I received a letter from the editorial office with photos of the participants of the editorial contest. The selection turned out to be so rich with photos of talented and skillful authors that I struggled to choose anything. Almost every author had several interesting photos. But if they were absolutely perfect, in my opinion, there would be nothing left to write about. Iād just quack in admiration and put the impressions on one of my cherished memory shelves. However, the selected pictures, for all their merits, left room to offer a rationalization treatment.
The āPhotocriticismā column is run by Georgy Rozov, a well-known photographer and teacher, author of popular books on the technique and art of photography. This competition includes photos submitted by readers of āPhoto&Technologyā magazine, the results of which were published in ā8 42 2012.
āI wonāt give up!ā
Nikolay Kuvshinov, 61 years old New York, America . Chelyabinsk .
Nikolay Sergeyevich Kuvshinov, professor of graphic arts department of South Ural State University, amateur photographer with twelve years of experience, sent several great pictures to the contest. The first thing that struck my eye was Professor Kuvshinovās attention to details and his ability to strike sparks of conflict from the clash in the frame of a single detail with a multitude of rhythmic and ornamentally arranged other entities. Nothing interesting happens in art without conflict, as you know.
In a work with a suggestive title āI will not give up!āThe author invites the viewer to compare the foreground with the background. In the foreground he has placed a powerful wrestlerās neck, and in the depths of the frame ā submissively crossed limbs of a thin individual at the chess table.
Nearby are two more, partially mapped, figures that give the impression of a lot of wimps. The foreground is always foreground, so the underlying idea of the photograph is instantly readable. One could state that they hit the target 100% and call it a day. Butā¦ Thereās that nasty word again!
In my opinion, the picture is good, but it could be even better. And thereās not much you need to do for that ā just adjust brightness and color in the frame. I just slightly brightened up the sidewalk tiles and repainted the gray-blue square on the left in the color of the rest of the background, so it does not stand out. As a result of these manipulations, the neck is now in a position of priority. Background figures can no longer lay claim to the prize in the struggle for the viewerās attention. The alpha male has won, without even having to put up a fight.
Untitled
Yuri Naumovich, 26
g. Lutsk, Ukraine .
Yuri Naumovich, a twenty-six-year-old lawyer from Lutsk in Ukraine, an amateur photographer with two years of experience, sent me several works that were quite different in their execution. If it wasnāt signed by him, I wouldnāt have believed it was done by the same person. Judge for yourself. Two portraits.
The author called the first portrait āPapiroskaā, but I would rename it. What his character smokes is called a samokrutka. In my youth, there was no tobacco in the villages. Men used to plant tobacco in their gardens samosad , drying and flavoring it themselves. There was no cigarette paper either: the ācigarettesā were twisted from the newspaper āPravdaā. You salivate on the edge of a samokurta, glue a pipe to a samosad, and then smoke it right away. This particular characteristic gesture was captured by Yuriās camera.
Everything in the portrait is great: the type, the character, the precision of the captured moment, the texture, the technique, the accuracy of composition. This is when a portrait is not just a descriptive memory photo, but a true story about the man. Hands with joints deformed by hard work can tell a lot about this manās life. They are skillfully inserted into the frame, which is quite rare. More often than not, the hands serve as chin rests and absurdly overexposed blubber obscures the lower half of the face.
The background in this portrait is the back of a peasant manor, which means that the background here is also functional. It tells the viewer where the subject lives, and even what he or she does. The cloud-dispersed light well brings out the textured skin of the hands and face. The degree of contrast in the image is chosen with the accuracy of a sniper shot. It balances on the cherished boundary between the two āa little bitā! A little darker under the visor of his cap, the cunning little eyes of an old peasant will fade away. A little softer, you might lose the stiffness of textures and attract the eye with details in shadows, which the author was quite right to sacrifice. The texture of the suit fabric on the chest, for example, would not add anything to this portrait, but it would make it harder to look at and find the main thing in the frame see āThe Grandmotherā . photo 3 .
In short, I like everything. But how without a little drop of tar! I would, with some hesitation, recommend amputating half of the sky. I have a feeling that the author couldnāt break the composition with his hand, lined up in the square frame window of a medium format Rollyai or Hasselblad. Thereās something almost magical fundamentality in the square. I also find it hard to make myself cut such shots because itās a pity to part with the iron stability and uniqueness of the format.
Portrait of a grandfather
Yuri Naumovich, 26
g. Lutsk, Ukraine .
The second portrait of the same peasant, sent by Yuri Naumovich, looks completely different. Itās not for nothing, in my opinion, that the author could not come up with a title for this photo see photo 4 . photo 4 . Judging by the compositional accents, the photo could have been called āPortrait of a cigarette-smoking cheekā.
The cheek is the brightest and biggest spot in the frame that attracts the eye. The sky is also bright, but it should have been removed from the frame, because it doesnāt have any sense or compositional meaning. And the heroās turn in relation to the source of light was not the most fortunate. Important details for the perception of the portrait are drowned in shadows: eyes, wrinklesā¦ Thereās a triangle of sunlight on the nose ā also an unwarranted accent. The disproportionately large ear became an important element balancing the falling apart composition. The left half is dark, the right one is light. These absurdities should have been noticed while taking the picture, but even afterwards, at the computer, you can fight for the life of the picture. For this, first of all, you should designate some part of the picture as ābeloved wifeā and decorate with all possible care. All the rest to dull, so as not to interfere with the admiration of the favorite. Now I would call the picture āSmoke.
Having done this work at my own risk, I in no way infringed on the right of the author not to accept my interpretation.
āA Generation Gone.ā
Nikolai Kuvshinov, 61 years old New York, America . Chelyabinsk .
Another picture of H. Kuvshinova ā āA Generation Goneā. The picture is funny. Admittedly, guessing which generation is going away is quite difficult. There are six twins leaving the frame. From life ā probably my grandmother. And what the author had in mind?
āThis is a great mystery,ā said the ancestors, who taught us to be more careful with our use of words. Where is the generation in the picture?? I canāt see it. Six similarly dressed slim girls ā I see! A grandmother with sciatica, I see. And generations donāt!
Because you canāt see it. Itās a figure of speech, like a rhetorical question āabout nothingā. So what Iām saying is that the title is not accurate. But the picture is absolutely concrete. There is a juxtaposition of numerous young organisms and a lonely old lady.
I have to say, it must have been very difficult to capture such a strange moment. Six equally outfitted beauties in one place lined up in a slender line. Just not in step, but I can hear the voice of Sergeant Prikhodko: āIām not in step, but I can hear the voice of Sergeant Prikhodko..!ā. My grandmother stepped into the picture just in time! Great! At the right moment. In the right place. A photographerās dream!
Everything seems to be āin placeā, but I just ādonāt get itā, as the girls of the departing row would probably say. Why? I donāt know, maybe because Iām not young any more, Iām from a bygone generation, and a mere mentioning of the fact that weāre all mortal is not enough for me. My soul longs for the rapture, not ābecause of what,ā but ābecause of how.ā! I get goosebumps when I see a new, unexpected twist on an old theme.
That hasnāt happened here. The subject is solved head-on and leaves no room for imagination. Donāt think I know how to shoot a masterpiece on a topic chosen by the author. No, I donāt! Here I am in the role of a critic, giving my subjective opinion. Anyone else may have an opinion that differs from mine.
You may have found the story touching, so Iāll add a few words about enhancing this shot photograph photographically: in the lower left quarter of the frame, Iād recommend pressing down on the sidewalk. Do the same with the bit of sky above the girlsā heads. And finally, give and increase the contrast of Grandmaās coat. The picture gets more photographic.
āRemains of former splendor
Alexander Motorin, 56 years old New York .
Church of the Nativity of Christ, 1745. Arkhangelsk region., Kargopolsky District, s. Big Shalga.
Alexander Yuryevich Motorin, an amateur photographer of forty years experience, sent a series of photos from Kargopol for the contest. All the pictures depict wooden churches which the neighborhoods of this northern city are so rich in. All churches were shot from the outside, and one from the inside. photo 8 . We should all be used to images of ruined churches by now. Ahn no! Iām still hooked! And so I wanted to correct the mistakes made by the author in preparing the image for display. Again, I only changed the brightness of certain areas. Darkened somewhere, lightened somewhere, thus trying to make a flat photograph look three-dimensional and deep, because of the brightness evening out. I had to darken the floor in the foreground and the left wall, and to heighten the contrasts in the back part of the frame, in the altar space. And finally, to re-set the black point. I sacrificed detail in the shadows of some unimportant areas. On the right near the window, for example, and in the black hole at the top of the altar wall. The whole job took about fifteen minutes.
āTo the barrier!ā.
Evgeny Turkov, 37 Penza
Kotofota. This is how scornful the venerable patrons of Internet photo hangouts talk about pictures with cats. But I tend to think that a cat as an object is no worse or better than a babyās face. Both evoke an involuntary wave of warmth in your soul just by looking at them. But both the baby and the cat can be filmed in an interesting way, or in a boring way. Evgeny Turkov took an interesting photo. At the heart of the picture is conflict. Most likely, cats didnāt share a cat, or maybe one of them encroached on an area marked by another. Weāll never know why the brave guys quarreled, but theyāre in a serious mood: already wet, dirty, and by all indications, itās not going to end with staring. A battle is coming!
The situational conflict is supported by the visual: one cat is white, the other is black, and a diagonal white dividing line completes the picture. All of this together brings a kind smile, because it reminds us of human behavior.
Technically and compositionally the work is quite done. I would only suggest that the author slightly cropped it from above and below.
āYauza.ā
Alexander Tutaev, 31 New York, America . Dolgoprudny, MO
āYauzaā by Alexander Tutaev I liked the way the author sees the world around him, the photographic choice of the very subject. The picture is geometric in its essence, which is especially important in black and white photography. Its skeleton is based on the oval in the center of the composition and on the verticals and diagonals flying off from it in all directions.
But the main decoration of the frame, in my opinion, would have to be the play of light reflected by the waves of the river on the underbelly of the overpass. The author saw all this beauty when he shot his wonderful cityscape, but could not bring it to the viewer.
Alexander has tried to work out all the details of the image, both in light and in shadow. And then I made up my mind and partially tinted the picture. It turned blue in places, and remained black in places. As a result, the picture is technically flawless, but inexpressive. Figuring out whatās important and whatās not is very difficult.
That is why I decided to offer my own interpretation of the reading of this photograph: I shifted accents, emphasized the play of light in the center of the frame. Finally, I bleached the picture. The blue coloring seems to me unmotivated: itās summer, the sun is shining. Hence, if I tinted it, I tinted it in warm colors.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by āthe foreground is always foregroundā in terms of photo-criticism? Are you suggesting that the foreground should always be the main focus of a photograph, or is there a different aspect of composition or interpretation that you are referring to?
In Rozovās photo-criticism, it seems that the foreground consistently holds significance. But what about the background? Does it play a secondary role or is it equally important in conveying the message? How does the emphasis on the foreground affect the overall composition and storytelling within the photographs?