photo sharing and upload picture albums photo forums search pictures popular photos photography help login
Phil Douglis | all galleries >> Galleries >> Gallery Twelve: Using color to express ideas > Hotel colors revisited, Scottsdale, Arizona, 2007
previous | next
10-FEB-2007

Hotel colors revisited, Scottsdale, Arizona, 2007

The vivid primary colors that once distinguished this hotel http://www.pbase.com/image/60068611 ) are gone. They have been replaced by whitewash. New management, new name, but no color. Yet is not white a color as well? It is, and for photographers, white can also be symbolic. I stood on the same spot where I had made my previous image a year earlier, and moved in with my wideangle format to stress the hulking contrast between the whitewashed wall, softly illuminated by the partially overcast sky, and the opposing wall in the shadows, which is dark gray. Yet when photographed in color, white is not all white, and gray is not all gray. Traces of blue can be seen in both walls, and the sky is a cloud streaked pale gray blue as well. Both this and my previous image express the nature of man’s geometrically organized spaces. But while the previous image was built upon its vivid primary colors, this image relegates color to context. The subject here is the oppressive weight of a structure designed to impress as much express. My vantage point burdens the viewer with its scale, size, the texture of the gray wall, the huge triangular gray shadow cast on the white wall, and the double diagonal thrusts of the rooflines. Far from celebrating life though architecture as the previous image did, this overwhelms and entraps us. Its very lack of coloration makes it seem cold and austere.

Leica D-Lux 3
1/1600s f/8.0 at 6.3mm iso100 full exif

other sizes: small medium large original auto
share
Phil Douglis03-Mar-2007 19:39
Thanks, Zane, for these thoughts. I think the difference in our approaches might well be influenced by how we each came to photography. You speak here of the discipline instilled in your vison by the view camera -- that kind of photography is heavily informed by previsualized concepts. Each sheet of film is expensive, developed according to your intentions, and printed accordingly. And yes, there is a tremendous amont of discipline, patience, and effort involved in that kind of art. The end result, as Ansel proved, can be enormously affecting in terms of the rich detail and the range of light expressed. It requires meticulous care and great patience. I never used a view camera in my life. I came to photography as part of my journalistic responsibilities. I learned to respond instinctively to what I saw and observed. Now that I spend so much time in expressive travel photography, my journalistic roots still show -- I respond to what I see instinctively. There is no time to ask myself what I am saying. I just feel it. We ponder the meaning later. Now that I shoot digitally, I spend more time "working my pictures" -- shooting things over and over from different places, getting different perspectives and changing emphasis. But all of this is experimental, rather than carefully thought out and planned work process. As I've said before, my images are intended to spark thoughts in the minds of others, thoughts that I can't control or even determine. I would call this post-visualization.

We are each looking at photography from different perspectives. Neither is right or wrong, good or bad. You see as you want to see, and I see as I want to see. When I used the phrase rigid thinking, I meant it as not as thinking that is pre-ordained and predictable, but rather thinking that is disciplined, orderly, systematic, technically oriented. I can't think that way -- but that does not mean that I don't think clearly. Clarity to me is keeping everything as simple as possible so the idea comes through. Ultimately, your approach to photography merges science and art as partners. I tolerate science and technology, but concentrate almost totally on intuition, experimentation and expression in my work. I see where you are coming from, and I respect it. But that is not the way I choose to see, think or work.
Zane Paxton03-Mar-2007 06:24
'Look and think before opening the shutter. The heart and mind are the true lens of the camera. ' Yousuf Karsh

Simplicity is an attribute of clarity, not a substitute for it. Clarity is where meaning resides. The more clarity, the more meaning.

I'm not clear on what you are trying to say about rigidity of purpose. Rigidity and clarity are very different things. Clarity can be brilliant and insightful. Rigidity of purpose is frequently forced and trite.

For example, clarity of expression of say a highly fluid and kinetic waterfall may involve expressing that motion and change that occurs over time, so one might choose a longer exposure to capture some of that movement and energy. That visualization then becomes a concept that can be conceived and acted upon. I'm not clear how that would be "a rigidly defined purpose". I would define rigidity as a limited and closed dialog, hardly a useful construct in engaging in image making.

Working after the fact can leave one with more limited opportunities as the palette of possible expressions is frozen in the capture already. With enough skill one can coax a certain something out of that image to sharpen and hone an expression, but then there is only so much that can be done before the meaning is exhausted. The clearest advantage to delving into a conversation of the intended expression before pressing the shutter is that one has a broader palette of possibilities to work from to expand meaning and insight. Using the advantages of digital technology, I might engage a scene and try a series of captures pondering each one and evaluating its potential then trying to see if I can improve upon it. Usually there is one that stands out with the most powerful clarity of expression; then the processing is only to enhance and refine the expression.

This thought process probably comes from using a view camera for many years where it sometimes took 30-45 minutes to setup and perfect a single shot. A long day might only produce a very small number of images. Then it took many long hours of mixing chemicals and processing negatives and prints. One of the downsides of digital is that once can go into a frenzy and shoot 600-700 shots in a day and then wonder why none of them are very good.

Generally I find that many if not most photographers struggle with the visualization effort before committing an exposure and I will be the first one to tell you that it is not easy. But that is not a useful reason to avoid it. I see it like the way of the Japanese masters; learn the craft so thoroughly that it then becomes effortless and transparent. The efforts spent engaging in exquisite questions before shooting will do more to improve ones art than anything else. That discipline of engaging a scene before the exposure is in the realm of clarity.
Phil Douglis01-Mar-2007 18:59
When I talk of post visualization, I am talking about how meanings can change after the fact. I often start out shooting something intuitively, but the ultimate meaning of the image does not become clear to me until after the fact. This is not muddled or abritrary thinking at all as far as I am concerned. It is just how I choose to work. And then my image often takes on a life of its own from there, as other viewers get their own meaning from it. As for "clarity of expression" -- those words mean different things to different people. I don't see it as simply having a clear idea of exactly what I am trying to express from the beginning. Rather, I see it as keeping everything as simple and clean as possible so that the meaning, whatever it may be, can come through to others. Yes -- expression requires clarity in order to be appreciated and felt. But clarity, in my view, is best defined as simplicity, not as a rigidly defined purpose.
Zane Paxton28-Feb-2007 23:35
The advantage in visualization before the exposure is that one then has the distinct opportunity to engage the scene or subject in a "conversation" of sorts to try different approaches to optimally achieve the desired visualization. Once you are back at your computer, the opportunities to change the approach or point of view are substantially limited to say the least. And then there is the niggling issue that most post-visualized images tend to suffer from muddled expressions as if they weren't very clear on what they were trying to express pre or post. I really don't see this as an "Analytical" approach, its more about embracing a sense of clarity. I would suggest that clarity of expression is always more useful than being arbitrary. The very best images from the very best photographers all have the atribute of "clarity of expression", that is one of the things that makes them powerful.

We are also dancing around how useful post-capture visualization is to an aspiring student. If the expression is fluid and changing, how would one start to measure progress, growth and how to improve over time? Muddled, opportunistic and accidental expressions would seem to be a weak foundation for any kind of meaningful learning and then development.
Phil Douglis26-Feb-2007 23:11
Thanks for the lengthy response, Zane. You and I disagree on the nature of photographic interpretation. I have always felt that images intended as expression should be triggers to thought. As such, I often find myself making images on instinct, and later interpreting them in different ways. And those interpretations keep changing for me. I don't see meaning and interpretation as carved in stone. For me, photographic expression is not a science or structure. It is an art form -- and as such, is open to any and all interpretation. I hope my viewers will come to them with different interpretations as well. Different photographers work in different ways. You seem to prefer an analytical approach. I take an instinctual approach. You like to previsualize, whereas I prefer to postvisualize. Photographic art and expression is large enough, I believe, to embrace both approaches.
Zane Paxton18-Feb-2007 19:34
Your statement stating to shoot first intuitively then determine whatever it was that you were trying to express after the fact took me back a little... I will certainly agree that deep experience can enable one to operate intuitively and that is perhaps at of a level of mastery. But meaning after the fact??? I find that hard to make any sense out that statement as it lacks a certain artistic integrity. Assigning a meaning that conveniently fits an image rather than crafting an image that best serves an interpretation/understanding feels entirely backwards and hard to learn from. How can you measure how well one captured an idea or concept unless one can clearly state whatever it was in the first place?

Some philosophy and approach (Personal convictions and from what I've learned as an artist).

Being clear on what you see in a scene is probably the single most challenging aspect of photography and what will have the biggest impact on how successful it is. As soon as I get a glimmer of a potential opportunity, I will stop and run through a litany of standard simple questions that can have tough answers. Unless I can get some degree of clarity or insight, I will often bypass the opportunity and look for better shots. Since I have started doing this a number of years ago, I feel that my work has improved significantly. The standard questions go something like this:

What is going on here? Why is it this way? What caused it to be this way? What is the essence of the place? What is completely unique or special here? Etc.

Then once that clarity is established, everything else is just execution. And yes Sam, the techniques one applies are always subservient to enhancing the desired expression(s). Once the clarity of expression is established all the culling, selecting, processing and enhancements can occur with much greater power and clarity as well, otherwise there is a lot of blundering around.

To put such an emphasis on after the fact leads one towards the siren’s call of “It’s a successful image because I said so and it’s all subjective anyway so who are you to question my success?” which is not very useful as a mechanism for learning and growth. Isn’t it perhaps more honest and useful to just state what the insight/concept was, or just what you saw, and let the viewers decide if one was successful or not? Without that measurement of how well we achieved the initial intent and how we could improve next time there is no possibility of growth and development. Without a tool chest of measures of what is useful and what isn’t we can not measure anything. Without that initial clarity an image can be full of arbitrary decisions that lead to a muddled final expression.

What I saw here was a handful of possible opportunities to enhance and refine what was intended (at least as stated); i.e. a more powerful expression. But if the intention isn't clear how can we measure if it was successful? After the fact determination of intent is a pretty squishy and a slippery slope for anyone that wants to grow and improve as an artist. Without clarity we are then at risk of being passionate about being arbitrary which gets me back to my original statement of artistic integrity. Sorry if that offends, but there are potentially important issues to consider here as an artist.
Phil Douglis15-Feb-2007 22:02
Thanks, Sam, for your own view of the symbolic meaning of the new paint job. From what I've read, the new owners want to create a more exclusively elegant feeling through its aesthetics. The old management apparently was more interested in being perceived as "hip." And I agree with your views on technical "rules" or conventions. Everything, for me, at least, comes down to my intentions. I use form entirely to support those intentions, not for its own sake. And yes -- I also agree that we should follow our instincts. Shoot intuitively, and then ask yourself what you are trying to express. You can then go to work on intensifying your idea and fine tuning it.
Sam Bliss15-Feb-2007 21:41
I would guess there is a big difference between the previous and current styles of management. I suspect the current management is more distant from staff and customers and more focused on the ‘business’. Of course, the change in color (or lack of) could just be a way of standing out from the crowd.

Interesting conversation between Zane and you. I seems to me that any photograph is the result of what the photographer is trying to say, which you have stated before. The technical rules (TIC) of photography are, for me at least, merely guidelines. The trick is knowing when to used them and when to break them. I think this image does what you wanted it to do.

The most difficult part of expressive photography is not technical, its trying to understand what one is trying to say. I spend to much time trying to understand what I trying to say and miss the picture. I think I need to shoot first, then ask questions – so to speak.
Phil Douglis14-Feb-2007 21:37
Thanks, Zane, for your comment. I still feel white is a color, because white can't be looked at in isolation. It picks up a hint of color from its surroundings. And yes, I considered black and white, as well as your sepia rendering, but wanted to imply color as well, and that is why it is in this gallery. I also wanted to compare the image with the picture I took earlier of the building as it looked painted in primary colors. I could not have done so by making it black and white or sepia.

Your comments on other aspects of this image reflect your own desires and wishes -- which I respect. However if I had done all of the things you suggest, it would no longer be my image. It would be yours. And that is the beauty of expressive photography. Each of us has our own way of expressing ideas. One person's "distraction" can become another person's point of emphasis. You are right, Zane -- art and expression are very subjective, and we each bring different contexts and intentions to our own images. Others will see them in light of their own expectations and contexts. I post this image as an example of how color can be used as expression in a very subtle way, and I feel this image accomplishes that objective.
Zane Paxton14-Feb-2007 09:17
"Yet is not white a color as well?"

Well, no. Not technically, scientifically or even aesthetically.

The practical & artistic issue is how we react to color. If this was electric blue or neon magenta the response would be quite different. So this is not a color image in the usual sense, so it seems odd to include it here as an example.

Personally, when the colors are so limited many times I will find a stronger and more successful expression if one converts the image to B&W, particularly if it is basically abstract such as this one. In this one I find the pale colors to be more of a visual distraction rather than a plus. If the sky had a strong blue color then this would be a color study as well, but it doesn’t. The pale color cast doesn’t add to the story that is being told in any meaningful way plus or minus. The real strength of this image is the abstract massing and use of light, shadow & texture; but it is still an abstract. As an abstract study there are a few nits worth discussing.

There is a bit of noise in the sky (your camera is a tad prone to that). The noise reads like a texture. With a bit of selective noise reduction tweaking, the sky can be smoothed out thus giving the textures more prominence and expression that would tend to make the image more successful. (using opposites).

The balance of areas feels a bit off side-to-side. I’m suggesting that the golden mean can be applied to area as well as length of lines and sides of objects. That imbalanced ambiguity in the image does create more visual tension between the two parts of the building, but it doesn’t feel like a plus here. Personally I see more potential in the graphic nature of the subject here than the tension between the masses.

The lower contrast doesn’t play to the tension implied in the composition. A slightly higher contrast plays up the important graphic lines and textures, which would seem to be a plus as it makes it easier for the viewer to get involved with the graphics of the image.

This is very subjective, but cooler tones tend to be less compelling that warm tones (Credit to Dan Margulis in his Lab Color Book). I do find that I get a lot more hits on warm toned images than cool toned ones, so there must be something to that. Not right nor wrong, but there is something in how our brains are wired to prefer warmer tones.

Anyway, here is a variation for consideration that incorporates the above thoughts into a “Visual Conversation” if you will, I hope you don’t mind me messing with your perfectly fine pixels to expand the conversation.

http://www.pbase.com/devonshire/image/74352513
Phil Douglis13-Feb-2007 04:14
It was delightful sharing a walk through this park with you last weekend, Dandan. I was trying to show you that it's not WHAT you photograph that's most important. Rather, it's WHY and HOW you make the photograph that determines expression. Thanks for this nice comment.
Guest 13-Feb-2007 03:48
Phil, it's amazing to see you photographing... any ordinary came out extraordinary from your camera!
Phil Douglis11-Feb-2007 20:10
Thanks, Carabias, for seeing beauty in this image. Your interpretation, just as David's and Christine's, seems at first to be quite different than my own. Yet I think is possible to be overwhelmed and entrapped by something of austere beauty. And so our views may actually coincide.
Phil Douglis11-Feb-2007 20:06
I am fascinated by your thoughts, David. You feel a lightness and an ethereal quality here, while I felt a cold and austere presence. Yet I think we can reconcile these seemingly contrasting impressions. It is possible, I think, for the ethereal to be both ghostly and austere, light yet cold. And I think that is what may be happening here. And I certainly agree that there is a feeling of massive forces about to collide. Thanks, David, for your comment.
carabias11-Feb-2007 19:44
The composition of their lines, color and tone are highly beautiful. Voted
david procter11-Feb-2007 04:50
There's a real sense of almost interplanetary force between these two great masses like moons eclipsing. The light pastel colours with just a hint of texture however imply a lightness and ethereal quality. The geometry of light and shade is very pleasing.
Phil Douglis11-Feb-2007 03:00
Thanks, CM Kawn, for your comment. And yes, I have recently upgraded from the Leica D-Lux 2, which I used to make the previous image of this hotel, to the Leica D-Lux 3. It is essentially the same camera, but now the wideangle image completely fills my LCD viewing screen. (It used to appear as a smaller "window-box" image, with black bars on top and bottom.) It also offers ten megapixel resolution, as opposed to eight, which offers greater cropping latitude if needed.)
Phil Douglis11-Feb-2007 02:55
Thanks Christine -- yes, the color is muted and soft here. You are right about that. The new owners have gone to a minimalist look, and the building, both inside and out, is stripped down to its essentials. As you know, earth/sand colors predominate here in the Southwest. It is the essential color of our desert enviroment. However this building is neither earth or sand -- it is chalk white. Much of the muting is my own -- i underexpose such images to avoid burnout. And hence the touch of soft gray.
CM Kwan11-Feb-2007 00:38
Phil, You wonderfully capture the change and artistically show it to us. I really love it. By the way, you got a new camera.
Christine P. Newman10-Feb-2007 23:53
There is so much more softness here. There is fashion for hotels, restaurants, etc. I guess times have changed. They may want to attend to a different clientele or distinguish themselves from the previous owner. These are more earth/sand colours. The buildings may seem impressive, but their colours are soft, sand beach like.
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