Three Poles

Count me out of this discussion.

This week's image appears to attract even more polarised opinions than usual. A black & white image from a cheap digital camera. And the guy even has the nerve to manipulate his images too! Perhaps he is trying to offend all self-styled 'serious' photographers. Suspend your prejudices and see more images from a digital camera at http://www.urban75.org/photos/.

 

If it is, as Tris describes, an average or perhaps above average snapshot of a relatively static (not to say sterile) scene then it would hold the interest for a very short time. I think this description may fit a few of the images in Jeff's folder, but not this one.

 

What elevates it above the mundane? Firstly, the choice of composition, which has certainly not pleased everyone. Centering the subject is a rule book no-no. Bollocks to that. As was stated by the creator himself, no other composition worked. The fact that he realised this (that it worked) elevates his decision from mere accident to positive choice. Acquainting oneself with good photography will help us to understand this, and surely is the obligation of all who wish to take their work even remotely seriously.

 

Secondly, the isolation of those poles in a calm sea or lake (is it a flood?) renders the image into something of simplicity rather than lack of interest. The two are not the same. This image definitely has a sense of place, a resonance beyond the fact of it being an image of three poles. Isn't that the point? While I wouldn't call it a masterpiece, it certainly carries intrigue and interest. Well done Jeff.

 

Whoever mentioned Fay Godwin hit the nail on the head. Fay has made her name with B&W photography of the English landscape, which displays an original perspective. There are faint echoes of her style here.

At the first look, it seemed to be a badly converted digital B/W shot, typically for the digital cameras. While looking at it carefully, I was able to tell a thoughtful composition in this simple shot with interesting details. However, for me, this photo is not so perfect as the elves meant that I would hang it on my wall. I appreciate the modesty of the photographer shown above anyway.

Tris, I actually agree with you. It seems that many people think they should give a 10 to 10% of all the pictures. Of course, they need to be taken aside and sternly lectured on the normal distribution.

 

On the other hand, since photo.net keeps everyone's scores by name, how hard would it be to normalize each person's scores to a normal distribution? In other words, should Joe Blow's 9 really count the same as your 9?

 

Hell, even HotOrNot.com normalizes scores before averaging, and they have to grapple with anonymous voters.

 

All this doesn't change the fact that the rating system is probably flawed anyway. I would prefer something like:

 

Would hang on my office/cubible wall. yes/no

Would decorate bedroom with framed print. yes/no

Would frame 8x10 and present to girlfriend. yes/no

Would print on T-shirt and wear same to college basketball game. yes/no

I like the scene, but I don't like the execution - it's just too grey to me.

In my mind's eye of this place, the sky is deep black, with shining wisps of white cloud. The poles are also dark, but backlit by the low sun. The water has great depths of tonality.

And I know very well that I couldn't take this photo if my life depended on it. I also know that quite a few photo.netters probably could.

This is the kind of tonality I'm thinking about.

Earth: 75% of water.

Why not 100%?

I like it lot.

POW? I may be a beginner to photography, but I just don't see the merit of this shot...

Ok, I've had photoshop LE on my pc for 72 hours now, so I guess I'm an expert :-) The attached mods to this image took about 15 secs: used levels (there was nothing with density <~30%),

added a bit of contrast & took the brightness down a touch.

It's beatiful; utterly simplistic, and Jeff - plus folks - what else would you desire from a POW; for simplicity IS beauty. Good man!! Congrats Jeff!!

great shot!

Well, I find Graham's post highly interesting, and this for 2 reasons. 1) I find aesthetically Graham's " 72-hours expert " version actually better than the original image - and I'm sur a lot of people will as well...

 

YES - but... What have we gained ? What have we lost ? In my opinion, aesthetics have just gained something - close to 0 % loss in my opinion.

 

But what about the message ?... I feel we have CHANGED the original message, Graham. I feel much less despair now... I'm almost happy looking at the new version... Here again, what one prefers is an individual choice... This old looking grey over the entire picture had one merit: it was somehow depressing... Graham's version has another merit. If Jeff would have wanted to, I have no doubt he could have done what Graham did

- the rest of Jeff's folio should be enough as a proof...

There have been quite a few comments suggesting that I should dump the digital and move on to film. For me, digital is the way to go. I could never get the kind of control I get in the darkroom that I get in Photoshop. Not to mention speed and cost. And patients :) I can usually "process" a photo in Photoshop in roughly 10-15 mins and get the results I desire. My

background is in 3D animation so digital is the natural choice for me. Bottom line, if it wasn't for digital I wouldn't be doing photography at all.

 

Printing: I've had very good luck printing at 16x20 and even larger. I have a 20x30 poster sized print also. I use Genuine Fractals to enlarge the prints, and it does a great job. 11x14 looks great and I have a bunch of those hanging on my wall. At home I use a cannon BJC-2800 printer and I outsource the larger stuff to www.digiprintstore.com. Do I see some image

breakdown in the larger prints? Yes, a little. But because of the graphic nature of my pics, it actually adds to the grittiness of the textures of some of my shots, especially the "Dry Mud" shots.

 

 

 

have a look ont this image...isn't it very much the same? it has got a very similiar stile, in my eyes...

I am very disappointed that Tony did not want to engage in this weeks discussion. I think the problem was that he was not able to relate very well to this type of photo. I have made some (minor) alterations that I believe enhance the basic composition and hopefully will generate some additional participation.

 

I think its great that Jeff has found a creative outlet in photo editing and he should be commended for documenting his adventures. I feel even more appreciation for his work when it is framed by context. I also liked his comments about his experience in the digital world.

 

Antonio, mai camminata via dalla famiglia.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm a very serious black and white photographer too.

 

But not too serious to have a good laugh at Dennis's modified image...

 

Calvary.

Whelp. I like the pic OK. But nowhere does it mention David Fokos. This image screams David Fokos, and he is obviously a major influence. Now I know that there are no original ideas anymore and that there is nothing wrong with influences and emulations. But in my opinion this walks TOO CLOSE to the line of 'emulation'. It's one thing to say "I took this pic', but if it is chosen as POW I think that a nod to David Fokos is in order as it is most obviously derived from his work.

 

http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/Gallery/fokos/westchop.jpgWest Chop Poles, David Fokos

 

Not to mention that the photographer has stated that David Fokos is a major influence in other places, but not here. This is not meant to be an accusation or anything, but it just kinda rubbed me wrong that Fokos is not mentioned in a pic that leans so heavily on his style.

Yes, David Fokos has been an influence on me in some ways. We've talked back and forth a little and he's been supportive. When I first saw his images in Black and White Magazine, I was immediately taken in. But in all honesty, I could list a great many influences for every pic I take.

 

David Fokos was not the first person to take poles sticking out of the water. But he certainly gave the subject new meaning. I tried to give my shot its own meaning too. But I was not setting out to imitate David Fokos when I took this shot. I saw the opp and went for it (in 106 degree temps and very high humidity I might add)

 

And I certainly hope you got Mr. Fokos's permission before you posted his photo.

 

Might be better to place a link to his image instead.

 

 

 

For more information on the Salton Sea, I recommend a book called "Salt Dreams". It gives historical backgrounds and explains the environment issues related to the use of the water in California.

In any case that's a great picture. It is has strong as anything I have seen on that subject.

(Sure it may not enlarged like one of Misrach's big print, but we are only supposed to see it on a screen anyway)

 

 

There are many influences for us all, and many influences for an individual picture. Mr. Fokos is obviously a big influence of yours as he is mine. In one gallery you mentioned the strong influence rightly for pictures at the same location in a similar style: http://www.phototripusa.com/e_gallery_1000.html (on the picture titled "Five")

 

In this picture on photo.net you didn't and I just felt that it should have been mentioned considering the rating system based on originality. That's all.

I would like to comment on a few aspects of this thread.

1. A poster mentions that this photo is mediocre and dull. Well that's the point silly. Minimilistic photography does not seek to satisfy hungry appetites for contrast, rule-book composition and ill-defined views on proper tonality. It is simple for the sake of being simple and nothing else.

The same poster then mentions that this subject is not rare. Well obviously the photo.net judges deem it to be special enough, at least in the context of this website. Point out a proliferation of this same style of photograph on photonet and maybe an argument could be made on the issue.

2. Another poster says "the majority of photonet is mad for generating perfect or next-to-perfect scores for pretty much average pictures. ." Well I would encourge a step off your high seat to concurr that prehaps if the majority of raters give over 8/8 on a photo, then maybe you are the one in err of judgement - regardless of how unworthy you may think it to be. Maybe it is you who fails to see the beauty or artistic and technical prowress in the photo. Maybe your whole judgement system is flawed.

A whole society (possibly the photonet society too) has been conned into the paradigm that people who critique a medium actually know an inkling of what they're talking about.

I give credit to many of the frequent posters in this website who back their words with facts and proofs.

However, where once in the film world people trusted the two thumbs up by the Siskel and Ebert's, it is almost commenplace (where I am from anyway) to believe exactly the opposite of what the film gurus say. Two thumbs up means it sucks, and vise versa on a bad rating. I am beginning to see the same trend here, which is good.

Photonetters such as Jeff Alu can now shake off the blatant bashing of their work and concentrating on listening to comments from those with good judgement, justice-wise ideals and well-informed opinions.All the critiques and bashing of these photos by one-side-brained thinkers - some of which have far less expertise in the medium then who they are critiquing - cannot change the photo or the mind of someone who truly appreciates it for what it is. It can only serve to fuel the fire of a) the love for the photo, and b) the conviction that the majority must see something that this lone ranger may not.

I have more to say but have to go. Maybe I'll comment later.

'Hey Witkowski, didn't I see you in that Photograph by, Fokos?'

 

'Ahh, Mr.Topolski good day to you, and yes I was in such a Photograph, and you my friend...didn't I catch you in that Audi Commercial last Spring?'

 

'Yes. We get about, the three of us on this 'Photo.net' at the moment, have you seen that?'

 

'Mr.Smolak, have you heard what they are saying now, calling the work derivative.

Imagine. In the history of Photography, copying and imitation have always been (are you listening Dobie) and continue to be the method by which the eye is focused and talent defined.

 

But it shouldn't take a Pole to tell them that, eh..?'

 

'Now, if only I could pick up my Beer.'

 

 

 

Another poster says "the majority of photonet is mad for generating perfect or next-to-perfect scores for pretty much average pictures. ." Well I would encourge a step off your high seat to concurr that prehaps if the majority of raters give over 8/8 on a photo, then maybe you are the one in err of judgement - regardless of how unworthy you may think it to be. Maybe it is you who fails to see the beauty or artistic and technical prowress in the photo. Maybe your whole judgement system is flawed.

Well, getting around the unpopular truth that the majority is typically (and for good reason, I hasten to add) held up in learned circles not as some barometer of what might be good but rather what is accepted by the majority to be "good" . . . your commentary remains in perfect lockstep with the pop-art intellect which drives these sorts of forums, with this site no exception. To assign a 10-10 score or anything like that to virtually any image, much less an image of this ilk, is to not only speak volumes in support of my statement but smacks of a middle-brow's approach to pretty much everything, to include life itself. Big surprise there.

But no matter. Everyone's free to express his views and I wholeheartedly believe in and support that right to do so. I'd be remiss, however, if I didn't add that it's bitterly resented in certain quarters that at end of day the majority . . . rulz. And of course the reason for that is that so much goodness has been trivially foresaken along the way.

I think a few of the critiques are missing the point. They are too busy judging the trees (poles in this case) to see the forest. Great photographs all have one thing in common, and that would be emotional content. They have a feeling. They stir something deep within. I think a few are judging this photograph with a set of rules that have nothing to do with the feeling tone of this wonderful image. Geoff makes some excellent points! This picture expresses lonelyness without screeming "I am lonely". It expresses sadness of better times gone by. The dull gray of the sky and water is depressing, all adding to the emotional impact of this image. The straight static composition further adds to this feeling of isolation, and being surrounded by depression. I am a little disappointed in the inane comments about cropping here, lightening up this, improving the contrast, vignetting in the corners, and fault with his primitative equipment! These are mechanics. Looking at Jeff's other pictures don't you think he knows all this? No this image is about feeling. If this picture does not talk to you, then look again. If it still does not talk to you, then you might have a hole in your soul and might best stick to looking at really pretty pictures. Photography is a very broad field. It's one thing to say we don't like a picture, quite another to say it's bad. This is one hell of a picture AND I like it.

I have no gripe with Jeff's equipment at all, or even with the digital format as far as that goes. It's just that POW threads don't lend themselves easily to discussion of photography per se when the subject image arrives and it turns out it was made using digital equipment. For that matter, users of digital gear who have no experience at all with the emulsion side of the equation are perforce ill-equipped to discuss anything other than the "images" themselves when the conversation turns on other aspects of (the more) traditional photography of film emulsions. That's just the way it is, and the call (by others--I've not voted) for separate digital vs. emulsion pages on the server might well have some merit for that reason.

As for this image Three Poles itself, as I noted it isn't half bad, maybe even good. I would agree that Jeff needs to either find much better digital equipment or switch over to at least medium-format emulsion if he wishes to display this sort of work professionally, but that's his call and in no way does that impact (or should impact) his work as we find it here on Photonet.