photo sharing and upload picture albums photo forums search pictures popular photos photography help login
Phil Douglis | all galleries >> Galleries >> Gallery One: Travel Abstractions -- Unlimited Thought > Waiting for their noodles, Huay Xai, Laos, 2005
previous | next
18-JAN-2005

Waiting for their noodles, Huay Xai, Laos, 2005

This is a simple street photograph of two customers waiting for their hot noodle soup at a vendor's stand in a small Laotian town. I chose to backlight the scene to make it a partially abstract image, and thereby more symbolic of eating and less specific in terms of who is about to eat. By abstracting the three participants, I stress their shapes and body language and how they relate to each in space. One is already abstracted because she has turned her back on the camera. The other two figures are darkened just enough by the backlighting to leave something to the imagination and call more attention to the negative space moving between the figures. That negative space – the areas between subjects -- becomes very important here. This negative space is full of tension flowing in the space around and between the bodies of the noodle watchers. I also like the way the tension is increased by the objects suddenly piercing the frame at left and top left, as well. The splayed fingers of the waiting woman are unconsciously echoing the thrusts of the antenna at bottom left, small pipes of some kind at left, and the jagged flap of the roof at top left. There is enough light spilling into the scene to illuminate the colorful clothing of the woman with her back to us, as well as the faces of the other two people, and the various pots and bowls on the table. Yet we don’t see everything. My selection of a backlit vantage point has left some room for the viewer’s imagination to work.

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ20
1/640s f/5.6 at 39.6mm iso80 full exif

other sizes: small medium large original auto
share
Phil Douglis19-Jul-2006 21:45
Thanks, Annie, for seeing what I was trying to accomplish -- and teach -- with this image. There is a difference between clutter that distracts and has nothing to do with the point at hand, and information that helps tell a story. I am glad that you have noted the difference here. And yes, I do how you might have mistaken the scene for a beach, but the meaning itself would not change.
Annie J19-Jul-2006 06:58
I don't find this image to be cluttered at all, the elements that are captured are part of the story to me, and therefore not cluttering. The background at first I thought it was taken on a beach, the debris that is in the street looks like the debris that is often washed ashore with waves.
Phil Douglis30-Jun-2006 17:20
Thanks, Emi, for adding your intelligent voice to this dialog. I welcome your comment, and am glad you think this picture tells a story. And those distractions you mention are actually part of the composition of the picture. The thrust of the antenna at lower left points to the woman next it, and echoes her leaning form. A distraction is something that serves no function and calls attention to itself in the process. In this case, the information in the lower left corner, while not a part of the story itself, serves as part of the framework of the image, so I can't agree with you on that point. But you will see what you want to see and feel what you want to feel -- each of us brings different eyes to a picture, and if I am telling you a story which makes you think, the image is expressive and successful. Since this photo is an example of how abstraction works to express ideas, I was particularly interested in what you said about this image "making us wonder what the woman( with the back facing us) was actually doing and thinking or how did she feel at that moment." That is the purpose of abstraction here, Emi. Because I shot this woman from behind, I abstracted her, and triggered these thoughts, and stimulated your imagination. Glad it works for you, and thanks again for this long and thoughtful comment.
Guest 30-Jun-2006 16:53
Hi Phil,

It is such an interesting picture which brings a lot of discussion here. It took me a while to go through the whole discussion and try to clarify my own thoughts towards the picture.

To me, this picture serves a better purpose in story telling than others. It tells us about the environment and the culture in that particular place, and makes us wonder what the woman(with the back facing us)was actually doing and thinking or how did she feel at that moment.

Phil was there to take the picture so he knows what actually that woman was doing - waiting in the line in order to get some noodles. However, if I wasn't told the fact that she was waiting, I would have thought she was just a walking-by as I can see her feet in the picture which make her look like she was walking( one of her foot is above the ground). Her gesture also makes me think that she must be having a tough time, maybe she has been walking for quite a long time already and she still had to keep going on? Plus the slope of the road also suggests that its tough for her to keep going. That is the story I get from the stimulation of the picture, while it suggests another story to Carol as she said she thought the woman looks like she was talking and getting out her money for the noodles.

The negative space does enhance the tension and working together with the use of abstraction by the lighting effect on the women's faces and the brightened road, it helps us to focus on the women and keep me thinking about the story. The hand-shaped thing of the roof, which pointed to the women on the left of the picture and the bicycle of the top right hand corner do service in help us focus on the women.

However, the thing on the left(looks like a bicycle handle), which the women was facing at , and the mirror with the antenna are distractions to me. I totally agree with Phil in the sense that those two things do help in point at the two women and help us focusing on them. Nevertheless, in the meanwhile, they are also distractions to me. It is because the bicycle running down from the top right hand corner and the thing on the roof, as well as the abstraction and the negative space used in the picture, have already helped us in that aspect. In the sense of adding more to the story of the picture, I am for the clutters I mentioned, but in the sense of the whole picture itself, I would rather not have those clutters. Thats why I said right in the beginning that this picture serves better in the story telling aspect.

Emi
Phil Douglis30-Aug-2005 13:58
Thanks, Andrej, for this comment. I am glad you keep finding more to see in this image. Your response is a very common one -- we must carefully look at an image, perhaps several times, to get the full value from it. Another point you raised -- you don't have to "like" a picture to get something out of it. A photograph should never be a contestant in a popularity contest. It should work on our imaginations and convey meaning, whether we find those meanings pleasant or not. Keep on learning and welcome to my cyberbook.
Guest 30-Aug-2005 07:29
I think this image does even more at opening one's eyes as the images before; when I first looked at it I really didn't like it, but after reading the comments and questions/answers I got to understand many things that were "hidden" from me before...
I still don't think it is a great photo (aesthetically) but it opened my eyes to see that not all the photos have to be frontlit and respect basic rules for them to be good or even great photos and to tell the story they were meant to tell!
I can't wait to see what other things I will learn in this cyberbook if I have learned this much just in the first four pictures...Phil, this is a truly great work you're doing.
Phil Douglis20-Aug-2005 22:42
I agree with you, Carlos. An expressive image can offer many stories, depending upon the quality and nature of the imagination and context that each viewer can bring to it. I also agree that this is not a cluttered image nor are there distractions as some have impied. There may be a lot going on in this image, but everything in it adds something to the whole.
Carlos 20-Aug-2005 19:36
Hello Phil,
I Like the way the woman on the left of the frame almost seems to be talking to someone else off camera. She's reaching into her jacket pocket, as if to be getting out money to pay for her noodles.
This photo is a good example of how a picture can tell many stories. I personally don't think this photo is cluttered at all. I just think all the different content helps to tell the story.
Phil Douglis12-Aug-2005 17:29
Welcome, Lisbeth, to my galleries. Glad you read my answer below to Jason, Lisbeth. And even happier that you have taken that answer and asked another question of me. I will do my best to give you an answer. You are right. Negative space is part of how we interpret content. Tension is part of content, just as it is part of form. Both negative space, and the tension it creates, can strengthen meaning. I love your "ping-pong" metaphor, Lisbeth. When we watch a ping-pong ball being batted back and forth, what we are seeing is reciprocation -- one thing responding to another and creating it own sense of energy as a result. And when we look at the above image, and study the space that crackles with energy between the two women, we sense that they are very aware of each other's presence, yet do not acknowledge it. They are standing within each other's physical space, yet pretend they are not. And that is part of the meaning of this picture, isn't it? You are right -- this ping-ponged area, as you so wonderfully call it, becomes a focal point of the picture for those who take the time to study it carefully. This image is all about spatial relationships, as I said. And negative space is an essential part of any spatial relationship, isn't it?

Hope this helps, Lisbeth. I hope this will the first of many questions you will ask as you study expression with me. I welcome your curiosity and your desire to learn.
Lisbeth Landstrøm12-Aug-2005 16:10
I have come back to this photo because I have grown curious about the nature of tension in negative space. Is tension created as a ping-pong effect between the negative space and the content/form of the photo, or can the tension exist solely because of the visual figure that the negative space creates? ... ok - you don't have to answer as I just saw your answer to Jason :-) The way I understand it now is, that negative space can support the interpretation of the content. Or strengthen the meaning. And a "tension created by the negative space" could be a visual ping-pong reaction between negative space and an object - perhaps with the result that more focus is given to the "ping-pong'ed" area and certain details in the object...? Sorry for the long comment - blame the bikeride home from work and the coming weekend :-)
Phil Douglis03-Aug-2005 17:44
Good question, Timo. The word "negative" itself means something that is characterized by the absence, rather than the presence, of distinguishing features. When we apply that word to the way we can allocate space in a photograph for our subject matter, background, etc., the negative space is the space that falls between things. How closely, or where we place elements in relationship to each other in a photograph, can definitely change meaning. In the case of this image, look again at the space between the left hand edge of the frame and the woman at far left, as well as the spacing between the three people. Do you feel the tension crackling between the left hand edge and that woman's elbow? Do you see how the two women appear to stand so closely together, merging only at the hip and hands? Do you see how patiently the woman with her hands behind her back appears to wait for her noodles? All of these effects are the result of how I create my space between my subjects, and between my subjects and the frame itself. And that space, which in itself does not hold any subject matter, is called "negative space." Hope this helps, Timo.
Timo Neumann 03-Aug-2005 12:29
I think I don't understand "negative space". If I try to make sense of the word negative in connection with space I would think that it is something like though there is space between to objects or people it enforces their togetherness. But I don't think this is what you mean here. Could you clarify the difference between "space" and "negative space"?
Phil Douglis19-Jul-2005 17:16
You make your points well, Iannis. Thank you for seeing how abstraction pulls the viewer's imagination into the image. I like the fact that one woman has her back turned to us, as well as to the vendor. Thrusting out her fingers, she is a study in impatience.
Guest 19-Jul-2005 07:30
This picture gives me the oportunity to say generally how food is necessary to humanity but also the discipline that most Asian people have. Poverty sometimes implies a more polite way of living against the greedy way of the said sivilized world. The back light is used in order not to show details of the faces but to help the viewer to the event. I don't like that the one woman turned her back to the lens but this abstaction is giving the scene its natural way to be.
Iannis
Phil Douglis18-Jul-2005 23:10
Good point, Mike. When we are shooting, we must study the edges of the frame as closely as we study the stuff we include in the picture. If I had taken more time to think about including more reference to the motor bike, I might have added even more incongruity here. One of my bad habits as a photographer is to sometime crop my pictures too tightly in the viewfinder. I am a ruthless photo editor, boiling down every frame to its essence. And sometimes that can work against you by forcing you to crop out stuff that might have well been useful. In other words, I know I should loosen up a bit, and often will back off and take another with a bit more in the image. But in this case, the gesture I captured here would have been gone.
mike 18-Jul-2005 18:37
The two pipes you referenced appear to be the handle bar and brake assembly on a bicycle and/or motor cycle. With a little more angle to capture just enough of the cycle handlebar for recognition would have added yet more incongruencies (i.e. excuse spelling) in this already expressive image ...
Phil Douglis24-Jun-2005 20:07
Thanks, Bob, for raising the issue of food and the "Nanny State" syndrome we endure in the Western World. In Laos, life often revolves around food -- particularly rice and noodles in all of their incarnations. This image is just such an observation.
Bob White23-Jun-2005 10:49
This is such a common sight in Asia , you have portrayed this so well with the lighting, it also tells me another story, how essential food is and what a Nanny state the western world has become
Phil Douglis25-May-2005 06:42
Thanks, Ying, for your straightforward feedback. I appreciate the work you put into this image. If we are going to view images as expression, we must take the time to really look at them, and not be influenced by factors that oppose our initial expectations. It is true the highlighted street is very bright, and some might indeed feel it is distracting, but I considered that brightness to be an essential part of my expression here. Expressive photography is not about aesthetic effects for their own sake. Artistically stunning images of great beauty may offer pleasure to the eye, but aesthetic effects often do not express ideas or stimulate thought. I appreciate the fact that you did justice to this image by not dismissing it out of hand. It is a teaching image, Ying, and I think it can open up the minds and eyes of photographers used to photographing things in conventionally descriptive ways. This image is just as much about what is not seen and what is implied, rather than what is shown. It is as much about the spaces between people as it is about the people themselves. I thank you for coming to recognize this, and for taking the time to leave this comment for us.
Ying25-May-2005 00:59
Phil, you made an interesting choice of lighting here. If I were at the scene, I would have gone to the other side and made a front lit or partially lit image. At first glance of your photograph, my eyes were distracted by its highlight - the bright lit area. But the more I study it, the more I find it works for me. Soon my eyes were drawn to the details in the shadow. I can feel the subjects, the air flowing between them, and the tension. This is not an artistically stunning image, but definitely an expressive one.
Phil Douglis17-Apr-2005 22:37
Your clarification shows me that you now understand the role of content and form in expressive photography, Ruth. Form is not only technique, however. It is also aesthetics -- the way the picture is made to look. You are right. Content always comes first. Form follows function. A photograph based on form for its own sake is an exercise in technique and aesethetic effect. Effect for the sake of effect says very little in terms of meaning. On the other hand, effective form can help make content speak clearly, with impact, power, and beauty. I can liken it to a song. If its musical score is beautiful, it can be a joy to hear and it will engrave itself upon the mind. But its content -- the lyrics -- are its substance. If it is going to say something to us, it is the words of that song that will put our minds and our imaginations to work. Together, music and words will work together as expression. The same thing happens in expressive photography. Form provides the music, while content provides the meaning.
ruthemily17-Apr-2005 08:28
i think so, but let me clarify. form is the technical aspects of a photo...composition, exposure and so on. content is the meaning a photograph has, the story-telling aspect of it. a photograph with just form and no content is ineffective. a photograph with content, needs good and relevent form to make that content work. right?
Phil Douglis17-Apr-2005 01:55
Thanks, Ruth, for asking this question. You are half right -- content is the message, point, or substance of a photograph. The story you are telling. Form, on the other hand, is the way the image is put together to tell that story. Form must serve content. It is an empty exercise in aesthetics if it does not. Do this help you?
ruthemily16-Apr-2005 16:39
Phil, can you clarify the difference you see between form and content? i think i understand what you are trying to get at but i can't quite set my thoughts straight regarding what is form and what is content. i presume content is the meaningful, stimulating, thought-provoking aspects of a photo...but what is form? just a photograph that doesn't speak? sorry if this seems so basic, but it feels important to get it straight in my head before i continue with your galleries.
thanks for this lesson in negative space. so often you hear people talk of empty space being "wasted" but you've shown how far from wasted it actually is.
Phil Douglis16-Mar-2005 06:21
And thank you, Tat, for seeing the values inherent in this image and explaining them so lucidly here. You are seeing what I saw as I made this image -- tensions, impatience, frustration. I am glad you see the importance of negative space here as well.

You also are able to see the difference between "clutter" as distraction, and abstracted "clutter" intended as meaning. And I welcome your distinction between pictures made to a standard of "beauty" and pictures made to express ideas. It is my hope that this cyberbook will inspire photographers to move from making pictures based primarily on form to making images based on content. Thank you for your excellent comment.
Tat Lau 16-Mar-2005 04:10
Phil,thank you for your teaching about negative space. I feel the tension between those people. Just imagining myself waiting in a slow grocery line, the first person waiting patiently, myself being the second in line, absolutely frustrated with my hand on my hip, and turn around so as not to show my frustrated face to the cashere, just to avoid being too rude.
I see a few commentators have some concerns about clutters. I would like to point out that the clutters in your picture absolutely represents the way of life in "developing countries". I think most viewers are looking for "beautiful" pictures instead of "meaningful" pictures. Thanks again as your picture brings fond memories of my youth in Hong Kong in the 50's and 60's.
Phil Douglis14-Mar-2005 18:59
Hi, Jason,

Thanks for your question. Negative space is the area that flows around and between your subjects. The closer the subjects come to each other and to the frame without touching, the narrower this space gets, and the more energy or tension is generated. Many photographers, for example, may just look at the two women standing there. They do not study the space that falls between their shoulders. Do you see how close they come without touching? That is negative space, and it is filled with energy in this case. Look at the space between one of those women's elbows and the left hand edge of the picture. That, too, crackles with energy. Now look at the huge gap of space between the woman facing the noodle stand and the vendor. All that space separates them, which symbolizes waiting as well. The further apart they are, the longer it seems she will have to wait for her noodles. So study the spaces between things, as well as the things themselves. That is negative space, which often generates tension, or can also divide and separate. Both tension and separation can imply meaning. Use them well.
jason zhang 14-Mar-2005 05:06
what is negative space
Phil Douglis08-Mar-2005 22:56
I like your insight about the intimacy created by shadow, Clara. Shadows often can add a sense of intimacy because they abstract the subject and focus viewers on what is not actually seen but instead imagined. Intimacy and imagination often go hand in hand. As for the car mirror, it was definitely not a distraction for me, either. It, along with that antenna, pulls the eye right into those two women.
Guest 08-Mar-2005 16:23
To me the image is interesting as it reports how the environement and way of life in that place is. The clothes the women wear, the little stand shop, the earth road. Your use of shadows again adds intimacy to the scene. From a Philian perspective I could say that the car mirror is distracting, but to me it adds more information about the environement.
Phil Douglis05-Mar-2005 00:11
Thank you, Tim, for this observation. You are right. Clutter is not always a negative factor. Sometimes it is, as here, a part of the story itself, and that is why I included all that I included here, and why I abstracted it in this manner. You and I shot together in this dusty, God forsaken little town along the Mekong, and both of us were constantly looking for scenes that captured its essence. You made an image in that same town that I think also defines this town through disorder, instead of order. Your shot of a woman making an offering to a street corner Naga athttp://www.pbase.com/mityam/image/40376792 really conveys the chaotic flavor of this place. Thanks for seeing what I see in this particular moment in light, time and space, Tim. The interplay of the routine and the unique is a very important part of life, and as photographers we look for ways to make it work for us and for the viewer, cluttered or not.
Tim May04-Mar-2005 19:53
The abstraction works for me because the shadow still has detail, or maybe as some would say, clutter. But, having been there in the same city, I think this image does a good job of the interplay that every traveler must deal with. The city was cluttered - It especially seemed that way to me as a non native because the clutter, while many made of many of the same elements that we know, bowls, fire, antennas, was different enough to call attention to each individual element. Sorting out the clutter and making meaning of the places we visit and see is the job of the traveler and, for you and me, of the photographer. This abstraction, I think, works because by the lighting you have brought us to the essence of anywhere: There are people here, they eat, they have tension, they wait. There is a play of universality and uniqueness.
Phil Douglis01-Mar-2005 21:57
Hi, Nut. Good to have you back in my galleries. When you don't get something the first time around, just go back and carefully read my commentary again. In this case, you get to not only read my analysis, but also my answer to Monique, who is also having difficulty understanding what I am trying to teach with this portrait.

Hint: this is all about abstracting a common scene to involve the viewer's imagination to a greater degree and about how negative space -- the spaces between these people -- are creating tension. The tension here is part of the story, too.

Come back to it when you can, Nut. You always do. And ask questions, until you do begin to understand why this image is in this gallery. That's the way you learn best.
nutkurt 01-Mar-2005 18:50
Ummmm....I don't get it.
Phil Douglis28-Feb-2005 23:10
I agree with you a Mo, that a photo ought to speak for itself. We simply disagree on how effectively this one expresses its point. But I still rely on text underneath my photos because this is not an art gallery. It is a teaching site. As such, it serves a different purpose than any other on pbase. To teach, I must use words and pictures together. I hope my viewers will study my images, read my commentary and the commentary of others, in order to learn as much as I can. I agree that there is nothing very special or remarkable about this particular image. But that is not why I post it. I post it because it functions, along with my words, as a teaching example.
monique jansen28-Feb-2005 12:05
I still think it ought to speak for itself, it is a nice photo, but not a very special one for you in my opinion, you have so many pictures that express better what you are saying, without the need to read the text underneath the photo.
Phil Douglis28-Feb-2005 04:17
I used this image as good example of how negative space can work, and also to show there are various degrees of abstraction. Sorry you were not drawn to it, Mo, but please study my comments and hopefully you will be able to use this instructional example to learn how to improve your own imagery.

As for your reference to clutter, I must question your judgment on that point. Clutter becomes a problem when information is included that does not express meaning or provide useful context, or when information merges in a random and confusing manner. In the case of this image, I feel that everything included in it helps the picture work, the abstraction limits distractions, and the negative space flowing between the figures makes order out of potential chaos. The degree of abstraction I use here also makes this image different from similar photographs --it shows us less and because of that, it says more by involving the imagination. Sorry this picture does not stir your imagination as I had hoped it would do. Read my commentary and look at it again. Perhaps you may eventually come to see it's value and meanin in a new light. (Pun intended.)
monique jansen27-Feb-2005 16:15
To be honest, this one does not do it for me, it is too cluttered, it is like dozens of similar photos - nice, but it does not call out to me like many of your other images.
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