Children in Wales

This photograph is well-captured, it has a great mood and feeling. However, I find it a bit tonally unbalanced, distracting from the lines that lead to the children, and would probably dodge right hand street. That would give it a bit more strength in the all-important bottom.

 

Mr Richard Fedder pointed this out to me and I have some questions about these children in whales. How'd they get in there? Can they get out and are they OK? Is it like Jonah and the whale, can they see inside of the whale, are they getting enough to eat, I hope they aren't going hungry inside of that big nasty smelly whale, and ah what...nevermind.

Very nice shot. It has such an interesting angle that it really draws you into the frame. Well done.

Ian's portfolio struck me as a perfect example of how to make good pictorial use of empty space. Many of his photographs are not about the ostensible subject matter, but rather the environment they are part of... or (more accurately) the environment that Ian places them in, whether they know about it or not. He associates unrelated elements within many of his scenes and gives them a meaning in their new relationships that they did not originally have (or might not have been aware of).

 

The kids running here are a good example: how could these children possibly be aware of the scene around them (being short people). It is Ian who brought the backyards and the children - separated by high fences - together in such a charming way.

 

He does a lot of his work with wide angle or normal normal lenses, rarely telephotos. He stands back from his subject (again, in most cases) and includes the three dimensional scene around them in his two dimensional presentation. Much of the surrounding scenes are simple laneways, or fields, or sparsely furnished rooms... I think there is even an empty beach in the portfolio somewhere. Ian's photographs give these mundane wastelands meaning and connection with the people he is photographing, but only through the interpretation of his photographer's eye.

 

I admire his skill in taking in the wider scene he is photgraphing, yet producing so often an intimate result.

 

I've just realised... I didn't have to mention "Color vs. B&W" once.

. . . which twists torturously from the employment of and appreciation for B&W film emulsions and the images they produce, to whether or not there is not a little too much "wow" lately for these so-called "classic" presentations, all this intersperced with a raised eyebrow due to a man's suspicion that this week's photograph might have been favored with "composite" treatment, not to mention a tawdry interlude (for those who bothered to follow the provided link) dealing with the correct method for cooly critiquing . . . artistic bondage?

All in all I guess you could say this week's POW commentary offers a little bit of something for everyone.

Someone asked (perhaps rhetorically) what criteria serve to distinguish a B&W photographer from one who works in color. I would have thought the answer to that rather obvious: a B&W photographer is one who works, at least primarily, with the B&W medium. It could also be that a B&W photographer is also a color photographer, though while I'm sure it's the case that many (if not most) photographers do indeed mix their emulsions, it's apparently the case that serious photographers tend to work mainly on just one side of the street. If you look in Chris Battey's portfolio you'll find (or at one time would have found--I haven't visited lately) a single color photo--which I found to be a rather odd duck, by the way. Or go look at Jo Voet's work and you'll discover that she works primarily with B&W emulsions, fast, medium and slow. An exception might be Tony Dummett's work (as it's represented with his Photonet uploads) since he seems to produce about half B&W and half color images. I'm not sure if any of these people works professionally--I'd guess Chris does, or might, and is certainly qualified to do so, the others no. If Chris does work professionally in anything but photojournalism yet has found a steady market for B&W work then he is indeed fortunate, as most all publications (except for newspapers) have long since turned their backs on anything but color, never to look back. The implication there being that a pro might very well have love for B&W yet find his time primarily devoted to work in color due to the demands of his job.

Then again you can't always tell from uploads. My beginnings in photography, humble as they are, were with Tri-X, yet you'll find just two B&W images in my portfolio, and one of those isn't even mine but a desaturated effort of Vuk's which I placed in there as an experiment to determine how a B&W treatment might affect the ratings of a given image--the same reason was used as justification for my other B&W photo as well.

So what's the story? As it turns out I no longer have access to a lab, and the cost of B&W development downtown is twice that of color and nowhere near as available. As most of my images are snapshots from vacation, uploaded not to "instruct" but to merely show to my daughter, they're rendered in color negatives, which is the film emulsion of my choice for casual shoots. Also, I don't have access to most of my earlier work, much of which was Tri-X, with some HP5 thrown in. I did shoot a roll of TMax 3200 one evening this summer over in Spain, but the results were uniformly unhappy.

What am I then? Evidently a "color photog," though I tell you my inclination is more for the work of those who work in B&W.

Re Amy Powers's work: some it's okay and maybe even better than okay, but images of bondage do not belong on a site where young people venture at will, and why that should be a difficult grasp I couldn't say. In a word, if that sort of work isn't tacky then it is certainly of questionable taste.

I don't wish to come across as prudish or censorial of nature, but then again I am the father of a 13-year-old girl, so take that for whatever it might be worth.

Chris brought up an interesting point regarding the use of B&W as an instructional tool. I wholeheartedly agree and I'd suppose any reputable teacher of photography would start his 101 classes off on something like Tri-X as a matter of course. Why Tri-X? Because it's arguably the best film emulsion ever (on balance) and the finest B&W emulsion for normal everyday use--and considered so by a goodly margin by the most proficient photographers out there to judge by its wide usage. What did Vuk call it, grainy? Well if it is then it is a grain of impressive characteristics.

The other thing about B&W emulsion is that it subtracts the "noise" of color so that a student can better identify and closely study the crucial elements of their work: light and form. Put those together and you're standing approximately in the face of composition, which is where it's all at except for the details of processing and printing--or scanning and treatment on the desktop with digital processing in mind.

Bottom line: B&W is simpler to study insofar as it offers less distraction after the fact. That's not to suggest that it is "easier" to make good B&W photos than ones done in color, for it is not. Indeed, it is far easier to come up with "good" color pictures as long as you're willing to chase favorable light off a tripod, use Fuji saturated emulsions, and most especially if you're trying to impress someone with either 1) questionable taste, 2) little photographic knowledge or 3) a person who is, say, 30 years or younger and has learned pretty much everything from a TV.

And please don't come back and blame me for pointing all of that out, as these are simply some of life's sad truths.

Someone else commented that previous POW selections were not all that bad. Well, if you go back far enough not all of them are all that bad, and one or two were exceptional in their own ways. But most of it's been dreck with a capital D, which might, just might explain the one or two (perceived or actually heard) sighs of relief from the wings around here the past week and a day when the site administrators bothered to look somewhat farther than normal for decent fare to showcase. That both of these images are B&W should not be surprising: it is more difficult for selectors to pick a bad B&W image and imagine it to be of high quality for the same reason that is harder for even neophiliacs to easily dismiss the same pictures's better, more obvious qualities, as opposed to what we've been inflicted with of late.

Why? Because the essentials of any photograph, light and form, are more easily distinguished and thus dealt with in isolation (and hopefully understood) in B&W without the noise of color to interfere. My opinion is that the last "good" POW before Battey's selection last week was the one by Bill Storage on June 11, 2001. The week before there was another good selection (two in a row! say, who says lightning doesn't strike twice?), that one a portraiture by Tandy Howard, rendered in HP5.

Sorry, but no matter how many people grade some of this stuff 10-10 and the like, no matter how many times some nitwit suggests that majority opinion ought to be used as a reasonable yardstick for rational critique, none of that makes any piece of work good photography necessarily, or for that matter even worthy of serious discussion. Just to learn that difference would amount to a useful education from one's Photonet experience, and a great headstart toward producing something better for yourself.

Hats off to Ian for this week's selection. The pattern of the rooftops makes this for me and almost overpowers the diminutive forms of the children in playful romp--it's upside down with re to balance, but as the motion's coming across the frame and is significant it seems to work anyway.

I wish I could afford to buy this gentleman a decent 35mm scanner. What I can do is tell anyone with interest that a high-quality scanner by Polaroid (SS4000, 4000 dpi) is being presently blown out the door for less than $500 (after the $200 rebate) and is worth close consideration. When you think about it, that's only about the cost of a used professional SLR body. (For that price it would probably be a beater, but what the hell, your pictures will never know.)

Reading all these discussions about b/w versus colour,I keep thinking of the Blues Brothers quote, Mr. Belushi or Mr. Ackroyd tellin' the owner of the joint they're supposed to play in that "yes, sir, we're playin' both of them: Country AND Western..." :) Happy shooting to y'all, Rienk

Congratulations on a magnificent photo. It makes me feel young and exuberant and leaves me wishing that I was running along side them! I dont think anyone can do better than that.

At last a POW! Congratualtions Ian! Your portfolio has given me much to enjoy over an extended period of time and yet I still haven't seen half of it. Any one of your photos would be worthy of POW, and this is no exception. I reiterate what Tony has already said, about bringing the wider context to the viewer. As well as seeing the children in their environment, I really like the high viewpoint, the composition, and the shadows of the children. The feeling of space is tremendous, and seeing the children run through the streets like this brings their carefree and uplifting nature right to the viewer. Speaking as a somewhat 'jaded adult' I must say thanks!

By adding Mary's response to you, and the fact that some of your comments were deleted- I'm assuming your comments were less than flattering about me...

 

Whatever you may think of me, my critique was well thought-out. I will elaborate further: The way the image stands as-is, the buildings are a VERY interesting element. I agree that the contrast, shapes, and textures of the buildings are appealing, however the buildings lead my eye from the lower upper third of the image to the upper right corner. My suggestion was for the artist to slightly crop the top buildings in order to decrease the natural tendency for my eye to be led to the URC. This would also create more emphasis on the hedgerow, fence, and telephone pole (which form an "arrow") leading the eye towards the children. Upon further reflection, the object in the LRC isn't a big deal, so I could do with or without.

 

BTW, I gave this image a 8/7- hardly out of line with other ratings.

 

 

 

QUOTED FROM PROFESSOR SCHULER: "But most of it's been dreck with a capital D, [iNSERT: IN MY OPINION HERE] which might, just might explain the one or two (perceived or actually heard) sighs of relief from the wings around here the past week and a day when the site administrators bothered to look somewhat farther than normal for decent fare to showcase" [iN MY OPINION]." Yipee, I found a way to read Tirs Schuler without my blood boiling.... I just insert the words ["In my opinion"] in between his very strong and absolute statements and derogatory remarks towards those of us that actually enjoy the images he despises. I don't happen to agree with him but I guess I'm a nitwit [iN HIS OPINION]. Plus I'm over 40 and not a TV baby.. Imagine that. I admit he sometimes has some things to say (in my opinion) but I have trouble with his attacks on people with no taste (I guess that would be me.) By inserting IMO what he says becomes more palatatble and in some cases even interesting - In My Opinion --of course.

Ok, but why do you show it HERE!?

Beautiful shot Ian. Thanx for giving us a peek at a wonderful story. Keep up the good work. Wonderful satire Mary Ball. We're probably better off ignoring Mr. Schuler and his "sad truths" =)

This is art. Ian has maybe the best portfolio online at photo.net.

I think so. It has made me think. I have been pulling some black and white images out of my archives to upload.....while the roomates watch Billy Elliot, a film that could have done well to be shot in black and white.

 

I have also created a new folder called "No artificial colors or ingredients" to put the new uploads in as well as move over the old "Bee & Dubbs".

 

I will be away again at the end of this week as I leave Australia after a hard 5 months (Emotionally) to explore Thailand and Vietnam. I am doing doco style work over there on people, not landscapes or adventure sports. I am still going to shoot Provia 100 and 400 over there but ya never know........I might shoot some of that "Proper" stuff over there too, afterall I wouldn't want to pollute my vision with all those artificial colors and ingredients now would I :-)

 

db

Now THIS is a POW. Beautiful, pure, excellent tones. An incredible capture of a fleeting instant of life.

Dan, I'd like to throw in that I find your work incredibly romantic and talented. But, as you'd agree, most of it would suck in B&W!!

I strongly disagree. Much of Bayer's work would do okay if we desatured it, some of it would still shine. This is because his eye for composition is keen and well-practised and while he might mouth the words that we all see the world in color the fact is his camera eye sees the world in the more basic elements of light and form, and so for all intents and purposes his pictures have been rendered (in his mind) in B&W. That he is able to succeed so well in color media is only proof of that eye.

Here's a good rule of thumb for you, something you could easily prove to yourself: a color photograph which does suck desatured of color is (and was) not a good photoigraph to begin with.

This is because any picture is equally subject to the same forces of light and form, no matter the presence of color. This is why it is possible for me to dictate that so many of the previous POW's are dreckish. Go destaurate them for yourself and then tell me those are good images. I think you'll discover, if you keep your wits sharp and your conscience clear, that they are not.

Again, Dan remarked earlier that we see the world in color. Well sure, we do see color, and yet an insightful photographer's eye is practised to strip away that color and rather more "see" what's before it in terms strictly of light and form. This is how he achieves good composition. The color present must be layered onto that composition and successfully justified in its own right and in conjunction with the basic elements of the picture if the final image is to succeed.

There haven't been a whole lot of very good movies released in the past ten or twenty years, but two noteworthy films might go to demonstrate more ably what I want to get at here.

One has already been mentioned, that being Spielberg's Schindler's List. The sole object which was overlayed after the fact with color was the coat (a sort of red if I recall) of a little girl in Warsaw who had in the end unsuccessfully hid from the German troops ordered to round up the Jewish ghetto occupants. I think in this case such treatment was not only an unnecessary ploy (to put it no lower) but more than a bit heavy handed. It would have been as much to say, "See! That's the same coat she wore! She didn't make it afterall, you stupid tear-jerkers, you!" Indeed, I thought about that treatment considerably after I viewed the film for the the first time, then tried to ignore the effect the second time round. I'm not sure what, if any, response I'll have the third time I screen this title--I suspect the impact will be what it ought to have been originally. Nothing. You see, the film doesn't need such props for its otherwise stellar presentation. This "trick" merely stands out in an obnoxious fashion, serves to insult the thoughtful viewer.

Another filmic example: L.A. Confidential. I am not aware of the production history behind this excellent effort at film noire but I'd be willing to suggest that it's quite possible the director understood that this picture ought, by all rights, to have been shot in B&W stock. I say this for the reason this picture is one of the few shot in color that I've seen (and I'm a film buff) where the viewer begins to almost think in terms of watching a B&W movie, so expertly rendered are the scenes in terms of the two basic visual elements--light and form, always. But I get the notion that the producers (the suits with the money) demanded color treatment of this director, Curtis Hanson, who nevertheless was able (along with his director of photography, Dante Spinotti) to pull off the project in able fashion with a very good film as the result. But the case remains that this title succeeds in spite of its color treatment, is not what it could have (and should have) been had it received the most proper presentation. But I can hear those suits clearly, and can't you? The public won't come and see a black-and-white movie. They want color!

Mary Ball: stop your whining and get your act together. Not only have many of the POW's been of relatively low quality, some have served as nothing short of embarrassments to this server. What I find most worrying is the tendency of some photographers who seem to know (or at least suspect) the difference yet who nevertheless come on the POW comments section and give medium-to-good grades anyway for much of this stuff, no doubt in an effort not to step on any toes. Sad, that.

This doesn't change the art, though, not by a long shot. And when I see pictures which are not only devoid of good artistic expression but not even rendered capably in terms of technicalities, and these pictures, too, receive high scores, then I'm sure beyond the shadow of a doubt that this site is devoted more to the politics of an intimate social gathering than the serious study of photography.

None of which wants to say (and if you'd bother to pay attention you'd realize it does not say) that any of these pictures were "bad selections" for the POW feature. Any photograph might serve as an able POW entry . . . as long as this site aopproached it with a collective attitude to learn.

Unfortunately, that has not been the case. It is rather more about "winning" and stroking egos and all that. The idea being, of course, that the POW is an example of superior photography in some way. This is perforce a mistake, but as the server's community seems to think along those lines then that must be our context for conversation, yes?

Finally, and since you are not apparently given to strict concentration of subject: my remark in reference to "nitwits" was mostly directed not to your person but to a statement delivered (if I recall, two or three weeks ago) by Seven, who smartly advised me to "run this filter" (of how many high scores had been assigned) as proper means for me to achieve some useful perspective on what might be and what could not possibly be "good photography."

That sort of attitude and childish expression is, unhappily, the mean standard for this server, and my overall message is that until this changes for the better then no practical progress is going to be made with education in mind. One simply doesn't approach intellectual problems with such drivel on the mind and come away better for the experience.

You're part of the problem, though. Can you not see that at least some of these selections have been terrible choices as "superior photography"? (Remember, that has always been our true context for these images, not education.) If not, then I put it to you that you've a lot to learn. If you can tell the difference but are unwilling to voice your opinion for the reason it strikes as too contrary, too unpleasant, too unsocial, then that is precisely what I mean when I say you're part of the problem. Going with the flow might be expected on the cocktail circuit but it's not going to teach anyone anything in the street.

Great photo! It feels familiar, like home, like Thanksgiving dinner.

 

Can't make a good photo in bright sun huh?

 

Thank you for sharing it.

 

 

Here's a good rule of thumb for you, something you could easily prove to yourself: a color photograph which does suck desatured of color is (and was) not a good photoigraph to begin with.

This is complete and total nonsense. Color theory shows us that relationships other than lightness and contrast exist in color. They don't in black and white. There are interesting color photographs (and paintings) that would be mostly one shade of grey when desaturated.

Simplistic reductionism of photography to composition is destructive. Photography is most of all about light, and the characteristics of light in color and monochrome are incredibly different.

I'd recommend a few introductory art classes...

Took the words right out of my mouth, Jeff. Tris's didactic pontificating (his own word for it was: "dictating") is only to get our blood running hot. He's challenging us to disagree with him, for the sake of argument. He couldn't possibly believe in that ridiculous statement.

I probably am guilty of not giving my expression here enough thought, Michael. In my defense I'd point out that all of this is not only "off the top of my head" but typed raw in a little box as I'm online, edited after the fact for typos and such. That is not a good method for thoughtful analysis, though I will say the majority of what I've written here is not only correct but not poorly articulated even so.

Certainly there must be exceptional cases where a color photograph which does not adhere rigidly to accepted light-and-form combinations succeeds in spite of this deviation from theory, perhaps because of the startling color it presents. As I noted with Ian's offering this week, what we have here is a case where the picture is "top heavy" with the roof forms to an alraming extent, and yet it still works. Another example would be one of Maurice Depestre's pictures, still, life which can be found here:

still,life

With the latter image we find again composition which runs against the grain of accepted tradition (the subject stares off the near left edge of the frame with loads of dead space behind her), and yet this picture, too, succeeds--at least for me.

Rules can be broken, no doubt about that. But the underlying logic of rules, why they are in place, should be understood completely before the artist attempts to break them. To do it just to be "different" will almost always lead to a bad result.

In sum, while it might be a stretch to insist that all desaturated color photographs which do not succeed on the basis of their light/form combinations are failures, I think if you go to the trouble of applying this general test to most of the color POW's in the list you'll have to agree that nevertheless this is the case in the real world. And when you think on it, how could it be any other way the majority of the time?

The colour Photographer can use the attributes of Tone and Hue, in a way the BW Photographer cannot.

 

Let's assume that our Photographer wants to take a picture of a clown.

'Ok', he says, 'I want a sad clown'.

So, Fred finds a blue clown and sits him in front of a blue wall. Already the attributes of 'Blue' are helping to convey the mood, bringing an emotional response to the scene.

 

Now, a picture of a kid with a painted red face in front of a red, or orange wall, can help to lift a picture emotionally and convey happiness perhaps joy.

 

Switch the kid for a stereotypical Red Indian, lower the lights and flood the scene with a red gelled spot and we can infer anger, or suppressed violence.

 

I am deliberately avoiding composition here, because my point is that colour can bring something else to a picture that BW cannot.

 

If we simply desaturate our Clown, kid and Indian, then we can only draw inference from the techniques of composition and shading to gauge an opinion.

 

I think there are two types of colour Photograph.

One is a picture that happens to be in colour, where Hue and Tone are not considered, the Photographer composing within frame to tell the story, if we desaturate this, then the pic will still work because the colour information was not really needed.

 

The second type of colour picture is our 'Blue Clown', if we desaturate our clown, all the colour information is lost and we lose our 'Blue mood' that we've worked so hard for.

Once desaturated we can only judge our Clown as a compositional BW study.

 

Sometimes a great Photographer can marry the benefits of colour with strong elements of lighting and composition, yes the pic would still work as a BW, but in colour it takes on a greater status.

 

Alex Webb, would we a good example of the latter.

Joel Sternfeld would be another.

Took the words right out of my mouth, Jeff. Tris's didactic pontificating (his own word for it was: "dictating") is only to get our blood running hot. He's challenging us to disagree with him, for the sake of argument. He couldn't possibly believe in that ridiculous statement.

In part you're correct, Tony, insofar as I am eager to inject discussion of intelligent nature into the POW comments, something woefully lacking in the past for all intents and purposes. I would not, however, describe the thrust of my argument as ridiculous.

Your use of the gerund "pontificating" is also unfortunate, not for the reason that it wants to diminish my contribution by way of ad hominem plea but because it can only serve to dissuade others from coming forth to voice their serious opinions in the face of the usual "Gee, I really like your work--it's swell!" type of comments and overall "sweet" atmosphere which has reigned ad nauseam on this server since forever.

Jeff has chosen to be even more outspoken and assumes for the sake of his counterpoint that I approach this issue without even the least bit of formal instruction in order to guide my thoughts. He is mistaken. Even were he correct his take is mistaken and refuses to reach a logical conclusion--at least for the sake of this argument. As I've noted to Michael, exceptions always exist, but for real world application the argument remains no less valid. Light and form go to make up any picture, be the medium film emulsion, oil paints or a heavy-metal sculpture--if one might envisage a scupture as a "picture"--admittedly a three-dimesnional work but given to produce similar effects on the viewer.

But if you prefer to keep it more simplistic, try this: strip all of the color photos on this site of color and then you tell me what the problem is for most of them. Bad light and form combinations will likely be the answer. Now go back and put the color back in those pictures and just see if you can still look at them as fondly as you did before you discovered the truth of their essential qualities. I doubt if you could, my message is that I cannot, that I do not wish to. Winking at bad construction and calling that art isn't anywhere I want to go.

That comment of mine, though well-intentioned, was clumsily expressed; Tris was right to pick me up on it, even though I don't agree with all the details. I got a lot out of the subsequent postings. Thanks.

Morwen, I'm at a loss here to understand which comment of yours I've "picked up on" and presumably then run off with. I know you're the one who offered the link to that bondage photograph, but other than that I can't recall a remark of yours (in this thread) to which I've taken exception.

I am in at least partial agreement with you. However, it seems to me that you are giving too little weight to the validity of color, itself, as an artistic element. Though this is certainly not always the case (perhaps not even usually the case), color, itself, can sometimes be an integral part of an artistic creation.

Chris has offered an example, I'll offer another.

One of my fascinations as a photographer is with colored lights at night. I just love to prowl around after dark with my camera in tow and take pictures of neons, window scenes, lit doorways and the like. Some of this can be captured effectively with a B&W emulsion, most of it pleads for the use of color film.

Even so, without good composition the resultant pictures must suffer to one degree or the other. I always think (try to think) in terms of light and form no matter what colors I chase at night.

You're not responsible for what others post on this site, Morwen. I appreciated the link you provided. More knowledge is always good, less knowledge is always worse. You added to my stockpile of the stuff and for that I thank you.