minniev Loc: MIssissippi

Introduction
This month we will look at a work by modern master Michael Kenna: Wanaka Lake Tree. I have intended for two years to offer one of Kenna's images for your review, but have been unable to decide which of his astounding body of work to share here - his surreal landscapes, his mystical architectural photographs, his stunning industrial images, his closeups? Finally I simply spun the wheel and let chance select this one. If you are not familiar with Kenna, please take the time to look through his portfolio, linked below. It is a treat.

Though he was born and lives in England, Kenna has traveled widely throughout his 50 year photographic career. He has published 50 books and has permanent gallery collections in 7 countries. Kenna shoots only in black and white. His images have a dreamy, ethereal quality regardless of the subject matter. This particular image is from New Zealand, and features one of his favorite subjects, a single tree.

Please look over some of the links below, and respond to any of the questions you find interesting, or simply share our own thoughts.

Questions
1. What is your opinion of Wanaka Lake Tree? What do you think of the composition? The choice of processing? Does it have impact? Would you want it on your wall? Why or why not?
2. Black and white photography has remained popular for portraits and street photography but in modern times, the trend in landscape photography has been towards rich, saturated colors. Do you think monochrome photography still has a place in the landscape genre? Explain. Do you think Kenna’s landscapes still resonate with today’s viewers? Discuss whether they appeal to you and why or why not.
3. Look at more of Kenna’s work on his portfolio site. Do you think he has a recognizable style? If so, how would you describe it? Do you have a recognizable style? How would you describe yours?
4. The lone tree is a fairly common photographic theme. Is Kenna’s collection cliche because of this? Why or why not? Do you take photos of lone trees? If so, would you share one? Should we avoid subjects that have become common in this way? Why or why not?

Links for Further Study
Wikipedia - Michael Kenna (photographer).
https://www.michaelkenna.net/index2.php
https://www.wanderlust.co.uk/content/michael-kenna-photo-gallery/
https://issuu.com/photographizemag/docs/photographize_issue_38__may_2018/22
http://www.designfather.com/black-white-photography-michael-kenna
http://www.photographyoffice.com/blog/2014/michael-kenna
http://www.betterphotography.in/perspectives/great-masters/michael-kenna/26178/
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2018/jun/27/michael-kenna-trees-hokkaido-abruzzo-in-pictures

fair use: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2018/jun/27/michael-kenna-trees-hokkaido-abruzzo-in-pictures#img-9

(Download)

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Browsing his website I can see why you had a hard time deciding which photo to feature, Minnie. Talk about inspiring work - wow!!

The minimalist works speak to me the most (the fenceline going up a snowy hillside, for example) as representative of my favorite types of b&w expression. Makes me wonder why I don't attempt it more. Maybe 2020 will be the year thanks to your topic!

1. I love the barely-there distant forms and the long exposure. Very interesting to see the nearly square format and horizon line almost exactly in the middle. An excellent photo to study when thinking about composition. Yes, I would love to have the photo on my wall. I'd like it as one of a series of minimalist pics if smallish, but a single huge print in a large room (with cathedral ceiling) would work too

2. Probably Kenna's style appeals to me because b&w was an early love that I appreciated more because of a year-long class at a community college in 1990. That class included darkroom work and I set up a small one in my own home. As far as trends and whether b&w landscapes still "have a place" - that discussion doesn't really interest me because I would never purchase art for its popularity.

3. Looking at his website I don't think he has a strongly unique style. Here's one reason why:
https://www.athenacarey.com/FineArt
I took an online class with her; that's how I remembered.

I don't believe I have a recognizable style because I am interested in so many subjects and so many types of pp. I have never considered that a goal. I want to keep being inspired and energized by variety.

4. Cliches...I think I called one of my own lone-tree photos that word a couple of years ago! But now I don't think of "cliche" as relevant. In fact, if the subject is cliche, maybe that makes it an interesting challenge to capture that subject in a unique way? Similar to recent discussions about locations and the iconic shot that everyone has seen and/or photographed: is there still a slightly different pov to chase? Certainly, the time of day and time of year, combined with weather (see a recent main forum discussion about sunsets), can make a difference. I call some of my volcano photos "postcards" when I shoot them on sunny, clear days. That is the ideal weather for tourists, but maybe not for photographers who have the good fortune to live nearby and visit often.

I have several pics where a single tree is the subject, but usually weather or season is important to the story. Both of these are due for new edits, so I'm not sharing a download

Many thanks for your topic, Minnie!

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

Questions
1. What is your opinion of Wanaka Lake Tree? What do you think of the composition? The choice of processing? Does it have impact? Would you want it on your wall? Why or why not?

It appeals to me very much. I like the beautiful simplicity of it and would have it hanging on my wall.

2. Black and white photography has remained popular for portraits and street photography but in modern times, the trend in landscape photography has been towards rich, saturated colors. Do you think monochrome photography still has a place in the landscape genre? Explain. Do you think Kenna’s landscapes still resonate with today’s viewers? Discuss whether they appeal to you and why or why not.

It all depends on the viewer - they do appeal to me, however b&w images do not appeal to my wife as she says "they are not real".

3. Look at more of Kenna’s work on his portfolio site. Do you think he has a recognizable style? If so, how would you describe it? Do you have a recognizable style? How would you describe yours?

He has a recognisable style - very graphic.
Do I have a style - it all depends on what I am shooting - I like to capture "moments".

4. The lone tree is a fairly common photographic theme. Is Kenna’s collection cliche because of this? Why or why not? Do you take photos of lone trees? If so, would you share one? Should we avoid subjects that have become common in this way? Why or why not?

The "Wanaka tree" is a very common shot amongst Australian 'scapers - a bit like Tunnel View in Yosemite National Park.
It is a bit of a cliche, however that doesn't stop me liking or them or shooting them.
Years ago (late 1960's) we used to drive around looking for lone trees in paddocks, or against the skyline. Not anymore. Nowdays if I come across one, and the light is 'good" I will photograph it, see the attached photograph.

.

"Sharron Valley", Merringo gap, NSW, Australia

(Download)

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

Those are two lovely images, Linda. Thanks for sharing them here. The lone tree concept, while it may be overdone, is still fun, and there are standout images that make us like and them. Their minimalist nature goes well on any wall, even those as cluttered as mine. I have a lone tree print of one of Michael Frye's Yosemite images, and it may be the only framed/displayed photo print I've ever paid money for.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and your interesting photo. That's a lone tree that I haven't seen anything like! I agree with you that it's simplicity is a large part of its appeal.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

1) I would say it's not a bad shot by any means, on the other hand I don't like it enough to pay money for it and even if it was free I wouldn't choose to hang it on my wall (the why not will hopefully come out in the following answers).

2) My prediction is that B&W will continue to be liked in the art community. However, to my mind the main strengths of landscape shots are to do with the visual impact that they have for various reasons, and in the majority of cases (but by no means exclusively), colour is a major component in their appeal. B&W has a justifiable place, especially in the art community, but the simple fact is that most people don't view landscape shots with that sort of artistic perception, preferring instead a simpler method of assessment which is centered on a more immediate form of visual interest. In my estimation, for most people and in most cases, that visual interest will be enhanced by the inclusion of colour. A landscape scene in colour is more likely to be perceived as more beautiful, photogenic and evocative (and no doubt in various other ways that haven't been mentioned). The perception required to see beyond that immediate level is more likely to be exercised by those in the art community, and even within that group, only by those who have trained themselves to see that way. B&W can be a way to bring out drama in a landscape shot, but colour shots can be made to look dramatic too.

3) When thinking about the subject of style I find my cynicism taking over. I would say the style that he's displaying is a product of his preferred methods of shooting. The subjects are chosen to suit the shooting method rather than the other way round. The problem is the methods are far from unique, and as a consequence his portfolio, while having undeniable quality, isn't characterised by outstanding uniqueness. That fact leaves me looking for some other form of specialness in things like composition, and while I would be happy to describe his composition skills level as "accomplished", I wouldn't rave about them the same way that I've seen others doing. But presumably I'm missing something because there are various galleries and publishers that would disagree with that verdict. Or am I missing something? (That's another subject for debate. Ooops, there's my cynicism taking over again).

4) Regardless of how cliched a subject is, every photo has the potential to have special meaning for the person that took it. That's especially true if the shooter set themselves the challenge of finding a special or unique aspect of the subject to capture. Even a small amount of uniqueness is going to have special value for that person in that situation. Apart from that, we're living in a time when there are literally billions of people going about with cameras of one sort or another, and if we were to limit ourselves to unique subjects we would very quickly run out of options.

This is a shot of a fairly prominent mountain in a well-known part of Scotland (Assynt). It's right beside a well used road and has probably been photographed thousands of times. However, while descending from Stac Pollaidh I noticed a beach that lined up nicely with this mountain and accurately predicted that it would make a suitable foreground for a shot of the mountain (Cul Beag). Since the beach isn't obvious from the road it's quite likely that my shot of Cul Beag is unique thanks to the foreground (which happens to work quite well IMHO).

The moral of the story is "Never say never".
.

(Download)

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

That's a Eucalypt. Lots of them down here.

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

The black and white is an art form to me; I always worry about people who don’t see the beauty of a good black and white rendering.

I like everything about this offering except for the hill or whatever on the right; I believe it detracts from the simple composition of the lone tree, and the image would be more powerful if it weren’t there.

I do take photos of lone trees when I can put them in a minimalist setting where they work well. My brother, who was a better photographer than I ever will hope to be, had such a photo resembling this one that won best of show at the Indiana State Fair a number of years ago. Whenever I see a photo such as this one, I always hold it to the standard of that photo of my brother’s. His beats this one and any that I have ever made.

NikonGal Loc: Central Oregon

Thank you for the introduction to Michael Kenna's works. I was absolutely taken with his images. His simplicity really struck me, as well as his B/W. I've enjoyed some B/W, but not a huge fan (yet). Seeing his works may provide me with a challenge for 2020. As others have mentioned, I too will be trying new edits, so no downloads either. Thanks Minniev. Bev

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

Thanks for your detailed thoughts, RG. I agree that cliched shots are only cliche if they lack meaning for the photographer. And there are ways to avoid standard cliche shots of famous places by simply doing as you did and seeking another angle, a different POV, different settings, different presentation from one that has been overused. Our creativity does not have to be limited by what others have done.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

Love eucalyptus, and wish it grew where we live. I enjoy them on the west coast. They’re immensely photogenic.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

Thanks for your response. I too am always on the scout for promising lone trees, and will veer off the road to capture one in good light. I wish. We could see your brother’s image, it sounds wonderful.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

Glad you enjoyed the study. The simplicity is what stands out to me. I am prone to cram lots in the frame, so I admire the ability to see the simplicity and figure how to present it. Love the images, especially the second. Thanks for sharing.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

Thanks for introducing to this man's work. I really like it. The lone tree is wonderful. (And I think the little hill is needed for balance.) I really like his simplicity. So many times I shoot some scene and I don't like it because it's too "busy." If it has more than 3 elements, it's too many for me. I do find, however, that John Q. Public doesn't agree with me.

He certainly has a look, and I think it's his insistence on simplicity. I would like to think I have a "look," but I know I do not. Some people do say, however, that they can tell that I "shoot from the heart." I have to admit that I need to really like the subject in order to take a good picture.

About the BW issue, I have to admit that it took me a long time to like BW. Someone once gave me a book of Ansel Adam's pictures, and my comment was, "too bad he didn't shoot in colour!" What I learned, once I built a darkroom and started printing my own images, was that BW really is a wonderful medium. It's stripped down, bare bones, basic ingredient photography. Some images work in colour because the colour is beautiful. Some work because, when seen in BW they have beautiful composition, symmetry, density, and contrast. If all those are there and done correctly, then it can be beautiful in either BW or colour. Sometimes, the colour actually detracts from the image, or gets in the way of seeing the "real" image.

Would I buy this image? Probably not. I tend to not purchase other people's work. I have too much of my own. Would I try to copy it? Perhaps, given the opportunity. Iconic scenes are iconic for a reason. For whatever reason they are good. So would I shoot it? Of course! It would be my version. It might be similar with the tripod set in exactly the same place. But the light would somehow be different, or I might process it differently.

I know I haven't answered the question as posed, but perhaps I've given an insight as to my reaction.

By the way, I think Bev's images are wonderful. The lighting and colour are soft and do not take over the image in any way. That's so pleasant. I shoot lots of trees. Many of them dead. My shooting companion complains that if I see any portion of a tree (stumps included), I will stop for a picture!

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

Glad you enjoyed the links! I agree with you about the function of the little fog shrouded hill - it’s a balance for the placement of the tree.

Never worry about answering the questions specifically, they are just there to spur thinking past the usual questions about like/dislike, etc.

Maybe you’d share one of your own “lone trees”?