Photo Critique: "Planting", Feb 1, 2023

[Serge S]

A brilliant pictorialist riposte to Paul Strand’s “White Fence”. Both images act as a living symbol of rural America, and also of the symbols of ownership and property delimitation. Strand's image shows a bold white foreground laid down over a dark ground, while yours melds the tonal range of the fence into that of the fields and the house. Strand, drawing on the ideals of modern art, uses the properties of the fence to create a dynamic composition that does not employ traditional perspective. Your image returns to the static and central composition with pictorialist tones and a clever use of soft focus.
It is unclear what the principle subject of your image is as the tonalities of house, field and fence make a choice imprecise. The furrows of the fields and the slats of the fence lead us not directly to the house but to the space between house and tree, which creates a sense of disquiet or uncertainty.
The house, the structure of American desire, is dilapidated, with dark soulless windows and a closed unwelcoming door. The fields plowed and planted in long lines across the full width of the picture speak of industrial farming; the dilapidated house has been sold with the land to the corporation and is empty and left to ruin.
The fence is not the bright new dynamic fence of Strand’s modern world. It is a snow fence put up to stop the cold winds and snows of winter, but it has not been taken down in the spring. There are no longer people to maintain it and it is broken uneven and tonally merged into the fields. Strand's fence is a fence that is desirable, even enviable. This fence represents a barrier to access, to keep out the experience and wisdom and change that come with the winter wind.
From the shadows cast and the mostly bright sky, it seems to be morning, but from the East, the sky, which tends brighter to the left, is inexplicitly darkened in the corner just as much as is the right but the effect is heightened. (there is a stop or so tonal difference in the natural right and left skies; consider maintaining this difference if you do darken the corners) At the same time all of the left is out of focus, fuzzy, undefined and the trees lining the horizon of the field are knurled and deformed. There is darkness and fuzziness and softness from the left. On the other hand, the right is sharp, crisp, well defined. Veracity and sharpness are on the right, while ignoring the decay of the house and fence.
The tall conifer towers over all else. Is this nature that will still be there after the complexities of man have crumbled?
This might be a brilliant pictorial comment on the decaying of America and its turn to the right despite the failure of ownership and property delimitation! Or it might be that the image is an expression of your idea of a perfectly natural pretty picture- abandoned house, industrial farming and dilapidated fence.
I reread parts of my criticism books but they all require a statement of intent to critique whether a photograph is successful or not.
We do not know what your purpose was regarding this image, so we cannot comment on the success of the picture.
I have an expectation that what I have written will be disposed of quickly. Nevertheless, reflect that, even if you just thought it was a pretty picture, something in your mind made you decide this was an image that you wanted to make. You have decided to depict the tonally indistinct fence, field, and house in a static central composition.
Something made you think this image was worthy to make? I cannot know what that was but this is what it made me think about.
I tried to enlarge the image and this took me to Flickr where a lot of people liked this, so good on that.

Yes when I saw this image made me think of that Strand photo!
I like your photo - as I like the composition.
The other factors have been mentioned, but overall nice image!

[tgtaylor]

If you keep both standards parallel, then you can't get a plane of focus that encompasses 3 or more points. In the print below I wanted the house and the immediate foreground grass sharp so, IIRC, I initially chose the chimney on the far upper left as my far point and the grass as the near and stopped down for the road and house. But then the trees on the background were too soft for my liking so I refocused using the top of the tall tree above the gable as my far point. Stopping down everything came into sharp focus. The grass had been cut and this is a salt print so it isn't as noticeable as it would be if it was a silver print, but I just took a 10X loupe to the print and you can make-out the individual strands of grass.

[Alan Klein]

[QUOTE=johnmsanderson;1670428]Ok. First off only tilt the Front standard for focus adjustment unless your camera lacks front tilt. Using Rear tilt will change the perspective of the vertical objects in the frame. It does not seem to have much affect on this image here, but it can. Always keep the front and rear standards in as perfect alignment as you can. With that said, some cameras cannot get front and rear alignment exactly perfect, but focusing carefully and aperture settings will, hopefully, fill in the gaps where there might be some slight variations in distance between the lens and film plane. Always keep both standards in alignment and level prior to beginning and composing. This is a challenging scene to conquer with a view camera with the intent of getting everything sharp because of the verticality of the foreground fence, flat field and again a vertical object of the house and tree. With a basic understanding of how camera movements affect the sharpness of an image, I can see that this scene really does not lend itself well to using tilt alone to maximize sharpness. The vertical objects of the fence, tree and house will not benefit from using front tilt that much, it will merely push them out of focus as your foreground becomes sharper using tilt. You might get the fence and house in focus together (which is what you seem to have intended to do), but then the field will fall out of focus and the top of the tree will as well. You need to find a combination of tilt and aperture that will yield the sharpest possible image.

As I suspected, the left side of the frame is softer than the right. My guess is one of your standards was swung (in your words twisted) which threw focus off. It's important to make sure everything is centered before starting to compose. It ain't easy and I have made mistakes like this many times. With large format its important to double check everything if you have the time.



Ahhh, this is an area where your emotions and intuition must take over. Do what feels best, not what pondering about it tells you. You composed it this way, so I'm assuming this is how you felt the scene should look. Stick to it.

3. Position of camera. Some commented tha tthe lines in the field don;t line up the best. I agree. IU should have move around more to see if I could have found a better position.

Lesson: I can't be so lazy. I admit especially with LF, after I set up, it's a pain to move around refocusing etc. MF is easier in this respect. But I have to do it if I expect better results.[QUOTE/]

See my response to #2



People like to intellectualize over things, its because they are not truly experiencing the art for what it is and instead trying to put their own spin on it.



Yeah, the vignette might be a bit much. But it's just one version, come back in 5 years and you might edit it a totally different way. It's how you felt at the moment.

Thanks for your comments. One questions about about potential swing and out of focus areas on the left. I just remembered I had another shot I took with the same 150mm lens a couple of years ago. I had the film scanned by someone who had a Howtek. And he noticed that some areas were not in focus as well. Could the issue be the lens or some other reason beside me swinging the standard? He circled the areas out of focus which kind of match the areas in the current photo.
Here's the Howtek scan.

[h2oman]

I probably shouldn't wade into these waters, but prudence is not always my strong suit.

I think it is very difficult to experience art for what it is, without putting one's "own spin on it." Everybody brings something with them when they view a photograph. (I'll stay away from art in general, which I know even less about than photography!) If they are photographers, it might be that they approach photography from a more graphical point of view, so they are looking at and responding to light, shadow, form, maybe color. Or maybe they respond to symbolism or "what else it is." Or...

Some people respond more viscerally, some more intellectually.

I find that, with most of the general public that I've talked to about my images, much of their take on a photograph is based on their own experience - they've been to the location, or it brings to mind a time in their life, etc. It's rare that they seem to experience photographs for just what they are.

To repeat myself, I'm appreciative those who have been participating in this thread, and I like the breadth of thoughts volunteered. I once attended a workshop that had a critique component to it, and one of the leaders described proper critiquing in pretty much the form William used - observations about the photo, without judgements. I just re-read his post to help me unpackage it, and will do so again. This statement of his is interesting:

"...require a statement of intent to critique whether a photograph is successful or not."

I believe it was in a book by Robert Adams (maybe it came up again in Art and Fear? or maybe that is in fact where I saw it) where he advocated asking three questions: What was the photographer trying to say? Did they succeed? Was it worth saying? (The last of these always makes me want to throw away all my gear and take up recreational Sudoku. ) But often our photographs are presented in a way that does not allow us to state what we are trying to say, so we have to do the best we can with the photograph itself. I believe that Brett Weston once said something to the effect that he didn't talk about his photographs because the photograph said everything there was to say.

Or maybe we are better off letting the viewer hear whatever they think the photograph is trying to say...

[Alan Klein]

If you keep both standards parallel, then you can't get a plane of focus that encompasses 3 or more points. In the print below I wanted the house and the immediate foreground grass sharp so, IIRC, I initially chose the chimney on the far upper left as my far point and the grass as the near and stopped down for the road and house. But then the trees on the background were too soft for my liking so I refocused using the top of the tall tree above the gable as my far point. Stopping down everything came into sharp focus. The grass had been cut and this is a salt print so it isn't as noticeable as it would be if it was a silver print, but I just took a 10X loupe to the print and you can make-out the individual strands of grass.

Nice shot. What aperture did you use? I used f/22 and probably should have gone to f/32 or 45 especially since the fence was pretty close compared to the house and trees. But frankly, my whole picture was not clear in full pixel resolution so I obviously did something else wrong.

[h2oman]

I'm interested in subjecting one of my own photographs to this process. Do I post it in this thread, or start a new one?

[Alan Klein]

I probably shouldn't wade into these waters, but prudence is not always my strong suit.

I think it is very difficult to experience art for what it is, without putting one's "own spin on it." Everybody brings something with them when they view a photograph. (I'll stay away from art in general, which I know even less about than photography!) If they are photographers, it might be that they approach photography from a more graphical point of view, so they are looking at and responding to light, shadow, form, maybe color. Or maybe they respond to symbolism or "what else it is." Or...

Some people respond more viscerally, some more intellectually.

I find that, with most of the general public that I've talked to about my images, much of their take on a photograph is based on their own experience - they've been to the location, or it brings to mind a time in their life, etc. It's rare that they seem to experience photographs for just what they are.

To repeat myself, I'm appreciative those who have been participating in this thread, and I like the breadth of thoughts volunteered. I once attended a workshop that had a critique component to it, and one of the leaders described proper critiquing in pretty much the form William used - observations about the photo, without judgements. I just re-read his post to help me unpackage it, and will do so again. This statement of his is interesting:

"...require a statement of intent to critique whether a photograph is successful or not."

I believe it was in a book by Robert Adams (maybe it came up again in Art and Fear? or maybe that is in fact where I saw it) where he advocated asking three questions: What was the photographer trying to say? Did they succeed? Was it worth saying? (The last of these always makes me want to throw away all my gear and take up recreational Sudoku. ) But often our photographs are presented in a way that does not allow us to state what we are trying to say, so we have to do the best we can with the photograph itself. I believe that Brett Weston once said something to the effect that he didn't talk about his photographs because the photograph said everything there was to say.

Or maybe we are better off letting the viewer hear whatever they think the photograph is trying to say...

I think the problem with trying to interpret these things is that we have to get into the head of the photographer. That's very difficult. Can one truly remember and explain how a photo view influenced them before they took the shot? Imagine the difficulty that is for a viewer who's another step away from the original process. I think we're asking too much of the photographer and viewer. It's an interesting exercise though but comparable to interpreting what a Rorschach blot means to another person.

Which reminds me of the joke about the patient who was asked by the psychiatrist what he saw in a Rorschach blot test.

"I see a guy having sex." said the patient.

So the psychiatrist showed him another blot and the patient responded. "I see another guy having sex."

Again, for the third time, the patient responded, "I see a guy having sex."

So the psychiatrist informs him, "Sir, there's something wrong with you that you see a guy having sex in all three".

And the patient retorted, "Well, you're the one showing me all these dirty pictures."

[Oren Grad]

I'm interested in subjecting one of my own photographs to this process. Do I post it in this thread, or start a new one?

I think it will be difficult to keep multiple discussions sorted and on track if they are run within the same thread. For now I'd recommend starting a new thread for each discussion, with a title that identifies the picture in some way and indicates that it's a critique thread. We'll keep an eye on these and over time we'll figure out if some other approach to organization is warranted.

I've moved the other thread with general discussion of critique threads to the Feedback subforum. Further thoughts about the mechanics of doing this are welcome, but please post them in the Feedback thread so as not to derail the actual critique discussions.

If Alan would like to give us a more specific title for this thread I can do the edit.

[Alan Klein]

I think it will be difficult to keep multiple discussions sorted and on track if they are run within the same thread. For now I'd recommend starting a new thread for each discussion, with a title that identifies the picture in some way and indicates that it's a critique thread. We'll keep an eye on these and over time we'll figure out if some other approach to organization is warranted.

I've moved the other thread with general discussion of critique threads to the Feedback subforum. Further thoughts about the mechanics of doing this are welcome, but please post them in the Feedback thread so as not to derail the actual critique discussions.

If Alan would like to give us a more specific title for this thread I can do the edit.

How about
Photo Critique - "Planting" Feb 1, 2023

Done, thank you! --Oren

[johnmsanderson]

[QUOTE=Alan Klein;1670451]

Ok. First off only tilt the Front standard for focus adjustment unless your camera lacks front tilt. Using Rear tilt will change the perspective of the vertical objects in the frame. It does not seem to have much affect on this image here, but it can. Always keep the front and rear standards in as perfect alignment as you can. With that said, some cameras cannot get front and rear alignment exactly perfect, but focusing carefully and aperture settings will, hopefully, fill in the gaps where there might be some slight variations in distance between the lens and film plane. Always keep both standards in alignment and level prior to beginning and composing. This is a challenging scene to conquer with a view camera with the intent of getting everything sharp because of the verticality of the foreground fence, flat field and again a vertical object of the house and tree. With a basic understanding of how camera movements affect the sharpness of an image, I can see that this scene really does not lend itself well to using tilt alone to maximize sharpness. The vertical objects of the fence, tree and house will not benefit from using front tilt that much, it will merely push them out of focus as your foreground becomes sharper using tilt. You might get the fence and house in focus together (which is what you seem to have intended to do), but then the field will fall out of focus and the top of the tree will as well. You need to find a combination of tilt and aperture that will yield the sharpest possible image.

As I suspected, the left side of the frame is softer than the right. My guess is one of your standards was swung (in your words twisted) which threw focus off. It's important to make sure everything is centered before starting to compose. It ain't easy and I have made mistakes like this many times. With large format its important to double check everything if you have the time.



Ahhh, this is an area where your emotions and intuition must take over. Do what feels best, not what pondering about it tells you. You composed it this way, so I'm assuming this is how you felt the scene should look. Stick to it.



Thanks for your comments. One questions about about potential swing and out of focus areas on the left. I just remembered I had another shot I took with the same 150mm lens a couple of years ago. I had the film scanned by someone who had a Howtek. And he noticed that some areas were not in focus as well. Could the issue be the lens or some other reason beside me swinging the standard? He circled the areas out of focus which kind of match the areas in the current photo.
Here's the Howtek scan.

When you set up your camera, in order to ensure all the camera movements are Zeroed you do the following: for swing focus in the far left and far right of the ground glass and make sure they are both sharp at the same time. If they are not, then adjust your swings so that they are. Repeat this for each set of movements depending on which one your camera has trouble with.

You can visually inspect focus on the ground glass. You must be either focusing inaccurately, your ground glass and film plane are not aligned or your film holders are defective.

At this point just set up your camera and carefully focus on something with a loupe and see if the mid ground is sharp…