The Online Photographer

Print Crit: ...Then I Said 'Uh-Oh'

I grabbed an envelope off the stack at random to open. Frank Gorga, said the return address, from Antrim, New Hampshire—that's a State in our upper Northeast, New England, for those of you who don't live here. Sliding it out of the package and carefully removing the printed matter and the protection sheet, I thought, hmm, this is nice. Seven life points for black and white! Just kidding. Inkjet, but kind of a low-contrast platinum-palladium (Pt/Pd) vibe going on. A church building with simple massing, modeled by the light. Picture has a "deliberately bad lens" look, like a Holga or another kind of toy camera, or maybe even an actual old lens. It reminds me of some prints I made long ago by shooting a color film cassette in an Instamatic 105 and printing the negatives on Panalure...

...And then I though, uh-oh. As you've already seen from the first picture, there's a crimp running horizontally all the way across the page just below the image.

I noticed the stiffener for the envelope had the same crease in a location that matched. At first I thought the soft, heavy paper might just have been been pressed into the stiffener cardboard, as it would be under a pile of packages, say, and had simply picked up the defect in the cardboard; that can happen. But when I examined the manilla envelope, I saw a faint mirror of the same bend in the envelope. So the whole envelope was bent en route, and then probably straightened out again by somebody who thought they'd fixed it.

So the print did not survive the mail. Ruined.

But since the image area of the picture was not affected, let's go ahead and look at the print anyway, and pretend the crease isn't there.

The first obvious thing is the quality of the paper. It's got a nice deckle edge which you can see here. This snap probably gives you a good idea of the "tooth" or textured surface of the paper, but I did another shot anyway using the phone's Magnifier feature—click the Home button on an iPhone three times rapidly and you're in the magnifier, a softpedaled but often useful feature.

This is magnified about halfway, and well above 1:1.

The paper seemed like a front-and-center feature of this print, so I held it up to the window to see if there was a watermark:

There it is...Johannot, along with the familiar elongated infinity symbol of Arches, which has been making paper since Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue. You can also see Frank's penciled notes on the back showing through, but these aren't visible except in backlight.

Finally to the print. The illustration emphasizes some black speckling, which are indeed there in the print, but I had to go back and look at the print to make sure; they're not really part of the visual impression. The tones are nice; the image is mostly very soft, both in detail and tonality. There are a few sharp lines near the optical axis, but the image is quite blurry as it get toward the corners, and the corners are vignetted too. Again, the snapshot illustration emphasizes the vignetting a little more than the impression in person.

I'm not really too fond of what might be called generic picturesque subjects, but then, a lot of people like such subjects. It's a mistake to believe that criticism is "just a matter of taste"; actually I find I can be a little more objective about things that do not fall under the sort of approach that I tend to favor. If I can find one thing to criticize, it's a feature of the nature of inkjet that I've noticed before. Pt/Pd prints are widely admired as having a look of what's called, for lack of a better term, "depth," a sense that somehow the image is in the fibers of the paper; when well done, it can seem almost like light is emanating from the sheet as well. In my experience, soft- or low-contrast inkjets subtly impart the opposite impression, namely that the image is sitting on top of the paper, as if transferred to it rather than in it, and they can look just a bit flat or dead. A little like a pencil drawing, if you will. Frank's print has a bit of that, to my eye. But then, maybe he likes and prefers that; different printers like different effects, and there's no right or wrong except for each of us as individuals. I don't mind it. It brings out the "design" of the picture more than the "thereness" of the subject.

Good size; I wouldn't want to see an image so basic rendered too large. It's big enough to beckon you from the wall, and small enough to draw you in to look at it up close.

Nice picture; nice print. I think this one's a success.

At that point I picked up the the page I had set aside earlier and turned to Frank's written comments...

The backstory from the photographer
...And things immediately got even more interesting. Turns out it was an old lens—a very old one, a "simple single meniscus lens in a brass tube"—on a camera obscura, no less. And the picture is a digital capture of the image on the camera obscura's groundglass. Very cool.

In case you don't know, the camera obscura was the immediate precursor of the camera. It's like a view camera with no movements save an in-and-out adjustment for focus, and no provision for a film holder. There was usually a mirror in the box to rectify the image, although it was still reversed laterally, like a TLR viewfinder.

So Frank's picture encompasses aspects of very early as well as current photography! Neat. (For those of you who don't know me, "neat" is a term of rare approbation in my critical theory.) The camera obscura was essentially what spurred the invention of photography—it occurred to numerous people simultaneously that the image cast by the lens, which artists sometimes used to trace images from nature, should somehow be captured directly.

Frank confirmed his use of traditional printmaking paper, saying, "most of my printing these days is done with paper not specifically coated for inkjet printing." He used an Epson P800 in ABW mode.

He says he is of "that old 'it ain't done until it is printed' school of photography," and goes on to tell us that up to half his printing these days consists of cyanotypes that he tones to "eggplant black" along with the occasional salt print or Van Dyke brown print. But he gave up silver printing a long time ago, as he "simply gets better results more easily via the inkjet printer."

I enjoyed living with this this past week, the crease be damned. Good work and thanks, Frank. Into the Readers' Prints archival box it goes. Or will go, once the box arrives.

Mike

Every weekend I'll show you an original print and say whatever might come to mind about it. After one "Print Crit" is published, I'll pick another envelope at random from the stack and open that one, then live with it for the week before writing about it.

Feel free to share your own opinion of the picture in the Comments if you like, but bear in mind that the photographer is "in the room" and will see your comment.

Original contents copyright 2020 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.

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

Clayton Ravsten: "I love the photograph. And the methodology...Mr. Gorga not only is thinking outside the box, but he burned the box down. Love it!"

Frank Gorga: "Thanks so much! I am honored to have my work featured in the inaugural Print Crit. Sorry about the crease...you would think that good stiff corrugated cardboard would be enough, but the folks at the USPS obviously just take that as a challenge. Next time I'll try a piece of iron!

"As for your comment on the size of my print...I find that images from the camera obscura really start to 'fall apart' when printed larger than nine inches square and that the six and a half inch square size is really the sweet spot for most images. In general, I like my prints on the smaller side. A preference that comes, I think, from my earliest days in photography (circa 1970) when all I could afford was to contact print my 4x5 negatives."

Scott: "I know you were hoping to do this via video, and perhaps you still will. But you should know your written version communicated to me a deep understanding of how you perceived this print. Well done! And I like the print as well."

Wozcraft: "Interesting technique. Sad about the crease but it reminds me of the photographer who found a crumpled envelope in his letter box on which the sender had written 'Photographs Do Not Bend' and underneath scrawled in pencil were the words 'Oh yes they do!'"

Dennis Ng: "A very good idea for your blog."

Mike: Glad to hear you think so. Thank you for the feedback.

The Five Finalists

We've concluded the first round of our Reader's Print Offer search. We have five finalists from this round; we'll do two more rounds at some point in the future, looking for four or five finalists from each, and then we'll evaluate prints to determine the pictures in the final sale. Before I present the finalists I'd just like to thank everybody who participated in the first round—the approximately 600 people who submitted pictures, and all 20 semifinalists. Their names have now all been added to their pictures in the original post, so you can now see who took what.

I asked each finalist to write a few words about their photographs. Without further ado, and in no particular order—

James C. Tiemann

Jim Tiemann of Denver, Colorado, is already known to TOP readers from this post (the little guy, if you're curious, is now two years old and thriving). Jim took this remarkable steam engine shot with a Leica M6 TTL and 50mm Summicron in North Platte, Nebraska, in February of 2004, on Ilford XP2 film.

Jim writes:

Union Pacific railroad's Challenger class (4-6-6-4) No. 3985 was built in 1943 by the American Locomotive Company (Alco). It measures, with tender, 121 ft. (36.8m) in length and weighs 1.07million lbs. (487,000 kg). She was retired from active use in 1957, and sat unused until 1981, when she was restored to working duty for both excursions and regular freight. Of the 105 Challengers built, there are only two remaining, so it is a small miracle that this one is in service.

The photo was taken on a clear and very cold day. The temperature was about 15°F (–9°C), and windless. The locomotive had a stuck-open cylinder cock, so it was limited in speed as it passed the camera. Also, due to the stuck valve, it was blowing lots and lots of clean steam off the cylinders, which gave a beautiful contrast to the dirtier smoke-filled steam coming off the stack that you see in the upper portion of the image. The still, cold air gave the etherial quality to the billowing steam, as it was not dissipating—it just hung there.

Several readers thought this must have been Photoshopped, and they're partly right—the negative has a small scratch in the area of the train's boiler that has to be fixed. Other than that, it's a natural photograph. I originally assumed the smoke in the upper right must have been burned it, but Jim assures me it's not, and offered to send me the proof sheet to prove it! I took his word for it, of course.

Jim, who is married, is a commercial pilot.

-

Kathleen Pickard

Canadian Kathy Pickard worked long and hard to get this shot, which she took with a Nikon D300 and 18–200mm lens.

"Mosaic" is one of a series of photographs I shot on the eastern shore of the Bruce Peninsula in Ontario, Canada. The waters of Georgian Bay are crystal clear, shockingly cold and, on a sunny day, remarkably animate. It took me a number of attempts over several years to make a photograph that I felt properly captured its spirit.

I shot with the Nikon tripod mounted and manually focused, while up to my knees in water. The challenge came in capturing a situation that was simultaneously stationary and dynamic while paring it down to three elements—rock, water, and light.

I'm one of those photographers who don’t feel that my work is done until I am holding the print in my hand. I've been working on improving my technique over the past ten years. I print with an Epson 3800 inkjet printer, with my preferred paper being Hahnemuhle German Etching, a textured matte paper. I've printed "Mosaic" at about 10.5 inches square on 13x19" paper, and it looks great at that size. I'm sure that it would look good in smaller sizes—say 7.5 inches square on 11x14 or 5.5 inches on 8.5x11. For that matter, the resolution would allow it to be printed larger too, though personally I prefer smaller prints.

Kathleen lives in Simcoe, Ontario. Here's her website.

-

Bernd Reinhardt

Bernd, a resident of Sherman Oaks, California, made his quiet but pleasing landscape with a Fuji GF670, on color negative film. It's part of a series he made this last summer on a road trip through California with a good friend—the full series is called "American Road Trip" and can be viewed on his website.

He writes:

I would like to say the following to my peers: I truly appreciate all the feedback my photograph has received in the Comments section on TOP. It is very valuable to see how people read my work and that some have such a positive emotional response to it, which is something that is difficult to know when you are making or submitting a photograph.

Some inspiration for this and a lot of my photographs comes from the poetry of William Carlos Williams and Wallace Stevens, which describes everyday things and places and reminds me to see and enjoy them more consciously. This particular photograph is untitled because I felt that any title I could give it would put too much emphasis on only one aspect of the composition rather than the photograph as a whole. That being said, Mike's descriptive title "Road with Telephone Pole" works just fine.

As far as a print is concerned, I would appreciate some input from others. I will probably print on 17x22 Baryta paper with archival ink if a smaller and more affordable size is the way to go. Otherwise I will experiment with some larger inkjet and lightjet prints with my local lab.

I hope that my photograph will prove to be one that grows on the viewer more as time passes.

-

Leigh Perry

Leigh, of Sydney, Australia, shot his minimalist masterpiece with an Ebony 45SU 4x5-inch view camera on Fuji Astia, his favorite transparency film, under "glorious fluorescent lighting."

The commenters who speculated that my photograph was a joke were right. It was conceived as a pun on the minimal seascapes I had taken before it. The idea gradually formed itself while I stood for a couple of minutes each day waiting for my car to come out of a car stacker. I eventually became aware that the carpark contained all the elements that would have attracted me to a composition on the coast in the early morning.

The photograph is typical and atypical of my work in equal measure. I've always been obsessed with symmetry (as a kid, if I stubbed a toe, I'd have to do the same on the other foot!), and this reveals itself in my compositions. You'll see from my other portfolios on my website a consistent obsession with geometric layers splitting the frame into halves or thirds. I can't ascribe any credit to Gursky, although I am a fan of the Düsseldorf School. Sugimoto, however, was an influence on the seascapes of mine that morphed into this.

Although most of my subject matter involves landscape, particularly on the coast, I don't particularly consider myself a landscape photographer. I just shoot what is to hand here in Sydney.

-

Roy Feldman

It's a little ironic that some commenters thought that "Barbershop, Detroit" was staged, given that Roy, who shot it with a Panasonic GF1 and Lumix 20mm ƒ/1.7 lens, was so worried about the possibility of being obtrusive that he shot from waist level! I'll let him tell it:

This picture was taken in the Russell Street industrial area of Detroit, an extremely "urban" area. I used the GF1 on shutter priority with multi-point focus chosen. I shot with the camera around my neck but not raised to my eye as that would have called attention to myself and destroyed the ebb and flow of the interaction in the picture. Exposure comp was –1 to avoid blowing out (overexposing) the windows. Some commenters asked if it was set up: trust me, a fat white guy is not going to set up anything with the folks in this neighborhood. Many times when shooting around this area of the city I praise myself for having the foresight to wear brown trousers. Remember we are #3 on the list of the world's most dangerous cities. (No. 1 is Cape Town, South Africa;  no. 2, Karachi, Pakistan; no. 3, Detroit, Michigan, U.S.A.)

As Cartier-Bresson suggests, I tip-toe around the picture and never intrude.

Roy, the only professional photographer among the finalists, says he intends to take Ctein up on his offer to print the picture for him. He envisions it looking best as an 11x14 with one- or two-inch borders, probably on Ilford Gold Fiber.

Here's a link to Roy's blog.

-

That's all for now
Congratulations to Jim, Kathy, Bernd, Leigh, and Roy, and thanks again to everyone who participated in this process—including all of you who commented and voted. I enjoyed it a lot, even though it was a lot of work. We'll do the other two rounds before too long—I'm thinking maybe one before Christmas and one after. We'll see.

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2011 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Scott Kirkpatrick: "It's fascinating to note that four of the five finalists so far were shot on film, and mostly quite a few years ago. Does that say something about TOP's readers?"

Mike replies: Well, it might have been fascinating, but you've miscounted—two of the five are digital. And I don't know how you get to "mostly quite a few years ago." Roy's EXIF says 2010; Bernd states in his write-up that his picture was taken last summer; Kathy's can't have been taken earlier than the summer of 2007, because that's when the D300 came out; Jim's was taken in 2004, and Leigh's website dates his "Primitive Markings" portfolio, from which his picture here comes, from 2007 to the present.

Even without knowing more, I don't get "mostly quite a few years ago" from the available information.

In fact, the finalists accord pretty well with TOP's demographics, or as well as any five pictures can. One-fifth B&W, 4/5ths color—check. One woman, four men—check. (Our female audience is somewhat smaller than 20%, but that's as fine as you can dice a sample of five.) Three Americans, one Canadian, one from elsewhere in the English-speaking world—again, as close as you can get to actual site demographics with this sample size. One-fifth view camera, 1/5th Leica—not exact, but pretty fair. The three film shots are split nicely between 35mm, medium format, and large format. Even the split between a DSLR and a mirrorless digicam among the two digital shots is an adequate representation as far as it goes.

Note that I made no effort whatsoever to spread the results this way or any way. I wasn't paying any attention to it. The way it came out was just the way it came out.

In fact, the only stat here that doesn't accord with site demographics is the film/digital split. Our surveys would predict only one or two of the five using film, rather than three. But that, in turn, accords with the fact that a higher percentage of photographers who make and/or exhibit prints and/or who sell their work use film compared to amateur photographers in general.

Featured Comment by mbka: "Strangely, with the descriptions I enjoy and understand some of these pictures much better now. And even more strangely, Leigh Perry's garage picture that really didn't touch me otherwise, now makes complete sense in the light of his seascapes on his webpage. I find his seascapes absolutely marvelous. They are the kind of pictures I generally like making myself too—a little different in slant but somehow in that vein: smallness of people in the face of space, and space itself."

Featured Comment by Ed Hawco: "What a difference a bit of story makes. I too thought that Jim Tiemann had burned-in the steam in the upper-right quadrant. I have an aversion to the current trend of over-emphasizing billowing clouds that you see so often in over-processed HDR shots and other cases where people go overboard with the 'Clarity' tool and all that. It seemed odd to me that someone would do that on this, such an excellent photo, especially since the steam at the bottom is so clean. Now that I know the truth I can happily boot my prejudice out the window and appreciate the photo all the more for what it is."

Featured Comment by Brian Small: "It's a bit geeky but I think some clarification is in order. In Mr. Tiemann's photo the white billowy stuff near the ground is pure steam from the cylinder cock. The plume in the top of the frame that everyone is worried about is a combination of steam and oil smoke from the stack."

Readers' Prints: Mike's Picks

Photo by John MacKechnie.

I think I'm about to treat you to a different perspective on the 600 pictures submitted to us last Wednesday.

A couple of things to keep in mind about our recent experiment:

Selling prints is really a lot different than exhibiting photographs. Also than discussing photographs. The end-use of a print for sale—at least when there's no personal connection between the subject and the buyer—is presumably for it to be displayed. That is, it will be used as decor. And a picture most people will put up for display can be very different from a picture they'll enjoy looking at online or in a book. (Again, assuming the photographs or the photographers aren't recognizable or famous.) They're actually relatively specialized pictures.

And remember that the pictures in the "semifinals" post have been screened twice for their potential as decor—once by the photographer, once by me.

...With varying levels of understanding and varying levels of success. On all our parts, no doubt.

Many of the 600 submissions the other day were fine photographs. However (rightly or wrongly!), I simply felt that some of them might not have the broad appeal we want for a sale—the purpose of the sales being to make money and create satisfied customers, not necessarily in that order. Among the 600 submissions, I could sense that there were a number that probably have personal meaning for the photographer/submitter, as well as a number that were simply fine or interesting pictures that didn't seem to suit the end-use intended here.

Naturally, any large enough group of pictures can be "filtered" for various different purposes or tastes. When I'm looking for pictures that might make good sale prints, I'm not necessarily just picking things I like; it's not my taste I'm trying to satisfy, it's my conception of other peoples' taste in pictures for display, and hence, purchase. Those are very different things.

I'm quite comfortable with the disparities. To name just the most obvious one: most people are more attracted to color photographs; I'm more attracted to black-and-white ones. That makes me a sucker for lovely things like John MacKechnie's fine environmental portrait of Ms. Laura Swain at the top of this post.

Nice as John's portrait is, few people will hang a picture of an unrelated stranger on their wall when the picture appears to be a portrait, unless the print, the photograph, the photographer, or the subject has some other kind of appeal. I'd hang a portrait of a famous jazz musician, for instance, on my own wall. (Which reminds me, I have a few I need to get framed.) But I might not display this picture of an elderly lady in socks, sensible shoes, and scarf.

That doesn't mean I don't like it. I do. Very much.

By Tommy Brown.

If I were just indulging my own personal taste, Tommy Brown's "Boy on Fence" might have been a top pick. It's just the sort of thing I like: uncontrived documentary black and white, probably 35mm, probably "candid." For better or worse—child of my times though I might be—that's the style of photography that resonates most for me, when I'm not wearing my editor's hat.

Here are just a few more of the photographs that I liked of those submitted.

By Abdul Shaheeb.

Photography as an art form is full of echoes for me. Abdul Shaheeb's fine nighttime photo immediately put me in mind of John Gossage's Berlin work, which uses black forms on very dark gray backgrounds and vice versa, and/or small glimmers and hints of light.

John Gossage, Tiergarten, 1987.

John's pictures are very different from Abdul's—formalist and ambiguous, almost experiential (as well as more assured). Abdul's is prettier, almost pictorialist, by comparison—although I can understand if those terms aren't the first ones that come to most peoples' minds.

(Do note that John Gossage's picture above was not a submission! I'm just including here as an example of his work.)

By Luka Knezevic-Strika

Speaking of echoes, Luka Knezevic-Strika's striking stylized portrait has a distinct Philip-Lorca diCorcia vibe to it. It seems to imply a number of shadowy narratives, ultimately dead-ending in mystery.

By Michael Fioritto.

 For some reason, pictures of pigeons figured among my favorites this go-round. Not only Michael Fioritto's artfully arranged glimpse of this one making a getaway from pedestrians, with its rough but modern-arty massing of tones; Jeff Schimberg's also grew on me with successive viewings. Jeff's picture has what Henri Cartier-Bresson used to refer to as "geometry," with the radically foreshortened wall, the bisecting of the frame in two, and the complex form of the shadow. I like the echoing of the two couples, one close, one distant, light against dark and dark against light—but also, yes, that incongruous pigeon, just as big on the negative as the two living people, inserting itself like a critic in the middle of everything. It's a picture that plays with you (laughs at you, I almost wrote) on a number of levels.

By Jeff Schimberg.

By Bill Hanson.

Speaking of growing on you (I like photographs that unlock slowly), I blew right past Bill Hanson's abandoned interior on the first couple of editing passes. But it has quietly grown on me, with its gentle pastel earth tones, its enigmatic arrangement of spaces and distances, its elegiac emotional ennui. (Not to mention that it's a relief to be reminded that unsaturated reds can still exist, in these digitized times.) The real room in the back appears to be part of the reflected building across the street. This shot doesn't have the wow factor needed to make people anxious to part with their cash, but it has a contemplative quality that is precisely what some conventional "grab-you" pictures lack.

Veeeery interesting

By Jim Hamstra.

Then there were the photographs the main appeal of which was interest. There are always a number of those.

I'm not much for scenics, generally. They just don't have a lot to offer me—and seeing too many at once evokes a feeling akin to eating too much candy. Not long ago I wrote an article about scenics called "Dime a Dozen? You Wish," but I aborted publication—it came off as too snarky. (Funny, the way gently jibing good humor and cutting snark can shape-shift back and forth. I think it might even depend mainly on a reader's mood. Sometimes, when I'm trying to be funny, some readers think I'm being mean.)

I'm interested in pictures of unusual things I don't understand, though, pictures that make me want to know more about what I'm seeing. Jim says these trees were distorted by successive winter avalanches coming from both directions—from the mountainside above them, as well as avalanches from the mountainside opposite that carried across the valley and partway up the other side, to where these hardy survivors are.

The result is a scenic shot with a twist—literally.

By Lars Röglin.

Another of my many weaknesses is for pictures of photographers and people taking pictures. Lars Röglin's was, for me, the best of a number of those.

I take knee-jerk pictures of rainbows too, just like these motorcyclists.

Catnip, they can be, to cats like us.

I was determined to give the "flower pictures" a fair shake, despite my well-known aversion to them. This isn't quite a flower, but I liked this fellow (aloe, is it?), gussied up with a little color nature didn't intend.

By David Stock.

I'll stop now. As I often say, I do go on. But finally, for extra credit, an abstract reasoning test question:

A Tibetan Buddhist is to the Dalai Lama as Mike is to ______.

David Lykes Keenan provided a nice hint to the answer:

The Dalai...er, Elliott Erwitt. Photo by David Lykes Keenan.

Who doesn't love Erwitt? A thing impossible to comprehend.

Lazy Sunday
I seem to be on a roll with (American) football recently—I keep catching these just marvelous games entirely serendipitously. Last night I switched on the TV to find in progress a barnburner between USC and the Oregon Ducks (who have cool uniforms to make up for their very uncool name. Ducks? Of course, maybe a fan of a team named after meat packers shouldn't talk). Great game. I'll be tempting that lightning to strike again later today, but, if all goes well, I will announce the finalists in our contest tomorrow.

I'll just add, for those of you who saw the game last night, that, when it comes to American football, a kicker is the very last thing I would want to be.

A final note: you should check the "Beat the Vikes" post again, if you haven't caught up to David L's Featured Comment yet. I just love that heart-wrenching but hilarious sob at about the 14 second mark—that sound expresses every heartbroken sports fan, in any sport, ever. Poor baby!

Y'all had better win your next game, Vikings.

Hope you have a nice Sunday, however you spend yours.

Mike

ADDENDUM: This post seems to be drawing a lot of comments from people who were dissatisfied with the semifinalist group, but I will say that my #1 favorite shot of the entire 600 is in that group, not this one. I'm just sayin'. —MJ

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2011 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Carl Blesch: "I was too busy Friday or Saturday to make thoughtful comments on your pick of twenty, let alone to vote (when I finally had a chance to drop by TOP on Saturday night, voting had closed). I too am struggling to think of which of these excellent photos I'd want to hang on my wall. In fact, I'm now struggling to articulate my criteria for display photography—mine or the work of others. One criterion is what visitors would think and say when viewing my photos. 'Did you take that picture?' 'Do you know the person in the picture?' 'Is that a place you've been?' Sometimes I'd' like to engage with those questions; other times, I'd rather not, as I sense the viewer is trying to say, 'Why did you ever buy that picture and put it on your wall?' Regardless, this process you are leading is fascinating. Even if it 'fails,' as a commenter or two and maybe even you have suggested, it has succeeded in engaging your audience (well, at least me...)."

Which Pictures Do You Like Best? Please Vote!

(Voting poll removed late Saturday afternoon)

UPDATE (Saturday evening): Unfortunately, we had some vote padding in the afternoon on Saturday. One particular candidate improbably surged from back in the pack to almost double the previous leader's total in just a couple of hours. An overzealous fan or fans of the photographer, perhaps, engineering a little skullduggery?

No matter. The results are clear from the comments, echoed in the first day of voting, and I've made my choices. (Remember, the voting was only advisory, not binding.) The finalists from this round have been chosen and notified. They'll be announced on Monday. On Monday, also, I'll add the photographers' names under each of the 20 semifinalists, so they can all take a well-deserved bow.

Here's a snapshot of a more characteristic period of the voting, from before the, er, irregularities:

Tomorrow, I'll post a few personal favorites and some other pictures of interest from among the submissions not chosen.

Mike

UPDATE #2 (Sunday morning early): Werner J. Karl uncovered the source of the rigging of the vote. One of the photographers enlisted his fans and followers to skew the vote in his favor by means of an importuning via Twitter. Disappointing. I guess Yr. Hmbl. Host will have to be more explicit about the ethics of the voting next time.

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2011 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

First Round Semifinalists—For Discussion

I'd like to solicit your advice and opinions.

My goal was to winnow the semi-finalists from this first round of submissions down to 12 or 15 photographs. This proved to be very difficult: virtually every photograph I received was excellent in some way. There were no duds. So, ever the consummate professional editor, I rose to the challenge...

...and, um, cheated. There are twenty candidates here.

I've identified the pictures only by number, to keep the photographers anonymous for now. (Naturally, semifinalists from the second and third round will be identified with 2xx and 3xx numbering.) [UPDATE: I added the photographers' names when the finalists were announced on Monday, Nov. 21.]

Remember, we're looking for pictures for a future print offer. So—anything here you would have to have if a print were offered at an accessible price?

Take your time. No need to make snap judgements. Look through them several times. Let them sink in for a while.

Don't feel you need to comment on every picture; please make an effort to make your comments succinct. Maybe just confine yourself to commenting about what you really like (or perhaps the opposite).

In a couple of cases I included titles because I felt they were needed. In one case I made the JPEG smaller because I felt it looked better than way.

Remember also that there's a person out there who took each picture, so be considerate even if you dislike something. (But that doesn't mean you have to say "nice capture" to everything.)

If we "vote" on these, it will be in a day or two—I don't want to introduce an objective measurement of popularity too soon.

So here for your delectation and discussion are the semi-finalists from the first round. Looking forward to hearing what you think....

Mike

101—by Roy Feldman (finalist)

102 (title: Carpark Wall and Floor) by Leigh Perry (finalist)

103 by David S. Rosen

104 by Simon Robinson

105 by Kathleen Pickard (finalist)

106 by Bob Blakley

107 by Howard Cubell

108 by Carson Harding

109 by Jonathan Barkat

110 by Richard Hinton

111 by Bernd Reinhardt (finalist)

112 by James C. Tiemann (finalist)

113 by Dave Reichert

114 (Title: Old Faithful Nighttime Eruption) by Alberto Bengoa

115 by David Jacobs

116 by Carl Siracusa

117 by Ed Cornachio

118 by Michael Sanders

119 by Steve Halpern

120 by Chris R. Morse

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2011 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

UPDATE: The Day After

Photo by Paul Lalonde Stern

Well, when the dust settled I had 627 emails in the mailbox yesterday. A couple of dozen people submitted their photo twice, fearing it hadn't gone through the first time, so call it 600 entries, give or take a few.

Traffic on the site for the day set the high-water mark for 2011, by far.

I had zero stress keeping up; rather, it was simply a pleasure to see so much good work. As you might expect, the standard of quality and competence among the entries is high. I think the hard part will be whittling down the 600 to the 15 or so semi-finalists I intend to post for discussion—I'm sure if I pick a dozen there are another two or three dozen just as good.

In some cases we got very fine pictures that I don't think would make very good sale candidates (which is what we're looking for, after all). I might do a separate post of personal favorites, from among the shots not chosen for the print sale. Along those lines, I can't resist showing you, in this post, two of the best dog-and-cat pictures...from among many good shots that brightened my day yesterday. These aren't semifinalists, but they're wonderful all the same. The top one is by Paul Lalonde Stern and the one below by Chan H.

(That dog is either really happy or really unhappy, and I can't tell which.)

I was surprised to learn that some people had problems with the emailing instructions. I did not think that would be controversial. I think we can improve on that next time, though (this is the first time I've done this, remember, so I'm learning too). Also, to those who missed the tight schedule, yes, I'll vary the timing next time.

Photo by Chan H

Sincere thanks to everybody who submitted pictures yesterday. Edit to come soon.

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2011 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Mike [not Mike J. —Mike J.]: "Sincere thanks to you. This was a really fun exercise, and was a great excuse to look again at my personal rather than paid work. The best part the 'contest' is how it changes how I look at my own photos. The process of selecting a photograph, to me, is akin to aesthetics calisthenics. My internal debate over which image to select helps me better articulate what I find beautiful, what makes a beautiful photograph, and whether beauty is enough to sustain my interest. I've also gotten to the point where some older work inspires me to explore ideas and techniques anew. That was unexpected, and I also have you to thank for that. Looking forward to seeing the edit. Good luck to all."

Mike J. replies: You're right, it's an important learning experience if you don't already do it regularly. It's also a good learning experience to have to judge a competition like this...it makes you realize that every generic shot has already been done a zillion times, and that new ones, to succeed, simply have to have been made with an awareness of all the others that already exist. New ones succeed by commenting on the genre, not just becoming a part of it.

Please Submit Print Offer Pictures Today

A few days ago, I wrote about the possibility of opening a TOP Print Offer to TOP readers. If you haven't read that post, you should probably do so before reading the rest of this one. Especially, please read or reread the paragraph that begins, "First, you should choose...," just above the picture of the drive-in with the orange neon lights.

Our goal is to find up to five excellent pictures that we think people will want to own prints of, to offer in a print sale in the summer of 2012.

If you'd like to submit a picture as a possible candidate for that sale, today's the day. (Actually, it's the first day; we'll do this twice or three times more before the sale actually takes place next summer.)

There is no entry fee and we will never make any claim to any of your rights. You own the rights to you photograph at all times and you are not giving up any of those rights by submitting a photograph.

What I'll do is pick some of my favorite candidates from the submissions and post them here on TOP sometime in the next few weeks, asking for reader feedback about which ones they think might make the best candidates for a sale. We'll pick some "finalists" from this group based mainly on that feedback.

That means that by submitting your print, you'll be tacitly agreeing to possibly having it shown on TOP and commented on by other TOP readers. Please do consider the effects on you of opening your work to criticism in this way; it's not always the easiest thing in the world to endure. For starters, your picture might not make it past the first cut. I will not be able to explain to people individually why I didn't choose a particular picture; it's not necessarily an indictment of your work, and it's certainly not a comment about you! I'm just one guy with his own individual taste. I'm not the Grand Poo-Bah of good and bad. Please don't be offended if your picture isn't chosen.

Subject matter is open, but bear in mind that we do not show nudes or pornographic pictures on TOP (despite our longtime advertiser Eolake Stobblehouse). You can submit one picture per round, so submitting today will not prevent you from submitting in the other rounds. Part of the idea here is for it to be fun, and I don't see how preventing people from participating in each round makes it any more fun for anybody.

To submit, you must follow the following instructions exactly. I'll simply ignore all submissions that don't follow the submission guidelines, without notification to you.

1. The picture must be one you took. You must own all of the identifiable rights to the photograph free and clear. Do not submit other peoples' work or work derived in whole or in part from other peoples' work. Do not submit work done as work-for-hire, or work you to which you have sold or otherwise relinquished the rights.

2. Submit only one picture. Put the picture in the body of the email if you can, so I don't have to open separate attachments. I realize people have all sorts of different systems, but do the best you can.

3. The picture representation must be a JPEG, no more than 800 pixels wide, saved in the sRGB colorspace.

4. Include a byline. A byline is line that says "By ------- -------." The blank should be filled in with whatever name you go by or wish to be known by professionally. It should be your real name but does not need to be your full legal name. Thus, Robert X. Meier might include a byline that says "By Bob Meier."

5. Only pictures submitted today (Wednesday, November 16th, 2011, Central U.S. Time) will be eligible this time. As I say, there will be other opportunities to come, so if you miss this go-round, no need to despair.

5. To submit [...]

[Link removed at midnight. Round One is over! If you didn't get to play, never fear, this wasn't your last chance; there will be more rounds before we're done. Update tomorrow.]

Finally: anyone can participate. Doesn't matter if you're famous or unknown, a longtime veteran or a newcomer, or whether you live in Kalamazoo or Kathmandu.

I'm guessing I'm going to be busy today—and I'm guessing I'm going to enjoy it. To paraphrase something Thomas Jefferson said of reading, I have a canine appetite for looking at photographs.

Good luck!

Mike