Critique Desired: Stark November

[Tom Robbins]

In the northern latitudes, this is the time of year when most green is gone, and sienna, blue, and shades of gray predominate. Snow and ice will provide some relief from this eventually, but neither are in evidence in the Midwest United States at the moment.

The intention this morning was to try and make the best of conditions as they were found. There is little connection with regards to subject matter aside from relative geographical location and being photographed on the fourth Sunday of the month.

Plowed Field

About ten minutes before sunrise in rural LaSalle County, Illinois.

Rust and Shadow

An empty barge moored at the Cargill Illinois River loading facility at Hennepin, Illinois.

Illinois River Floodplain

This region was drained farmland as recently as a decade ago, and has now been restored to its natural state.​

Several photos shot on a single morning on a sunny November day may stretch the definition of theme, but since it's a tough time of the year, maybe I can get away with it. All thoughts and suggestions are very welcome.

 

[John Angulat]

Hi Tom,
I fear the onset of winter myself but you've made quite a good go of it!
I find all the images particularly appealing, but I'm on the fence with the middle image, with respect only to the theme.
Unto itself, it a splendid capture but I not sure about it's ties to the other two.
Thoughts?

 

[Mike Shimwell]

Tom

I'm happy with your theme - it fits with the walkabout theme I covering at the moment. The first reminds me of many places, but big fields! The light is lovely in all.

As to john's question, no the second doesn't fit the mould set by the first, but the last doesn't either really. Taken as a morning's walk or drive they're fine.

Mike

 

[Rachel Foster]

I like all three, but the second is particularly appealing.

 

[Nigel Allan]

My personal favourite is the second and I think it fits with the first in terms of the colours and tones - muted shades of blue, magenta, terracotta. The colours are subtle and I like that.

One personal observation: the composition of the first one is slightly jarring to me as the furrows lead me away and out of the frame. I am torn between seeing where they go and looking at the farm buildings on the left

 

[ErikJonas]

....................

Tom......Outstanding images!!!!!......All 3 are outstanding...Nice to see them.Thankyou for posting them...

 

[Ken Tanaka]

I like your visual thinking, Tom. That 3rd shot is almost a real illusory scene! It could be called "Corn Field at Low Tide", as it looks like a ocean shoreline.

If I may offer a thought, looking at these and your previous images I wonder if you're wrestling with choices when your eye's in the viewfinder? #2 is a good example; object or reflection...take 50% of each. #1 also presents a good example: tracks and clouds -vs- remote farm house at dawn?

When I'm faced with such visual dilemmas I try to shoot the scene several ways. The first frame is usually what my impulses prompted me to shoot. But the next are generally more exclusive to compose certain aspects in favor of others. I estimate that in at least 80% of such cases I ultimately select one of the exclusive frames as more interesting over the original inclusive scene.

Such scenes as yours above really come down to distillation of essence. You have to pause to interrogate your sense of what's the essential attraction of the scene. Color? Form? Pattern? Texture? Juxtapositions? Our eyes flick about to gulp scenes but our lenses must be more discriminating to collect only souvenirs. Think of going there with a child who blurts, "That's pretty!". If you were trying to teach that child to connect with his/her visual sense you might then ask, "Why?". In this case the question would be far more important than the answer would be.

So as an experiment ask your inner-child "Why?" next time.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Such scenes as yours above really come down to distillation of essence. You have to pause to interrogate your sense of what's the essential attraction of the scene. Color? Form? Pattern? Texture? Juxtapositions? Our eyes flick about to gulp scenes but our lenses must be more discriminating to collect only souvenirs. ...

Ken,

These are good directions. I just am not sure about the meaning of "but our lenses must be more discriminating to collect only souvenirs". Did you mean, "Our eyes flick about to gulp scenes but our lenses must be more discriminating [than] to collect only souvenirs [which sample everything that's there]."?

 

[Ken Tanaka]

"Our eyes flick about to gulp scenes but our lenses must be more discriminating to collect only souvenirs."

No, that's exactly what I meant to write. It's most common, and utterly futile, to try to capture whole environmental experiences when photographing landscapes. Tom experienced each of these scenes with his ears, his nose, and his sense of temperature as well as his eyes. While shooting #2 perhaps he heard a nearby crow complaining or a fish jumping from the river.

Among the skills of the finest landscape photographers is to effectively invoke such visually-extrasensory experiences from your viewers' memories. The vast majority of landscape photography we see, even from "accomplished" rock-and-tree snappers falls flat because it fails to accomplish much more than documenting what was in front of the lens at that moment. It may be rendered "pretty", it may be filled with itsy-bitsy (and utterly irrelevant, distracting) details because it was captured with a $60,000 camera rig, and it might be unchallengingly calming on the wall of a medical waiting room or generic office hallway. But it's so often dead stuff that leaves us unnourished. We see it and we immediately forget it because it offered nothing more than a forensic image.

Personally I think Tom's on the verge of transcending from "pretty" to "memorable statements" with his flatland photography. That's why I took time to note Art Sinsabaugh's work to him recently and why I take time now.

 

[Rachel Foster]

I'm not understanding. I'll have to reread this and ponder a few times.


Ken, are you suggesting the photographer attempt to include commonly recognized symbols in order to evoke cultural associations?

 

[Nigel Allan]

I'm not understanding. I'll have to reread this and ponder a few times.


Ken, are you suggesting the photographer attempt to include commonly recognized symbols in order to evoke cultural associations?

I think he is saying that a picture needs a visual hook like a hook or catchy melody in a memorable song that you can't get out of your head and which makes you want to play it over and over again in your mind rather than trying to be all things to all people and simply recording what's in front of the camera.

Of course, I am sure I will be told I have completely misunderstood that now

...but it still makes sense to me and I am sure that if Ken didn't say that he will soon haha

 

[Rachel Foster]

Hmm. I still am not getting it. That could be why I struggle with landscapes so mightily.

 

[Asher Kelman]

"Our eyes flick about to gulp scenes but our lenses must be more discriminating to collect only souvenirs."

No, that's exactly what I meant to write. It's most common, and utterly futile, to try to capture whole environmental experiences when photographing landscapes. Tom experienced each of these scenes with his ears, his nose, and his sense of temperature as well as his eyes. While shooting #2 perhaps he heard a nearby crow complaining or a fish jumping from the river.

Thanks for the clarification. It's not about gathering what the lens can see but rather about collecting in a particular way, just with light, and being able to somehow embed much more than that; feelings, ambience, sensations,thoughts, relevance, consequence, for example. The nature of any of these, will of course depend highly on the presentation and the person receiving this image.

I was not sure if you were merely referring to the lens' inability to make choice for us. You mean that and then the extra step of finding a way to distinguish the image by it's possession of other qualities to be appreciated beyond the "forensic" documentation of what, indeed was there.

I like your position on this and this does leave the $60,000 gear largely unneeded.

Asher

 

[Ken Tanaka]

Your confusion is understandable. My message became rather diffused as I pushed a salad into my face as I typed.

What I suggested:

1. Make choices when photographing landscapes and other general scenes. Make the choices by identifying what YOU find so photo-worthy about the scene. By "choices" I mean make exclusive/inclusive decisions. Perhaps, for example, you skip the sky or the farmhouse or the nearby weeds in favor of intensifying the visual values of what you find unique.

2. These choices are what distinguish the finest such work from the dull crowd.

That's the synopsis.

One last, and unrelated, note to consider. I can think of very few memorable landscapes that were photographed with wide-angle lenses. It's a common photo misnomer that wide focal lengths are intended and used mainly for wide landscapes. Not really. Wide-angle lenses are best for tight, close work. The best landscape work I can recall (and I'm not a rock-and-tree guy) was done with longer focal lengths, closer to "normal", or beyond, for the camera. (Ex: 35mm+ for 35mm and 80mm+ for medium format.)

By this I'm not criticizing Tom's work. Just offering a corollary thought to the idea of making choices.

 

[nicolas claris]

Bonsoir Ken,

Make choices when photographing landscapes and other general scenes. Make the choices by identifying what YOU find so photo-worthy about the scene. By "choices" I mean make exclusive/inclusive decisions. Perhaps, for example, you skip the sky or the farmhouse or the nearby weeds in favor of intensifying the visual values of what you find unique.

This is simply true and works for every type of photography!

Could be summarized as "frame it!"

 

[Rachel Foster]

OK, I was possibly over-thinking it then. Thank you.

Salad sounds good.

 

[Mike Shimwell]

Bonsoir Ken,


This is simply true and works for every type of photography!

Could be summarized as "frame it!"

Yes, but landscape is deceptive. When you stand in the sunny meadow with the blue sky overhead, the warm scented breeze blowing through your open neck shirt and the feel of grass around your sandalled feet it's so tempting to grab the wide lens and cram it all in. Doesn't matter how much detail there is, it doesn't work as a picture.

Mike

 

[Asher Kelman]

Frame it!

Bonsoir Ken,

Make choices when photographing landscapes and other general scenes. Make the choices by identifying what YOU find so photo-worthy about the scene. By "choices" I mean make exclusive/inclusive decisions. Perhaps, for example, you skip the sky or the farmhouse or the nearby weeds in favor of intensifying the visual values of what you find unique.

Bonsoir Ken,


This is simply true and works for every type of photography!

Could be summarized as "frame it!"

I would frame, "Frame it!", not on just as the one most holy step in the making of a photograph. Let me try this approach to a photograph. It starts with an idea triggering a concept for a picture, a choice of what and how to photograph and then the many steps in preparing the latent image for presentation. That latter part is at least as important as the framing. The picture is not likely complete by framing, except perhaps for commercial /wedding shoots/mementos or forensic work. The processing is pretty standardized and what is going to be delivered is fairly predictable.

The artistic image, here, "The Photograph" can be added to or cropped as well. Parts might be differently indicated or emphasized. Art Sinsabaugh spent many, many hours waiting, understanding and watching. Only after that effort, he exposed the very long sheet film in his large wooden bouquet sheet film camera. After that, when he looked at his processed negative, he spent many more hours figuring out how best to crop it! Sometimes he carved away the impressive sky, the foreground or both. Not all of Sinsabaugh's decisions where necessarily imagined exactly that way until the time for the actual image preparation for printing.

So "Frame it!", might no be sufficient outside of specific vertical market work, (a wedding or product shoot, for example), where the photographer knows his clients exact needs and is efficient about workflow.

Ansel Adams considered that making photographs was work and a good part of that was done in the darkroom and presentation. The idea that framing is extremely important is not in question. However, it's likely not as important as having enough in the frame to be able to continue to work later, if one wishes, and make final cropping according how the actual negative reacts with our original concept and the concept as it further matures.

Asher

 

[nicolas claris]

With all due respect (to OPFers), is Ansel Adam a kind of a god?
One seem to have always this reference ready in the mouth? (though same sad observation with Henri Cartier-Bresson and consors).
Let's leave in our today's world.

You get much more precise results, if -once your intent is defined- (but how one could take a photograph without a previous intent?) you carefully includes/excludes what's to be in or out.
It is when you click on the shutter, with the mood and atmosphere around you and in your spirit that you feel and create an image.
Hard cropping later is not photography but making an illustration. Wooooop another can of w…!

Bbecause the camera and the chosen lens have to become part of yourself.
Cropping is denying, negative and loss.
Cropping is not a solution to a bad picture, otherwise how would you do if instead of need of a crop you would need to add something? tooooo late!
This is why, I'm against advocating for "shoot large then crop".
One must LEARN to frame correctly when shooting.

C'est cela "avoir l'œil"… and can be learned with practice… (yes I know, there are deseperate cases! LoL!)

 

[Nigel Allan]

With all due respect (to OPFers), is Ansel Adam a kind of a god?
One seem to have always this reference ready in the mouth? (though same sad observation with Henri Cartier-Bresson and consors).
Let's leave in our today's world.

You get much more precise results, if -once your intent is defined- (but how one could take a photograph without a previous intent?) you carefully includes/excludes what's to be in or out.
It is when you click on the shutter, with the mood and atmosphere around you and in your spirit that you feel and create an image.
Hard cropping later is not photography but making an illustration. Wooooop another can of w…!

Bbecause the camera and the chosen lens have to become part of yourself.
Cropping is denying, negative and loss.
Cropping is not a solution to a bad picture, otherwise how would you do if instead of need of a crop you would need to add something? tooooo late!
This is why, I'm against advocating for "shoot large then crop".
One must LEARN to frame correctly when shooting.

C'est cela "avoir l'œil"… and can be learned with practice… (yes I know, there are deseperate cases! LoL!)

Nicolas - I like you

 

[Rachel Foster]

I wonder if this discussion might be put in a separate thread so as not to distract from Tom's work?

And to Nicolas: One of my difficulties seems to be over-thinking/over-analyzing the process and losing the big picture in the details. The answer to that is.....?

 

[nicolas claris]

Bonsoir Rachel,

And to Nicolas: One of my difficulties seems to be over-thinking/over-analyzing the process and losing the big picture in the details. The answer to that is.....?

get your camera o be part of you, practice! Till "things" become obvious to you.
And yes, cropping as an exercise may help you to understand more precise framing for upcoming shots.

Thinking helps, but instinct does also

 

[Tom Robbins]

Thank you all for your very thoughtful comments. Much food for thought here...

John, you are quite right about the water scene not fitting in with the other two - it was sort of like the "what does not belong in this sequence" recognition test, wasn't it?

Mike, thanks! November colors photographed in a single morning's drive was almost an abuse of the concept of theme, but I'm glad nobody objected.

Rachel, thanks also! Yep, salad does sound good.

Nigel, you made a valid point about the curve of the plowed field leading the eye out of the frame. I wondered a bit about that, but decided to go ahead since the line just faded into the morning mist near the horizon anyway.

Erik, thanks!

Ah Ken, you zeroed in on the crux of the situation. You are right: the beauty of the morning was absolutely overwhelming, and I couldn't help but enjoy everything as a harmonious whole (I was stuck in gestalt mode). It's a wonderful way to enjoy a day, but it certainly dulls one's ability to concentrate. Asking the question "why" will become a mantra to regain discipline and control.

As a side note: I thought of Art Sinsabaugh when viewing the skyline of the plowed field scene through the viewfinder. The clouds were rolling overhead quickly, but there was very little wind at ground level; perfect conditions for his huge portrait camera. Also had him in mind when shooting this ordinary farm scene recently -

It's a simple scene with a 1 x 2 aspect ratio. Not quite as extreme as Art's rural skylines, but It was an experiment that sort of leaned in that direction. Thanks again for the great book recommendation. If other books come to mind that may be helpful, please let me know.

Nicolas, film/sensor real estate is valuable. So, for this reason, if not others as well, I totally agree with your thinking about cropping through the viewfinder.

 

[Mike Shimwell]

Thank you all for your very thoughtful comments. Much food for thought here...

John, you are quite right about the water scene not fitting in with the other two - it was sort of like the "what does not belong in this sequence" recognition test, wasn't it?

Mike, thanks! November colors photographed in a single morning's drive was almost an abuse of the concept of theme, but I'm glad nobody objected.

Rachel, thanks also! Yep, salad does sound good.

Nigel, you made a valid point about the curve of the plowed field leading the eye out of the frame. I wondered a bit about that, but decided to go ahead since the line just faded into the morning mist near the horizon anyway.

Erik, thanks!

Ah Ken, you zeroed in on the crux of the situation. You are right: the beauty of the morning was absolutely overwhelming, and I couldn't help but enjoy everything as a harmonious whole (I was stuck in gestalt mode). It's a wonderful way to enjoy a day, but it certainly dulls one's ability to concentrate. Asking the question "why" will become a mantra to regain discipline and control.

As a side note: I thought of Art Sinsabaugh when viewing the skyline of the plowed field scene through the viewfinder. The clouds were rolling overhead quickly, but there was very little wind at ground level; perfect conditions for his huge portrait camera. Also had him in mind when shooting this ordinary farm scene recently -

It's a simple scene with a 1 x 2 aspect ratio. Not quite as extreme as Art's rural skylines, but It was an experiment that sort of leaned in that direction. Thanks again for the great book recommendation. If other books come to mind that may be helpful, please let me know.

Nicolas, film/sensor real estate is valuable. So, for this reason, if not others as well, I totally agree with your thinking about cropping through the viewfinder.

Tom,

This seems to me to be heading in the right direction. You have isolated your subject in enough of its environment to make something iconic. I wondered at first about the first foreground, but concluded that it gives a place to the fence, which would otherwise be a rather startling entry to the picture.

Mike

 

[Ken Tanaka]

As a side note: I thought of Art Sinsabaugh when viewing the skyline of the plowed field scene through the viewfinder. The clouds were rolling overhead quickly, but there was very little wind at ground level; perfect conditions for his huge portrait camera. Also had him in mind when shooting this ordinary farm scene recently -

It's a simple scene with a 1 x 2 aspect ratio. Not quite as extreme as Art's rural skylines, but It was an experiment that sort of leaned in that direction. Thanks again for the great book recommendation. If other books come to mind that may be helpful, please let me know.

Ah, see, you certainly made some choices to arrive at this scene. The thing about making aesthetic choices is that they're rarely obvious in the final image; we can't see what we're not shown. But I think it's obvious that you made a basic choice that the barn, house, and wind screen trees would be the main subject and, by tilting the camera down, this would be an "of the land" rural scenic (rather than an "under big skies" image).

Nicely done, Tom.


Personal comment:
Whenever I see a nice landscape image I always want to put something interesting or disruptive in front of it. The most disruptive subject I can imagine for this scene is Farmer Jones yakking on a cell phone near the lower right corner.

 

[Nigel Allan]

Ken I am always in awe of your commentary and observation and rarely, if ever disagree with what you have to say. You are like a heat-seeking missile and nail it every time

 

[Asher Kelman]

Ah, see, you certainly made some choices to arrive at this scene. The thing about making aesthetic choices is that they're rarely obvious in the final image; we can't see what we're not shown. But I think it's obvious that you made a basic choice that the barn, house, and wind screen trees would be the main subject and, by tilting the camera down, this would be an "of the land" rural scenic (rather than an "under big skies" image).

Nicely done, Tom.

and equally well, put Ken!

A lot of decisions have been made and these have given us a strong sense of the land and then the homes that depend on it. When one reaches this point, the next question might be "What don't I need to express my concept with the elements I've conserved until this point?" Were' doing a pre-flight check before the picture is printed. The reference is the concept in your head, as it presents itself to you, once more, now, after all this elapsed time. This concept may have been refined by the experience of actually seeing your picture in the absence of everything else that you left behind.

So here, I'd wonder if you might be more satisfied with the picture cropped to discard the almost empty sky above the major dominant cloud form. The approx 1.5 cm or so top border's removal would perhaps further strengthen the role of the foreground, if that's what you like.

Asher

 

[Ken Tanaka]

Has anyone else noticed how everything in this image is moving from left to right? The trees have a wind-lean, the cloud forms suggest that they're moving right, even the slopes of the barn roof sections have a headin'-east suggestion. The slight swale of the land at frame-right contains the image and gives us a comforting sense of stability.

I've no idea if Tom saw any of this when he took this image. But I can tell you that these are the types of traits that professionals, skilled artists, curators, and other visual connoisseurs spend oodles of time digesting.

Asher: No I wouldn't clip anything. The slightly excess foreground texture might seem a bit vacuous --and it is-- but the more I look at the image the more I feel that this actually adds a slight bit of tension and imbalance to what might otherwise be a somewhat sleepy image.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Has anyone else noticed how everything in this image is moving from left to right? The trees have a wind-lean, the cloud forms suggest that they're moving right, even the slopes of the barn roof sections have a headin'-east suggestion. The slight swale of the land at frame-right contains the image and gives us a comforting sense of stability.

I missed that. Thanks for pointing that out. Yes I see the movement.

I've no idea if Tom saw any of this when he took this image. But I can tell you that these are the types of traits that professionals, skilled artists, curators, and other visual connoisseurs spend oodles of time digesting.

I feel good then that Tom has been in my favorite list for some time. His work is rich indeed! However, one still needs more than one set of eyes to find everything.

Asher: No I wouldn't clip anything. The slightly excess foreground texture might seem a bit vacuous --and it is-- but the more I look at the image the more I feel that this actually adds a slight bit of tension and imbalance to what might otherwise be a somewhat sleepy image.

Ken,

It's not the foreground that I'd want to trim. I'd guard every morsel of that. It's the very tom edge of sky and losing that would make the foreground even stronger. Still, I'm not adamant about it, just it's worth looking at.

 

[John Angulat]

Two compliments that I feel need to be paid here:
The first obviously goes to Tom for sharing these excellent images.
The second must be paid to Ken for sharing such insight.
I've read and re-read this thread and I'm only begining to understand the depth of Ken's understanding of photography and it's elements.
Thank you, Ken for taking the time and extraordinary effort you put into all you share with us.