Norma Desmond

People can disagree on what’s overprocessed and it often doesn’t take having been there to know it. Visual memory and how visual memory is applied photographically vary. I’ve seen scenes presented in a neon, artificial, Disney-esque way that the photographer claims is just what the scene looked like. It may, in fact, be what it looked like to him, though perhaps not to most others who were there. In any case, a photographer’s claim of accuracy rarely convinces me of the “truth” of a photo. A photo either rings true (often on a deeper level than “accuracy”) or it doesn’t. And that happens based on the elements within the frame working together in a particular way: objects, composition, color, light, density, saturation, gradation, etc,) As a viewer, I’m aware I’m relating to a picture. My caring about or feeling for the original scene or situation may play a big or small part or no part at all. But I’m keenly aware that the visual memory and how a photographer translates that memory in post processing work can vary wildly and that a photographer’s telling me “this is what it looked like” and what it actually looked like may be in sharp contrast, depending on both the visual acuity of the photographer and the ability to actually photographically translate what he thinks he’s remembering. Then there’s the whole issue of to what extent a photo may or may not be an accurate representation of what was. I’m one who thinks photos don’t necessarily have to even try to be copies of the reality at the time of shooting. The original reality can merely be the raw materials from which an imaginative picture gets created, not remembered. In those cases, the internal integrity and workings of the various elements and photographic qualities are more important than fidelity to the external reality taking place when the photo was shot.

Now, that’s one I’m just not getting, Sandy, crooked, straight, or any other way,

To each his own. “Natural” doesn’t always work . . . for me. I’m quite tall and didn’t like the way some of my early photos were coming out perspective-wise, so I learned to do a lot of bending and kneeling to compensate. Added benefit: keeps me limber.

Slight crop, conversion in ACR to b/w, some levels and shadows adjustments, cloned out the two other people on the path, a little dodging and burning. warm toning.

Best example I know is Magritte’s Treachery of Images (“This is not a pipe”). Can’t link to it right now but you can google it.

The accidents don't SCREAM at me. They do, often, w-h-i-s-p-e-r "amateur" or "inexperience." If I feel the accident nibbling at my ear, I might* contact the photographer and mention that it looks like a mistake. Then it's up to the photographer to care about it or not. I just go on with my day. *I've done it quite a bit on PN. I either go to portfolios to comment on photos or, when I've participated in No Words, I've occasionally contacted a photographer either to acknowledge a photo that seemed special to me or to bring up something that's not working for me. Usually turns out well. Nice to make connections here like that. Rant threads may be cathartic but are usually unproductive.

Mark, I don’t believe Jack is confused. I think there may be a simple miscommunication. When Jack said you’ve posted no pictures, I took him to mean no pictures posted to a personal gallery. From what I can tell, you’ve posted pics to forums but don’t have any in a portfolio. I think Jack’s point was to differentiate between the relatively good functionality, which you experience in forums, and the relatively bad functionality, which he experiences in the galleries and critique side of the site.

The text list was more effective. Lists of text allow for searches and are easier to manage and scroll through. At the very least, in all of these situations where a bunch of thumbnails pop up, there should be a choice of “list view” for practicality and ease of use.

The forums work pretty well and the galleries don’t. That’s been the case for some time. I’ve chosen not to deal with my personal gallery (which I’ve barely touched since the relaunch a year and a half ago) because of the myriad problems I encountered when I gave it a go and the amount of time wasted trying to do things that wouldn’t take hold. Though I was content with and enjoyed No Words for a year, it didn’t continue to hold my interest, so it’s too bad the galleries side of the site doesn’t function better, because I used to like the interaction there. Until I hear about its improving, I won’t waste my time there.

It’s a matter of most of us not letting a one-degree tilt of a horizon or a few dust spots drive us to distraction. It’s not letting such things cause us to rant publicly without being able to simply contact the photographer personally to mention it as something they might want to consider. It’s not allowing these things to ruin a photo we otherwise like. I think we’re asking for a sense of proportionality and priority. What’s also become unfortunately obvious is that the obsession with level horizons even in situations where it most likely would be more visually organic or consistent to have it level has gotten in the way of a viewer being able to recognize the effectiveness of a more obvious and pronounced slant in an image that’s much the better for it. Most dust marks are simple mistakes. I notice them and just look past them, especially on the Internet. I’d maybe have a different reaction to dust spots on photos in a museum but still wouldn’t let it ruin a photo I otherwise really appreciated. And, if a photographer managed to use dust spots artistically, as many have used grain, noise, and other “flaws,” I wouldn’t automatically dismiss their creative use because of some “rule” that dust spots are always forbidden. You also “shouldn’t” chop off people’s heads, yet Winogrand’s iconic photo of the guy below a beach boardwalk does just that. (Google Image Result for http://www.artnet.com/WebServices/images/ll963310llgZMfDrCWvaHBOAD/garry-winogrand-coney-island,-new-york.jpg) Part of art’s job is to make people spouting rules and demanding adherence look foolish. :)

Sure. I wasn't questioning how you see it. Just stating how it—mostly—works for me.

LOL. I suspect you will have convinced more people to skew their horizons than straighten them. Ironically, that may mean your rule-demanding, image-communication "expertise" will likely have been undermined . . . by you. Either way, whatever moves people to consciously break your rules or anyone else's is very likely bound to be a good thing. I'd guess most of the cases you're so terribly concerned with and annoyed by haven't decided this at all. They probably haven't noticed it, because it's relatively unimportant to what THEY are doing. A viewer is entitled to critique. But a viewer also does well to have a bit of empathy about what's important to those he's criticizing. It's a matter of priorities. Again, your priority is to allow a slightly skewed horizon to "ruin" a photo. Others have different priorities . . . thankfully.

Photographic communication isn’t as literal as many other forms of communication. The push to know more than what Supriyo originally said about his photo, as if there’s an exact or precise reason for, meaning, and communicative intent of a slanted horizon in a photo is out of whack. Photography is also more than communication, for example, expression. Expression . . . and art . . . can be much harder to pin down than communication. Winogrand is an important photographer to know. Dismissing him thus shows a strange unwillingness to learn. If you can’t grasp the fairly simple concept of an image and its relationship to the frame or edge of the paper or canvas and the image’s ability sometimes to transcend that constraint, I suggest another 50 years of comprehensive study of image communication, though it should actually take only an hour or two to absorb this one.

I think (or feel or intuit) mostly about content, story-telling, and expression when shooting. Composition, forms, shapes, and color usually support those things, though sometimes the more abstract things like shape and color tell the story or at least a story. For me, color and black and white aren’t in an additive/subtractive relationship. They’re two available photographic mediums/choices.

Got it. I like the challenges working in color provides and seem to divide pretty evenly between color and black and white in what I wind up producing. I shoot digitally, so I shoot in color even when I know in advance a shot will ultimatley be black and white, so I have a range of options in the conversion.

Denny, just to be clear, I was responding to a post and talking about CONVERTING images to black and white, which I think of as a different animal from shooting in black and white. Obviously, some of the same considerations apply, but many do not. When shooting black and white film, one makes the choice (as you do) in advance, based on many factors. Converting to black and white and, particularly, doing it to turn bad photos into good ones, is quite a bit different.

Supriyo, I'm not sure answering this will be productive. The reason I say this is that your fairly gracious explanation of what you see and what you intended was met with this: So, it seems like you're being set up. You're being asked to explain even further while being told that the mere existence of your explanation shows that your photo isn't working. As for this: I didn't think Supriyo's explanation came because he felt he had to or the image warranted it. I think he felt a particular viewer, not the photo, warranted it. I think he was speaking as one photographer to another and just providing information about his photo, but not because he felt the photo was unfinished or inexplicable without it. There's a difference between providing interesting background info and even personal interpretation of one's own photo and that photo's supposedly needing such additional info or the photo falling short because such info was provided. I often like hearing what others say or write about their work but I don't take that as a sign that their work itself isn't enough.

That seems clear. The question becomes whether the confusion is the responsibility of the photographer or the viewer. There are times when a photographer confusing the viewer is a great thing. Other times, not so much. And there are times when a viewer comes away appreciating being confused. Other times, again, not so much. I've been told by mentors and critics that they were confused by a photo of mine and that helped me realize I hadn't committed to what I was doing enough and didn't make my photographic point clear enough. There have also been times I've been in the presence of viewers, both of my own photos and the photos of others, who simply didn't get it, which was no fault of the photographer. Something I often do when I'm confused by a photo, especially if it's by someone whose work I know and appreciate, is consider whether the confusion may lie with me and not the photographer. That may propel me to be more open to different styles and to expand rather than reinforce my own taste. It can and has, for me, turned confusion into insight. On the other hand, sometimes, try as I might, I just determine the photo doesn't work for me. Supriyo's photo works for me, and I don't have to over-interpret its meaning or the intent of the photographer to get there.

I don't know, to be honest, if I would have rotated Glenn's photo when I worked on it for the post-proecessing challenge had the horizon appeared as it does in his second example. My main concern was bringing out the textures of and focusing attention on the central rock, creating more mood with some lighting changes that I felt the content was pointing toward, and adding to the sense of depth of the scene by highlighting the waves in the background and vignetting the foreground a bit.

I haven’t found this to be the case. Converting to black and white often improves a good image but rarely saves a bad one. What I do find is that many photographers mistakenly think this. I see many black and white photos (don’t know your work, so I’m not talking about your work here) that seem to have been converted to black and white to compensate for an otherwise insignificant image, thinking black and what gives off more of a street or art or nostalgic vibe. It’s fairly easy to see right through that. If a shot is truly bad, attempts to “fix” it are very often made in vain and transparent to many a savvy viewer. I hope what you’re talking about are good shots that offer more potential when converted to black and white.

What Moving On quoted, and . . . One of the reasons I continue to love making photos is that no one gets to tell me what “must” be done. __________________________________________________________________________________ On occasion, a tilted horizon has bothered me. Next time I see one, though, due to this thread, I’m going to silently applaud the photographer who did it . . . just . . . because . . . :rolleyes:

The shots, taken seconds or split-seconds apart, won’t be identical. They will each capture important differences in gesture and expression.

Supriyo, the shot of the girl running toward the water is great. The Hitchcockian angle helps convey the energy of the moment and really draws me in.

Comparing Apple to PN is like comparing . . . well . . . :rolleyes:

Making a word plural doesn't require this kind of punctuation. One man's annoying dust mark is another man's roving apostrophe.