Location: ROM

Permanent Collection: Imperial Rome

Camera: Leica M6 + 35 mm Summilux

Film: Ilford Delta 3200 rated at 3200

Image

Comments welcome. TIA.

-- John Chan (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), February 14, 2002

Answers

Whoops,

Exposure information: 1/60 sec at f1.4, ambient lighting from directional halogens.

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), February 14, 2002.

Nice grab shot with linear composition on the diagonal. I enjoyed this one the best indeed. The line of statues and then the guy walking towards you is sort of tinged with irony... I believe that shooting Ilford 3200 seems to be rather flexible indeed.

The only thing is the pronounced grainness which I would have preferred to have a smooth grain with a slower film such as Ilford Pro Delta 400 or HP5 which I would have used.

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), February 14, 2002.

Hey, John:

I had got used to more meaningful images from you: IMHO, this is a good ilustration but the girl and the boy at the museum were better photographs.

Friendly . . .

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), February 14, 2002.

Could someone tell me what on earth "irony" means in the context of these museum pictures?

John, you've shown a number of pictures of the inside of this museum. OK, so we now know what it looks like. But so far I haven't seen anything remotely like an anecdote or witticism in these shots.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), February 15, 2002.

John, you've shown a number of pictures of the inside of this museum. OK, so we now know what it looks like. But so far I haven't seen anything remotely like an anecdote or witticism in these shots.

Slowely being addressed... one baby step at a time.

;-)

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), February 15, 2002.

So let's talk about it.

It seems to me that in a museum, unless you have a snap of an old lady peering at a greek statue's bum, there's not much happening really except for people looking at paintings. What are you aiming to achieve?

Any drama or "irony" (such a beloved word on this forum) is going to come from the interactions between people. But those have to be strong, pointed interactions, which somehow also reflect on the objects on display in the museum. They have to be tightly composed and hit you between the eyes. So far I haven't seen this in your pictures.

I would suggest using the objects in the museum to frame or accent what the people are doing - there are plenty of interesting objects around. But in the picture of the statues and the guy walking, I can't see any relationship, graphic or narrative, between the various components of the image. It's competent and clear, but that's it.

How do you feel the second picture you're showing here is getting closer to developing something like a decisive moment or narrative? (Not that that's the only way to take pictures, of course.) I don't see it. It's not showing us anything we don't already know about museums - i.e. they're full of people staring at pictures.

Remember that it's not enough for you to see it - your audience has to see it.

I'm assuming you want to develop this topic, otherwise just tell me to feck (sp) off.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), February 15, 2002.

I am with Rob. Personal shots that document your own personal experiences are great....for you. If their isn't much happening but quietness, you need to bring that out more obviously in your pictures, or else it's just people looking at stuff. Tell me to "F-off" too if you like. But you've done the right thing to share your photo and your contribution is appreciated by all.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), February 15, 2002.

Nope, I'm just trying to learn here. I'm pretty confident that after some "post 5 'o' clock introspection" about your comments and a few more Saturdays I can post an image or two that addresses the shortcomings of my previous frames.

Now for Gerry to finish the work on my bodies... fate.

Thanks for the insightful comments,

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), February 15, 2002.

Could someone tell me what on earth "irony" means in the context of these museum pictures?

Rob, take a look who brought up the "irony" nonsense in the first place. That should answer your question.

As for these museum pictures, I don't really feel as though they're saying much. There isn't any "moment" that they seem to capture (whether it be decisive, humorous, witty, etc). What were you striving to accomplish when you taking these pictures? I feel that you're not sure because these photos don't have a focus and clear intent. Were you just trying to document your day? Art photos? A study on how people behave in museums?

For an excellent series of photographs taken in museums, look at Eliot Erwitt's "Museum Watching." This book is full of "moments" which make the photos more than just snapshots taken in a museum.

-- Richard (rvle@yahoo.com), February 15, 2002.

from Elliot Erwitt's Museum Watching

Link to Salon.com interview with Erwitt with pictures from "Museum Watching"

-- Richard (rvle@yahoo.com), February 15, 2002.

I guess if you stretch the definition of irony from here to the moon , you might say that there are two types of human figures , one moving and ( ironically !!!) the other not . And three do have heads ... .

Seriously , here is my take on the photo . Think of a lion . When it is in it's natural setting , it's very difficult to photograph ( cos' it could kill you ). However the one's at the zoo pose no such trouble . But photos taken in such a controlled environment will never be as interesting and vibrant ( subject not slide film colours ) as those taken in the wild . Same thing with people , don't photograph the timid caged beasts , go for the wild and vicious ones outside .

-- leonid kotlyar (kotlyarl@mail.nih.gov), February 15, 2002.

. . . . but sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar. One interesting exercise (I think) is to focus lens (50mm?) at min, tape it there, and shoot a roll. Right now, I think you're trying to see to much, and in some cases, shoot to much. Ralph Gibson says that the difference between drawing and photography, is that with drawing you begin with one line and keep adding. With photography, you remove elements. Consiquently, he's done a series of just shooting a cardboard box. I think there is a lot of material in the statues, shadows, and display case in the background that hasn't been explored. Next visit, see what happens at .7 meters. Also, not every photo has to have someone in it.

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), February 15, 2002.

Sorry, but I forgot to add: Leitz M6/Elmar-M 50mm 1:2.8

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.comg), February 15, 2002.

Dear John, Just keep shooting and shooting and shooting. Also look at as many photographs by the " masters" as you can. Look at Winogrand, Kertez, Cartier-Bresson, Burke Uzzle, Eliot Erwitt, Leonard Freed, Eugene Smith, Eugene Richards,Danny Lyon, Loenard Freidman,Willy Ronis, etc. Keep shooting and keep educating yourself by looking at other's photography. It takes a while. Think about this which a photo professor at RIT said to me and I believe to be true: " Your interest in photography is directly perportional to the amount og film you put thru your camera" KEEP SHOOtING

-- John Elder (celder2162@aol.com), February 16, 2002.

John--

I really like the shot of the guy looking at the portraits. It has that Chekhovian / Raymond Carver quality of sticking in your brain until sometime later you say to yourself: "Ah-ha!"

There is a quiet epiphany in this photo. It concerns that old question of "what is art?" Roland Barthes would've loved this one (read his book "On Photography" and you'll see what I mean). We have a portrait of a guy looking at portraits. In fact, not just that, we have a guy looking at several rows of portraits which together have been made into a panoramic work of art--which, in itself, is an abstract work of art. So we have before us a three dimensional work of art: the totality of your photo, the individual little portraits, and the panoramic work of art--which makes up a fourth or 3 and a 1/2 dimension because its perspective has been tilted, thereby (if you think in terms of flat surfaces) becoming a variation on the original work of art.

The fun part is that this photo asks "What is reality?" by asking "What is art?". Is the guy viewing the portraits more "real" than the portraits? Are they equally real? Or is the reality in the end an abstraction of some sort, with a life of its own, as the panoramic is an abstraction with a life of its own, independent of the individual photographs?

The answer is that the totality is an abstraction of life which creates the illusion that the viewer of the portraits is more real than the portraits--which is true only if you accept the first dimension of the abstraction as the most "real." But then, in the next stage, you in effect become like the guy viewing the portraits (he is looking at the individual portraits, not the panoramic as a whole I sense) in which case you have mentally totally stepped into the museum and become a virtual visitor.

This is ultimately a political photograph. By this I mean it is a photograph that is didactic in reminding us that the "reality" of photographs is an illusion, and, as with all art, it is ultimately life seen through the filter of a temperament. This is important to remember when news photos are used to make some sort of political point that, if acted upon, will make a real change in the real world. What we assume we are seeing may have other explanations. A picture is very often not worth a thousand words. We need the thousand words as documentation to the photograph.

That the photo is in black and white reinforces the fact that photography is an abstraction from life.

But all that aside, this is a fun photo, very well composed. Ultimately it is this reality, the reality of the pleasure of viewing, that is the ulitimate reality of art--as the guy looking at the portraits tells us. He looks pretty happy. And, of course, I'm pretty happy looking at the photo of the guy enjoying himself.

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), February 17, 2002.

Whoa! John!

Are those little individual portraits photos or paintings made to look like photos? This adds another level to your shot.

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), February 17, 2002.

This is ultimately a political photograph

Well I'm glad someone can derive entertainment value from this frame. Its a picture of my friend Jeremy. He wasn't aware that I was taking pictures on our museum jaunt that day. The element that caught my attention was this "stupified" expression on his face as he peered onto a face that perhaps he recognized (just conjecture). The frames on the walls are actually quick oil sketches (less than 1 hour each) and a project on display at U of G museum.

Wish I had your appreciation of political philosophy though. My is gimme a bigger tax return and I'll give-U my vote!!!

Cheers,

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), February 17, 2002.

Honestly, I think it's very normal.

-- Travis (teckyy@hotmail.com), April 09, 2002.