cinnamon

I'm not sure more detail in the cinnamon would be a good thing -- there is a lot of detail in the lower half, less as you move up the photograph, and I think this helps focus us on the incongruous little one.

 

So who is the third adult? Is that Aunt Sue out with Mom, Dad and Jr. Cinnamon Stick?

1. I like this picture. I like the simplicity, tone and arrangement etc etc 2. I think the most important aspect of the background is the line created where back wall meets base3. Being finnicky, I'd like that line to be truly horizontal 4. I am aroused by what Dino had to say, because (inter alia)

5. It takes me back to what I said at 3.

Thanks Dave, thanks Phil (but I can't find what you said at 3).

I think you're right it does focus on the little one. I just wish I could feel the texture of the cinnamon a little more, feel I can't quite do that. Maybe changing the lighter areas would help to do that.

I too found Dino D'Agata's post quite inspiring... Let's not let it fade... I just copied it and opened a thread in the philosophy forum about it. Here's the link:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00ANi7

Some people like arranging simple objects, photographing them in simple light, and creating a simple but effective result, akin to postcards one finds on arty postcards. That's cool. It doesn't make it slightly interesting for me. What is more interesting to me is how anal so many 'photographers' are analysing the tonal qualities of such images, and how much time they spend in discussion regarding the technical aspects of photography, as well as the formal properties of photos. This image is, what, simple and effective. But that doesn't make it especially interesting. You might say, ah but you're only interested in documentary or whatever. You might be right. But that isn't the end of the debate here, which is really about the values of photography, not really about this or that image. Many amateur (and professional) photographers seem to rely on technicality to produce interesting images, and lack spirit, or one might say 'soul'. Photography is not just writing, or drawing with light, it is a moment stolen from a dynamic relation between the photographer and the photographed. Where there is no tension or energy in the image, the photography is just a bland attempt at presenting, or representing. I am interested in having a proper thrashing out of this as an issue if anyone would care to join. Not sure where on this site this may be facilitated.

Very Irving Penn'ish. I don't feel it stands on it's own, but as a series on the wall could be nice.

I really like the composition and tones. This is a very nice abstract image which shows, for me, lightness and personality.

My contributions to photo.net have been practically non-existant the past year or so...

 

... but Dino's comment is perhaps the most inspired I have ever read on this site, and thus has inspired me to write. Very well said Dino.

Thanks, Nick.

I think it's been a while since a POW has gotten such a cold response. While it may not be at the level of some previous POWs, I still enjoy looking at it. Yes, as someone mentioned earlier, the non-horizontal bottom line is a little distracting, but who says everything has to be at perfect right angles? I would have been proud to have taken the shot. I think the ratings so far have been fair - it's "good" both aesthetically and in originality. No more, no less, in my opinion.

My opinion; weak; water in a wine jug.

What separates a great artist/ photographer from the herd is an original idea, a brilliant vision and an unwavering will.

In this photograph the idea is good, the vision is mediocre and the will is lacking.

The great artist uses the medium; not let the medium overwhelm the artist. You can't let the lens and film alone to take care of the "problem". You must impose yourself in your art to create works that are worthy. Remember: "negative" space is as important as "positive" space. An analogy: In music, the space between the notes is as important as the notes themselves.

Study Imogen Cunningham for the the tone/form; Blosfeldt for texture and Weston for the overall feel.

.

hmmmm,I rarely ever contribute to the discussion of POW but this one has brought some

intersting points. First and foremost, the image is lacking any REAL content. It has been

noted that it is the simplicity of the three sticks that is so intriguing. I say, "SO WHAT"

 

Is this supposed to be a toned black and

white image? Is this a color image? It looks a muddled mess to me. There is no definitive

tonality in the image itself. The contrast is such because of poor metering and nothing

more. the composition looks to be a terrible interpretation of the rule of thirds.

 

If the three sticks were butted up against the left side of the frame it would def. make a

more dramatic impact and would help to at least lead the viewer somewhat through the

image. The way it stands now, it just feels lost to me.

 

I don't think the subjects are elevated to character status, they read to me as three sticks

propped up on a back drop. There are no human characteristics to them, there is no

ethereal quality juxtaposed, there just isn;t anything in the image that captivates me.

 

I do applaud the artist for trying, and thats all we can really do, but my negativity is not

directed at the artist as much as it is the judges for choosing this.

 

please put the original picture next to your 'improved' version and compare them. Does 'stripped of its identity' ring a bell?

 

Blown out highlights? Who cares? Am I an 'image engineer' whose pride and joy are testcharts with their hillarious greyscales and deeply philosophical line tests? In this picture the background focuses the viewers attention to the sticks while retaining some interesting properties, like the impression, that the family of cinnamon sticks actually lean to a wall.

 

The only technical thing for me to criticize about this picture could be the lower left corner, the point is for some reason brighter than expected from comparing them to the other corners and general impression. But even then - it could very well be intended, since it makes the whole image more 'alive' and opens it up. So even this technicality depends on its intention.

 

Actually, I don't like this picture of the week much. Yes, neat, nice, pretty. My mum would probably hang such a picture on her wall or find something like this in an expensive art calendar (and that is a lot of praise, indeed ;-)) in her kitchen but - I wouldn't.

About the term portrait. Maybe its just me, but I expect to see the spark of a soul behind the face - well, at least, that is what I personally strife for in my pictures. Yes, you can interpret a lot, like 'Uncle Bob being distracted', but in the end, its still a... still. Probably it would be better to name it as what it is and then have people say "Oh, look, they are just like a family". Its just more subtle and that would suit the image.

 

Best regards,

 

Matthias

 

 

P.S.: Doug, take one look at your interpretation and tell me how you can support the 'standing upright, leaning to a wall' impression with those darkened upper parts.

Thanks, Matthais, for giving me the opportunity to clarify my position. I think I can answer your questions by copying segments from three of the nine posts I made, above:

 

Regarding what you call my " 'improved' version " I wrote: "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. "

 

At the bottom of my final illustration I wrote: ?this is what I would consider a subtle gradation.? Notice I did not write ?This is a better version,? or, ?I like this version better.?

 

In fact, I said, ?: ?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.?

 

I will restate my position in other words:

 

The images I posted in this thread address the issue of a subtle gradation, and that is their primary intention. They are not meant to improve the image per se, rather to point out the great difference between a "subtle gradation," (as I would define it) and what we are shown in this POW. I posted my illustrations because of comments before mine that indicated the POW had "subtle tones" and, "Nice shades," claims I continue to disagree with.

 

It would take skills far beyond mine to take an image with this much contrast and make an improved version, reason being, there is nothing to work with without altering the content of the image. In still other words: There were not enough pixels in Cary's original to illustrate a smooth gradation while at the same time preserving the mood, feel and flavor of the image. One more time: I couldn't squeeze blood out of a turnip, so what I had to do was create a gradient and paste it over Carey's image. This sacrificed the appearance of leaning on a wall, but since my goal was not to strictly reinterpret the image, I accepted the loss.

 

One last time: In order to illustrate the concept of subtle gradation, Carey?s image was used as a basis so the reader could better visualize the difference. I could have just as easily used blank squares with a white centers fading into dark edges, one fading smoothly, the other fading more quickly.

 

The only true way to maintain the spirit of Carey?s image with a truly subtle gradation would be work from a quality scan of the original film, or to shoot the identical scene and compare results.

 

My philosophy on contrast is that any beginner can slap a negative into an enlarger and make an image with blown highlights and pure black shadows (in fact, that?s what most of them do) but it takes skill and dedication to fully realize the complete range of grays available in photograph paper, or on a computer screen.. The experienced professional and the rank amateur alike could have shown us Carey?s image, but the amateur wouldn?t be aware of the extreme contrast, where as the professional would firstly know the difference between a high contrast rendition, and one of normal, or low contrast, and secondly, be able to affect whichever one suits his, or her, aesthetic choices over a given image. Fortunately, in Carey?s case, there are other images that shed light on the issue. They lead me to conclude that she had a particular aesthetic in mind, and used her skill to elevate the contrast properties of the image for a specific purpose.

 

It is not fair to judge the correctness of her choices, but we are, as individuals, and as photographers, allowed to question the result.

I continue to be intrigued by the varied responses, especially by the ones that find such strong language to describe it in negative terms. Doug, your comments also intrigue me as regards the "subtle" tonalities, etc. However, as I read the complaints, I know that there are differences in taste, etc. but I see in this photo, something that is seldom seen in photography.

 

Photography is, by nature, an art of subtraction. In other words, when painter paints, he must add in details as he goes. He starts with a blank canvas, and builds upon it. Photography is the opposite. As a photographer, I must decide what to leave out to make my photograph work.

 

This photograph is a study in minimal complexity. What I mean when I say that is that if you take out one more element from this photograph, it loses its composition completely, and becomes nothing. Take away the textured wall, and it doesn't look complete. Take away that line, and it looks empty. Remove just one stick of cinnamon, and it ceases to work. Take away the blown hilight, just to the right of the sticks, and the balance goes. Move the sticks a little to the left or right, and again, the balance falls apart. Everything is just as it needs to be--including, I believe, the "overblown" hilights. Those provide a balance--whether intentional or not, I do not know, but for me, if you tried to fix the blown hilights, the detail that would re-appear would distract from the rest of the scene. The balance would be gone. The minimal complexity would be gone. BTW, as to subtle tonalities, I see them, not in the blown hilights, but in the cinnamon themselves. (oops, I just realized I may have been spelling the word "cinnamon" wrong. Please forgive me... I think I combined the spelling of two languages!) It is the contrast between the two that, for me, make the image work.

 

I see in this photograph, an essential balance that teeters right on the fragile edge. It is this tension that makes it work, and strangely enough, also make it look so peaceful.

 

Maybe people think I'm crazy, and maybe I am, but I do enjoy this image. It's not the best I've seen, not by a long shot, but it represents a form of photography that is seldom attempted. I know that I could not achieve this level of simplicity (minimal complexity) and get away with it.

 

In fact, I think it would be a good challenge to ourselves--the detractors especially--to attempt to reproduce this level of minimalized complexity. Personally, I would enjoy seeing the results of other peoples' efforts. Not to criticize, but to enjoy and learn. I think it would be a good exercise in that essential element of photography--subtracting the non-essentials. In any case, it's easy to criticize, but something totally other to perform. While I could find things to criticize about this photo, I find it too compelling, and am humbled by the fact that this artist (which is what she must be) was able to do something I can only dream about doing at this moment. My hat is off to her and to all who can create works of this caliber. Let the critics wax verbulent (sic). I know good stuff when I see it, and _this_ is good stuff. :-)

Well said John Glass!

yes, very well said, John. You make a good point.

 

I'll probably regret this, but I'm posting another series for comparison. The top is Carey's original, resized to 350 pixel width. The bottom is the image I posted a while ago, which was used to illustrate the idea of a smooth gradation from white to grey. The middle image is an attempt to blend the the two, wherein I tried to retain the texture and some of the detail which give Carey's original so much flavor, while at the same time expanding the range of tones.

 

At this point, I'm not trying to say the middle image is better, although in some ways I prefer it to the original, but that I am still striving to close the gap between an image with a full tonal range, and one where the range has been compromised, for whatever reason.

 

I think at the base of my argument is the belief that the balance John Glass speaks of, and that others appreciate in the tones of Carey's original, can be achieved through more careful scrinting. It just seems to me that allowing the highlight values to wash out is a mark of expedience, rather than experience.

 

On the other hand, as John infers, the medium is open to a wide range of use, with personal style (hopefully) emerging from a thorough familiarity with the process. There's no law that says every image MUST have the full range of tones to be "good," so I'll concede my position as unwinable.

Maybe I should have made that bigger?

Not bigger Doug no [not as big as your shed please!], because the texture is lost in your suggestions/examples, and as the texture is an integral part of the image your results are not achieving anything more than Carey's original vision/execution. I realise you are only demonstrating your points, but you are ultimately isolating the sticks with this smooth bgrd, putting the sticks out on their own, rather than complimenting them in context of their surroundings - the wall. Your sticks have no 'home' with that smooth gradiation.

I understand what you are saying about the claims of subtle gradiation and I appreciate your efforts to improve a smoother rendition, but I do not understand why!! Aren't you overly concerned with the bgrd? And is this too much of a distraction for the photo? Because the subjects should be the sticks! The bgrd is there to complement and offset them, in all their texturedness. The steps of gradiation as they are, give a really a prominent heavenly glow emanating from the subjects. It's the age old 'halo effect'. But textured rather than smooth. I think this is what throws you.

I do love your input Doug. You have really made me think hard about this photo, and made me question what I saw as merits.

But at the end of it all, I also second Jon Glass.

...I'm old fashioned.

All of the technical discussion is indeed interesting. But, when all is said and done, the photographer has cast their lot with what he or she has choosen to publish as the final product. You can say all you want about "they should have done this or they should have done that" but in the end "what you see is what you get." And it is either, and you can take your choice here, "You can't make a silk purse out of a pig's ear," or "the message/intent is riveting, creative, evocative or whatever, I am touched by its representation." The bottom line, which I guess is the Photo.net Elf's point is..."Does this image, as it stand, as it was conceived and executed, speak to you?"

Doug,

 

I've just seen some images from your web site and I realize where your desire for tonal diversity has its roots or at least I've seen the symptoms. Pretty symptoms, tho. ;-)

Besides, my point still stands, even in your 'intermediate' illustration: Why should the 'heads' be in the shadows? That would detract from the impression of 'the family of cinamons leaning on a wall' and thus negate the intention to do a portrait, wouldn't it?

 

For some reason I thought you didn't like the background texture at all as you have ommitted it completely. I do realize you can't magic gone information back into the image, I really thought you'd enjoy the picture without any structured background at all. My mistake, sorry.

 

My final point is, I consider her work art and therfor wouldn't dare to try to teach her my opinions about her techniqe. Here, it's simply not possible to say: You've done this wrong, now do that and it will work. It already works! Maybe just not for you and me, but that doesn't make the image bad in any way.

 

You want an example of what I don't consider to be art? Be advised, you're in for a rough ride, not for the faint of heart: http://www.fotocross.de

 

Matthias

 

P.S.: Please excuse my apalling spelling, as english is not my native language

Perhaps I also owe Doug B an apology re the bgrd, as now the thread is getting longer I cannot find specific reference from him about the texturedness.

Doug it seems you are saying that the lack of using the full range of tones is what is bothering you most, and the point which you are trying to illustrate. So having lost the texture due to the technique of smoothing out the tones, and as Matthias points out you cannot replace, does that mean your ideal bgrd would contain all the tones say from your last [middle] sample, but with the texture maintained? If so, I'm sorry for misunderstanding.

Generally speaking, I am old fashioned about using the full tonal range too. But occasionally I think it suits to have bright whites. Not in the case of subjects where whites are blown where they ought to contain tone, for eg a snowy scene or white feathered bird, but perhaps where there is backlight or a deliberately high key approach.

They're symptons, Matthais. I'm hopelessly infected. I would stress myself into ulcers if I had to post Carey's image, which is why I had to conclude that she had a particular reason to post it.

 

Yes, G. that's right. If I could write with any clarity, I would have said that way up at the beginning and this conversation would have ended long ago.

 

I remember writing that I like everything about the shot, except the gradation of the highlights. I think the tones in the cinnamon are fine, the lighting, the composition, all are fine. Only the blown highlights were a problem for me

 

My first posting was meant to illustrate a gradation, but because of my limited PS skills, I lost the textures in the process. In the one I posted yesterday that I called "intermediate," I tried to merge a layer with the tones and a layer with the texture but again, my PS skills prevented me from fully expressing myself.