If you haven't checked in with the original "Horizonless" post, check it out: there are now 19 reader pictures posted there.
The dust has cleared somewhat, and in toto I think I got about 350 to 400 responses to my call for work yesterday. I admit I tended to like best the pictures where people were playing with the whole idea of horizons. Although nobody beat Juan Buhler at that:
...answering the question, when is the horizon not the horizon?
There were a whole lot of nature pictures, pictures with fake horizons, pictures where the horizon is obscured by fog. There were a lot of pictures that really didn't have anything to do with the idea of horizons. And even a few pictures with horizons in them!
Does this picture by Bill Stormont have a horizon or not? It sort of does, but it sort of doesn't.
Re•ac•tions
But anyway, here are a few of my thoughts about exercises like this, thoughts I thought as I was working on editing all the submissions:
1. It sort of makes me into the world's most hard-hearted club bouncer. I don't like that. What you're primarily doing is saying thanks, but (shades of The Soup Nazi), no publication for you! It's not like anybody sends in their bad pictures. Everybody sends in their good pictures. So who am I to judge? You get favor—you don't. It's all pretty arbitrary. (This is a way to say, again, thanks to everyone. I enjoyed seeing all the pictures, including the pictures I didn't post.)
2. Then there's the conflict between me and thee. That is, I have this subterranean tussle going on between what I like and what I think other people are going to like. I don't want to just please myself. Lots of people will see the post. Got to try to be fair—not to the people whose pictures I pick as much as to the people who are going to be looking at them.
3. Then there's "contest syndrome." After a while, trends emerge. Lots of people, for instance, sent in pictures taken in the woods. The first one you see you think, yeah, that's good. Then you see eighteen more, and you have a basis for comparison, and you pick a few. They're maybe not the "best," but they're representative. Then that sort of takes care of pictures taken in the woods. Then you get thirty more pictures taken in the woods. And you can't really use any of them even though some of them are perfectly fine just because you've "already got some of those." But it's not as if some of the ones in the last thirty wouldn't have worked just as well as the ones I picked.
Another aspect of contest syndrome is that after seeing a lot of same sort of thing, you need a picture with something special or different that sets it apart. So you pick something that's...well, if not turned up to eleven, maybe turned up to ten and a half.
4. With me, there's also passive-agressive anti-contest syndrome. As I see more and more standout pictures, I dig in my heels and think I ain't giving in to that. I'm going to pick something that's quiet and subtle and requires a little contemplation...that's just me.
5. I'm biased a little by names I know. I don't necessarily favor them, but I give them a little more attention.
6. Finally, timing. Early bird gets the, er...well, you know what I mean.
'Again, daddy'
(You know how little kids say that.)
Maybe I'm a glutton for punishment (these posts are a lot of work, much more than it probably looks like), but I think I'll do this again. Next week, I'll put out a call for work on Sunday afternoon, and then post the pictures on Monday. That way, people will be at home, and people in other times zones will get the word.
Here are some more "horizonless" pictures from TOP readers.
Heavily stratified limestone, Gole di Breggia, southern Switzerland. Photo by Julian Barkway.
By Bill Schneider
By Jamie Pillers
By Jim Simmons
Han River, Seoul, South Korea. Photo by Alejandro Martinez.
By Paul Wicks
By Terry Letton
By Paul De Zan
By Paul Marriner
By David Rea
By Ken Royce
By Marcelo Guarini
By David Blanchard
River entering the sea in Iceland. Photo by Jeff Grant.
(Aerial photo, taken from a helicopter)
By Carsten Bockermann
-
Thanks again to everyone who sent in pictures.
Mike
Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
A book of interest today:
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Jim Simmons: "Yes, I got a lot out of viewing all the posted images, but where this exercise really benefited me was going through the past few month's folders of images with Mike's 'horizonless' filter in my mind, considering each image's relationship to that word/concept, and making all kinds of mental connections that helped me see my own work in new ways. Yeah, it was a thrill seeing one of my pictures on TOP, but nothing compared to the discoveries I made last night looking at some images I'd completely forgotten about and then working them up on Photoshop to send to Mike. Thanks for the invitation and encouragement to spend some time with my own pictures in a thoughtful evening of exploration!"
Bahi: "Very strong set—loved it!"
James Sinks: "I've really enjoyed this, and I'm looking forward to seeing more, but I have an odd request—please don't do it too often. I enjoyed seeing these photographs and the Tejas collection, but I think that a regular Mike Johnston Photo Contest (which is what it is, in spite of all your protestations) would get very boring very quickly. Especially for Mike Johnston. Keep it irregular, keep it rare, and keep it fun, otherwise you might have a hard time keeping it alive."
This is one of the most consistently interesting sets I've EVER seen. Real good company around here.
Posted by: Paul De Zan | Tuesday, 11 December 2012 at 03:47 PM
These pictures make a 'monkey with a camera' out of me. I just don't seem to have a photographic eye. Oh well, back to contraption building.
[Don't be discouraged. Remember, you're still the best photographer of John Robison's life and the things that are important to John Robison...that's how I keep discouragement at bay, anyway. --Mike]
Posted by: John Robison | Tuesday, 11 December 2012 at 04:10 PM
Wow! This is better than Flickr!
Posted by: Tony McLean | Tuesday, 11 December 2012 at 04:13 PM
It was fun to play along. You posted about ten percent, by my math. I didn't make the cut. That's OK. It just means that I'm not ready to run with the big dogs yet. I'll play again. It was fun to look at all of the great photos that you did post. Thanks.
Posted by: Richard | Tuesday, 11 December 2012 at 04:25 PM
I think maybe I like set no. 2 better than the first set -- but not hugely, they're both full of good pictures.
I suspect this (dealing with 400 submissions) is less stress for you than it would be for me (not necessarily less work, which is different). I think I get "aesthetic fatigue" before then. But then you've had more practice.
Fun, thanks!
Posted by: David Dyer-Bennet | Tuesday, 11 December 2012 at 04:50 PM
The phases of appreciation/frustration, as told by Mike while viewing the submissions, were probably felt by those who submitted during their own selection process. I know I did. Also, I over-thought it long enough to decide enough other pictures had flooded the inbox to satisfy the exercise.
Some of the pictures posted and my stuff, too had something interesting in common: Some part of the composition served as a stand-in for a horizon.
Posted by: David Stubbs | Tuesday, 11 December 2012 at 04:51 PM
Juan's photo up top is fantastic. I'd love to see that as a print offer!
Posted by: Aaron | Tuesday, 11 December 2012 at 04:52 PM
It's interesting how many of these "horizonless" shots have implied horizons in them. Maybe something in us just yearns for a horizon.
Posted by: Bruce Van Valen | Tuesday, 11 December 2012 at 05:06 PM
Are we allowed to express a preference? If so, the snow scene by Kazi Ushioda is practically a photographic Haiku.
Posted by: SteveB | Tuesday, 11 December 2012 at 05:20 PM
Call me whiny, but I'd rather go for a monthly basis. I never thought I'd ever say that, but I actually like this photography site because it doesn't show so many photographs! Instead we get an enjoyable and enriching read.
OK OK, I realize you never said you'd do it till the end of days :-), you only said "next week" but it got me thinking about "what if" your site was more media centric.
Oh, and I should not forget to say I really liked the selected photographs, superb !
Greetings,
S.
Posted by: Sylvain G. | Tuesday, 11 December 2012 at 05:30 PM
"Maybe something in us just yearns for a horizon."
Or maybe that's something I was looking for. [g]
Mike
Posted by: Mike Johnston | Tuesday, 11 December 2012 at 05:31 PM
There's great talent amongst your readers. I hope that you enjoyed reviewing the submissions as much as I enjoyed the ones you chose to share.
Posted by: Ed Grossman | Tuesday, 11 December 2012 at 05:59 PM
Some very, very nice stuff there - both sets.
Posted by: David Paterson | Tuesday, 11 December 2012 at 06:19 PM
I think you should pick the images that you like not the ones you think other people will like; otherwise you might just drive yourself nuts!
These are all wonderful images! And having reader participation via image submission, beyond just comments, is very much appreciated and enjoyed!
Posted by: Michael T. | Tuesday, 11 December 2012 at 06:47 PM
Mike,
Thanks for the work you put in; I have empathy, and the inclusion. I'm very honored. Nice that both you and Elizabeth mention Mike Chisholm; I find his work inspiring myself, as well as his blog.
Bron
Posted by: Bronislaus Janulis | Tuesday, 11 December 2012 at 06:55 PM
Great Post and images Mike, really enjoyed that. Too bad the picture I forgot to submit was not picked :)
Posted by: robert harshman | Tuesday, 11 December 2012 at 07:05 PM
Just wanted to say - some really nice stuff in there. Wow! I need to get out and work harder.
Ray
Posted by: Ray Hudson | Tuesday, 11 December 2012 at 07:16 PM
I vote with Michael T. Post what you like without feeling like it has to meet any standard but yours!
Posted by: jim | Tuesday, 11 December 2012 at 07:44 PM
Mike,
You're a braver man than I.
I like to think that I've got a pretty solid sense-of-self, photographically speaking, and that I don't need validation from someone else. Even so, I couldn't help but feel a twinge of pain that I didn't get picked. Then I thought, "Hey -- I think my photos are better than some of the ones that got picked." On one hand, that's a good response, because it means that I'm pursuing my own artistic vision and have a clear enough idea of what I'm trying to do that I'm not swayed by a spur-of-the-moment informal selection process. On the other hand, perhaps I'm delusional.
Either way, I hope the sampling of reader's work doesn't upset the wonderful balance of writing and responses. It's a great little photography hangout in this niche of the internet. I'm not sure I'd want to add on a potential stress of aggrieved artists.
It's definitely intriguing to see other reader's work, though.
Posted by: Mark | Tuesday, 11 December 2012 at 07:46 PM
Thanks for making the call, Mike (this and next week's!) It yielded a fascinating set, many of which I wish I'd shot or could shoot.
It's also intriguing to see what "grabs" you and what you think your readers like. I like the result like most of your readers (if the comments are an indication).
Although I'm a verbal person, I like it when pictures do the talking from time to time in a photography blog. Most of the pictures published in this call and in TOP in general, speak to me. I'm still not fluent in the language of photography though. So I can't say I get it all the time. "Horizonless" doesn't mean landscapes, I get that now.
Next time, I'll submit my entry earlier to improve its chances of being picked (didn't "make it" this time). What would it be about, I wonder.
Posted by: Sarge | Tuesday, 11 December 2012 at 07:50 PM
You may feel conflicted, but it was fun. Thanks.
Posted by: Robert Roaldi | Tuesday, 11 December 2012 at 08:22 PM
"Even so, I couldn't help but feel a twinge of pain that I didn't get picked."
Hmm, the problem there could be that I didn't get an entry from you, Mark...sure you sent it? I've been checking the email spam folders, too.
But, SERIOUSLY now, it's not a contest. I tried to make that clear. I wasn't trying to pick "the best" or "the most popular" work. In some cases it was just that a few things seemed to go together. So, really now, people should NOT take it personally if they were overlooked.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Johnston | Tuesday, 11 December 2012 at 08:54 PM
From where I'm standing, both of the "above the fold" images have horizons. Am I wrong, or was that your intent?
Posted by: Will | Wednesday, 12 December 2012 at 02:11 AM
I know it must be a lot of work, but also wonder if from this exercise you get a warm feeling of pride about how good your site's audience is. I know I would.
Excellent photographic sets, excellent indeed, a joy to see.
Posted by: Rodolfo Canet | Wednesday, 12 December 2012 at 03:01 AM
My favourite shots are David Blanchard's stone in a melted spot in the snow, and the cat photo by Gus Ginge, from the first set.
Both feature a roundish orange shape in the middle of the picture, and I don't know what that says about me or the mood I was in when I looked late last night. However, both show a small, nicely noticed moment that wouldn't last forever, and it's nice to see an honest, unsentimental photo of a cat, on the internet.
I hope I'm not being rude to the photographer here, but are you sure that Gus Ginge is the photographer's name? Maybe you've mixed the name up with the title.
Er, it's not a self portrait, is it? : ]
Posted by: Roger Bradbury | Wednesday, 12 December 2012 at 04:20 AM
Very strong set — loved it!
Posted by: Bahi | Wednesday, 12 December 2012 at 04:52 AM
who is casten bockermann.. love the photo and the name....ann
Posted by: ann | Wednesday, 12 December 2012 at 06:21 AM
I particularly like Paul Wicks' photo, but then I have a penchant for pictures of the sea, and also for images that tend towards a two dimensional plane (rather than having an apparent three dimensional "depth" - I like "surface", if that makes any sense...)
Posted by: Jonathan | Wednesday, 12 December 2012 at 08:49 AM
"From where I'm standing, both of the "above the fold" images have horizons. Am I wrong, or was that your intent?"
Will,
You need to look at the top image a little more closely! :-)
Mike
Posted by: Mike Johnston | Wednesday, 12 December 2012 at 09:25 AM
Lots of chops out there.
Posted by: Mike Plews | Wednesday, 12 December 2012 at 11:27 AM
Very good photos here, fantasy, view, colors. I really like them. Well done.
robert
Posted by: robert quiet photographer | Wednesday, 12 December 2012 at 04:14 PM
My own 2 cents - the sequencing / juxtaposition in the second series works better for me. Despite the variety, theres a flow. Nice one.
Posted by: Kazi | Wednesday, 12 December 2012 at 05:16 PM
Love the photos and the idea. And Mike we appreciate the effort and anguish that comes from choosing. Hard enough to select one's own photographs.
From someone who missed the cut.
Posted by: Greg | Wednesday, 12 December 2012 at 08:39 PM
Ah, that river in Iceland is getting really popular. I recently bought a huge print of this picture by Hans Strand http://www.hansstrand.com/Hans_Strand/FA_River_Arch.html only to find a similar one online a few weeks later (lost the link, sorry).
Great shot, well done. Wish I had a chopper in Iceland ;)
Posted by: Pascal Jappt | Thursday, 13 December 2012 at 10:25 AM
Good stuff here. Interesting theme.
Posted by: Kenneth Tanaka | Thursday, 13 December 2012 at 12:05 PM