Children in Wales

I just looked at Ian's portfolios, he is a master! The situations conveyed with his photos are natural and honest. His work inspires.

Christopher, I hope you will hang around longer. I've been here for about a year and while I do get sometimes annoyed and sometimes offended, I have taken away a lot more from this website than I have lost to it. There are a great many fine uploads and wonderful portfolios to see such as the ones attached to this fine picture. When I cruise the recent uploads, I honestly think the quality has improved over the last year, and you won't find the general quality of pictures posted here on any other similar website, at least not in this volume. There is tons of good information embedded in here, you just have to pick and choose, it is often buried in what may seem the most annoying of posts or threads, but don't let your personal feelings about others keep you from learning from this site. Contrary to what some feel, there is a great deal here to learn from, ranging from equipment to composition to film to scanners to even how to look at a picture critically. There is as much to learn from poor critiques as from good ones. You gotta have a few lousy teachers to learn how not to be one yourself.

 

Re: this picture, I really like the way the buildings look like kids blocks sort of jumbled together and the view seems to be almost in the clouds. It really is dream-like. God's view of kids. God's got to be pleased.....unless of course the kids are running from the five and dime after lifting some jawbreakers.

 

I agree with the flatness being humbug, and I'm not sure I like the way the chimney on the front house stops right at the edge. I think were the complete chimney included, it would add a bit more depth to the houses, but then you'd have cut too close to the bottom shadow. The way the corner behind the kids is curved and the way the houses receed makes it look almost distorted, but it isn't and that just adds to the beautiful composition.

 

Re: Tris and his detractors: Looking back over this week, I don't think Tris started things, but as most know, he is very loathe not to finish an arguement. I think he brought up valid points of discussion by expressing his views on the difference of color and black and white photography, agree with him or not. Seven made a ludicrous statement last week on the topic and only a few responded. Maybe we are a bit sensitized to you Tris after that first week of harrowing discussions that could have been avoided with a properly calibrated monitor, and I and others have felt verbally attacked by you in the past, but I think the jabs at you this week have been unwarranted. I have gleaned several relevant points from your posts and do not think as some others do that you have little to say. Grammatical corrections should be done by e-mail.

 

Re: Tri-X. One of my favorite pictures I ever took was on Tri-X many years ago, but alas it is of an ex-girlfriend and to post it would surely cost me a great many points at home. Great film.

Picture is crisp! Sunlight is good! Kids are happy! excellent timed catch

I will be in England for at least 2 months starting around the middle of Feburary. If I can survive my own personal problems, maybe we can hook up. --Daniel Bayer

Daniel.

Ian (and I) live in the fake London (Ontario, Canada), not the one in England, though you're still welcome for a visit--this place is quite a challenge for any photographer.

I like many things about this photograph. I especially like that it was taken at the right time of day. What I mean is that the childen's shadows lean at just the right angle to give an illusion of speed. A little more lean would still be O.K., but if the shadows leaned back, the illusion would be lessened.

A very spontaneous shot...Nice work.

You see, I've actually studied the "hogwash" in graduate school with some of the most respected experts in the field

This from a guy who feels that the type of lens you use on a 35mm camera is a factor in making the grain vanish in a 6-foot print. Interesting - what University is this? {sorry, couldn't resist}

As for the POW, well, it's nice in terms of composition, but there are WAY too many grey tones, and the print (or scan) is in dire need of some good old dodging and burning. If you're going to use Tri-X, do the film some courtesy and give it the "life" it deserves. I also think the top third of the picture is un-necessary clutter and would have preferred the photographer focus in on more of the kids. However, I'm not 100% sure of this because some stronger printing (or neg processing) might make the houses on the top part of the frame more interesting.

I'm just thinking like a custom printer had I been handed this as a print and asked for advice. The over-all composition and concept is really, really good, but as a habit I tend to raise the level for B/W critiques.

I won't repeat the many comments on the lovely form and liveliness of composition. But this is inspiring - there is a subtlety in black and white which is appealing, and which I must seek out more. Mr. MacEachern's folder's, and others, have many such beautiful, subtle moments.

 

This been a good thread! So much shared learning!We should have some Canon vs. Nikon, 35 mm. vs. larger format, Gitzo vs. Manfrotto discussion to round things off.

 

O, I'm just joking. Please, let's not rouse our more voluble members to more lectures about the meaning of truth...and our own limited abilities to understand it.

 

I find Mr. Caird's statements of the "theorem" of photography curious, though.

 

I thought photos resulted from the collection, interpretation, and presentation of photons for pleasure and information. I missed the class where it was narrowed down to the requirement that only film and darkrooms be involved.

 

Theorem, in Greek, English, and mathematics, implies a proof. I must have been poring over KH-11 "photos" the day that proof was announced.

 

And those poor people working with Hubble. Is all that work a sham, since they use that CCD? Should I resign from GLAST, since we all know gamma rays are not visible to the naked eye - so any output from our work will require that photons be blatantly abused by physicists armed with computers?

 

Or am I missing your point, Mr. Caird? I could have sworn I shot a photo of the Buran in 1986 from 200 km above - but maybe it was something other?

Scott, perhaps the blacks could be a little blacker for some, but on my monitor they look fine. All too often I find monitors that are set too high on the brightness level. One studio I work in at college has 8 apparently 'top of the range' Macs and yet even if I put the brightness level to the lowest possible setting of 0% the darkest points [of any image] are still only dark grey. At home on my modest pc dell monitor the blacks are fine on 45% brightness. It's impossible to standardize the viewable results of jpegs, even when using a standardized callibration programme. What are the chances when there are so many models of monitors, combined with countless individual settings? It's the final print that counts in the end.

That is not an inconsiderable point, Geraldine, which needs to be kept to the forefront of everyone's mind if we're to make any sense at all of these relative observations, especially with color images. The fact is all users here do not see the same image. They just don't. I found out a month ago that a simple change of lighting at my work station was enough to throw the relative view I had of my monitor off by around 20%, and this was sufficient to cause remarks I made at the time to seem as if I lived on the moon. And in terms of what many others saw I effectively did. The salient point, however, is that on that same thread at least two other people apparently saw what I saw, and from reading between the lines it's odds on that some others shared similar views. Collectively we weren't on the same visual page, and we won't be until an absolute standard for both software and hardware, applied rigidly, is instituted.

 

Theorem, in Greek, English, and mathematics, implies a proof.

As a matter of fact the "proof" of a theorem is as often as not conjectured. In the field of mathematics it's true that a theorem is, as a rule, something proven, but that is more a case of accepted use.

Going back to the Greek and Latin we find theorema (sight, spectacle) from theorein (to look at, behold, contemplate, consider). This in turn stems from theoros (spectator) and thea (sight, view). Webster's 3rd offers: "more at THEATER."

I cannot understand or appreciate B&W photography. I've tried. Really, I have.

 

But it's all flat, dull, and lifeless to me.

 

My eyes get wide and I squeel with glee when I see a photograph with all the primary colours.

 

This is a strong composition. A great photograph. And I can't see it, because I'm blind.

 

I feel like I'm watching all the adults discuss about the movie we just saw, and all I saw in the movie was a bunch of adults talking. What's there to discuss? No explosions. No flashing lights or colour.

 

What's wrong with me?

Of course, the etymology of a word and it's meaning are usually related; still I believe your Webster describes a theorem* in its weakest form as an idea proposed as a general truth.

 

Now, I know you didn't join this idly, so you might shed some light on the proposal-lemma-theorem-conjecture-assertion that photography involves capturing photons on emulsions, and (as explicated in his posts) resolving those images through superiour darkroom craftsmanship.

 

How are we then to view the images from Hubble, Compton, GLAST (once launched), the many KH-11 satellites and the 10-meter Keck telescopes (none use film)? I admit, I sure thought those were photos when they first came out.

 

Perhaps, Mr. Caird is wrestling with where is the dividing line between a photo and a digitally-created artwork. I'd be interested in his thoughts.

 

*For those who wish to stray kilometers from photography, and parsecs from Mr. MacEachern's grand PHOTO, I suggest Dr. Gödel's 1931 work, "On Formally Undecidable Propositions..." if they want to wallow in the meaning of "theorem". The work WILL drive you mad - it drove Gödel mad - but another conjecture is that madness lies at the root of great art. Maybe it will sharpen up your snaps!

For the sake of your argument, Tomiko, at least as I understand it, you'd be better to point out to the patient Mr. Caird that everyone who participates in the on-line delivery of photography is part and parcel of this new digital wave, whether he comes willingly, kicking and screaming or otherwise. To parse it unmercifully down to the level of correctly-arranged photons will not likely take you far with a crowd that as often as not expresses its appreciation for the photographic arts in terms such as "I don't like pictures of buildings, why don't you take real pictures?"

Of course that's just a suggestion. These people are, afterall, closer to residing in your camp than mine, so do it your own way if you please.

What's wrong with me?

I don't know. Maybe nothing at all. Why need there be something "wrong" with you necessarily for the reason you don't admire or understand something?

If you want to appreciate B&W and have difficulty, perhaps if you tried to just look at these pictures as simple portrayals of life around us. Should that not cut it, try them on as portals to history, snapshots in time, whatever.

Speaking for myself, I usually hesitate in front of an old B&W print, most especially a picture of San Francisco from around the turn of the century, but then I have interest in history, I like to wonder who the people in these old pictures were, what sort of lives they led. What were they thinking at the time, where were they headed?

I suppose that for any art to be appreciated it must want to be appreciated . . . by someone.

By the way, I like your A foggy bank in Napier -- Second Version (cloned out irritations). I never saw the first version--if that's still up I missed it.

As for the POW, well, it's nice in terms of composition, but there are WAY too many grey tones, and the print (or scan) is in dire need of some good old dodging and burning. If you're going to use Tri-X, do the film some courtesy and give it the "life" it deserves. I also think the top third of the picture is un-necessary clutter and would have preferred the photographer focus in on more of the kids. However, I'm not 100% sure of this because some stronger printing (or neg processing) might make the houses on the top part of the frame more interesting.

The trouble with your plea here, Scott, is that we in effect have come to demand an entirely different image from the photographer after the fact. This strikes me as not only unsympathetic but unfair. It is furthermore unproductive by its nature. Better, I believe, to limit our critiques to the image before us. (I realize you didn't try to be unfair, that you have no ax to grind or squabble to pick with the photographer, that you've offered your analysis in the best possible spirit. I point this out, though, so that others might not stray similarly in their critiques.)

I've gone back to the remarks left by the site administrators several times and keep finding myself hung up with the adjective "perfect." Is there anything perfect about this image? I doubt it. The composition begs to be described as top-heavy, the print is somewhat soft (relative lack of strong contrast is what that means to say, for anyone unclear). That doesn't sound like perfect to me.

I like the image, make no mistake. But isn't it time we came to grips, or at least tried to come to grips with reality? Can we not discipline ourselves to talk about our work without resort to extreme expression?

If someone told me he'd just bought a digital camera, I'd think he was being premature. If, on the other hand, someone said he'd bought a film camera, I'd say he was being redundant.

Well said if somewhat harsh. Humorous at least.

How fortunate that the aesthetically more fundamental form of photography -- namely, black and white -- was technically the more feasible! If color photography had been easier than black and white and had had historical priority, we might all be thinking (incorrectly of course) that black and white is a "manipulation", accomplished through the use of suspicious or sleazy techniques lying outside the realm of true photography.

Brian, don't pout. If you don't like B&W shoot color. As if anyone could care less. But this affectation and posturing is mularkey, and if you want to know the baggaged attitude you haul with it can only hold you back as a photographer.

Jim: it's funny you should mention National Geographic as I had that publication in mind (and in hand) the day before yesterday on a matter related to this server. I won't go into that, at least not now, but I will say that if you can find a "blurred or blotchy" image in that magazine, pick the issue, then you have a good news story. It only hires the best, it only contracts with the best photographers--and we're talking the best in their respective areas of photography, so in reality we speak to la creme de la creme here. On top of that their editorial policies with regard to how they choose the final images published are the stuff of legend. It could well be that National Geographic has published a "blurred or blotchy" image along the way, but I couldn't say I've ever seen one within its folds. These pictures might not all be "great" shots or photos that interest you a whole lot on any given day, but as a rule the images are expertly rendered things.

For whatever that's worth.

Tris, the ad hominem attack does not advance your argument and seems designed only to be offensive.

You have not answered my basic point. Suppose the only technically feasible form of analog photography had been color photography. That, out of necessity, the mastery of photography's masters included the ability to handle color. And that black and white had entered the scene only recently as "digital desaturation", achieved in Photoshop.

Would you be celebrating the technical progress which had finally made it possible to realize black and white, the essence of photography? Or would you be decrying it as a manipulation, to be indulged only by philistines with an aesthetic understanding clearly inferior to your own?

Tris.

 

It's quite remarkable, with all your intellectual posturing, that Brian's clever hypothetical went entirely over you head.

 

Brian.

 

You've made an excellent point which utterly demolishes so much photographic dogma.

Unfortunately, television is generally pictures without radio, mores the pity, and so very often photogaphy is colour without any content.

It is not an aversion, but rather a distraction, a personal failing. If I have a camera loaded with colour film, I become more conscious of colour as an end result, rather than pure content....the interplay of the subject with the environment. But, it would be fair to say that colour is generally irrelevant to my genre of photography.

Tris, the ad hominem attack does not advance your argument and seems designed only to be offensive.

I don't employ them. I don't need to. I don't desire to. Occasionally I will call someone out of name, but only in complete frustration and when that person's demonstrated clear idiocy.

In any event you are apparently unaware of what constitutes the ad hominem plea. You'd do well to research the subject.

You have not answered my basic point. Suppose the only technically feasible form of analog photography had been color photography. That, out of necessity, the mastery of photography's masters included the ability to handle color. And that black and white had entered the scene only recently as "digital desaturation", achieved in Photoshop.

Would you be celebrating the technical progress which had finally made it possible to realize black and white, the essence of photography? Or would you be decrying it as a manipulation, to be indulged only by philistines with an aesthetic understanding clearly inferior to your own?

Your points are irrelvant, Brian, the hypothetical absurd. As it pertains specifically, you're barking up the wrong tree with me for the reason that I happen to love color pictures . . . if they're done well.

I celebrate quality.

Now it's true that I've voiced a preference for B&W work, but that's like the "if you were stranded on an island with just one book" scenario. I'd opt for B&W photos in that situation, but I happen to like color, also.

Color has its place. So does B&W. I don't look on all B&W as classic, all color as something less than classic. I've suggested that B&W would make a better medium to work in for the beginner, and there are good reasons for this.

You want to see topnotch color work? Here's a picture I ran across from checking a photographer who left a comment on one of my photos.

Classic car night

That is excellence with a capital E. I told Jim at the time that I wished his photo would be chosen as POW so the community might have a chance to kick around technique with him. For that purpose, you couldn't find a more appropriate subject than this.

I hope that helps you.

Trevor,

 

We stayed in B&Bs and pubs, no hotels, not even cheap ones. Also, I'm Canadian, (and we found that it mattered in Britain).