Cream in my Coffee

Reflecting back, I’m noticing that I seem drawn to taking pictures of my coffee. I’m sure I could dig in deep and psycoanalyze the reasons, but in the end I think it’s one of my main joys in life. I’ll pass on the booze, the rich and sweet foods, the travel – so long as I can have a leisurely cup of coffee, I’m in heaven.

The caption image to the right is doubtlessly my signature coffee image. Stolen worldwide and still driving most traffic to my Flickr stream. Earlier last week you might have seen another cup of coffee. Saturday morning, it was this:

Latte, technically

It’s interesting that the only fully successful image (in my mind) is my first. I really like the last image, but it’s really a portrait of a cup, not coffee. I suppose this

really requires more thought…

Go ahead, figure this out

“… it ceases to have any interest.”  I’m paraphrasing a quote that I read today, mostly because it touched a nerve.  For me, this is somewhat true.

I think it’s an issue of mental stimulation.  If you’re stimulated enough by a work to be fascinated, you relish in the various tales that it tells. I’m noticing that I tend to follow artists who aren’t easy to decipher as a result.

For example, David Epstein (NSFW), who I’ve followed for quite a while now.  Sometimes it’s quirky humor, sometimes his work has surprising depth. Unless you’re looking at his candid street shots, there’s almost always something hidden for fun.

Sorry, you won’t see the best of his work unless you’re on Flickr and labeled as a “Friend.”  But it’s great, trust me.

…(have an essay for my) History of Photography course and it is debating (either for or against) the importance of the material object (ie. digital photographs vs. hard copies or film photographs).

This is the quote we have been given…

“In the digital age, the significance of the material object remains. Culturally inflected decisions are made about which images will be printed out as snaps, which as framable enlargements, and which will be discarded. Another palette of choices relates to manipulation of the original file. Such possibilities continue to underline the importance of materiality in our relationship with photographs.”
— Elizabeth Edwards Bibliography

I suppose the point  of such a topic is really designed to make students think critically, although I reflect back on my own undergrad work & realize that no such outcome could possibly be – not for the majority.  No, in the undergrad world there is limited time to really concentrate on any one  such task – this, combined with the eventual exhaustion from non-stop study, leads to a forced laziness in thinking. Perhaps ‘laziness’ isn’t the correct word – it’s rather a need for self-preservation that forces one to think on a more superficial level than might otherwise be the case.

Now, this all being said: is there room in the modern world for the material object?  The question itself strikes me as odd, as I consider the display of a digital print to be material.  Digital frame, mobile phone, computer screen: the displays may be ephemeral, but are nonetheless material.

What strikes me as odd is that there is an implied line: if the image is discerned from reflected light (CMYK), then it is material.  If it is from emitted light (RGB), it is not. And yet it is the same light that reaches your eyes.

After having reflected critically on this for several days, I have come to the personal conclusion that the question is utterly meaningless.  The delineation between material and otherwise strikes me as entirely arbitrary.  There will always be a need for imagery, and the import of the image and display will always come down to the intended use.

Orange Beer

“What is wrong with your beer?” he said. “It’s orange!”

And I thought: yes, indeed, why?  I mean, beer is usually a yellowish brown.  But then I remembered: brown and orange are really in the same family of colors – only brown is darker.  Try it: choose a nice brown color in photoshop.  Now drop on a curves layer and brighten it. As it brightens, you’ll see it go in stages from brown, to light brownish, to an orangish, to a yellow.  Mess with it a little more (darken the shadows), and you’ll get a true orange – even red, if you take it far enough.

When photographing beer, if the strobe hits the bottle dead on (in this case from beneath), it’ll light it up – essentially lightening up the browns in the beer.  In beer the browns are already warm & on the orange side, so it lightens them up – to a full orange.

The photo to the right/top of this post is the exact photo that started this.  Note the hues of the oranges – the closer to the light source, the more yellowish it is – the higher up, the darker – until the neck of the bottle draws light in to itself again.

In particular, I note his update from 12/22/2009, where he highlights Joseph Holmes’ observation:

If you get close enough to start making out too much film grain, you naturally back off. If you move in and see sharpening artifacts, you feel like something has gone horribly wrong.

Go read the whole post.  I’m still pondering it, but I think it’s great for perspective.

the second photo (http://www.nicolemorgenthau.com/faces4.html) was described as a failure.  Now, I would like to start off by saying that this photo in no way represents my taste.  I might make it if paid, but it wouldn’t be in my portfolio.  Well, maybe one that I keep in the office to show certain people, but certainly nothing this public.

Here’s the deal: it’s a non-stop cliche. Things that jump out at me:

• Sepia-toned;
• “Hip” angle;
• Couple kissing;
• Drinks in hands;
• Young couple;

Furthermore, I personally believe that they’re all done poorly: the kiss is two faces, awkwardly smooshed up against each other.  The drinks are tacky, plastic 40-oz bottles of brand-name low-flavor beer (disclaimer: I’m a beer snob and have been known to brew my own).  The angle denotes nothing to me – normally it’s good for showing action.  In this case, it seems to show the overly aggressive desires of a young man (like I’d be any different).  The couple: they’re young, but not the “pretty” type of young.  Not the type of young adults that other adults want to look like (not rail-thin, not supermodel-hot).  That’s a good picture for them, not for a portfolio.

Sepia tones, of course, are overplayed.  They work for some situations, often for showing memory.  Again, the people buying the pics may like it, but it’s not portfolio territory.

OK, so I’ve thoroughly trashed this photo.  Is it the “failure” that it was described to be?

No, I don’t think so.

It still has a visual appeal to some people, and anyone who’s had excess fun on Spring Break will have a different perspective.  By all appearances it fits the couple and tells us something about them.

That’s not failure.  But I still say it’s not a good choice for a portfolio.

Today’s link: http://www.nicolemorgenthau.com/faces14.html
Description: An older lady in a loose, pleated (almost wrinkled) light-yellow dress.  She sits on a chair, her arms resting on the arms of the chair, straight at us with her hands hanging down.  She is square to the viewer and facing us in the frame.  The background is a reddish-orange, and the light from the background is reflecting throughout, giving a slight orange tint to her face and dress.  Her lips are a fairly bright red, and she is wearing sunglasses.

Overall, it’s a warm image of a happy person.  At least, that’s the impression that it makes on me.  I suppose if I were Jörg Colberg, I might trash the work and agree with the others.  Of course, if I were Mr. Colberg, I’d cite good reasons to support my position (if I were really him, I doubt I’d waste my time with this).

So, my first glance impression: a little too warm for my tastes, but not too bad.  It has a couple of important elements: the person is relaxed, happy (seemingly genuinely so), and seems to be full of confidence.

Further review gives me the following pros and cons:

Pros:

It’s a warm photo, and endearing.  If this was taken for me (as the purchaser), I’d doubtlessly have a strong emotional attachment to it.  There are good colors and textures going on – too many for some, but I think they help draw the eye to the least textured part – the lady’s face and her smile.

Cons:

There is a lot of color bleed going on here.  The oranges are overpowering, especially as they get reflected into the frame.  The sunglasses – perhaps appropriate for this client, but in a portfolio?  The general rule of thumb is to show a person’s eyes.  You connect to the person through the eyes, and the shades spoil that.  Hand position: hardly flattering, and considered a huge negative – this shows the wrinkles, which in turn show her age (not that there’s anything wrong with that, exactly).  By leaning her back, you lose her figure in the dress, which in turn creates a less-than-optimal pose for showing her face and neck.  Her neck, as a result, has more wrinkles and shadows than might otherwise be.  The dress: by hiding form, she is turned into a blob.  And the yellow of her dress is too dull for such a vivid background.

Boy, that sounds like a lot, no?  Well, no – I’m being extra-critical here.  I’m trying to figure out what makes this a disaster.

Summary:

So is this the “disaster” that it was described as being?  I don’t think so.  Not my taste, for sure. But that horrible?  Again, I don’t think so.  At best, it’s exactly what the client wanted.  At worse, it’s merely tough to look at and overly bright in a way that I find grating (to the eyes)

I wonder what Jay Maisel would say.

OK, so my first reaction was “geez, what’s wrong with that John Thomas guy?”  His comment:

John Thomas Reply:
October 14th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
@Nicole Morgenthau, who did he send in to re-shoot this disaster?

http://www.nicolemorgenthau.com/faces14.html

or this failure?

http://www.nicolemorgenthau.com/faces4.html

or this horrid frame?

http://www.nicolemorgenthau.com/lifestyle5.html

I mean, really – was that called for?  I mean, descriptions like “failure,” “horrid”, “disaster”: tastes in pictures are subjective, and I could easily call all three photos “fantastic” from a certain perspective.  Perhaps that was his point?  Nicole’s husband accusing others of outputting crap is his subjective call over their work, and it’s no more valid than John’s (maybe) tongue-in-cheek criticism of Nicole’s work.

But here’s the deal: two other photographers immediately agreed with him that Nicole’s work was crap.  Again, they may have meant “fine, it’s crap – prove to us that you have the skills and taste to give it such a name.

I love reading these posts, especially the comments.  This one had an interesting thread, though: starting with (at the time of this writing) comment #11.  The text is roughly like this:

Nicole Morgenthau wrote:
My photographer husband wants his business slogan to be, “You can hire some jack ass to fuck it up, or hire me if you want the job done right.”
This is of course directed to the cheap skates, that come back to you to reshoot a disaster.

John Thomas Reply:
October 14th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
@Nicole Morgenthau, who did he send in to re-shoot this disaster?

http://www.nicolemorgenthau.com/faces14.html

or this failure?

http://www.nicolemorgenthau.com/faces4.html

or this horrid frame?

http://www.nicolemorgenthau.com/lifestyle5.html

Nicole Morgenthau Reply:
October 14th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
@John Thomas,
Wow- you’re so kind. Thanks for your support.

Dean Reply:
October 14th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
@John Thomas, Good eye John. Now let’s see yours!

Michael Schulz Reply:
October 14th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
@John Thomas, I agree with Dean. Nicole didn’t bother to put her URL in her comment. Looked through her work. She’s got a client list and is a working pro. Now let’s see what you have to offer and what your foundation is.
Mike

Digest that for a day or two.  I have been.  Then come back and think about your reactions.

Here’s the situation: you throw a photo out there, and anywhere from one to a thousand folks might say “that’s awesome” (or similar). Is it really, though? When it comes down to it, most photography is tepid at best – absolutely mediocre. My own work included.

I would like to proffer a different interpretation of those comments, however: they are more like votes than the literal “awesome” description in the statements. The more comments you get, the more awesome that picture likely was.

That’s really the point: no one will be honest (being rude marks you as a troll, so you get banned & blocked, losing your voice. Being nice is OK, but if you have nothing good to say… better to say nothing.

So if you have a photo, the real point is to take a look at how quickly people respond to it, how many, and what type.

After reading over these (sloppy) musings, I would add: this is typical of commentary from non-professionals.  These are actual consumers of much art, and I’m not sure that I’d necessarily dismiss their opinions outright.