Bridge into Silence

Anthony has already given us a pretty good description - he was there, after all - enough so that some of us now have a frame of reference. The only thing I get from your post is that you've never been to anything remotely like it.

Lannie, I agree with you above comments, but they seem to vary from the ones you posted above it, especially this:

 

"...That's why we need the expanse on each side, and all the dust, so that the mind's eye can have a tabula rasa, a "blank slate" upon which to write our own imaginary interpretations. (That is also why I prefer this version, which gives freer scope to my mind's eye, which has always been better than my photographic eye.)

 

Michael, I love your crop, and the composition is beautiful, but the uncropped version gives freer rein to my inner vision, hallucinatory or otherwise. ..."

 

That blank slate in this case is called negative space, and if you don't need if for the composition it becomes a deficit. You may 'think' you need it, but in reality, which I always prefer to the hallucinatory, that extra space gives the brain absolutly nothing in it's search of it. Our eyes will go there, and upon constantly finding nothing to 'rest on' or see, then it's done with the image. If you don't allow the space to exist, per the cropping of mine you said you liked, then the viewer is 'forced' to stay around longer and look at what IS of interest.

 

Hope this helps, as the longer the person views my art, the more successful, in reality again, it is.

 

Still waiting for comments from the artist on my crop! :-).

Michael, you are truly a gifted photographer, and I enjoy your photos very much. In this case, however, I still prefer Anthony's posted version over your cropped version. Sorry.

Michael, the way I see it, we're looking at two different ways of looking at this or any other image. Your observations refer to the subconscious ways our eyes move around a picture space. Lannie's comment - and mine - refer to an understanding of the actual content, in this case a sense of place. I'm struck by how often critquess delve into one without seeming to recognize the importance of the other.

 

For the record, I think the crop which cuts of the legs confine the space - exactly the opposite of what seems to be an integral part of the experience of vastness. The panorama works well enough for me, but I miss the large shadow and the clouds, the latter being more important than we may realize, given that we have the benefit of knowing about the sky and foreground from the original image.

BTW, I realize the square crop isn't yours. I think your version is overwhelmed by the black frame and doesn't really change the content of the original much.

This is an interesting line of discussion, and I am grateful when some of the best photographers on photo.net respond to my feeble comments. I am neither a particularly good photographer nor a specialist in aesthetics as a subfield of either philosophy or art criticism.

 

Michael, to give your comment the attention it deserves requires that I explain myself a bit more clearly. My use of the word "hallucinatory" was my feeble attempt at self-deprecatory humor, and I can't expect you to read my mind on that one.

 

The reason I like the space and dusty void in this photo is precisely because it does reinforce my first and continuing interpretation of the photo, which is about riding off into that void.

 

Ordinarily, I would have to agree with you about negative space, but in this case that openness is not mere negative space, in my opinion. It reinforces my sense of the void, as I said above. Your crop, although elegant and worthy in its own right, does not in my opinion promote my particular interpretation of someone riding into the void. Indeed, in this case, it makes me feel a bit claustrophobic, even though as a formal composition it is quite good. In any case, here is a photo where the photographer does not require us to imagine the void: he shows it to us.

 

I think that in some ways we are talking past each other, and I hope that my response is now a bit more coherent to you. It is, after all, a very rare day when I find myself critiquing any photo that has to do with a void.

Carl, I did that because everyone will think I did not do much. I wanted to post it cropped only, but because I took out un-needed nothingness no one would have missed it and thought nothing had changed. Does that make sense? It proves my point though; that it's unnecessary doesn't it?

Michael, you say (several posts back), "the longer the person views my art, the more successful, in reality again, it is."

 

You also keep making statements such as "Hope this helps. . ." or "Proves my point."

 

With all due respect, persons are not always going to overwhelmed by either your logic or your posting (nor mine either) as proof of anything. I do not wish to convey any disrespect, but the fact is that, although I continue to like your version, I still do not like it as much as I do Anthony's original, given my interpretation of the picture (riding into the void, oblivion). I think that oblivion is better portrayed by something that symbolizes nothingness, and a dust cloud over the desert is pretty close to the perfect symbol of nothingness.

 

Now, for me, my preference is simply a psychological/anthropological datum: a fact. That is, I like one better than the other. That is a given. We might disagree as to why I like one more than the other, but my preference is obvious and stable. That is, I know what I like, even when I do not know why, and I prefer the uncropped version. I like your photo. I do not get the sense, however, that, if I keep looking at it, I will finally change my mind, although I do promise to keep an open mind. If I do change it, I will admit to having done so.

 

I think that we do well to adjust our theories to fit the facts rather than the reverse--the issue of "reality" again.

 

Again, with all respect. . . .

I wonder what it would look like if you blew it up a little, and croped it so that the secont triangle would be in the forefront, with the edges of the first much bigger on the sides. This might bring more weight to the rider in the background, giving he or she a different effect on the shot. It would also probably have to be set to the side, to the right specifically, to make it work compositionally.I would think that the possible grainyness from the enlarging, if that happens, would reinforce the sense of mystery that is present. What about filters? This shot has a very surreal energy to it, as one person noted that it gives them the feeling of being on another planet.Adding overall shades of color might work well especially because there is so much mist.Except for the red fabric, and the blue sky which in this case would be gone, the color tone is rather neutral, in my opinion. Just some ideas to get as much out of an already excellent photo as possible.

Michael, why do I like the uncropped version better?

 

Let me speculate. This could be nonsense, but I will do my best.

 

Format (qua aspect ratio) might be a factor. I'm liberal on aspect ratio, not a hide-bound traditionalist who must have everything either 3:2 or 4:3 or 1:1. I crop any which way to get my point across. In this case, however, your crop looks a little squat. I don't know why. It just does.

 

Post-processing might be a factor as well. Typically I darken too much and add too much contrast. In this case, I prefer the lighter and less contrasty version. Why? I'm not sure, but it might have something to do with the theme (or my interpretation of a theme): riding into the void. I think that that interpretation works better with a rather light and airy treatment, even if that comes at the expense of having the photo jump off the page at me.

 

Now, as for the sun: this is a backlit photo, and the sun, desert, and dust clouds convey heat and dryness. The void that the man is riding into (on my interpretation) is a void which is indeed one that results from a dessicating earth. Again, what better conveys that void than a light, backlit photo with low contrast and a broad sense of airiness?

 

Again, just speculating. . . .

Lannie, one question. Which one do you look at longer? I actually count how many seconds I study the work when I'm cropping, so I can know which is better. It's not subjective this way. (This is from my premise that the longer one looks at the art, the better it is). If this is not decided to be important, then no need to read further or discuss this cropping over that.

 

This need to compare by counting (which I've done all day today on a recent series I'm creating), may sound anal, but this is my forte as they say. I sometimes do this a few times so as to not prejudice my decision with the one I 'think' I like more. I then keep notes on the back of the proofs. I know there is a difference as I've practiced it for over 30 years seriously now. It's also something I teach on regularly. Hope I have not offended you.

Again, Michael, why my preference for the uncropped version? In addition to the points I already made, the uncropped version is presented without a frame, unbounded. Your version is very bounded, both by the frame and by the heavily defined lines which you have enhanced with darkening and contrast.

 

A void (my interpretation, admittedly) conveys not only emptiness, but an unbounded emptiness. The uncropped and light and airy and unframed version conveys that sense of emptiness better, in my opinion, over the more contrasty, cropped, and framed version.

 

I would even suggest mounting Anthony's version as a print with a perfectly white background to emphasize the lack of boundedness (if that's a word).

 

I hope (as I am sure that you do) that this concludes my analysis of my own preferences, and I'm sorry that my preference still lies with Anthony's version, not yours.

 

Again, with all respect. . . .

For the second time tonight, Michael, we have been writing at the same time, and so I need to go back and see what you have written.

 

I don't think that your counting technique sounds anal. I will certainly give it a try. I saw Anthony's version a number of times before I saw yours, although tonight I find myself going back and forth about equally. I'll try to even that out.

 

In the meantime, please remember that I love your photos. I really do. In addition, for what it's worth, your version is more striking and does jump off the page--and would probably sell better, if I am any judge as to what sells and what does not, based on what gets ratings.

 

I love the rational exchange of ideas. I am not angered in the least, but very pleased to find someone who will thrash an idea through to conclusion. That is refreshing to me, especially down here in the South, where most persons find the word "argument" to imply "quarrel." I certainly do not.

 

Thank you sincerely for taking the time to write. I am doing the best that I can in a field that is relatively new to me, and in which I am admittedly the dilettante.

Michael Seewald - I already stated this half way up the discussion: Square no, 5:4 possibly. Your crop looks about like a 5:4. I can live with that. I just didn't do much with many of the pictures from BM I posted here. Most of them are full frame. I believe it was referred to as 35mm-itis by someone here.

 

My pictures here are more of a photographic record of what I saw there than a modification of what I saw. From my experience it is what is considered more acceptable on this site. The less you do the more respect you are likely to receive.

 

There are a few things in my folder I played with, mostly with curves. And I eventually did do a series of 348 pictures (at least half of which were heavily modified and processed) for a presentation at a BM Decompression event in SF. I actually posted a couple here back in late October and I received comments like, 'disgusting', or 'why is out of focus?'

 

So on this site we stick with close approximations of what we began with.

Fabulous photo. The only thing that bothers me about it is the cluter in the background (right). It is too bad you couldn't have gotten this shot with the dust completely concealing all of that. I think it really would have made it alot more ethereal/eerie if it was just the dust and the human figure and the structures. I also happen to think it looks better in black and white. All that said, it is a sensational shot anyway. High marks!

First of all I say that this is really interesting discussion about a photo that diserves it although it is not technically perfect.

And to react on the note to give my own interpretation I say that it is very near to interpretation by Lannie Kelly. As you wrote ... my particular interpretation of someone riding into the void, I could express just like riding into nowhere. In my panoramatic crop is this feeling emphasized. The viewer is dragged into image and at the same time all the main elements remain. The mountain (or background in general) is missing and the end of the rider's journey is unclear and veiled in dusty clouds. And the panoramatic view gives this photo atmosphere of wide space, "unbounded emptiness" as you wrote. As I see, all the other elements which I cropped are not needed and are distracting away of the main message, as regards to my interpretation.

Anyway this is one of the most interesting images I've ever seen. Thanks for sharing @nthony.

... for the purpose of not having to search for this in all the postings above.

... there's again problem with uploading an image.

I have to concede, Robert, that your panoramic view has a certain appeal, as does Michael's limited crop. Both also capture a sense of a void into which the man is riding. These are all good versions, and I have not mean to suggest anything to the contrary. I do not care for the square version, of course, but neither of you is offering that.

Robert, if you want that to be displayed as a photo in the text, you have to resize it to no more than 511 pixels on the horizontal dimension, and you have to give it a title.

I thought that I would test my own suggestion that the sense of an airy void would be enhanced by mounting on a white background. I'm not sure. . . .

So, here it is ... I hope.

I see Michael has his "square" head on again.He refers to others 35mm fixation but that is because that is the format used.He shoots on square format but I dont see much evidence of him breaking away from this when he crops.His crop has its merits,as do the others posted but I feel the space either side contributes & should remain.

Great shot,congrats on POW.Regards Pete.

I like the panorama... and it actually makes using the image shot three seconds prior to this one viable. It was probably the best version, except for the lens flare marring the top of the frame.

version I spoke of: