Your Best Photograph from the Previous Month - Critique and Discussion Encouraged

[Peter De Smidt]

When one shows a photograph, isn't one saying, "Look at this! This is interesting!" If you don't think that about an image, what would be the point of taking the photo or showing it? So something caught your eye. You may not be able to clearly articulate what that is, but the more you can, the more you can emphasize that aspect through all of the techniques of photography. Without this intention to share value, isn't photography just random? You pointed the camera this way, for no particular reason. You could've pointed it another, again for no reason. The viewer may find their own value in the photograph, but they may not. They can't find any shared value, because there isn't any.

Moving on to the picture, consider cropping at both the top and the bottom. For me, they don't work as negative space.

[DDrake]

Thanks, everyone, for the comments. Very much appreciated. There's a lot to think about and respond to, and I should have time later today.

[CreationBear]

the New Topographics show.

Verbal Kint here (still), but I always liked what Stephen Shore said, that he used an 8x10 because it provided the photographic means of communicating what the world looks like in a state of heightened awareness. If you're going for a melancholy, New West vibe, I think the ironic alpenglow only makes sense in color--have somebody turn on that streetlight and it'd be a perfect cover for an early Richard Ford novel.

[DDrake]

If you believe communication to a viewer is irrelevant, what would the point be of showing any image? I also would love to understand your intent for this image, and also, sharing images in general (be it here or, say, in a gallery).

When one shows a photograph, isn't one saying, "Look at this! This is interesting!" If you don't think that about an image, what would be the point of taking the photo or showing it? So something caught your eye. You may not be able to clearly articulate what that is, but the more you can, the more you can emphasize that aspect through all of the techniques of photography. Without this intention to share value, isn't photography just random?

I always liked what Stephen Shore said, that he used an 8x10 because it provided the photographic means of communicating what the world looks like in a state of heightened awareness.

It's not that I think communication or sharing value is irrelevant for everyone, it just doesn't happen to be my intention in making work. As a sculptor, I didn't think the objects I was making was the art; rather, it was those objects, plus the environment, plus those experiencing the situation (again, 'viewer' is too passive a word for what humans do when we encounter a novel situation: we actively seek to make meaning of it). An experiment to see what happened, rather than communicating something I thought I'd learned.

As I mentioned somewhere upthread, the area where I live attracts enough photographers there is a visual vocabulary of the Palouse. People come here to take images of a certain type. There's nothing inappropriate or false about that, but it's only one way of framing out of many. I have some idea what meaning is made by people experiencing typical Palouse pictures; I'm interested in what sort of meaning is made from pictures that frame the place differently. LF may or may not ultimately be part of that—and actually, it was looking at Stephen Shore's Uncommon Places that made me want to try.

With regard to particular images, of course there's something that compels my attention. In the case of the picture above, it was light falling on an ordinary apartment complex, built to accommodate the growing student population. Had it been the rolling Palouse hills (or a mountain range, or something else we regard as scenically worthy), it would have (in skillful hands) made a fine poster or calendar page. One approach would be to learn how to make overblown HDR-heavy images, and apply those skills to office parks, apartment complexes, etc. But that seems obvious, and a kind of one-liner (and not so different from what Gregory Crewdson and Jeff Wall have got up to).

I admire the work of Shore, Robert Adams, Lewis Baltz, Eggleston, Friedlander, others. Similarly, my sculpture-heroes were Robert Morris, Bruce Nauman, Robert Smithson, Gordon Matta-Clark. If I have ambitions for picture-making, it's along those lines: the ordinariness of things, translated from the world with clarity and without fuss.

I don't know that I'll ever get there. I do know critique of the sort that has happened on this thread is extraordinarily helpful. I wish there were more of it across the forum, not just for images I've posted, but for many of the images posted by others (I think we learn a great deal from overhearing discussion of the work of others). It's that sort of dialog and communication that has kept me interested me in art-making, as opposed to communication attempted through the art itself.

At any rate, I have a box of Portra 160, and intend to make a few sunset trips back to that overlook, and a few other places. And see what happens.

[Tin Can]

I must agree, we always seek meaning in one way or another. “All the world’s a stage” per Shakespeare, and we often fail.

I too made sculpture, of an odd kind and turned each in a staged performance.

A fine art gallery can be pretty oppressive, ymmv according to your involvement.

and next I enter the fray...

It's not that I think communication or sharing value is irrelevant for everyone, it just doesn't happen to be my intention in making work. As a sculptor, I didn't think the objects I was making was the art; rather, it was those objects, plus the environment, plus those experiencing the situation (again, 'viewer' is too passive a word for what humans do when we encounter a novel situation: we actively seek to make meaning of it). An experiment to see what happened, rather than communicating something I thought I'd learned....

[Salmo22]

I truly enjoy following this thread, it continues to enlighten. However, I also feel that any criticism or comment I may offer would be ill-informed and totally inadequate. No matter, I want to participate and offer this image.

I took this image in the desert area south of the historic Gillespie Dam in Arizona. On the technical side, I used my Arca-Swiss 4x5, Rodenstock APO-Sironar-S 150mm, Ilford FP4+, Ilford Ilfotch DDX. Conceptually, I'm uncertain how I feel about this image. Arizona has many of these real estate sales monoliths in the middle of "no where" and in various states of abandonment. I've passed this particularly large advertisement for many years as I travel the old US Highway 80 between Buckeye and Gila Bend. Each time I'd pass, I'd would feel a prompting to make a photograph. Finally, I determined to make this location a photographic destination, rather than something I noticed at 50 mph.

Because of its location, I felt a morning photograph would work best - I'm facing nearly due west and I'm thinking afternoon light would not work well. In the vane of "man altered landscapes" I wanted to capture this completely out-of-place semi-truck trailer in the open desert. I'm trying to depict man's, often futile, efforts to develop and exploit these remote desert environs of Arizona. As I've looked at this image since I released the shutter, I've struggled with numerous aspects. As I was setting up my tripod, I became obsessed with using the remains of a decapitated Mesquite tree to anchor the foreground. However, that pushed the "Vermaland" sign slightly right of center, leaving me with the feeling that the juxtaposition of these two elements is not well balanced. Is the small mountain top peaking over the trailer a distracting element or does it create interest? I also am wondering if I've given the "Vermaland" sign too much prominence in the image? In other words, should it be a smaller element of a larger desert landscape? Thus showing that man's efforts to alter this arid region has failed? If nothing else, a position further back and higher (i.e. in the bed of my truck) would allow the mountains in the background to have a more notable impact? I've also wondered if I should have made this exposure before full sunrise to avoid direct sunlight? Would the soft, quiet, and reduced contrast of the pre-sunrise light improved the image?

Concept, composition, framing, light, etc... What say ye?

Thanks in advance - Jeff aka Salmo22

[DDrake]

I truly enjoy following this thread, it continues to enlighten. However, I also feel that any criticism or comment I may offer would be ill-informed and totally inadequate. No matter, I want to participate and offer this image.

I took this image in the desert area south of the historic Gillespie Dam in Arizona. On the technical side, I used my Arca-Swiss 4x5, Rodenstock APO-Sironar-S 150mm, Ilford FP4+, Ilford Ilfotch DDX. Conceptually, I'm uncertain how I feel about this image. Arizona has many of these real estate sales monoliths in in the middle of "no where" and in various states of abandonment. I've passed this particularly large advertisement for many years as I travel the old US Highway 80 between Buckeye and Gila Bend. Each time I'd pass, I'd would feel a prompting to make a photograph. Finally, I determined to make this location a photographic destination, rather than something I noticed at 50 mph.

Because of its location, I felt a morning photograph would work best - I'm facing nearly due west and I'm thinking afternoon light would not work well. In the vane of "man altered landscapes" I wanted to capture this completely out-of-place semi-truck trailer in the open desert. I'm trying to depict man's, often futile, efforts to develop and exploit these remote desert environs of Arizona. As I've looked at this image since I release the shutter, I've struggled with numerous aspects. As I was setting up my tripod, I became obsessed with using the remains of a dead Mesquite tree to anchor the foreground. However, that pushed the "Vermaland" sign slightly right of center, leaving me with the feeling that the juxtaposition of these two elements is not well balanced. Is the small mountain top peaking over the trailer a distracting element or does it create interest? I also am wondering if I've given the "Vermaland" sign too much prominence in the image? In other words, should it be a smaller element of a larger desert landscape? Thus showing that man's efforts to alter this arid region has failed? If nothing else, a position further back and higher (i.e. in the bed of my truck) would allow the mountains in the background to have a more notable impact? I've also wondered if I should have made this exposure before full sunrise to avoid direct sunlight? Would the soft, quiet, and reduced contrast of the pre-sunrise light improved the image?

Concept, composition, framing, light, etc... What say ye?

Salmo22,
A thought: there might be an opportunity to emphasize the 'sign-ness' of the semi trailer by framing it as dead-on as possible, making it a flat, graphic element in contrast to a landscape rich with perspective clues.

Of course, that might not work at all—have to try it to see. And I'm a sucker for that sort of thing (think early Lewis Baltz), whereas others might not care for it.

[Tin Can]

Maybe the object with best focus should be the trailer, I like it at an angle as it shows what it is, a discarded trailer, straight on we may lose that comment.

The tree stump is irrelevant imho

Salmo22,
A thought: there might be an opportunity to emphasize the 'sign-ness' of the semi trailer by framing it as dead-on as possible, making it a flat, graphic element in contrast to a landscape rich with perspective clues.

Of course, that might not work at all—have to try it to see. And I'm a sucker for that sort of thing (think early Lewis Baltz), whereas others might not care for it.

[Corran]

It's not that I think communication or sharing value is irrelevant for everyone, it just doesn't happen to be my intention in making work. As a sculptor, I didn't think the objects I was making was the art; rather, it was those objects, plus the environment, plus those experiencing the situation (again, 'viewer' is too passive a word for what humans do when we encounter a novel situation: we actively seek to make meaning of it). An experiment to see what happened, rather than communicating something I thought I'd learned.

[...]

I don't know that I'll ever get there. I do know critique of the sort that has happened on this thread is extraordinarily helpful. I wish there were more of it across the forum, not just for images I've posted, but for many of the images posted by others (I think we learn a great deal from overhearing discussion of the work of others). It's that sort of dialog and communication that has kept me interested me in art-making, as opposed to communication attempted through the art itself.

Thanks for the considered response. I feel like there's a bit of dissonance between your statement that communication was not your intent, with your explanation about Palouse and images made in and around the area, in contrast to the scene you have presented. Perhaps communication is not a good word actually - maybe just "consideration?" It seems like you have something to say, or at least something for us to consider. Regardless, I appreciate the dialog and am interested to see what you produce in the area. I would be interested to see you try some diptychs, perhaps one like you have posted and then one of a more traditional scene, that echoes or plays off the other?

[Corran]

I took this image in the desert area south of the historic Gillespie Dam in Arizona.

After looking for a while, what struck me is the similarity of form between the foreground Mesquite and the Saguaro depicted on the sign. Of course they are different species but the shape echoes so well, it seems intentional. As for the composition - the foreground Mesquite does seem a bit crowded towards the edge of the frame, with a lot of space for the trailer on the right and top. Perhaps it would feel more open if you had aimed a bit left and down to put the trailer more into the upper right third? Or backed up a step or two, as you say to give the feeling of an "open desert."

I personally like the sunlight and shadow. However this is definitely a scene I would like to have seen in color. Maybe it would not be as interesting, but I know the early-morning red there is pretty amazing. Or even a pre-dawn or post-sunset "blue-hour" would emphasize the themes?

I like the mountain poking out. It makes me think the trailer is becoming "part" of the landscape. Nature reclaiming?

Gosh I miss Arizona...