The Belly of the Beast -- Inside Out

The 'belly' here of this beast is an old fishing boat, hauled out for

drydock and maybe unsalvageable -- it's crawling with multi-colored

rust, corrosion and other signs of wear. This is posted for a study

of its detail and colors, and taken at a small f-stop, for large

depth of field, and submitted under 'fine art'. 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 photographic knowledge to help improve my

photography. Thanks! Enjoy! John

This is the photo I referred to under my photo (not submitted for rating) 'Family Album' which features mom photographing her son.

 

I'm interested in your view on this one (either here or privately).

 

This is more of the sort of work one find in a giant expo hall such as Photo Paris, held annually in Oct.-Nov., at the Louvre, Paris, or at least I remember such sorts of photos being shown in a substantial number in Photo Paris a year and a half ago when I attended

 

This is noteable, of course, for its colors, but it shows also well in B&W and also is the sort of photo one finds in B&W Magazine, albeit those generally are taken with a large format camera.

 

Best to you and thanks.

 

John

I am no expert. Personally I like the colors really saturated. I also wonder did you shoot this in raw as manipulating the vibrance may have helped. I also would have given it a bit more contrast with a dodge and burn effect. My 2 cents. I attatched a quick version I did. Again I am no expert.

However much you like saturation, and your workup says you like it A LOT, I prefer saturation in colors to be more muted.

 

In fact, this was shot in raw and even the vibance was moved up a trifle but much of this, in the original view, was shadow, and the brightness/fill had to be increased lots to keep the faces, rear, also properly exposed; they are not properly exposed in your workup, though I am sure that could be fixed easily in a more thought-out workup.

 

Frankly, Marc, your version looks very garish for my tastes - perhaps you just have your monitor calibrated diffently than mine, but I'll keep my version -- my colors here are deep and rich, and I like them that way, plus they're way more natural. Your version is a classic Photoshop version of something where it doesn't exist in 'real life', while mine does exist, and one would recognize it in 'real life' if one saw it.

 

So, for aesthetic reasons, I think I'll stay with my version, but it's interesting to see how another member prefers it.

 

I think this would be easily 'blown up' large to appreciate the detail and the colors (as well as the photos on canvas over someone's lean-to in the background . . . a little touch of wry humor or is it just surrealness.

 

Thanks for the workup and taking the time to show it to me Marc.

 

John (Crosley)

Just discovered it now.

 

That's an interesting photo in term of colors, textures, composition of course. What is interesting is the image of the couple.

 

It looks like this is this old rusty machinery which is producing the picture at the end of some kind of strange process.

 

But, very personaly, especially after having had a good look at all your photos and reading most ( i will need a whole life it seems to read all ) your comments, and feedbacks about your process, way of owrking and philosophy, it is not one of my favourites.

 

( I may regret that comment after a couple of hours sleep, but actually I'd rather write it here and leave it like I feel at that precise moment. I'll come back to look at it again tomorrow anyway, and will tell you my feeling then )

 

It is a good photo, has the sense of humour we see in most of you photos ( with the drawing/photo in the back ), but lacks what you do best : telling about people and life.

 

Also it is a very trendy photo especially in the art world. It may be the one you would sell for the higest amount of money. It's all up to you to make your choices I guess. ( but whatever way you choose to go on with, please continue your street photography, and continue to share it with us ).

 

best to you

 

laurent

 

 

Yes, Laurent-Paul, I was impressed by all the photos of old factories and rusted machinery I saw at Photo Paris a year and a half ago, especially when they were enlarged greatly. Some of that industrial 'junk' made some pretty wonderful photos, and indeed I then discovered they were very 'trendy'.

 

I took this because I had nothing better to do, and decided to see if John (me) can take 'trendy photos' too of this genre, and was interested in feedback, but I just couldn't resist focusing to include the couple painted/or otherwise attached to canvas that is the roof of a boatyard workers' framed workshop/lean to.

 

That workman has a sense of humor too; a kind of boatyard philosopher who stretches me each time we talk, so it's no wonder the shelter for this rather monetarily impecunious guy, has a photo of some middle-upper class whites on the roof/sides.

 

I think it's his puckishness and one reason why we get along so well when we see each other.

 

But I also saw beauty in those 'trendy' photos; and wondered if I could stretch myself to do that sort of photo too. I think I can, but I won't make it my life's work.

 

'Street' is my first love and if I had to take photos like this, I'd get pretty bored very quickly. This may be my first and only attempt at such work, but I happened to like it, especially the colors and tones.

 

Thanks for being honest; there's no other way to critique my work to my way of seeing things (I'm the same way with my rare critiques of others' works too.)

 

Thanks for stopping by and sharing.

 

John (Crosley)

**** RE-EDITED TEXT in order to correct the misspellings I can find, and add one detail ****

 

And I fully stand by my statement : a very beautifull photo, strongly composed ( which textures and color complexities I can today appreciate even more ), but still not one of my favourites in your portfolio, especially because I am familiar with your impressive body of work.

 

Now, as I expected from a post of yours under another of your photos, a new photo you wanted me to write a little bit about, I actually refused to read your description, and other previous comments in order to be sure I wouldn't be influenced in any way.

 

I'm glad to see I that my feeling as a spectator are close to the ones of the creator somehow.

 

Of course it is a very good photo, but that is because of your great experience and knlowledge, and whatever you will decide to shoot will produce almost always good photos. And because beeing a re real artist you are curious and constently questioning yourself,, you will always try to experiment new directions, which is the only way to progress I believe.

 

Now speaking about choices concerning one own's work, if you think that producing a serie of this kind of trrendy photos, exposing them and selling them at a very high price, is the way which will allow you to get the financial freedom to do what you really want to do, why not. You only have to be aware that it is difficult to keep control when you start to be known for a particular kind of work, and it becomes more difficult to have your more personal work to get the attention you would like to.

 

One of the solution would be to do some of the work under a pseudonym ( I can tell you by experience, that this works well :-) ). But you have to kill your ego in order to do that, as one ( or more ) of your "artistic persolnalities" will need to be completely unknown, always in the shadows, and for a while at least you won't be able to let anyone know that your really are the one behind the work presented. But this is actually also a very good technic to learn about ourselves. The only important thing beeing never loosing touch with who we really are and what we want to express.

 

As for Marc comment and suggestion : In a way, I'm glad I didn't look at the attachment yesterday : I'm sure I would have an hangover now.

 

Don't get me wrong here : Marc did a post-production on this picture which is also very trendy ( but since a few months/ couple of years a bit less and less so), but this trendiness is mostly one used in commercial photography ( fashion / adverstising ), and is a kind of visual language appealing especially to the younger generations.

 

But I understood from the comment on the other photo, that you wanted me to give a feedback focused on the "high-end" art market, and in this art world, as far as I know, ultra saturated photos tends to be less and less the trend.

 

laurent

I have little to add to what you have stated; I presume it is autobiographical, but you needn't acknowledge whether it is or isn't.

 

And I listen to those who can teach; your last post is most didactic, and I hope that I learn from it as I intend.

 

I'm a bit surprised that this passed muster as a 'good' photograph since it's my first (and maybe last) attempt at such a subject or treatment.

 

And no, i don't intend to stop taking and posting 'street' photographs here. They're my pride and joy, and the ones I hope to be known for.

 

Thanks for the effort, I know it took you some energy, time and commitment to let me know your thoughts (and perhaps teach me a lesson or two -- maybe even plant a seedling in my ol' noggin.)

 

'~)

 

John (Crosley)

 

 

It is a very interesting composition and the colors undoubtedly pull one's attention immediatedly. I see three cheeful elements here in the midst of this dilapidated surrounding - the couple smiling, the round perforation with a view to the outside and the "triangular" openining on top. This "belly of the beast" is certainly more cheerful than the one that Jonah was in.

I visited Photo Paris and there were quite a few 'industrial wasteland' photos, often blown up quite large, which explored the 'beauty' one finds in dilapidation and corrosion, and as noted above, it was rather trendy to photograph such things (and maybe still is).

 

Since I saw this, and I had a D300 with a rather high dynamic range, (comparatively), I decided to give it a go. I had to 'adjust'' the exposure a lot for areas of apparent shadow/darkness and pull much detail and color out of shadow, but this is the result.

 

I suppose to take those 'large' industrial scapes, one really needs a view camera, but this is what a good 35 mm can do.

 

I appreciate your analysis.

 

Best.

 

John (Crosley)

first of all I didn't read the above but I guess some people will like it. The reason I didn't is I don't like it a bit. Two things that work well here, that's your title and the lighting, for the rest it's just a snap and a bad one at that. I'm sorry but would I've been tempted to take this in the first place I wouldn't have taken it like this. Anyway I would have binned it. You can do a whole lot better than this.

I asked for helpful comments, and I suppose 'bin it' is your feeling. It's not mine, but just calling it a 'snap' does not do it justice.

 

A 'snapshot' is something that anybody can take and is a cliche, often of family members or friends lined up in a row, and this particular shot, with its deep shadows, bright highlights and saturated colors was something that stretched the limits of the best professional equipment.

 

While I hear that you don't like it, that doesn't help me very much . . . and whether I can do a whole lot 'better than this' is a little beside the point.

 

I don't just post sure-fire winners - this is not a contest for me, with me trying to gain the top score and prove to the world that I'm its best photographer, but about my stretching myself, and whereas in some areas I may be very accomplished, in others where I am getting my feet more 'wet', I always appreciate good-willed and good-spirited help. Also, you may find you are in a minority of those who disapprove.

 

And whether you would have taken this photo this way is to me pretty irrelevant; as I am not you and vice versa. I certainly have no wish to take photos like you do; and probably the same for you of me.

 

It would have been more helpful to see a good-spirited critique of what you think is right, wrong and, more helpful, to have you actually be helpful . . . to show how to improve it . . . and if you truly want to look for garbage to 'bin' this is NOT it.

 

There's plenty on this service, however, that is worth the rubbish bin -- not this, whether you think so or not, and you ARE entitled to your opinion.

 

Yours is the singular most unhelpful comment I have received in four years of Photo.net membership - entirely negative without redemption, as I read it . . . are you having a bad day or just feel like venting? Did something bad happen in your life that you felt like sharing in ill will?

 

In short, I find your comment a little mean-spirited, maybe more, and completely unhelpful.

 

John (Crosley)

That many of the world's finest artists, as we recognize them now, were laughed at, their work panned and/or ridiculed and/or just passed over by the critics.

 

If the artists had listened to the critics, we would have never had 'Impressionism', 'Cubism' or almost any part of Pablo Picasso's work.

 

'Sunflowers' or other works of Vincent Van Gogh were deemed unworthy of being sold; his brother who was in charge of marketing his work, couldn't sell even one during Van Gogh's troubled lifetime, yet in Amsterdam there's a whole museum devoted just to the work of his short lifetime, complete with a collection of his correspondence and that of his brother

 

So, being panned by a 'critic' may indeed be a sign of distinction, and I am more than able to handle that.

 

I have a more world historical view, and remember how many wonderful artists have had their work lambasted.

 

Is my work world historical -- probably not, but it's hardly amateur either.

 

And whether I can do 'better' in other circumstances with other subjects is irrelevant, as noted above, as this is my first post of such a subject.

 

I stand by my comment next above.

 

I am entitled to kinder treatment than your comment indicates; I am uniformly polite and good-natured on this service and would expect the same in return.

 

John (Crosley)

what you perceive as mean spirited is in fact not. I was and am not having a bad day. Secondly no photo has never gotten worse (or better for that matter)from any critique, let alone mine.

 

Was it helpfull, I guess not. But I think there is a very big difference here. Would it help you if I had dissected it to the bone and still call it what I think it is, not a good photo? I would have but the mere fact that you are in fact an accomplished and very experienced photographer and should be able to do that yourself would make that an exercise in futility.

 

There for me lies the difference. While I may have been a bit harsh or not writing on the content as I usually do, I would have would you have been someone else. Since I have written more comments under your photo's you know that to be true.

 

Being a minority doesn't bother me. That's not meant in an arrogant way but like you yourself said there is a lot of rubbish about. Your words and I don't disagree but what's important for me here is that I form my own opinion even if that makes me a minority and could well mean I'm wrong more often than not.

 

I agree on your statement about photography not being a contest. Look at my bio and you'll see.

 

A btw: Vincent did sell one painting during his lifetime!

 

To fullfill your request concerning an argumented comment on your photo then (there you have a valid point):

You may well have been limited here by the structure to move around a lot. But given your title I think it's not clear enough what usually goes on here. I can see no thought out and well setup composition, there is no real point of interest, in fact there is lot's of distracting clutter. I know these places and therefore know there is other points where you can stand and photograph. In my opinion, given what your stated intention was here, that could have worked a lot better. You say it's not a snapshot but for me it sure has the feel of one. And while there are some good around this, in my opinion isn't one.

 

Lastly John, you called my comment mean spireted. It's hardly that. You know where I come from. We got blasted and cut off by the knees regularly in such a way that makes this quite harmless in comparison. But of course it's your perception and not mine that we are talking about.

 

 

"So, being panned by a 'critic' may indeed be a sign of distinction, and I am more than able to handle that"

As you note John I am not a critic and while you perceive it to be written in a mean sprited way it's still an honest one whether right or wrong.

 

"Is my work world historical -- probably not, but it's hardly amateur either"

I didn't say it was did I, nor did I imply it was. Given the context quite the contrary I should think.

 

You write this is your first post of such a subject. That to me is a weak argument especially given your background. Whether it's the first or not, it doesn't change the actual content of this particular photo.

 

To sum it all up, I stand corrected when you state I didn't give you any actual arguments, you have a valid point there. But that still doesn't mean that it makes this a good photo and to me it just isn't. Nor does the fact that I'm a minority on this one. But mean spireted, never that. I speak as I find and do that as honestly as I can although it doesn't mean we have to agree.

 

Regards,

Ton

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As this thread is jumping up in my "follow up" page, I have to answer, and I really don;t agree with you : You may not like the phot, but it is actually a very good photo.

 

I will not start to write one of my analyses here, because there is too much to write about, but no time for me to do so. Just try to analyse the composition, as well as the color balances etc.

 

Also, believe me, depending the way it would be presented in the art world ( art is (unfortunately ) 95% of PR today ), it would certainly be a very succesfull one.

Lots of people feel that photographers in the art world at the moment, are not good photographers, or don't know what they are doing, but if we look closely, most of them really are very good, and do everything with a purpose.

 

But because the curators and colectors always try to look for novelty, theses photographers are making photos we are not really used to see, and certainly in a way we traditionnaly wouldn't even present for critique here on PN.

 

For me personaly, knowing John's body of work, I feel this photo a bit less strong than what he usually does, but that doesn't makes this photo a bad photo at all.

 

Have a nice week end

 

laurent

 

I do appreciate the fact that you take the trouble to defend the qualities of this photo. I have looked carefully before writing my first comment but please accept the fact that I don't agree and again, whether right or wrong that's what I honestly think.

 

If you read carefully I haven't commented on the quality of John as a photographer but only this photo. Proof of that you can find on other photo's of John where I left a comment.

 

You make a valid point however in stating that a lot of good photographers are underrated. That's a statement I agree on wholeheartedly. Your other point however takes a different angle alltogether. The fact that a certain photo, or kind of photography is fashionable at any given time doesn't necesarilly mean that it's good. But it means that there will always be good photographers who's work isn't valued. See the paradox here. Most curators and collectors aren't looking for novelty they are looking for work that they can make money from, believe me I know. And there is nothing wrong in that as such.

 

It's one reason because I know John's work (at least here on PN) that I'm so critical on this photo. Anyway, thanks again and have a nice one too.

 

Regards,

Ton

I absolutely accept the fact you don't like this photo and never said otherwise. I was speaking about my own feelings too, and never said I'm more right than you or anybody else.

 

It is always very exciting to developp contradictory arguments over a single photo for me.

 

And thanks the godess we all have different opinions and tastes !! : Otherwise we would all end up doing the same single photo, and rate eachother 7/7 all the time ...

 

And I agree with you and all the other points too, which are not contradictory in essence to what I said : Yes curators want to make money, and the majority of colectors want their pieces to take value. And novelty is one of the most valuable component of a vluable artist ( perhaps unfortunately ).

thanks for that honest reply. But it's not about like or dislike because that would mean one would be biased almost by definition and I try to avoid that. And yes, it's always fun exchanging arguments as we've done before. Also there is no truth, the fact that we are different makes our work different and sometimes it can be quite exciting to see where that leads.

 

"And novelty is one of the most valuable component of a vluable artist ( perhaps unfortunately)" Yes novelty is that or at least it can be, amongst other things. But that's not necesarilly unfortunate. Because I think you have to do what you believe in although that doesn't put one above critique. So feel free to bite my head of over a photo anytime if you think it's warranted ;-)

 

Ton

 

John,

 

sorry for Hijacking your thread, but I feel the need to add a little answer.

 

Ton,

 

Believe me, I could write a 5000 words article on how "The Belly of the Beast" is a very good photo, technically, visualy, artisticaly, philosophycaly, sociologicaly etc.

 

Theses arguments won't be more or less valid than others : just arguments. And of course a critique is about liking or not : it is a judgment, and however hard we try to get factual argumentation, we'll only speaak from our experiences, cultural and technical knowledge, which are different for every single person.

 

Speaking about novelty : it is unfortunate when curators and colectors are pushing artist to create new styles, just for the sake of novelty, forgetting what that really means : you can't do anything new if you don;t know what you have to change, and therefore a real artist is a one who is able to do absolutely everything, especially the most classical kind of work.

You have NOT hijacked my thread -- my threads are open for some pretty free-flowing discussion.

 

They always have been known as a place on Photo.net for free speech, and the main rule has been one of politeness; Ton and I have cleared that issue up, and in the last photo he commented on, he made a wonderful suggestion, clear and to the point and very, very helpful.

 

And that is what it is all about -- recognizing (as you say) that one photograph or another may bring obloquy on the photo of even the photographer, but one cannot judge a photographer by one photo alone but by the body of his work - and in some cases, especially 'street' by what is a photographer's best work, since by nature in 'street' -- like in Golf or baseball batting -- the price of a winner is how many failure one makes.

 

I am not going to let this experience in any way keep me from experimenting; I have learned much from this, and more than just the issue of posting something that might invite scorn from one member [and less than scorn (;~)) from another], and also about trends in the art market, fashion in photography, and so forth.

 

All in all, if has been a good experience, and a little strong discussion among friends is not a problem at all; if it goes over bounds, I am the first to say, as there is really no moderation for these threads except as I, the photo poster, wish to call it in, and I have done that only one time in four years (to an obviously crazed person who began posting religious stuff under a photo and scary stuff at that.)

 

And sometimes even the apparently 'crazy' ones can have something important to add. There is one man, a foreigner, who initially began making comments in such a strange way, I was ready to write him off as a little 'deranged' or eccentric. But if he is those things or not, I know that he is watching, and from time to time he will pick out a photo I think is my very best (which may even have been overlooked by others, and he'll comment on it, and I know that I have connected with this man . . . and therefore respect his opinions (and now think that maybe language difficulties or his difficulty in wrong clear, expressive English across a language barrier, may have made things more difficult and caused a misunderstanding intitially.

 

These comments are what in politics they call a 'big tent' which seeks to shelter all who come here.

 

At one point a woman under a photo not long ago, seemed to write what was a sarcastic remark and when I questioned that, she removed the remark, but I begged her to re-insert it, or at least restate it, as withdrawing it 'orphaned the responses' and made the thread read rather strangely.

 

In retrospect, she wrote that re-writing her comment made her think that maybe it was not so appropriate . . . and she was very complimentary (and apologetic). I think she thought the whole matter had been well-handled.

 

Seeking apologea is not my stock in trade; I am neither judge nor enforcer, and mostly when people want to express an opinion, that is what is sought, but if one looks at my 'Request for Critique' which is long and well-honed, usually it works - I state: '. . . your ratings and critiques are invited and most welcome. If you rate harshly or very critically, please submit a helpful and constructive comment.'

 

Ton's problem with me here was he seemed to be lacking in helpfulness and constructiveness . . . which is why I objected.

 

(and in the interest of accuracy . . . I did have one extremely long thread which a member tried to turn into a flame war, because he simply butted in after I told a friend member of his that her critique was scientifically off the mark -- the physics were wrong of how she tried to tell me to do something -- and indeed it got into a personal attack over how I take photos -- I don't always ask or seek a collaboration, which is the nature of street, and that got attacked . . . so apologies to Ton for suggesting wrongly that his remark was singular in four years, but that remark was expressed in a manner rare for these pages.)

 

I find that people do read these pages; they get referred to sometimes in e-mail and most often with thanks. Some people are not participators, but they follow things, and learn from them, and I understand some substantial number of members do indeed read these things (which is why I sometimes eschew standard abbreviations like DOF for depth of field and other more common terms, so the more casual more novice reader can 'keep up'.

 

It's all part of communicating.

 

And sometimes when I make a remark, I get misunderstood; it's in the nature of communication that my good will might be taken wrongly if I am not careful in how I express it -- that is something I try to be cautious of, since I am pretty good-natured on this service, even if sometimes my temperament in more like that ascribed to Cartier-Bresson -- 'a quicksilver temperament' (but not always and especially not here.)

 

Best to you Laurent and also to Ton.

 

Keep it coming and never worry about hijacking a thread; if anyone gets out of line, I moderate my own threads and don't need to rely on this service, and I am a 'man' in the sense that I can stand up for myself (but thank you Laurent for stepping in to the discussion, it was most helpful and helped focus the 'issues).

 

John (Crosley)

first of all it seems that this has turned more into a philosophical exchange than a discussion on one single photo and that's something I always like.

 

Laurent you are partially right I think. When judging a photo of course like or dislike (subject to one's own preferences) is part of the equation. But I see (and hear) a lot of comments that are only based on like or dislike. The tree of us are all experienced photographers which means we should be able to disect a image which should be the fundament of a judgement. If you then also throw in personal preferences then they are only part of a informed judgment as a whole. To me that is a big difference.

 

Nevertheless, it should not be dismissed. As we all know a lot of work is sold purely on the basis that it's liked as a image often without the buyer being able to explain why he likes it. I've bought two paintings just because my wife and I liked them without much consideration why that was. Buying what's fashionable and/or for investment purposes has it's own rules and is much less subject to such fluid criteria.

 

So yes, to a certain extent the market dictates contemporary styles (and/or the succes of a individual artist). But although I myself didn't set out to make a living out of photography I know a lot have to comply to that simply to survive. Cynical? Maybe, but based on a hard economic reality.

 

John, you are right. I too consider our little head to head resolved (which doesn't mean I'm not going to tear you a new one when I think it's deserved ;-)

So let's forget about this photo then!

 

True, it would be unfair to judge a photographer by just one photo. Still, a crappy photo is still a crappy photo. (Remember I bring this up in general terms) I once heard a photographer defend some of his work by stating that they were part of a series and therefore shouldn't be judged individually. Fact was they were almost all below par by general consensus.

 

I for instance am anything but a landscape photographer. Still should I start to shoot landscape I think it would only be fair to judge the result of that by my whole body of work. Since I'm a experienced photographer that would consequently imply that it should meet a certain standard. But as we all know often that's not the case. Often something is called good just because a certain and renowned name goes with it. That's hypocrisy and also a good way to sell. Best to remember that or am I getting to cynical?

 

John, singular or not there isn't a single reason why you should apologise. Factual correct or not, it was made based on a honest emotion something which I always appreciate.

 

Yep communicating is hard. Now there is a fact of life. Photography, whether it's considered a art or a craft (let's not go into that shall we)contains it's own subjectiveness and therefore is by defition subject to discussion.

 

 

Damn, if we could only discuss this over a few beers.

 

Now let's find another photo that we can rip apart ;-)

 

 

 

 

 

 

But we differ in our choice of words, and perhaps that deals with a certain underlying mindset.

 

I try not to 'rip apart' photos, but rather to dissect them.

 

I even start with some of the worst photos, and sometimes there's nothing I like about them.

 

I said that once, and started a thread of defenders that was 20 or 30 comments long, and the poster kept that crappy photo posted, (even though it was very crappy) just because he was proud he could get a thread so long.

 

A year later, I happened go comment on one of his photos (not realizing who it was) and pronounced it quite worthy, and he brought up the prior exchange, not out of any animosity but partially to brag that he had greatly improved (and by God, he had).

 

Of course when one dissects, one has to do it with a scalpel and since it's a vivisection in many cases, one has to do it with a big of laughing gas or at least lidocaine.

 

That's my view, and I used to 'rip new ones' for a living as an attorney.

 

But not unnecessarily; that was my job, but only when it was designed to bring the best results.

 

Otherwise, not.

 

Best to you and you were correct about any disagreement.

 

John (Crosley)