Telling the Story: Tension

[This is a guest blog by Mike H. (RP images here, SmugMug here), taken with permission from a forum thread; I have added a few thoughts at the end. If anyone else wants to take a shot at writing down some thoughts, please let me know.]

The question is when is it OK to make the train the main focus and when is it ok to have more human interest? Well, I would suppose it depends on what sort of story you are trying to tell.

This one (by Ben Sutton, other shots here) fits together as a harmonious whole. The person is in shadow, and is obviously a supporting element. His gaze is directed at the train; so is ours. The train is well-lit, framed by the trees, and is therefore the main subject. This is a very soothing, peaceful photo to view.

In this one (also by Ben Sutton), there is tension between the person, the train, the magazine, the bright yellow fire hydrant, and the leading lines of the street with the many angular overpasses receding into the distance. We look at the train and the person, but the person's attention is not on the train or us, but the magazine, which itself is about trains. This isn't a "relaxing" composition, because the viewer is left wondering what is the "story". It is "strange". I like it anyway because of that tension and "strangeness".

Here, I was trying to show the train as part of the scenery. The kids and coaches are here to play football, not watch trains. The train noise nearly drowns out conversation, but the team ignores the intrusion. The focus is on the people; the train passes through, and the game goes on.

Not mine (by Andre Beverly, other shots here), but I love this shot. The girl stands mere feet away from the onrushing transit train, but is completely oblivious. We can imagine the noise and rush of air as the train enters the station, but she might as well be a statue. The viewer wants to look at the massive object in motion, but instead we are drawn to her handheld device. Who is she texting? What message is so important that she shuts out all her surroundings, including us?

What are you trying to say with your photos? Everything else should follow from that.

PS by Janusz: When I first viewed Ben's second shot above (which started the forum discussion) I felt it looked contrived and so I didn't really like it despite its obvious good qualities. Over time, however, I have come to like it more. Sure it is posed but there are lots of photographs that are and I am not interested so much in realism and the more I look the less it seems artificial. The shot is interesting, is well composed, and has nice color. I am not so negative on the cut off engine, although it would have been interesting to see what the shot looked like with more width. My only issue with the shot is the Railpace - it isn't obviously a train magazine but upon close inspection it is and it is a detail that doesn't really fit for me. (Well, add a second issue: not a fan of the contrast, I would adjust the midtones and shift the peak of the histogram left a bit, get rid of some of the HDR-ish feel.)

The shot definitely has a "story" in that it has tension in the composition, whether true to life or artificial does not matter to me if it fits together. One looks at the shot and wonders, just what is so interesting about that magazine that the train goes by unnoticed? A well-staged work, staged not so much for realism as for interest, and that it captures and rewards.

Blur and Abstraction

Consider this image by Mitch Goldman, heavy on distortion/ blur (you will want to click through to see the blur at full size, it doesn't make sense in the thumbnail view). First, is it photography? Of course, but is it rail photography? It isn't representational photography, for the most part, and it doesn't really try to convey anything in particular about railroading. But as an abstract, and one that abstracts not through cropping or careful composition but through what I will call an artistic effect, it might have merit.

Thus, one might consider this image more in the realm of certain types of painting than in photography. Of course, photography has always pursued such types of abstractions, but in doing so, is this image still a rail image? Is it an interesting abstraction of railroading and of a particular event, or is the abstraction disconnected from the subject, call it a random interpretation?

My first impression of this shot was rather positive. Heat distortion is always attractive, and by presenting overall blur with sufficient definition of subject this image offered a consideration of what is the essence of a rail setting. But ultimately the image shrunk on me (or whatever the antonym of "grew" is). For one, I found the elements unnecessarily muddled. The endless blurred posts are heavy handed. They are bright and take the eye away from

the more important parts of the image. It isn't so evident what they support (signal bridge? pedestrian overpass?), in that the top is cropped too tight for my tastes, I want to see a clear bar across and not something merged into the upper margin. The bright rectangles behind the posts on the left are bad in this regard also.

The image does have an interesting deliniation between top and bottom, the top having all the verticals and the bottom having diagonals, with the action at the line - nicely done! But the bottom is rather dull, especially in color, all brown, and the ballast lacks in interesting contrast, it is a muddle. Perhaps I just find it washed out and ugly.

The point of interest, the train and person, is problematic also. The pilot of the train looks weird, too tall, something going on under the coupler I don't understand, and there is this large black area behind the person that at first I thought might be a dog but then realized was the shadow of the train. And there is this weird orange-y area on the left, below the posts.

The issue for an abstraction, I conjecture, is whether the abstraction offers a good balance between taking one away from the object captured but also maintaining identification of what that object is or was. This image suffers from both, I think, odd as that seems. The individual elements are identifiable (especially to a railfan), catenary posts, many rails, engine, etc. There is a line between interpretation and blur, and this one falls into the blur zone, I think because there is sufficient detail remaining, and that detail is sufficiently distracting (posts! orange! rails!) to suppress whatever mood or pattern the abstraction would otherwise convey. And at the same time, perhaps because one expects certain things at trackside, the distraction gets confusing. What is that behind the posts on the left? What is that orange zone? Some details are abstracted (ok, blurred :) ) to the point they cannot be identified, but others are not, and this is a problem here.

Put differently, what is the subject? I find that abstract works often put a focus either on one important element, or they put the focus on no subject, instead being primarily works that consider pattern, or texture, or other dimension. Here, there is a clear subject, there is an interesting event, a trespass, with the train bearing down. But, the blur confuses rather than focuses, it takes away attention from the action but does not replace it with something else for the viewer's attention, merely distraction. The eye recognizes the event and one wants to know more (does the person have a face of fear or of distraction?). But there is no more here, it is eliminated and replaced with other stuff. The balance between identification and abstraction does not fit the subject.

So, I am no longer a fan of the image. But this is inappropriate as a full consideration of the image. The additional question is where do we/Mitch go from here? Can one do full-blur rail photography in an effective manner? I don't know, but here are some dimensions I would consider. First, what spot make for a good subject for a blur? The poles here are awful, in my view, unless they become a focal point. At least in this take they are too strong as a secondary element. How much detail at trackside is too much for this level of blur? Are there other magnitudes of blur that work better, and does that vary by location? I would look first to locations with less detail.

Second, what is the blur, the art, trying to do? Is the focus going to be on color? On patterns? What are the elements that remain after distortion/blur that capture a viewer's interest? I suspect those will have to do with interesting color variation along with a simpler division of the image area, simpler forms that hold up well to blurring.

Just some thoughts. (BTW, I presume I took this waaay more seriously than Mitch did. I just find it worth pondering.) I view this as an interesting first attempt. We will see if Mitch or anyone else pursues this and finds images of greater artistic merit. Nice try!

PS: I encourage you to read the comment from Mitch regarding what he intended, what he did, and why he likes the result.