Beachcomber, Omaha Beach, St. Laurent, France, 2004 photo

Phil Douglis | all galleries >> Galleries >> Gallery Three: Expressing human values > Beachcomber, Omaha Beach, St. Laurent, France, 2004

previous | next


29-AUG-2004

Beachcomber, Omaha Beach, St. Laurent, France, 2004

Sixty years after more than 34,000 American soldiers landed on Omaha Beach, a lone beachcomber searches its sands for treasures. Given the context of what once happened on this beach, this image takes on new meaning. I was trying to say that this beach, which was one of the great battlefields of World War II, is now a place for solitude and pleasure – both very real human values. These values stand in stark contrast to what happened here sixty years before. Scale incongruity plays a big role in this picture as well – a tiny red figure played against the sweep of sand and sea and the cliffs that once took so many lives.

Canon PowerShot G5
1/1250s f/4.5 at 28.8mm hide exif

Full EXIF Info
Date/Time	29-Aug-2004 18:22:19
Make	Canon
Model	PowerShot G5
Flash Used	No
Focal Length	28.8 mm
Exposure Time	1/1250 sec
Aperture	f/4.5
ISO Equivalent
Exposure Bias
White Balance	(-1)
Metering Mode	multi spot (3)
JPEG Quality	(6)
Exposure Program	shutter priority (2)
Focus Distance

other sizes: small medium large original auto

previous | next

Phil Douglis		16-Dec-2005 05:20
As you can see, this simple image has provoked a very complex outpouring of commentary. Your eloquent remarks add a new layer of meaning to this image for me, Mia. You speak of this image as window to the past, not only our own past, but our planet's past. What triggered those thoughts? I have no doubt that it was a combination of my words and this photograph. My initial comment gave you the context from which you launched a personal journey back into time. If I can make an image that, with the right words, can open such a window for the imagination of my viewers, I've done a good job of expressing myself. You prove the point I have been trying to make throughout this long thread of comments and responses. Good pictures can always use good words to reach the souls of their viewers. Unlike some who have faulted this image for having to depend so much upon a verbal context, you show just how valuable such a context can be. Thank you, Mia, for adding your voice to this fascinating and substantive issue.

Mia		16-Dec-2005 03:24
Your comment is what makes the difference here. I do not have a special place in my heart for soldiers because no battle/war has had any significance in my life. However, I see your picture as a reminder that probably most beaches in the world were, at one point or another in history, witnesses of battles or violent incidents as much as they saw beautiful and peaceful things happen. In most cases, we have no way of knowing what happened on a specific beach or in any valley on earth 5000 or 200 years ago or since man is on this planet. Phil, just try to imagine what happened 1000 years ago on the soil where your house is standing right now. Sometimes, I try to imagine in my head all the things that might have happened over the centuries where I am standing right now. The person in your picture could represent all the people who walked on that beach since it exists, in time of peace or war.

Phil Douglis		24-Dec-2004 03:38
You add one more voice to my case, here, Mikel. This image means one thing when you look at it by itself. And it means something entirely different after you read the caption. I tool felt the ghosts on that beach, and that was why I took this image and posted it. Words and picture work together here to express an unforgettable idea. You said it beautifully: What was once heaven became a hell, and although it has again become heavenly, we can never get that hell out of our minds.

Guest		23-Dec-2004 22:32
Shoulden't have read the caption Phil, after the anterior note of the picture from the cementery wat whas for me a pleasent and tranquile beach has become sudently in a ghost beach. If ghosts exist this wold be the perfect place for them. Wat once was heaven become hell and now it appears too be heaven again but can't forget the horror that this had to bee.

Phil Douglis		20-Dec-2004 05:57
OK, my dear and stubborn friend Vera, I thank you for coming back to this image and making yourself very clear to me. I am gratified that you are looking at this as a lesson, and not as a stand alone work of art. And I know that you still feel that even if left uncropped, there is not enough sand in this image to suggest that this beach is a vast space that once held great suffering and death. However, I still feel that my caption should give you enough content to make that leap of imagination, and see just that. If you can't, you just can't. And nothing I say is going to change that for you. Winston Churchill, who led England through World War II, once said of his valiant fighters: "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." I shall hopefully end this discussion by paraphrasing Sir Winston: "Probably never in my 35 year teaching career have so many words been written by so many about a single aspect of a single image." Please know that I do understand your point, and I do appreciate your mightily stubborn efforts to make it. Take from this lesson the knowledge that people will always see images differently, depending upon the context they bring to it. We are simply seeing this image through different prisms. You want to crop it to make it work within your prism. I want to leave it as it is to make it work within mine. And there the matter shall always rest. Learn whatever you can from this lesson, and I will be forever happy. Phil

Guest		20-Dec-2004 05:09
Phil, I know we've agreed to leave this image alone due to a discussion we had previously with apparently no future. But I must respond to your latest comment here.... Oh no, no no, NO!!!! It was never my intention to make this image nothing but a stand-alone art --- And no matter how fuzzy my logic seems to you, I just don't see why you would ever get such impression. Yes, the aesthetic aspect of an image is just as vital as the expressive aspect as far as my world of expressive photography is concerned. But no, I never misconstrue the purpose of this teaching gallery of yours -- I always keep in mind your intention of using each photo here as an expression of some human value(s). In this case, the human values you intend to convey are solitude and pleasure in a former space of death. I can easily appreciate just the solitude & pleasure -- and I can't imagine who would fail to appreciate these, since the red figure is the sole individual on the beach under the pleasing sunshine! But I must add that I can appreciate these equally as well in the absence of all the sand you've included (this is also why I agree on Rod's suggested crop). But I see (if I am not mistaken) you want more than that -- you want your viewer's appreciation of these human values in a specific context, namely a former batterfield. And that is why, I think, you feel the need to include all of that sand here. As you've said to me, you want to stress the sheer magnitude of the scale of death that once took place. But as I've also said to you, the sand you've included is not enough to make me perceive this beach as a vast space of death. Thus this image fails to register in my mind the impression of 'solitude & pleasure in a once venue of death' and the haunting experience of such incongruity. Only upon this conclusion do I opt for the crop. Now Alister's comment, along with your response to hers, further strengthens my opinions about this image. Mightily stubbornly yours, Vera. :-)

Phil Douglis		12-Dec-2004 20:38
You hit the nail on the head here, Alister. Rod and Vera meant well in their comments. But I feel that they were both trying to make stand-alone art out of a picture that I did not post as an example of alone-art, but rather as a teaching example. As you say, this image that demonstrates how human values, through scale incongruity and in this case, historical context supplied by my caption, can express ideas. Thanks for adding your 20 cents worth, Alister. It is worth far more than that to me. And hopefully to others who might read your comment.

alibenn		12-Dec-2004 13:28
I have been following the debate below with some interest, and now feel the time is right to put in my 20c worth. I have to say, my feeling lie with Phil on this one. The images here, in the cyberbook, are intended as teaching tools, in this case, Expressing human values. Personally, as art, I don't believe this image stands alone. In it's essence, it implies nothing of the context mentioned in the caption, no death, no tragedy, no juxtaposition as to the scenes former and current use, and while I'm at it, there are some basic artistic problems with the image, the sea needs levelled, there are some exposure issues, and as Rod said, it may be more aesthetically pleasing with a crop. BUT... That's not why the image is here. It is an example, an expression of potential ideas, themes and possibilities, that can be used by photographers to convey human values. even without the caption regarding why this is a "special" beach, in fact, let's just say the beach isn't memorable in any way...the image STILL illustrates the point about how to express human values in our images. A lone figure on a beach, another few figures off in the distance looking through rock pools, the river running through the bottom left of the frame, the river of life perhaps? By illustrating the scale incongruities and solitude of the figure, we can still lose oursleves in the image. As I said up top, I don't think technically the image is that strong, but as a teaching tool, and obviously as an aid to stimulate passionate opinion, it has done it's job admirably.

Phil Douglis		10-Dec-2004 19:25
Thank you, Rod, for this long and thoughtful comment. It seems as if you and I are interpreting this image from entirely different perspectives, so it is only logical that we have totally different views on it. First and perhaps most importantly, you do not view the function of my caption as I intended it to be viewed. You must be able to put not just this image but my entire gallery -- indeed, my entire cyberbook -- into perspective here. I do NOT write any of my captions in my cyberbook to "tell the story of a picture and use a photograph to illustrate it." (I sometimes do that in my worldisround.com site, where I display many of these same pictures in a quite different context: travel articles.) I regard my cyberbook as a visual classroom. And as such, I write my captions here to give people insights into how and why I created the picture as an expression of my own feelings about it. I give cyberbook viewers this context, so they can understand my intentions. In this case, I even mention two of the human values I tried to express in this image: solitude and pleasure. I then carefully explain that those two values "stand in stark contrast to what happened here sixty years before." I also mention the scale incongruity -- that tiny red figure "played against the sweep of sand and sea and cliffs that once took so many lives." (On most occasions, a variety of principles may be at work in an image, not just the principles under discussion in that particular gallery.) The purpose of this cyberbook, this gallery, and this picture, is to teach. Given that context, I can only answer your question asking me "if the commentary has to tell us why the elements are as they are, then why bother to shoot the photo" by telling you: "That's the way I teach, Rod." I make my pictures, post them, and tell my viewer/students in the caption how and why the elements are as they are, and why they work as they work. I think your problems with this picture are centered on this very basic misunderstanding of my cyberbook, its objectives and my way of reaching those objectives. I made and posted this image as a teaching tool. You read it as something else. You cropped the image to make it use depth perception to convey size. The size incongruity is there in your crop as well. It is an excellent crop and both of these elements are present in it. But I feel that your crop does not effectively contrast the human values expressed by the presence of that beachcomber to the vast empty beach of ghosts that sweeps BEFORE her, as in my image. Your crop changes that meaning of my picture, and as such, it would not offer the teaching example I intend here. It would be just a very nice image featuring scale incongruity and human values, but without that contrast I trying to imply by placing that huge sweep of ghostly sand in front of the beachcomber. I find your paragraph on "selective viewing" to be a very thoughtful one. But I take exception to most of it because your comments run contrary to the very basis of expressive photography as I see it. I believe that an expressive photograph does not necessarily have to mean the same things to others as it means to me. We don't need to have that "shared mentality" you speak of. A truly expressive photograph is, like any work of art, subjective, not objective. It is a catalyst to thought. It should stimulate the minds, emotions and above all, the imaginations of our viewers, encouraging them to read the image in their own way, and make of it whatever they will. Expressive photography is a medium that runs broadly and deeply. It allows me to interpret what I see, and allows me to express my feelings about it to others. My viewers can then take that meaning and make of it whatever they will. In the case of this cyberbook, my images are intended to demonstrate the principles that do just that. Often, I find that others may see even more in my images than what I intended, as the comments left by thoughtful viewers under my pictures in this cyberbook have shown me time and time again. It all comes down to the context a viewer brings to the image, Rod. The photographs and captions I post here in this cyberbook are designed to help people learn the principles of expressive photography. If the same image were hanging on a wall of an art museum or gallery, the context would have to come from the title alone, or from whatever knowledge the viewer might have for the subject. In my worldisround.com travel galleries, for example, the context comes from other pictures in my "travel narrative." If you gohttp://www.worldisround.com/articles/75600/index.html , you will see 19 images on the D-Day beaches, including this one. When you look at the other 18, this image becomes a part of them, and they become a part of it. So context changes. In my caption for this picture on that site, I do not mention human values, incongruity, or any photographic concepts, because the purpose for posting this picture there is quite different than posting it here. It becomes part of a travel article there. It is no longer a photographic instructional resource. If someone seeing this on worldisround.com feels the solitude and pleasure I see in this picture, it will work for them. If they go on to imagine all the dead and wounded on this vast expanse of beach 60 years ago, and contrast it to that feeling of solitude and pleasure, they will get even more out it. I hope you can now see how and why I use captions and context here to help my cyberbook viewers learn the principles of expressive photography, Rod. I hope you will also learn something from this discussion about the way expressive photography works to stimulate the imagination of the viewer. Those "formless black blogs" you mentioned in reference to some of my other photographs, are abstract elements that are designed to do just that. If you don't find meaning in them, that's just the way you see and think. Others might well see that same shadow as an abstract symbol that suggests mystery, the unknown, the past, and so on. It all depends upon the context they happen to bring to that image and how their own mind and personality interact with it. I am not unhappy that you and Vera do not agree with what I am trying to do here with this particular image. As I have already said, you will both see whatever you want to see in a picture, and think whatever you want to think. I accept that as a given. But what is much more important to me is that you both come away from this exercise with a better understanding of expressive photography itself. I want so much for you both to consider the advantages of cropping for meaning, instead of form. I want to encourage you both to unfetter your imaginations and use them less rigidly to read pictures more effectively, which in turn will help you both become more expressive photographers in your own right. And in your case, Rod, I hope you will now come to a better understanding of how context affects meaning, and, indeed, better appreciate and understand the role and importance of my explanations as teaching tools in this cyberbook itself. If you can gain such an appreciation and understanding of my cyberbook, its purpose, and its methods, you can use it much more effectively as a learning resource. If any of these lessons should take hold, it will be you who will benefit from them. Thanks again for taking all of the time you spent thinking about this image and sharing your impressions with me and with all of us. As I said before, both you and Vera, as stubborn and obstinate and fuzzy as your logic sometimes may seem to me, are helping me teach some very important lessons here. Thank you. Phil

Phil Douglis		10-Dec-2004 18:06
Thanks, Vera, for clarifying your previous comment. I see what you are driving at, but I still don't see the logic in your concept. You want me to either crop this beach in half, or else somehow include more beach to make it seem more vast? There would have been no way for me to do this, since I was shooting from a pier which bordered this particular section of Omaha Beach. And even if there was a way to get more beach in, the figure would become so small that the point of my picture -- the comparison -- would be lost. As we agree, perception is an individual, not mass exercise, Vera. You will see whatever you want to see and think what you want to think, while others may look at this same image and more easily grasp the meaning I intend. All I ask from you is that you use this exercise to help you remember to always crop a picture with its meaning, not form in mind, and to use your imagination as fully and as richly as you can when reading an expressive photograph. I am glad that you will keep these lessons in mind. Phil

Guest		10-Dec-2004 14:45
last comment: I meant to say "If Vera is Fuzzy Mind, then me, as a scientist will be Fuzzy Logic. hahaha" (sorry for the typo of your name, Vera!) :) You still rock, Phil, as my coach. :)

Guest		10-Dec-2004 14:44
Hmmm maybe I should state it this way: If this photo was in the size incongruity gallery, it would make perfect sense to me. I guess the human values aspect is the part that escapes me here. The photo as it is speaks "this is where it happened" as if it is just a spot on a globe....but nothing more conveyed relative to human values....

Guest		10-Dec-2004 14:38
If Very is Fuzzy Mind, then me, as a scientist will be Fuzzy Logic. hahahaha

Guest		10-Dec-2004 14:33
The key, for me, in my crop is form, but also using size incongruity to show the expanse nature of that beach. You will never be able to include enough sand as you have tried to do to convey the size, you can however use dept perception to do so. We know the size of the cliffs, we see how they extend on and on (and obvious they have not shrunk). We know the beach is massive. In all other photos you have presented that needed context defined by commentary, the photos do convey the sense of human values. In this particular case, even with your commentary here, and your crop, human values just escape me. The commentary text should tell a story; the photo then illustrates it. The commentary should not tell a person 'how' to view a photo or its elements. The commentary should give the histroy and the 'given's of the geometry of the occasion. But if the commentary has to tell us why the elements are as they are, then why bother to shoot the photo? Because of this particular crop, i only see empty beach, or see a person and cliffs; one's eyes do not see the entire photo at once in this particular case. If the photo's dementions are any smaller (allowing the eye to take all in) then the expanse of the beach is lost as well as the person becoming a dot. When I focus on the beach area, the cliffs are just out of the corner of my eye. I've nothing against commentary supporting a photo to fill in the story. Perhaps if this beach was covered with a bunc of (live) people, it would then be more symbolic example of human values, as it would contrast wonderfully with the history you presented. But showing just one person, positioned as they are (both in pose and in physical location in the frame) it does not work to convey any connection to this history written about in the text. If you want me to imagine the beach covered with 35+K of dead bodies, I'd not have a person at all in this photo, or have a ton of them as symbolism (before it was covered with dead, now ironically covered with the living). I've noticed in a few other photos you used shadows to define some meaning (e.g., shadow of a pair of people to represent duality, along with pairs of other elements) but it worked (for you) only because YOU knew they were shadows from people....but to us they were formless black blogs (no human shape to them, and could not see the shadows extended from poeple, as they were cropped out). Those photos, like this one, fell victum to a form of selective viewing. The elements fit and function for you as you know what they all are, and thus you can rationalize them. To us, they are not all defined, or well defined. Your subconscience mind fills in all the blanks, thus the paradigm is created, but it is not a shared mentality with all others (thus the need of the commentary to 'explain' the photo, rather than the photo making sense on its own after reading the history). I think if the commentary only spoke of history, and no photo explaination, most will not say "this photo demonstrates human values." It does work for me for size incongruity though. Vera's the philosopher, but I'm the scientist. It's amazing how she and I come from opposite ends to the same destination (maybe that's why she and I fit so well hahahaha). I look at your crop, and see what you are attempting, from an analysis point of view....the massive sand area, the small creek of water supposedly tries to lead us up to the person, the massivness of the cliffs comared to the tiny human form, etc. I can "see" how the parts were supposed to fit and convey 'size..expanse' (but not human value). I am sure such a shot is possible, Phil, but I just feel this is not the shot... But, as Vera stated, I do get the point of the lesson, thus in that regard I do thank you for it. :)

Guest		10-Dec-2004 07:28
Sorry, Phil, for my being so incomprehensible. ;-) I will try to succinctly (I hope!) reiterate my views: the sand you've shown is not enough for me to perceive it as a miles-long beach where a batterfield involving thousands of soldiers once took place -- I can just as easily imagine that the beach is very small and ends at where you stood to take the shot. Therefore, for me the sand shown here is not significant for your purpose / intention; instead it is rendered some empty space without much significance. The suggested crop does not change my perception / imagination of the size of the beach as mentioned above. So I concur with the crop for the sake of form. My suggestion is to zoom out to include more sand. I didn't mean you must include the whole beach, but at least include more so that the beach can be perceived as a vast 'space of death'. Well, after all if it is the case (as you said) that "perception is an individual, not mass, exercise", then perhaps it's just my eyes that see it this way. Whereas other people's eyes have no problem perceiving & their minds have no problem grasping the meaning from your image here. But I'll definitely keep in mind the lessons you're trying to teach me here! :-) On that regard, thank you Phil. :-) :-) Vera the fuzzy mind.

Phil Douglis		10-Dec-2004 05:26
Hi, Vera, I was joking about the conspiracy theory! I know you and Rod too well for that. Thanks for admitting your suggested crop was largely for the sake of form. I must disagree, however, with your contention that the beach in your crop still appears as big as how it looks in my image. To my eye, anyway, your crop would take away at least half of the beach in my picture. How can it appear as big? You then tell me that I have "not shown enough of the sand" in my image to stress the sheer magnitude of the scale of death that took place there. Yet I have shown you all the sand there was to show. There was no place where I could have taken your suggestion and "zoomed all the way out to include the whole beach." The whole beach was miles and miles long, and not visible in one sweep from any position, anywhere. And finally you state that my sand "looks like empty space" to you. I must admit that I am having a difficult following the ins and outs of your logic here, Vera. I know you are a Philosopher, but you giveth and taketh away so freely here that you have cut the sand out from under my feet. (Pun intended.) You finish this comment by adding that neither your cropped version or my version really makes you perceive the battlefield and feel the terror and the sadness of war. You say my image fails to contrast the horror of war to the serenity of this beach. I can only answer that such a contrast would be an impossible one to make within the frame of this image itself. I am counting on the imaginations of my viewers to work here, Vera -- to wonder what it must have looked like on this beach 60 years ago and compare that thought to what they see here. You say that you have much to learn in expressive photography. I think you can, if you wish to do so, learn two very important lessons from this exercise we have been going through regarding this image and your crop. First, to express ideas in pictures, we should crop with content in mind, not form. Second, to not expect an expressive image to show everything. Expressive images are intended to be catalysts to thought. They can stimulate the human emotion to feel, the mind to think, and the imagination to wonder. That's what I tried, to no avail, to do here for you here, Vera. To stimulate your imagination so that you might imagine the death and carnage that once took place on this beach, and then compare it to the idyllic scene before you. Obviously, this image has failed to do that for you, in either its cropped or un-cropped form. Which brings me to the final lesson this image leaves us with. No image can be all things to all people. As you will see from just the comments on this page, this picture has stimulated many different feelings, ideas, and emotions. Everyone brings a bit of themselves to a picture. Perception is an individual, not mass, exercise. There are no right or wrongs, goods or bads. There are only meanings to be grasped or not grasped, appreciated or unappreciated. A photograph itself is but the first step in the process. It's what happens in the mind of the viewer that is most important. I know what you intended to say here,Vera. This picture simply did not work for you. It did not stimulate your emotions, mind, or imagination. I am sorry that you could not bring yourself to see what I had hoped you would see, but I will be thrilled if you can accept the lessons in expressive photography that this image teaches. That's why I post my pictures in this cyberbook on expressive travel photography. Phil

Guest		10-Dec-2004 04:37
That's exactly why I hesitated to leave this comment here... you must think that Rod & I are forming an alliance against you tonight (but I assure you that is not the case)! Yes, I cropped this image largely for the sake of the form (and as you know, my eyes are very often overwhelmed by the form & aesthetics; there's still much for me to learn in expressive photography!), but I settled on this crop only after taking into consideration the fact that upon cropping the beach still appears as big as how it looks in your image, and as a bonus the cliffs now appear grand too. I wouldn't agree on the crop if it changed the impression on the size of the beach, which is crucial given the story you are trying to tell with this image here. I appreciate your idea of stressing the sheer magnitude of the scale of death that took place on that sand by 'showing all of that sand' -- but for me, perhaps you haven't shown enough of that sand. I mean, if I were to show the space of sand in order to tell the historical story that thousands of soldiers died on the very expanse of it, then I would zoom out all the way to include the whole beach. From what I see in your image, the sand you've included is not enough to make me see that thousands of soldiers fought & died on it. Instead it looks rather an empty space to me. That's why I cropped it -- again, as I've said above, the crop retains my impression on the size of the beach as I see in your image. But neither the cropped version nor your original version make me perceive the batterfield and subsequently feel the terror & the sadness. Indeed, it would be a very haunting experience contrasting the beach as it is now (beautiful, serene and as a place for pleasure) with the mental image I have imagined of the batterfield that existed on this very beach during WWII 60 years ago!! But this image just doesn't give me enough to make this contrast. I hope you know what I intend to say here. Sincerely, Vera.

Phil Douglis		10-Dec-2004 04:15
Rod, I see why you disagree. You must think that the context for this picture comes only from my personal explanation of it to you in these comments. But that is not the case. The context for this picture came along with it from the beginning. In the caption directly below the picture, I fully explain the fact that this beach was a battlefield. It is then up to the viewer to look at the beach and think for a moment about the people who must have died there 60 years ago. We are talking context here, Rod. You are right, the picture tells a story. But the context, in this case provided by my caption and title, helps tell the story. No picture can tell a story all by itself. There must be some kind of context provided in order for a picture to function as a story telling medium. Hope this clears it up for you. Phil

Phil Douglis		10-Dec-2004 03:40
Rod, you are not negative. Your suggestion was very constructive and very positive . You make excellent points. Only not for this image. You mention "stand alone" -- this image does not stand alone. None of my images ever stand alone. They are all accompanied by context given in the explanation. I never post a photograph without adequate context, defining my intentions for each image. My images are all intended as teaching examples. I don't post pictures here as isolated works unto themselves. This is part of a teaching gallery on human values. As you can see from my caption, i am talking here about solitude and pleasure on a beach once covered with death -- all of these important human values. That is why I composed this picture in this way, and why cropping out that beach would change its meaning. Please take another long at the point I am trying to make here: always crop for content, keeping in mind the context of the picture. Avoid cropping pictures for aesthetic purposes alone, particularly when ideas are at stake. Thanks again, Rod, for your followup comment. I greatly appreciate it and I welcome your participation in my cyberbook, and always will. What you have done tonight was to help me try to make this picture read with greater impact. And you did. But I don't think you considered the meaning I intended to express with this picture when you cropped it. And that is a very important teaching point, and I am thrilled that you helped me make it.

Guest		10-Dec-2004 03:24
I'm sorry if my comment seemed negative, Phil. It was meant to be constructive, but not negative. :( For a lot of your examples I see the meanings and get a lot from the cyber book. But for this one...I think it more a case where this photo would be great in an article about the location, but standing alone....not sure.

Guest		10-Dec-2004 03:14
I see what you mean; I just disagree. I think this photo works for you because you know 'which' beach this is. If you had not told me, I'd had not known where the photo was taken. In this case, you are the one telling me the story, rather than the photo. It is a 'dead' beach to you, because your mind filled in the meaning. To an observer who does not know what beach it is, nor it's historical value, it is just an expanse if sand--it would require your commentary to give them a frame of reference. The photo is to represent human values, but if you did not have your text, and the photo stood on its own, I think it would be hard for most observers to gather the meaning. As you stated in the past: the photo should tell the story. But again, it's just my opinion of course.

Phil Douglis		10-Dec-2004 03:09
Hi, Vera -- all my friends are ganging up on me at once tonight! As you will see from my response to Rod, I love the crop he suggested, but not to make the point I am trying to convey here. I have always taught editors, designers and photographers to crop not for the sake of appearance alone, or form, but rather to crop to enhance the point I am trying to make. I composed this image with all of that sand in the picture because I wanted to stress the sheer magnitude of the scale of death that took place on that sand 60 years ago. I hope you and Rod can appreciate my intentions here and look at it with new eyes. It simply a matter of changing your context. If it helps you both to crop for content instead of for form, it will be a very valuable lesson. Thanks for taking the time to download this picture and for cropping it. I am thrilled that you both care enough about my images to do this. You are helping me teach!

Phil Douglis		10-Dec-2004 02:55
Thanks, Rod, for your excellent cropping suggestion. Your Panorama crop would indeed make this image graphically more cohesive and visually striking. But if photographic expression is involved, you can't just crop a picture for graphic effect. In my view, your crop would be using form for the sake of form itself. I have been teaching cropping in my workshops for the last 35 years to publication editors and designers, as well as photographers, and have always suggested that we should crop for the sake of the story, the idea, the point you are expressing. The point here is simple: here we have life upon a field of death. Thousands of Allied soldiers died to take this beach from the enemy on June 6, 1944. They had nowhere to hide. They died right there on that very expanse of sand you want me to take out of this picture. It may seem as dead space to you, but in another sense of that word, it represents a space of death to me. It is a huge beach, Rod. The more sand we see, the smaller that tiny figure becomes. This enormous scale incongruity is also crucial, because it tell us just how big this beach really is. I also must disagree that this is an "empty beach." A very prominent channel of water curves across the left hand bottom corner of the picture to rhythmically repeat the cliff in the background, drawing the eye into the picture. Granted, there is indeed a large expanse of beach at the lower right, but the vast scale of this killing ground is, to me, anyway, the story here. Without it, this picture is just a figure on a beach. Hope this helps you see why I composed it this way, and why I did not crop it. I welcome your suggestion, Rodney -- because even though I disagreed with your crop, you help me make this very important point: crop for meaning, not effect.

Guest		10-Dec-2004 02:46
Phil, upon reading Rod's comments, I downloaded the image & did his suggested crop -- what an improvement it made! The person, while still looking tiny against the surrounding sand & cliffs, is no longer uncomfortably distant from my eyes, yet the beach still appears sweepingly huge. Better still, the cliffs now also appear much more grand than in your original image. Vera.

Guest		09-Dec-2004 22:26
Something I forgot to mention. The panorama idea will also place the person out of the dead center...she/he is lost to me at that spot. in a panorama, she'll be places closer to a 'rules of thirds' location ( I know...not all rules need to be followed. but in this instance, the person will be much more noticable..and thus 1 of 2 elements of the size contrasts will be instantly in our mind)...-- Rod

Guest		09-Dec-2004 22:23
Hi, Phil. I really like this photo in general, but the crop of it (to me) does not do it justice. I see this massive forground, but it does not add to the photo in my opinion. Maybe inclusion of the forground was meant to show the massive size of the beach, but instead it only shows just how far you were from the person, given the way the photo is shot in this particular case. It would seem to me the photo would have been much stronger as a panorama (cropping all just under those rocks located under the person. The size incongruity between the person and the top of the rocks will be dramatically emphasized. As the photo is now, I only notice the empty beach; not even the person really as my eyes must scan back and forth between the competing empty beach area and the more interesting person and cliffs combination while ignoring the beach. Given the "length" of a panorama, my crop suggestion allows us to know how tall those rocks are as well as how long the beach is (the far end of the rocks will show us that beach goes on and on, as well as the distance to the water cus we know just how high the far end rocks now are). In other words, you have less dead space, and the same feeling of beach expanse, without the empty beach in the front that throws off the balance of the photo. that 'expanse would go in-and-right (the direction of the rocks) instead of out-and-right into the empty beach towards the shooter). Just an opinion of course (sorry for the typos, in a hurry!) -- Rodney :)

Guest		03-Dec-2004 19:34
Thanks the wide angle we can enjoy the pleasure tha man feels to be there surrounded by such natural environement of solitude and magnific dimensions. Very rare as we crowd the planet as the days pass.

nut		06-Nov-2004 23:02
Peaceful here is something to die for.

Phil Douglis		06-Nov-2004 22:52
In a larger sense, she is safe today because of a battle fought on this sand 60 years ago.

nut		06-Nov-2004 22:19
Alone but safe.

Phil Douglis		02-Nov-2004 18:01
Thanks, Larry, for this comment. You are right, the scale incongruity created by that tiny spot of red against the sweep of sand, rock, and ocean is the point here. I'm glad you find it meaningful.

Guest		02-Nov-2004 16:35
That tiny spot of red in that vast sweep of sand, rock, and ocean really make this picture. One of my favorites so far, Phil.

Phil Douglis		30-Oct-2004 23:57
Glad you added peaceful, Zebra. Therein lies the incongruity here. On these sands, thousand of soldiers once died. Today, as you say, it is almost deserted and peaceful, while the tide rises and falls forever.

Guest		30-Oct-2004 17:51
Huge cliff stand there silently for ever,tide rise and fall again and again,man is so far away...I feel alone,peaceful. Thank you,Phil

Phil Douglis		19-Sep-2004 00:33
Thanks, Tim. I made this shot, and the one you just saw posted on worldisround, within a hour of each other. The image you link us to, was made as the opener of a four picture travel sequence on the terrible battle for Pointe du Hoc. That's the huge rock at Pointe du Hoc in soft focus just behind the rusty barbed wire. That juxtaposition does indeed symbolize the horrors of the past. This image of the beachcomber on Omaha Beach was made to speak of solitude, pleasure, and in a way, irony -- all them essential human values. You are right-- it does move us from the one time to another.

Tim May		19-Sep-2004 00:21
I see this in juxtaposition the shot you have at WorldisRound of the barbed wire at the edge of the beach (http://worldisround.com/articles/75600/photo17.html ) . That image seems to show that the past is always with us, while this image moves us beyond the horror to calm serenity.

Type your message and click Add Comment

It is best to login or register first but you may post as a guest. Enter an optional name and contact email address. Name
Name Email
help	private comment

Type your message and click Add Comment

It is best to login or register first but you may post as a guest. Enter an optional name and contact email address. Name
Name Email
help	private comment