| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/16/2004 06:00:31 PM · #26 |
BradP and Gloda both hit on what I was thinking for this photo. I had never thought about the idea that CG may be a buyer for a company who makes telephone poles. This could have been the real motivation behind the shot ;)
|
|
|
|
12/16/2004 06:02:01 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Watch out -- it's a trap! Once you learn that you can look at a photo like this, there's nothing to keep you from looking at them all like that ... and that it only takes an additional few seconds : ) |
Shush you!
|
|
|
|
12/16/2004 06:04:01 PM · #28 |
| Sorry -- if you hadn't quoted it I could hide my post. |
|
|
|
12/16/2004 06:05:46 PM · #29 |
I don't know anything about Mr. Hubbell other than what is on his profile, but his profile photo tells me a lot. He looks like he is presenting himself as an outdoorsman in the photo. His portfolio does contain a lot of nature work.
I think the photo I presented for discussion, in some way, shows a communion between the photographer and the outdoor world he enjoys regularly.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2004 06:06:13 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
BradP and Gloda both hit on what I was thinking for this photo. I had never thought about the idea that CG may be a buyer for a company who makes telephone poles. This could have been the real motivation behind the shot ;) |
If the underlying theme is "feeling insignificant",,,,,mmmmmmmm lemme see,,,,,,,married man,,,,,teenage kids..... the rest of the trappings,,, yup,,that should make me feel rather insignificant. DO pics from around the house count, hehehehe |
|
|
|
12/16/2004 06:07:19 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Sorry -- if you hadn't quoted it I could hide my post. |
Just kidding...
I can't recall ever seeing a discussion on a photograph anywhere on this site where critique was discouraged. This thread hasn't been running long but I'm impressed with the result of it already :) Everyone who has posted is thinking about something OTHER than why they like/dislike the shot. It's a nice breath of fresh air :)
|
|
|
|
12/16/2004 06:10:11 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Sorry -- if you hadn't quoted it I could hide my post. |
Just kidding...
I can't recall ever seeing a discussion on a photograph anywhere on this site where critique was discouraged. This thread hasn't been running long but I'm impressed with the result of it already :) Everyone who has posted is thinking about something OTHER than why they like/dislike the shot. It's a nice breath of fresh air :) |
I must thank you Mr. setzler for this post as it has really opened my eyes. As for your comments regarding the breath of fresh air,,,,yes indeed it is, considering some of the rather nasty exchanges I have seen on here in the last few days.......Thanks again. |
|
|
|
12/16/2004 06:11:07 PM · #33 |
I think any given photograph 'can' have more significance when these things are considered. Some photos will not, but some definitely will. These are the thoughts that seem to fall to the wayside in a challenge vote. I rarely see any comments on great photos that come anywhere close to matching what has been posted here about this shot.
Think about this when you are leaving comments on challenge photos. Make an effort to tell the photographer why you think he/she made the photo.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2004 06:16:32 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I think any given photograph 'can' have more significance when these things are considered. Some photos will not, but some definitely will. These are the thoughts that seem to fall to the wayside in a challenge vote. I rarely see any comments on great photos that come anywhere close to matching what has been posted here about this shot.
Think about this when you are leaving comments on challenge photos. Make an effort to tell the photographer why you think he/she made the photo. |
I think that's why I give higher scores. |
|
|
|
12/16/2004 06:18:31 PM · #35 |
It's funny...being from the west coast where our trees are big, I don't see these as being majestic giants or anything close. What I did get from this was that the person might have wanted to capture the very specific experience of, as I said, the very eerie and unnatural (yes, unnatural) feeling of being in a regrown, managed forest like this appears to be. The branches and underbrush are cleared (thinning and brushing, the foresters call it) so the space between the trees is utterly bare. When you're out in the middle of a stand like that it's a bizarre, spooky, deathly quiet experience. I've read descriptions like it being out on the ocean with no land in sight and, having experienced both, it's similar.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2004 06:21:22 PM · #36 |
| Maybe he realized that trees have been around longer and done more good for this planet than man could ever hope to. |
|
|
|
12/16/2004 06:22:09 PM · #37 |
| The lines are beautiful. If he's a photographer (which he seems to be) who is particularly attracted to linear objects and clean lines, this subject matter would make perfect sense. |
|
|
|
12/16/2004 06:22:09 PM · #38 |
I am very much open to hearing about the historical context of a photograph or the photographer who took it. I also appreciate others' opinions on what makes it work for them - and this can make a genuine difference to the way I see it sometimes. However, with this particular picture (and I should point out that I like it a lot) and its subject matter, is there any need to go any deeper than its face value? It's going to be 'pretty' whatever you think about the motives of the photographer. I'm sure there are other images where this kind of analysis would be better applied.
But, John, keep up the good work prodding us out of our cosy complacency!
Ben |
|
|
|
12/16/2004 06:28:14 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Sorry -- if you hadn't quoted it I could hide my post. |
Just kidding...
I can't recall ever seeing a discussion on a photograph anywhere on this site where critique was discouraged. This thread hasn't been running long but I'm impressed with the result of it already :) Everyone who has posted is thinking about something OTHER than why they like/dislike the shot. It's a nice breath of fresh air :) |
I know. I agree ... thanks for getting the ball rolling. |
|
|
|
12/16/2004 07:03:41 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Let's discuss why the photographer made it. What inspired Mr. Hubbell to raise his camera and release the shutter at this location at this moment in time? |
Honestly, i don't know.
I mean no disrespect and i may not be getting this, but this image doesn't mean a whole lot to me. There really isn't anything pleasing or interesting in it in my very humble, very personal and very subjective opinion...
Yes, it's a forest, yes, it's a nice set of very high and very straight trees, but there is no kick, no punchline, nothing to really attract attention. Perhaps it would be more moving in print than as a tiny image on a computer screen. Perhaps it's certain suboptimal technical features of the photo that we are not discussing that are, nonetheless, distracting, don't know. I wouldn't take this picture myself.
Again, i don't mean to dis anything or offend anyone here, just a sincere anwer to a valid question. |
|
|
|
12/16/2004 07:08:24 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by bpickard:
However, with this particular picture (and I should point out that I like it a lot) and its subject matter, is there any need to go any deeper than its face value? It's going to be 'pretty' whatever you think about the motives of the photographer. I'm sure there are other images where this kind of analysis would be better applied. |
The next time I do this, the image will be significantly different :)
|
|
|
|
12/16/2004 07:11:42 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by yurasocolov:
Honestly, i don't know.
I mean no disrespect and i may not be getting this, but this image doesn't mean a whole lot to me. There really isn't anything pleasing or interesting in it in my very humble, very personal and very subjective opinion... |
It's not ALWAYS about the photograph itself. There is the aspect of what it does to stir the soul and stimulate the human emotion factor.
At least that's my take on it.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2004 07:33:51 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by yurasocolov:
Honestly, i don't know.
I mean no disrespect and i may not be getting this, but this image doesn't mean a whole lot to me. |
This may be the case, but can you put yourself in the photographer's shoes? Can you imagine standing in this place? It may not have been a photo you would have taken yourself. Mr. Hubbell did make this image though. The question is why? If you read through this thread, you will get some general idea of why he may have made it. I am going to ask him to post to this thread tomorrow and we will hear what he has to say about it :)
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 05:26:09 AM · #44 |
Why did Mr Hubbell shoot (and download, and process, and upload) this scene? If it were me, it would be because I felt it accurately communicated whatever magic I saw/found in that scene as I stood before it, so i can only ascribe those motives to him.
Now, that 'magic' might be any number of things: it might be about light, about the huge loom of the trees against the snow and white air; it might be compositional, about the echoes of vertigo, or the great cathedrals, or arches that he found here; it might be more emotional, aout the suggestion of a path leading through these monumental trees. I cannot tell - because it doesn't successfully speak of any of those things in particular, nor in combination, to me, to my eye. I can imagine myself into that location as shown here ... and I think I wouldn't even raise the camera - in earlier days I would, and my object would have been to capture some of that forest sense of mystery, of the looming trees, the quiet, the obscuring of light - but my experience tells me that for me it doesn't work: if one is to capture that magic of light around the forest floor, the available light cannot compete with the visible sky, and the image becomes more about the white areaas of highlights than about the looming trees.
You see, one cannot talk about photographs in the complete absence of a 'critique' - what's the point? Because I find the shot unsuccessful, in the sense of speaking little to me, I have to resort to guesswork to answer this question. One can stop oneself from mentioning areas of the work where one thinks mistakes have been made - purely technical things, like focus and so on. But composition is not a purely technical thing. Composition and the balance of subject areas, the depiction of light, the processess one uses to lead the eye through frame, the decisions one makes in showing one's audience a scene, a subject, are absolutely integral to the art.
You wouldn't ask someone to assess the work of Lucien Freud and yet pay no attention to the brushwork, would you?
So the short answer to your question would be 'yes'. I can imagine why someone would raise their camera at this scene. I can imagine why at one time I would have done so myself. But, finding the image unsuccessful, find that it doesn't speak to me of anything particular, I cannot say why he/she would keep it, display it. Then, it is only fair to approach the reasons why not.
A full critique of this shot, to my mind, would have to at least touch upon the human relationship with the forests, to my mind. That's an extensive study in itself. And relate this shot to other images of forests, other ways of communicating some of the 'things' about them that attract our concentration. Those elements play a strong part in the reasons one would take a shot of this scene, in the creation of the magic that we find in those worlds, and that we try to record with out cameras.
All writing about an image is a critique: some departs more from the compartmentalisation of simple mistakes.
E |
|
|
|
12/17/2004 07:43:23 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by yurasocolov:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Let's discuss why the photographer made it. What inspired Mr. Hubbell to raise his camera and release the shutter at this location at this moment in time? |
Honestly, i don't know.
I mean no disrespect and i may not be getting this, but this image doesn't mean a whole lot to me. There really isn't anything pleasing or interesting in it in my very humble, very personal and very subjective opinion... |
Interesting and honest answer (as well as e301)...Photography is at it's greatest when there is a marriage of 1) why the photo was taken (motivation, recognition of beauty, moment, etc) and 2) the ability to capture 'photographically' the substance/mood/flavour/beauty of that moment/light/place.
When these two important aspects divorce each other, you end up with photos of kids or pets which were taken with great motivation but don't end up conveying what the photographer saw through his/her eyes at the moment.
It's the same reason I have to be careful when listening to emotional music when I take photographs...it often creates a full scene of beauty (complete with soundtrack) which I photograph, only to return and realise I haven't successfully captured what I saw and felt.
I'm learning that this is fundamental to understand and learn if I wish to improve my photography.
Message edited by author 2004-12-17 07:45:56.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 08:51:17 AM · #46 |
e301's comments on Mr. Hubbell's image resonate with me. As we imagine the photographer observing the scene, ...followed by our viewing of the his rendering of that scene, we can't avoid critiqueing the latter. To try and feel what the photographer felt, and understand what motivated him to capture the image, the rendering needs to convey those feelings and motives.
Many years ago I recall debating with my college professors over the validity of any one particular interpretation ("critique", if you will) of a literary work. At the time, I contended that every interpretation was equally valid and "correct", ...if it was made honestly and as thoughtfully as the reviewer was capable. To me, my interpretation was no less valid than those of my professors. I've since changed my views and now firmly believe that there are objective standards by which one can measure a work of art. (I now understand that I was just making a lame attempt to justify my interpretations and get a good grade...:-) One learns those standards partially through formal education, but mostly through experience.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 09:05:11 AM · #47 |
Wow... It was all I could do to stand back without joining the conversation! Before I respond to why I took the picture, I'd like to comment on this experience. I tend to be a very introspective photographer, and I think this helps me to consider the perspective John is illustrating here: why a photographer took a picture, as opposed to how a photographer took a picture. In reading the entries in this thread however, I realized how far I have yet to go in exploring this view... By seeing the ways people arrived at my motivation, it helped me to understand a different level of communication which I'll be working to develop in the future. Thanks John!
Now, on to the answer...
It's interesting that John selected this image. Webster Pines is the image that marked the start of my photographic journey. My wife had an enlargement matted and framed as a birthday present, and it still hangs to remind me of the beginning. But why did I take it?
BradP, I believe, was closest to the truth in both of his posts about being connected to Nature. GoldBerry also scored a hit with the clean lines and linear objects, and a few comments about the human insignificance were on target as well (although I have no teenage kids!).
At that time I was spending considerable time in the woods geocaching. Part of geocaching is taking a picture of something you saw along the way; the site maintains a gallery to record your adventures. As a result of geocaching, I was seeing a lot of the local area which most people do not. I was beginning to feel inspired by finding so many fascinating areas I'd overlooked previously, but I didn't have much of an outlet for that inspiration. As I took more pictures, I realized that I was feeling more connected to Nature because I was spending more time appreciating the subtle details which you miss with your eyes, but can isolate with a lens. I was no longer merley walking through Nature, I was participating in Nature.
There are a few places where that feeling of "connectedness" and my aesthtic preferences came into close alignment. Webster Pines was one of them. I had previsualized this image, and composed it specifically to convey the feeling of being surrounded by Nature; There is without question a spiritual intent here, although perhaps not the most obvious one. The giant trees, corridor effect, highlights, all worked together to create what I was feeling. I had opened a door in my life which I sought to both share and commemorate.
So that's why I created this image. What's interesting is that when I took it, I could not have articulated what you just read. Photography has taught me as much about myself as the world I live in. And it all started with a pine forest...
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 09:07:11 AM · #48 |
I understand these points...
The success or failure of the final image still doesn't have anything to do with the original idea. What I am trying to look at here is 'why' the camera was raised and fired. The photographer could not have known the result of the shot at this point. The motivation behind the attempt is all I'm concerned with.
The photographer saw or felt something that inspired him to make the photo, and this is what I'm interested in over and above anything else. Each of us produces some good and bad photos. If the photo turns out bad and we don't like it, that has absolutely no impact on the original motivation.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 09:21:44 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
What I am trying to look at here is 'why' the camera was raised and fired. ...If the photo turns out bad and we don't like it, that has absolutely no impact on the original motivation. |
To distill it down to the moment, I clicked the shutter because I wanted to capture the connectedness I felt at the exact moment.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2004 09:23:10 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by cghubbell:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
What I am trying to look at here is 'why' the camera was raised and fired. ...If the photo turns out bad and we don't like it, that has absolutely no impact on the original motivation. |
To distill it down to the moment, I clicked the shutter because I wanted to capture the connectedness I felt at the exact moment. |
I should have 'quoted' from one of the previous posts.. Your post slipped in between mine and the ones from e301 and lenkphotos that I was 'replying' to :)
|
|
