PDA

View Full Version : Shorpy Kodachrome image



Rory_5244
30-Mar-2015, 09:25
http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k532/moobie1/horse_zpsjbjgbqz3.jpg

Sorry, but I'm so taken with this picture captured on 4x5 Kodachrome 25 in 1942 by Russell Lee. The original can be found here. (http://www.shorpy.com/node/137) I just thought some people may like it too.

diversey
30-Mar-2015, 13:44
I like it. A great photo!

Lenny Eiger
30-Mar-2015, 15:48
Why is this a great photo?

Ray Heath
30-Mar-2015, 16:16
"... so taken with". Why? What is the appeal?

David Lobato
30-Mar-2015, 16:35
I saw that photo some time back and it appealed to me. That was because that was my grandfather's occupation for much of his adult life. I used to stay with him at sheep camp and we'd ride horses all day when I was much younger. The picture shows the essential elements (except for the sheep),a watchful herder, a stout horse, rifle in a scabbard, and a good sheep dog. It was a hard and lonely life. My grandfather told me fascinating stories for hours on end about his experiences. How lightning killed one guy and they buried him where he fell in the mountains, marauding bears, and a large horse named "Z" that was unafraid of them, and crazy flatlander visitors. Last time I saw sheepherders they were South Americans in Utah 20 odd years ago. It's an anachronistic job.

Bill_1856
30-Mar-2015, 17:29
As best I recall, Daylight Kodachrome was ASA = 8. (3200K was ASA = 12). By the size of the notches, this is definitely 4x5, not 8x10.

StoneNYC
30-Mar-2015, 19:11
As best I recall, Daylight Kodachrome was ASA = 8. (3200K was ASA = 12). By the size of the notches, this is definitely 4x5, not 8x10.

What notches? I can't find any even on the linked image website...?

Corran
30-Mar-2015, 19:26
Why is this a great photo?


"... so taken with". Why? What is the appeal?

I ask you two the reverse - why isn't it a good photo?

Bill_1856
30-Mar-2015, 19:37
Click on the link, then scroll down.

StoneNYC
30-Mar-2015, 20:00
It's not a great photo, BUT you have to think of the time it was made, this is colorful and perfect and sharp and shooting a horse in focus is also difficult, but mostly the color is perfect, think of how hard that was at the time this was made, the skill it took. We take spotters and polaroid test shots for granted, didn't have that then... That's why it's amazing.

Ray Heath
30-Mar-2015, 22:03
Well,
the image is quite static and posed;
the lighting is harsh;
though an environmental portrait I get little sense of the environment;
the horse looks tense;
the dog is poorly placed;
the composition is not strong;

and to rebut SoneNYC - "... BUT you have to think of the time it was made, this is colorful (sic) and perfect and sharp and shooting a horse in focus is also difficult", maybe, but there is little to indicate when the image created, its not hard to photograph colour and focus sharply and I can't see that getting a horse in sharp focus would be all that difficult. Perhaps a little more difficult with an LF camera, but equipment used is also not indicated within the image;

and finally, knowing the attendant narrative adds interest to, and appreciation of, the image, but the image needs to stand on its own.

jbenedict
31-Mar-2015, 08:07
In another thread, someone was asking how to make a photo look "modern" by using the "most modern" lenses. "Modern" being 2015.

This photo is "modern" for 1942. That Kodachrome look, made famous in the National Geographic, that came in the magazine with the yellow framed cover every month. When I was about 8 years old (that's 50 years ago) I was given a huge pile of National Geographics that went back to the early 40s and I have a very vivid image of that Kodachrome 'look' in my mind. Is this what 1942 really looked like? I doubt it because, like many materials, Kodachrome had a lovely look but it wasn't real. I have always appreciated color that was "real" and I was a heavy user of EPN. Among my photo buddies, we would take out and show our latest stuff on a light table. I live in NW Washington State and there is a lot of lush green to photograph. My buddies would plop down their latest shots made with Velvia 50 and say, "Look at those colors! Look at that saturation! Look at that detail!" I'd plop down my latest made with EPN and say something snotty like, "I suppose you guys are the type who puts four teaspoons of sugar in a one pint glass of iced tea. *This* is what it looked like". And they would agree, at least about the film. "Yes, that is the real color but, look at those colors! Look at that saturation! Look at that detail!" We would have to agree to disagree on this point but, occasionally, when the lush greens in their photos got a little out of hand, they would agree that the reality of EPN looked better than the fantasy of Velvia 50. And I would have to agree that sometimes the lush green of a freshly cut hay field looked great.

Lenny Eiger
31-Mar-2015, 10:22
I ask you two the reverse - why isn't it a good photo?

That's easy. First of all, I am not impressed by technology. Technology alone does not make art. Just because you got the right exposure doesn't make a poorly designed photo into a good one. It might make it a good record of something... but it's not enough. Anyone can make a good exposure if they bracket enough sheets, at least. With a little experience you can do it all the time without bracketing.

Next, one has to ask what makes a good photo... For me, at minimum, I'd like to be moved. I don't have the context that David has regarding his father, his life, etc. My father was very different, so I don't know anything about what this is. It's a guy on a horse with a dog. Dog should be to the left a bit to make a better composition.

I am moved by a connection with what I am looking at. More often than not, it means that the face, or at least the attitude of the person is visible. There is a difference between an image when someone is looking into the camera and showing you all of who they are, and when someone has their arms crossed in front and not sharing anything of themselves. Of course, if the image is about that disconnect, then it might work.

This image appears to want us to connect to the person in it, but there isn't a way to do so. It isn't about disconnection, as he appears to be connected to the dog, so it falls flat. it doesn't appear to be about anything easily discerned.

It might be different within the context of a body of work. There are plenty of Edward Curtis images that don't stand that well on their own, but within the context of his work show well enough. Since we don't have any kind of context, we don't know that this is part of some project, etc.

That's my take...

Corran
31-Mar-2015, 10:55
Lenny and Ray, I asked the question somewhat rhetorically.

The narrative of this image was instantly visible to me. The stoic rider, the dog looking up at him waiting for his command, and the horse at the ready, is a pretty obvious "story" in and of itself to me, and I don't even have that context like David. It helps though to be far enough removed in time for this to be a real relic of another time period. The connection is between the person and animals in the photo. Certainly an image shouldn't have to connect personally and directly to the viewer (looking into the camera).

You can disagree if you wish. However, I find your instant dismissal of this image puzzling. Much of photography, even famous and significant photos, can be summed up as "just such-and-such" or "so-and-so." This is also the "Style and Technique" subforum, which may garner a different response.

I continue to be baffled by the rather dismissive tone that many members seem intent on using when anyone likes an image they don't or disagrees with their viewpoints, often without even a real personal viewpoint to add.

Lenny Eiger
31-Mar-2015, 12:37
Lenny and Ray, I asked the question somewhat rhetorically.

The narrative of this image was instantly visible to me. The stoic rider, the dog looking up at him waiting for his command, and the horse at the ready, is a pretty obvious "story" in and of itself to me, and I don't even have that context like David. It helps though to be far enough removed in time for this to be a real relic of another time period. The connection is between the person and animals in the photo. Certainly an image shouldn't have to connect personally and directly to the viewer (looking into the camera).

You can disagree if you wish. However, I find your instant dismissal of this image puzzling. Much of photography, even famous and significant photos, can be summed up as "just such-and-such" or "so-and-so." This is also the "Style and Technique" subforum, which may garner a different response.

I continue to be baffled by the rather dismissive tone that many members seem intent on using when anyone likes an image they don't or disagrees with their viewpoints, often without even a real personal viewpoint to add.

Bryan, I had no idea you were asking a rhetorical question. I told you what I thought and now you say I am being dismissive... I answered your question... and I attempted to do so sincerely. That's being responsive, not dismissive.

I do think that an image needs to allow me to connect personally with it for it to be successful (at least to me). There are many landscape photos, where no one is looking at me at all, where I connect with something about it. Frederick Evans comes to mind, lots of Westons (not all), many of Paul Caponigro's images. Julia Margaret Cameron, August Sander, Lewis Hine, on the portrait side. How does this image stand up next to those? I think not very well, but if you have a different opinion, that's fine.


Lenny

Corran
31-Mar-2015, 13:18
Just to be clear, I found your original post a bit dismissive, not the response to mine. I appreciate that you answered with your viewpoint. I'll leave it at that.

Ray Heath
31-Mar-2015, 14:17
[QUOTE=Corran;1231477]Lenny and Ray, I asked the question somewhat rhetorically."

The original poster made strong statements of appreciation about which I asked for clarification, they did not reply. In my turn when asked for clarification I made a considered, carefully crafted response. Not dismissive, not argumentative.

Yes, I disagree with the other viewpoint but I was prepared to try and understand it.

goamules
1-Apr-2015, 08:21
This is a great photograph because of many reasons, besides the brilliant, long lasting Kodachrome colors. The mise-en-scène reveals careful placement including the clouds behind the man's face, giving a nice Chiaroscuro. The placement of the sacred sage bush between dog (predator) and horse (prey) is obviously symbolic. Notice how the gentle curve of the reins exactly matches the curve of the halter rope. The photographer clearly followed classical rule of thirds, golden triangle, as well as the important equestrian rectangle theorems. I did some research and found this actual photo was awarded the Gold Medal at the Metropolitan Museum of Great Photography on April 1, 1945, exactly 70 years ago today!

Mark Sawyer
1-Apr-2015, 09:59
I like it because it has a horsie! :)

TXFZ1
1-Apr-2015, 10:27
I like it because it has a horsie! :)

Funny, but same here. The photo reminds me of C.J. Box's short story, "Shots Fired: A Requiem for Ander Esti." A hard working Basque sheepherder in Wyoming. These men spent months alone in the mountains working the sheep herds. They only have their horse and dog to discuss art, the influence of Ansel Adams on photography, or how to stalk Drew Wiley on the forum.

David

diversey
1-Apr-2015, 11:20
Yeah! the composition is nearly perfect!:)


This is a great photograph because of many reasons, besides the brilliant, long lasting Kodachrome colors. The mise-en-scène reveals careful placement including the clouds behind the man's face, giving a nice Chiaroscuro. The placement of the sacred sage bush between dog (predator) and horse (prey) is obviously symbolic. Notice how the gentle curve of the reins exactly matches the curve of the halter rope. The photographer clearly followed classical rule of thirds, golden triangle, as well as the important equestrian rectangle theorems. I did some research and found this actual photo was awarded the Gold Medal at the Metropolitan Museum of Great Photography on April 1, 1945, exactly 70 years ago today!

Greg Miller
1-Apr-2015, 12:27
This is why critiques on the image sharing threads are useless. The people who can best learn from critiques from the few people qualified to give them don't have the skills to know which critiques to pay attention to and which to disregard.

Corran
1-Apr-2015, 12:47
There's a big difference though between critiquing an image someone made and critiquing someone's enjoyment of a photograph.

I wish there was more constructive criticism in the image sharing forum. Whether or not the critiques are meaningful is another discussion and one should be free to disagree (hopefully not blindly). Also, who is "qualified" to give critiques?

Greg Miller
1-Apr-2015, 13:00
There's a big difference though between critiquing an image someone made and critiquing someone's enjoyment of a photograph.

I wish there was more constructive criticism in the image sharing forum. Whether or not the critiques are meaningful is another discussion and one should be free to disagree (hopefully not blindly). Also, who is "qualified" to give critiques?

I was referring to critiquing an image someone made. Very few people are qualified to make an informed critique, and the people who can benefit most from the critiques from those who are qualified do not have the skills to separate the wheat form the chaff. I learned this at a personal level many years ago when three highly respected photographers each told me to stop paying attention to the feedback I was getting in forums like this (I showed them examples) because the people writing the critiques had no clue - to instead pay attention only to my own critique. Early on critiques from qualified/capable reviewers invaluable. Then at at a certain point it is necessary to tune them all out and follow one's vision. It's that vision that will allow a photographer to command higher rates, because only they can provide that vision. Those who don;t have a unique vision are juts a commodity and can only comete in a race to the lowest price.

goamules
1-Apr-2015, 13:03
If it won the Gold Medal, it has to be a good photo.

Corran
1-Apr-2015, 13:03
I very much agree with you, I was just thinking about this thread in specific and why I responded. I don't understand why some felt the need to critique a (very old) image just because someone liked it. Why bother?

I personally don't/wouldn't mind hearing what others think here or elsewhere about my work but I also am certainly pursuing what I want in an image first and foremost - and for direct critiques I go to someone I consider a mentor.

goamules
1-Apr-2015, 13:26
My research of the photo also reveals a connection, not confirmed, that it may have been taken by the Uncle Earl, whose recently found plates were thought to be actual Ansel Adams negatives! http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2010/07/are-ansel-adams-images-bought-at-garage-sale-authentic-and-worth-200-million-depends-who-you-ask.html So that would make it a great-great photo taken by a great pseudo-uncle of a great photographer. Lots of great information I'm finding on this day, for just this one maligned photo.

Bill_1856
1-Apr-2015, 13:40
If it won the Gold Medal, it has to be a good photo.

Better than that -- it's posted on the Internet, so it MUST be great!

RSalles
1-Apr-2015, 14:27
In terms of exposure, color balance, color saturation, overall contrast, this image is very very good to my eyes. These components and the position of the horse at 3/4 side view gives a great sense of 3 dimensionality to the picture. Found perfect the amount of DOF too,

Mark Sampson
1-Apr-2015, 17:25
Well, I like it because the dog in the picture looks like my dog. Plus I appreciate the trouble ASA 8 Kodachrome must have been to shoot, and I like the low-saturation look as well. If it's a great photograph... well maybe not, but I'm glad to have seen it.

Cor
2-Apr-2015, 03:00
This is a great photograph because of many reasons, besides the brilliant, long lasting Kodachrome colors. The mise-en-scène reveals careful placement including the clouds behind the man's face, giving a nice Chiaroscuro. The placement of the sacred sage bush between dog (predator) and horse (prey) is obviously symbolic. Notice how the gentle curve of the reins exactly matches the curve of the halter rope. The photographer clearly followed classical rule of thirds, golden triangle, as well as the important equestrian rectangle theorems. I did some research and found this actual photo was awarded the Gold Medal at the Metropolitan Museum of Great Photography on April 1, 1945, exactly 70 years ago today!

but, but, ..ah yesterday this was posted, and the date was....

Andrew O'Neill
2-Apr-2015, 11:44
Some of the comments in the linked page are comical.

goamules
2-Apr-2015, 12:27
I guess I can stop my April Fools jokes now, which were all my comments above.

Bill_1856
2-Apr-2015, 16:46
For those who don't remember, original Kodachrome was near perfect on 'peaches and cream' complexions, but for other, more typical skin, it usually left a lot to be desired. Kodachrome II fixed that but so far as I know it was never sold in sheet film. IMHO, K2 was the best color film ever made -- RIP.

diversey
2-Apr-2015, 20:22
Yes, we all knew you were joking.:)


I guess I can stop my April Fools jokes now, which were all my comments above.

Bill Burk
2-May-2015, 10:37
I figured this is the right thread to show a pretty picture of a horse on the John Muir Trail...

http://www.beefalobill.com/images/purple_lkcs.jpg
Doc and Rider, Purple Lake