More Tourist Pictures

[RSL]

Okay, Slobodan, here we go. More tourist pictures from the street.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I wouldn't really call them Tourist Pictures, Russ, because they aren't the kind of pictures a tourist is likely to take. The photographer here clearly has a good eye for composition and framing, so I would call these good Postcard pictures. A tourist might buy them for souvenirs, but wouldn't likely take them otherwise.
They're good, well seen, if not profound, IMHO.

[RSL]

But see, Eric, that's exactly the point I was making in an earlier post: Yes I can frame a picture, and yes I can control the technique and the post-processing so that the pictures have acceptable technical quality, but that doesn't change the fact that the only message these photographs convey is: "I was there." When that's the message, what you're looking at is a tourist picture.

There are plenty of people out there who can frame a picture correctly and handle post-processing so that the results are technically excellent, and those two qualities are what generate most of the discussion on LuLa: "You should crop here," "You should sharpen there," "You should change this tonal relationship," "The colors need work," "You should have turned slightly to the left," and on and on, when what really matters is what the picture says. "I was there" just isn't good enough if we're talking about photography as an art form. The "art" is NOT in the damned post-processing.

What matters is the thrust to the heart you get from a little kid adoring his dad, or the chuckle you get from a dog salivating as he watches his master eat pizza, or the question raised by the determined look on the face of an old guy charging along with a bass viol on his back. Or, to get away from street photography, the sense of the hand of God in a very well done landscape, or the sorrow embedded in a well-lived house, now abandoned.

What matters in a photograph isn't technical excellence. What matters is an experience you can't describe with words.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... The "art" is NOT in the damned post-processing.

What matters is the thrust to the heart...

What matters in a photograph isn't technical excellence. What matters is an experience you can't describe with words.

Yes, yes and yes!

However...

Appropriate framing, post-processing and, gasp, cropping, CAN help deliver that thrust and experience. They can significantly help. They can be aligned with the message or work against it, distract from it.

That is why we tell people to change this or that... as a teaching tool. Maybe they don't have that thrust, experience, message yet. But when they do next time, they will know how to present it better than the last time.

Besides, who is to say that tourist-snapshot posters do not get that thrust to THEIR heart? Obviously, they felt something, otherwise they would not have taken it it or shared it with us. It matters to THEM, and I tend to respect that. Perhaps it is not that earth-shattering, award-worthy piece of ultimate art, but it meant something to them and I respect that. Many of them are our forum friends, and I am happy for them if they derived even a second of joy from that gazillionth sunset, or flower, or ARAT. And I do not mind seeing it and I do not mind helping them, if possible, make a little bit better picture out of it.

We are in it not just for achieving a Hall of Fame status with one or two of our most famous photographs (let's face it, most photographers will be remembered by only ONE of their pictures, the lucky ones might count on two to three). We are in it for the daily pleasure of attempting to make that one, and failing thousand times. I, for one, do not mind seeing those attempts by my friends, and helping them, even if a tiny bit, to make the next attempt less of a failure.

Forum is generally not a place for great photography. If I want to see just a great photography, I'll buy a book or two or go to an exhibition. Forum is a place for us to share a journey to that lofty goal.

[OnyimBob]

So, given your strong feelings about this (which we already knew), why are we seeing "tourist" photos from you?
Bob

[RSL]

Forum is generally not a place for great photography. If I want to see just a great photography, I'll buy a book or two or go to an exhibition. Forum is a place for us to share a journey to that lofty goal.

I agree with practically everything you're saying, Slobodan, but your final statement makes my point. You can't help people along a journey to that lofty goal by teaching them that everything depends on post-processing. If you haven't grabbed something that matters, all the post-processing in the world isn't going to help. You simply can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The most important thing is for people to learn what a silk purse looks like. You learn that by looking at the books and exhibitions you're talking about. The problem on LuLa is that often, instead of pointing out that what we're seeing is a sow's ear, we try to take a tuck here and a stitch there implying that we can get to silk purse land that way. You can't do it. What you end up with is a technically improved sow's ear.

[RSL]

So, given your strong feelings about this (which we already knew), why are we seeing "tourist" photos from you?
Bob

Hi Bob, My point, which should have been obvious, is that even technically excellent tourist photos still are tourist photos.

[RSL]

I should add that I'm not claiming any of the pictures, street or otherwise, I just posted are excellent examples. They're not, but in the street pictures there's at least something more than "I was here."

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I should add that I'm not claiming any of the pictures, street or otherwise, I just posted are excellent examples. They're not, but in the street pictures there's at least something more than "I was here."

Absolutely.

Your comments about silk purses and sow's ears reminded me of an experience of my own some 50 years ago, soon after a workshop with Minor White. I was captivated by the idea of shooting a "sequence," one of Minor's specialties. So one winter day I went out with my Pentax and two rolls of Panatomic X to shoot abstract scenes that would provide the raw material for my "sequence." I developed the film and made 4x6" prints of every image so I could spread them out on the floor and create the "sequence."

I narrowed the bunch down to about a dozen that I thought had potential, and I found a pleasing order to them. Then I decided to tighten up the emotional effect by eliminating the weaker shots. Soon I was down to two prints, neither of which said very much at all. So I discarded the two remaining sow's ears.

This may not have been about post-processing as we now think of it, but it was certainly the equivalent of the day. I learned something that day.

Eric

[RSL]

It's a great story, Eric, and an experience I've suffered through more than once. And it gets back to the point I've been trying, evidently unsuccessfully with Slobodan at least, to make.

Yes, it's possible to help people learn post-processing, and Slobodan's really good at that. I certainly wouldn't suggest he or any of us stop making suggestions about post-processing. I think you really learn only by experimenting with your own equipment, but a suggestion can point you in the right direction, and Slobodan's pointed me in a useful direction more than once.

But I frequently look at a picture on User Critiques and wonder what made the poster decide to keep this picture and what made him decide to post it. Seems to me I shouldn't be the one asking that question; seems to me the poster should have been the one asking the question before he posted the picture. And so sometimes I just ask the question right out. Rarely do I get an answer that makes sense.

But even though it's clear there's nothing the poster could do to the picture to raise it even a notch above humdrum, people jump in with post-processing ideas that suggest the picture's basically okay but needs a pinch here and a tuck there.

As Frank said long ago on M.A.S.H., "It's nice to be nice to the nice." It's difficult to say something to somebody that might pain him, but suggesting a crappy picture that shouldn't have been posted can be salvaged in post is unfair to the poster. If that's the message he takes away from a critique he's never going to learn the truth of HCB's dictum: "Photographing is nothing. Looking is everything."

I don't really expect anything to change in User Critiques. The content of many critiques makes it clear that the critic hasn't a clue about what makes a really good picture, and until the critics educate themselves there's no hope for change. One thing I do notice, though, is that most of the folks on User Critiques who actually understand what makes a good picture simply refrain from commenting on most of the crap while the pinchers and tuckers jump right in. Guess I'd better join the abstainers again.

[Harald L]

Russ,

I don't think that you shouldn't join the abstainers. Everybody who posts a picture here should be aware that he's in a discussion forum and it's not doomsday because you're asking "So what?". Everybody should be so much thick-skinned to endure your rant. At least one get the direct feedback that there's somebody out there who doesn't like one's picture. So what?

Harald

[Rajan Parrikar]

Russ,

Where were these taken?  I like the second one in particular, and in better light the composition has much potential.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I think, Russ, that your pictures suffer from a pincushion distortion, especially visible in the third one... correct that and all is well with the world!

[RSL]

Thanks, Rajan. All of the pictures I've posted in the past couple days were shot in St. Augustine, Florida, USA. You're right, all three were made in early afternoon when the light was less than optimum. To me at least, St. Augustine is the most beautiful city in the U.S. It's certainly the oldest continuously inhabited city in the U.S. It's always a visual banquet, so I can't avoid shooting a bunch of tourist pictures when I'm there. It looks as if my wife and I may move permanently to an area just south of Jacksonville, which would put me a 20 minute drive away from St. Augustine. If that happens I may get tired of my favorite city, though I can't imagine that happening.

[RSL]

There certainly was pincushion distortion in the frame right out of the camera, Slobodan. That's the new Nikkor 24-120 f/4, and  like all mid-range zooms it has some pincushion at the long end and a bit of barrel at the short end. The lens was at 110mm for that third shot. But the distortion has been corrected with ACR's lens profile. I see a straight vertical on the left and a straight horizontal on the bottom, though it's at a slight angle. The top window sash sags a bit and the right vertical sash is warped so that it looks bowed in a little, but the glass bricks on the right all are the same width, so I'd say all is well with the picture, although the world may be a different kettle of fish.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

If you do move down there, I hope you'll be within easy reach of good locations for Street and not just Tourist.

[luxborealis]

...But I frequently look at a picture on User Critiques and wonder what made the poster decide to keep this picture and what made him decide to post it....

...But even though it's clear there's nothing the poster could do to the picture to raise it even a notch above humdrum, people jump in with post-processing ideas that suggest the picture's basically okay but needs a pinch here and a tuck there....

User Critiques are just that - critiques by users. Post-processing or seeing in the field - we are welcome to critique either or both. If most people choose to crit the pp, then, so be it. Perhaps that's where they are most comfortable. You know what it's like around here. Some posters are thin-skinned enough to cry foul at even the slightest suggestion.

It's "safer" to crit the pp because the photographer can go back and change it. It's when the vision is critiqued that the greatest fireworks begin because now you are questioning the photographer's "artistic licence", their raisin d'être. Given the strong response of some who have been critiqued (which is different from being criticized, although most don't understand the difference), they think critiques are questioning their moral fibre. (See http://scribesalley.blogspot.ca/2008/08/difference-between-critique-and.html)

The problem with the "I don't get it" and "this doesn't say anything" critiques is that all too often you either get attacked for not seeing as the "artist" saw (fair in some circumstances) or you get some kind of a long-winded retro-justification for something that is clearly junk. HOWEVER, one man's junk is another man's treasure and we must respect that. Case in point, I wouldn't give 2 cents for Vivian Maier's work, yet it is a box office hit. Clearly I know nothing about '"what's good" and what's not.

BTW - Is it still a tourist photo if you actually live there?

[RSL]

Good points, Terry. And yes, you're right. I'm sure there are some people who would see any photograph they make as a treasure. As you probably can see, I'm not worried about thin skins. I was an Air Force colonel and later on, mayor of a tourist town for six years. Neither of those occupations allows you to worry about thin skins.

Yes, the easy way out is to suggest a crop rather than a total erasure. But when that happens, not only do you cheat the poster of an honest critique, you give ignorant bystanders the impression that by toasting a turd you can turn it into a hot dog. I'm sure Stieglitz would agree that that's not healthy for the future of photography as an artform.

So, as Lenin would say, "What is to be done?" One has three choices: (1) Say "screw it"  and blow some bugles and charge, letting the poster know (as politely as possible) that he needs to go back to the drafting board, (2) ignore the post altogether and hope it will go away, or (3) suggest some meaningless crop or tone change in order to be seen as being nice to the nice. You hit the nail on the head: option 3 is the winner in most cases because it's the easy way out.

Oh, and I think Vivian, like most of us who tote a camera, was a mixed bag. She shot some good ones and she shot some crap. Most of the shots of the kids for whom she was caring are pure tourist shots. Most of her abstractions (but not all) are junk. A bunch of her shots of people on the street are fobbed off as street photography by people who don't understand street photography. But then, there's the occasional shot that's good enough to be shown, and, once in a while a shot upon which she could have built a reputation. I suspect the poor woman is spinning in her grave. To me, the real question is: what would she have round-filed and what would she have selected to show had she been able to make the selections herself. I'd be willing to bet the final count would have been much smaller than what I'm seeing in the books I have of her stuff.

Yeah, it's still a tourist shot if you live there and all your shot says is: "I was there." After all, we already knew that.

[David Eckels]

Great discussion all! I have been the beneficiary of some very excellent pp criticism (in the critique sense) here and as a result, I believe my technical skills are much improved. Still have a long ways to go. As time goes on, however, I find I am posting less and looking and seeing more, to wit the current discussion. I think I am starting to see better and trusting my artistic license more: I find myself culling more and more shots. I think back to that RSL post of "The Tracks." The diversity of opinions shared was a mini-course in photography and aesthetics, IMHO. Thin skinned or thick, crusty, curmudgeonly or nice, I learn from all this and that's why I here. Not trying to mediate anything, but I agree, sometimes silence is golden.
As I read back over this it seems a bit of a non sequitur, but ahhhhh screw it, I have thick skin!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... As time goes on, however, I find I am posting less and ... culling more and more shots...

Ah, but you see, my friend, the very reason you now post less and cull more is that you initially posted more and culled less and were critiqued along the way! "As time goes on" indeed... it is a process, a learning one.

I actually do not disagree with Russ one bit about the need to cull more. I even wrote a rant on this forum some years ago about that (post #61). I also agree with those who post images that make the rest of us go "why, oh, why?" Although it sounds like a contradiction, it isn't. I am just pointing out a different aspect of the same process and the fact that it is a process, ie, it takes time.