Shel wrote:
> > >
> > > What a fascinating comment. Photographing people is what I do best.
> > > I see John Mason's photograph as a photograph about people. Perhaps
> > > you don't see it that way ... maybe to you it's a picture of a train
> > > platform.
> > >
> >
> > More condecension, eh Shel?
>
> Condescension?! I'm just pointing out that we may have two
> different perspectives on what John's photo is about. Where's the
> condescension in that? Lacking in your response is how you see the
> photo, which would allow us - both you and me - to better understand
> one another's point of view. Your perspective on the photo would
> also allow others who are interested to understand how you see
> things, so that your comments would have a greater context.
>
I used the word condescension because of your "What a fascinating comment".
You seem to be implying that my admission that I don't usually photograph
people (which was unrelated to this thread) somehow lessens the validity of
my words. I don't believe it does.
I see the photo as a night scene, not just about people, not just about a
train platform. They are there. Why they are there, whether they are
boarding a train or waiting to greet passengers is unknown. We don't when
the train is coming, whether it is late or not, or where it is going. In my
mind not seeing the train raises questions. Some pictures tell a story when
accompanied by narrative. This one, because he did not engage his subjects
or tell us any details works differently. It extends to the viewer, the
liberty of interpretation, which I have found entertaining.
Maybe this is the story... it could just as well be 1000's of other things.
"It was after 1AM on a cold chill night in Harrisburg, PA. The two men in
the foreground are brothers and learned several hours ago that a train
carrying their wives and children had derailed resulting in some serious
injuries. They were able to speak to their families after the accident
while they were waiting to board a replacement train. Thankfully, they were
among the uninjured. Nevertheless they have been here for some time,
anxiously awaiting their arrival, having had time to reflect on what could
have been."
Now look at the photo.
http://pug.komkon.org/01may/trackmen.html
The story and background can change one's perception of the photo. Many of
your own photos have this. It does alter one's perceptions, but not the
photo itself.
So pictures that tell a story are good, certainly. But a question that is
raised in my mind is this. Does a picture need to tell a story to be good?
I think the answer is "No". Photos do not need to tell a story. A
beautiful landscape tells virtually no story, yet is breathtaking. On the
flipside, the fact that a photo tells a story or the photographer spent time
with the subject, does not make it a good photo. It can possibly add
interest knowing the story, supplement the photo, but it does not change the
compositional or esthetic elements of the shot.
Maybe certain things could have been done differently in this shot. That's
often the case. I just found it to be thought provoking as it was.
Tom C.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
