virginia_john_mybusiness

Wonderful. I would love to see these intimate images as huge prints about six feet on a side. I am drawn to the simplicity and pureness of the images. Inspirational!

Fred, I have been to this location dozens of times and it has a surreal feel to it. In one sense it is a time machine in that it takes you from the modern art building to the traditional gallery -- different art, very different architecture of the buildings etc. At the same time the lights are a moving display. I have probably taken 500 exposures here and have yet to capture what I'm after. I'm not sure it is even possible with a still image. The place reminds me of some of the scenes toward the end of Kubrick's 2001. Since the lights are stationary and programed, a slow shutter doesn't move the lights, but can blur the people, which may help representing the feeling. Part of the issue is that you cannot bring a tripod or monopod into the museum. You have to rely on the combination of VR and a steady hand. It certainly worth the stop on any visit to the National Mall.

Thanks for looking and sharing your thoughts.

Fred: I think you are absolutely right that style is sometimes confused with vision. However, style certainly supports vision. David duChemin discusses this at length in his "Within the Frame: The Journey of Photographic Vision.

Some months ago I spent several days in Monterey, California. I've always

enjoyed aquariums and the one in Monterey is spectacular. It has several

jellyfish tanks that present a wonderful underwater ballet. The extremely

low light conditions present a bit of a challenge and remove much of the

color that is present in the animals if you can restore the light. My jellyfish

images received a lot of post-processing in an effort to pull out the colors

hidden by the low light conditions and lost in the very high ISO used. The

images may seem very artificial -- and to a certain extent that is true. But

using the post processing as a means of pulling out color that was present

in the underlying image (not adding another color) helped me see not only

the structure of these lovely creatures, but the wonderful patterns they

present.

I think "vision" is a very elusive concept. Achieving it is even more so. Sometimes it is easy to look at a piece of art, or a photograph, and realize that there probably was no vision behind it; it was all a function of being in a particular spot at a particular time and accident played more of a role than did vision. On the other side of the coin, there are examples that clearly reflect the vision of the artist. One can look at a woman as seen by Giacometti, or Brancusi, or Moore and we all recognize the subject, but what strikes us is the vision of the artist.
I have no idea what was in Emanuel's imagination when he created this image, but what struck me was the thought of how much children are like china dolls at times. In my mind I could easily exchange the child behind the lace curtain for a china doll behind the lace curtain -- and I thought that it was a nice visual analogy.
But that is my bringing my vision to the image. I can only wonder if the photographer and I shared the vision -- but the wonder and exploring of a potentially shared vision is what makes the image so enjoyable for me.
So many photographs are technically very well executed, but do not stimulate any thought about What was going through the mind of the photographer when they shot this? Would any competent camera operator taken exactly or nearly exactly the same image if they had been there?
When I look at any piece of art -- and I put photographs in this category -- I want to gain some insight into the creator of the image and their thinking. If there is nothing of the vision of the photographer present, regardless of subject or style, the photograph quickly passes from my mind as uninteresting.
One can tell when a photographer has achieved the level of being able to project there vision when we can look at the image and know instantly who the photographer is without having to read their name in the caption.

I remember back in art school one of the discussions was along the line of what we are having here. The ultimate consensus was that success was defined by how well you executed the vision you had before you started. However, there is an entirely different discussion about whether or not others shared your vision after you were done and whether or not it mattered.

Fred: my point about Ansel was that he pushed the technology in innovative ways. Even though Ansel wasn't a big fan of color images, he may have made the largest transparencies ever on commission from Kodak. They hung from the ceiling in Grand Central Station. I had the privilege of spending quite a bit of time with Ansel both photographically and on conservation projects. I believe that Ansel would be on the forefront of pushing photographic, or photo graphic technology if it helped achieve the image he conceived of. While Ansel mostly used a 4x5, he tried virtually every new piece of gear he could lay his hands on. He tinkered with his chemicals in addition to eliminating the condenser in his enlarger. He could stretch the capture capacity of a piece of film about two EVs beyond anyone else I knew. I have little doubt he would be working on the edge of digital photography today -- even if it might only be in the BW world.
Jeremy: Are you suggesting that "hyperventilated" art projects are not photography? Maybe by your definition photography is not art? I guess I reject both of those views.

Jerry, I used a very expensive, one of a kind housing....The Monterey Aquarium.

The camera and lens are only components in digital photography. The CPU and software are much like the traditional darkroom -- on steroids. I remember a long conversation with Ansel Adams as he took me through his darkroom after dinner and explained the lamphouse he had constructed on his enlarger. It had an extensive array of small lamps instead of a condenser. Each of the lamps had an independent rheostat. Ansel would set the rheostat on each bulb to produce a precise amount of light to pass through his negative and would record the settings in his diary for that image. This enabled the precise duplication of the image without the variables of dodging and burning. Maybe Ansel was an analogue pioneer for digital photography.
The creator of the image should be absolutely free to use whatever tools fit her of his imagination. Ansel created his images in his mind long before he touched a camera. I think some of us do the same thing today -- only our range of tools has expanded exponentially.
When it all comes down to it -- it is a matter of personal taste. I love the images of Mark Rothko -- others may hate them. I congratulate Emanuel on this image and encourage him to push his vision the limits.

Jerry, you don't know and the truth is I'm not sure either. These guys swim in both directions. My guess is that it is right side up because of it being lighter at the top.

Feel free to reverse it, if you like.

The colors are from the magic marker I use on my screen... Not!

Photoshop let's your imagination wander all over your screen.

I think this image clearly demonstrates the power of digital photography to transcend the limits of the traditional photograph and become a true artistic tool for all seasons. It is a photo graphic. Wonderful composition exquisitely executed. Bravo!

Rege: I'm a great fan of expanding the use of digital photography into the full range of graphic arts. There is a whole universe out there beyond the world of pure digital photography. A great job here. Albrecht Dürer would probably be doing work like this if he were alive today.

The tunnel between the east and west wings of the national galleries on the

National Mall in Washington DC is a moving visual delight. I have tried over

the years to photograph it. This just one of hundreds of failed efforts.

Richard: Ferns are an endless source of wonderful images, and yours is one of them.

I very much like the darkness. But I might consider boosting the brightness and vibrance of the eyes for more drama.

OK, enough about the cute cat. I love cats. What I find wonderful is the wonderful framing of this image and the exquisite tonality. Cats are wonderfully expressive and it is easy to take a cute or emotional image of one -- such great subjects. I think what elevates this image above all of those millions of cute cat pictures is the totality of the image -- that I attribute to the photographer instead of the cat. This is so much more than the capture of a cat in a "cute" moment. This is a truly well executed image that presents so much more than just a "cat" caught "catnapping."  Very well done!

Andrew, a lovely image of one of the black and white places in the southwest. The blinding whiteness of the gypsum sands and all of the wonderful patterns and textures they exhibit is really well presented here. The rhythm and flow of the patterns in this image is almost symphonic. I really like it.

John

One of my favorite places that a million people may visit and photograph and all take much the same image. You show what can really be done in a new and very creative way and perspective. This is one of the best shots I've seen of the canyon that captures the place with a fresh look without all the drama so often seen. There is so much more to the canyon than the commonly seen locations. Thanks so much for sharing.

John

So that's what they look like when not shrouded in cloud.  Lovely.

Absolutely wonderful. I think I'd like a print about 10 feet tall to hang in my living room! Classic in every respect. Exquisitely done.

John