'Rest Amidst Roundness'

Photos don't always need to 'tell a story', but can solely be a

composition. Here a young girl in a hotel lobby finds herself arranged in

sleep 'just so' her arms and legs in curves amidst furniture that features

nothing but curves, with special lighting, hence the caption. Your ratings

and critiques are invited and most welcome. If you rate harshly, very

critically or just wish to make an observation, please submit a helpful

and constructive comment; please share your photographic knowledge

to help improve my photography. Thanks! Enjoy! John

I took this photo on instinct, intrigued by its 'form'.

 

On examination on download, I understood why.

 

Almost every line except the floor tiles is curved, including the lines of the girl. The furniture is rounded in every aspect, and she complies with its roundedness.

 

I was compelled to take this shot, and at first I didn't know why.

 

Only on examination was I aware of why. I am glad I took it, frankly and after 'losing' it in several transatlantic moves and files transfers and duplications, I have finally 'found it' for posting, ending some anxiety it had been 'lost'.

 

John (Crosley)

you we're indeed lucky not to loose it - this is a great photo. I love it - not only for the recurring "roundness" but also for the recurring pairs: two chairs, two similar elements beside them, both carrying something (lamp or plant) - but just one person. And: the perspective just perfectly mimics her posture.

Last but not least, I wouldn't say this is solely a composition - due it's "rhythm" and the breaks in it (just one person, elegance of surrounding vs. sloppy clothes and posture) it raises quite many questions.

Best regards,

Wolfgang

 

You see! That's why I post these things for critique.

 

You have seen and articulated things in this photo that I intuited but could not put my finger on. Pairs and a single, rhythm, etc.

 

You are perfectly in tune with my method of analyzing what it is that makes a photo 'succeed' or not at least through articulation.

 

It is fine to be able to say 'this photo works' and not be able to pinpoint why or how, but just to admire it and say "that's successful" and "that's not" because I feel it" but you (and I also) are after something more concrete -- the ability to put into words the WHY and WHEREFORE of each photo's success (or failure), or it's near collision with greatness and why it may have missed.

 

Somehow when I'm out taking photos, that all seeps in, and all in a microsecond as I'm taking and framing the next one or twenty, or just taking a variation (or considering whether to take a variation - even considering to 'take' or 'not to take' a subject's photo.

 

It all seeps in and in some moment all the studied articulation of the critique forum comes pouring back into trained, inarticulate responses that sometimes even are in the future capable of being articulated . . . . often to astonishment of fellow photographers who ask 'how can you see (or know) that?' to which the answer (if truth be known) is simple . . . it was discussed in the critique forum on Photo.net with someone as skilled in analysis as you.

 

Thank you so much for adding to my knowledge and analysis of this photo.

 

Ever so much.

 

John (Crosley)

This is one of those photos you 'get' or 'don't get', I think with little middle ground, though it is not a bothersome photo and not likely to detract from viewers and necessarily force low rates.

 

In a way it is 'just appealing' for no known reason, maybe for the same reason we find Katie Couric (the news presenter) 'appealing' but without knowing why,or in the eyes of some (me and probably you this photo answers a higher calling for design and composition - one of sheer synchronicity.

 

I am reminded when I see this photo of Henri Cartier-Bresson's photo, taken in the '70s I think, of his then wife's Martine Frank's legs, a gorgeous composition, but in the eyes of some who do not know HCB's work, possibly a nothing.

 

I don't compare my work to his, obviously, but with this photo I get the same feeling I get when I see the success of such a photo as his wife's legs' photo, or some others of his, taken for their synchronicity and design, rather than for any monumental reason, such as 'this country won a war over that country, and they're dividing the spoils."

 

It's at once a 'simple photo' for those who look no further, and for those of us who look more deeply, a few I think will be rewarded, as were you, Wolfgang.

 

Health to you.

 

John (Crosley)

 

 

many thanks for your detailed replies and thoughts. They were very interesting to read as they were very much in line with my thinking.

Just to pick to aspects:

Indeed, good photos, especially those going beyond pure first-glance-esthetic-attractiveness, always make me curious: how and why do they achieve their effect? And I deeply enjoy analysing this (certainly also for selfish reasons: to learn and improve my own "photographic eye"...)

And, I'd also agree on your judgement that your either 'get' or 'don't get - in fact I prefer these photos to ones which shout their message at me.

My best regards,

Wolfgang

 

While I certainly am not above trying to produce photos that shout their message clearly, I certainly enjoy also producing photos such as this -- hidden gems (at least hidden from some people).

 

I think you and I have discovered in relation to photo analysis we are kindred spirits. I might also introduce you to the works of Giuseppe Pasquali, if you are not familiar with them; he does not write about his works so much as I though he is a superb thinker and in English, but his depth of thought works along the same lines.

 

I particularly suggest you take a look at his color photo of a gondolier's hat passing under a curved bridge in Venice and look at my analysis of that, made without seeing any other analysis or Mr. Pasquali's own statement (it was hidden from critique when I made it).

 

You might enjoy it.

 

From one kindred spirit to another, thanks for a great cyber discussion.

 

John (Crosley)

OF TRANSITIONS AND OTHER THINGS

 

While I'm not formally educated (any more) in music, when one changes 'key' in music, one must make the transition, often by means of a new chord, particularly in piano or guitar (not possible with flute, of course, or any other single-note instrument).

 

Here we have at left lines from the chairs that go from back (center) to front (foreground) and lines in the floor tiles that direct our eyes similarly -- the chair lines are in harmony with the floor lines.

 

At the other side of the photo we have the barely seen vanishing point - the line that draws into the distance as the floor and the wall meets to form a diagonal line that leads us upward and rightward to the upper right of the photo toward the (unseen) vanishing point (out of frame).

 

In some essence these two elements are disharmonious and thus somewhat difficult to reconcile in a photo so what to do with them?

 

That's where the young girl's legs come into play in a most propitious and harmonious way; her rightmost leg (as she faces us) is aligned partly with the chair side at a similar angle, but beginning to tend toward the other line -- the line toward the vanishing point, upper right.

 

The next leg, her left, now is more into the 'transition' as it is draped over her chair's left (as she views it) arm and much more toward the line that leads from the lower left (unseen) to the upper right vanishing point, which begins to appear.

 

That line is also mirrored or repeated in the intersecting (right angle) and parallel lines of the floor tile leading into the upper right of the photo, in case we cannot completely visualize the intersection of wall and floor which is mostly hidden except for the far right of the photo.

 

In some way, this 'transition' is almost as completely harmonious as I could possibly imagine . . . and her legs and their respective angles as they 'transition' appear (to me) to be the key, leading the eye from one 'line' to a 'second line' - a 'transitional element' if you will.

 

The 'key' to me, then is her legs which act as a transition, just as one changes 'key' in music. They enable the viewers' eyes to changes more effortlessly from a downward sloping angle from the center to the front of the frame to one from the lower left to the upper right of the frame.

 

Get that?

 

If not, please re-read it.

 

If not again, and you think it might be important or you feel you just are being obdurate when you read this, and for some reason can't get something that you think might be more obvious on a better day, leave a comment, and I'll see if I can help (no diagrams though -- I don't draw on photos -- though others are free to).

 

(extra credit for understanding this point and caring about it)

 

(and your effort will go on your 'permanent record' -- no kidding, just like all your teachers told you in school.)

 

;~))))

 

John (Crosley)

"hidden gem" characterizes this photo really well. And big thanks for further thoughts and analysis.

Well, yes, I had to read your last comment twice (at least) - but I think, I got it. The analogy to transitions in music is very much to the point and explains very well why and how the composition "works". In fact, it corresponds in far more detail to what I meant when writing that the perspective mimics her posture (well, should have put it maybe the other way round).

So, many thanks for "extra credit" ;-))

- Wolfgang

P.S.: Giuseppe Pasquali's photos caught my eye already - great works :-)

I sent you a link to this photo through the PN mail service and it came back. PN mail is being rejected by your mail link as 'spam'. Perhaps you may want to take care of that.

 

Just a 'heads up'.

 

Nice comment above, and wonderful discussion (a model for PN critique discussions in my book).

 

(and of course 'rhythm' is very close to what I've written . . . just not quite so elaborately -- I find that more words often is required to explain a new and/or difficult concep)t.

 

John (Crosley)

It looks like there has been very high quality discussion here about the analytics of a good composition. This is something I was looking for some time as I am mostly an analytical person and I have not considered myself as a person with artistic talents. So I was looking for some of those “hidden gems” that could hopefully boost my compositional abilities.

As a tool I could use in the future, I like the transition explanation very much. But when we start talking about transitions, we can talk about lots of them I guess. I think the biggest transition that can happen is the transition between opposites or in terms of photography, contradicting elements. When two contrasting elements co-exit in a photography, does a transition between them make the photography visually more appealing or not? My intuition, which I don’t trust much in this area at all, a transition may make the picture compositionally “better” but “worse” when it comes to story-telling part.

For example, in this photo which is solely a compositional work, we have two contrasting elements: rounds, which are dominant mostly in the upper part and may represent softness take-it-easy kind of mood, and squares, which are dominant on the floor and may represent more rigid mood. If this is the case, the transition from upper part to lower part is not only the girl’s legs but the chairs lines’ themselves too. They are connecting the round world to the square world. Does this make sense to you?

Again this is very high quality discussion, I consider myself very lucky to see it.

Thanks a lot,

Giuseppe Pasquali and I ave had a continuing discussion about 'opposites' in photograph, but I can't remember under which photo the final roundup discussion between me and him was had, mostly by me, as I recall.

 

The gist was that ANYTHING is enhanced by finding something then contrasting it to something else, from the old-time analog photographer's darkroom 'unsharp mask' which created an artificial 'contrast' to anything that creates a 'contrast' within a photograph (be it 'hard and soft', roundness and straightness as here, poverty and wealth, thinness and fatness, baldness and hirsuteness (well, you get the idea).

 

We really 'see' something when our eyes are called attention to its 'differentness' just as here, our eyes have their attention called to the roundness, but are quite easily and simply diverted without effort through the transitional element to the straight line going to the vanishing point. It is so effortless that one is unaware of the transition and the powerfulness of the contrast . . . which is the magic and the transcendence (if any) of this unique photo . . . . and why it has been much discussed, especially by me,but Wolgang Arnold did see the point (and agrees).

 

I think if you are trying to draw attention to something, placing it in contrast to its opposite may greatly increase its chances of being noticed.

 

Look up on Google Ms. Cavanaugh, a photo by Weegee, a contrast between poverty and wealth then go see my photo of a street scene in Ukraine with a small bird of an osteoporotic beggar woman next to an overtaking, tall, wealthy, attractive and wealthy, young woman shopper . . . . and notice the similarity (this folder, and it's very easy to find).

 

I think you'll see my point. Mrs.Cavanaugh is a legendary photo for contrasts, pure Weegee (Arthur Felig).

 

Mine is doing well also.

 

A contrast does not have to destroy a story; it can make it much better.

 

G. I went a big afield in my answer, but your addition is unique and valuable - I will incororate it in this discussion just as though it were made by us all,but the credit is yours -- the chair legs are surely very important to transition here.

 

Best to you.

 

And thanks for a well thought out comment.

 

(extra credit for you too on your 'permanent record') ;~))))

 

John (Crosley)

John thank you very much for your comments. I feel like I am taking a course and I enjoy it a lot.

First, just to avoid a misunderstanding, I too think that contrast makes a story better. What I was asking was if a transition exits between the contrasting points, does that transition make the story better?

I think your two examples are great for an answer to this question. I googled Weegee's Ms. Cavanaugh and also saw your photo ("To Have and not Have II"). As you pointed, they have very similar themes. But I think one point is different. The transition in Weegee's photo is more clear. Because the poor lady is directly looking at the rich ones.. That look is the transition because we "effortlessly" follow her eyes and see the rich lady, again, effortlessly... That is the transition. But I don't see a similar transition in your photo. Both contrasting elements co-exit in the same frame, but they behave like they are not aware of each other so there is no transition.

So coming back to my question: Does the existence of a transition make the Weegee's photo a better story-telling than yours? By just looking at these two examples, I tend to think so... So this explanation results in the following hypothesis: The contrasts make the story stronger but if there is a clear transition or link between these two contrasting points, the story is even stronger. I am not sure if this is correct but it started to make more sense to me...

Thanks again for your invaluable comments. I am learning a lot.

Well, I had not made the transition point before today and discovering the girl's legs in their varying directions acted as a 'transition' in this photo, so the whole subject is a new one for me.

 

So,everything you say about Weegee's photo, 'Mr. Cavanaugh and mine may be entirely true,because I have not had a chance to examine it for truth, nor to test it against like photos (as these two photos seem to be somewhat unique, and as you note there is some direct connection - enmity, envy, or some other element between the wretch watching Mrs. Cavanaugh and Mrs. Cavanaugh and none in mine whereas mine is just contrasts.

 

Can we generalize to the point of transitions? I am unsure as the ground is 'untested' but I think now we are writing the book. Want to be co-author?

 

I am unsure of the subject has been the object of academic discussion before -- first start with Susan Sontag (who recently passed away, throwing her lover Annie Liebowitz into disarray . . . .and so forth) and then to the French photo philosophers, etc. Let me know what you find. I'll keep my mind open and my eyes too.

 

Bless you.

 

John (Crosley)

I am still at the very early stages of learning photography. When I look at your bio, your brilliant work and read some of your ideas, I already feel very lucky for being able to exchange ideas with you and get feedback from you. Now you suggest being co-author on a topic; this means a lot for me.

As for the research part, I am mostly interested in the rules of a good composition (or story-telling) but I am sure that there is a limit of explainable part of a good composition with rules, as it is the case in all arts. But I also think there may be a few more guidelines for creating better looking compositions, especially for people like me, whose intuition has not yet developed. Probably, good photographers just "feel" it; for the rest of people, some rules may help, at least at the beginning. Transition may be one of them or not but I am very willing to research on this subject.

As I have already pointed, I am at early stages of learning photography but I am good researcher and I will check on this subject. Even if I don’t get the answer to the main question of transition, I am sure I will learn a few things along the way.

Thank you very much.

I bought a camera at age 21 in NYC while attending Columbia College as an antidote to 'a book a week per course' and immersed myself in the nonverbal task of picture taking, with the ostensible purpose of using a camera to get women to disrobe (so I could take their photos).

 

Alas, the very first hour and a half, with my new camera (a Nikon) with a friend I took the Staten Island Ferry with two rolls of Tri-X donated by the camera salesman (he wanted to give me one, but I bargained for two, as I could not afford to buy a camera AND film.)

 

From my numerous throw-aways was one well thought out 'street' photo of three men on the Staten Island Ferry. Look down in this folder to find it.

 

I saw the work of Henri Cartier-Bresson at the start of my first photo assignment for Associated Press, briefly (I think) met the man (he meant nothing to me as I never had heard of him), saw his wondrous museum full of traveling photographs and promptly gave up my photographer's job for a job writing.

 

That was the end of my photo aspirations.

 

For me photography was then largely 'inspiration' followed by a lot of worn shoes, as a 'street photographer' which is where I saw my talents. Since then I have had numerous women disrobe, but don't post those; who wants to confuse viewers?

 

And I'm not the best at that (yet).

 

I also like the speed and spontaneity of 'street'. Here one moment and gone the next, and the ability to capture dependent solely on my eyesight and insight together with my ability to manipulate my apparatus quickly enough. That's a challenge for even the most skillful, and I'm doing pretty well at it.

 

The key for me was 'keeping all the interesting stuff inside the frame and leaving nothing else there' - cropping in the viewfinder all the extraneous stuff; and just keep shooting until it pleases. Show your good stuff but study all and sooner or later you'll have a few good works that can be shown to others; treasure those and don't forget that there's tons of crap for every wondrous capture.

 

(that's the key to success in a nutshell: sooner or later you begin to anticipate the good situations and preposition yourself for them and to predict human behavior, and incorporate lessons learned in viewing photos and in this critique forum.)

 

(see, I do learn)

 

Don't spend too much time studying books of words.

 

Spend more time studying books of photos only.

 

And don't try too much to deconstruct them; just get familiar with them.

 

So you recognize the similar shot when you come across it in your life.

 

Sooner or later you'll see much from books/magazines/galleries in your own life.

 

then you'll be prepared with your own 'take' on how to treat it photographically, if you've had some insights along the way.

 

Best to you.

 

John (Crosley)

 

(oh, and I went decades with my cameras mostly hung up . . . just picking them up again five-1/2 years ago, as I neared retirement age AND A WHOLE NEW LIFE because of my success with photography once again no longer haunted by the ghost of Cartier-Bresson's overwhelming presence. Who was I to know this French guy I met was to be the world's greatest photographer EVER - one of the top ten 20th Century's Greatest Artists (source Charley Rose and Richard Avedon). I had compared my work to his (similar but not as good, so I left the profession!!!! at the start and went on to another life entirely.)

 

jc (comment end edited and added)

what an interesting discussion. I can very well imagine, having met Henri Cartier-Bresson was both a blessing - and a curse - I probably would have reacted very similarly...

To add to the transition topic: I also would not over-generalize that if there's a transition it's a "better" composition - it depends on the context and the message conveyed.
In the two examples: both are about disparity but to me in Weegee's "The Critic" the aspect of envy is dominant due to the transition established by the gazes while John's "To Have and Have Not (II)" the "missing" transition yields a strong confrontation of wealth and poverty (also youth and old-age) without any trace of envy thus to me it's theme is rather social injustice.

- Wolfgang

P.S.: @John: thanks for the hint with the spam-filter - put photo.net on the whitelist

There's not really much to say in response to your fine comment; you pretty much said it all, and very clearly.

 

Thank you for such a complete and well-written comment; I endorse it.

 

(like a political candidate these days; I'm John Crosley, and I endorse what Wolfgang Arnold has just written? . . . pardon me for making some jest . . . PN is sometimes a little grim and a little jest helps lighten things up from time to time . . . photographers often take their work sooo seriously -- yes, and I'm no exception.)

 

With thanks and respect.

 

John (Crosley)

]

John,

Time is of the essence. And by taking you up on your invitation, to look at your (affecting) photo, I just spent a while reading the extremely interesting dialogue above between you, Wolfgang, and Gultekin. Not to my regret at all, quite the contrary actually! As you stated above, PN discussions like the above are important and can really be a wonderful experience for any photographer here on PN. Unfortunately, this brings me back to the time I have left to comment on your photo, and which I'm afraid, is not much. (other occupations... & sometimes I wish that days could be longer:-) In addition, I feel that your photo has truly been scrupulously analyzed, especially perspective and composition wise. After reading all of your different comments, and points of view on this, I feel that mine wouldn't be adding much to this. Although I do admit that by reading all of your comments (and then going back to look at your photo again) something different did emerge in my mind about your photo, that I didn't see the first time I had looked at it briefly on the forum.

In my opinion, photography is very subjective. Each photo stirs different emotions in different people...

And this brings me back to the only thing that I find missing in your analysis: the mood and the perception of the main subject, the girl in the chair(imho, there's also a story). When I first looked at your photo, it simply reminded me of a moment, some time ago when one of my children, was 'hanging' in a similar chair in a hotel lobby ( Embassy Suites, I believe it was). Tired, careless, and unassuming, after a long haul on the plane from Europe to the U.S. What I saw in your picture was mostly the attitude and state of mind of a young girl, at a particular moment, in a particular place. However, by reading all of the comments above, I have come to agree on many of your perceptions of the composition and perspective as well.

I can only say to you, John, as well as to Wolfgang, and Gulteskin that this has been a pleasure, and a very good PN experience indeed!

Hope you have very a good evening & Kind regards, Marjolein

I had a mentor (who just e-mailed me today) who kept making a point, it's not about the geometry of a photo or the techical points, it's 'THE PHOTO'. It's not whether it's by someone famous (he dealt with the most famous photographers in the world,yet in his kitchen was a photo of kids chasing barnyard animals, they full of joy and spirit and I asked him who took the photo, and his answer:; 'Who knows, nobody in particular, it's just a GREAT PHOTO.' He was right.).

 

That shown as prominently as work by other famous artists that was on his walls by artist I won't name, by photographers some of whom I didn't know the names of until I began to look in Google and/or Wikipedia or galleries and museums, and had my eyes opened.

 

Yet, there it was, a lone photo in prominence, 'because it's a 'great photo' that 'captures the spirit of the photo'.

 

Your comment reminds me of that.

 

And this child has come in from precisely such a flight as yours, I think, though this is not an Embassy Suites, though close enough (proximity and class wise).

 

It in its own way is the icing on the cake and reminds of the fact that for all the technical analysis in the world, nothing is going to make a mediocre photo into a more than mediocre photo -- no analysis, no 'story', nothing. It it has 'qualities' we can inquire into, but it must have them.

 

I thought this did have such qualities and did begin to inquire,but since other raters have come along (several of them) and said 'no, no such qualities'. I respect their ratings,but somehow pity them for their inability to 'see' what I see.

 

Too bad, or c'est dommage as the French say.

 

And thank you for putting the icing on the cake and turning this whole discussion back to THE PHOTO, to remind us that its the innate quality of the photo that is why we have been having this technical discussion, not the other way around.

 

For that, we all owe you a big thanks.

 

John (Crosley)

Marjolein,

Your point is a very good one indeed and I just wanted to thank you too for bringing the discussion back to the photo. It is also interesting that by bringing the mood of the girl and putting a context around her mood, you have also brought back the story too. Thanks all for such a lively discussion. This has been a very good course for me.

work. This evening I will have enough time to read the discussion above (that promises many interesting points!). The photo is clear and simple, yet articulated and dense of subtle geometric treats for the viewer. A work where spaces, light and lines play together as in some paintings of the late 19th century. My compliments John, ciao, Giuseppe.

Yet it now has 21 (now 22) comments, and still hardly any 5 ratings, all 4/4 ratings or 6/6 ratings, essentially and a scattering of others . . . . and such an innocuous photo.

 

Giuseppe, I thank you for your recognition;I knew this was special from the moment I took it and saw it on my digital screen, and later have leaned how to figure out why and to convey that to others as part of the exercise of communicating the 'how' of 'photographic art' that succeeds (if this succeed) to others, so they can understand it on an intellectual level instead of just try to match intuitions with the artist/photographer and his/her critics.

 

That is an entirely different and separate exercise than taking great photos, of course and even the non (or non-skilled) but articulate individual can take part in the skillful dissection of what makes (or breaks) a decent photo, I think.

 

In many regards, this photo has been a great success, in spite of those who recognize nothing special in it . . .. it is up to us who see something more in it to cherish it for what we believe it is.

 

For some reason I seem to take much more ambiguous photos that do not scream 'I am a great or beautiful photo' than other photographers, yet still attract a serious following, as here. I find it very interesting and fulfilling/I am beginning to feel some sort of kinship with Andre Kertesz in that regard as so much of his work was 'original' and much was 'unusual' and aesthetic in unexpected way. Kinship does not mean I equate my work to his, however; I am no fool or self-deluding idiot.

 

(thanks for the nice comment, Giuseppe)

 

John (Crosley)

Ratings come from all sorts of raters and for so many of them this photo is 'over their heads' and they cannot possibly even begin to appreciate it or its subtleties.

 

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, negative about that statement. I think you are in you seventh year at Photo.net, you have been exhibited and have been published in two (I think) magazines and are submitting now to a museum (If I have my facts straight),and I am also heading to the museum/gallery market.

 

What do we care if first year raters 'understand' or rate 'correctly' or 'not correctly' such a photo, especially if engenders such an illuminated discussion as has occurred in the 22 or so comments above?

 

The discussion above has been highly illustrative of the reason both you and I stay at Photo.net, even though I have been told by a glitterati in the business long ago to 'leave' and go with the hoi polloi, and I suppose you have been given the same advice or somehow have come to the same conclusion about what may be better 'career-wise' as opposed to 'community-wise'.

 

I stay with Photo.net (and another site) because of its community and its feedback which fulfill vital functions for me, both from a social standpoint and from a feedback standpoint on the popularity of my photos (plus I never would have met you had I not been a member, and that in itself is worth all the investment over the years).

 

So,ratings (not be damned) but they have their place and no more.

 

I have had over 11,000 of them and know where to put them. They have their worth but one needn't get overly worked up about ratings, if other signs are that a photo is 'good' and one has 'faith' in it.

 

I know you - in your heart of hearts - know that and know that I know that deep inside).

 

My best to you Giuseppe . . . and if you sought to assuage hurt feelings, don't worry. I know what my photos are worth . . . . and did long before the world ever saw them,and cherished my early work enough it was the only stuff I carried from my early years to my later years -- absolutely the ONLY stuff . . . . as I knew its worth. Even if the rest of the world never saw it.

 

And I'm grateful to Photo.net for giving me this forum for showing it, even if you and I sometime must move on . . . my friend.

 

John (Crosley)