August's Artist: Jim Hill has offered to post this month's Artist. Once he posts please feel free to ask him questions about the artist and to post photos emulating the artist's work.

Nightski

Jim Hill has offered to post this month's Artist. Once he posts please feel free to ask him questions about the artist and to post photos emulating the artist's work.

"Watch" this topic so it comes up in your watched topics list when Jim posts. I am excited to see who he comes up with!

jim hill Loc: Springfield, IL

Nightski wrote:

Jim Hill has offered to post this month's Artist. Once he posts please feel free to ask him questions about the artist and to post photos emulating the artist's work.

"Watch" this topic so it comes up in your watched topics list when Jim posts. I am excited to see who he comes up with!

Ray Metzger is a contemporary of mine. He just passed at 83.
I have been intrigued by his minimalist work throughout the years . He began photography in the early 60's. His work is deceptively simple.

In 1981 he was in the midst of his series, "City Whispers." One of his images follows, along with my "copy-cat image" done in two years ago.

Ray Metzger, 1981 from "City Whispers"

(Download)

Jim Hill, "Museum Visitors"

(Download)

jim hill Loc: Springfield, IL

jim hill wrote:

Ray Metzger is a contemporary of mine. He just passed at 83.
I have been intrigues by his minimalist work throughout the years . He began photography in the early 60's. His work is deceptively simple.

In 1981 he was in the midst of his series, "City Whispers." One of his images follows, along with my "copy-cat image" done in two years ago.

Seeing the two together it's obvious to me that Ray's space is better. Mine does not give the sense of immensity as Ray's does. His light is more mysterious, which I find is a fault in a lot of my work.

Here is a link to some of his work:

http://www.thefamilysavvy.com/2012/10/mad-about-metzker-the-photography-of-ray-k-metzker-and-the-institute-of-design/

magnetoman Loc: Purbeck, Dorset, UK

An interesting choice Jim and an artist I shall look into some more. Looking at the link you gave, one thing that strikes me in most of his shots is the depth of the shadows. Have you considered selectively darkening the truncated triangle on the right of your image, together with the floor shadow area to include the feet of the walkers. With that and perhaps a little softening of the shadow edge on the wall, you might find you are a lot closer to achieving the mystery that Metzger's image shows.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

I love the comparison of the two images Jim, yours and his.
And trying to analyse where his hits the spot that yours misses.
You are right, his does have big space that yours does not reach. Height.

Your composition is central.
His is offset.

But, really its the light.
Yours is more conservative, his is high contrast.

But yours wouldn't work like his does.
Because your shadows intersect your subjects.

His man is silhouette against light.
His lady on the left, the one he appears to look at - the light makes her strong, but I ignore her, she is heading away, out of the image.
The bright lady behind him, she is a bright spot in the middle of a big dark shadow, very small in the scene, but grabs your eye because of the brightness of one side of her hair.
She grabs my eye, but does not hold it, but what she does is take my eye to the shadowy mysterious lady heading towards the skinny alleyway.

But to be honest Jim, if I took it, I'd call it a snapshot with strong light, and put it in a "shoebox under the bed".
I don't see Cartier-Bressons "defining moment".

jim hill Loc: Springfield, IL

magnetoman wrote:

An interesting choice Jim and an artist I shall lo... (show quote)

I realize the impossibility of imitating another photographers work no matter how good or poor the light in which we hold that work. My attempt was not to copy Ray's work, but to bring more meaning to it by challenging others to try.

Unless you have tried, or are willing to try, then you have no skin in the game. Surely, somewhere in your portfolio, there are some minimalistic images that you might like to put up against the work of Metzger. Or, as Sandra has expressed, go out and make some.

Thanks for your comments and interest in the thread. I hope others will participate in this new and challenging idea of Nightski's.

magnetoman Loc: Purbeck, Dorset, UK

Well I'm not sure I would want to put my work up against his but, taking the broad view of 'City Whispers', I can offer you this image taken recently at London Bridge underground station.I like the the contrast of the obligatory decent into darkness against the bright world being left outside. Mystery? No, mine doesn't contain that element - the signage tells you exactly what's happening.

jim hill wrote:

I realize the impossibility of imitating another p... (show quote)

(Download)

magnetoman Loc: Purbeck, Dorset, UK

Here's another of my City shots - I have few as I live well away from cities - although I thoroughly enjoy an occasional return! This one has height, and shadows, but little mystery apart from 'what is that lady thinking about?'. Perhaps if the viewer couldn't see what was outside, the mystery element would be enhanced. The mere fact that the two main faces are clearly visible rather changes the game.

jim hill wrote:

I realize the impossibility of imitating another p... (show quote)

(Download)

jim hill Loc: Springfield, IL

magnetoman wrote:

Here's another of my City shots - I have few as I live well away from cities - although I thoroughly enjoy an occasional return! This one has height, and shadows, but little mystery apart from 'what is that lady thinking about?'. Perhaps if the viewer couldn't see what was outside, the mystery element would be enhanced. The mere fact that the two main faces are clearly visible rather changes the game.

I consider both shots beautiful. They are not as minimalistic as Ray's but they are certainly in the vein of City Whispers.

Thanks for posting these two lovely photographs.

ediesaul

jim hill wrote:

Ray Metzer is a contemporary of mine. He just passed at 83.
I have been intrigues by his minimalist work throughout the years . He began photography in the early 60's. His work is deceptively simple.

In 1981 he was in the midst of his series, "City Whispers." One of his images follows, along with my "copy-cat image" done in two years ago.

Thanks so much for this thread, Jim!!!

I think the main difference between your photo and Metzker's is that the light in Metzker's is narrower and fools the viewer because it seems to be spotlighting the man but it isn't. In your photo, the light is not fooling anyone; the men are silhouetted but we know they are not being spotlighted. In the link you gave us, Metzker has another street photo of a woman crossing the street where the light seems to spotlight her, too, but, while a wonderful catch, it is not as effective, in my opinion, as the example you gave us. I think it is the "fooling" effect that makes your example outstanding.

jim hill Loc: Springfield, IL

ediesaul wrote:

Thanks so much for this thread, Jim!!! br br I th... (show quote)

Thanks Edie,

Exactly the way I feel about it except the word "fooling" had not occurred to me.

I do have a couple other photographs from this same location that shed light on the idea you are talking about. Great eye, girl. (Or woman, if you prefer.) Or maybe just Edie.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

jim hill wrote:

Ray Metzger is a contemporary of mine. He just passed at 83.
I have been intrigues by his minimalist work throughout the years . He began photography in the early 60's. His work is deceptively simple.

In 1981 he was in the midst of his series, "City Whispers." One of his images follows, along with my "copy-cat image" done in two years ago.

I can never shoot anything quite as simple as Metzger's minimalist stuff, my image are just too messy for that. The main ones I recalled (until I looked him up) were a canoe and some japanese lanterns. The canoe shot probably had some influence on the shot below, though mine is far more detailed (i.e. messy) but it is kinda graphic for me. So is the street shot, but the connect I'd make for the street shot is the harsh contrast, use of shadow and lack of facial detail in the tiny-people quasi-subject.

Lake Crescent

Napoleon House

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

I suppose I'm the odd person out here but I'm not much of a fan of fuzzy photos, and that's really all I see in Metzger's photo: fuzz. To me, all the other photos posted in reply outshine this particular work of his. I am not familiar with Metzger's work, but this image of his doesn't impress me much.

Terrym9 Loc: Hillsboro, Oregon

jaymatt wrote:

I suppose I'm the odd person out here but I'm not much of a fan of fuzzy photos, and that's really all I see in Metzger's photo: fuzz. To me, all the other photos posted in reply outshine this particular work of his. I am not familiar with Metzger's work, but this image of his doesn't impress me much.

Jay, I have to agree with your view quite a bit. When I looked at his picture posted here it seemed very fuzzy. I went to the link and the one I liked was a canoe. The explanation I read that makes a certain amount of sense to me is Edies. I think I am too literal to get most of these.

Minnies picture of the canoe , for my taste is by far the best that I see here.

Terry

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

Terrym9 wrote:

Jay, I have to agree with your view quite a bit. When I looked at his picture posted here it seemed very fuzzy. I went to the link and the one I liked was a canoe. The explanation I read that makes a certain amount of sense to me is Edies. I think I am too literal to get most of these.

Minnies picture of the canoe , for my taste is by far the best that I see here.

Terry

:thumbup: :thumbup: