Ramona Falls III

Stephen raised the question of meaning, G. I have not been overwhelmed myself with discussions of meaning on Photo.net, as if the technical details were too often all that mattered.

The nice thing about the Photo of the Week is that it offers the potential for some very nice discussions of meaning, especially within the context of a person's life or even their portfolio. Yes, there are free-standing pictures, and they can and ought to be appreciated, but pictures typically do mean so much more within a broader context.

That is yet another reason that I am happy when [there is discussion about] other photos in a portfolio. The portfolio, not words, is typically the best framework that we have of that larger context, and I don't think that it is a meaningless context.

Those who like may snap pretty pictures into their old age, but how much nicer it is when they are also part of an ongoing story. Compare traditional wedding photography, for example, with Mary's photojournalistic approach to it.

I personally would like to see more stories told through pictures or presentations. Too much meaning? Not likely. Too much talk of meaning? Possibly, but I haven't heard it.

From pictures like this one (and many other kinds), I personnally just don't expect any meaning. I'm not the kind of person who sees God in nature either, but I can certainly understand and do respect the fact that others do.

Whether or not this picture is "original"... Well, no. It isn't very original imo, but it isn't supposed to be, either. It is a picture taken for the beauty of what is shown. The same often goes for conventionnal portrait photography - for example. I think the "originality" issue is therefore a non-issue, or rather an issue due to photo.net's rating criteria - and originality never made much sense to me as a criterium since not all pictures aim at being original.

Now, do I like the aesthetics of what I see ? Yes. But I still feel composition could be better, and although I disagree with all cropping suggestions posted in this thread so far, I do agree with michael Seewald's comment about the "ping pong" effect. It doesn't really bother me all that much, but that's what gives me the feeling, there must have been a better way to compose. The variation on the same subject posted by Lannie - and other variations in the same folder -, all seem to have their own merits in terms of composition, but I think none of them qualify as "excellent". They are all good compositions, which could perhaps be improved.

I read above, that Stephen wrote the following: "After ninety minutes of shooting in two formats across 4 lenses, I hoped for at least a few good images."

I'd just like to make a comment about this line. Indeed this kind of photography (which doesn't aim at originality) should aim at really perfect aesthetics, and please note: the photographer has lots of time to compose... This makes me more demanding for images of this kind. After 90 minutes, I think we can (and should) expect a picture that would have solved the ping pong effect problem, and which would have the increased feeling of depth, that I get from the version posted by Lannie.

Basically, yes, this is a very pretty picture - well done, Stephen -, but it might not be as compelling as I'd have hoped for. Is it "more" than a pretty picture...? For me, no. It doesn't strike me as a novelty, nor does it compell me to think of more than what I see. I like it fine, but only perfection could imo be good enough for me to want to look at this again and again.

I agree that the lighting is soft and nice, here... Yet, I wonder whether more visible foreground stones and/or a little bit of sun wouldn't have added depth and interest to the result. Regards.

Thanks Lannie, but perhaps I didn't make myself very clear. It is not the comments or discussions surrounding the meaning of a photo that irritates me, on the the contrary I am usually very interested in meaningful pictures and discussions. Definitely photonet could do with more of that rather than so many shoot from the hip pics and a page of 'wows'. What I was referring to were feedback comments such as 'pretty picture but not much meaning'. Or 'well executed but no story'. As if the lack of symbolic or philisophical message somehow detracts and lets the photo down. Lannie you aptly point out how some context such as portfolio collections can work, and I agree meaning can be found there. In fact what I am saying is precisely along your lines, that meaning may well be there but that those looking for too much obvious story may be missing. For me some of the most beautifully communicated of nature photos are also often the most subtle.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, G., although I did feel some resonance with what you were saying, which is why I ended as I did. Yes, it is the quality of the commentary about meaning that is lacking. On that we will surely agree. I took the time to see your photos (before your last comment) and added you to my list of favorites. Nice work!

What's the specs on this photo? ISO/f-stop/shutter speed/lens used/focal length, etc? I know I may be asking a little too much...lol... Amazing pic!

I don't think I would have said anything about the picture having meaning if not for this part of the elves intro: "Do you think this is more than just a pretty picture, one that holds your attention for a while?"

 

I, too, believe in the value of images that are less symbolic than others because their purpose is not to be understood, but to be appreciated at face value. To me, they are like supermodels. No one inquires of a supermodel about world events, politics, or scientific theory because that's not the purpose of a supermodel. One appreciates them (generally speaking) for their appearance, and not so much for their powers of thought. This is not to say that all models are stupid, but to say that their job is to look good, not to have opinions.

 

There is, in my mind, a separation in the visual arts between works that are meant to reach deeper into the psyche of the viewer, and those that are simply meant to convey the emotions and benefits that beauty is known for. Such work is not, in my opinion, meant to be questioned. It would therefore seem to me that the elves who posed this week?s introduction suspected a perceptual flaw in Stephen?s picture because of this very thing, that it is a capture of beauty, and not a capture of the imagination, notwithstanding of course, the personal experiences shared by Stephen a few comments above. The image is presented merely as Ramona Falls III. Were it titled: Life?s Hard Times, or A River?s End, it might have clued this viewer into alternative roads of interpretation. As it is, it merely states a name and relies on the viewer to fill in the rest. If the image is strong enough, or Quixotic enough, or if the artist were well known, then the image and a simple title might be enough to convey the artist?s intent, or to carry the viewer into an experience that would not have been possible without the image as a spur.

 

One can add text to an image, a caption, that might key the viewer to an idea dear to the photographer (or the user of the photographer?s image), but otherwise, a picture such as this can be likened to a mirror of natural phenomena that is to be appreciated for its inherent merits. This picture would be excellent on a calendar, a church bulletin, something like that, where the right caption can swing the viewer towards a particular experience.

 

What I'm saying is not intended to degrade the work. I understand, and value, the effort in producing it. Creatively, it's rather straightforward, something my own work suffers. Aesthetically, it's a winner, something my own work tends to lack. Philosophically, I think it needs a little push, and, again, that's only in response to the elves innuendo that maybe the image possesses an intellectual weakness. Personally, I prefer pictures that make me ponder something, anything, rather than just showing me something of beauty, but there are times when soaking up beauty is the right medicine.

 

Stephen writes: ?Is any meaning in this image something that only I can see and appreciate, because only I traveled to this spot and took this picture in spite of the odds? Or, can others who have not had my particular experiences also find "meaning" in pretty pictures like this??

 

I would reply that others may find comfort in this, and similar images, rather than meaning. Few of us, I hope, would dispute that comfort may have more worth than meaning.

Very nice image. I would just crop of the edges of the rocks poking into the right hand side (as on what looks like battlefield plans from another poster).

 

I like the 'more busy' rocks in the bottom right. My eye started at the top (with the water), went past the strong leading rocks, to the busy bits (which I find nice).

 

Maximum marks for a common subject - 7 for athetics, 5 for originality.

Very nicely put Doug. Thanks for expanding on your previous comment. I see that your response was a direct answer to the elf question. I like especially your last sentence. Your own nature/trees portfolio [and references to it], more than support your view. Comfort/peace/wonder, and questioning/depth/philosophy can't really be portrayed in the same picture. I am pleased to understand what the lack of 'meaning' means to those that post such comments. Best regards.

While this may not be my favorite version (I still prefer this one here, taken during the same shoot). http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1948226

 

I do think Stephen's explanation as to exactly HOW he captured this image should help anyone viewing to appreciate that this is not just a measly snapshot. When you shoot for any extended period of time as he mentioned, with many different lenses at all sorts of angles, you are trying to create the absolute best images possible for that given location. I shoot in a very similar style and can tell you the goal is to bring out the best set of images that you possibly can. When you do get to the lightbox, you will have the best opportunity to find a true winning/successful image. If the one viewing can find some other "special meaning" from the photograph, then great for him/her. That is not the photographers responsibility, nor would I even really concern myself with any of that. There is already enough pressure at times just working the scene to its fullest potential. Perhaps by changing compositions entirely, you will find some that are more intimate by nature and therefore generate a different response from those looking on. By posting more than one version from the same shoot, it is amazing how the reactions can change as well.

 

I've seen and appreciated Stephen's work for some time and can appreciate his skills in being able to create something truly spectacular whenever he is given the opportunity to get to work. He does it over and over again. The fact this one here was chosen rather than one I'd prefer is simply a matter of personal opinion. And in my opinion, after reading above what you have had to overcome Stephen, just to be around at all, I'd say the outcome is a most successful one indeed, regardless of what one thinks about the actual images themselves. A tip of the hat to you for that!

Nice image, but it doesn't touch my heart!

If you're talking about reading great symbolism into a photo, I have to agree with you two (Doug and G. and whoever has posted since I started the tome that follows). That is utterly pointless, and anyone who produces a photo with that (i.e., great symbolism) in mind is hopelessly didactic.

 

I think Stephen has brought up another component of the discussion about meaning: the personal meaning that went into capturing the photo in the first place, which might have absolutely nothing to do with the content of the photo. In the case of wilderness photos, however, they might overlap, if the wilderness experience is not merely the image itself (mountain, waterfall, whatever), but the strenuous hike, etc., that one went through to get the photo. Combine that with the sheer overcoming of adversity that such hikes have taken with hip replacements, heart problems, etc., and the potential for the meaning for the photographer is enormous.

 

Some of that might come through to the viewer if he or she is also a wilderness freak (such as myself), especially if that person knows the place pictured in question, or places similar to it. In such cases, the meaning might be more nearly related to memories of similar places, even if one does not know the specific circumstances of this or that particular capture.

 

When I referred to context above, I was trying to get into some of this in a very inadequate way. What I have found, however, is that having endured quite a few days with a back on my back has sensitized me not merely to the meaning of the difficulty of getting the shot, but to the sense of mysticism that often accompanies any kind of pilgrimage, and I guess that my best hikes have all been pilgrimages of one sort or another.

 

I don't think that the wilderness could thus "mean" the same thing to someone who has not undertaken or endured similar kinds of pilgrimages. We all bring who we are into the wilderness, but we often leave as different persons, and that is the transformative power of the wilderness. I don't see how that can be carried out with the mere photo, since the photo is only visual imagery to some persons but evocative of memories, stories, and struggles to someone else.

 

I guess that it is the rawness of the PoW here that I like. No, it is not polished. No, it is not the best composition that Stephen or anybody else has made of a waterfall, but it captures something that I have seen and felt, and thus it strikes a resonant chord in me of cold mornings, icy trails, wet spray, and all of those things that can be part of the mountaineering experience (broadly construed: I have never been a technical climber, just a walker).

 

I remember John Muir's famous quote, "Walk a mile in any direction and taste the freedom of the mountaineer," as well as the West Virginia state motto, "Mountaineers are always free." Combine that with inspirational mountaineering literature, such as that of Geoffrey Winthrop Young, or accounts of the life of George Leigh Mallory, or even Thomas Hornbein's _Everest: The West Ridge_, much less Maurice Herzog's _Annapurna_ (and countless others), and you get into meanings that persons both attribute to and carry into the mountains.

 

Suffice it to say that this meaning question does not get any more complicated for me than when it involves a wilderness shot, especially if I know the larger story of the photographer and his or her personal quest(s) as it/they relate to the image in question. Some of Hornbein's shots of Everest, for example, just aren't that great as photography (although some are), but the story can grab you and make you want to go out and up the nearest crag. I am not sure how much is due to his prose, to his pictures, or to the great thinkers that he quotes along the way. I just don't know. . . .

 

I have too much to say on this, but suffice it to say that this is comlicated territory in which the usual preoccupation with the photo as a free-standing artifact just cannot begin to scrape the surface of potential meaning, which is always going to vary from person to person. Even so, I am still amazed at how wilderness freaks can often relate the same kinds of stories from different parts of the world--and over many years.

 

My first thought of this when Stephen told his story was Lance Armstrong, but for me the competition would kill the aesthetics of crossing the Alps on a bicycle, but Lance himself might intervene at this point and say, "Hold on now. Right in the middle of that last ascent, I had this tremendous mystical feeling." I have no idea if he did or not, but I don't know anyone who has had personal odyssies involving the mountains (or other wilderness, such as sailing or kayaking offshore, or trekking the desert) who has not been totally transformed by them.

 

Images can bring all or none of that back. I shall have to think about this some more, but I won't bore you with what I figure out, because I am sure that I will never figure it out. Even stories of Moses and Jesus have long-term wilderness references (forty days here and there, for example), and even bikers (not cyclists) claim that the open road has the same transformative appeal, and after my best cycling days were over I did have some great biking days on my three Japanese bikes. All that I can say is that any kind of pilgrimage can have meaning, and, if a photo can evoke the memories of such pilgrimages, it can also be just as evocative of meaning as well.

 

But no, the meaning NEVER inheres in the image itself. If it is there, it is in US. The photo might help to bring it out, but not necessarily in ways that the photographer intended or expected.

"lack of symbolic or philisophical message "

 

I don't think that this is what is meant by "just a pretty picture with lack of meaning", at least its not for me. I think it is about whether you are there to interpret or to simply record... one being more craftsman, the other more the artist.

 

For me if you are going to record only then a photograph is a poor substitute for what it represents, I could just go and see it for myself and get a much better idea of what the area is all about.

 

Artistic interpretation is another thing altogether, with a photograph an artist can show me how this place affected him/herself in a very intimate, personal way, and in turn, would affect me in some way. An image should make me fell something other than thinking,"what a pretty picture"---the power of the water, the coldness of it or the wetness of it.

 

 

nor is it about a cheesy title which does but say, "I've failed to communicate with the image, so now I will fall back on words".

 

 

sorry, but this image makes me feel nothing. it has no tonal power, it has no flow or energy to the composition. and the borders are very sloppy.

Ken, judging by your last paragraph, I guess you would classify this image as a record?

 

I couldn't disagree more with your penultimate paragraph, in which you say: "nor is it about a cheesy title which does but say, "I've failed to communicate with the image, so now I will fall back on words". "

 

I disagree that titles are indicative of a failure to communicate via the image, alone. Consider that various cultures have their own separate views on certain things. A picture of a fat little dog may mean one thing to most western cultures, but quite another to a culture in which dogs are used for culinary purposes. I think of titles as either hints provided by the artist to direct the viewer's experience so that, hopefully, it matches his own, and I see no harm in that, or perhaps as a means of identifying one image from another. Personally, when I see an image labeled "untitled" I catch myself believing that it has failed to communicate with its own creator, and I speak having used this very convention, myself.

 

What would Jackson Pollack's "Lavender Mist" be without a title but a bunch of lines and slops of paint? Would it have the same value? His title indicates the direction the viewer is intended to go. Whether the viewer reaches the same destination, or not, is testimony to the work's faithfulness to the artist's vision.

 

In some sense, this is why this image fails to motivate me. Stephen has invested whatever communication he sought to convey solely on the image. I do the same thing, but in so doing, risk failing to communicate with my audience. The sheer beauty of Stephen?s photograph at least guarantees it will be appreciated for its visual qualities alone, regardless of whether or not I, as a viewer, can appreciate Stephen's experience in creating it.

Lannie, you make a really excellent point. Thanks.

This is not the picture for those seeking something evocative as they would prefer a black and white of starving children. This is one of those beautiful flowing water scenes. I'm an old English major and I see white, the symbol of purity, and green, the symbol of life. The simplicity of this picture lends it elegance. Let's move the discussion onto what color mat and frame moulding would you select for this keeper.

This literally took my breath away... Looked away while the Photo.net page was loading, when I looked back... Wow. The first thing I saw was not the flowing water - for an instant didn't recognize it as a flowing water shot at all, but I guess my brain keyed in on basic elements of design which is what makes these types of shots work. (and so rare in most!) This has got to be the best of this type of shot I've seen. Great POW pick!

Hi. To me it?s a hand coming out from the water. Nicely done, composition problems... may be but not too disturbing. If your intention was just to show a fall and some rocks, then I?m sorry. If you also saw the hand or any other thing, that tunrs a "not original subject" (as someone posted) into a work or art. Congratulations and keep going.

Great composition (I also like the "... another angle ..." crop. This is truly a great image with excellent craftmanship. Congratulations.

Doug,

 

a strong image with an effective title certainly could guide the viewer to a higher understanding of the artist's intent, however a poor image with a title such as,"Life's Hard Times", or "A River's End", evokes nothing more than the rolling of eyes for me.

 

I prefer not to have a title next to a print on display, because I don't want to influence how the viewer reacts to one of my images, I let the image do that by itsself, I am not a poet, I am a photographer. Photographs are how I communicate.

 

As for the quality of the image, my opinion has not changed.

Ken, in general I agree with you, but does a photo always have to speak alone, completely out of context? Can it? I'm not sure that it always can. Indeed, without the larger context of our own lives and experiences, it is entirely possible that no photo could make any sense.

 

In any case, there are enough counterexamples, I think, to show the power of titles.

Here's one where even the title would not give enough context:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=3159658

 

Sometimes, Ken, I really don't think that a photo can speak for itself (not to beat a dead horse, but I just stumbled onto this great photo by Big Jim McConnell).

Thanks Ken, I see your point, and agree too, with Lannie. Titles aren't a necessary requirement in every single case, and can add, or detract from a picture. The trick is to know when to use them, and when not to use them. The titles that you quoted here, I threw out as quick examples. I'm sure there were lots of eyes rolling!

I live close to these falls and have shot them a few times. One of the shots I displayed here on Photo.net of Ramona Falls was seen by a Eurepoen book company. They are printing the photo in a large book distrubition. There is something magical about these falls. Photos can give you a little idea what it is like to be there. To get the whole feeling, you have to be there in person.I will have to make it there real early sometime to capture the softer light. My photo was shot in the early afternoon. The rays of light were going through the mist on the falls. The lighting was spectaluar. Steve, you did a great job with these falls here. Congratulations and keep up the good work!

No doubt, this is a very pretty picture. Technically, it is a straightforward shot, thus no further discussion necessary. Composition-wise it is good, but it is one of thousands good angles or crops. Choice of one over other is very personal and i really doubt that there will a single angle and crop that will make majority of photographers satisfied.

 

IMHO, there are hundreds of ways to make pretty pictures! But you must also remember that there are perhaps millions of ways to make bad ones, too.

 

One may visit the same area, over and over again, to catch that good light. As many here, I am often drawn to few special places. I have my own favorite trees, favorite streams, river and falls, favorite hills, and mountains. I shot the same tree, over the span of over five years, countless times. In the morning, afternoon, sunset, after sunset, under moonlight, in all seasons, from different angles.

Yet, now when I look at even the few selected images, I do not feel much. I do not expect others to feel much either.

 

When one works on the same subject for a long time, prettiness becomes ordinary. Next, you start asking more -like any addict would. "More" could be "a deeper meaning" or "a miracle light". I am one for the miracle light, yet, I do not expect the see that light any time soon, thus I'll probably settle for the next best alternative. (BTW, I'd use words for thought, not pictures. Pictures can convey feelings perfectly, but they are not made for thought.)

Hmmm. "I'd use words for thoughts, not pictures. Pictures. . . are not made for thought."

 

In context, pictures can evoke very much thought, not merely feeling. The picture of naked, burned children running from a napalm bombing in South Vietnam about 1970 depended for some knowledge of the context in order to realize its full potential, which was and is in the realm of thought and derivative action. Otherwise (without the context), the photo could have been about a housefire, certainly something that could evoke sympathy and even anguish. In context, it had even greater potential to evoke thought and modify public policy. The words and other sources of experience were necessary for the photo to realize its full potential, which was in the realm of thought--and subsequently in the realm of action.

 

Even my former father-in-law, who supported the war, said to me, as we viewed that picture together for the first time on the evening news, "Well, that's it. The war's over," or words to that effect. (He sounded disappointed.) The photo undercut the claimed moral legitimacy of the war more than a thousand newspaper columns could--but only in the context of the myriad discussions that those columns were a part of.

 

The pictures of the My Lai massacre--again, in context--had a comparable effect. Here were women and children in heaps, shot by U.S. soldiers. Like it or not, extenuating psychological circumstances to the contrary notwithstanding, that photo also evoked much thought that helped to delegitimize the war in the minds of the American people.

 

I am not talking politics qua politics here, and I am not discussing the morality of the Vietnam war. I am talking about the power of photographs to evoke thought. The military knew of this power when they put very tight controls on the press during the Gulf war in 1991. They have not been able to put such tight controls on the war that is ongoing now, but the attempt continues. Why? Because the government knows full well the power of photographs to evoke thought, thought that is all too often critical of governmental policies and actions.

 

Perhaps the best criticism of many of our pictures is that they say so little, that they evoke so little thought, but perhaps that is also because they also evoke so little feeling.

 

I am actually arguing here for more words and more thought, not merely more pictures. I am arguing for good titles and good stories, not merely good images. In context, photos are very powerful things. Out of context, photos have little meaning, or even false meaning.

 

Photography is non-verbal communication, but sometimes non-verbal communication is the most powerful and effective communication of all--but, again, only in context, with full awareness of the facts, which the photo alone cannot provide.

 

For those who do not understand the context of the full wilderness experience, I do not doubt but that the current Photo of the Week can ever be other than another pretty picture. For those who know something about life alone on the trail, however, the photo speaks volumes. For those who have also shared Stephen's other struggles, the photo no doubt says even more.