Not on my screen.Aren't they identical?
Not on my screen.
Thank you Don_ih for showing the non cropped version, which is how it was published. I could write a 500 word essay about this image and how it compares to a painting by someone I can't quite bring to mind at present. Perhaps Alex Benjamin will help me out here?
I think you need to click on the attachment. It is a problem on how the photo is presented here in the chats.
Yes, that’s what I did. All the corners look dodged on the signed version. I’m away from home, so I can’t compare any printed version.
The dog is attached to the lady. On my screen, at least.
I could write a 500 word essay about this image and how it compares to a painting by someone I can't quite bring to mind at present. Perhaps Alex Benjamin will help me out here?
Sure they are, just with a fraction less contrast. I know you don’t print, but I’m surprised no-one else with printing experience has chimed in to say they can see this.I really don't see it! Weird...But the people are still there, right?
What were your sources, in fact?The original image no-one knows how it looked. Probably it was the same one but I had found some sources stating that HCB did indeed crop it at print.
All the corners look dodged on the signed version.
I've put both images on top of each other and then boosted the contrast of the 'printed' version with an S-curve. There's no sign of burning or dodging that's present in one version and not in the other. There are differences in tonal relationships between the prints, but they are overall differences across the entire image and not localized in the corners or the center.
The argument has been made that high contrast is some thing that has context relation in time en space. In that way a viewer has his own aesthetic context.
I think that's an interesting point. Cf. the 'loudness war', and perhaps also the 'saturation war' that we've seen since approx the 1990s and accelerated by the advent of digital capture.
You had me wondering, especially since I found it hard to see right off the bat due to the significant difference in overall contrast - and it was easy enough to try. As to that difference in overall contrast, I think it's indeed quite pronounced and creates a different impression of the same image. I think that's what maybe you were responding to, and I find it a meaningful difference. Although of course in the end, it's still the same image. If we're trying to understand the composition (if there's such a thing as rationally understanding a composition), I don't think it matters all that much in the end.
My two cents is that all elements contribute to the image and if the characters in the corners would have been removed, the image would have worked differently and I expect it would have been less liable at keeping the viewer's attention. The people not directly involved in the action (although strictly speaking this is only maybe true for the guy top left and the two people along the top edge looking out to the right) trigger questions about context and as such tie the central action into that broader context, most of which we can't see, and as a result, these questions remain unanswered. I suppose people like open questions, so it helps the image. That's the social bit at least.
From a graphic/image-wise perspective I think if you remove any of the people in the corners, the 'visual logic' (as @gary mulder calls it) breaks down.
Of course, regardless of how we apply our hermeneutics to an image like this, it'll always remain tautological. The image has survived several selection processes and as a result remains with us today. Apparently it 'works'. We are then left to guess at the question why it works, but the answer always boils down to "because it does."
For me, an exchange like this is similar to comments (amateur) photographers sometimes make about each other's work - "you should have cropped half an inch here" or "it would have been better if that element wasn't included in the frame" etc. Such remarks always make me think "then it would have been a different photograph and we're now looking at this one - so go out and make your own version of it if you feel it should be done differently." I've said it before in threads like this one - you like the image or you don't. Maybe you can express a little why you think you like it, but the response is primarily an emotional one. At the very least, if you try to rationalize an emotional response, a lot is lost in the process. At worst, you totally miss the point.
Sorry if that's not very constructive. Evidently I'm Ok with discussions like these; I find it interesting to see what others come up with, although in all honesty, the golden nuggets in such discussions are IMO kind of few and far between. But that's quiet personal. Simply engaging in the discussion can bring some feelsgoodman-vibes as well, I suppose.
PS: this also tangentially touches upon the hypothetical 500-word essay @cliveh referred to. By all means and write it; please don't ever let me keep anyone from doing so. At the same time, my take on it is that Cartier-Bresson was a visual artist and not a writer, so he chose to do the 'essay' in the form of an image. He told the story in its original form, apparently pretty much as he intended to (given that it survived several selections), in just 1/60 of a second and an 8x10" surface area. We could try to understand it and re-tell the same story in 500 words, or 5000, but it would be a different story, and "we're now looking at this one."
PPS: at some point in his career (and not a particularly high point at that), Devin Townsend realized that people are just sacks of cells making sounds towards each other. In discussions like these, I often have to think of that notion. It's kind of silly, rather nihilist too, and perhaps not very exciting or stimulating - but also there's an inescapable truth to it in my view.
Quite likely. To give some background to how I understand it - for me, it's the same as salt and sugar in food and drinks, or heroin. You get used to a certain exposure and the nice kick can only be had by increasing the dosage. So things escalate. I don't understand it in terms of technical parameters like sensor size, but simply as a function of how our reptile brain is wired.More subtle. Caused by small digital sensors we are getting used tot a larger depth of focus. ( I know we differ in point of view on this.)
Ultimately I think that's the real explanation why those versions look different and it has nothing to do with context or 'contrast wars', but I thought the latter point was interesting, and it certainly seemed to apply to Adams' printing as indicated by @gary mulderAlso mind that these pictures we get from Internet are each one very different (e.g. different contrasts etc.) because of the way they were scanned etc.
I don't understand it in terms of technical parameters like sensor size,
From a graphic/image-wise perspective I think if you remove any of the people in the corners, the 'visual logic' (as @gary mulder calls it) breaks down.
Of course, regardless of how we apply our hermeneutics to an image like this, it'll always remain tautological. The image has survived several selection processes and as a result remains with us today. Apparently it 'works'. We are then left to guess at the question why it works, but the answer always boils down to "because it does."
We can legitimately wonder how they work, or how close they are to not working, but that doesn’t affect my admiration for what he produced.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?