Hi Alex, I've just watched your video and I hope you don't be upset if I say that I think you've pulled to much theory on how you think the images have been created. This is street photography. Hundreds of images are taken by pure intuition and the ability to foresee the moment right before it happens. From these hundreds, you might keep a couple of them. There is no time to "wait for the girl in yellow pants to come into the frame". Often times, it's only when reviewing the images that colour details and the balance of composition elements are considered, to determine if they "deserve" to go to post-processing. It's in this stage that colour is manipulated to be well balanced and coherent in the whole frame. Have no doubts that, for example, a green element will be tweaked to blue to match other dominant blues in the image, or that a pink will become red for that same reason. In this digital era, you would be surprised of the amount of colour tweaking, cropping and cloning the best photographers do to create the perfect image.
Definitely not upsetting and definitely agree. More so interested in the consistency of the subconscious over time and a body of work. Haven't rewatched this in a bit, and not sure about my exact wording here, but definitely agree that a photographer isn't "looking" for all details at once, although I do believe that the subconscious plays a major role in what gets photographed as one of those hundreds of snaps. Thanks for the comment!
There was no way to push Kodachrome in development. E-4 films, like Ektachrome, could be pushed but the processing of Kodachrome was a highly controlled process done only in Kodak labs.
I'm not sure I understand your point about thinking that the photographer developed his Kodachrome film. I have never heard of anyone doing that. Kodachrome was developed by Kodak: it was exposed and sent to Kodak - all paid for when the film was first purchased. Kodak Ektachrome could, however, be processed by the photographer, so could be pushed or pulled during processing.
As a user of Kodachrome myself in the 1980's I can say that the latitude of the film was very narrow. Also it was not possible to push or pull the film, as far as I can remember you sent it to Kodak in a little envelope and that was that
amazing analysis . Congratulations. I am wondering what you think of the photo that Harry Gruyaert took in Spain in Extramadura in 1998 of people having a picnic in a park.
Thanks for watching! That's such an absurd and unbelievable capture. The fact that it was done on slide film should expell any ideas that Gruyaert isn't an absolute master of the craft. Catching a moment is one thing but it's his abiliy to manipulate form so effortlessly (or maybe not effortlessly) that really sets him apart
Most of the comments seem obsessed with your take on these two images. I applaud you for taking the time and effort to study these two images and present your analysis in this video. Especially as great photography has nothing to do with today’s obsession with technology.
Both are extraordinary images. The second one especially is extremely complex and the use of colour and how it interacts with the lines of the human bodies and the shadows especially is superlatively good. I can't see why anyone would complain about your choices picking these as the study images.
Thanks for the encouraging words. I try to save them for when I feel I have something worthwhile to say. Haha sometimes I get in my head because I don't want to do a disservice to the work or the artist by not spending an appropriate amount of time on the analysis.
One thing I've noticed is that a lot of people seem to underestimate the role the subconscious plays in creating a cohesive body of work. There are a lot of recurring motifs that, while probably not conscious, imo shouldn't be disregarded as insignificant.
Definitely, the subconscious is crucial. For the photographer and for the viewer. And it takes a lot of experience looking and making images, looking outside at the world to train it to see what we're supposed to see when we look at master photographers' work. Unfortunately some people just dismiss these images without understanding them. I can get that you don't immediately get them but that gives you no excuse to claim that it's bad or whatever. Just lazy thinking and seeing. Put in the work to understand them. And that's why i love your series here. I'm seeing things i didn't pick out on my own or thought about. DO MORE please.
And the photographer absolutely relies on the subconscious. When you're out there, thinking about every little detail consciously and deciding everything in that small space of time is impossible. It takes years of experience for your subconscious to work in such a way that it comes more automatically and you don't have to deliberately think so much in order to sense what to take, what looks good, what is in the frame, etc etc. I think in general, people underestimate the value of things like intuition, instinct and the subconscious in creating art. But if these things are not there, in addition to the more deliberate aspects, it will never work well in the way that great art works.
Im sure none of what you mentioned was intentional or deliberate, you're attributing super human abilities to these people, he just saw a compelling scene and took the shot, that it. Even Bresson detested this kind of worship, thats why he was indifferent to his own hype. All this over analyzing is kind of silly and actually discouraging for the newcomers who want to learn and understand photography as it complicates things and steers them away from trusting and following their natural instincts and inspiration.
the error you make in your analysis is attributing intentionality, deliberate use of the colors you highlight to the photographer as he is framing the picture. it is not possible to see all the color spots and how they line up at the moment of shooting. Connecting the yellows and reds and blues with lines can only be done when examining the image after taking it, not before or during. A very trained eye might detect a few details if they are fairly close together, but not most of the details that can be seen and analyzed afterwards. So there is a lot of luck involved, which a great photographer hopes for and takes advantage of. I think he is great photographer -- one of my favorites. But you give him credit where it is more due to luck than to skill and vision. and not lit. And you could have spotlighted and drawn lines through other colors. this photo would be better if there were some good expressions, gestures, interaction, or something to add meaning to the photo. The photoshopped contrasty version is better imo but you went a bit too far imo. Pull it back a little while keeping it contrastier to the original.
I concur that great photography includes a good measure of luck. I used to find that pretty annoying to consider. But, also consider this: if you see a great sporting event, two teams or individuals battling it out for a championship of some kind, it can be a little disappointing when the outcome turns on a silly mistake or a single unfortunate accident. The team that won still won but not because of chance but because they worked hard to be there should the fickle finger of fortune intercede; the outcome just doesn't necessarily indicate the better team. So, good photos need luck, and good photographers seem to be luckier than bad ones. And there's something else. Everyone needs to read "Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking" by Malcolm Gladwell. He makes a case for superior expertise appearing to include six-sense-like abilities. True experts have surpassed merely knowing what to do. Their experienced minds can perceive the relevant details of a situation (such as a very ill person) and ignore the noise to make remarkably good decisions quickly. I figure a true artist with a finger on the shutter has developed an almost emotional response to good and bad compositional details. It explains how unique styles can manifest. So, understanding how photographs work is a good thing to do, just so long as everyone understands that it's about making a short story long with a certain measure of supposition.
@yeohi why do you think that it's impossible to see the color spots and how they line up? I'm not an advanced photographer, but that is one of the things I look at when making a picture. And I'm not unique, it's just something I learned in a photography course years ago. I think it depends on where your focus naturally is when looking at a scene. That's different for everyone. My first focus is on light and colors. So I tend to see shapes and patterns in the colors.
@@PhotoSemi I think you missed the word "all" in my second sentence. I meant seeing multiple alignments of color spots at the same time -- the moment chosen to trip the shutter..
Thank you for the vid but unfortunately, this type of photography desnt do much for me me. I cannot get jazzed up about a photo simply bc of some technical achievements in it if there is little or no substance there - such as emotion, the presentation of a new pov, etc. Alex Webb's pix are the same. So you see a number of people walking around in a street or a mall; so what? So there are layers; so what?
I’m sorry, but I think you’re reading too much into those images especially the second one… Neither are particularly good nor any different than what any person would take… and you’d find the same in any family photo album. That’s just my person opinion so please don’t take offence…
None taken at all, I want these more discussion based videos to be open to opinions and personal taste and am just happy that you watched through and formed one. It's all about the community at the end of the day. While I do think people can and frequently do tend to over analyze photographs I would argue that in this case, the color and light patterns aren't a coincidence even if the photographs may have been taken in a somewhat unconscious manner. Gruyaert has a highly trained photographic eye and a multidecade catalog of groundbreaking color work to back this up. I also believe that a hallmark of great work is making it feel, on some level, that anyone could replicate it. I'm also fascinated by the aesthetic difference between the two capture mediums, one being film and one being digital and how the limitations of one can change the feel of a photograph that has a very similar starting point visually.
@@AlexCCarter Thanks for taking the time to analyse these two photos. As an amateur, I found it useful. I think you have answered your own question - Gruyeart has a 'trained photographic eye and sees the world in colour. However, I must admit I preferred your altered second image more than the orginal! Not sure what that says about me.
It's like saying that anyone can take good photos just because everyone has a smartphone (it can happen by chance). As for Gruyaert, I find that his photos have lost a lot of charm (textures, colors, etc.) since he went digital.
really good content. thank you!!
Loved this. Great breakdown
Hi Alex, I've just watched your video and I hope you don't be upset if I say that I think you've pulled to much theory on how you think the images have been created. This is street photography. Hundreds of images are taken by pure intuition and the ability to foresee the moment right before it happens. From these hundreds, you might keep a couple of them. There is no time to "wait for the girl in yellow pants to come into the frame".
Often times, it's only when reviewing the images that colour details and the balance of composition elements are considered, to determine if they "deserve" to go to post-processing. It's in this stage that colour is manipulated to be well balanced and coherent in the whole frame. Have no doubts that, for example, a green element will be tweaked to blue to match other dominant blues in the image, or that a pink will become red for that same reason. In this digital era, you would be surprised of the amount of colour tweaking, cropping and cloning the best photographers do to create the perfect image.
Definitely not upsetting and definitely agree. More so interested in the consistency of the subconscious over time and a body of work. Haven't rewatched this in a bit, and not sure about my exact wording here, but definitely agree that a photographer isn't "looking" for all details at once, although I do believe that the subconscious plays a major role in what gets photographed as one of those hundreds of snaps. Thanks for the comment!
Loving how you breakdown and analyse these shots. A really nice format and running time. More please 👍🏻
Really appreciate the feedback 🙏
There was no way to push Kodachrome in development. E-4 films, like Ektachrome, could be pushed but the processing of Kodachrome was a highly controlled process done only in Kodak labs.
Gruyaert is unreal 🔥🔥🔥
I'm not sure I understand your point about thinking that the photographer developed his Kodachrome film. I have never heard of anyone doing that. Kodachrome was developed by Kodak: it was exposed and sent to Kodak - all paid for when the film was first purchased. Kodak Ektachrome could, however, be processed by the photographer, so could be pushed or pulled during processing.
Alex, thank you so much for your sharing .... the comparison between the two photos from Gruyaert is very intriguing.
Thank you! Glad you enjoyed
As a user of Kodachrome myself in the 1980's I can say that the latitude of the film was very narrow. Also it was not possible to push or pull the film, as far as I can remember you sent it to Kodak in a little envelope and that was that
I don't get it. How could it be deliberate if the photographer didn't tell the subjects to were blue and red?
Interesting...so it may not be possible to fully emulate Kodachrome with digital due in part to differences in dynamic range.
amazing analysis . Congratulations. I am wondering what you think of the photo that Harry Gruyaert took in Spain in Extramadura in 1998 of people having a picnic in a park.
Thanks for watching! That's such an absurd and unbelievable capture. The fact that it was done on slide film should expell any ideas that Gruyaert isn't an absolute master of the craft. Catching a moment is one thing but it's his abiliy to manipulate form so effortlessly (or maybe not effortlessly) that really sets him apart
I originally had a pip in the breakdown, but oh well :p.. Luh yall
Most of the comments seem obsessed with your take on these two images. I applaud you for taking the time and effort to study these two images and present your analysis in this video. Especially as great photography has nothing to do with today’s obsession with technology.
Do you know what focal length he was using during his leica days?
Can't say for sure, but if pressed to wager, I'd guess 50mm.
Great video. Contrary to some of the other users, i found it really interesting and learned a lot. You should do more of these.
Both are extraordinary images. The second one especially is extremely complex and the use of colour and how it interacts with the lines of the human bodies and the shadows especially is superlatively good. I can't see why anyone would complain about your choices picking these as the study images.
Thanks for the encouraging words. I try to save them for when I feel I have something worthwhile to say. Haha sometimes I get in my head because I don't want to do a disservice to the work or the artist by not spending an appropriate amount of time on the analysis.
One thing I've noticed is that a lot of people seem to underestimate the role the subconscious plays in creating a cohesive body of work. There are a lot of recurring motifs that, while probably not conscious, imo shouldn't be disregarded as insignificant.
Definitely, the subconscious is crucial. For the photographer and for the viewer. And it takes a lot of experience looking and making images, looking outside at the world to train it to see what we're supposed to see when we look at master photographers' work. Unfortunately some people just dismiss these images without understanding them. I can get that you don't immediately get them but that gives you no excuse to claim that it's bad or whatever. Just lazy thinking and seeing. Put in the work to understand them. And that's why i love your series here. I'm seeing things i didn't pick out on my own or thought about. DO MORE please.
And the photographer absolutely relies on the subconscious. When you're out there, thinking about every little detail consciously and deciding everything in that small space of time is impossible. It takes years of experience for your subconscious to work in such a way that it comes more automatically and you don't have to deliberately think so much in order to sense what to take, what looks good, what is in the frame, etc etc. I think in general, people underestimate the value of things like intuition, instinct and the subconscious in creating art. But if these things are not there, in addition to the more deliberate aspects, it will never work well in the way that great art works.
Im sure none of what you mentioned was intentional or deliberate, you're attributing super human abilities to these people, he just saw a compelling scene and took the shot, that it. Even Bresson detested this kind of worship, thats why he was indifferent to his own hype. All this over analyzing is kind of silly and actually discouraging for the newcomers who want to learn and understand photography as it complicates things and steers them away from trusting and following their natural instincts and inspiration.
the error you make in your analysis is attributing intentionality, deliberate use of the colors you highlight to the photographer as he is framing the picture. it is not possible to see all the color spots and how they line up at the moment of shooting. Connecting the yellows and reds and blues with lines can only be done when examining the image after taking it, not before or during. A very trained eye might detect a few details if they are fairly close together, but not most of the details that can be seen and analyzed afterwards. So there is a lot of luck involved, which a great photographer hopes for and takes advantage of. I think he is great photographer -- one of my favorites. But you give him credit where it is more due to luck than to skill and vision. and not lit. And you could have spotlighted and drawn lines through other colors. this photo would be better if there were some good expressions, gestures, interaction, or something to add meaning to the photo. The photoshopped contrasty version is better imo but you went a bit too far imo. Pull it back a little while keeping it contrastier to the original.
I concur that great photography includes a good measure of luck. I used to find that pretty annoying to consider. But, also consider this: if you see a great sporting event, two teams or individuals battling it out for a championship of some kind, it can be a little disappointing when the outcome turns on a silly mistake or a single unfortunate accident. The team that won still won but not because of chance but because they worked hard to be there should the fickle finger of fortune intercede; the outcome just doesn't necessarily indicate the better team. So, good photos need luck, and good photographers seem to be luckier than bad ones.
And there's something else. Everyone needs to read "Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking" by Malcolm Gladwell. He makes a case for superior expertise appearing to include six-sense-like abilities. True experts have surpassed merely knowing what to do. Their experienced minds can perceive the relevant details of a situation (such as a very ill person) and ignore the noise to make remarkably good decisions quickly. I figure a true artist with a finger on the shutter has developed an almost emotional response to good and bad compositional details. It explains how unique styles can manifest. So, understanding how photographs work is a good thing to do, just so long as everyone understands that it's about making a short story long with a certain measure of supposition.
@yeohi why do you think that it's impossible to see the color spots and how they line up? I'm not an advanced photographer, but that is one of the things I look at when making a picture. And I'm not unique, it's just something I learned in a photography course years ago.
I think it depends on where your focus naturally is when looking at a scene. That's different for everyone. My first focus is on light and colors. So I tend to see shapes and patterns in the colors.
@@PhotoSemi I think you missed the word "all" in my second sentence. I meant seeing multiple alignments of color spots at the same time -- the moment chosen to trip the shutter..
Wow, just seeing this. Incredibly well put @TimPenner
Thank you for the vid but unfortunately, this type of photography desnt do much for me me. I cannot get jazzed up about a photo simply bc of some technical achievements in it if there is little or no substance there - such as emotion, the presentation of a new pov, etc. Alex Webb's pix are the same. So you see a number of people walking around in a street or a mall; so what? So there are layers; so what?
That is street photography !
I’m sorry, but I think you’re reading too much into those images especially the second one…
Neither are particularly good nor any different than what any person would take… and you’d find the same in any family photo album.
That’s just my person opinion so please don’t take offence…
None taken at all, I want these more discussion based videos to be open to opinions and personal taste and am just happy that you watched through and formed one. It's all about the community at the end of the day. While I do think people can and frequently do tend to over analyze photographs I would argue that in this case, the color and light patterns aren't a coincidence even if the photographs may have been taken in a somewhat unconscious manner. Gruyaert has a highly trained photographic eye and a multidecade catalog of groundbreaking color work to back this up. I also believe that a hallmark of great work is making it feel, on some level, that anyone could replicate it. I'm also fascinated by the aesthetic difference between the two capture mediums, one being film and one being digital and how the limitations of one can change the feel of a photograph that has a very similar starting point visually.
I agree on the second image, it's just OK, the composition lacks intentionality. The first one though, is stunning.
@@AlexCCarter Thanks for taking the time to analyse these two photos. As an amateur, I found it useful. I think you have answered your own question - Gruyeart has a 'trained photographic eye and sees the world in colour. However, I must admit I preferred your altered second image more than the orginal! Not sure what that says about me.
It's like saying that anyone can take good photos just because everyone has a smartphone (it can happen by chance). As for Gruyaert, I find that his photos have lost a lot of charm (textures, colors, etc.) since he went digital.