Three Poles

OK Geoff, first let me reiterate that I see many merits in Jeff's photo and his methods as well. I think the so-called bashing was directed primarily at the rating system and the foolish comment about perfection. You would think we were all in heaven with as many perfect scores that are given out here. I refuse to believe that any photo that makes me cross-eyed from looking at it would be rated as a 10. The light fall-off at the corners makes it look like this was taken with a toy camera (oh yeah, I forgot).

 

Your comments do not exactly read like an endorsement. I do not believe that mediocre and dull are the same as minimalism. I don't think the photographer was going for "simple for the sake of being simple." That's not much of a compliment in my mind.

 

Your idea that the majority must be right makes me laugh until my sides hurt. That's how all kinds of problems get started in this world. We need people to firmly disagree with the majority, and as far as this site is concerned it's usually the people who disagree that have the most compelling argument to support their position. Your thesis appears to be based on the belief that people who gush over a photo are somehow more qualified than the ones who make an objective critique. Using my new binary rating system I would have to rate your comments as 0/0.

 

What I like - I like the pattern of the water that forms a grid similar to a well-manicured lawn. That satisfies my need for irony. I also like the catenary curve of the wires, which is repeated in the clouds. In fact, I would say that it makes me think whatever message was flowing through those wires has now escaped into the atmosphere. That satisfies my need for mystery. Now if I only has some aspirin and eye drops.

 

For the record, the darkened corners in this image were not a function of the camera, but an effect I added in Photoshop.

 

Jeff

 

O.K. People Break it up, Break it up..shows over...move along, move along...

 

I have to vote for the modified version of this photo. The contrast DOES complete the imagery for me. Loneliness shlonelenss, theres nothing deep dark and mysterious about this its just odd that these poles are out in the water. God, if only we could power our cars from the enormous concoctions people extract from what they "perceive", our worries would be, well, less anyway. As for the hole in the sole stuff, well I just like pretty pictures.

 

Especially those really sun-bleached landscapes ,usually featuring a clock or an ad of some kind, in the window of the mechanics garage.

Nice shot, reminds me of McKenna. Doing something with the overall contrast and perhaps alternative processing could make this even more interesting.

"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"

Tris, those are the same "learning circles" that I propose are in some ways too far beyond the capacity to just look at a photo and appreciate it for what it is.

The other day my sister came to me with a photo she took of her daughter and asked me what I thought of it - knowing that I am a photographer and may have some insight.

I said (to my stupidity), "Oh, that's nice," and left it at that.

She was crushed man. Everyone up to that point had absolutely loved the photograph for its simplicity and expression of emotion. I only saw the technical blunders and dismissed it as "nice."

So - in comparison to this photo, I think that some fail to see the strength of this photo because of their scholarly intuition and egocentric attitude toward photo critiquing.

Ooooh, I just read Dennis' comment while I was writing this and am getting excited.

Dennis, I never said the majority MUST be right. I said (or rather inferred) that if the majority of raters are rating higher then you, then maybe they see something that you don't. Maybe it's time then to rethink your stance on the way you view the photo, however, definately not to mold into a mob-style induced form of thinking. I don't subscribe to the majority rulz theory at all. That's exactly why I'm arguing your comment.

In fact, the contributors to this forum who disagree with the norm often have the best ideas to offer, even those who rate my comments at 0/0. (hope I didn't make your sides hurt too, too much Dennis.) :)Actually now that I think about it, you may be right on the "mediocre" issue. I equated it, with not enough thought, of mediocre and dull to mean lacking contrast, definition, texture, form, etc. Maybe I was just to bent on enjoying the minimilistic-ness of the photo, which I love. OK. That's my endorsement. I frickin love it man. Whoo. What a photo. I don't care if there's 300,000 that look exactly that same as this one. Hang them all on my wall man. I love these kinds of photos.

Well, that's all I have to say for now.

I have to comment that I prefer the original post to the brightened redo. The original has a sort of daugerrotype (sp?)/ platinum feel to it that I enjoy. The redo feels too much like straight silver and makes it feel less intriguing to me. I love Silver, it's all I know how to use, but not for this presentation. I know it's digital, but it effectively imitates an older means of image making.

 

To expand on what I wrote above, I enjoy the central positioning of the poles and the near-central cut of the horizon, it is just very relaxing, it isn't contrived or forcing anything down my throat or innovative or powerful or anything, it is just a curious little picture with some very velvety elements presented in a way that makes it look very old, adding to that comfortable feeling.

 

I agree with you Tris that it seems Jeff's talents are well suited for medium or large format.

 

I don't even look at the ratings on POW pictures anymore. Scores are actually a distraction in most cases. They are not meaningless, because I check the scores on my pics just like everyone else does and the high scores feel good and the low ones feel bad, but when I evaluate someone else's photos I rarely ever look at the scores and I don't think I've rated a picture for months. How someone else rated a picture has no bearing on how I feel about it (except maybe my own, but that is my weakness) and I prefer to stay out of the fray entirely, maybe hoping that it will just go away if I ignore it.

 

BTW: interesting article on the old and new of photography in the latest Discover magazine.

 

Aloha

Sorry Geoff, inferences are just too sophisticated for me. I guess I missed your point. Unfortunately my binary rating system only allows for two options 0/0 or 1/1 (on or off). Since your comments were too difficult for me to understand, I was forced to rate your comment 0/0.

 

It does seem natural that a person would ask himself or herself why everyone else is rating a photo in the 8,9,10 range while they are only able to give it a 1/1. Stupidity or Spite? Ratings are subjective and relate directly to the rater's experience. By experience, I mean photographic experience and analytical ability. People who routinely give out scores of 1/1 or 10/10 are really not putting much (any) thought into the process. When someone rates 1/1 on one of my photos, I usually ask them to explain how they made that decision. The typical answer is that they don't like that particular type of photo. The rating has no basis other than the viewer's prejudice towards the subject. I joke about hating cat photos, but I still know a good photo of a cat when I see one (I actually saw one once).

 

I too enjoy minimalism (a lot) but I think the photo Jeff Green cited was a better example than this one. Since you explained yourself so well (and I was able to comprehend it) I will give your recent comments a 1/1 which is the highest rating available under my new system. Dang, it really gores me that I had to give you the highest rating. I need to refine my system.

 

 

No hay problema. It would work this way: 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 . . . .

Are we having fun yet?

I kind of agree with Tris. 10/10 is perfection, and damn few things are perfect. Anyway, I've grown to hate ratings. Is there some sort of contest that I'm unaware of? Does someone win a toaster in the end?

Or better still a set of flamingo plates--I was always partial to those.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with Steve Bingham when he said, "Great photographs all have one thing in common, and that would be emotional content. They have a feeling." This photo has that. Choosing to lighten it up, crop it or change it in any way would completely change what Jeff saw in this image. This is 'Three Poles' through Jeff's eyes. Isn't it a photographer's job to convey their own interpretation of the world? BTW, I prefer Jeff's. Congratulations on POW!

Question for later. Should a rating system start at 10 and be subtractive, or start at 5 (average) and be both additive and subtractive? Should ratings be a three-digit system 5.5.5 Technique, originality, aesthetics? This is assuming that people care about technique or originality or that people care about ratings in general. I do like the idea of a survey type rating system as mentioned in a previous post, though I think that may be too much of a load for this server to handle. Forget all that, let's just design a wacky board game instead!

 

By the way, I am somewhat surprised by your sudden embrace of popular vernacular and tacky home accessories. But hey I dig that crazy lingo man.

 

Hi again, just 3 comments:

 

1. If I gave the impression, by posting the modded picture, that I was patching up Jeff's work, I apologise. I was presenting an alternative. In fact, the histogram suggested I was just un-doing some of what Jeff had chosen to do to his original image.

 

2. I had decided that scoring was completely silly and resolved not to score anything. Then I realised that I used the "top photos" link to find interesting work... which means relying on scores. So now I force myself to go score some pics occasionally.

 

3. My day job (which I'll be sticking with for some time...) is as a biostatistician. So I think about such things as normaling data and scoring systems etc etc. The theoretical underpinning to normalised scores is that everyone is scoring the same thing, but some tend a bit high or a bit low. So by adding or subtracting how much their mean score differs from 5 everything is fair.

 

However I doubt that is happening here. Some people have entirely different tastes. I would have scored the POW pretty low, but I usually don't rate photos I don't like (problem 1... systematically biased selection of photos to score). Moreover, I quite like edgy photos such as those by Leslie Hancock, Ms Velvety or Kevin Hundsnurcher (sp??). Many others would reverse that preference. So we would be rating different things: adjusting scores up or down makes no real sense.

 

It's all just personal taste and how seriously you take it depends on how seriously care about popular taste.

A reasonable assessment, Graham, and cogent (implied) advice. The problem is that the people who run Photonet seemingly take these grades very seriously indeed as an indicator of what is and what is not "higher photographic art," and if that realization startles then hold onto your hat for there are plenty of individual users around here who positively swear by it and will go to extreme lengths to ensure their own relatively high ranking within the greater community. As for the lunkheads . . . they haven't a small clue, but then they never do. What's disturbing is that this instrument of scoring was so readily placed into their eager paws to begin with, as if that could have ever led to anything good.

You say yourself you use scores to direct your eyes to the better photographs on this site. You will find some very good photographs in the higher rankings, but if you are at all discerning in matters of this kind I think you will also find other stuff as well. The real problem as I see it is that it's so easy to fall into the trap of believing that just because a picture has been lowly or highly ranked by a (sufficient, whatever might constitute that) number of people that this in and of itself justifies that ranking--a "proof" which wants to prove itself as it were, it is a seedy and decrepit argument which was put forward all too lamely only a few posts above ours, and one, unhappily, that we encounter all the time. (As an aside, I would suggest that it might make more sense to allow oneself to be led to interesting photographs through other means, for example, comments left by whomever on whatever threads or the like.)

Another thought: it's just possible that bad photography could teach the interested student as much as good photography. As I see it the great failure of this site is the fascination (of scores, mainly) encouraged in this ongoing POW process at the bald expense of photographic education. The sad fact is that only a few months ago this server could just not tolerate outright criticism on the POW thread, and it was only through the course of more than one virtual bloodletting that we have arrived so far as to peacefully allow even this minor discussion to unfold without correspondent acrimony of the most bitter kind. You may believe that, though should you have the least doubt of what I speak simply check it out for yourself. Except for a few items of "interest" it is all still up there to read.

Getting back to your main thesis (that people are not rating the same things): that's at the core of this problem and the surest argument I could bring that the grade system must ultimately fail no matter how differently it were implemented. There are no standards to go by, and even if there were there would be no way to enforce them, no way to tell if in the end the animal made sense or not. I put it to you that any system so described is useless for all practical purposes.

I'm not clear as to what the rationale for this venture originally was, but whatever the reason, if it had to do with anything educational that ideal long ago receded into obscurity as the raison d'etre of this site. These days Photonet steams a course to all appearances unplotted with a will of its own and for a purpose whispered only between the gods.

Maybe the lives of a lot of users here would become easier if we realised that the best rated photos are just that. Best rated. Ratings reflect popularity. Some people who were later recognised as great artists were popular in their day, others weren't.

 

BTW Jeff, nice photo. But I like some of your other work better.

 

About ratings

 

Since we have left (not for too long, hopefully) Jeffs picture to talk about the way the sites rating system works, a few words about it

 

Yes, there is no doubt about it, we all DO have different ways to rate pictures. That means that each rating just reflects the way your raters rated your pictures whether they liked it or not. And thats it !

 

Since we all have different people rating us, our ratings cant be compared to other members ratings. Which makes the Big List everything but an accurate tool to know whos the best or whats the best picture and thats fine by me, since there is anyway no such thing as a Best photographer or best picture .

 

Now whats this list for, then ? As somebody said, it gives indications of a majoritys global estimated opinion, and it is a very practical thing for a new comer to the site. Then, of course, it can be very unfair to some photographers. We all have admired pictures on this site at every level of the rating list . So, the regular to the site should by now know what usage to make of a rating and of the list

 

For example, Jo Voetz has many pictures in his folders which are among my favorites on Photo.Net. You might know him for his past POW , but who would ever find him in the list ?? I never had the patience to look for his name in there ! Last weeks POW photographer, Bill, was also unknow to me a month ago till Tony Dummett advised me to go and check it out and I have really no regrets about seeing Bills work ! Basically, we should talk to each other a bit more about what we like. And spend a bit less time arguing about whats bad or not bad

 

To me, this site is a fantastic tool: it is our duty to make good use of it.

Lets not forget that there is no Cartier-Bresson on this Site. So, would I keep all my marks below 5 if I feel Cartier-Bressons best picture is far better than any pale copy of it by Tony Dummett for example ? Certainly not. Or else, I would be rating everything below 5 all my life in here ! So I feel we should keep things in proportion. I give 10 to any fantastic picture that I find, provided I see nothing in it that I would want to change or correct. And I keep 8 and 9 for good pictures which still, to me, arent THAT fantastic, or could have been but didnt touch me that much (like this picture by Jeff)

etc. 7 are for ok shots, which are well done, but not fantastically original or not touching me. I do use 6 once in a while, but I wouldnt go any lower, because I see no point to do so. I have better things to do than hurting people. And I prefer to see pictures I like than pictures I dont like So why waste time rating shots that we find weak ? By the way, I like the idea of a Technical rating. That, at least, would maybe present more objectivity

 

Finally, it is good, I believe, to see pictures for what the photographer who took them wanted them to be, not directly for what we OURSELVES wanted them to be. I agree pretty much with what Steve Bingham said above. And when I said that I preferred Grahams post, I did make clear that I preferred it on a purely aesthetical basis. I agree then with the comment where I read that the daguerreotype look has an extra charm for this particular image. Why ? Because it matches the message of isolation that I get from the shot. And now I hope to read a few things about the picture again

 

Im neither an old nor a young member of this site (since June 2001). However, I didnt understand the concept of POW and notice its importance until last month, since the POW I know from another web site is generated automatically (the most and highest rated photo within past seven days) rather than chosen by the elves. OK, this concept is necessary because we have too many visitors/members on this site and the site is not very transparent (e.g. Im missing a list for the latest commented or rated photos). Slowly, I begin to like this concept as a special culture of this site. Here is the actual FORUM of the whole site, full of interesting and violent discussions, apart from occasional offended comments. In my opinion, the choice of POE is as subjective as the rating itself, and is more or less accidental. Therefore, its quite natural that some people dont have the same opinion as the elves, and it is helpful to have a POW that leads to a controversial discussion instead of pure praises. To the current POW, its a wonderful photographic work showing an appealing and mysterious scene, but, again, it doesnt have the same impact for me as some other shots of the photographer. Jeff, Im sorry to say I cannot enjoy the dark corners you added digitally since it doesnt seem to reconcile with the idea of minimalism which is the clue of this picture. I appreciate your skills, honesty and modesty very much.

Simplicity is what sets the good ones apart. You did a great job of capturing it here. My eyes want to keep going down to the right. Therefore, I must ask why you centered the poles instead of setting them off on the left a little?

Majority "rulz" are essential to any semblance of rational, thoughtful and logical progression in whatever field you choose - be it politics, culture, fashion, photography etc. There will always be an avante guarde minority who push the envelope and their results, by and large, will be equal parts success and failure. The "majority" needs time to assess and distill the efforts of these trailblazers and, as such, will always fail to meet the expectations of the trailblazers themselves who by then have moved on to something new. As such (and I'm sure Tris will appreciate this analogy), the "unwashed masses" are "retarded" in their appreciation and acceptance of what is "good". Bear in mind though that this serves a very good purpose, since what is "bad" is given the time to be weeded out entirely (most of the time anyways, as obvious exceptions exist - to wit, 70's bell-bottom jeans).

 

In any event, the purpose of the preceding paragraph was to underscore the following - this photograph will probably appeal to a majority of photographers out there since it is just unique (i.e. centred and minimalist subject thereby breaking the "rule of thirds") and moody enough to be considered progressive. However, those that are truly progressive (and knowledgeable of photographic art history) will probably formulate an opinion such as "nice pic, but been there and done that."

 

Since by nature I've more in common with the "retarded" majority than with the avante guarde progressives, I like this photo. But I can certainly understand why it does not appeal to all.

 

 

Centering has been frowned upon in photography for many years. Too bad! It really can be effective in many cases. While the rule of thirds has its merits, it should never be a way of life. There are a lot of "rules" yet to be discovered. And the only way to discover the new ones is to break the old ones.

 

I'm not saying that my pic above breaks any rules, not at all. It's a simple shot, with the subject right in the center. Placed as it is, the non-symmetrical aspects of the subject are brought out somewhat. The emphasis is on the subject (a la museum display) and that's that.

 

Many of the comments I've seen here in regards to centering have been very textbook. To be honest, that really turns me off. Whenever anyone begins reciting textbook rules to me, I want to stuff my ears with cotton and run for the hills. I want to yell "Don't let your intellect sway your photon placement decision making skills". I usually don't say that out loud though.

 

OK, maybe I'm overreacting a little. Probably the caffeine. Overreacting can be fun at times, right?

 

My only point is that centering is just another tool you can use to bring about interest (yes, INTEREST) in your subject. No, it's not always the best choice, but it can be at times.

 

And now, back to my normal "modest" self :)

 

Here's another centered subject from my portfolio

 

 

/photodb/image-display?photo_id=84247&size=lg

" Centering has been frowned upon in photography for many years. Too bad! It really can be effective in many cases. While the rule of thirds has its merits, it should never be a way of life. There are a lot of "rules" yet to be discovered. And the only way to discover the new ones is to break the old ones. "

 

Agreed with Jeff 100 %. By the way, the 2/3 rule appeared with who you know, in the XVth century, and the rule before - the only one - was symetrical composition with the subject in the centre. So, who wants to redo the entire history of art ? Not me. That would be too much work...:-)

 

 

Many of the comments I've seen here in regards to centering have been very textbook. To be honest, that really turns me off. Whenever anyone begins reciting textbook rules to me, I want to stuff my ears with cotton and run for the hills. I want to yell "Don't let your intellect sway your photon placement decision making skills". I usually don't say that out loud though.

There is no need to defend your right to present your images as you best see fit, Jeff. To do otherwise would be to not only lose faith with your artististic self but to break covenant with viewers who trust that what you ultimately present is a representation of your artistic vision and not an expression of assent to some collective of correctness, a bow to coercion of mean force. As with all rules there must always exist exceptions, and as one moves away from rectangular to square photographic formats it becomes obvious (to some) that the so-called rule of thirds addresses just so much relevance and value, depending on circumstance, always.

If you have the patience, my problem (if you could call it that--actually I've no problem but something more like reflection based on studied interest) with your work is that you seem to be making only a few images (somewhat differently but mainly in the same fashion) over and over again. I would therefore urge you to take your camera out to different settings, preferably scenes which teem with humanity, and try to redevelop or re-establish your photographic eye in these (for lack of better terms) fresh and foreign environments. Such an exercise could not help but let (actively encourage) you and your work to grow. I would also encourage you to one day wade into the mire known as film emulsion, most especially if you continue to work in B&W, if for no other reason to educate yourself more fully about the vagaries of lights and forms.

Tris, I do agree with you that it can be a good thing to work with new subject matter. In fact I've tried working with human beings in my shots but in the end I usually feel that they're only blocking something of more importance in the background :) What I really like to do is to try to find human emotional characteristics in non-human subjects. I've always felt that there's plenty of that in the desert.

 

You say:

 

"You seem to be making only a few images (somewhat differently but mainly in the same fashion) over and over again."

 

And to me this translates to...style.

 

You're seeing my style. David Fokos, as shown above, has a very specific style.

 

Here are a couple more photographers who "Make only a few images":

 

Ion Zupcu

Larry Wiese

 

These photographers have narrowed down their styles and subject matter for a reason: It's what they feel. There are HUGE varying worlds within their small variances in subject matter. They've homed in, refined they're styles, and found a means of self-expression which appeals to them and, hopefully, to others.

 

Don't get me wrong Tris, like I said, I agree that a variance in subject matter is a good thing. I just don't agree that sticking to one style or a similarity of subject is bad, considering what can be found and discovered within a more limited palette.

Hi Michael, nope that wasn't a joke :)

 

I added them because I felt it helped to place the focus on the poles and add a little mystery. Without the dark corners (actually it's more of a dark oval than just the corners) I felt that things were a little too open, that every part of the photo had equal importance. Also, I wanted it to be a little more dreamlike, like a vision, rather than just a straight photo.

 

Jeff

 

 

And to me this translates to...style.

You're seeing my style. David Fokos, as shown above, has a very specific style.

I'll put it another way. You're trying too hard. To have a "style." Try instead to have the ability to photograph more than one or two subjects competently, preferably something that moves more nimbly than a barn. In fact, my advice to all photographers is to actively pursue those subjects with which they have the most trouble.

If you find that people are distracting to your images then get closer to these people until you can no longer see what had been before your images. Soon enough you'll have human images on your hands. It is more logical to expect to find nature lurking in human form than the reverse.

Look. If you haven't already passed over then I'd say you're directly astride that line where the Photonetter starts to believe in these ratings. More advice: don't. Beyond meaningless in the larger scheme of things artistic, they tend strongly to mislead (witness the gentleman above who bothered to take me up on my challenge to articulate his rationalization for awarding high scores--while I applaud his candor I am thankful I am not likewise confused). Besides, I've never heard of a grade taking a decent picture.

Get out in the street, load up with Tri-X and shoot a thousand frames. First beer's on me.