With a gap of three weeks between posts, some may have wondered if this was a flash in the pan. While I have had family and work (and therefore sleep!) obligations crop up, I want to say I have a number of ideas accumulated, a number of photographer permissions to use pictures received, and continued interest in pursuing this approach to my interest in rail photography. I expect going forward that I will continue to post at least every two weeks, with some waves of extra effort and, necessarily, the occasional hiccup, leading to the occasional gap in timing of new material. The effort is harder than I expected (individual posts are not put together in 10 minutes but take contemplation over time as well as writing and rewriting to bring ideas to final fruition).
Please continue to check back occasionally; I intend to continue to provide commentary worth your time. Toward that end, I now provide RSS links on the right hand side of this page.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Scott Lothes: Bridges
Scott Lothes (website here; take a look at the image on his home page!!) has graciously offered to have me write about some of his shots. He sent me six and I have chosen these two for discussion. Neither is the best nor the worst (least good?) of the six, but both serve as exemplars of his style without additional complications. These are different shots of the same bridge, one Scott has been "working on" for some time.
My first observation is simply that his style here is different than I am accustomed to. I am used to looking at rail and non-rail landscapes that are somewhat dramatic, colorful (or broader tonality in B/W) and sharp.
These shots are interesting to me because they are just the opposite; the effects are subtle. Yes, they are silhouettes, but the light in them is neither colorful nor bright. The light is quite dull, both faded and subtle in shading. They approach B/W in feel, in emphasis on tonality, yet by retaining what appears to be natural color, they retain a presence in reality.
This is my bias; while I love good B/W work, my reaction to it has always involved an element of distancing from the subject, an abstraction. While viewing a B/W shot, I never feel as though I am standing trackside myself; rather, I absorb the image much as I would a painting. Thus, I view B/W work as a bridge, to some extent, between the realism inherent in photography and the abstraction in painting.
Back to these shots. I have mixed preferences here; I like some aspects of each shot. The first shot has more implied action, in the cloud bank moving in and in the lights on the distant shore under the bridge, a motion in time rather than space, towards nightfall or daybreak.
I also see the pattern of the wavelets in the water. I notice these wavelets in particular because I am a windsurfer (lapsed, I should say) and I have learned to see the wind coming/shifting through them. There is a zone, a triangle at the lower left, continued a bit somewhat higher, just in front of the left end of the bridge. [I'll make the probably obvious comment that we all bring our own experiences to bear when we look at an image.]
The shot has an interesting three-zone layout, sky at the top, then darker cloud with dark, then light water. At the same time, this is the major weakness of the shot, in my view. I find that the bridge and the train get just a bit lost in the darkness. My reaction would be less so were there not brighter areas elsewhere in the frame. Also, the bridge separate poorly from the darkness of the far short below the bridge, especially on the left side.
The second shot is simpler, a more pure silhouette, albeit one with more going on in the darker elements. The medium tone of the distant port, to the right of the bridge pier, is a nice second focal point. [Again, my experiential baggage, I love ports. Does your eye go to this area of the shot the way mine does?] The birds bring an element of life to the shot, always dynamic, that the first shot lacks.
However, it has less interesting color, sort of like a sepia in that there is one dominant hue, whereas the first shot has a bit of yellow/orange in the sky, a bit more reddish in the quieter water in the lower left corner, and some bluish in the clouds (the latter I think is actually not part of the actual hue, but my brain basically puts it there as a response to the entire image). The image is a bit hazy, in a way which seems to be part of the style but I personally don't find interesting. Again, I tend to like things to be more dramatic.
[It occurs to me that another dimension of this is that these images by Scott are not razor sharp; that does not bother me at all and I think that aspect intentionally contributes to the muted feel of the shots overall, but I know some will find it a distinct shortfall in image quality.]
The question of drama is a good point to end on. There are various levels of pizazz in images. These shots feature reduced tonal and color drama in favor of other elements. The amount of drama is one of many choices in our palette of style elements. Ultimately, I doubt I will become a fan of this style of shooting. But exposure to it, and seeing and contemplating what it does and what it conveys, helps in gaining a broader appreciation of photography.
By the way, take a look at Scott's website, which has a modest number of excellent shots, culled from a larger body of work as among his best. If your tastes run toward mine, you will find plenty of interest, with notable differences in styles. I would argue that many of those shots are "better" than the two here, but of course that reflects my preferences. I would love to write about the others down the road, and thanks to Scott's further permission, I will!
My first observation is simply that his style here is different than I am accustomed to. I am used to looking at rail and non-rail landscapes that are somewhat dramatic, colorful (or broader tonality in B/W) and sharp.
These shots are interesting to me because they are just the opposite; the effects are subtle. Yes, they are silhouettes, but the light in them is neither colorful nor bright. The light is quite dull, both faded and subtle in shading. They approach B/W in feel, in emphasis on tonality, yet by retaining what appears to be natural color, they retain a presence in reality. 
This is my bias; while I love good B/W work, my reaction to it has always involved an element of distancing from the subject, an abstraction. While viewing a B/W shot, I never feel as though I am standing trackside myself; rather, I absorb the image much as I would a painting. Thus, I view B/W work as a bridge, to some extent, between the realism inherent in photography and the abstraction in painting.Back to these shots. I have mixed preferences here; I like some aspects of each shot. The first shot has more implied action, in the cloud bank moving in and in the lights on the distant shore under the bridge, a motion in time rather than space, towards nightfall or daybreak.
I also see the pattern of the wavelets in the water. I notice these wavelets in particular because I am a windsurfer (lapsed, I should say) and I have learned to see the wind coming/shifting through them. There is a zone, a triangle at the lower left, continued a bit somewhat higher, just in front of the left end of the bridge. [I'll make the probably obvious comment that we all bring our own experiences to bear when we look at an image.]
The shot has an interesting three-zone layout, sky at the top, then darker cloud with dark, then light water. At the same time, this is the major weakness of the shot, in my view. I find that the bridge and the train get just a bit lost in the darkness. My reaction would be less so were there not brighter areas elsewhere in the frame. Also, the bridge separate poorly from the darkness of the far short below the bridge, especially on the left side.
The second shot is simpler, a more pure silhouette, albeit one with more going on in the darker elements. The medium tone of the distant port, to the right of the bridge pier, is a nice second focal point. [Again, my experiential baggage, I love ports. Does your eye go to this area of the shot the way mine does?] The birds bring an element of life to the shot, always dynamic, that the first shot lacks.
However, it has less interesting color, sort of like a sepia in that there is one dominant hue, whereas the first shot has a bit of yellow/orange in the sky, a bit more reddish in the quieter water in the lower left corner, and some bluish in the clouds (the latter I think is actually not part of the actual hue, but my brain basically puts it there as a response to the entire image). The image is a bit hazy, in a way which seems to be part of the style but I personally don't find interesting. Again, I tend to like things to be more dramatic.
[It occurs to me that another dimension of this is that these images by Scott are not razor sharp; that does not bother me at all and I think that aspect intentionally contributes to the muted feel of the shots overall, but I know some will find it a distinct shortfall in image quality.]
The question of drama is a good point to end on. There are various levels of pizazz in images. These shots feature reduced tonal and color drama in favor of other elements. The amount of drama is one of many choices in our palette of style elements. Ultimately, I doubt I will become a fan of this style of shooting. But exposure to it, and seeing and contemplating what it does and what it conveys, helps in gaining a broader appreciation of photography.
By the way, take a look at Scott's website, which has a modest number of excellent shots, culled from a larger body of work as among his best. If your tastes run toward mine, you will find plenty of interest, with notable differences in styles. I would argue that many of those shots are "better" than the two here, but of course that reflects my preferences. I would love to write about the others down the road, and thanks to Scott's further permission, I will!
Sunday, June 8, 2008
2009 CRPA Contest Theme
The 2009 contest theme is "light impressions." I should take some time and mull over what this means, especially given that photography is all about capturing light. My initial thought (after having read the additional text in the announcement, link above) is that this means any sort of light except plain light. In other words, an image that has some combination of interesting pattern, texture, line, form, and color, but nothing interesting or noteworthy about the light, will not do well.
So, while light is an important element in photography, one can get excellent shots which emphasize other dimensions. For example, it is often suggested that outdoor portraiture can be done well when it is overcast, because then the light is soft and thus more flattering. I view "light impressions" as excluding shots for which light is not a predominant defining factor. My suspicion is that this excludes much mid-day rail photography - even during times of the year when "high sun" is not a factor - because, while the subject are well-lit, they are not necessarily lit in an interesting way. A well done sunny postcard-style landscape shot is a well done shot, but is not artistic in how it uses light.
However, the guidelines make explicit reference to "mid-day light"! How about that! As I shoot most of the time in such conditions, unfriendly to interesting light, I will be contemplating what one can do during that part of the day.
The included image may not be the ideal illustration for "light impressions" but it is at least interesting in that dimension, and I feel a bit lazy today and I want to get this out (blogging is hard, I am finding!), so I have simply grabbed an AB2 shot (captioned version here); thanks Andrew! I love everything about this shot (except, for some reason, the headlight beam grates on me, perhaps because it is off-color, bluish, compared to the rest of the shot). Note how the reflection of the light coming off the engine lights up the water and the stone, and see how the pinkish hue of the glint upper right is complemented by the pinkish glow of the limbs near the water lower left. Subtle details like that expand the image, adding to its complexity and the unity of its structure.
So, while light is an important element in photography, one can get excellent shots which emphasize other dimensions. For example, it is often suggested that outdoor portraiture can be done well when it is overcast, because then the light is soft and thus more flattering. I view "light impressions" as excluding shots for which light is not a predominant defining factor. My suspicion is that this excludes much mid-day rail photography - even during times of the year when "high sun" is not a factor - because, while the subject are well-lit, they are not necessarily lit in an interesting way. A well done sunny postcard-style landscape shot is a well done shot, but is not artistic in how it uses light.
However, the guidelines make explicit reference to "mid-day light"! How about that! As I shoot most of the time in such conditions, unfriendly to interesting light, I will be contemplating what one can do during that part of the day.
The included image may not be the ideal illustration for "light impressions" but it is at least interesting in that dimension, and I feel a bit lazy today and I want to get this out (blogging is hard, I am finding!), so I have simply grabbed an AB2 shot (captioned version here); thanks Andrew! I love everything about this shot (except, for some reason, the headlight beam grates on me, perhaps because it is off-color, bluish, compared to the rest of the shot). Note how the reflection of the light coming off the engine lights up the water and the stone, and see how the pinkish hue of the glint upper right is complemented by the pinkish glow of the limbs near the water lower left. Subtle details like that expand the image, adding to its complexity and the unity of its structure.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Cut the Corner
When I spotted this shot by Walter Scriptunas (captioned version here), I was immediately reminded of a favorite Andrew Blaszczyk shot. In both shots the tracks cut off the lower right corner, running from the lower margin to the right margin. Why did this particular style of composition work for me? Let's take a look at Walter's shot first. Shooting steam results in unique challenges. One, for me, is that having the plume come up out of the engine means that one tends to think vertically in composition, especially if the shot is nose on (or, here, tail on). If one goes horizontal, one has to use the considerable space on either side of the subject.
The best way to fill that space is with interesting environment. But Walter is in a stand of trees - what to do? First of all, he shoves the engine to the right. Since the plume hangs off the left side a bit, he is able to fill the middle of his shot, not only with the top of the plume, but with two well defined tree trunks that lead the eye upwards. And he has a nice bonus for the viewer, a water tank peeking out from near the right edge. So, while all of the hardware action, so to speak, is in the right and lower right, he uses the plume to spread things out.
Andrew's shot (captioned version here) is a beautiful town and train shot. I see a diagonal with the railroad world on the right and the town on the left. The houses face the railroad, both literally in the position of their porches and in how their horizontal lines, the rooflines, the pieces of siding, lead to the tracks. The railroad side, by contrast, is a series of near verticals - the tracks, the engines in a pleasing near-vertical diagonal. The engines are a helper set, so the train fits completely within the frame and the eye is not drawn to the edges of the frame. The snow on the ground and in the air gives a nice base for the BW treatment.One can always quibble. In particular, I think Walter leaves too much space on his left margin, so not quite enough compositional oomph over there and a bit of imbalance. So I would have cropped more. But then, I would not have gotten this shot in the first place! But both shots are the sorts of shots I think about when I am out, or that come to mind when I am at home and realize some missed possibilities. Try putting the train in a corner and fill the frame with elements that complement it.
I really, really like Andrew's shot and so I may return to it in a different context.
2008 CRPA Awards
Every year the Center for Rail Photography and Art has a photography contest. The most recent theme was "sense of place" (I will blog about that another time) and the winner was Olaf Haensch. See the winners here; I hope to talk about Olaf's shots when I get permission to show his shots here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
