Warehouse

[Steve01]

Just for those who commented, thank you, here is the finished version until I decide if it's worth re shooting or not. Sorry, the original is gone.
I did some dodging and a little bit of burning along the roof, and I desaturated the hilights, which had that nasty cyan tint.

" The project deals with the relationship between forms and the context which these forms are in, but not as much the context of the scene as a whole - rather a kind of subset of circumstances unique to these forms and these forms alone. I am not really interested in creating harmonious images with static and clear subjects, but rather images that emphasize these concepts.

What I am finding is that when you emphasize relationships like this, you build up tension. I find it interesting that forms rather than relationships seem to be what we seek in images to make sense of them.".

I mean no disrespect if you're actually serious but this is still an underexposed lifeless image with no subject and that comment is psychobabble.
Sorry.

 

[unpopular]

1) As for the exposure, on my monitor there is plenty of shadow detail. It is dark, but there are no blocked shadows. If it is "too dark" that's another issue. I chose to emphasize the areas which I felt were most important, that is why I chose to process it in the way I did.

2) Why does everything have to be dynamic and exciting? Isn't there room for subtly?

3) Is it that there is "no subject" or is it that the subject does not appeal to you, or one which you cannot understand? I don't feel like I have to spell everything out for the audience by reducing photography to merely eye candy, or limit my own interests to some aesthetic lowest common denominator.

Your criticism here is nothing short of a fancy way of saying "it's boring" - to which, I couldn't care any less. I found it interesting enough to photograph, I'm sorry that it doesn't speak to you, but frankly, that's not really my problem.

 

[Steve01]

The first person you have to please is yourself.
If you are satisfied with the image that's what counts, but you did ask for "thoughts" so I gave you mine.

 

[molested_cow1]

A caption "JUNK FOR SALE!!!" would have not only put it in "context", but also made it more exciting.

I understand your "project brief", but I don't see how your work reflects any of it.

 

[unpopular]

The first person you have to please is yourself.
If you are satisfied with the image that's what counts, but you did ask for "thoughts" so I gave you mine.

Fair enough.

There is a certain kind of criticism that bothers me a lot, but that's my problem. Thanks for your input.

A caption "JUNK FOR SALE!!!" would have not only put it in "context", but also made it more exciting.
I understand your "project brief", but I don't see how your work reflects any of it.

This particular image I have never been 100% sure if it fits, and as the theme develops more, I think that there will be pruning. I will admit the "context" aspect is under developed and the "relationship" aspect is difficult to explain and execute.

When you hear "relationships" you usually think of juxtapositions of concepts such as similarity, difference or something more meaningful. These are juxtapositions between subjects and their specific meanings - you have to kind of "go outside" the image and apply your own expectations onto it. Obviously this is unavoidable to some extent.

What I mean by relationship is is a formal relationship, not a conceptual one, that juxtaposes forms in a way that kind of emphasizes the space between these forms without diminishing the forms themselves - everything is equal and balanced in attention but without being "busy" such that the negative space lacks relationship. This relationship becomes the subject, rather than the forms which make up these relationships.

What caught my attention in this image, is that the ground and the sky form a relationship, the patch forms a relationship with the siding, the black window and the area missing the tin siding form a relationship, and the tree together with the window form a relationship with the inset area on the left of the frame, the roofline reflects the base of the building, the graffiti imitates rust, to some degree.

So while not "busy", in fact it's rather minimal IMO, it has no central focus because everything is competing. This kind of breaks some rules about composition, unless your intentions are to break those rules. I've spent many years perfecting composition that I became extremely bored, the process became like a puzzle and I ended up reducing everything to one single optimized composition. This is kind of my response to that. I guess from one extreme to another; I've never been so good at moderation.

The context aspect again refers to allowing objects to exist within their own world without the need to justify or explain what or why they are, obviously the forms have context but not within their larger scenario. I want to use context to emphasize relationship. If this image were wider I think the image would loose it's formal relationships, you'd be looking at it as for what it is.

And before anyone even goes there, I don't believe in a universal aesthetic, so I don't buy that if an image needs explanation it fail" bit. That's kind of something you learn in high school. I don't understand Hieronymus Bosch, I lack insight into not only his world view, but also the cultural context in which he existed. This doesn't mean that The Garden of Earthly Delights is invalid.

Sometimes I think photographers are photography's own worse enemy.

The specific subjectlessness which Steve found so unapplauseable, is precisely what I found interesting. Thus are the limitations of modernism. Thanks for giving me the motivation to further solidify this image, and take a look at the rest of the project.

 

[molested_cow1]

So basically you hope to, through this photo, allow the audience to think beyond what's in the photo?

If so, I definitely like your intention, but it isn't doing it, for me at least. Perhaps there isn't enough information, lead or association to lead my thought. Perhaps it has too much.

Your explanation seems very tactical, mostly focuses on using specific parts of the composition to tackle a certain aspect of what you are trying to achieve. What about the over all relationship?

You are right about universal aesthetic. Art is not about universal beauty. The image can be not-so eye pleasing but the story can be absolutely beautiful. And that's what I don't get here. I don't get the story through the image.

I spent two years in an environment where we show case our work in front on the most critical crowd you can imagine. They will critic it for 45min and then the artist gets to explain it. A good piece is one that can sustain 45min of constant discussion without any explanation, not one that sparks no interest but looks eye pleasing. I look at works as they are but try to see beyond its visual or physical representation. In this case, I am not getting anything more to read other than the pixels on my screen.

It's a painful process, but you will know when you get there.

 

[unpopular]

I am not sure what I expect from the audience, and then get defensive when the audience doesn't "get" it. I've been wrestling with the question of relationships as a whole, and whether that is something I want to approach or not. I think that if nothing is left out then relationship as a whole is intrinsic to it's parts. Could be wrong, idk.

I think it's easy to focus on the "aesthetic" part of "universal aesthetic" and undervalue the "universal" part. I don't think any image can hold the conversation of everyone for 45 minutes, I spent 20 minutes looking at a collection of Adams prints, and left underwhelmed, while most might spend the afternoon. I'm not totally sure art needs to be a popularity contest.

 

[tevo]

So basically you hope to, through this photo, allow the audience to think beyond what's in the photo?

If so, I definitely like your intention, but it isn't doing it, for me at least. Perhaps there isn't enough information, lead or association to lead my thought. Perhaps it has too much.

Your explanation seems very tactical, mostly focuses on using specific parts of the composition to tackle a certain aspect of what you are trying to achieve. What about the over all relationship?

You are right about universal aesthetic. Art is not about universal beauty. The image can be not-so eye pleasing but the story can be absolutely beautiful. And that's what I don't get here. I don't get the story through the image.

I spent two years in an environment where we show case our work in front on the most critical crowd you can imagine. They will critic it for 45min and then the artist gets to explain it. A good piece is one that can sustain 45min of constant discussion without any explanation, not one that sparks no interest but looks eye pleasing. I look at works as they are but try to see beyond its visual or physical representation. In this case, I am not getting anything more to read other than the pixels on my screen.

It's a painful process, but you will know when you get there.

Look at his Context Gallery as a whole. It is much easier to see a theme / relationship that way

 

[unpopular]

^^ and then there is the debate if images should hold up without the rest of the body of work.

These process debates to which there is no end...

 

[Steve01]

Look at his Context Gallery as a whole. It is much easier to see a theme / relationship that way

How do I view it, give me a link please.

 

[tevo]

Just for those who commented, thank you, here is the finished version until I decide if it's worth re shooting or not. Sorry, the original is gone.
I did some dodging and a little bit of burning along the roof, and I desaturated the hilights, which had that nasty cyan tint.

​=> " The project deals with the relationship between forms and the context which these forms are in, but not as much the context of the scene as a whole - rather a kind of subset of circumstances unique to these forms and these forms alone. I am not really interested in creating harmonious images with static and clear subjects, but rather images that emphasize these concepts.

What I am finding is that when you emphasize relationships like this, you build up tension. I find it interesting that forms rather than relationships seem to be what we seek in images to make sense of them.".

I mean no disrespect if you're actually serious but this is still an underexposed lifeless image with no subject and that comment is psychobabble.
Sorry.

I believe there is a quote function for this...

 

[unpopular]

Look at his Context Gallery as a whole. It is much easier to see a theme / relationship that way

How do I view it, give me a link please.

See reply 7 on page 1 of this thread - the same one you quoted in red.

 

[tevo]

How do I view it, give me a link please.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/twinkle_turnip/sets/72157627998061121/

 

[unpopular]

You know you're lazy when you don't bother copying and pasting a link previously mentioned in a thread, but rather refer the person requesting the link to the original reply where it can be found, and then just wait for Tevo to do it for you.

 

[GeorgieGirl]

I'm sorry, I don't really want to be negative about this photo, but even after I've read the comments about intent, when its all said and done its not a clear and clean shot. IMHO it needs to be.