Black-and-White Update

Submissions for the "Baker's Dozen Black-and-White" are now closed, as of last night at midnight. Counting them was not a trivial task, but I believe I got 223 submissions and well over 350 individual photographs—let's call it "between 350 and 400" and that will probably be correct, although it's possible that if I actually counted the individual photographs the total might be more than 400 or even more than 450. Most people sent three.

From which I now need to select 13.

And virtually none of the 350–400 are incompetent. A few might be somewhat nondescript, but that's the worst I can say. (And even some of those might come alive in context.)

Plus, many people sent along nice letters to me or long explanations of the circumstances of their shot (like Richard Kelley's that I published on Wednesday). I've read all of those, and I beg your forgiveness for not replying to everyone. It would be a week's work or so to write individual replies.

I've completed the first two rounds of editing, and have flagged the entries that I feel merit further evaluation. There are maybe 50 of those. The next step will be to go through all of those again, spend more time with each of them this time, and select the "shoo-ins" you might say—the ones I wouldn't want the feature to be without. That might do it right there, I don't know; we'll see.

With so many to choose from, I'm just going to pick pictures I myself like looking at. I don't know what else to do—the idea that the ones I pick might be "better" and the ones I don't "worse" is silly. We all have our own taste, and I'm sure if any of my friends were doing the editing here we'd all come up with different groups of 13. (Thirteen is a baker's dozen, as you probably know by now.)

And before you suggest it, no, it would be way too much administrative work to actually send everything to someone else and let them edit their own groupings. There's nothing at stake here; no prizes for you, no income for me. We're just having fun.

Mild critiques
Before I get back to work on this (I don't know when I'll finish; sometime between later today and Monday, I imagine), a few observations. First, please allow me to gently suggest that heightening the contrast and "clarity" (it's called "Structure" in Nik Silver Efex Pro 2) in a cloudy sky doth not by itself a B&W photograph make. Second, the same is true for a picture containing areas of white set off from areas of black or areas of black set off by areas of white—the picture still has to work on the level of content—emotion, meaning, connotation, information, feeling-tone—just like any other photograph.

In making "criticisms" I usually like to illustrate what I'm talking about using positive counterexamples, because it's never nice to hold anyone's specific work up as an example of what not to do (what did they do to deserve that?), and there are always exceptions to every rule. So here's a "black on white" photo that I think works very nicely:

Photo by Chris Fuller

It's called "Mueseo Soumaya (Mexico City)" and it was sent in by Chris Fuller of Helena, Montana. "Museo Soumaya was built by Carlos Slim, the richest man in the world, in honor of his wife. It contains the largest collection of Rodin sculptures outside of Paris, including the very famous one in this picture. I liked how the pensive posture of the security guard balanced the statue." Me, too. Taken with a Fuji X100.

I'd also like to introduce the notion that submitting three photographs to a "contest" is a bit of a trap. (Not one I set intentionally, I assure you.) It probably felt to people like they would increase their chances if they included three, but actually I think the opposite is the case. Three pictures in a submission is almost like a mini-portfolio; one strong picture is weakened by being in the company of two weak ones, and three pictures that have nothing in common with each other suggest that the photographer has no coherent vision or style, no concerns that distinguish him or her from the crowd. Even if that isn't really the case.

I'd like to show you two examples of the opposite—sets of three in which each picture makes the others stronger.

The first set is by Dan Rubin of New York City, who uses a Canon S95 point-and-shoot and describes himself as "non-professional":

Photographs by Dan Rubin

It goes without saying that you can't represent your range as a photographer and the range of your accomplishments in three pictures. Many photographers can't do that even in a single book, even with forty to sixty pictures or more. But I think by confining himself to a coherent theme, Dan makes a better case for each picture; each picture reinforces the others and each makes the other two stronger.

Another positive example:

Photographs by David Adam Edelstein

Here, in another effective set, David Adam Edelstein of Seattle, Washington, doesn't make use of a common theme, but rather a common aesthetic approach or "mood" you might call it. (Although all three have in common that they were shot with his Leica M Monochrom in Florence, Italy.) All three are dark, enigmatic, and work through a sense of mystery and indirection—in different ways, but together they speak of an underlying visual intelligence in common.

(David did say of the middle picture, "No, I can't explain the panda," which made us both smile.)

In general, though, I was surprised by how many submissions of three seemed diluted...the strongest picture undermined by the other two, or the effect and impression of the mini-grouping weakened by a lack of coherence between the three.

Another type of exception to that might be this pairing of a high-key shot and a low-key shot together, sent in by Peter Dewar, a retiree who lives near Cape Town, South Africa, and photographs for his local camera club:

Photographs by Peter Dewar

These two photographs (extensively manipulated, as he explains!) work nicely together by means of contrasts...they're opposites, in several ways. I suppose it was just accidental that they appear together in this order in his email, but I liked looking at them together, going back and forth.

One and done
Finally, although chosen by a minority of senders, the best approach when you're allowed to send three photos might be just to make a stand: one and done. Pick a strong picture and live or die by it. It's the no-nonsense approach, the don't-hedge-your-bets, take-it-or-leave-it approach. 

Photo by Michael Knowles

This submission by Mike Knowles of Edinburgh, Scotland, taken with an Olympus E-520 and 11–22mm lens at the Maritime Museum in Amsterdam, is a good example of that. It's the only picture Mike sent.

...Although, as we'll see in the final portfolio in the case of readers Lois Elling and Hans Muus, sending more than one picture sometimes does pay off!

A big thanks to everyone who participated. I can't show everyone's photographs because 400 doesn't fit into 13, but I enjoyed seeing everyone's pictures, and I read everyone's comments.

More anon. In the meantime, hope you have a very nice weekend! As for me, I'll be working.  :-)

Mike

Original contents copyright 2017 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Oskar Ojala: "I enjoy these posts since the topic brings out interesting stories like the one that was featured a few days ago to thoughts and discussion around photography. B&W is particularly interesting since it's your preferred medium and I anticipated the readership of this blog would be quite comfortable with it (me I mostly do B&W for portraits).

"It's interesting to note what the trend is with contrast and clarity (boosting the local contrast). My advice is to look at photographs from various photographers taken at various times and see what makes then work; a lot of classic BW is not all that high in contrast; looking at such images helps to reset my compass after too much time on the Internet."

Tippler: "Can we do a selection of another baker’s dozen, only this time the selection made on the basis of voting by all TOP subscribers. This would yield a selection based on the group perspective and would be interesting to compare to your selection. Setting up automated voting might prove to be too cumbersome an exercise, though. Happy new year to all you snowbound upstaters. We are merely freezing in NYC."

Mike replies: Actually, crowd-sourcing is not the best method of editing. The reason is that editing is in part a creative process; for example, I pay a lot of attention to the mix of work and to the pacing of a group of photos when I edit a set. As a hypothetical example, let's say that the crowd likes landscapes better than street shots, and, for that reason, four very similar landscape photos all score higher in the voting than the best of the street shots, leaving no room for any street shots at all. That would be a worse set of pictures than one which chose the best landscape but also included a street shot, for those who like that genre. Do you see what I mean?

For example, I'm having to choose right now between two flower closeups. I don't think there's enough room in a set of thirteen pictures for two flower closeups; so I really have to choose one or the other. They're both excellent. Which one I choose will not have to do with which one I merely like the best. It will have more to do with the one that suits the overall mix better and provides the right degree of dissonance or distinction with the picture placed before it and the picture placed after it.

Comments

[Frank Petronio]

What strikes me as odd/humorous is that if you take a "popular" B&W photo from social media and look at the histogram you'll see that oftentimes they restrain the highlights. Like holding them to 175 out of 255. This makes the picture "art" as compared to using the entire range of tones ;-p

[Bernd Reinhardt]

"three pictures that have nothing in common with each other suggest that the photographer has no coherent vision or style, no concerns that distinguish him or her from the crowd"

I appreciate that you are honest about this, but I feel obliged to tell you that it irks me a little that this is the case. You asked for submission of up to three single photographs that fit a certain requirement. This is quite different from a series of up to three photographs. I guess it is good to hear you elaborate on what your expectations really were, and this is a good example for what photographers are up against when they submit for any call for photography submission in general.

[Tom]

I find David Adam Edelstein's trio particularly appealing. It would be good to see more of his work.

[Anthony Shaughnessy]

I like Chris Fuller's shot but didn't understand your learning point about it. However I did get the learning points from the other shots you picked out and found these very interesting and instructive. In fact, I'd love to see more posts like this from you - please?
Anthony

[David Raboin]

Thanks for the advice Mike. This is why TOP is the best photography blog: so much photographic wisdom packed into bite sized daily readings.

[mark]

I have to agree with Bernd Reinhardt's comments. I thought the "exercise" was to submit images, up to 3...without any criteria that they had to tell a story or be related in any way, sharp, manor or form. Also, I thought that the story behind each image was of importance, meaning the submission might be telling 3 different stories. So your criticism that the photographers who submitted 3
unrelated images puts them in the class of having "no coherent
style or vision" is wee bit over the top. Harsh words. As for the examples you have selected....lovely work. I would be proud to have them in my portfolio.

[You're both making the mistake of believing in the myth of objectivity. Photographs are always in context...some context.

In any case there's no guarantee that I would be more likely to pick a photograph for inclusion if the three pictures go together, or unlikely to pick one if it's accompanied by two weaker pictures. None of the examples I shared in this post were picked for the final set, for instance. (Although you could argue that the treatment they got was just as good as being picked.) With ~400 submissions for 13 slots it's "throwing darts" past a certain level, as one commenter said.

Plus, all "judges" are subjective, as anyone will attest who has been involved with any contest or award with multiple judges. I once presided over a contest with three judges, and I solved the inevitable arguments by letting each judge name one inclusion that was automatically included with no vetoes from the others possible. Like a "franchise player" that can't be traded. That way, everyone got to award at least one favorite without having to fight for it. None of the judges liked the personal pick of the other two! And over the rest of them, we argued and negotiated and then argued and negotiated some more.

I'm just talking here about how photographs worked for me in the context of this exercise. It can't be avoided...there's always that context. --Mike]

[Kenneth Tanaka]

These are all lovely images. Your eye leans toward surrealism. (Although one could argue that b&w is intrinsically rather surreal.)

So you'll now have shown a baker's 23 ?!

[Jeff Clevenger]

I envy your experience in seeing the full raft of submissions for this week's Baker's Dozen, Mike - the examples you show here indicate that there's a lot to inspire and educate us in the work of our peers this time around.

For me, I just threw three pics that I like from my current one-man show ("The Nichols Arboretum in Black and White", on display at the Ann Arbor District Library downtown until Jan. 10th) in an email and sent them in, two landscapes taken with short telephotos (85 and 105mm Takumars) and a wildlife photo of a seriously moulting young goose with a thoughtful expression (via a Carl Zeiss MC 135).

There are 47 pics in the show - so, go figure, which to send to you? I simply chose three that I especially like and there you go.

They do provide a nice, though very small, sample of how I have come to approach landscape and nature photography after a couple years of photographic efforts in the Arb. Short telephotos help me find and isolate subjects that otherwise get a little muddled-together in a place as full of trees, shrubs, paths and various environmental-study micro-environments as the Arb. Anyway, hope you like 'em too!

Thanks,
Jeff Clevenger

[I did like them, Jeff, and I also really enjoyed seeing everyone's pictures. Quite a great Christmas present for me, actually. I've really enjoyed it. --Mike]

[William Lewis]

Context. Yep, that's what I was hoping for in my winter shots. The description of the day that all three shots were made on were important to me and that context. I don't know if any of them will win (given the talent level here I doubt it but actually don't feel bad about that - if one did, I'd be ecstatic).

Photos are always a frozen moment in time and that sometimes is a fact that's fun to play with in wintertime...

[Moose]

"I find David Adam Edelstein's trio particularly appealing. It would be good to see more of his work."

Search engines are your friends. Lots of hits, lots of photos.

[Ernie Van Veen]

I would have send you three of my images, but the truth is, I couldn't choose from my small, dubious black and white collection, for the simple reason that I don't really know what I'm doing! I'm useless when it comes to converting colour to B&W, so I mostly shoot B&W by choosing the monochrome option on the camera settings and just shooting jpegs in camera and not manipulating them at all.

[Arg]

Sadly I sent my set to the wrong email address, .co instead of .com, I now realise.

Was never going to make the 'dozen' anyway...

[Jack Stivers]

"Search engines are your friends. Lots of hits, lots of photos."

So true. Just ask the personnel officer at any company or any cyber stalker. 8-o

[Maggie Osterberg]

Dammit. I've got a whole folder of candidates and I didn't send a single one in.

Stupid holiday bustle!

Looking forward to the B Duz!

[Robert]

I got back from Christmas with the family to find I’d missed the deadline. Good thing though; my planned submission was just three photos of clouds :)

Looking forward to seeing the thirteen, and thanks for sticking with the blog for another year. Best to you in the new year!

[Rob de Loe]

The popularity of your B&W Baker’s Dozen call is no surprise to me Mike. You’ve touched a nerve! My hunch is that many TOP readers are very serious amateurs who crave recognition and want an audience (whether or not they’ll admit that!), but aren’t satisfied with collecting “likes” on Instagram. Personal websites are mostly a dead-end for attracting an audience and recognition. Gallery shows are out of reach for almost everyone. What else is there? Then along comes your “fun” call for photos! Being selected for your Baker’s Dozen will put 13 peoples’ images on the screens of 1,000s of fellow dedicated photographers, and give them a degree of legitimacy. Of course you got hundreds of submissions! I shall definitely enjoy the results of your efforts.

[DavidB]

I had selected two images for submission. Then I saw some very nice B+W images on some other site and began to realize that I don't understand how to see in B+W. So, no submission from me. I'm actually more interested in seeing and learning from your Baker's Dozen.

[Trecento]

Happy New Year, Mike. Some years, I think I percieve that you are up moderating posts on New Year's, and I usually try to wish you a happy one. I think, most days, most years, TOP is the first website I read in the morning, and the last one I read at night. That might be true tonight as well.

Good wishes, God's blessings, and may you be happy this coming year!

[Roger Bradbury]

I missed the deadline. I came home very tired and couldn't get warm for hours, and forgot everything else. I should have sent you some photos before the deadline; I have no excuse.

Oh well. I look forward to seeing the Baker's Dozen.

[KeithB]

I know you don't like to post bad examples, but how about if you do a baker's dozen of *bad* photographs, where the submitter's know they are bad images? Then you can post bad examples without embarrassing anyone.

[Sylvain G.]

Beautiful exercise Mike,

I like your approach at teaching by positive examples only and how it allows us to discover new photographers too ! If possible, it would be nice that you provide links to their online presence if any.

By the way, it also popped "Mark Surloff" to my mind, a photographer you once featured and that I somehow expected to see published in that printing partnership that came a couple of months later. Turned out to be something else.

Can't wait for the winners.

Greetings,