photo sharing and upload picture albums photo forums search pictures popular photos photography help login
Phil Douglis | all galleries >> Galleries >> Gallery Sixteen: Story-telling street photography > Morning coffee, Green River, Utah, 2006
previous | next
23-SEP-2006

Morning coffee, Green River, Utah, 2006

I was shooting the yellow VW for my color gallery (see http://www.pbase.com/pnd1/image/69222142 ) when a customer emerged from the coffee shop. He turned the corner, and headed towards his car (not the VW). His head was down, and when his cup of coffee was juxtaposed against the leaf of the Yucca plant painted on the wall, I knew I had my shot. The plant incongruously seems to be sipping from the cup. Street photography is a matter of making the most of our chances. I had no idea this fellow was going to step into my image, but since I was already focused on the VW for another purpose, I was able to photograph this incongruous moment in time. The image also speaks of Green River itself – its slow pace, western flavor, and tight economy.

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ50
1/400s f/5.6 at 43.0mm iso100 full exif

other sizes: small medium large original auto
share
Phil Douglis24-Jan-2008 18:09
Well said, Vera. This image is essentially about transition, and the imagination of the viewer is an important part of the process here. The camera has frozen him in both time and space, and it is up to the viewer to imagine where has been and where he will go. Always remember that our cameras give us the ability to snatch any moment out of its time-frame context, and make a statement on that moment.
Guest 24-Jan-2008 13:15
Just to add my two cents...I like it as it is now. I think both versions would work but in different ways. The reason I like it as it is now is I can imagine both where he came from and where he is going to. He is in transition between two points.
V.
Phil Douglis07-Nov-2006 20:36
Very well put, Jenene. I am delighted that you triggered this discussion, and glad that Zane asks the questions he asks, because you have both given me an opportunity to respond and thereby enrich the lessons that one might learn here in my cyberbook on expressive travel photography. I agree with everything you say here. As artists we make our own statements in our own way. We should not make images to meet the expectations of others -- rather we should make them to express how we feel about what we see before us. As you note, we begin by mastering the basics -- rendering our choices in light, space, and time. Ultimately, we should feel free to bend those basics in any way we wish to establish our own style, our own vision, our own forms of expression. I appreciate you coming back to help wrap up this discussion. It is only right that you finish what you started here, Thanks, Jenene, for this comment.
JSWaters07-Nov-2006 20:18
Interesting and thought provoking discussion going on here, Phil and Zane. My question was foremost one of simply clarifying Phil's reason for including the facade on the left - due in large part to the amount of thought I have lately been giving to the differences between 'street' and 'fine art' photography. I find it more difficult at the present time to offer a successful (in my inexperience with the evaluation process) 'street' image because it seems to embody a broader and looser set of photographic 'rules'. I find the most provocative image in any photographic genre to be the one in which the photographer has paid respect to 'best practices', but tweaked them by using his or her own imagination and fearlessness to express a story or an idea in a different way. The basis for my inquiry can be summed up by Zane's observation, "Deviations then can give a subject more importance or a greater sense of tension. But it is in the knowing of where those points and boundaries are that makes a master." Now, since there are as many ways of editing a photograph as there are photographers, Phil's image succeeds in it's present state because it successfully tells the story he envisions. Zane and I might have personally preferred (if the image had been ours) to see the left side cropped out - but it's not ours. The beauty of artistic expression is in the differences we all bring to an idea or subject. As Phil says very eloquently, "We must understand the traditions of the art that we practice in order to take our own art in a different direction." I would propose that those traditions include mastering the building blocks of good photography, ie; composition, etc., before we are able to speak with our unique artistic voice. I always try to start my viewing of a photograph at that basic level so I can then unravel the meaning (albeit the meaning I personally will bring) of that image.
Jenene
Phil Douglis06-Nov-2006 18:16
You raise another important point here, Zane. How do we know if we have successfully expressed something in an image? We must begin by anticipating that each viewer will bring their own imagination to bear on an image. And no two imaginations work in the same way. Viewers also carry a lot of personal baggage to a picture as well – and no two people will have the same context, knowledge, experiences, tastes, likes, dislikes, or axes to grind. The fact that viewers may read and react to our images in many different ways and on many different levels is an asset, not a liability. Expressive photography is a broad and deep medium. An expressive image can provide a spark, a catalyst that triggers the emotions, imaginations and intellects of our viewers, and move them in infinitely variable ways. We can’t quantitatively measure the effectiveness of such expression. But we can, as you note, share our work in broad forums such we have here on pbase, listen to and learn from the feedback we get, and continue to ask ourselves those very questions you pose: why am I shooting this image, and what am I trying to say about what I see, feel, and think?
Zane Paxton06-Nov-2006 08:58
Thanks for the interesting and thoughful reply Phil.

On expression:
I think the interesting questions that I wrestle with the most really revolve around how to measure or gage how well or successfully I expressed something in an image. Its a slippery slope for sure to tackle the intangibles in the realm of expression, but if one is to learn and grow as an artist one must find or develop up a way forward of some sort. Maybe its all trial and error, but that is perhaps not the quickest and certainly not the easiest or fastest way. Certainly sharing our work and getting feedback from others, learning from mentors and masters is useful and I rather like what you are taking on here. But are there other possibilities? I'm in a state of ongoing inquiry as how to measure how successful our attempts at expressions are? I like the idea if an image triggers an emotion as a one measure. Deep insights as to the nature of things, places and situations. How to measure these? Certainly asking exquisite questions is a start ;~) I routinely challenge myself with simple, but difficult questions when out shooting, things like "What is really going on here?" "What is special or unique about a place/setting/situation?" and so forth.
Phil Douglis05-Nov-2006 22:06
We could go back and forth for days on this subject, Zane – and yes, our discussion is really more of a philosophical rant than a photographic analysis. I did not mean to imply that there are no criteria, best practices, or guidelines that photographers should consider when they make pictures intended as expression. In fact, my entire cyberbook is based on such ideas for consideration. I also agree that aesthetic principles have existed for centuries and are essential to photographic expression.

In my previous comment, I was essentially questioning your phrase that there are "universal criteria that all images are judged by in order to be considered successful.” I was particularly questioning the terms “judged by” and “all.” I try to take a more flexible, open, approach to this subject. I want photographers to always feel free to depart from these “criteria” in order to express an idea. That’s why I suggested that we address these issues on a “case by case” basis, instead of by “universal” fiat.

Hope this clarifies my intentions here, and thanks for the comment.
Zane Paxton05-Nov-2006 07:04
"We can only address them on a case-by-case basis"
"I am not ready to accept the idea that there are “universal criteria that all images are judged by in order to be considered successful.” "

We are getting into a philosophical rant here, but it may be useful to investigate.
I'm not sure I'm following what you are trying to say here Phil.... Surely there are some body of criteria, best practices, theories and guidelines by which we use in the art & craft of photography? For instance, one could generalize and say that the golden mean is a good thing to use in composition. I would also say that there are many ways to apply that and that even deviations can be useful as perhaps the golden mean is only the most restful and pleasant way to express a sense of balance. Deviations then can give a subject more importance or a greater sense of tension. But it is in the knowing of where those points and boundaries are that makes a master.

I would suggest that using some body of criteria, best practices, principles, etc. is like a language without which expression and communication become difficult. Indeed this web site seems to attempt to clarify principles, which by their definition are attepts to clarify and articulate more universal points of agreement. Alas, we do not exist in vacuums; as soon as we share our works we are faced with the judgements of others and to continually improve our skills we should be measuring whether or not we were successful in our expressions and intents. All the great masters have developed some sense of aesthetics that have more universal appeal and have learned to speak in ways that trigger powerful even universal responses. Even when we judge individual works we are judging and analyzing against a body of accumulated criteria, best practices, aesthetics, principles, etc. Otherwise we are just being random and arbitrary, which is not very powerful or even useful.

So as artists aren't we all striving to articulate more universal ideas, even if our attempts are allways of an individual and subjective nature?
Phil Douglis04-Nov-2006 21:00
Does context trump composition in street photography? This question is best addressed by asking two other questions: how important is that context to the content -- the story we are trying to tell? And to what extent would the potentially stronger composition cancel out the loss of that context? We can’t answer such questions, Zane, in general terms. We can only address them on a case-by-case basis.

I agree with what Wynn Bullock told you when you were a lad – we may use “rules” in photographic expression, but we should not come to “believe” in them. And I agree with you that we must be aware of choices and compromises when we make images. We should have substantive reasons for doing whatever we do – our own reasons.

I am not ready to accept the idea that there are “universal criteria that all images are judged by in order to be considered successful.” I regard photographic expression as an art form, not as an exercise in science, technology, or aesthetics for their own sake. (Even street photography can be elevated to fine art, as Henri Cartier Bresson proved.) If art is put in a straight jacket of criteria, rules, codes, customs, and conventions, it is no longer a function of art as I see art. Artists must continually break with convention if they are to challenge their audiences. They take such risks all the time. They realize that some may not “get it” or even like what they do. But they also realize that there is much to be gained by creating fresh ideas that trigger the emotions, intellects, and imaginations of others. The universal criteria you mention may be a worthy starting point for any artist, but in my view, they are only a starting point. We must understand the traditions of the art that we practice in order to take our own art in a different direction. As Picasso put it: “Art is not the application of a canon of beauty. It is what the instinct and the brain can conceive beyond any canon. When we love a woman, we don’t start by measuring her limbs.”

Thanks, Zane, for raising these important issues. I also agree with you that when we discuss publicly the compromises we must make as artists and photographers, it opens significant learning opportunities. Not just for those who are doing the discussing, but also for those who may drop by to read and think about our exchanges.
Zane Paxton04-Nov-2006 19:46
"the nature of street photography is not the same as fine art photography -- context plays a bigger role in street photography."

An interesting distinction. IMHO context plays a powerful role in many realms of photography; for instance landscapes without a sense of place (context) are far less successful. I will grant you that from a teaching perspective, that context and "telling a story" is something of significant importance that is commonly overlooked; it does take an iquisitive mind with keen insight to be able to incorporate the "essense" of a place well.

However; are you saying that context trumps composition in street photography? Hmmmm, I'm not quite ready to give up on justifying such portentially broad compromises just yet.... I would suggest that there are some universal criteria that all images are judged by to be considered successful and we need to be as clear about the compomises as we are about our intents when we press the shutter (and then process images back in the digital darkroom). So it would seem then that there are some signigicant learning opportunities to be included into the conversations as to where compromises were made.

So perhaps are we distinguishing here is that it really boils down to that being aware of and consiously participating in the myriad choices and compromises is all part of being an accomplished photographer; more than it is about following rules. I had the opportunity to have a crit session as a lad with Wynn Bullock, a master in his own right, and he said something that always stuck with me: "Rules are meant to be used, but not believed in". But that is just another way of saying that its important to be aware of the choices and compromises.
Phil Douglis03-Nov-2006 19:06
I am a big fan of Eugene Smith, Zane. I have been using his work as examples of substantive story telling in my workshops for the last 35 years. As for the facade in this image, I feel it is essential context for what I am trying to say. You don't. Which is fine -- there is no one right or wrong way to make a story telling image. I tell my stories in my way, and you will tell them in yours. I reminded Jenene that the nature of street photography is not the same as fine art photography -- context plays a bigger role in street photography. I don't think she has really thought about the differences yet between the genres. If cropped the image as you suggest, the story, in my view would be less complete. It would be your image, not mine. And once again, that is your perogative. My viewers respond to my images in their own way, and often make their own art out of my images in the process.
Zane Paxton03-Nov-2006 06:39
I would agree with Jenene; about the facade on the left. Yes, it can be argued that it tells part of the "story" and I would argue that story telling is indeed very important (conveying meaning). However, one still needs to ask, what the primary and secondary subjects really are here? Powerful images convey lots of meaning and usually have very clear subjects.... Personally, I would have cropped off everything to the left of the white wall and not missed it. Then the image would be more focused on the primary and secondary subjects. Why? The left side has enough color, contrast and fleetingly interesting objects that draw the eye away from the man, the coffee, the car; busy with a small contribution. The point is about clarity and appropriate simplicity. Story telling that can also be artistic. W. Eugene Smith the famous PJ is an example of a master story teller with a camera where the elements in his images all contributed something vital and powerful. I'm questioning how vital and powerful the facade really is to the story here....
Phil Douglis02-Nov-2006 16:51
And thank you, Jenene, for having a mind that is open enough to accept the fact that there are many differenty types of photographic expression. A purely abstracted image is more along the lines of fine art, where aesthetic considerations play a major role. Street photography, on the other hand, is a variation of photojournalism -- aesthetics are useful, but not essential components. The most important purpose of street photography is story telling based on human values. Everything in this image is geared to that end. I keep things simple, clean and purposeful. There no accidents here -- everything has a purpose. As I mention in the introduction to this gallery, street photography can also have elements of the abstraction in it (You don't see the whole sign here, for example. Much of it is left to your imagination.) It can also have incongruous aspects -- as in the plant drinking from the coffee cup, and the shock of yellow in an otherwise mundane color palette. But the bottom line of street photography is showing how people interact, react, and respond in public places in terms of human values. Loneliness is a human value. So is pace, and lifestyle. The facade of that building around the corner is part of that story. And that's why its there.
JSWaters02-Nov-2006 04:05
Thank you, Phil, for the response. I am not really as 'tuned in' to street photography as I am the abstraction of an image. It's all a learning curve for me, and I appreciate the explanation.
Jenene
Phil Douglis02-Nov-2006 01:34
Good question-- this is street photography, Jenene -- and the character of the street, in this case silent and deserted (lined by empty chairs), tells us how sleepy this place is. The coffee cowboy seems to be sleep-walking as well. The signage gives context for both the coffee and the desert, while the Volkswagen and the cup's merger with the plant adds incongruity. In street photography, everything must have a purpose, and I think everything in this picture works to express the ideas I am trying to express. Far from a distraction, the front facade of this building is essential. Without it, it is just half a picture.
JSWaters01-Nov-2006 18:02
I'd like to know your thoughts on why you presented as much of the front facade in this image, Phil. Does it add more to the 'morning coffee' context, or would the signage on the wall be enough to do that. I find that the empty chairs say alot about the slow pace here; take the time and sit awhile - but I'm distracted from coffee cowboy.
Jenene
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