This shot was taken on Manitoulin Island 2 summers ago... when I still had my Tri-Elmar. Although its not SP material it was the only still life that stood out this weekend as I rummaged through some old negatives.

Flame away

-- John Chan (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), February 11, 2002

Answers

John, I'm sorry to be brutally honest but I cannot really think of anything good to say about this photo.

It is simply a record shot of an unusual wall pattern.

Sorry! :)

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), February 11, 2002.

Giles,

Don't be sorry for being honest!

;-)

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), February 11, 2002.

John:

Technically range of grays, just a bit short of pure white tho. Even if it were ofset from dead centre, with even 1 leaf in it or a log or something to break up the regularity it might jump out.

Manitoulin Island huh? Great place for picture taking. (Last time I was there was 1969 driving in a car rally. The phones were wind up and I had to call a local operator even for a local call. The phone system was as old as the rocks.)

What was that rock configuration part of? There may well ahve been something else there worth a frame or two.

No charge!

Cheers

-- RICHARD ILOMAKI (richardjx@hotmail.com), February 11, 2002.

I think the wall might be better, John, with a bit more contrast (needs some pure white somewhere), and a nice nude leaning against it. ;-) The wall itself is a bit short of being a compelling subject in my opinion - unless the photo were to be used to illustrate an interesting story about why the portal was filled in.

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), February 11, 2002.

I consider this photograph an "almost" . I like the rock and how they fit into the wall but what i would try to do is to stage something into the front of the wall, say an old tool, or a childs toy, in order to tell a story of which the wall is part of. That makes it more than a simple pile of rocks. when I try to photgraph rocks or other simple items I either try to tell a story with my photograph, or try to make my photograph more abstract.

-- greg mason (gmason1661@aol.com), February 11, 2002.

Yep, Manitoulin is like a time capsule. Nothing has changed there for decades. That's why I love it. I spent my whole childhood there and around every corner, in every bay, in every pasture I see the remnants of my lazy summers.

I guess there is some "personal appeal" to the above image... but from an objective standpoint what really stood out was the contrast on the neg as well as the pattern and gradations of grey. That, and this formation on the side of an old Dutch mill carries with it several local folklores. I use to believe that someone was en-tombed within this wall... at least, that's what some local Indians told me when I was 10. A provocative fallacy for a naive youth.

Ahhh, the great Canadian rock!, images of W.O. Mitchell's Who has seen the wind?" spring to mind.

Anyways, I apologize in advance for indulging my childhood on the board.

Cheers,

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), February 11, 2002.

John,

I'm no photographer but I know what I see and like. Giles has it about right.

There are two items of interest in your shot. The keystone is damaged, and the window fill is of a different age and material. As a dispasionate observer I can't find any personal message in either of these two subjects of interest. And my mind can't determine which is important.

A photo is better with just one object of interest. Call it a focal point.

What your photo lack's is what the pro's call "The master stroke." One character that draw's the eye, and mind. Usually this is within the image itsself. And it's the master stroke that makes a really fine photo.

Look at the model's posted by Dixon, Hughes, Barker, and Spirer. Yes, they are beautiful women. But if you are perceptive you'll see them in lighting, or with a facial expression, or made up, in a very unique manner. And the crafty bring out this subtle point without the viewer ever knowing it. It may even be a portion of the face, or light/shadow relationship, but it's there.

Imagine your photo with an old pack of cigarette's wedge'd between the rocks. Or a section pocked with bullet holes. Or even graffiti. (OK even a nude model)

That's my opinion anyways. I'm always looking for the master stroke.

-- David Smith (dssmith3@rmci.net), February 11, 2002.

Hi, John:

My assumption is that you saw something about this image that you were not able to make evident in your picture.

At least in my own experience that is an (unfortunately) frequent event, so to say . . .

Not knowing your motivations makes difficult to say what could have been a better photographic option about this subject. My 2 cents: wait until the lighting makes it a case of texture study; or take it from further away from the wall so as to make it a shape study with the contour of the blinded window as the only shape on the (almost) regular pattern of the stones; or take if from much closer to the wall so as to emphasize the missing key stone . . . etc. There are too many things to say with equal no-value unless you tell us what your idea was.

And if it happens to be just the honest picture of the wall with no particular "idea" behind it, OK; wellcome all the same. I, for one, appreciate your attitude of posting pictures to critique. It takes guts ! Thanks for sharing, John.

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), February 11, 2002.

John -- to be brutally honest, I don't see anything wotrthwhile in this shot... It might have been more interesting if the window had been set off-center or even partially cropped out of the frame, but I think it's a lost cause.

Sorry,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), February 12, 2002.

John, I can see why this wall makes an interesting subject for you. I would find it irresistable, too. You photographed it 2 years ago. I would be curious to see how you would re-shoot it, especially after your project with the cafeteria lamps. I bet you would find a different vision.

This one has interesting patterns, textures, shapes. The light seems wrong. I think you know you did not get on film what you saw in your subject. Maybe some day you will get a chance to visit this island again and try some new ideas.

-- Hil (hegomez@agere.com), February 12, 2002.

Harry is obviously not interested in being very helpful.

As usual, some pix as a way to make a point. These are fairly small, hopefully useable.

As people have pointed out, this is a record shot. It's sort of a straight-on shot that has no intrinsic interest. The angle and the lighting combine to make it that way.

I take a lot of record shots, usually as mnemonics for when I might come back. I don't expect to show them, but they are useful. There's two photos below, taken less than fifty feet apart. They were taken at Uxmal, a spectacular Mayan city on the Pu'uc Route near Merida in Mexico. The first is a record shot, not all that different from yours. The second is a shot that hopefully captures the majesty of the city and just the emotional lift that one gets there, after recovering from walking in the heat. It really comes down to looking for the shot that gets what you want to convey, not the one that shows something you think is interesting. Also, here is a link to a larger jpeg of the second shot.

Two Views of Uxmal, Copyright 1999 Jeff Spirer

Hopefully this is helpful. Maybe someday "Harry" will find it possible to be helpful.

[Harry's rude and dumb replies got the boot! - tr]

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), February 12, 2002.

Anyone could have taken that shot with any camera.

So 0 for originality.

Aesthetic wise, it depends on who u ask. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

-- Travis (teckyy@hotmail.com), April 15, 2002.