandering)?what I?m saying is that my analytical work is slower and less precise. I have to start with ?I like this?? and then work from there.

I think that I may have been a little slow and imprecise in what I said in my first post. Yes, I like this. I?ve discussed how I see character in these simple sticks. I see them doing something, I see a scene that was captured. In my ?theory,? once something is captured in a photograph, it becomes just as dead and lifeless (in an absolute sense) as anything else. A photo of a child running after a ball is just as dead and still as, say, a photo of a bunch of sticks. The life, motion, and emotion are all implied by the way that light fell on the CCD, CMOS, film, leaf, or whatever medium the photographer chose for that particular moment. Ultimately, that?s what we have, an electronic or chemical reaction on a CRT or paper?there is nothing alive, there is no personality, there is nothing there. Every photo is a Rorschach test onto which we project ?life? and ?character? and ?The Story? that we ?see.? It is ultimately impossible to divine the photographers intent?possibly even for the photographer her-/himself. It could be a bunch of post-hoc rationalizations that follow the same immediate impulse that I, the untrained viewer, have when I see, say, a bunch of sticks. ?Nice scene! .?

I find that I happen to like many of the attributes that others are using as points of negative criticism. I like the gritty, rough back ground. I like the seam in the wall. It give it a sense of place, which, while generic, has its own ?personality? that makes the sticks seem all the more ?real? because I get the feeling that they?re ?somewhere.? Personally, I don?t enjoy the smoothed background because it removes that touch of reality and ?presence? that the wall, the crease, and the floor add.

Yes, I understand that the way that the rear wall is blown out is probably technically ?bad.? Would anyone want this in a normal family portrait (especially if it were in color)? Probably not. Is the gritty wall or the harsh line created where it meets the floor technically ?good?? From what I?ve learned here on PN and in other places, no, probably not. Would a ?perfect? photo of sticks grabbed my attention and imagination as much as this one has? No, probably not. Yet, this image has more life, more character, and more of a story than many ?real? family portraits that I have seen cranked out of places like Sears. A group of people grinning dumbly and with no apparent sense of why they?re sitting there, no implied motion, emotion, love, hate, or anything leaves me feeling empty. When people are posing for pictures, I like to squeeze my shots off while they?re getting ready, when they?re laughing, goofing off?

Hmm? I think I?ve gone on long enough and covered way too many points to be considered remotely coherent?I guess I?ll just close it with this: I used to feel bad for toys that were trapped in the toy box. :-)

Dear lord! I'm sorry for how long this is!

Ups - I have just learned that Carey is she and not he. My apologies...my english is not very good.

 

Juan

I thought about Irvin Penn when I saw this photo. But it didn?t take long to decide that this is nowhere near his style. He usually photographed his objects laying on the floor or a base, not standing up by a wall. To me this photo looks more reminiscent of a southwestern-scene where objects are usually placed in front of a plaster wall. I could almost picture Navaho pottery, a blanket and a kachina doll next to it. Also Penn?s photographs show a lot more texture (not around the subject, but on it, or from it if you may) and lighting range. Plus, he always arranged, or dropped ?residual? fragments from the objects next to them. This set up is much too sterile for my taste, almost sanitized,

Which is why I thought it necessary to keep the texture in the first place.

To the best of my recollection, this is my first post on Photo.net, and certainly my first POW post. To be honest, I seldom visit the POW, as most photos, while good, just haven't compelled me. However, at the first glance of this one, I clicked on it. My first thought was "Ikebana!" Not that this photo is a direct representation of the concept, but it certainly holds to what I consider to be the principles of it. I was fully expecting to see a discussion along these lines, and instead I find complaints about the high key tones, and the various "lackings" in the composition. However, I see in this photo balance. There is balance between the high key whites and high contrast with the subtle tones of the cinnamon sticks and textured wall, and yet again with the gentle shadows. balance between the roughness of the wall, and the smoothness of the "blown" out sections. There is the line at the bottom to balance the soaring, tall sticks, and the short stick in the middle to bring a bit of tension to an otherwise static display. The whole harmonizes rather nicely and aesthetically.

 

I can understand how it wouldn't be everybody's cup of tea, but I certainly found it compelling enough to click on it. And I was kind of disappointed that the similarities between it and Ikebana have not already been mentioned. In any case, it has been an interesting discussion, and I'm a bit late to the party. Sorry if I've upset the "balance" of the discussion. ;-)

 

-- Jon Glass

I was not sure how I felt about this image at first so I wanted to view it a few times. The thumbnail I glanced at did not do much for me, other than make me think they picked a very different type of art this time to consider. After seeing it larger, I first thought I did not like the 'blown-out highlights' on the wall around the subjects, which I first took as logs placed up in a gallery/museum wall as a piece of 'modern art'. (My wife new it was cinn. immediately- must be the cook in her).

 

Anyway, after seeing Doug's nice presentation and explanation to G about the highlight readings, and the 'new and improved' rendition, I started to think I did not mind the lighter areas after all.

 

As artists, we all have so many options, which camera, film, angle, lighting, and with still lifes- arrangements, etc., that you have to take all these variables in when studying/appreciating a piece of art. Is it too cluttered, too minimal or somewhere in between? Also, how's the balance, technical ability, etc.?

 

Amazing at how long you can study this one also, don't you folks think? From the line where the base contacts the background, to those very subtle shadows behind the subjects, and those directly below it. And the white areas actually become part of moving the eye around the scene, called an 'element', which, I think, eventually makes the piece more interesting. That in turn makes it more successful, as I would define it, as I say the longer one looks at the image the more successful it is. Doug shows why it's more successful, as it's not as interesting with the even background- (disproving my theory that it would help too, by the way- thanks Doug for your hard work.)

 

I now appreciate her piece much more. Not because of any comments, but because of it's own balance, tonal range, minimalistic subject arrangement and textures, to mention a few things. Blessings to all and keep up the good working critiquing/thinking about all of these subjects, we all improve/expand our thinking because of it. And Jon Glass, welcome and don't be a stranger, your input was relative and timely. MS

Carey, I know what you are going for, but I don't think the lighting or the background was up to snuff to accentuate the subject...keep on shooting....

I don't think photography is that easy...stack a few sticks of cinnamon up against a background and shoot. But that's not to say it isn't art or original or critical or absolute. What do I know. Andy Warhol created an icon with a can of soup and Pollock a few splatters, actually a lot of splatters, of paint and the result is a masterpiece. But, as stated above, I don't think photography is that easy. In some respects, it demands more vision than painting because one must get beyond the skillful representation or the abstract image. In my mind, this doesn't bridge that artistic gap...what we have in the end are a few sticks, questionable lighting and the perfuntory photo.net glowing reviews.

This is a wonderful photo. This is exactly the kind of photography that I'm most impressed with. Strange thing to say I suppose but if you look very deep, stare and stare, you'll see what I'm trying to articulate. The kind of photo that gets the viewer thinking about a theme or subject in their own way. The feeling that the picture is supposed to convey becomes different for everyone, making it as diverse as snowflakes. The photos that stand up and scream (or sit down and whisper) "This is why I'm here, isn't it obvious?!" are the kind that usually do not let the people achieve a level of creativity in order to conjure their own unique interpretations. In this way, "cinnamon" is a magnificent photo. Carey throws an extra twist in here by calling it a portrait, which initiates the viewers' creative process. That's why I'm impressed. Of course it's just nice to look at too.

This piece is worth thousands of the photos that want to be scenic postcards, fashion magazine pages, or slick magazine ads that are so plentiful on this and other photo sites.

 

This shot feels fresh and candid (though I'm not sure I would have used that word if I hadn't read the photographer's comment), probably due to the roughness of the textures. Another phrase that comes to mind is wabi-sabi.

 

A lesser photographer (like me!) would have tried to make this advertisement-slick by using a seamless paper background, but the more I look at this, the more I like it. The horizontal line of the wall/floor seam works as part of the composition.

 

This reminds me of listening to an accomplished blues guitarist who can say volumes with only a few notes.

 

Great stuff.

Doug wrote: "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."

 

I agree with that. But... after reading this thread, it occurred to me:

 

1) that the discussion was very interesting (which seems to demonstrate once again that controversial images as POWs always generate the best discussions);

 

2) that we may all indeed "truly react" to this image partly because there is nothing clear enough in it, so our minds are immediately at work trying to project something... (This is in turn very interesting imo, because it shows exactly what minimalism is all about: showing less in order to let the mind do the rest, i.e imagination plays a major role.)

 

Side-note: A quote I like a lot by German Philosopher F. Nietzsche: "When folks can't see the bottom of the sea, they call it deep." To me, minimalism often ends up with jaw-dropping comments, precisely because the viewer feels his mind falling in some sort of abyssal spiral that leads to deeper meanings and such. Although I might occasionnally like to be taken "for a ride" of this sort myself, I'd say that it takes a lot for me to jump in the submarine... Here, I rather see "yet another attempt" (sorry) at embarquing folks on a water-less sea. And what may seem deep to others seems to have as much content in itself as my imagination can produce - no more no less. Which is a way of saying: this picture is nothing much in itself - although it is pretty well carried out -, and may indeed become much more once it starts floating, and then sinking) on the sea of someone's imagination.

 

3) that Doug's "smoother" version was, while technically more "profiscient", lacking something too. After thinking a little more, I realized the word "subtle" had been used differently by different people in this thread.

 

To me, what's subtle about Carey's image is precisely that she discarded the "conventionnal" smooth version that "Z B&W book" would suggest. Why did she do so ? Imo, the POW presents cinnamon almost "floating in the air"; the abstract quality of the POW is in other words stronger than any more "correct" version imo, although I do believe that there would be an ideal print somewhere in between Doug's version and the actual POW.

Ilan, the question was referring to the characterization of the sticks into members of a family, as originally suggested in the comment by Thomas Dunkerly: 'Dad, Mom, Sis, and Uncle Bob'.

"I do believe that there would be an ideal print somewhere in between Doug's version and the actual POW." Marc G (and others)

 

I agree. I wasn't trying to say the image I posted was a better one, just trying to illustrate the properties of a subtle gradation, which was more a response to comments in the thread, rather than criticism of Carey's image, although I'll allow it to be applied to both. As mentioned before, several of Carey's other images suggest she is able to grade a background if she wanted to, so I see this treatment as an aesthetic choice, however, I, myself, don't usually care for an aesthetic that wastes tonal opportunity. Most of the time, blown highlights are hallmarks of inexperience, or ineptitude, but I think we have to give Carey the benefit of doubt based on some of her other work.

No offense, Doug, but I think your septic treatment of the background kills this image. However it also underscores why several here don't care for this week's POW: in contrast to your perfectly smooth gradation the boring nature of the subject matter really stands out. In the Elves' statement the term 'portrait' was used. The photographer's treatment of the background should always compliment the characteristics of the portrait's subject, not detract from it. This photographer has achieved that.

 

If I was a client and wanted a photo of cinnamon this one would make me very happy. And I'm a hard person to please. As a matter of fact I don't think I have seen a better photo of cinnamon anywhere, ever.

 

In terms of the POW process, it really is a difficult call because even though there are a lot of very good photos here at PN, there are very few truly great photos. And the best photos of all usually tend to have little technical merit. So to produce a new choice every week is a compromise in a no win situation. IMHO I think this week POW choice is one of the better ones in a while.

No offense taken, Dave. I don't think what I posted is better than Carey's either, as it has its own set of problems, as you've suggested. I believe the ideal lies somewhere between what I posted, and what Carey posted. I was addressing Gradation as an issue, defining the term, as it were.

 

What do you mean by this, though: "the best photos of all usually tend to have little technical merit." ?

What I find so interesting about this picture and about the discussion

surrounding it is that it's emblematic of a mentality all of us cultivate here on

photo.net. On the one hand, there's the highly amateurish tendency to over-

criticize work based on textbook standards of photography, technical

standards that can often have little to do with uniqueness of vision, and there

tends to be no willingness whatsoever to encourage somebody's creative

risks or to lend somebody the benefit of the doubt in the development of his or

her vision. This problem tends to create inhibition because before

encouraging people to follow a visual interest, it creates in people an

overwhelming preoccupation with the technical. On the other hand, because

Evans is a respected photographer with an interesting portfolio and

creditable, published (and interesting, I might add) editorial work, a shot like

this is lent credence that it may not have been lent had it been posted by

somebody without Evans' professional credit (and I don't mean to infer by this

that I think it isn't good work; I think it's interesting work, not my particular

"thing," but something I nevertheless respect). I'd like to see more critical

bantering on photo.net that helps people go further in what they're attempting,

not necessarily eliminating or overlooking technical problems, but with the

sense of fostering a community that cultivates creativity and doesn't

discourage it with a kind of overly demanding finickiness that doesn't come

from the interest in helping somebody but from personal bitterness or simply

professional arrogance. I'm happy to post on a site next to somebody like this

(Evans) who's an actual working editorial photographer. Although I don't

shoot work like hers, I can learn a lot from this, which I believe is the purpose

of this site. (It's also heartening to know that, like with this particular shot,

simply because my stuff may get trashed here by some, this judgment doesn't

have to be definitive.)

It is a great still-life.... Beauty by simplicity

 

New comer

I like the play on proportion and scale here very much, a nice minimalist effect. I would like to see a little more detail on the cinnamon and less hightlighted areas maybe.The texture on the backgrounds for both of these is wonderful. You have some beautiful portraits/work, thanks for sharing it.

Hmmmm well, i like doug's gradation in terms of lighting but it does lose the texture of the wall which I think is important in such a minimalist composition. Some have said the loss of texture in the original is from the scanning, but if you look at the folder, it appears to be similar in a couple using similar lighting. Some have said there's no blown highlights and that's my main disagreement. The fact that you can't see texture in the "high key" background, tends to mean that the texture was blown out. This is very probably his/her creative choice, but if so, I think it diminishes the photo. I'm not saying its an easy task, I just think it makes a big difference here. Overall? Its ok, doesn't really do anything for me, but that's just me.

Hi Doug

 

To answer your question, being somewhat pressed for time, I'll simply refer you to Dino's post. He said it better than I ever could.

 

P.S. I'm not being dismissive about technical merit or even textbook standards, I just feel in those very rare instances of true greatness, such matters become secondary, or of no concern at all.

 

Best Regards