'Tribute to Seurat, Pointillism and Impressionism'

Posted under 'street' but probably qualified under 'fine art' also, this

fuzzy and 'noisy' photo taken with an older digital camera set at ISO

3200 produces a 'noisy', surrealistic, and 'impressionistic' image that I

found most pleasing -- pleasing enough to plan on obtaining an identical

camera to create more images like this one with its color, LACK of

clarity, and feel more of modern art than of traditional photography.

Your ratings and critiques are invited and most welcome. If you rate

harshly or very critically, please submit a helpful and constructive

comment; please share your photographic knowledge to help improve

my photography. Please do NOT look here for strong resolving power

and sharpness -- that is the antithesis of the reason for posting this

photo which is meant to convey a feeling, more like 'art'. (e.g., roots in

Seurat, his 'pointillism', and 'impressionism'. Thanks! Enjoy! John

This photo is 'from the files'.

Previously I considered it unpostable because of 'too much noise', but I recently came across it and found I like the image so much, I just did not care about ratings/high or low, but rather love the image, and plan once again to purchase a D2X camera, set it at ISO 3200 and take similar images, because I like this 'look' (hazy, fuzzy, and noisy as it is) because it helps express a 'feeling' better than today's modern, high-sensitivity, high-ISO cameras can.

I did treat it with an anti-noise filter, but not really very much.

I think the same image captured by a modern camera such as a Nikon D3 or D700 would be a quite different image and maybe not nearly so 'interesting' to me.

How about you? 

I'm interested in feedback, especially from members with interest in 'art' as opposed just to photography and especially from those here of long standing.

john

John (Crosley)

I love high ISO cameras; they have their place, but there is a place for the older ones pushed beyond their limits -- here the Nikon D2X at ISO 3200 at 1/30th of a sec. with a non V.R. lens at f 2.8.

I almost sent you an e-mail asking for your private e-mail so I could  send you this as an attachment and ask your advice about posting.

However, after your last rate and comment for 'The Mad Accordionist' in a similar 'look' taken with an entirely different camera, I understood how you would view this. 

I was not wrong.  Your 'view' here is one of the most valuable of all to me, as you (to me) are one of the most expert 'eyes' on Photo.net.

Thanks so much; we see eye to eye on at least one thing; that's for sure!

john

John (Crosley)

Very impressive original work, John!

I only wish I could say I had recognized it as that three years ago when I took it.

But then raw converters and anti-noise filters were not then up to snuff and the simultaneously shot jpeg was not up for posting at all (too dark).

Thanks, Ruud.

I wish I could say I had hard drives full of similar captures 'left over' from earlier days by pushing earlier equipment, but alas, no, however, replicating this style is not hard -- just replicate the equipment and conditions and voilà - you have it.

Thanks again, Ruud.

john

John (Crosley)

Seurat, who is mosts famous for his painting of gentry walking in a park, women under umbrellas, every body dressed in fine garb, would never have considered this subject fodder for one of his paintings, but it is the pointillism, as indicated by the find stippling of the color 'noise' (reduced by an anti-noise filter' from larger 'noise' that caused the tribute.

It left this photo to me with an 'impressionist' look, which is the cause for the rest of the tribute.

john

John (Crosley)

I agree that modern dslr's wouldn't give you this, and most of the time you don't want these noisy unsharp images. But in this case it works pretty well, a strange disturbing photograph. The contact with the woman makes it even better, well done.

I agree with what you have written.  Sometimes 'progress' leaves some things wanting, other times it brings new wonders.

This is indeed 'strange' and 'disturbing'.

Thanks for the comment.

john

John (Crosley)

If you look with care on a good monitor, you'll faintly see greenish long neck beer bottles on the concrete behind them; a likely explanation for why this man is sprawled the way he is.  (This was taken after a 'street party' under city sponsorship and police supervision; he's very much a minor, which in Ukraine makes no difference.

john

John (Crosley)

Very nice John - at my stage in photography I am just trying to learn to take a "correct photograph" with "good technique" - but I certainly want to get outside of the box more, your photo inspires such!  Take care.

When I first began posting, there was much criticism of photos that did not have the full range of tones, and in fact for this photo there is one 3/3 rater, who I think may be a 'sock puppet' for a rater who is a stickler for a 'full range of tones (I have challenged him before to identify himself and say that is not so, and he has refused as has the other 'member'.)

In any case in my first year of membership one woman poster from Portland, Oregon posted a wonderful photo of children, in which only portrait faces were identifiable, and all the rest was black and/or dark.  I wrote a critique lauding that, saying that Nikon Matrix metering was not for all situations at all; it was just a big help for the artist/photographer, and she had made an excellent choice not to follow Nikon (or electronic) metering.

Well, it is nice to be able to produce a photo full of all sorts of tones, from the pure black to the pure white (0 to 255 on the scale) but sometimes it is all wrong -- say in certain 'high key' photos or 'low key' photos, or a photo such as this.

Electronic metering is only a help - a sort of crutch - to help us as artists figure out how to canter out exposures on the range of sensitivity of our media (in this case a sensor).

But it's only an aide, and we are free to discard it or use it for our own purposes.

It's the end result that counts.

You may read above, where I considered sending this as an attachment to Bob Kurt to ask his opinion about posting, since he is  a star on judging photos in which 'art' is involved (see his gallery of 'highest rated' photos of others -- it's stunning).

But he rated another, similar, photo of mine which everyone else rated low (almost everyone) and I judged that it was worth posting, since with the newer Adobe Camera Raw and an anti-noise filter to break up Big Clumps of noise into smaller ones, it became more viewable.

It now has noise, but less large clumps of noise than before, though not by much (the original is really very viewable if you like this).

I was worried about viewer prejudice, but once again, the worry was unjustified -- in totality if you have quality, raters eventually figure it out IN MOST INSTANCES -- not all.

Luckily this was one, I think in part because Bob Kurt rated first and gave an excellent comment (partly the luck of the draw).  Thank you Bob.

This disproves the theory that 'all photos on Photo.net need to look alike to score highly or be successful.

End of story.

Ellery, take your photos and as you do, take chances, and post some without request for critique if you must if you're worried about 'averages' as I did with several hundred of my photos (I never was a slave to ratings or critiques -- I post what I want, as before recently I had no photo ambitions.)

Give your imagination and equipment a workout -- stretch the limits of both; there'll be lots of failures but every once in a while you'll come up with something stunning that's entirely original.

And needn't necessarily be razor sharp.

My most recent ratings success, a wonderful photo of a horse being led out of a 'subway' with a hand's arc pointing the way, was taken at ISO 4000!, because I was emerging from a tunnel into daylight, and thus caught the action.  I never would have planned it, but it 'caught the action of the fast moving hand a slower exposure couldn't.

Good to great photos are sometimes entirely preplanned, other times they're a result of making situations develop their potential and recognizing the situations, then trying your skills.

The more you try, the more your skills develop and the better your photos get.  Stretch and your photos will get better, maybe exponentially.

john

John (Crosley)

You have treated this photo as the stepping off place for engaging in a poetic exercise - one in which you begin to tell a story about it based on your surmises.

Although they may not be entirely correct, they are entirely appropriate.

This teen got drunk at a 'street party' organized by authorities in Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine, a former closed city under the Soviets where they build missiles and aircraft and now smelt steel and do other things.

Youths don't always have money for nightclubs and must be kept under control and what better than for touring rock bands under sponsorship to have parties in a central square at night, ending relatively early and anybody can drink including this youngster.

Judging from footwear, this may not be a girl/woman and indeed is not a mother, but may indeed be a male friend with sandals, but indeed I cannot be sure. My money's on a male, but again, I cannot be sure, nor, frankly, do I care much.  In fact, when I posted it, I was sure it was male, but you may know better than I. (women wear much more fashionable shoes to such parties -- generally 'high heels' or some such almost never such unfashionable shoes, as daytime sandals, and these look like summer male sandals.

Few young women would be caught dead wearing them.

But look at what I write; the entire photo analysis comes down to the analysis of the footwear to determine gender because the rest is so indistinct!

And does it matter, really, since this youth is safe, sound and obviously being befriended and getting succor?

You have written wonderfully and are to be congratulated on good analysis.

Thank you so much for the compliment of having done so.

john

John (Crosley)

One reason I stay in Ukraine so much though I live in the USA is timelessness.

When I first visited 6 years ago, I could sense that outside city centers, where the most modern of conveniences could be had, there also was the old.

Old master B&W photographers got certain captures I felt I could never have a chance of capturing, except that when I went to Ukraine, again and again, I felt that I did see those things that had disappeared from regimented, urbanized and suburbanized, regimented and 'ruled by law' America where there is a regulation for everything.

I have encountered 'timeless' scenes in Ukraine, and although this street may one day hold BMWs and Mercedes as it is a central street, now blocked off for a 'street party' this capture seems to me 'timeless'. 

This could be taken now, or at any time for a very long time in the distant past -- except for the plastic-looking sandals which appear somewhat modern (if cheesy and cheap bought for little money in some bazaar), this photo might have been taken in The 40s, '30s or some other time with early emulsions and in B&W might go back to the turn of the last century.

(It was taken in 2007, but first showing is here, so it is copyrighted now, 2010 as well as the copyright that attached when it was made).

This is Exhibit one of why John photographs in Ukraine so much.

john

John (Crosley)

There is no such thing as a 'correct photograph'.

Just take what pleases your sensitivities, and forget what will score highly or even at all on Photo.net.

Go to Borders and Barnes & Noble and read and read and read in their cafés the books by prominent photographers.  Go to libraries and do the same with older photo books.  Now do the same with magazines, and review regularly B&W, Lens Work, French 'Photo' and others from around the world and find that PN is a small fishbowl that showcases a certain type of photography.

I just looked the other night at ratings for some of my strongest, classic work, and they were paltry, where not added to later by people who later recognized it for what eventually it has been come to be valued at.

They were paltry ratings; raters on Photo.net were not aware the collection was timeless nor did they care; at the time they were caught up with shenanigans now gone such as mate-rating, and playing other games with ratings and enhancing saturation on everything, etc. and everything looked like everything else just about.  The surest way to success was to imitate and form alliances.

I did none of that; refused to more than token rating, made no alliances, made intelligent critiques, and just posted and waited, and also posted several hundred for which I requested NO critiques.  Eventually even those 'no critique' photos were viewed by millions, and they showed up highly in top rated photos galleries, though they were ineligible for certain galleries because critique was not requested -- mainly they were eligible only for 'highest viewed' gallery ratings.

It was heady to break into the top 1000 most viewed folders, and now I'm still not playing games and still following my own head, playing by my own rules and find I have quite a following and instead of repelling members, I find I've been imitated.

Instead of being at the back of the pack, I have moved toward the head . .  . . and have some wonderful company with others who have followed their own muses.

That is the best advice:  Look and learn from others, and include a large amount of learning outside of Photo.net.

Go to Art-Support.com and find the list of galleries in New York City and from there, there are links to Photo and Art galleries that have web presence all over the world . . . . an encyclopedia of 'art' you can touch at home.

The first think you will notice is that little of the work bears resemblance to Photo.net work (but the above photo might fare well in a gallery)

Galleries look to 'collections' rather than individual photos; they eschew 'landscapes' which just do not sell (outside of Las Vegas casinos, calendars, and cruise ships), which I was surprised to learn.

I am told that my collection of 'people' photos would do well, and have receive top-level advice to that effect.

In any case, I am on my way to test that theory, especially when the 'art' market pulls back to reality.  I prominent printer/gallery owner told me that in numerous recent showings, he had not sold ONE photo - not one (he has other businesses which pull him along in this slump).

Others told me this is the time to accumulate inventory for when the market revives, and to begin networking, which I am beginning to do.

For you, Ellery, now is the time to figure out not only how to take a photo, but what you want to take photos of that bear your special imprint and make you WANT to take photos, and then if they're popular, you'll just get that much extra reward for your efforts.

Be sure to educate yourself, but . . . . 

Please yourself first.

john

John (Crosley)

Note: Please excuse the cut-and-paste comment.  For the moment I'm using attributed ratings but not offering critiques since some members have stated they would welcome such attributed ratings rather than anonymous ratings, regardless of carefully considered critiques or generic comments such as "Great capture!", "Well seen!" or any use of the word "Congrats!" without regard to elements such as careful planning, effort expended or pure serendipity.  This is merely an experiment and nothing personal.  If you would like a critique please feel free to e-mail me: lexnotlex2 at netscape dot net.  I will make a sincere effort to respond to all such inquiries.  Regards, Lex.

Long Explanation.

Short Response.

Good idea; knowledge of the source of your rates is specially valuable.

Thanks.

John

Who knew there was a little artist in me after all my emphasis on representtional 'street' work?

I am full of surprises.

Thanks.

john

John (Crosley)

I have faded-out ectachrome and kodachrome slides from the 50's that look like this.

You might try looking at them; they may have become more 'art-like'.

john

John (Crosley)

exactly

This is probably one of the more interesting photos I've seen via the critiques/ratings queue recently.  I can see how some viewers might regard it as a mistake or sloppy process, given the obsession some photographers have with "sharpness" and technical perfection as a goal rather than as one of many means to an end.

But I considered it carefully in the context of your title and foreword.  I probably spent more time on it than any other single photo during a recent marathon ratings session (an experiment - as I alluded to in my earlier remark - to test responses), around 5-10 minutes, including viewing it from a few feet away from the monitor and then from across the room, along with coming back after a break to have a cup of tea.  I don't often spend that much time on photos in the ratings queue but I was curious for other reasons, including the fact that my own dSLR is very noisy at high ISOs by current standards.

Overall I'd say the photo suits the comparison to the Impressionist genre.  But I see more Walter Sickert than Seurat in your photo.  Not only does it more closely resemble Sickert's suggestion of shape in human figures rather than the fussiness of Pointillism, the somber mood and dark lighting are more reminiscent of the disturbing Sickert paintings that led writer Stephen Knight to speculate (decades before Patricia Cornwell's highly derivative work) that Sickert might have somehow been involved in the Jack the Ripper murders.  There's also a bit of a nod toward John Singer Sargent's use of sparing detail to suggest the essence of his portrait subjects.

It's motivated me to try using my Nikon D2H above ISO 1600 again, something I've rarely done other than when absolutely unavoidable due to the technical challenges.  Perhaps I should regard the technical "flaw" as an unappreciated feature to be explored.

Incidentally, the only aesthetic nit I could pick would be the bright spot above the head of the upright figure.  It's a slight distraction from the overall subdued tone.  But only very slight.

I'm traveling for a while, and won't have computer access for up to one week for any extended comment. 

Please understand that I read and re-read every word of your critique with enthusiasm and delight.

Lex, I take it as a sort of vote for Photographic head scratcher of the week for you, as it was for me, when  I went to decide to post it on this otherwise somewhat (a little) blah service.  (it's not all blah, at all, as there is some stunning work here and there, but this is very 'out of character' for this service or most others.

Thank you so much.

john

John (Crosley)

this is proof that IMAGE QUALITY isnt everything. and composition > camera quality