Children in Wales

Ian,

 

I am curious to learn how you came upon the angle. Were you already up in a room and noticed the kids playing? Or did you see them playing and ran to a known window and wait for the moment.

 

I like to give insight as to how a picture happened as I try to do in some of my captions. I think that the image's contrast is fine for the subject by the way, cropping too as I have already mentioned, I think the fact that it has an object in the lower left hand corner gives the children running a destination that is a mystery.

 

Folks.......let's get back to the subject here, photography! I would like to know how many of you actually get out and shoot new stuff on a regular basis, not to imply that the fact that I do makes me better or more informed. I just like to share my work with people, give them something to think about.

 

I think Jennifer has a valid point about Black and White as a cheaper method of honing ones skills too. I also applaud the comment on how the digi age brings unpublished pictures from 1975 and beyond into view, it's like a re-birth of life Magazine online.

 

A question for you all that I thought of:

 

What is POW??? An award for standing out?? A random selection of images to stir Comments? I don't think that it is meant to label a photo as "The Best of the week".

Afterall, it IS called Photo of the week.

 

 

Ian, the power of your portfolio is wild. It sucks you in. Fantastic work. Congrats on POW.

 

Love this photo and the others that surround it in your portfolio. True vision stands out no matter what media it was formed through. It has nothing to do with color or BW , Kodak or Fuji, oil paint or crayons. They don't create a vision, and Kodak and Fuji definitely don't sell it.

 

It's the eye behind the lense, for some the vision flows, and for others it comes more stubornly.

 

The ability of photography to allow people an outlet for their particular vision without the need for a technical artistic skill, like drawing or painting, is phenomenal. Breaking this form of expression down into concepts and thus putting up barriers between the artist and their vision is ridiculous.

 

Anything goes. . . Its art. Its expression. Critique, in my eyes, it's only meant to help the artist find their vision. It is still their vision. Help them find their vision dont burn them for not seeing yours.

 

 

O my o my, sorry, I don't speak good english, but I'm a real master in dutch and the swissgerman dialect, so if anybody is interested in taking lessons, just give me a call...I just want to apologize (I know, this word is maybe written wrong...) for starting this terrible chitchat about b/w versus/with colour photography. Out of my love and enthusiasm for b/w, I praised the elves for choosing this picture, after last week's beautiful informal wedding shot. I just should have sticked to the compliment to Ian for his incredible work, I guess. I feel soooo sorry, I'll punish myself for starting this waste of space by taking that cabride with Mr. Schuler. It'll be a nighttrip, at least then he'll stop sometimes and get out of the cab to take some of his famous nightshots...Time to breathe...I'm so happy I had an unexpected Pic of the Week back in april when the only discussion about the pic was, IS or ISN'T the indian lady shouting at the cop...(Or: Did or did I not lie about the content of the picture...) Yesterday night I spent the evening in my darkroom, and, looking at this "discussion" now in the morning, I'm happy I did, and wasn't wasting my time filling these empty spaces in this forum discussion. Ian, thanks for the picture, again, and to make it clear again to everyone: Although I do mostly b/w, I really love William Eggleston. I even own all of his books! And I also think Joel Sternfeld's pics wouldn't be what they were if shot in b/w. He wouldn't have shot them the way he did in colour...So, for now, I take the guilt and make myself ready for that cabride with Mr. Schuler to discuss the weather, sports, beautiful women and other real interesting stuff...Hope he doesn't speak latin to me ad nauseum...Bye y'all, have a few beers and enjoy the weather, Rienki

Valid point Solly, there is no battle without an opponent. I use this strategy with people all the time....works wonders :) !!

 

I'm with Daniel. I want to know more about this photo. Picking the brain of a great photographer is a wonderful learning tool. I like the cropping on this photo. Leaving the housing adds substance to the photo. It gives an idea of the lifestyle these children have and/or maybe running from? I too would like to know how Ian managed this shot. Were you up shooting down and the kids happened by? Or were they playing back and forth and you decided a better vantage point would be up high?

 

In response to Daniel's question.... I shoot a roll or two a week. I only have limited access to a darkroom (6-9 hours per week)and can't even print what I shoot now. But since I just invested in medium format, I also, cannot stop!!

 

As for POW...I don't know what all the fuss is about. Like life, we will not all agree on what is a worthy POW. It's the difference's that make it interesting. I may not like a POW, that doesn't make it a "poor" choice, just means that my interests are different, maybe even just on that particular day. I think POW can be random photos brought up for discussion. They can also be great images that express artistic expression. I agree with Daniel, it doesn't necessarily have to be the "best" of the week. There are far too many photographers and images on this site to think that anyone could underatke that daunting task of choosing just "one best". For this week and THIS photo, I was compelled to respond. Congratulations againt to Ian on a wonderful POW. I'm glad he was kind enough to share it on this website.

Here we are midweek, and this photo already has 133 comments. Chris Battey's photo last week only had 106 by the end of the week. This must be a much better photo than last week's.

Hats off to you, Ian. A very wonderful picture.

 

Some advice to others: Don't complicate the simple things....please.

I think it's a shame that someone would suggest we all ignore Mr. Shuler. What good would that do? Does anyone really see any harm in his opinions? Or are you just annoyed by the fact that he not only has strong opinions about photography but is both willing and able to present them quite clearly - if not exactly concisely.

 

One thing for sure, you can't tell a good photograph (or a good anything, for that matter) by the sheer number of people who like it. You have to know why they feel the way they do. That's how you learn. Now, simply because someone is unable to articulate their reasons for feeling the way they do doesn't invalidate their opinion, but it does make it rather useless in a forum such as this. I learn nothing from the people who simply say "Superb!", but I can always count on Tris to not only give his opinion, but to back it up in detail. Who cares whether or not he disclaims everything with the annoying intrusion of IMHOs or those intolerable emoticons.

 

I like this photograph for many reasons. I like the composition - I wouldn't crop any closer to the children because I think the town they live in is a major "character" in the story told by the photo. If I try very hard to find a criticism, I suppose I would rather have the light coming from the opposite side so that the shadows would fall the opposite way. I don't know why that is, exactly - my preference may have something to do with the fact that I am always used to shooting with the sun at my back, if for no other reason than to compensate for the weak flash on my camera. Then again, you can't just move the sun, and though it would increase the detail on the buildings, it would probably detract from the children as the subject.

 

Also, in the beginning, I was a bit bothered by the lack of extreme black in the photo - whether from the exposure or scan. It's somethning I would have fixed in Photoshop if it were my picture - but in all honesty, the grey is growing on me. Sometimes you can have too much contrast.

 

And since this photo seems to remind a lot of people of other things, I'll offer mine. For whatever reason, I could see this as a Ben Shahn drawing.

 

-Rob (Aesthetics 10. Originality 8.)

Mr Caird, it was more in reference to this idiotic debate concerning color and b/w in terms of art and photography, which though in certain circles may have validity but in this instance with Herr Schuler at the helm seems to take on foolish proportions. And BTW Stiechen produced some interesting Autochromes in '07, grains of starch dyed 3 separate colors were used. Had to expose the plate from the back.

It could be worse. Imagine having a long ride in his cab.

Oh, God no!!! As much as I like San Francisco, I think I'll steer clear for a while.

I think it's a shame that someone would suggest we all ignore Mr. Shuler. What good would that do? Does anyone really see any harm in his opinions? Or are you just annoyed by the fact that he not only has strong opinions about photography but is both willing and able to present them quite clearly - if not exactly concisely.

I don't see any harm in his opinions: I'm just utterly bored by them. Tris is like the clod at the cocktail party who monopolizes the conversation, droning on endlessly and sucking all the oxygen out of the room. Is he right or wrong? Who knows, and who cares: most of us stopped paying attention a long time ago.

Ignoring him may work, or it may not. Bores are usually deaf to social cues, and too enchanted with the sounds of their own voices to stop anyway.

It's "difference between you and ME," Tris, not "difference between you and I." We wouldn't want to misunderstand you because of "poor description and thus worse communication," you know.

James,

 

I only meant that exposing a concept to a particular person before its

discovered by that person, may lead that person in the wrong direction. Thus creating a "barrier"

between their true vision and what they create.

 

The extreme would be:

 

"You should only use BW, everything looks better in BW."

 

Better advice would be:

 

"You try BW and color, oh. . . and theirs also infrared, color slides, high speed black and white, etc."

 

Simply facilitating expression, by pushing them towards a perceived vision, does not necessarily help that person express what they

intended to express.

 

What if someone had told Ian that color neg film was the only way to take pictures, and that if you wanted to be a real photographer you had to shot with a Nikon SLR with an autofocus lens. Dont forget that you have to fill the frame with your subject. oh right, and the rule of thirds. Would we have this wonderful piece to discuss?

Ian, I'm sorry, this is your moment, and your great shot, and I REALLY am sorry. I'd love to see your prints, and I love your portfolio. It's just that Tris is right THERE, a pinata to beat all pinatas, and he keeps handing out the bats.

Ummm, Tris, I guess you don't get out much, or know any Celts, or you'd recognize a common Irish girl's name. "Mr. Cahill?". Sigh. Maybe I should go by "S. Noreen Cahill", but then I'd sound like a judge.

I apologize for mistaking your sex, but I feel it's an innocent mistake. I doubt if everyone knew you were female. I doubt this is the first time this mistake's been made. Just for example, even with a more-or-less obvious tell spelling of "Jo," Jo Voets is occasionally mistaken for a man. In fact, this happened not so long ago to Vuk over on the forum thread which discussed grading policies on this server--he was corrected at that time by Tony.

It's not the end of the world. Why bring it up now? Just to "put me in my place" for the reason you have nothing better to speak about?

Dumb and dumber. :)

I said you didn't listen, and sure enough, you missed that I, too, have a Polaroid SS-4000. You are just such a hoot, guy. Too bad I don't follow your posts past the 2500th word, or maybe I'd get even more merriment from you.

This one's on you I'm afraid. And this is why. You are not a clear writer, you are an unclear writer. Your written communication skills are not well developed. "Rules" and all that again.

To be truthful, I could barely make heads or tails of what you wrote last night. Try to do better. I don't make stuff up intentionally.

Now, I really will stop playing "Whack-a-Troll" with this sap, and get back to real photography.

More name calling.

Thank you, but I'm anything other than a troll. I'm one of the few members of this site eager to talk photography and willing to do so in public. What I am not eager and willing to do is put up with a few individuals who would dictate what can be said and when it might be said. If you want to know, if anything I have even less patience for "followers" of these people. And God help the ones who lurk--these people usually outnmber the ones willing to show their heads by multitudes to 1. Poor souls. I guess they're afraid to speak their minds.

You wish to get back to photography? So far you (and too many others) have barely touched on the subject of photography, have squealed in pain when it was mentioned. Someone else just delivered himself to the peculiar opinion that the very discussion of the tecnicalities might only stand in the way of an "artist's vision," and while he didn't come right out and say so Vuk for all intents said the same thing last night.

The fact is you have stopped by to offer personal insults to someone who does want to talk about photography.

Get it straight, please.

Ian, I am curious to learn how you came upon the angle. Were you already up in a room and noticed the kids playing? Or did you see them playing and ran to a known window and wait for the moment.

The technical notes for this image indicate it was taken from a bridge. If you look in Ian's folder you'll see at least one other shot (more of a city setting if I recall correctly) with the same perspective. I'd guess he favors this view.

Re the perspective: this picture reminds of some of the Basque villages I taught in for a couple of years. And again, for me the top-down view of those rooftops makes it.

It's "difference between you and ME," Tris, not "difference between you and I." We wouldn't want to misunderstand you because of "poor description and thus worse communication," you know.

You're correct, and if I wrote that it escaped me.

Now try this on for size. What good purpose did your message have coming in? To improve the level of English here or, like that other person, "put me in my place"?

As for the person who thinks I'm like a clod at a cocktail party: that is the problem with this site and why it's unlikely many newcomers to photography will ever learn a thing from their visit here, or at least not from the disccussions I've seen on the POW comments. It's mostly about the "club" and not about photography. All this talk about this being "Ian's moment." What the hell is that? It's nonsesne, that's what it is. Do you suppose Ian needs or wants, in any manner, shape or form, anyone to fawn over his work? And even if he did, would that make it appropriate? What possible good could expert photography have on this site, presented as a POW, unless it were used as an instructional tool? The rest of it, the "cocktail party" idiocy, that's an utter waste of everyone's time.

Someone else just delivered himself to the peculiar opinion that the very discussion of the tecnicalities might only stand in the way of an "artist's vision," and while he didn't come right out and say so Vuk for all intents said the same thing last night. --Tris.

Please DO NOT put words in my mouth. Technical knowledge is critical, but it stops at things like getting the correct exposure and tonal effects (film/filter choice) in your shot. The rules you have in mind go beyond the straighforward realm of the technical. They are at best ambiguous, at worst stifling and generally, if concrete and sufficiently far-reaching, merely the sort of thing that can help a complete novice avoid taking bad snapshots. That said, specific compositional advice or criticism about a particular photo is another matter altogether.

By the way, why are you so fixated on this idea about people coming here to learn? Maybe it is a big cocktail party for most. Do you have anything to teach Ian?

Look, Vuk, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth but yes, that was your message last night and even after tightening it up today your message remains basically the same.

Sure, it's possible to cause a student to suffer information overload--this is a known deal. And a careful and responsible teacher wouldn't babble on and on about the physics of light to students in Photography 101. A happy balance is needed, and this balance will probably vary from one student to the next.

But where have I crammed physics down anyone's throat? I'm a generalist by nature, ecclectic as well. I have ability to make sense of a lot of information after the fact, I lack the desire (and for all I know the capacity) to generate raw specific data on my own. I find that tedious and I applaud people who do have this interest and go to the trouble the research and testing of all these things calls for.

I guess what I'm saying is everyone with interest and some ability should be able to find a niche in which they might contribute in their own ways. I try to contribute in mine.

What I don't get and what I'm loathe to put up with are the "gorgeous" remarks and the eagerness by some of the users on the site to keep it "warm and fuzzy" so everyone can "feel good" about the "art" they've uploaded. To each his own, but I find that to be a bore. I know for sure it's a waste of my time, as I also know for sure that it couldn't possibly teach anyone even the rudiments of good photography.

Now try this on for size. What good purpose did your message have coming in? To improve the level of English here or, like that other person, "put me in my place"?

Just helping you out Tris, since you seemed intent that people follow linguistic rules judging from the following:

Please, go ahead and show me how "rules" have no bearing on correct language usage or the learning of it thereof. I'm all ears.

I am surprised you saw some hidden reason for my trying to be helpful. I thought you were very open to others' critisism, especially if you could learn something from them. I sincerely hope it wasn't "refusal to avail oneself of knowledge (of rules) which often enough leads to both bad art and bad language usage."

I only pointed it out because it had "escaped" you twice. As for putting you in your place, I am sure you already are where you ought to be.

By the way, why are you so fixated on this idea about people coming here to learn? Maybe it is a big cocktail party for most.

I'm big on education. What's so strange about that? What's so hard to figure out about that?

Do you have anything to teach Ian?

It would be more pertinent to ask Ian if he had any interest to learn something from my writing here or my photos or whatnot.

Here's more knowledge for you. It is impossible to "teach" anyone anything. The verb "to teach" is not well conceived. An "instructor" can, however, hope to inspire a student to want to learn, in some situations that instructor can facilitate that learning process.

Now go think about that for awhile. Don't blow it off. It is wisdom, and if you approach it with an open mind you just might stumble on a clue as to why societies, dating from time immemorial, have achieved precious little "progress" but have instead learned only to hop up and down.

Back to the subject: Ian - because of the POW - I've been back to your portfolio a few times now. Congratulations again. Hopefully this is an enjoyable recognition for you. At the very least, you will have more people checking out your other works. Thanks again.

I think this is a really good picture. Ian has a great eye. He got that moment thing happenin'.

 

 

Dean G.

Ian,

 

I'm sure it wouldn't be regarded as vanity by us, your colleagues, for you to write a short response to some of the questions that have been put to you about this remarkable PoW picture. In fact it would be a positive benefit to get the "inside running" on the "hows" and "whys" of your photographic techniques. Too many (including myself) have taken it upon themselves to speak on your behalf. We're probably all wrong. The picture has been a successful PoW by any acocunts, so how about it... what's the "good oil" on this image (and the rest of your excellent portfolio, if you're feeling expansive)?

Tony.

 

I spoke to Ian a little earlier and he's just out of the darkroom and now spotting a series of proofs (some naughty underground stuff), but well aware of the questions that have been asked and keen to reply later this evening or tomorrow. Just to make sure he does, I have offered to provide clever answers on his behalf ;-)

 

Tris.

 

No offense, but I really doubt there's anything worthwhile Ian has to learn from you. In fact, I don't think he's even learned anything from me--well, except for details concerning the tatoos, piercings and other strange habits of contemporary women in their early 20s. I, on the other hand, have learned a tremendous amount from him (in real life, not Photonet), even though I just love to break his silly "falling out of the bottom right corner" rule. BTW--could you try to be little more arrogant in the next reply? You're so close to breaking some sort of international record.

Holy Crap I have only been on photo.net for three weeks now and I am already burnt out! I cant take it anymore. I thought a group of photographers would somehow be more enlightened than this. I guess Im mistaken. You know what, this post isnt about you. Yep, you looking at it right now, it has nothing to do with you. Yet somehow Im sure you will take it personal and write about it, because everything is about you. Talk about a me society. Well Im giving photo.net another week or two and if I cant get this ugly feeling out of me that most (not everyone) people here have given me, Im gone. Not that any of you really care because this community isnt about a group, its about you!

 

Look what you make me do; writing a post like this, I have stooped to your level. I guess Im becoming part of the community here after all. I feel so warm and welcomed.

 

Great photo BTW. That is why we are here, right?

 

First, let me thank everyone for the very kind comments that have been made about this photo and the others I have posted. There is something quite gratifying about people all round the world seeing and commenting on my work. (Especially when the comments have been so positive.)

 

Now for the 'whys'and 'hows'.... this particular photo was taken from a bridge while cycling in England/Wales. It wasn't a case of 'choosing' a viewpoint, but rather because that was where I happened to be at that moment, (and, to a great extent, that would apply to the majority of my photos). The composition, framing and space are due to the 40mm focal length of the Rollei 35 lens. The negative is printed full-frame, as are all my photos. This is not an affectation, nor a dogma, but stem from spending several years as a TV studio cameraman, where you have to learn to compose for the television format. It is a discipline that I carried over to photography.

 

Regarding this specific photo, yes, it is a bit underexposed, but not by much, not enough to matter in printing. The slight flatness is due to the flatbed scanner (a four year old Mustek) and the fact that this was a fairly early posting and I didnt tweak the tonality enough in PhotoShop. Much more exposure and the highlights would start going and so would the sharpness. I suspect that my shutter and aperture were 1/500 and f16, and stayed that way for the six weeks we were in England, Wales and Ireland on a cycling tour. It was the worst drought in 600 years, and we saw only two short periods of rain lasting 30 minutes each. The Rollei 35 had a meter, but I usually use a Sekonic Studio Incident Light meter. There was also a Nikon F SLR loaded with Kodachrome 64 which my wife was using and which I also used on occasion.

 

My pictures are generally about people and their environment, and their relationship. While content is important, the underlying form of an image is also very significant, and plays a great role in making a photograph work as a whole. Having said that, I don't 'strive' for 'artistic' compositions, but I am aware of the counterpoint of opposites, of the interplay of tones and how they relate to the end result.

 

I like B&W, it is that simple. If I shoot colour, then I am doing just that....shooting colour, not photographs. I have been shooting Tri-X for years, it is reliable, generally available and predictable. At 400 ASA (ISO) it allows me to take pictures around the clock with a fast lens. It has been, in fact, considered a standard. I don't push the film, I develop it normally in D-76, diluted 1-1. I have tried other developers over the years and keep coming back to D-76. There are some new emulsions available now that certainly look good, such as Ilford's XP2 and Kodaks TCN400, and the convenience and ease of C-41 processing for these chromogenic films at every corner lab is very appealing.

 

There are no magic formulas, just have a camera with you at all times and be ready to use it. Something I dont do enough of these days, unfortunately.

Thats what Ian stamps on the back of his prints, and oh my, what a photographer he is. I have been a fan of his since I was a teenager, long before I met him although I have known him for over 25 years (but thats another story) and now call him a true friend. It is not because he is my friend though that I admire his photographic skills. It is because he has produced some of the best photographs that I have seen.

 

Ian works in the social documentary style. When I asked him once what he thought his particular genre was he replied that he had once been called a social realist - and he seems to like that term - although I take exception to it. Ians photographs are not realistic but they are the most real that I have ever seen. What Ian does is to strip away all that is not required to tell the story. To quote Ian directly; As much as neccessary, but as little as posible. Ians photographs are uncluttered and clean. He has stripped away by his precise in camera cropping all the noisy crud that would be in our peripheral vision and focuses (no pun intended) us onto the story line. The fact that he does this with articulate compositional balance elevates what is already so beautifully observed onto an even higher plane.

 

I am a great admirer of Tony Dummet, Jo Voet (whatever sex Jo may be), Maurice Depestre and

Rienk Jiskoot (and many others - I list these photographers because much of their work is in the same milieu as Ians ). To my mind, what sets Ians work somewhat above these is Ians ability to capture counterpoint in his compositions; that is some element that is a surprise or a twist or a wry observation or a poignant instance or a juxtaposition of people or events in their environment that makes us smile. There is always familiarity in what he shows us - and we relate instantly to this - yet this familiarity never leads to our contempt or descends to triteness and his vision stays with us long after we have finished looking at his work.

 

In and of itself viewing photographs is an extremely passive act and only when we can recognize and react to either an aesthetic arrangement and palette that pleases, or are drawn into an emotional circumstance - tragic or ironic or even pedestrian if wryly observed (all of which can be found in Ians work ) - does a photo take on meaning for us. (I fail miserably at this on a regular basis but take pleasure in the pursuit) It is then that we stare and analyse to try and understand what we are drawn to. Ians work rewards us many times over with our effort and no doubt many of us assign unique back stories to the people in Ians photographic world.

 

I am so pleased for Ian that his photographs are now being seen and appreciated by such a broad audience. The work - and he - deserves no less.