Fishing Provides Such Pleasure

[Katy Noelle]

Ooooo, goody! I was just asking myself, all over again, "What makes a good photo?"

(and, ermmm, I'm not joking - I really have been asking myself that question all over again!)

[MrB]

The following comments and questions are written by a beginner with little knowledge, so please forgive me if they are silly or ignorant. They are simply reactions to the impressions that the image gives to a pupil who wants and needs to learn more.

"Fishing Provides Such Pleasure" is a nice subject and a pleasing composition but, as a photograph, it appeals to me rather less than many of Donald's images here and on his website.

Sahil commented that it must have been cold - it certainly gives me the impression that I would love to be there as the photographer but not the fisherman, contrary to its title. As you write that "photography is about having fun", is this apparent irony intentional?

I am viewing the image on a modest computer system and, although the monitor is set up to display a good range of shades on a test card (from jet black to bright white, RGB 0,0,0 to 255,255,255), the image seems to be rather light. Perhaps this is intentional?

The image on-screen appears to have very little texture in the water, and a strange effect around the distant hills, almost as though it is smudged. Are these intentional effects or are they caused by my inexpensive monitor and graphics card?

Or are they effects caused by the jpeg image compression? - The screen image properties show a file size of only 8.8 kB, implying little information in the jpeg file - aren't they usually factors of 10x this size?

Donald, three of your quotes about this image -

"A complete re-processing ... runs the risk of losing other strengths that I think it has." "...this seems to be the one big keeper, according to the positive reaction here on CiC and, if I'm honest, my own thoughts as well." "...I think I got close to the bullseye with this one."

Is it possible for you (or others) to explain, briefly, what are the strengths that make this shot the one big keeper that is close to the bullseye compared with your other photos, to help lead a pupil towards a better understanding of photography? Or is this something about the nature of the art that cannot be taught or learnt?

Philip

[Katy Noelle]

Sahil commented that it must have been cold - it certainly gives me the impression that I would love to be there as the photographer but not the fisherman, contrary to its title. As you write that "photography is about having fun", is this apparent irony intentional?

I don't know about the rest of it but I can say that it doesn't matter if it's cold or hot - it's just exciting and fun to be in that boat, all alone, putting along - the solitude - the fresh air - being on the water - mucking in a boat - cold doesn't matter - it's much pleasure and FUN! Seeee, even girlies know about it all!

Personally, though, my favorite of the set was the very first one that you showed us, Donald! It just needed to be lightened or something or other like that.

[Donald]

Philip

Just catching your post whilst working. I will try and provide a proper explanation of my views before I disappear on holiday for 3 weeks on Wednesday. But if anyone else wants to 'chip in' in the meantime, please do so.

[MiniChris]

I'll take a crack at this response because it is a question I often get from my students..."by all the things you just stated, Mr. C, this photo only has a few of thoses qualities...yet, it seems to really hold your attention. Why?"

I think we all realize the compression factor of the jpeg, and not just any jpeg, but one that takes a 12 to 14 GB file down to a 350KB file. Wham, bam, it makes jelly out of jam. Donald's image, printed on my 9 color (grayscale) Epson with the lovely Jon Cone carbon inks, and viewed at an image size of 20 x 30 from an appropriate distance, and you get a far better "feel" for the emotional content as well as be able to appreciate the tonal qualities that in this compressed state are "lost."

Technicality aside, and I don't for one minute suggest we all run out and shoot bad photos which tug at the heart - there are way more of those out there than I wish to consider, there is a huge part of understanding art which does exactly that - it tugs at our heart, or mystifies our brain, or causes upheaval in our gut. It is the seemless and natural blend of the two things which separates a decent shot from a "keeper."

In Donald's shot, there is that focus to one thing (group), the fisherman, the coldness of the day, and the nostagia of the moment. Personally, I would not have a feel from the chill with tons of detail, unless the detail was snow or ice - and it is not. Leaving out that attention to over-detailing, allows the eye to go to the one place it is so expertly directed, and not just go there, but allow the eye and the emotions to connect. Sometimes we sacrifice the obvious for the ethereal; it is not quite minimalist art, but it's darn close.

Sometimes, but only sometimes, understated can be as powerful a statement as the obvious. My thoughts, anyway.

[Donald]

Philip

First of all, thank you for asking such a searching set of questions. Regulars on here know that I love this forum because it's focus is on learning. And I think that the gift and capacity of humankind to learn is the most valuable thing it possesses. And I get very, very angry when:

a) those with the opportunity to learn squander it and,
b) young people, as a result of being on the wrong side of the tracks are denied the opportunity to learn, even though many of our societies have more than enough resources to ensure that everyone could be given an equal chance, if only we thought that was really, really important (sorry, politicised rant over).

So, keep asking searching questions. It's the only way to learn.

I think Chris has already more than adequately answered many of the points. And, what's more, he's much more technically informed than I am to answer these points. So, I'll try and address some of the other issues.

Sahil commented that it must have been cold - it certainly gives me the impression that I would love to be there as the photographer but not the fisherman, contrary to its title. As you write that "photography is about having fun", is this apparent irony intentional?

I think the fact is that this man was, I suspect, in a state of blissful ecstacy. It was that sense of peace and calm that everyone in these little boats seems to display, that I wanted to capture. And I think that if we stop thinking of our hobby as fun, then it's time to sell the gear and do something else.

I am viewing the image on a modest computer system and, although the monitor is set up to display a good range of shades on a test card (from jet black to bright white, RGB 0,0,0 to 255,255,255), the image seems to be rather light.

The image on-screen appears to have very little texture in the water, and a strange effect around the distant hills, almost as though it is smudged. Are these intentional effects or are they caused by my inexpensive monitor and graphics card?

Let me try and take these two points in one.

The simple answer to your first question is, 'Yes' it looks light.

The first and key point is - This is not what I saw through the viewfinder. This is the image that I had in my head as I pressed the shutter. So to that extent, this can be said to be my artistic creation. All the 'bits' that you see were in the viewfinder. Nothing is falsified in that respect. But this is my interpretation of what was in the viewfinder.

And that vision of what this image would look like didn't just happen at that moment. On this day, this was probably about the 10th or 12th such boat that had passed up alongside the little cottage in which I was staying. I had been watching them all, as well as what was happening behind them on the water and on the land. But more than that - We've been going to this cottage every year since the mid-1990s. And every Saturday morning the scene is exactly the same - 20 to 25 of these boats, mostly with one person in them, but sometimes with two or three, very slowly make their way up from the boat rental area, along the loch to the main fishing area. And in the late afternoon, they all make their way back home again. So, I've been watching this scene for 15 years.

I've been trying to capture this image for the last 3 years (ever since I've had a DSLR and been going to this holiday weekend cottage). So, even before I arrived there two weeks ago, I more-or-less knew what the final image looked like. All I needed were the conditions that allowed me to get the photograph from which I could make that image become a reality.

So far as the effects are concerned .......

I use Silver Efex Pro software for my B & W conversions. I want to use Silver Efex Pro 2, but there are still too many problems with that!

I wanted to emphasise scale and distance. I wanted the land to be part of the image but not a dominant element. I wanted there to be rain and mist.

So, I have tried to bring up that 'mood' by lowering the contrast and what Silver Efex Pro call 'Structure' on the islands. I have also brightened them up a bit, just to enhance the mist, rainy feeling.

Similarly on the water. I didn't want to go for a completely 'high-key' effect. I wanted there to be soem detail held in the highlights. But I wanted the boat and its occupant to be really brought out. So that's why I chose to go for that effect.

"A complete re-processing ... runs the risk of losing other strengths that I think it has." "...this seems to be the one big keeper, according to the positive reaction here on CiC and, if I'm honest, my own thoughts as well." "...I think I got close to the bullseye with this one."

Is it possible for you (or others) to explain, briefly, what are the strengths that make this shot the one big keeper that is close to the bullseye compared with your other photos, to help lead a pupil towards a better understanding of photography? Or is this something about the nature of the art that cannot be taught or learnt?

I think things can be learned, as I said above. But I think one of the most important things to learn is not technical (although all the technical things are important), but is to 'feel' what it is you're doing and are striving for. And I think people can learn to do that. I've got to believe that or I think I would go under - although my head tells me that there are many people who can't reach that level of emotional connection to something/anything.

So far as me and my photography is concerned, I am very clear that I know just enough of the technical bits to allow me to give vent to my emotional outpourings. There are many, many others who leave me at the starting gate when it comes to the technicalities of photography. And I have huge admiration for their knowledge and enthusiasm. But that's just not me. I don't have that skill or interest.

So when I feel that something has come together and 'works', more of it is about the 'feeling' it gives me as it is to do with the technical correctness.

So, to that extent, I'm probably a rotten teacher in that these are not substantive things that can be passed on. I think my only contribution to teaching can be to try and share a passion; a belief in encouraging the growth of imagination and vision.

So, what makes this 'close to the bullseye'? Mood. Atmosphere. It's got that for me. For some folk it will mean nothing and they won't feel anything for it. Can't give you any better an explanation, I'm afraid.

Has any of this made any sense whatsoever?

[Wirefox]

But that's just not me. I don't have that skill or interest.

So when I feel that something has come together and 'works', more of it is about the 'feeling' it gives me as it is to do with the technical correctness.

Indeed...the Artist rather than the Artisan Both are valid in Photography but we really should learn to expect different results rather than confusing the two

[MrB]

Thank you Chris for your helpful reply, and special thanks to Donald for taking the time to produce such an extensive reply.

Philip...

Has any of this made any sense whatsoever?

I am very grateful for your posts, which do make sense, although they also show how much there is to learn - not only in understanding the techniques, but also in appreciating the artistic aspects of photography.

Descriptions and explanations from experienced photographers, alongside the photographs posted here, are indeed very instructive - thanks again.

Philip