It is often said that the photographer makes a lousy editor of his own work. This may often be true, particualrly in the case of pictures to which one has an emotional attachment; pictures of people one loves, etc. The picture below was taken some years ago when the River Ping flooded before a damn was built upstream. The location is 10 miles north of Chiengmai in Thailand. I've posted this picture in a thread about color versus b&w. The only comment I got on it was that it was picturesque. It was taken on Kodachrome 64 film and printed in b&w using Piezography and has beautiful gradation but I am not sure that this comes through in a jpeg file. I used the Elmarit-M 2.8/28 at f/5.6. Since the earlier posting, I've reworked the scan to eliminate burnt-out clouds. The picture has meaning for me. What do you think?

-- Mitch Alland/Bangkok (malland@mac.com), March 04, 2002

Answers

I forgot to add that the inspiration for the picture came from a book of photographs by Don McCullin called "Open Skies" in which he has rather dark landscape pictures in Somerset where he lives. This small book was published in, I think, 1989 and has som 75 photos. I just learned on the web that it's worth £250 ($375).

-- Mitch Alland/Bangkok (malland@mac.com), March 04, 2002.

When I tak a trip I will shoot 750 to 1000 slides. I cannot edit them into a show at first, because I can't recognize that many images need to go into the trash. 3 months to a year later, I can finally look at the images wearing my editor's hat, not the photographer's hat. Then I think, "Who shot this stuff? I can't use it." It takes me a while to get beyond the money it cost, and the belief that all my shots are good.

In Hollywood, about one foot out of every ten shot will become part of the movie. That's not too far away from my ratio. Mitch, in your case, you were right to keep this powerful shot.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), March 04, 2002.

Well yes, it sure is black and white! If you intended it as a tribute to "Open Skies" it is successful, for that is what I immediately thought of (even before seeing your second posting). On the other hand, I always think of Don McCullin as one of the world's greatest conflict photographers who failed miserably with his landscapes (shot, I believe in large format rather than his usual 35mm).

-- Wilhelm (wmitch3400@hotmail.com), March 04, 2002.

Mitch, I'm not sure if you're looking for comments on the image or about editing. I take it from the title that it's "editing ones' own work". I'm an Art Director/Designer by profession with work recognized in NY One-Show, Graphis International, Clio etc., etc. I also have a photographic studio and have taken Best of show in Mixed media art competition ( with an M photo, by the way ). In other words, I walk in both worlds for a living. When I'm shooting it's an intuitive, visceral experience...very emotional. I edit almost immediately because I want to preserve that emotional focal point while it's still fresh in my heart. At that time I become an Art Director with an eye for culling out pictures that miss the mark subject or context wise, compositionally or emotionally. To improve your editorial skills after you shoot, I suggest reading something other than photo books. Design and Art Direction annuals are packed with idea driven photography, library copies of past issues of "Graphis" being the best in my opinion. Just a thought....hope it helps in some way or another. --Marc Williams

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), March 05, 2002.

Hi, Mitch. I'm the source of the "picturesque" comment: I admit my bias is toward documentary/people photography, but if I were doing an essay on the damming of this river and the flooding of the region (with its subsequent displacement of people), I would include this shot and be very proud of it.

This is to say that, for me, the context of the photo is very important. Your shot is more interesting to me when I know something about it; otherwise, it could be a river anywhere.

Photographers generally make poor editors of their own work when a photo maintains only personal associations for them, when the context is unclear or just hidden. Great photos speak to both the photographer and the viewer, and sometimes photographers can be blinded by their own enthusiasm.

All of this is NOT a criticism of your shot, just an answer to the question in your subject line.

If this picture has meaning for you--as both a shot from the field and a digital & darkroom performance--then your job is done! I like the gradation of tones and the composition itself. But for me, it would be truly compelling if it were part of a story.

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), March 05, 2002.

I have a two-fold editing process. As soon as the film is back out go the obvious crap. Out or focus, more than a stop off, etc. I print the one or two from the roll I initailly like and then file them short term (one year). After the year is up I go through them again with a loupe. I often find images that didn't grab me at first (because they weren't in keeping with my emotions at the time of shooting), but that are rally quite good. This is one of the reservations I have with digital. One of the 'advantages' of digital is that after you check the image on the rear panel you delete what you don't want, saving valuable memory. If wonder how many good images I would have deleted over the years if I had this option available.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), March 05, 2002.