John, these are, I think, a fine set of pictures. Congratulations. I especially like the first three, and the last, in the drummer set. In 1, 2 & 3 you've captured some fine side-lighting, not to mention most interesting foci of attention.
All 3 close in on the subject, and this, I think, is what sets them apart from the ones that follow. It does seem that the closer one gets (or crops!) the more compelling the image becomes. In part, I suppose because there are fewer distractions, but closer, in these sorts of pictures, just means more directed attention which means a more salient and satisfying communication of what the photographer wants the viewer to see.
The last in the drumming sequence is special - very well caught, fine action, great looks on the faces of the dancers and the front row of drummers, and really vibrant colours. It succeeds well. So here's the carp. All the heads to the right side of the picture, and all the heads beyond the first row of the drummers facing the camera seem superfluous to me. The action is right there in the middle, in the play between the little girl and the dancer on the left. So I wondered if a crop of the superfluous Heads might not just enhance a fine picture even further? draw the viewer right into the center of interest. (Of course, decapitation is hardly ever pleasant...)
Ever see "Black Orpheus" by Michael Camus? Extraordinary movie (with lots of drumming in it too!), takes place in Rio at the time of Carnival, and is a modern rendition of the Orpheus story. Eurydice's descent into the Underworld is symbolised by a ride in an ambulance into a dark tunnel. Your last pictures reminded me of that. Anyway if you want to see a really fine movie...
I love these (speaking of color images, primarily) as a set too. Sets or sequences seem to offer so many more facets than one image, especially apropos here with so much action, and so many different individuals to feature. Black and whites, especially in this context, offer some kind of opposite zietgeist, a contrast between colorful, spontaneous, organic, freeflowing release of creative energy and contained, rigid, regimented, strictly controlled order. What other relationship is there between these two image sets - proximity of location?
Related to your "peopled" pictures and those we've seen by Catiana, Farid, etc. it seems we are irresistibly drawn from something recognizable as a landscape image per se when there are interesting people to pay attention to. This seems to of a piece with the variety of imagery we often find when we look at urban photographers.
I am reading /viewing a wonderful book Edward Steichen Lives in Photography, so called because he and his life's work were protean if anything. In this context I sought a Steichen quote from early in his long career I read recently from the book. "I believe that art is cosmopolitan. One should touch [art] at all points. I hate specialism, that is the ruin of art." It's clear from his work that one meaning of specialism is specialization in only one type of subject or kind of photography.
Though land-related subjects, built but especially wilder, have always drawn me like no other, the fascination of people as subjects is even more undeniable than landscape - not that i really want to compare them that way.
Why else, in a purported urban landscape class do people compel our notice? The eye often isn't invited across unimpeded views. Vegetation is planted in small allotments and land is mostly paved if not a mere substrate for buildings, which are full of alluring details (Farid's ice spilling from the door.) If people are not pictured their absence can be palpable and if they are present they have a way of stealing the show. For all that, I still appreciate the soft fringe of green topping that totally great image of drummers and dancers and the girl in with the pink dress. Compositionally this image just keeps on giving.
3 comments:
John, these are, I think, a fine set of pictures. Congratulations. I especially like the first three, and the last, in the drummer set. In 1, 2 & 3 you've captured some fine side-lighting, not to mention most interesting foci of attention.
All 3 close in on the subject, and this, I think, is what sets them apart from the ones that follow. It does seem that the closer one gets (or crops!) the more compelling the image becomes. In part, I suppose because there are fewer distractions, but closer, in these sorts of pictures, just means more directed attention which means a more salient and satisfying communication of what the photographer wants the viewer to see.
The last in the drumming sequence is special - very well caught, fine action, great looks on the faces of the dancers and the front row of drummers, and really vibrant colours. It succeeds well. So here's the carp. All the heads to the right side of the picture, and all the heads beyond the first row of the drummers facing the camera seem superfluous to me. The action is right there in the middle, in the play between the little girl and the dancer on the left. So I wondered if a crop of the superfluous Heads might not just enhance a fine picture even further? draw the viewer right into the center of interest. (Of course, decapitation is hardly ever pleasant...)
Ever see "Black Orpheus" by Michael Camus? Extraordinary movie (with lots of drumming in it too!), takes place in Rio at the time of Carnival, and is a modern rendition of the Orpheus story. Eurydice's descent into the Underworld is symbolised by a ride in an ambulance into a dark tunnel. Your last pictures reminded me of that. Anyway if you want to see a really fine movie...
Best, and well done again,
Farid
# 9 is wonderful. Just enough spontaneity and messiness. A great central figure beautifully framed by a crowd.
#10 (and #11) is great for different reasons - evocative, suggestive, mysterious...
I love these (speaking of color images, primarily) as a set too. Sets or sequences seem to offer so many more facets than one image, especially apropos here with so much action, and so many different individuals to feature. Black and whites, especially in this context, offer some kind of opposite zietgeist, a contrast between colorful, spontaneous, organic, freeflowing release of creative energy and contained, rigid, regimented, strictly controlled order. What other relationship is there between these two image sets - proximity of location?
Related to your "peopled" pictures and those we've seen by Catiana, Farid, etc. it seems we are irresistibly drawn from something recognizable as a landscape image per se when there are interesting people to pay attention to. This seems to of a piece with the variety of imagery we often find when we look at urban photographers.
I am reading /viewing a wonderful book Edward Steichen Lives in Photography, so called because he and his life's work were protean if anything. In this context I sought a Steichen quote from early in his long career I read recently from the book. "I believe that art is cosmopolitan. One should touch [art] at all points. I hate specialism, that is the ruin of art." It's clear from his work that one meaning of specialism is specialization in only one type of subject or kind of photography.
Though land-related subjects, built but especially wilder, have always drawn me like no other, the fascination of people as subjects is even more undeniable than landscape - not that i really want to compare them that way.
Why else, in a purported urban landscape class do people compel our notice? The eye often isn't invited across unimpeded views. Vegetation is planted in small allotments and land is mostly paved if not a mere substrate for buildings, which are full of alluring details (Farid's ice spilling from the door.) If people are not pictured their absence can be palpable and if they are present they have a way of stealing the show. For all that, I still appreciate the soft fringe of green topping that totally great image of drummers and dancers and the girl in with the pink dress. Compositionally this image just keeps on giving.
Post a Comment