Please Comment on the India 2009 Portfolio

Yesterday I posted my newest portfolio with images from my 2009 trip to India.  I’ve never been so unsure of my images as I am this time, so I’d like you — my readers — to please choose any image from the portfolio and comment on it.  Or comment on the portfolio as a whole.  (Comments in German are welcome too!)

I look forward to positive and negative reviews and anything in between.  I’d like to find out which image you like best and why.  But I also want to know what the others lack and why they are not your top pick.  What emotion does an image invoke in you, if any?  Do you like the main subject or the colors or the textures?  What would you have done differently?

More Bicycles in the Snow

I find this image much better than the previous two. I read somewhere that if you cannot explain why something is good, you cannot repeat it, and as a “head person” I tend to agree. So let me try and critique this image and see if I can put into words why I like it.

Even though this image is somewhat abstract, it’s very clear that it is showing us two bicycles covered with snow.  So without giving it much thought, I called the image “Bicycles in Snow.”   But the main subject are clearly the three red lights.  Like in real life their strong color causes them to immediately stand out  and draw attention to themselves.  Here however they appear as cheerful spots of color and not in their typical warning function.  If you are so inclined, you could even interpret them as signs of life within an otherwise cold and colorless image.

(So we already have a literal and an abstract interpretation and then the juxtaposition of warning and cheerful.  That’s enough for me to call the image a keeper and give it three stars.)

Looking a bit longer I notice the interesting texture of the snow and the nice contrast to the black frame of the bicycles.  Also the strong lines leading upwards and to the right, thus strengthening the notion of cheerfulness and optimism.  But there is also an ellipse that starts with the bicycle frame of the right side, follows the handle bars to the left, and then continues down along the mud guard of the left bike.  And there, while traveling along the ellipse, our eyes meet the three red spots of color again — very nice!

I approached this scene with my wide-angle zoom attached to the camera.  I knew immediately that the angle-of-view is too wide, but my fingers were too frozen to change lenses, so I got in closer and took a few shots.  That caused too much exaggeration in the lower-left corner, so frozen fingers or not, I mounted my 50/1.8 and took one last shot.  While evaluating the images at home I was immediately drawn by the tight framing of last image.  That image has the further advantage of being shot with a prime lens of normal focal length, so it has tons of detail throughout.

(Which accounts for the forth and final star.  But I won’t give a fifth one because the image lacks strong impact and memorability.)

In terms of editing I didn’t do anything special.  Other than a very slight crop from the right, I cloned a piece of trash in the upper left, I strengthened the saturation of the red lights and desaturated the yellows completely (there was a yellow sticker of the left bike’s mud guard that was visible despite the snow).  All of this took about a minute in ACR.  I then opened the image in Photoshop and run two actions: one produced the preview above and the other the large image that appears after clicking on the preview.

Now tell me please, do I file this image under “places / Hamburg” or “transportation / bicycle” or “seasons / winter”? 

The World Stars of Photography

This week I was in Mannheim again, so I took the time and visited Hasselblad Foundation’s World Stars of Photography.  On display are 6-10 original prints by each of all the 28 winners of The Hasselblad Award.  Nicely framed and accompanied by two large information panels for each artist, the images fill up quite a large and long hall, so if you do visit, plan an hour at the very least (I spent two hours).

Like I wrote in my previous post, I did not know many of the photographers or their work, but the significance of winning the Hasselblad award soared my expectations.  For example, all of you have seen Ansel Adams reproductions probably think that they look great.  But people who’ve seen original prints speak of them as if they are from a different world.  Well, there are seven original prints on display in Mannheim…  But let me leave those for a separate post.

The exhibit starts with Lennart Nillson and several images from his “A Child is Born” series.  While fascinating, I found the images too literal and emotionless, too technical and lacking any artistic stand or position.

Next up was Ansel Adams, and then came Cartier-Bresson.  Bresson’s images were framed in such a way that you just begin to see the film sprockets.  In other words, every print shows the entire negative.  Technically Bresson’s images are very competent, yet not perfect.  But what really sets them apart is their vitality, geometry, balance, and energy.

Next up was Irving Penn, who I found very interesting and definitely worth investigating further.

Then came several images with very different themes, but from the same artist — Ernst Haas.  There were a couple of black-and-white documentaries, a few prints with unnatural colors, then a couple of wonderfully colorful images dominated by motion blur.  I found La Suerte De Capa breathtaking (the original print, not the poor reproduction below) and Free Spirits was also very good.  Apparently Haas went through several different styles, and he was a master in many of them.

La Suerte De Capa, © Ernst Haas

Edouart Boubat’s images were also very good — concentrating on showing us a peaceful and beautiful world.  I particularly liked Cherry Tree in Blossom and Mother and Child on the Beach- In general, I’d like to see more images by Boubat.

Sebastiao Salgado’s was also represented — with several socially documentary images.  His images from Sierra Pelada make you think you are steping centuries back in time and some of those from the Sahel look like being taken on a different planet.

What followed was William Klein’s street photography. Richard Avedon’s Dovima with Elephants is great (120×160 cm!), but his other images I find merely OK.  Joseph Koudelka’s gypsy images are very interesting.  Sune Jansson’s are good, and Susan Meiselas’ documentaires are great.  I’m afraid, I don’t understand Robert Häusser’s images, and Robert Frank’s and Christer Strömholm’s not my cup of tea.  Eggleston’s, I’m sorry to say, I find pointless, Boris Mikhailov’s also (but in a very different ways).

Then we get to Jeff Wall, and… hm, well, WTF ?!?

The value of the work of Malick Sadibé for me is more in the image selection as in any single image.  Lee Friedlander’s images do nothing for me and Bernd and Hilla Becker’s are simply boring.

Nan Goldin portrays in a very direct and effective way a world that I know nothing about.  Or care to know about…

The work of a few artists was so uninteresting to me that I simply cannot formulate a sentence about.

Now, where does that leave me?  I seem to like the work of the earlier photographers a lot, and that of the more modern ones I either don’t get or don’t like.  I know that I am not alone in this judgement, but that does not make me feel any better.  I still wish I could enjoy a wider selection of art…

But go and look for yourself — what do you think?

Critique of Shadow Portrait by Karin Székessy

I’m deeply affected by the image Shadow Portrait by Karin Székessy.  I find it so intriguing and special, that I thought I’d write a critique of it.  My secret hope is that by searching for the right words and by analyzing why this image stirs up such a strong reaction inside me, I might gain a deeper understanding of it and ultimately be more likely to produce images with similar visual impact.

Copyright by Karin Székessy

Let’s get the obvious stuff out of the way first.  We have before us a highly stylized black and white portrait.  The extraordinary lighting and the extreme contrast reveal only the most essential features of the model’s face: one eye, a forehead, one cheek, half a nose and half a mouth.  The highly graphical outline and the featureless white skin remind me very much of a skull or better yet, of a carnival mask — a thing devoid of life and emotion.  But the eye and the delicate curves of the lips, cheeks and nose are so full of life, so enigmatic and seductive that they easily overcome the idea of lifelessness.

Next I notice a further contradition — the highly detailed and intricately handcrafted hair-piece appears in total contrast to the rounded outlines of the face.  My first reaction was that I might like the image better without this “disturbance,” but now I’m no longer sure.  The eye and the hair-piece are the only ares of the image with tonal detail, thus striking a great balance.

And then there is the final, dare I say genius, detail — the dark vertical line that divides the face into two halves.  To me it is this division that unifies the image.  It divides between light and dark, between living and lifeless, between a person and a mask.  And thus it unifies all important elements of the Shadow Portrait.

I’d love to know if the image was previsualized this way or if just “happened.”  But in the end what does it matter?  Only the final result matters, and the final result is a superbly composed and masterfully implemented image that I can look at day after day.

I wonder if I could somehow purchase a Shadow Portrait print.  I’d love for it to be the first original piece of art that I might own…

Wanna Become a Better Photographer? (2)

I’m fascinated by “photographers” who almost never photograph, but instead theorize in various discussion forums about the significance of certain technical features or constantly browse the Internet for news about new bodies and lenses. Or by “photographers” who mainly photograph brick walls and line-pair targets and then measure resolution, distortion, vignetting, noise levels, etc.

Now don’t get me wrong — I’m not making fun of those people. Which camera you use and knowing how to operate it properly is of course essential to making good photographs. And if your hobby is talking about gear rather than creating images with it, then by all means, enjoy it!

But if you want to become a better photographer, then focus on the images.

In my previous posting I recommended that you concentrate on your own images: edit them to completion, print them, frame them. Naturally this is the ultimate goal, but if you are as emotional about your images as I am about mine, about their content and the circumstances under which you took them, you’ll probably find it very hard to be your own critic.

So today I suggest an easier first step — focus on other people’s images. Go to exhibitions, look at books, look at image portfolios on the Internet. Try to express in words what it is that you like about some images, why you dislike others. Talk to your friends. Discover the “old” masters, young artists and enthusiasts like you. Write image critiques, join a photo-group, let others critique your own images.

If you want to explore some Internet resources, let me suggest a couple. My primary source of amazing (black-and-white) photography is Lens Work. If you don’t want to subscribe, you could look at the names of the published artists and then google them. They usually have great web sites. Another place to discover current and past photographers as well as photographic books is The Online Photographer. And if you are looking for a photographic community, it’s hard to beat photo.net. For $25 per year you get a chance to store and show your images, look at great photography from all over the world, write critiques and get your work critiqued.

Of course these three addresses represent an absolutely minuscule portion of the web sites related to photographic art, but these are the ones that I frequent, and you might find them interesting too. I hope so…