As most of you know, I've worked side-by-side with Bob for about 14 years now. I'm glad he's shared with you his technical expertise, but also his artistic sensitivities and how his mother's passing affected his work (don't our emotions affect all our work?). I can tell you that Bob takes his photographic passions seriously.
In this particular case, I remember Bob bringing in the first and second drafts. My take on it is that it is a prime example of artistic intent. The simple answer is to put the clouds on top and the wall/bench on the bottom. That grounds the page. The solid bench and the immovable wall ground the ethereal clouds above. Like I said, simple....yet...
By placing the clouds on the bottom, I found that it created cognitive dissonance for me. And that is not bad in a viewer. It causes more time spent, deciphering, decoding, dealing with our discomfort with that dissonance. I was forced to think of why the artist did this. It made me look longer and deeper and then the color and hues hit me. Yes, THAT was the artist's intent after all. Color. Hue. An interpretive image conveying his feeling about place.
So, all I can say is that we spend a lot of collective time in our studio listening, arguing, rethinking. Curation is critical. Few things can spoil a presentation as easily as thoughtless curation.
It's okay to deeply consider all image presentations and take them seriously but... It's better when you have a deadline and constraints so that it doesn't become an excuse to never actually finish and present SOMETHING.
Les certainly knows that's one of my particular "talents" which to a smaller degree he shares a little bit so our conversations and differing opinions on things are definitely productive in terms of actually getting something done and moving on...
It's hard to separate what you have in your book from what I now know about the photographs. Had I not read your article, I may not have seen the relationship. I'm a bit of a visual Visigoth, I guess. But from that insensitive perspective...
You've chosen to print these two photographs in a higher key and bluer hue than they were in nature, based on the one photo in your article above. That's consistent with your text on the page facing the photographs in question. Are the other photographs in the collection similarly altered to blue, green or gray?
In the text above, you mention a passing storm. I'm guessing that the cloud photograph would be from that storm or some other. The puddles in your original photograph of the wall are more obvious than those in the photograph in the book. Having seen it and with what you said about the storm, the relationship between the two photographs in the book is more apparent: they are related causally and emotionally. So I think the two photographs as presented would work better together if the puddles could be made a bit more obvious. For example if the puddles on the gravel were more silver like the ones immediately adjacent to the wall, they'd be more recognizable. In that case, I'd leave the two photographs in their current orientation.
I am interested in seeing the book when it's finished!
Ps... great word but not knowing you well I could take more than one meaning from Visigoth. Don't know if I should take it as barbarian or destroyer of late stage corruption and decadence when institutions are not fit for purpose, or... In any case good choice as I am huge fan of the double entendre as well.
Ps. Cameras and film used were... My Fuji XPro-2 and XPro-3 with 35mm 1.4, My Olympus OM2n, my OM2S, and my Leica M4 all with various 50mm lenses. Film was either Portra 160 pushed 1 stop or the last of my Fuji 400H in 35mm pushed 1 stop. I know none of the images above were the 400H as I do remember the one roll I used and none of those were rainy/stormy/cloudy.
I'll see what I can do about getting you a copy when I finish it (hopefully this summer).
Generally when photographing where I don't control the mood of the light I tend to allow a bit of the light's actual color to show, I let cooler light be cooler, I let warmer light be warmer etc. I hover around daylight WB unless it's very unusual conditions that are detracting from a particular main subject. Hence the stormy light is really that colored light and the sunlit second picture was right after the storm at the top, hence the puddles. It was warm and very contrasty. Printing the lower contrast pictures always feels "brighter" because the same objects are mid-tone or higher where the higher contrast pictures has very bright sunlit highlights and the large objects that can be printed as mid tone or upper mid tone in low contrast light have to be printed lower mid tones and darker with the far brighter highlights, they are farther away tonally.
For this project I do very very little with the color or curve manipulation and zero local adjustments. A couple of tenths of a stop here or there as a minor overall density adjustment. Very simple pictures as if shot on film. I actually did shoot quite a bit of film for this and honestly I'd have to look at the above pictures to make sure which is which.
Thanks for the input and a great illustration as to why editorial decisions are difficult. I've received about equal feedback in the comments but "clouds on top" in the poll. Ultimately I have to call the shot not based on a democratic vote.
Probably clouds on top - but I always have to actually see a sample printed each way, before deciding. It's too easy to imagine how I think it will look - rather than looking at actual work.
So easy to get wrapped up in your own head, again confirming it's better to have someone else you trust to bounce things off of!!! there is not nearly enough of that going on and I do not mean momentary interactions on the internet.
The purpose of this was not to figure out what I will do in the third draft but more to make a point about editorial decisions, curatorial decisions, and things like this is as important as composing a picture itself.
Clouds on top. Putting them on the bottom forces a different perspective that, in this case, is not needed for the story. So clouds on top sets the viewer at ease to notice the similarities of color which is the point. The gap that the white space between the images provides acts as a sufficient ellipsis for this story.
As for curators, it is indeed an art form unto itself!
Looks like you are with most of the people that took the poll. I am still working on the project but the main point was to reiterate how important aspects of presentation are and how much like the composition of a photograph itself those aspects are.
Thanks for your contribution and thanks for being part of our little printing community.
My perspective on curation is more nuanced and follows other editing disciplines. In essence, the “opus” should follow the narrative the artist is trying convey. I can’t pretend to understand your intent and without that knowledge, it is difficult to make a determination. Perhaps you are in a better position to craft the story and weave the images into that tale?
No disagreement. The intent here was to share the importance of the process when presenting images rather than getting a bottom line to a particular decision I am a little hung up on.
Actual editorial input would require me to provide the entire second draft of the project!!!
Sorry to be a contrarian but neither of the images does much for me. But stepping back a bit to me the only thing that unites them is the dominant blue hue. Having said that I would opine that it doesn’t make a difference to me which is on y to op. However a radically different approach would be to superimpose the clouds ON TOP of the fence with about 50% transparency or just play with the slider to see what amount works best. But I’d also remove the foreground from the fence image so you have ONLY the fence. The rest of my comment has to do with the fence image.
I like patterns and when appropriate isolating them in the frame. So of the images you sent the third of the fence by itself sans any foreground or background is the one I like the best as a stand- alone image
That's certainly one way to do it but definitely not my particular vision. I tend to be very strait-forward when making photographs... I just cannot bring myself to make composites or anything like that. Just not how I see the world.
I have considered NOT pairing these two images since I am having a difficult time deciding and when something bothers me a little bit I tend to want to know why and when I cannot come up with an answer I tend to decide to try something completely different.
Ps. the images are very small presented this way, especially if you are looking at them on a phone. Not a fence.
I spent a (very) few days at a marina near the mouth of the Patuxent, and several time drive over the last bridge before the river broadened into the Chesapeake. The view upstream and down was remarkably beautiful, and it told the story of the tributaries and the bay itself. Maybe one day I'll get back there without a sailboat to occupy me and instead have time to capture that feeling
Ps. It's a very difficult place to "put on film" in terms of how it makes one feel. Especially if you're not at all a "landscape" photographer. In a way it's not really about the landscape aspects. Maybe I can get you a copy of this draft prior to the summer if you are interested shoot me an email at rwboyer@mac.com
My first reaction was to place them on facing pages, the bench on the left towards the bottom of the page, the sky to the right towards the top.
However, I know it's important to be consistent with presentation throughout the book. Readers don't like formats that change consistently. When creating books, one has to be a graphic designer as well as a photographer unless you have access to a designer.
Whatever you decide will be just right.
Also, my condolences on losing your mom. Death has a way of knocking the wind out of one's sails.
I have no issue with side by side my first draft of the book had them side by side but my brief text coupling didn't seem to work well with that layout, of course I could put that on the preceding page, for some reason I felt that was a bit of a reach...
Without reading the article, my initial reaction to the image was its about the color blue. Had the building been on the bottom I might not have made that immediate connection.
Perfectly valid, one example of why this pairing and what comes next has been a bit of a struggle. Of course this is the first example I thought of but trust me I am not 100% solid on many other decisions yet either.
Personally, I think challenging our natural tendency of wanting the clouds on top and the buildings on the bottom forces the viewer to figure out how the photos “fit together” in other ways. In this case, it highlights the fact that the subject of the photos isn’t what is tying them together but the color. I think if you flip them you lose that focus, since it’d be what the viewer expects from the scene. The viewer doesn’t have to pause and think to appreciate the other aspects of the photos that link them together.
I am certainly a little guilty of second guessing myself based on "what will other people think" which I constantly tell other people to forget what you think "other people will think"
The struggle is real :) I spend many many hours curating my own photos just trying to figure out what is the experience I’m trying to create for my audience. It’s tricky tricky stuff for sure!
I guess my brief post was preaching to the choir in your case ;-) My perception based on the number of photographers I interact with is that not a lot of people make a regular practice out of curating and laying out any sort of presentation so when they do, they just give up as it seems like moving a mountain at that point.
Les and I have been kicking around ideas regarding how to provide some sort of community assistance in the context of this little newsletter, no promises yet but it weighs heavily on our "to do" list.
Given my 40 years of trying to take a few decent pictures, I am relatively new to consciously working on curating my work. And only beginning to get a feel for "what's right." It's really a constant struggle to select "the good ones" and to put them in a presentation order for display. One just keeps working at it , I guess. I do often feel that I approach "good" through repeated reviews over time. There does seem to be a distance in time needed to get a different perspective or to at least clear out fixations from the last perspective. And to incorporate new learning into the decisions.
Absolutely agree, you need time and contemplation. This needs to be balanced though and not used as an excuse for never being "done". If you struggle with this then you can console yourself that you are "done for now", there can always be a part 2 and most great photographers have revisited the same themes throughout their life.
Most photographers that really got going in the digital age really don't seem to grasp the difficulty and importance of the editorial and curatorial process. Les and I designed a workshop we've been hosting for quite a few years and spend THREE days with a group of four photographers to get to 10 images. This is after a two month process of selecting a theme and narrowing it down to a few dozen images with feedback sessions. It's hard but extremely rewarding when you actually produce a cohesive tangible "thing".
As it is. The top photo has more weight and seems to anchor the clouds in the frame. If the clouds were on top I'm afraid the eye would drift off the page and the bottom shot would not get scrutiny. Just my two cents. Curating is such a HUGE thing. Been doing it with my work for so many years and still never feel like anything is 'right' or finished. But the constant questioning is good....right?
I feel you and I've struggled with the clouds intellectually being over the building vs the points you've made and also the order of my observation when making the two images... building first, clouds second which is a good reason to have others you trust and understand what you are trying to do give you editorial feedback.
A PS to my comment of a few moments ago. Perhaps if you try my suggestion of overprinting, you might leave the foreground alone on the underprimt as it serves to visually “anchor” it while the clouds impress as “elevating”.
Secondly I have never appreciated wordy verbal commentary on a photographic image by the photographer on what the image “means” or signifies. Images should be capable of telling their own story or at least be such that the viewer can appreciate it ‘qua’ an image. Or perhaps with just a minimum of context. Photographers who come to mind are Bernice Abbot, Imogene Cunningham, Robert Glen Ketchum, Ansel Adams, Elliot Porter, Dorothea Lange, Georgia O’Keeffe, Bradford Washborn , Robert Adams, Galen Rowell …
As most of you know, I've worked side-by-side with Bob for about 14 years now. I'm glad he's shared with you his technical expertise, but also his artistic sensitivities and how his mother's passing affected his work (don't our emotions affect all our work?). I can tell you that Bob takes his photographic passions seriously.
In this particular case, I remember Bob bringing in the first and second drafts. My take on it is that it is a prime example of artistic intent. The simple answer is to put the clouds on top and the wall/bench on the bottom. That grounds the page. The solid bench and the immovable wall ground the ethereal clouds above. Like I said, simple....yet...
By placing the clouds on the bottom, I found that it created cognitive dissonance for me. And that is not bad in a viewer. It causes more time spent, deciphering, decoding, dealing with our discomfort with that dissonance. I was forced to think of why the artist did this. It made me look longer and deeper and then the color and hues hit me. Yes, THAT was the artist's intent after all. Color. Hue. An interpretive image conveying his feeling about place.
So, all I can say is that we spend a lot of collective time in our studio listening, arguing, rethinking. Curation is critical. Few things can spoil a presentation as easily as thoughtless curation.
It's okay to deeply consider all image presentations and take them seriously but... It's better when you have a deadline and constraints so that it doesn't become an excuse to never actually finish and present SOMETHING.
Les certainly knows that's one of my particular "talents" which to a smaller degree he shares a little bit so our conversations and differing opinions on things are definitely productive in terms of actually getting something done and moving on...
It's hard to separate what you have in your book from what I now know about the photographs. Had I not read your article, I may not have seen the relationship. I'm a bit of a visual Visigoth, I guess. But from that insensitive perspective...
You've chosen to print these two photographs in a higher key and bluer hue than they were in nature, based on the one photo in your article above. That's consistent with your text on the page facing the photographs in question. Are the other photographs in the collection similarly altered to blue, green or gray?
In the text above, you mention a passing storm. I'm guessing that the cloud photograph would be from that storm or some other. The puddles in your original photograph of the wall are more obvious than those in the photograph in the book. Having seen it and with what you said about the storm, the relationship between the two photographs in the book is more apparent: they are related causally and emotionally. So I think the two photographs as presented would work better together if the puddles could be made a bit more obvious. For example if the puddles on the gravel were more silver like the ones immediately adjacent to the wall, they'd be more recognizable. In that case, I'd leave the two photographs in their current orientation.
I am interested in seeing the book when it's finished!
Ps... great word but not knowing you well I could take more than one meaning from Visigoth. Don't know if I should take it as barbarian or destroyer of late stage corruption and decadence when institutions are not fit for purpose, or... In any case good choice as I am huge fan of the double entendre as well.
Ps. Cameras and film used were... My Fuji XPro-2 and XPro-3 with 35mm 1.4, My Olympus OM2n, my OM2S, and my Leica M4 all with various 50mm lenses. Film was either Portra 160 pushed 1 stop or the last of my Fuji 400H in 35mm pushed 1 stop. I know none of the images above were the 400H as I do remember the one roll I used and none of those were rainy/stormy/cloudy.
I'll see what I can do about getting you a copy when I finish it (hopefully this summer).
Generally when photographing where I don't control the mood of the light I tend to allow a bit of the light's actual color to show, I let cooler light be cooler, I let warmer light be warmer etc. I hover around daylight WB unless it's very unusual conditions that are detracting from a particular main subject. Hence the stormy light is really that colored light and the sunlit second picture was right after the storm at the top, hence the puddles. It was warm and very contrasty. Printing the lower contrast pictures always feels "brighter" because the same objects are mid-tone or higher where the higher contrast pictures has very bright sunlit highlights and the large objects that can be printed as mid tone or upper mid tone in low contrast light have to be printed lower mid tones and darker with the far brighter highlights, they are farther away tonally.
For this project I do very very little with the color or curve manipulation and zero local adjustments. A couple of tenths of a stop here or there as a minor overall density adjustment. Very simple pictures as if shot on film. I actually did shoot quite a bit of film for this and honestly I'd have to look at the above pictures to make sure which is which.
Thanks for the input and a great illustration as to why editorial decisions are difficult. I've received about equal feedback in the comments but "clouds on top" in the poll. Ultimately I have to call the shot not based on a democratic vote.
Probably clouds on top - but I always have to actually see a sample printed each way, before deciding. It's too easy to imagine how I think it will look - rather than looking at actual work.
So easy to get wrapped up in your own head, again confirming it's better to have someone else you trust to bounce things off of!!! there is not nearly enough of that going on and I do not mean momentary interactions on the internet.
The purpose of this was not to figure out what I will do in the third draft but more to make a point about editorial decisions, curatorial decisions, and things like this is as important as composing a picture itself.
I agree, I should have provided both!! Sorry about that...
Clouds on top. Putting them on the bottom forces a different perspective that, in this case, is not needed for the story. So clouds on top sets the viewer at ease to notice the similarities of color which is the point. The gap that the white space between the images provides acts as a sufficient ellipsis for this story.
As for curators, it is indeed an art form unto itself!
Looks like you are with most of the people that took the poll. I am still working on the project but the main point was to reiterate how important aspects of presentation are and how much like the composition of a photograph itself those aspects are.
Thanks for your contribution and thanks for being part of our little printing community.
My perspective on curation is more nuanced and follows other editing disciplines. In essence, the “opus” should follow the narrative the artist is trying convey. I can’t pretend to understand your intent and without that knowledge, it is difficult to make a determination. Perhaps you are in a better position to craft the story and weave the images into that tale?
No disagreement. The intent here was to share the importance of the process when presenting images rather than getting a bottom line to a particular decision I am a little hung up on.
Actual editorial input would require me to provide the entire second draft of the project!!!
Sorry to be a contrarian but neither of the images does much for me. But stepping back a bit to me the only thing that unites them is the dominant blue hue. Having said that I would opine that it doesn’t make a difference to me which is on y to op. However a radically different approach would be to superimpose the clouds ON TOP of the fence with about 50% transparency or just play with the slider to see what amount works best. But I’d also remove the foreground from the fence image so you have ONLY the fence. The rest of my comment has to do with the fence image.
I like patterns and when appropriate isolating them in the frame. So of the images you sent the third of the fence by itself sans any foreground or background is the one I like the best as a stand- alone image
That's certainly one way to do it but definitely not my particular vision. I tend to be very strait-forward when making photographs... I just cannot bring myself to make composites or anything like that. Just not how I see the world.
I have considered NOT pairing these two images since I am having a difficult time deciding and when something bothers me a little bit I tend to want to know why and when I cannot come up with an answer I tend to decide to try something completely different.
Ps. the images are very small presented this way, especially if you are looking at them on a phone. Not a fence.
I spent a (very) few days at a marina near the mouth of the Patuxent, and several time drive over the last bridge before the river broadened into the Chesapeake. The view upstream and down was remarkably beautiful, and it told the story of the tributaries and the bay itself. Maybe one day I'll get back there without a sailboat to occupy me and instead have time to capture that feeling
When you do make sure to let Les and I know!!!
Ps. It's a very difficult place to "put on film" in terms of how it makes one feel. Especially if you're not at all a "landscape" photographer. In a way it's not really about the landscape aspects. Maybe I can get you a copy of this draft prior to the summer if you are interested shoot me an email at rwboyer@mac.com
My first reaction was to place them on facing pages, the bench on the left towards the bottom of the page, the sky to the right towards the top.
However, I know it's important to be consistent with presentation throughout the book. Readers don't like formats that change consistently. When creating books, one has to be a graphic designer as well as a photographer unless you have access to a designer.
Whatever you decide will be just right.
Also, my condolences on losing your mom. Death has a way of knocking the wind out of one's sails.
Thank you so much for your thoughts.
I have no issue with side by side my first draft of the book had them side by side but my brief text coupling didn't seem to work well with that layout, of course I could put that on the preceding page, for some reason I felt that was a bit of a reach...
Without reading the article, my initial reaction to the image was its about the color blue. Had the building been on the bottom I might not have made that immediate connection.
The darker blue of the building feels heavier and to me, belongs on the bottom.
Perfectly valid, one example of why this pairing and what comes next has been a bit of a struggle. Of course this is the first example I thought of but trust me I am not 100% solid on many other decisions yet either.
Personally, I think challenging our natural tendency of wanting the clouds on top and the buildings on the bottom forces the viewer to figure out how the photos “fit together” in other ways. In this case, it highlights the fact that the subject of the photos isn’t what is tying them together but the color. I think if you flip them you lose that focus, since it’d be what the viewer expects from the scene. The viewer doesn’t have to pause and think to appreciate the other aspects of the photos that link them together.
I am certainly a little guilty of second guessing myself based on "what will other people think" which I constantly tell other people to forget what you think "other people will think"
At least a few people can somewhat see why I did this on my second draft but I am assuming you see my struggle ;-)
The struggle is real :) I spend many many hours curating my own photos just trying to figure out what is the experience I’m trying to create for my audience. It’s tricky tricky stuff for sure!
I guess my brief post was preaching to the choir in your case ;-) My perception based on the number of photographers I interact with is that not a lot of people make a regular practice out of curating and laying out any sort of presentation so when they do, they just give up as it seems like moving a mountain at that point.
Les and I have been kicking around ideas regarding how to provide some sort of community assistance in the context of this little newsletter, no promises yet but it weighs heavily on our "to do" list.
Given my 40 years of trying to take a few decent pictures, I am relatively new to consciously working on curating my work. And only beginning to get a feel for "what's right." It's really a constant struggle to select "the good ones" and to put them in a presentation order for display. One just keeps working at it , I guess. I do often feel that I approach "good" through repeated reviews over time. There does seem to be a distance in time needed to get a different perspective or to at least clear out fixations from the last perspective. And to incorporate new learning into the decisions.
It does seem a perpetual work in progress.
Absolutely agree, you need time and contemplation. This needs to be balanced though and not used as an excuse for never being "done". If you struggle with this then you can console yourself that you are "done for now", there can always be a part 2 and most great photographers have revisited the same themes throughout their life.
Most photographers that really got going in the digital age really don't seem to grasp the difficulty and importance of the editorial and curatorial process. Les and I designed a workshop we've been hosting for quite a few years and spend THREE days with a group of four photographers to get to 10 images. This is after a two month process of selecting a theme and narrowing it down to a few dozen images with feedback sessions. It's hard but extremely rewarding when you actually produce a cohesive tangible "thing".
As it is. The top photo has more weight and seems to anchor the clouds in the frame. If the clouds were on top I'm afraid the eye would drift off the page and the bottom shot would not get scrutiny. Just my two cents. Curating is such a HUGE thing. Been doing it with my work for so many years and still never feel like anything is 'right' or finished. But the constant questioning is good....right?
I feel you and I've struggled with the clouds intellectually being over the building vs the points you've made and also the order of my observation when making the two images... building first, clouds second which is a good reason to have others you trust and understand what you are trying to do give you editorial feedback.
Thanks for your input and thoughts.
Barbarian, as in no sensitivity or appreciation of art or subtlety.
A PS to my comment of a few moments ago. Perhaps if you try my suggestion of overprinting, you might leave the foreground alone on the underprimt as it serves to visually “anchor” it while the clouds impress as “elevating”.
Secondly I have never appreciated wordy verbal commentary on a photographic image by the photographer on what the image “means” or signifies. Images should be capable of telling their own story or at least be such that the viewer can appreciate it ‘qua’ an image. Or perhaps with just a minimum of context. Photographers who come to mind are Bernice Abbot, Imogene Cunningham, Robert Glen Ketchum, Ansel Adams, Elliot Porter, Dorothea Lange, Georgia O’Keeffe, Bradford Washborn , Robert Adams, Galen Rowell …