Scottish Festival
RyanS
Registered Users Posts: 507 Major grins
Due to inclement weather I was unable to complete a full essay.
1.
2.
3.
4.
It was odd attending a Scottish festival where no alcohol was allowed. Everyone was carrying around flagons of root beer... pretending to be drunk.
1.
2.
3.
4.
It was odd attending a Scottish festival where no alcohol was allowed. Everyone was carrying around flagons of root beer... pretending to be drunk.
Please feel free to post any reworks you do of my images. Crop, skew, munge, edit, share.
Website | Galleries | Utah PJs
Website | Galleries | Utah PJs
0
Comments
for black and white? I don't think black and white adds anything, and color
would...especially in #1 and #2.
This must not be the Scottish Games that I've been to. I guess the event
being in Utah must have something to with the dry rule. It makes me wonder
what March 17th must be like in Utah.
Nice pix, though.
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/
Thanks Tony. Why B&W? Honesty. Plain and simple. I wrote you a deeper reply, but then I realized that it was too personal for an Internet forum. Abridged version: It is this way because this is an honest representation of the way I felt when I took the image. That honesty of feeling probably won't (and shouldn't) appeal to everyone. Perhaps no one will gather the emotion in the form in which it is presented. That would make me kind of sad, but it is still how I honestly feel. Being successful in that conveyance of emotional quality is what separates jerks like me, and success. I know that every day I pick up the camera I am going to fail. I do it any way. *shrug*
This is rooted in some rather strong personal views I have regarding truth and honesty. I think they are related, but I do not think they are the same thing. I really would love to talk to you more about it, but maybe in person, over a cold one. Next time you're in Utah let's talk.
Website | Galleries | Utah PJs
I certainly wouldn't want you to change any deep-rooted personal convictions, but
you should understand that all I'm looking at is the photograph presented. I can't
see the underlying motives present when you took it.
I still have this odd-ball feeling that photographs here stand on their own
and comments about them should be about the photographs...not the titles,
not that comments are above or below the image, and not that explanations
of the conditions present when the photograph was taken leads to seeing
the photograph differently. It's all in the photograph itself as far as I'm
concerned.
When we take a photograph and share it, we are sharing a moment in time
that we saw, captured, and sent on for others to see. All we are sending
on is the graphical representation of that moment.
All I was wondering about is why the choice of black and white over color.
Did you feel it made a stronger image rendered thusly? I had no idea that
the motivation was deeper than that, and meant no offense for bringing
it up.
Frankly, I have no idea how a black and white image represents truth and
honesty of a group of people celebrating their ancestral roots any better
that a color image would, but if you do, then that's what you should do.
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/
I think I understand what you mean, and thank you. For me it _has_ to be this way. It cannot be presented in any other way. If it were reinterpreted, then it becomes your image, not mine. I actually wish we shared more. I think that having someone else re-interpret an image is totally exhilarating. If you want, Tony, I'll send you the RAW file (with all its warts) of any one of these frames. Ansel Adams had a famous way he described this:
Can you imagine the honor and joy I would feel if someone wanted to perform one of my "scores?" I would be beside myself with glee. Perhaps that is why he donated his negatives to be used in exactly that manor upon his death. Ansel used that analogy so much it became a bit cliché, but I think he was spot on. I would be so happy if someone took this on, because that would mean I had created something that someone felt was worth performing! I don't expect anyone to take me up on my offer, but it is open to anyone. I bet a few people could perform the score better than the composer. Wouldn't that be cool?
Some day I hope to create better "scores." The kind that many people would want to perform.
In my opinion it is, and it isn't. When you associate anything with a photograph it completely changes the way many people experience it. The aesthetics totally change with a single word of text, an object, a symbol, a location, etc. When I originally posted the dance rehearsal essay pics, I added two words of text ("The X." to each image - on purpose - to enforce a narrative. The feedback I got was excellent, which summed up was: "You ended up writing the narrative." Which I totally understand, because that is exactly what I intended to do. What I realized, however, is that I went too far. It was too much. Even with a single word. I removed the text, and by golly I think it got stronger. The feedback was good.
Perhaps not everyone is swayed as much (or at all) by the "meta" information associated with an image? I would certainly believe that is possible based on my life experiences.
The really great photographs that I admire carry more than just an emperical record of a point in time for me. They carry a great deal of emotion. At least, that is how I see them. That is why BD can take a picture of something seemingly at random, but I can get something emotional out of it. I have no idea if BD felt any emotion when he took the image, but I feel what I feel. Ya know?
http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=219544
BD's thread that I keep coming back to. I never elaborated in my comment. Quite frankly, the emotional response I get from his images is mine, it is personal, it is unmistakably powerful, and there doesn't have to be a reason. It just happens. To me, his three images have the same emotional quality. I have no idea if BD experienced the same mood when he created them, but that is the way I experience them. I may very well be creating something from nothing in my mind, but that is precisely how I view photographs of this variety. I do not think "Oh, what a nice day in the park." That is because in these excellent images I don't have to think at all. I experience it emotionally. Maybe another way to describe what I feel would be like experiencing a memory.
I didn't feel you were trying to offend. I got what you meant. For me, in these images, it has nothing to do with the graphical quality. It is an emotional response. Why does it work that way? I don't know. People who study aesthetics could probably drone on about it. All I know is that it is the way it is, for me. It represents an emotion. A color version does not. Your comment prompted me to self-examine, so I created a color rendition. Was it a better image? Perhaps it was, from an empirical point of view. However, from my emotional point of view it _felt_ exactly wrong, dishonest, and just plain - empty.
Just think "Yup, Ryan is insane. This guy is nuts." And you'll be safe from the voices....
Website | Galleries | Utah PJs
presentation.
However, to me, the emotion involved in a photograph is the emotion the
photograph generates in the viewer. We don't know the emotion of the
photographer.
Two photographs: one of a group of down-and-out people in a soup kitchen
and one of a child playing with a puppy in the yard. Both could be taken by a photographer
suffering from a kidney stone ailment, just fired from his job, and a person
whose cat was run over by a car that morning. None of the photographer's
state is reflected in the photographs, but one shows suffering and one shows joy.
We might render the soup kitchen in black and white to present the starkness
of the setting and the futility in the expressions of the subjects. Black and
white tends to flatten the scene and mute distractions. The eye is not drawn
to red pants or any bright colors in the scene.
The photo of the child playing with the puppy might best be done in color.
Joy and fun seem to come out better in color. The flush of color of the
child's face, the pink tongue of the puppy, and the warm colors of the
grass all say "joy".
Neither choice is a "rule", though. Both could work either way.
The only emotional aspect of the photographer that I pick up is the
usual choice of subject matter by the photographer. The photographer
who routinely seeks out the soup-kitchen-type scene is likely to be
the type of person who gets involved with his scene. The photographer
who seeks out kids and puppies and flowers and puffy clouds is less
involved unless they are his/her kids and puppies. (And then there
are photographers, like me, with eclectic interest who seek out both
scenes.)
I think it is all about the photograph and not the feelings of
the photographer. If the photo doesn't capture the desperation of
the subjects in the soup kitchen, or the exhilaration of the child with
the puppy, the photograph fails no matter how it is rendered or
what the photographer was feeling at the time.
The reason I brought up color in your Scottish photographs is that
this is a happy scene...people enjoying themselves...people dressing
up in a costume of sorts. It's not a gray and dreary scene.
That's just the emotion I felt, though. That doesn't mean that I think
you are wrong for seeing it differently.
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/