The Boatyard Conversation (Please View Large)

I was reviewing some captures from earlier this year and came back

again and again to this one, in part because it was

somewhat 'painterly'. It needs to be viewed 'Large!'. 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 superior knowledge to help improve my

photography. Thanks! Enjoy! John

This photo is deliberately reproduced in low contrast, even though low contrast is not 'clickworthy' so much on Photo.net in a scene such as this.

In fact, some may consider it somewhat 'muddy', but that is what it is meant to look like -- more 'painterly' is the effect that I liked about it, and why I liked it, as well as the gentle arm stroke of my acquaintance Duncan, center, and the shagginess of boatworker Terry, right, with his torn, beloved jacket. (He's in another of my photos featuring a boat, the 'Fourth of July' with a cigarette on his lips.

So, I know how to make this photo more 'clickworthy' I think, but I refuse to do so by 'bumping up the contrast and saturation' as advised by one member early on in my PN membership. He was right of course, but then he took scenics, and post-card-like scenics at that, and I do all sorts of things and try for all sorts of 'looks'

This is one of them. Let me know what you think of it. It is clear that this is not a photo that 'Pops!' -- it wasn't meant to.

I like it very much just for that.

John (Crosley)

John, this photo does pop in its own sense. Because of the low contrast, it looks a lot to me like a scene from some mid 80s movies. And their look is fitting very well also. A nice find.

I'm sure it will be no surprise to you that the boat on the left is distracting. But I guess there was no way to avoid it if you wanted to show the three men as you have done it. And since there expression is what makes this photo work, you did the right thing.

Also, I know you are not in favor of cropping, but cropping would not help anyways here as these men really need the place they have on the left, mainly because of the gesture of the middle one.

I like the busyness of the background. In a sense, I find it complements very well the first man clothes. Everything looks old and not it the perfect condition, but still usable.

All in all, a photo I like.

An excellent point of view critique. Actually, though, I deliberately included the boat in the foreground, in part for its lines and to give the photo a 'nautical' feel -- in fact, I wish I'd moved it a little to the right to include just a bit more of its 'prow', though not much.

If you browse my portfolio and folders you will find several well-received photos in which there is a 'huge' foreground person or structure which is very blurry and which could be distracting, but which in actuality serves to direct the viewers' gaze onto a middle or background figure.

In essence, the out-of-focus boat is a device to help make the 'middle ground' pop, though you don't actually notice it so much because the photo is deliberately presented 'muddy' and the men are not so 'sharpened' as they might be, since this is a late afternoon view taken in shadow. (I used shadow/highlight filter to squelch some of the very distracting off-scene --background highlights, except those on the boat deck which was so bright it could not be squelched and indicated that this photo uses the full tonal range.

Same with the object beneath the background boat prow.

Ansel Adams might not recognize it, but this photo actually does use all his 'zones', but they're somewhat hidden and some zones are 'transition zones' between the very muddy and the very bright and thus extremely small, but this is a photo in which the full tonal range is exploited, just manipulated (in a sense) in a very deliberate way. (but according to the PN guidelines, it is not a 'manipulated' photo at all, and the box 'unmanipulated' is checked with an explanation).

(By the way, 'Shutterbug' Magazine's editors say 'all' digital photos must be sharpened and all decent digital cameras either do sharpening automatically in the camera or (as with RAW files) it is left to the photographer, otherwise photos are produced with 'digital dullness' (not their term), and the editors are right. In my opinion, like contrast, with a digital file, slight sharpening to 'normal' sharpness should not count as manipulation, but with some files I don't even sharpen them at all, unless resized, (Photoshop CS books say you should sharpen if you resize upwards, at least, to avoid resizing blurriness from extrapolation problems).

Today was the first day I actually had viewed this capture, as it was underexposed pretty severey, and I had to 'draw it out' in levels, but I like it very much; I am very much taken with it.

I met a pro photographer at Bryce Canyon National park who told me he underexposes all his landscapes by 1/2 to 1 full stop to avoid blowouts and to deeply saturate his images -- in effect that's what happened here, except I didn't try to expand the range of tonal values for the 'near' scene to look like a snapshot and settled for what you call the '80s movie look.

Maybe something like out of 'The Sting', if I recall (was that earlier than the '80s?).

I have another in which his gesture is different and equally as captivating.

In conclusion, my placement behind the boat prow could have been obviated by standing 'in front of the boat prow' but I chose not to. I deliberately included the boat prow, and the other result was I didn't disturb these three men, who went on about their business despite my stalking them with lens. (two of the three are used to my hanging around occasionally and have been photographed before).

Thanks for the very astute analysis -- your ability to communicate equals your superb photographic ability.

John (Crosley)

I'm learning from the best here on Photo.Net by following you! Thanks a lot for this comment, as I try very hard to communicate in a way to be understood clearly for what I mean. It is a little harder for me since English is not my main language at all.

For the boat in the FG, I agree after all. Most of the time, I'm not used to this kind of things. This is something I have to work on as I recognise it does emphasis the photo. If it would be empty there, the photo would be too much open on the left and not 'closed' (in the sense of complete, if it can be said this way).

The more I think about it, the more I realise I'm missing something by not including some elements in my FG.

Thanks, you opened another light in my photographic world.

You are so careful and precise in your photography, and you often photograph scenics which allow such care and composition, and often I photograph people in which split-second timing is essential, and I often have to snap the shutter without regard for composition, and have been pleased and happily have happend upon some compositional 'devices' that are known well by cinematographers --- I suggest you go to some well photographed movies and see how the cinematographers do it, and you'll see how my photographs come about, although I didn't consciously borrow from them, but now recognize that I do what they do, however inchoately I came about it.

Often a movie will focus on something seemingly inconsequential and you'll hear sounds or dialogue that's muffled or meaningless, and as the credits open and the movie begins the camera pulls back or into focus and the opening scene takes on new meaning.

You can't do that in still photography, but cinematographers in movies do use a large variety of other devices, and among them is 'pulling focus' or selective focus as one or the other subject talks -- possible only with a large format film or video capture (and regrettably with Nikon's smaller APS size digital sensor, generally with longer lenses wide open, but thankfully cameras are made with 1/8000th of a second shutter speed so many times a scene can be shot with a wide open lens to blur the background or the ISO can be reduced to 'force' the aperture open.

(I often shoot at ISO 400 or even higher to capture action, but will reduce to ISO 100 if necessary to shoot with a wide-open aperture to blur the background. A substitute is to 'select' the background and apply 'gaussian blur' slightly to it -- ever so slightly -- to avoid distraction with the subject, but I do that rarely, and note when I do that as manipulation. It takes a lot of time and is rarely called for.

I have learned much from the stoic simplicity and the elegance of your photographs and wish I could emulate that style, and try as I might, I still can't. You have a special eye that I just cannot emulate -- a perfect sense of proportion and balance that eludes me.

I have other attributes, but, of course, I don't mind sharing. After all, I'm not in a competitive business here -- this is a fun site.

Thanks for the flattering comments; I treasure such words, especially from an accomplished artist whose work I respect.

John (Crosley)

You will find this photo and accompanying commentary in my Presentation 'Threes' -- because it has 'three subjects'.

That presentation is devoted to photos in which 'threes' as subject or a photographic element predominate, and has presently slightly less than 60 photos.

John (Crosley)

This photo has some 'mirroring' -- a photographic element I often find useful.

In this case, it's in the raggedness of the circumstances, and more specifically, it's found in the tattered blue jacket of boatyard worker Terry, nearest to camera, effectively 'mirrored' by the hull of the distant boat, which has its hull skin partly ripped off. In both cases, there is some underlayment visible and it provides some 'protection' against elements, but hardly enough -- moreso for the jacket, of course, than for the boat, which would promptly sink if launched.

Effectively this photo has repetition of tatters, partly enunciated by Stephane, above, but without specificity.

John (Crosley)