Inside the box thinking.....

[MattKing]

In the spirit of inquiry : What is the purpose of a photograph that can't somehow stand on it's own without a narrative?
I think this image does, though the back story may alter how some perceive it.

Some photographs are designed to be accompanied by a narrative, while others are not.

Just as some photographs stand well ln their own, while others are far more powerful when the are seen along with others.

Photographs speak to us in an infinite number of ways, and it isn't possible to say that any particular way is always better than another.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

In the spirit of inquiry : What is the purpose of a photograph that can't somehow stand on it's own without a narrative?

Exactly the same as the purpose of a photograph that can somehow stand on it's own without a narrative.

When someone shows you a photograph, with or without words, they are trying to say something to you. If you only allow yourself to see photographs without words, you will miss part of what is being said to you. If you only allow yourself to read words without seeing photographs, you will miss part of what is being said to you.

The goal here is to not miss any part of what is being said to you.



Ken

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I enjoyed this when you first posted it to the gallery. The words and description are fitting.

A paragraph from my reply to a PM earlier this afternoon...

"I think the picture works on many levels. For instance, did you notice the uneasy clasped hands? Can you see who is leading whom? And who is reluctantly allowing that? Hormones do strange things to boys that age. Bob Seger called it "living by the sword." At that tender age, given a choice between youthful male pride, and that ever-present sword..."

Ken

 

[removed account4]

at the risk of sounding like a jerk
i don't get any of that from that photograph at all ...
it looks like 2 uneasy people having their photograph taken
they might be a husband and wife of 15 years, cousins, newlyweds .. i don't see uneasy body language &c ..
i find them to be more uneasy that someone is taking their photograph than the uneasyness from their backstory ...

but it isn't my place to critique the photograph .. its composion, lighting/processing/printing looks fine by me ...
maybe its that i just dont' "get" street photography sometimes ...

the other photograph --- the one originally posted, backstory of how the photograph was created, photographer there in person or
someone else as his surrogate / by proxy via VOIP the composition, lighting, surroundings, details &c at least for me, work better ...
no backstory needed, it stands by itself. some views seem "universal" and the photographer who directed the image seemed to capture a universal moment via telecommand.

 

[blansky]

A paragraph from my reply to a PM earlier this afternoon...

"I think the picture works on many levels. For instance, did you notice the uneasy clasped hands? Can you see who is leading whom? And who is reluctantly allowing that? Hormones do strange things to boys that age. Bob Seger called it "living by the sword." At that tender age, given a choice between youthful male pride, and that ever-present sword..."

Ken

What we have to remember is every photographer takes shitty pictures. From your idols to St Ansel on on down the line. In fact more shitty ones than keepers.

This picture is in that vein. And adding a backstory and inflated information does nothing to change it.

We have to know when to throw the shitty ones away, and move on. As much as we may not like it, not everything we attempted will work. In fact most do not work. No matter how much we wanted it to.

Kill your darlings.

Learn and move on.

 

[cliveh]

Some photographs are designed to be accompanied by a narrative, while others are not.

Just as some photographs stand well ln their own, while others are far more powerful when the are seen along with others.

Photographs speak to us in an infinite number of ways, and it isn't possible to say that any particular way is always better than another.

I think you nailed it.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

What we have to remember is every photographer takes shitty pictures. From your idols to St Ansel on on down the line. In fact more shitty ones than keepers.

This picture is in that vein. And adding a backstory and inflated information does nothing to change it.

We have to know when to throw the shitty ones away, and move on. As much as we may not like it, not everything we attempted will work. In fact most do not work. No matter how much we wanted it to.

Learn and move on.

I took a close look at your photo website after you supplied me the link offline. The professional portraits I saw there were very, very beautiful. Elegant, with uniformly perfect porcelain complexions radiating wholesomeness and goodness, perfectly positioned off-center 10-o'clock catch lights in every single eye, limitless reservoirs of personal and family warmth exuding from every image, puppy dog eyes abounding.

I'm certain that your clients felt completely transformed and were exquisitely pleased to sign the checks.

However, shocking though it may be, real people don't have uniformly porcelain complexions. Nor are they uniformly wholesome and good people. And the sun only briefly passes through the 10-o'clock position but once each day, often obscured by clouds. Families in these post-Recession days are mostly fractured. Or gang-living under single rooftops to save money. And the vast majority of abandoned puppies these days are euthanized.

And yet, teenage boys and girls still go out on queasy blind dates. Not because of the puppy dog eyes. Because of the sword...

Sort of a timelessness about that, don't you think?



Ken

 

[blansky]

I took a close look at your photo website after you supplied me the link offline. The professional portraits I saw there were very, very beautiful. Elegant, with uniformly perfect porcelain complexions radiating wholesomeness and goodness, perfectly positioned off-center 10-o'clock catch lights in every single eye, limitless reservoirs of personal and family warmth exuding from every image, puppy dog eyes abounding.

I'm certain that your clients felt completely transformed and were exquisitely pleased to sign the checks.

However, shocking though it may be, real people don't have uniformly porcelain complexions. Nor are they uniformly wholesome and good people. And the sun only briefly passes through the 10-o'clock position but once each day, often obscured by clouds. Families in these post-Recession days are mostly fractured. Or gang-living under single rooftops to save money. And the vast majority of abandoned puppies these days are euthanized.

And yet, teenage boys and girls still go out on queasy blind dates. Not because of the puppy dog eyes. Because of the sword...

Sort of a timelessness about that, don't you think?

Ken

Thanks, Sort of.

But you confuse the media. You don't go to your family doctor for cutting edge (pardon the pun) brain surgery. And you don't go to a brain surgeon for an STD.

Every profession has it disciplines and it parameters. Mine is studio portrait photography for lack of a better term. There are commercial product photographers. There are fashion photographers. There are photo journalists. There are street photographers (often amateurs). There are landscape photographers. There are architectural photographers. And others.

Every one of these disciplines has rules and parameters. Commercial photographers and fashion photographers usually spend their time working with and collaborating with art directors to create fantasy products to sell the the public. Photojournalists generally work alone and MUST stick to a code of NOT tarting up their images because they are reporting NEWS of some sort.

Street photographers were often employed by newspapers but today they are usually amateurs shooting "daily life". Their constraints are that the images must be interesting and understandable to the readership/viewer and the good ones were charming, or impactful or disturbing.

Landscape photographers are generally self employed or amateurs who take usually "pretty" pictures of the world around us. Architectural photographers are usually hired to enhance or record buildings.

Studio portrait photographers whether they work in a studio or not are answerable and hired by the public. They're not trying for universal truth, examples of the human condition or saving the planet, but are in fact hired to photograph people, families, and their number one job is to make them look good. To flatter them and sell prints to them. They aren't looking for grit, warts, or drama. In their spare time they may do the grit and drama, but they don't sell that to the person who hired them usually.

To your point of the lighting and skin, we used an artistically accepted form of Rembrandt lighting on a lot of portraits and generally flattering 10 O'clock-2 O'clock catchlights. Other styles are also prevalent.

As to your comment of blind dates. The premise is great. It's just that the execution failed. And the tongue was the main problem but not the only one. The rest was barely OK but not worth keeping. And associating it with some primal boy- girl universal interaction is a non starter. It just wasn't good enough or profound enough of an image for that.

As I said, not everything works. And I have taken thousands of pictures that can attest to that.

You just move on.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Thanks, Sort of.

But you confuse the media. You don't go to your family doctor for cutting edge (pardon the pun) brain surgery. And you don't go to a brain surgeon for an STD.

Every profession has it disciplines and it parameters. Mine is studio portrait photography for lack of a better term. There are commercial product photographers. There are fashion photographers. There are photo journalists. There are street photographers (often amateurs). There are landscape photographers. There are architectural photographers. And others.

Every one of these disciplines has rules and parameters. Commercial photographers and fashion photographers usually spend their time working with and collaborating with art directors to create fantasy products to sell the the public. Photojournalists generally work alone and MUST stick to a code of NOT tarting up their images because they are reporting NEWS of some sort.

Street photographers were often employed by newspapers but today they are usually amateurs shooting "daily life". Their constraints are that the images must be interesting and understandable to the readership/viewer and the good ones were charming, or impactful or disturbing.

Landscape photographers are generally self employed or amateurs who take usually "pretty" pictures of the world around us. Architectural photographers are usually hired to enhance or record buildings.

Studio portrait photographers whether they work in a studio or not are answerable and hired by the public. They're not trying for universal truth, examples of the human condition or saving the planet, but are in fact hired to photograph people, families, and their number one job is to make them look good. To flatter them and sell prints to them. They aren't looking for grit, warts, or drama. In their spare time they may do the grit and drama, but they don't sell that to the person who hired them usually.

To your point of the lighting and skin, we used an artistically accepted form of Rembrandt lighting on a lot of portraits and generally flattering 10 O'clock-2 O'clock catchlights. Other styles are also prevalent.

As to your comment of blind dates. The premise is great. It's just that the execution failed. And the tongue was the main problem but not the only one. The rest was barely OK but not worth keeping. And associating it with some primal boy- girl universal interaction is a non starter. It just wasn't good enough or profound enough of an image for that.

As I said, not everything works. And I have taken thousands of pictures that can attest to that.

You just move on.

Honestly, it's OK that you don't like or get it. That it does not resonate with you. Personally I'm not much of a fan of porcelain portraits. Mostly because I've never seen any of those people out in public in my entire life. They don't exist in the wild—a fatal flaw for me. But I do understand the reality that the person signing the check calls your artistic shots. Food and shelter cost money.

The only qualm I have with your characterization is that if one spends the vast majority of one's photographic life producing porcelain, one likely tends to look for—and see—nothing else in life but porcelain. If I've only ever held a hammer in my hand, then everything around me begins to look suspiciously like a nail. If I'm handed a screwdriver, then I'm lost.

As to the original premise, that some photographs can hold interest and stand alone without words, I still maintain that this one succeeds. In this thread at least one poster has said they liked it, at least one was ambivalent, and at least one (you) thought it missed the mark. Fair enough. And not an unexpected spread.

But in all of those cases the viewer was interested enough, without a meaningful description of the picture to fall back on, to look at it, then feel compelled to say something publicly about it. What was said is less important than that something was said. Interest was generated. A reaction was provoked. Judgments were made. Can't ask for more than that, really.

And to come full circle, the original image you posted falls into exactly the same category. Some liked it (including you), some were neutral or had reservations (including me), and some thought it to be nothing more than an exercise in illustrating some level of clinical depression (post since removed).

Fair enough. And not an unexpected spread...

Ken

 

[blansky]

Honestly, it's OK that you don't like or get it. That it does not resonate with you. Personally I'm not much of a fan of porcelain portraits. Mostly because I've never seen any of those people out in public in my entire life. They don't exist in the wild—a fatal flaw for me. But I do understand the reality that the person signing the check calls your artistic shots. Food and shelter cost money.

The only qualm I have with your characterization is that if one spends the vast majority of one's photographic life producing porcelain, one likely tends to look for—and see—nothing else in life but porcelain. If I've only ever held a hammer in my hand, then everything around me begins to look suspiciously like a nail. If I'm handed a screwdriver, then I'm lost.

As to the original premise, that some photographs can hold interest and stand alone without words, I still maintain that this one succeeds. In this thread at least one poster has said they liked it, at least one was ambivalent, and at least one (you) thought it missed the mark. Fair enough. And not an unexpected spread.

But in all of those cases the viewer was interested enough, without a meaningful description of the picture to fall back on, to look at it, then feel compelled to say something publicly about it. What was said is less important than that something was said. Interest was generated. A reaction was provoked. Judgments were made. Can't ask for more than that, really.

And to come full circle, the original image you posted falls into exactly the same category. Some liked it (including you), some were neutral or had reservations (including me), and some thought it to be nothing more than an exercise in illustrating some level of clinical depression (post since removed).

Fair enough. And not an unexpected spread...

Ken

I'm very lucky that I live amongst the people with porcelain skin, and am never exposed to the other people.

As for the initial picture in the thread, I found it to be an interesting experiment in photographic thinking. YMMV

 

[removed account4]

it is hard enough making a great photograph when you are the person depressing the shutter never mind as he did.
i wonder what his success rate was ...

 

[blansky]

it is hard enough making a great photograph when you are the person depressing the shutter never mind as he did.
i wonder what his success rate was ...

This is something he was experimenting with in a minor way after he lost his business to the recession and entered a few years of deep depression, sadly, ending with him taking his own life on April 7th.

 

[removed account4]

that is very sad