out of the rubble, ground zero...

rdalland · December 3, 2010

Thread Jacking:

Taking over a thread on a message board by taking a part of the original posted topic, twisting it around and "hijacking" the thread itself. What happens is that the original content contained in the post becomes moot and whatever the "Thread Jacker" has manipulated the content to be becomes the new content thereby "hijacking" the original intent of post. People now respond to the "thread jacker's" input and that becomes the focus of the thread.

Image has been moved to post #58.

damonff · December 3, 2010

I like it.

Richard · December 4, 2010

damonff wrote: »

I like it.

. Good sense of scale and nice conversion.

InsuredDisaster · December 4, 2010

I like the conversion as well a lot. Really nice image.

bdcolen · December 5, 2010

Very nice image.

lizzard_nyc · December 5, 2010

Wow---excellent conversion.
Also your exposure is spot on, not an easy shot at all.

May I ask what lens you used--just curious because I like how much you were able to get into the shot.

Also where did you take this from and is it open to the regular public?

Thanks.

Ed911 · December 6, 2010

Reid,

This is possibly one of the nicest images I've ever seen of this area. Very will done. Have you thought of submitting it...call around and see if there is a pub...local...or otherwise that might be interested in doing an article on 911 and the Trade Centers...now and then...

Thanks for sharing. Very artistic...

lizzard_nyc · December 6, 2010

digitalfarmer wrote: »

Thank you all for your comments!

This was taken with my Nikon 35mm 1.8G AF-S.

It was taken in the Winter Garden at the World Financial Center in lower Manhattan. The space is open to the public and they have free events on a regular basis. I do work for the Arts and Events program so I am there quite often. You can see the schedule of events here: http://www.artsworldfinancialcenter.com/index.htm

Cheers!

Reid

Thank you for the information. I haven't been down there in a very long time.
I keep returning to this image.

E Colby · December 7, 2010

Your image has great impact. The conversion is well suited. Excellent shot.
Cheers,
Colby

ian408 · December 7, 2010

I agree with Richard regarding the scale. It's a very nice shot that requires contemplation.

sara505 · December 8, 2010

The living people peering at the project give this image context - life, and hope, rather than the more common shot of rubble and destruction. Well done.

michswiss · December 9, 2010

Very nice image.

sara505 · December 9, 2010

michswiss wrote: »

Very nice image.

Looking at it again, I'd say there's even a holiness about it, play on words not intended.

zoomer · December 9, 2010

Excellent documentary photo.
Nice work.

Nyarthlopic · December 9, 2010

Wow. This image just floors me. You somehow managed to bring in a massive amount of imagery in this shot without me feeling overwhelmed. I love it!

toferbaseball · December 15, 2010

This is a deep photo, very telling without being set up.

streetpete · December 15, 2010

It's a great picture, and nice to see a different perspective on ground zero.

bdcolen · December 15, 2010

Okay - I've been waiting for someone else to say this, and since no one has...This is a beautiful image qua image. The composition and tonality are terrific; the balance between the interior and exterior space. However, as a documentary image...without a title, it would be meaningless to anyone not familiar with the current look of the Ground Zero construction site, because there is nothing in the photo that says, implies, or suggests Ground Zero, terrorism, tragedy, or even, for that matter, the US. Why couldn't this be London or Berlin? Where it shot from an angle that showed something associated with Ground Zero - huge American flag, or the cross made of girders from the Twin Towers - is that still there? - it would be different.

All of which is to say that with the caption, this certainly works. But standing on it's own, it's just a beautifully captured urban scene of people watching construction. So is it a good documentary shot? Not unless it's part of a series on Ground Zero or has the caption.

beetle8 · December 16, 2010

bdcolen wrote: »

Okay - I've been waiting for someone else to say this, and since no one has...This is a beautiful image qua image. The composition and tonality are terrific; the balance between the interior and exterior space. However, as a documentary image...without a title, it would be meaningless to anyone not familiar with the current look of the Ground Zero construction site, because there is nothing in the photo that says, implies, or suggests Ground Zero, terrorism, tragedy, or even, for that matter, the US. Why couldn't this be London or Berlin? Where it shot from an angle that showed something associated with Ground Zero - huge American flag, or the cross made of girders from the Twin Towers - is that still there? - it would be different.

All of which is to say that with the caption, this certainly works. But standing on it's own, it's just a beautifully captured urban scene of people watching construction. So is it a good documentary shot? Not unless it's part of a series on Ground Zero or has the caption.

Why do you even need to say this? The post has a title, and with that we can view and enjoy the picture.
You say that without a caption it's just a beautiful image as if having a caption is a bad thing.
There are countless PJ/Docu images that require/are made stronger with captioning. I don't know for sure, but I'm pretty sure that most papers require their photographer to include captions. The notion that an image must stand on its own and tell its story without assistance is silly. A simple title and caption has us understanding this image. Are you so arrogant to think that you can convey a complete story in a single image to all who may view it? That there is no chance of a viewer translating your image and shaping it into their own personal story? Your suggestion that including the cross of girders salvaged from the ruins in a composition would be enough to speak to the viewers and let them know what the photo is all about is very presumptuous. Had I not just been there last year including that in the picture would tell me nothing.
Your comment is unnecessary and overly cynical.

yendikeno · December 16, 2010

I'm sorry, bd,
but I have to disagree as well. The title clearly says 'ground zero'. Now that may not mean the same to our non-USA friends here, but I think any of us who reside here know exactly where this was taken.

Nyarthlopic · December 16, 2010

Here's my take.

BD does bring up a point. Without the caption, this is "just" a picture of a construction site in an urban setting. It's a fantastic image, to be sure...I still love it. If digitalfarmer's aim for this image was to say "Ground Zero" with just the image, it did fail. If the purpose of this image is to share a very, very cool instant in time, it is a complete success. As for the girder cross, this is the first I've heard of it, so that wouldn't help me locate the shot.

Here's the thing, not every photo needs to have a story. Sometimes it's just a capture in time. I don't need to know where it is or how it came to be. One part of the "Street & PJ" forum that sometimes gets missed is that it is also the place for city/architectural shots (correct me if I'm wrong...though I think that cityscape shots go in the Landscape forum). Not every post has to be photojournalistic.

I read BD's comment like this: "Great capture. Now, if you were going for a photojournalism angle, here is what could have been done differently..." Ever the teacher, that one.

Now let's see how badly I get flamed for this. ;-)

aj986s · December 16, 2010

I really like this picture as well. The overall exposure is terrific. But, as mentioned, the content become much more relevant & powerful with titling, in one way or another. My only nit about the composition is that the vertical line of the tallest building in the background is a bit distracting.

beetle8 · December 16, 2010

Nyarthlopic wrote: »

Here's my take.

*snip*BD does bring up a point. Without the caption, this is "just" a picture of a construction site in an urban setting. It's a fantastic image, to be sure...I still love it. If digitalfarmer's aim for this image was to say "Ground Zero" with just the image, it did fail. If the purpose of this image is to share a very, very cool instant in time, it is a complete success. As for the girder cross, this is the first I've heard of it, so that wouldn't help me locate the shot.*snip*

You have solidified my point, the cross of girders is probably the most broadly recognizable element that could be included in a picture today that says "This is ground zero". But it has been moved (when I was there) to a location adjacent to the reconstruction.

So how then, I challenge, would you or BD photograph the construction going on at ground zero so as to let everyone viewing know beyond doubt that "this is an image of ground zero" without titling or captioning.

This image did not fail in any fashion.

michswiss · December 16, 2010

I'll state it again, it's a very nice image. But the caption editorialises and that bothers me. What if the image had been posted as "Untitled" or only indirectly alluded to the actual site by saying "A NYC construction site". I'd still feel the image was strong, perhaps even more so as I'd need to work to understand some of the underlying importance. And once I caught on I would have already seen the beauty of the scene and could add the extra dimension.

We've been through this before. Thread titles are a forum necessity. I try hard to not let them influence my first reactions to an image. "Out of the rubble..." sets an expectation and too much emotional context before the image is even visible. A neutral stance on the thread titling with something added as a comment, caption or description after the image if the OP feels it's needed would be much more consistent with traditional captioning in print.

All this aside, I don't care where it was taken nor the context of the site in question. Nor do I think it really matters. It's still very well done.

bdcolen · December 16, 2010

I needed to say it, Keith, because I believe it need to be said. And because I believe that documentary images should speak for themselves - without captions. Were this photo produced as part of a newspaper assignment, indeed it would have a caption, but the main reason for that is that most newspaper photos are taken as illustrations to run with stories. Further, there's nothing presumptuous about saying that if the massive girder cross, which has been standing for just short of a decade, and is by now iconic, or an oversized American flag were included in the image it might better speak for itself of Ground Zero - it's simply making an observation.

The point of this forum, as I understand it, is not to say 'oooooo that's fabulous,' or to remain silent; it's to offer what are hopefully constructive critiques of photos, and doing so often requires saying 'close but no cigar,' or 'beautiful image but without the caption there's no way to know it's what the caption says it is.

bdcolen · December 16, 2010

yendikeno wrote: »

but I have to disagree as well. The title clearly says 'ground zero'. Now that may not mean the same to our non-USA friends here, but I think any of us who reside here know exactly where this was taken.

Fred, to be complete honest, until I read the caption I had no idea where it was taken - I wasn't even thinking about where it was taken. I was just thinking 'beautiful image.'

dbveto · December 16, 2010

bdcolen wrote: »

I needed to say it, Keith, because I believe it need to be said. And because I believe that documentary images should speak for themselves - without captions. Were this photo produced as part of a newspaper assignment, indeed it would have a caption, but the main reason for that is that most newspaper photos are taken as illustrations to run with stories. Further, there's nothing presumptuous about saying that if the massive girder cross, which has been standing for just short of a decade, and is by now iconic, or an oversized American flag were included in the image it might better speak for itself of Ground Zero - it's simply making an observation.

The point of this forum, as I understand it, is not to say 'oooooo that's fabulous,' or to remain silent; it's to offer what are hopefully constructive critiques of photos, and doing so often requires saying 'close but no cigar,' or 'beautiful image but without the caption there's no way to know it's what the caption says it is.

I am not going to put words in anyone's mouth, but you comments may have been taken a little different if in your first post you said "nice image" but if you intend it to be a documentary shot you need this"

I don't know what C&C they were looking for?
I thought the shot was great regardless of the location.

Richard · December 16, 2010

bdcolen wrote: »

Fred, to be complete honest, until I read the caption I had no idea where it was taken - I wasn't even thinking about where it was taken. I was just thinking 'beautiful image.'

Fair enough, BD. But the caption (or thread title) did give you more information, right? Seems to me that there are precious few photos out there that tell a complete story by the image alone, which is why newspapers and magazines also have text.

Even an iconic image, say Eisenstaedt's VJ day kiss in Times Square, depends on the viewer understanding a context which is external to the image--otherwise, it's "just a sailor kissing a girl." It's all well and good to say that the image should tell the story, but saying that the image alone must tell the story is setting the bar awfully high, IMO.

sara505 · December 16, 2010

I agree with BD. Without the caption, it is meaningless.

But, it is what it is: it does have a caption, and because I happened to know the history and frame of reference, it affected me in a powerful way and I stand by my above comments.

bdcolen · December 16, 2010

Frankly, I'm beginning to wonder if a number of the people zinging what I said actually read what I said. :-) I LIKE the image. It's a terrific image. It does NOT, however, SAY Ground Zero to me. Here, again, is what I said:
"This is a beautiful image qua image. The composition and tonality are terrific; the balance between the interior and exterior space. However, as a documentary image...without a title, it would be meaningless to anyone not familiar with the current look of the Ground Zero construction site, because there is nothing in the photo that says, implies, or suggests Ground Zero, terrorism, tragedy, or even, for that matter, the US. Why couldn't this be London or Berlin? Where it shot from an angle that showed something associated with Ground Zero - huge American flag, or the cross made of girders from the Twin Towers - is that still there? - it would be different.

All of which is to say that with the caption, this certainly works. But standing on it's own, it's just a beautifully captured urban scene of people watching construction. So is it a good documentary shot? Not unless it's part of a series on Ground Zero or has the caption. "

beetle8 · December 16, 2010

Richard wrote: »

Fair enough, BD. But the caption (or thread title) did give you more information, right? Seems to me that there are precious few photos out there that tell a complete story by the image alone, which is why newspapers and magazines also have text. Even an iconic image, say Eisenstaedt's VJ day kiss in Times Square, depends on the viewer understanding a context which is external to the image--otherwise, it's "just a sailor kissing a girl." It's all well and good to say that the image should tell the story, but saying that the image alone must tell the story is setting the bar awfully high, IMO.

out of the rubble, ground zero...

Comments