You have solidified my point, the cross of girders is probably the most broadly recognizable element that could be included in a picture today that says "This is ground zero". But it has been moved (when I was there) to a location adjacent to the reconstruction.
So how then, I challenge, would you or BD photograph the construction going on at ground zero so as to let everyone viewing know beyond doubt that "this is an image of ground zero" without titling or captioning.
This image did not fail in any fashion.
What would I change about this image? Absolutely nothing. I love the shot as it is. I said that I don't get "ground zero" from this image without being told. And, frankly, I don't care *where* it is...this is a gorgeous shot.
<< I said that I don't get "ground zero" from this image without being told. >>
Same here.
It's a very good image - but could be any (large scale) construction site, imo.
<< Now that may not mean the same to our non-USA friends here >>
I doubt that there are many people in the UK (with at least 2 brain cells) who aren't familiar with the term - and its significance.
<< So how then, I challenge, would you or BD photograph the construction going on at ground zero so as to let everyone viewing know beyond doubt that "this is an image of ground zero" without titling or captioning. >>
I've never been, so I have no idea of what the environment has to offer in the way of uniquely identifyinq the site in this way - but wouldn't the (subtle / unobtrusive) presence of vehicles with NY plates / NY company logos / NYPD (and other uniformed officials) possibly be worth consideration?
I initially viewed this (when first posted) as it happened to be the latest post and therefore on the front page - and since I assumed that it would be a pic of the construction and I was curious to see what stage it was at, I looked.
I left, thinking - good job - but - to someone like me, unfamiliar with the skyline / surroundings - it could've been taken anywhere ...
I needed to say it, Keith, because I believe it need to be said. And because I believe that documentary images should speak for themselves - without captions. Were this photo produced as part of a newspaper assignment, indeed it would have a caption, but the main reason for that is that most newspaper photos are taken as illustrations to run with stories. Further, there's nothing presumptuous about saying that if the massive girder cross, which has been standing for just short of a decade, and is by now iconic, or an oversized American flag were included in the image it might better speak for itself of Ground Zero - it's simply making an observation.
Show me a documentary image that clearly speaks for itself without aid of any other context. Go look at The Big Picture some of the best PJ/Docu images from around the globe, everyone of them has a caption, look at them without the caption and see how many speak for themselves and tell you the correct story, and if they do is it because you have prior knowledge of the subject matter (for instance The World Cup). Photos run in papers all the time as stand alone pieces with nothing more than their captions, they are not always tied to stories as mere illustrations, to say so could be insulting to some. There is something presumptious about your iron girder statement, because shortly after I posted someone came along and mentioned that it was the first they heard of it. How does an oversized flag say Ground Zero? Here where I live patriotism is very vibrant, the local Burger King flies an overzized (very relative) american flag, if they were under going renovations and I took a picture of it would you assume that it was a new location being constructed at ground zero?
What would I change about this image? Absolutely nothing. I love the shot as it is. I said that I don't get "ground zero" from this image without being told. And, frankly, I don't care *where* it is...this is a gorgeous shot.
That's not what I asked, The challenge was "So how then, I challenge, would you or BD photograph the construction going on at ground zero so as to let everyone viewing know beyond doubt that "this is an image of ground zero" without titling or captioning."
*snip*
I've never been, so I have no idea of what the environment has to offer in the way of uniquely identifyinq the site in this way - but wouldn't the (subtle / unobtrusive) presence of vehicles with NY plates / NY company logos / NYPD (and other uniformed officials) possibly be worth consideration?
*snip*
I'm certain that Ground Zero is not the only location in NY with construction going on, so taxis, uniforms and the like wont speciffically distiquish the area as Ground Zero. Street signs would have no relevance to me, I've been there and I couldn't tell you the address, so including them in your composition would not seal the "Complete Story" deal.
Maybe then, we hire a homeless guy, with a carboard sign stating, "This is Ground Zero"
I"m not arguing that this image clearly states "Ground Zero" I'm arguing that an image needing or being improved upon with titling and/or captioning isn't any less of and image. I'll go further in arguing that the "story" of most images without titling/captioning would be up for interpretation. Even those with titling/captioning will have different impacts on different viewers.
Fred, to be complete honest, until I read the caption I had no idea where it was taken - I wasn't even thinking about where it was taken. I was just thinking 'beautiful image.'
Thanks for the reply, bd, and I do understand your point of view about this image.
Why do you even need to say this? The post has a title, and with that we can view and enjoy the picture.
You say that without a caption it's just a beautiful image as if having a caption is a bad thing.
There are countless PJ/Docu images that require/are made stronger with captioning. I don't know for sure, but I'm pretty sure that most papers require their photographer to include captions. The notion that an image must stand on its own and tell its story without assistance is silly. A simple title and caption has us understanding this image. Are you so arrogant to think that you can convey a complete story in a single image to all who may view it? That there is no chance of a viewer translating your image and shaping it into their own personal story? Your suggestion that including the cross of girders salvaged from the ruins in a composition would be enough to speak to the viewers and let them know what the photo is all about is very presumptuous. Had I not just been there last year including that in the picture would tell me nothing.
Your comment is unnecessary and overly cynical.
You ask if I am "so arrogant to think that you can convey a complete story in a single image to all who may view it? " Yes, if you consider that arrogant, then I guess I am arrogant.
You also ask if I think "that there is no chance of a viewer translating your image and shaping it into their own personal story? " Why in God's name would I be stupid enough to think that? It's quite possible that you've never read the quotes with my signature - and there's no real reason why you should have read them - but take a second and read the quote from Magnum photographer Leonard Freed, who notes that
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is. Otherwise it would be propaganda." I don't know about you, but I certainly expect people to take different things away from my photos, to each tell their own story, based on their own life experiences, belief systems, etc. One of the exercises I give my MIT and Harvard students involves showing them a photo and asking that they write the first 750-800 words of a short story about what they see in the photo, and the variation in what they come up with is both astounding and inspiring.
My point, which you either don't get or refuse to acknowledge, is that while this is a gorgeous photo, it does not stand by itself as a photo that says "ground zero." Therefore, I personally don't consider it a success as a documentary photo. It would work extremely well as part of a series of photos of ground zero, because we would undoubtedly know from the other photos what we were looking at.
By the way, in my arrogance, I tell my students that the 1500 word text they have to write as part of their documentary photo project must by itself, without the photos, tell the story they are trying to convey. And their 20 photos must tell the story without the text.
You ask if I am "so arrogant to think that you can convey a complete story in a single image to all who may view it? " Yes, if you consider that arrogant, then I guess I am arrogant.
My point, which you either don't get or refuse to acknowledge, is that while this is a gorgeous photo, it does not stand by itself as a photo that says "ground zero." Therefore, I personally don't consider it a success as a documentary photo. It would work extremely well as part of a series of photos of ground zero, because we would undoubtedly know from the other photos what we were looking at.
I get your point, got it from the moment I read it. That's when I asked you why you said it. There is nothing in the guidelines for the "Street & PJ" forum that states any photo posted in this forum must be able to stand on its own by telling a complete story. The OP's photo, even without the title/caption fall into the guidelines set forth for this forum. While you state that you think it is a gorgeous photo you then feel the need to knock it down based on criteria that you have imposed. So that's my real issue, and that's where you start to come across to me as arrogant. The discussion on what makes a "documentary" photograph is just a side car which I also don't agree with you on. We don't have to agree on that either, that's fine, it still doesn't change the fact that there was no reason for you to add your comment that sent us down this path.
I get your point, got it from the moment I read it. That's when I asked you why you said it. There is nothing in the guidelines for the "Street & PJ" forum that states any photo posted in this forum must be able to stand on its own by telling a complete story. The OP's photo, even without the title/caption fall into the guidelines set forth for this forum. While you state that you think it is a gorgeous photo you then feel the need to knock it down based on criteria that you have imposed. So that's my real issue, and that's where you start to come across to me as arrogant. The discussion on what makes a "documentary" photograph is just a side car which I also don't agree with you on. We don't have to agree on that either, that's fine, it still doesn't change the fact that there was no reason for you to add your comment that sent us down this path.
BD is here to lend his expertise, which is extensive, and legitimized by his photography and his many years of teaching PJ at the college level. Not that he needs anyone to defend him, and not that everyone agrees with every point he makes - it's the differences in opinions than make the forum interesting (in my opinion). My advice - not that you need my advice - is to take what you want and leave the rest rather than interpreting his comments as some kind of indictment against you or your photography, or reason to do battle.
My advice - not that you need my advice - is to take what you want and leave the rest rather than interpreting his comments as some kind of indictment against you or your photography, or reason to do battle.
Indeed.
Discussions of categories and standards always provoke disagreement here. Personally, I find it stimulating and as long as people remain civil about it, I think it's a good thing.
I do think that we need to be a little careful about applying standards appropriately. Digitalfarmer made no claim in the original post to be doing documentary photography, and his shot certainly could be considered fine art. So even if you accept BD's insistence on telling the whole story by the image alone, it may not be relevant. Nobody ever criticized HCB for being a lousy landscape photographer.
Nevertheless, it is interesting to think about whether it would even be possible to tell the whole "out of the rubble" story in a single image. I rather doubt it, frankly, but maybe next time BD's in NYC he can prove me wrong.
BD is here to lend his expertise, which is extensive, and legitimized by his photography and his many years of teaching PJ at the college level. Not that he needs anyone to defend him, and not that everyone agrees with every point he makes - it's the differences in opinions than make the forum interesting (in my opinion). My advice - not that you need my advice - is to take what you want and leave the rest rather than interpreting his comments as some kind of indictment against you or your photography, or reason to do battle.
took the words out of my mouth!
I enjoyed the shot myself as I posted earlier.
I was not surprised when B.D. gave it the comment he did. I don't always agree with him, but I also know that what little knowledge I have of Pj/street can fit in his pinky. So I would think that one would mull over what he says and instead of getting all defensive about it try and analyze it. It's still ok to disagree of course.
No one says that an image posted in pj/street MUST fit a certain mold, or MUST stand alone. He just gave some advise as to how the image could be better in his opinion and if your image could go from "gorgeous shot" to oustanding, why not at least mull it over?
I liked the idea someone posted about something showing that this is is even NYC, such as a cab, nypd emblem etc. that was IMO a pretty great suggestion.
Again, not that he needs to be defended, but why get so defensive. The man does know what he's talking about.
BD is here to lend his expertise, which is extensive, and legitimized by his photography and his many years of teaching PJ at the college level. Not that he needs anyone to defend him, and not that everyone agrees with every point he makes - it's the differences in opinions than make the forum interesting (in my opinion). My advice - not that you need my advice - is to take what you want and leave the rest rather than interpreting his comments as some kind of indictment against you or your photography, or reason to do battle.
There was no interpretation, and it's not my image, and to suggest that BD hasn't made a mistake here merely because of his curriculum vitae is itself a mistake.
Go look back at your earlier post,
There was no interpretation, and it's not my image, and to suggest that BD hasn't made a mistake here merely because of his curriculum vitae is itself a mistake.
Go look back at your earlier post, The image is meaningless without its caption? Really!? Unbelievable!
Here is the entire quote:
>I agree with BD. Without the caption, it is meaningless.
But, it is what it is: it does have a caption, and because I happened to know the history and frame of reference, it affected me in a powerful way and I stand by my above comments.>
Without the background information, sorry, the image would not have the impact it had on me. As a stand-alone image, it is well-constructed, but other than that, sorry, nothing.
Here is the entire quote:
>I agree with BD. Without the caption, it is meaningless.
But, it is what it is: it does have a caption, and because I happened to know the history and frame of reference, it affected me in a powerful way and I stand by my above comments.>
Without the background information, sorry, the image would not have the impact it had on me. As a stand-alone image, it is well-constructed, but other than that, sorry, nothing.
So you stand by that?
Without the caption, it is meaningless.
Because I don't see how the rest of your post justifies that.
DigitalFarmer made no such idealistic claims, and the "Street & PJ" Guidelines do not require only images that can stand on their own. While DigitalFarmer does welcome C&C I find the assertion that the image is meaningless without title/caption to be irrelevant bashing, equivalent to saying the image was worthless because you can't see Justin Bieber.
But whatever, the challenge still stands, show me an image that stands on it's own and tells a complete story. Standing on it's own without the viewer having any attachment, association, or assistance from other medium.
As I also mentioned before head over to The Big Picture take a look at some of the best PJ/Docu work in the world. All of them have captions, see how many would tell their complete story without a caption or prior knowledge.
How about a horrible image of an oil soaked gull, in the water, do you assume you know that it is from the Gulf of Mexico, or would you think it was from Dalian harbor, what if I managed to change the angle to get a person of Asian decent in the picture? Would you instantly have the whole picture then.
So you stand by that?
Without the caption, it is meaningless.
Because I don't see how the rest of your post justifies that.
DigitalFarmer made no such idealistic claims, and the "Street & PJ" Guidelines do not require only images that can stand on their own. While DigitalFarmer does welcome C&C I find the assertion that the image is meaningless without title/caption to be irrelevant bashing, equivalent to saying the image was worthless because you can't see Justin Bieber.
But whatever, the challenge still stands, show me an image that stands on it's own and tells a complete story. Standing on it's own without the viewer having any attachment, association, or assistance from other medium.
As I also mentioned before head over to The Big Picture take a look at some of the best PJ/Docu work in the world. All of them have captions, see how many would tell their complete story without a caption or prior knowledge.
How about a horrible image of an oil soaked gull, in the water, do you assume you know that it is from the Gulf of Mexico, or would you think it was from Dalian harbor, what if I managed to change the angle to get a person of Asian decent in the picture? Would you instantly have the whole picture then.
This last paragraph makes it clear that you are such a literalist you can't possibly get what I'm talking about. I don't need to know which particular oil spill coated the gull. Frankly, I don't care. Oil soaked gull? Man's fouling of nature. I get it without knowing when and where it was taken, without a caption spelling out "Gull covered with oil from BP Horizon Gulf of Mexico Spill." But the gorgeous photo of that building? Aftermath of destruction? Or simply on going construction? New York? Or any number of major cities? Again, it's a terrific image that I can appreciate, and provide my own story for. But FOR ME, NOT FOR YOU, if it's supposed to say 9/11, it fails. Period.
This last paragraph makes it clear that you are such a literalist you can't possibly get what I'm talking about. I don't need to know which particular oil spill coated the gull. Frankly, I don't care. Oil soaked gull? Man's fouling of nature. I get it without knowing when and where it was taken, without a caption spelling out "Gull covered with oil from BP Horizon Gulf of Mexico Spill." But the gorgeous photo of that building? Aftermath of destruction? Or simply on going construction? New York? Or any number of major cities? Again, it's a terrific image that I can appreciate, and provide my own story for. But FOR ME, NOT FOR YOU, if it's supposed to say 9/11, it fails. Period.
Wow, so it's OK for you to impart your own conclusion on the picture of the gull and label it as mans fouling of nature if it has no caption. But if it did have the caption as you stated "Gull covered with oil from BP Horizon Gulf of Mexico Spill."? The picture is then a fail? Because that's what happened with this post. The OP decides to add a caption to a gorgeous image to aid the viewer and you decide to tear him apart, but had he not added the caption you would have been content with labeling the picture in your own view and creating your own story and it would then have been a good documentary picture in your mind. Because like the gull it doesn't matter where or when or under what circumstances the images was shot you have your own personaly biased view of the world with which to create the story.
FTW - You are tearing down this artist and photo because it doesn't specifically say 9/11, New York, or aftermath of destruction. But I'm the literalist...
Nice attempt at trying to turn it around,
None of the above changes the ultimate point, there was no call for knocking down the image for not meeting your definition of "Documentary Photo" in the first place.
If you are ever interested in discussing this over a phone call or in person let me know. I'll buy the coffee.
Taking over a thread on a message board by taking a part of the original posted topic, twisting it around and "hijacking" the thread itself. What happens is that the original content contained in the post becomes moot and whatever the "Thread Jacker" has manipulated the content to be becomes the new content thereby "hijacking" the original intent of post. People now respond to the "thread jacker's" input and the that becomes the focus of the tread.
This thread is no longer about my image, I have removed it.
Technically I think the image is excellent both in terms of composition, detail and tonal range
and, speaking as a non US citizen.....
If this image were uncaptioned there would be nothing to tell me that it is Ground Zero. That said I can recognise from the skyline that it is most probably NYC (it's certainly not London). This in turn allows me to speculate that it might be Ground Zero.
My response to the picture is therefore two-fold. First an appreciation of the quality of the image itself and secondly whether it is 'simply' a stunning shot or whether it has a greater significance that I should be aware of. Whether I wish to leave it at that or enquire further then becomes my decision and is determined by how strongly the image has effected me and my desire to find out more. On this, and on many other occasions, I welcome the fact that the image was captioned. This informs my thinking and allows me to appreciate both the image itself and it's significance.
I enjoy the debates, discussions and differences of opinion voiced in this forum, many of which BD acts as the catalyst for. Long may this continue.
Syncopation
The virtue of the camera is not the power it has to transform the photographer into an artist, but the impulse it gives him to keep on looking. - Brook Atkinson- 1951
First off, I think it's an amazing image, captioned or not.
When I first saw the caption and the picture, I thought "oh, a construction site". The OP didn't have a location under their avatar, so I didn't have a frame of reference. I enjoyed the tonal qualities, subject matter, lines, people and such. It was only after the dialogue began that I realized just where the picture was taken. And I'm fairly in-tune with news and what's going on, but I didn't make the connection.
Syncopation, in my opinion, describes much of what I take away from the image and discussion. For those who have been directly affected, there is probably considerably more meaning to the image than those less affected.
Comments
What would I change about this image? Absolutely nothing. I love the shot as it is. I said that I don't get "ground zero" from this image without being told. And, frankly, I don't care *where* it is...this is a gorgeous shot.
Same here.
It's a very good image - but could be any (large scale) construction site, imo.
<< Now that may not mean the same to our non-USA friends here >>
I doubt that there are many people in the UK (with at least 2 brain cells) who aren't familiar with the term - and its significance.
<< So how then, I challenge, would you or BD photograph the construction going on at ground zero so as to let everyone viewing know beyond doubt that "this is an image of ground zero" without titling or captioning. >>
I've never been, so I have no idea of what the environment has to offer in the way of uniquely identifyinq the site in this way - but wouldn't the (subtle / unobtrusive) presence of vehicles with NY plates / NY company logos / NYPD (and other uniformed officials) possibly be worth consideration?
I initially viewed this (when first posted) as it happened to be the latest post and therefore on the front page - and since I assumed that it would be a pic of the construction and I was curious to see what stage it was at, I looked.
I left, thinking - good job - but - to someone like me, unfamiliar with the skyline / surroundings - it could've been taken anywhere ...
pp
Flickr
That's not what I asked, The challenge was "So how then, I challenge, would you or BD photograph the construction going on at ground zero so as to let everyone viewing know beyond doubt that "this is an image of ground zero" without titling or captioning."
I'm certain that Ground Zero is not the only location in NY with construction going on, so taxis, uniforms and the like wont speciffically distiquish the area as Ground Zero. Street signs would have no relevance to me, I've been there and I couldn't tell you the address, so including them in your composition would not seal the "Complete Story" deal.
Maybe then, we hire a homeless guy, with a carboard sign stating, "This is Ground Zero"
I"m not arguing that this image clearly states "Ground Zero" I'm arguing that an image needing or being improved upon with titling and/or captioning isn't any less of and image. I'll go further in arguing that the "story" of most images without titling/captioning would be up for interpretation. Even those with titling/captioning will have different impacts on different viewers.
Keith Tharp.com - Champion Photo
Thanks for the reply, bd, and I do understand your point of view about this image.
AZFred
You ask if I am "so arrogant to think that you can convey a complete story in a single image to all who may view it? " Yes, if you consider that arrogant, then I guess I am arrogant.
You also ask if I think "that there is no chance of a viewer translating your image and shaping it into their own personal story? " Why in God's name would I be stupid enough to think that? It's quite possible that you've never read the quotes with my signature - and there's no real reason why you should have read them - but take a second and read the quote from Magnum photographer Leonard Freed, who notes that
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is. Otherwise it would be propaganda." I don't know about you, but I certainly expect people to take different things away from my photos, to each tell their own story, based on their own life experiences, belief systems, etc. One of the exercises I give my MIT and Harvard students involves showing them a photo and asking that they write the first 750-800 words of a short story about what they see in the photo, and the variation in what they come up with is both astounding and inspiring.
My point, which you either don't get or refuse to acknowledge, is that while this is a gorgeous photo, it does not stand by itself as a photo that says "ground zero." Therefore, I personally don't consider it a success as a documentary photo. It would work extremely well as part of a series of photos of ground zero, because we would undoubtedly know from the other photos what we were looking at.
By the way, in my arrogance, I tell my students that the 1500 word text they have to write as part of their documentary photo project must by itself, without the photos, tell the story they are trying to convey. And their 20 photos must tell the story without the text.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
I get your point, got it from the moment I read it. That's when I asked you why you said it. There is nothing in the guidelines for the "Street & PJ" forum that states any photo posted in this forum must be able to stand on its own by telling a complete story. The OP's photo, even without the title/caption fall into the guidelines set forth for this forum. While you state that you think it is a gorgeous photo you then feel the need to knock it down based on criteria that you have imposed. So that's my real issue, and that's where you start to come across to me as arrogant. The discussion on what makes a "documentary" photograph is just a side car which I also don't agree with you on. We don't have to agree on that either, that's fine, it still doesn't change the fact that there was no reason for you to add your comment that sent us down this path.
Keith Tharp.com - Champion Photo
BD is here to lend his expertise, which is extensive, and legitimized by his photography and his many years of teaching PJ at the college level. Not that he needs anyone to defend him, and not that everyone agrees with every point he makes - it's the differences in opinions than make the forum interesting (in my opinion). My advice - not that you need my advice - is to take what you want and leave the rest rather than interpreting his comments as some kind of indictment against you or your photography, or reason to do battle.
www.SaraPiazza.com - Edgartown News - Trad Diary - Facebook
Indeed.
Discussions of categories and standards always provoke disagreement here. Personally, I find it stimulating and as long as people remain civil about it, I think it's a good thing.
I do think that we need to be a little careful about applying standards appropriately. Digitalfarmer made no claim in the original post to be doing documentary photography, and his shot certainly could be considered fine art. So even if you accept BD's insistence on telling the whole story by the image alone, it may not be relevant. Nobody ever criticized HCB for being a lousy landscape photographer.
Nevertheless, it is interesting to think about whether it would even be possible to tell the whole "out of the rubble" story in a single image. I rather doubt it, frankly, but maybe next time BD's in NYC he can prove me wrong.
took the words out of my mouth!
I enjoyed the shot myself as I posted earlier.
I was not surprised when B.D. gave it the comment he did. I don't always agree with him, but I also know that what little knowledge I have of Pj/street can fit in his pinky. So I would think that one would mull over what he says and instead of getting all defensive about it try and analyze it. It's still ok to disagree of course.
No one says that an image posted in pj/street MUST fit a certain mold, or MUST stand alone. He just gave some advise as to how the image could be better in his opinion and if your image could go from "gorgeous shot" to oustanding, why not at least mull it over?
I liked the idea someone posted about something showing that this is is even NYC, such as a cab, nypd emblem etc. that was IMO a pretty great suggestion.
Again, not that he needs to be defended, but why get so defensive. The man does know what he's talking about.
_________
Go look back at your earlier post, The image is meaningless without its caption? Really!? Unbelievable!
Keith Tharp.com - Champion Photo
Here is the entire quote:
>I agree with BD. Without the caption, it is meaningless.
But, it is what it is: it does have a caption, and because I happened to know the history and frame of reference, it affected me in a powerful way and I stand by my above comments.>
Without the background information, sorry, the image would not have the impact it had on me. As a stand-alone image, it is well-constructed, but other than that, sorry, nothing.
www.SaraPiazza.com - Edgartown News - Trad Diary - Facebook
Without the caption, it is meaningless.
Because I don't see how the rest of your post justifies that.
DigitalFarmer made no such idealistic claims, and the "Street & PJ" Guidelines do not require only images that can stand on their own. While DigitalFarmer does welcome C&C I find the assertion that the image is meaningless without title/caption to be irrelevant bashing, equivalent to saying the image was worthless because you can't see Justin Bieber.
But whatever, the challenge still stands, show me an image that stands on it's own and tells a complete story. Standing on it's own without the viewer having any attachment, association, or assistance from other medium.
As I also mentioned before head over to The Big Picture take a look at some of the best PJ/Docu work in the world. All of them have captions, see how many would tell their complete story without a caption or prior knowledge.
How about a horrible image of an oil soaked gull, in the water, do you assume you know that it is from the Gulf of Mexico, or would you think it was from Dalian harbor, what if I managed to change the angle to get a person of Asian decent in the picture? Would you instantly have the whole picture then.
Keith Tharp.com - Champion Photo
Keith Tharp.com - Champion Photo
This last paragraph makes it clear that you are such a literalist you can't possibly get what I'm talking about. I don't need to know which particular oil spill coated the gull. Frankly, I don't care. Oil soaked gull? Man's fouling of nature. I get it without knowing when and where it was taken, without a caption spelling out "Gull covered with oil from BP Horizon Gulf of Mexico Spill." But the gorgeous photo of that building? Aftermath of destruction? Or simply on going construction? New York? Or any number of major cities? Again, it's a terrific image that I can appreciate, and provide my own story for. But FOR ME, NOT FOR YOU, if it's supposed to say 9/11, it fails. Period.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
Wow, so it's OK for you to impart your own conclusion on the picture of the gull and label it as mans fouling of nature if it has no caption. But if it did have the caption as you stated "Gull covered with oil from BP Horizon Gulf of Mexico Spill."? The picture is then a fail? Because that's what happened with this post. The OP decides to add a caption to a gorgeous image to aid the viewer and you decide to tear him apart, but had he not added the caption you would have been content with labeling the picture in your own view and creating your own story and it would then have been a good documentary picture in your mind. Because like the gull it doesn't matter where or when or under what circumstances the images was shot you have your own personaly biased view of the world with which to create the story.
FTW - You are tearing down this artist and photo because it doesn't specifically say 9/11, New York, or aftermath of destruction. But I'm the literalist...
Nice attempt at trying to turn it around,
None of the above changes the ultimate point, there was no call for knocking down the image for not meeting your definition of "Documentary Photo" in the first place.
If you are ever interested in discussing this over a phone call or in person let me know. I'll buy the coffee.
Keith Tharp.com - Champion Photo
www.SaraPiazza.com - Edgartown News - Trad Diary - Facebook
Critique is fine as is a good discussion as long as it's kept civil. My note was a reminder of that.
Please accept my sicerest apologies,
Keith Tharp.com - Champion Photo
It's not supposed to say 9/11.
It doesn't say anything at the moment. I really wish you would restore the pic.
If I post it, please tell me how to make it better. My fragile ego can take it.
When two moderators step in and ask posters to keep things on track, I believe that we have moved away from critique.
This was my attempt at moderating this thread. I will post the image again.
for reposting your image.
AZFred
If I post it, please tell me how to make it better. My fragile ego can take it.
Keith Tharp.com - Champion Photo
Keith Tharp.com - Champion Photo
and, speaking as a non US citizen.....
If this image were uncaptioned there would be nothing to tell me that it is Ground Zero. That said I can recognise from the skyline that it is most probably NYC (it's certainly not London). This in turn allows me to speculate that it might be Ground Zero.
My response to the picture is therefore two-fold. First an appreciation of the quality of the image itself and secondly whether it is 'simply' a stunning shot or whether it has a greater significance that I should be aware of. Whether I wish to leave it at that or enquire further then becomes my decision and is determined by how strongly the image has effected me and my desire to find out more. On this, and on many other occasions, I welcome the fact that the image was captioned. This informs my thinking and allows me to appreciate both the image itself and it's significance.
I enjoy the debates, discussions and differences of opinion voiced in this forum, many of which BD acts as the catalyst for. Long may this continue.
The virtue of the camera is not the power it has to transform the photographer into an artist, but the impulse it gives him to keep on looking. - Brook Atkinson- 1951
When I first saw the caption and the picture, I thought "oh, a construction site". The OP didn't have a location under their avatar, so I didn't have a frame of reference. I enjoyed the tonal qualities, subject matter, lines, people and such. It was only after the dialogue began that I realized just where the picture was taken. And I'm fairly in-tune with news and what's going on, but I didn't make the connection.
Syncopation, in my opinion, describes much of what I take away from the image and discussion. For those who have been directly affected, there is probably considerably more meaning to the image than those less affected.
Again, caption or not, it's still amazing.