hand by michal jedrzejowski

hand_jedrzejowski


Hand by Michal Jedrzejowski

Website: www.lightstalkers.org/michal_jedrzejowski

Published on March 8, 2009 by burn magazine. 124 Comments

124 Responses to “hand by michal jedrzejowski”

Feed for this Entry Trackback Address
  • Carrie Roseman
    March 9, 2009 at 12:17 am

    “oh, where is the other?” …this thought initiates my consciousness when viewing this piece… where is the other hand, I wonder…where is the other person, whose presence is now beyond us, having vacated this time, this space, this frame… is the one who is present actually “present” … as in having presence of mind, or does he/she sleep, drowning reality in dreams…and nightmares? The sexless, faceless one offers us a hand for viewing, but doesn’t offer us a hand in knowing anything about the person that it’s attached to… the offering is one of ambiguity…an androgynous allowance for us on which to speculate… Is this the point? Is there depression? A bedside left vacant after a one night night stand? A drunken stupor… why are the beds so close together, but not together? Were they rocked apart by a savage calling, or drawn close because of concern?

    In all of this speculation, I find this image to be successful… an image that takes you beyond the immediate to speculate as to the circumstance makes an interesting piece… what places does it bring you to? How does it intrigue your mind?

  • Haik
    March 9, 2009 at 1:11 am

    Successfully thought provoking photograph. It keeps asking me “who took this photo?”.
    cheers.

  • kathleen fonseca
    March 9, 2009 at 1:26 am

    Michal and Carrie:

    WOW! i couldn’t possibly add a thing to what Carrie said so i’ll just say to Michal,

    “what she said!”

    best:
    kat~

  • marcin luczkowski
    March 9, 2009 at 2:09 am

    super, bardzo fajne. Subtelna estetyka. Takie lubie.

    pozdr

  • Ziskar
    March 9, 2009 at 2:42 am

    A photograph is not supposed to give any answers but to ask questions.
    This is how the viewer gets involved and becomes part of the creative process which is always threefold.
    The photographer, the subject, and the viewer.
    I think this photograph succeeds in that.

  • Rafal Pruszynski
    March 9, 2009 at 3:04 am

    Id channel Jim Powers but whats the use? I really like this. Intimate, mysterious.

  • Michael Eckels
    March 9, 2009 at 3:45 am

    They are lovers, this arm, and the arm no longer there, camaraderie of bedspace, one can’t help but be intimate with the person one sleeps beside. Only his partner has left, back to his family and loved ones, or collapsed mortgage or wild nightlife. They remain together until the arm begins to scratch at some place of morning necessity.

  • Paul Treacy
    March 9, 2009 at 4:08 am

    I think the other arm may be involved in firing the shutter. No?

  • Paul Treacy
    March 9, 2009 at 4:09 am

    Besides, these are single beds.

  • Paul Treacy
    March 9, 2009 at 4:10 am

    A very cozy picture, this.

  • Paul Treacy
    March 9, 2009 at 4:15 am

    When I look at it I sense an aroma of coffee and I anticipate the weekend edition of the newspaper.

    Maybe I’m paying too much attention to the empty bed.

  • Jim Powers
    March 9, 2009 at 4:54 am

    Very intimate. Well, except for that guy with the camera standing at the foot of the bed. Lovers with cameras are as dangerous as cows with guns.

    The double beds do add some ambiguity to the photo. The vignetting keeps it from looking clinical but the highlights are blown out (at least on my monitor), which bothers me.

  • JonathanJK
    March 9, 2009 at 5:40 am

    It could be your monitor Jim, everything seems fine on mine.

    I like the picture, it can suggest many stories.

  • Jim Powers
    March 9, 2009 at 5:43 am

    It could be. The monitor on this computer is calibrated for my Epson 3800 and does odd things to sRGB web photos at times.

    I agree, I like the ambiguity.

  • JonathanJK
    March 9, 2009 at 5:58 am

    My monitor is worthless, a $70 affair with amazon, which is hooked up to my MacBook. The MacBook screen however shows blown highlights on the tips of the bed sheets. Neither are CC accurately.

  • John Gladdy
    March 9, 2009 at 5:58 am

    They look blown on both my montors. they are identical and hardware calibrated, but that dont really mean much. The changing of color spaces, the uploaded file, the different behaviours of browsers etc.. I dont think its anything other than academic to comment on the possible tech issues of a picture until it is seen in the flesh. As an actual print.
    with regards what i can see here though I find it hard to engage with. A popular study is the unmade bed. Now with added hand. Questions do arise, so thats good.But i am probably to ‘blunt’ to spend the time with work such as this. I can live with that and im sure there are as many out there who will appreciate exactly the things that i fail to. Thats the beauty of all this. SHOOT EVERYTHING.

  • JonathanJK
    March 9, 2009 at 6:25 am

    @John, CC is always going to be a moving target, I agree it doesn’t mean much, because I can still enjoy the image. I wasn’t making a comment on the image however, just the state of our monitors.

  • gina martin
    March 9, 2009 at 6:33 am

    i love this shit. simple. mysterious. quiet.

  • JonathanJK
    March 9, 2009 at 7:00 am

    I find images with limited colour palettes very appealing.

  • david bowen
    March 9, 2009 at 7:59 am

    i like this for the differing symmetry.. one bed empty and one bed hinted at being full.. to me it is a hotel room.. the unconscious arm reaching for the absent partner unknowing..
    i think hotel room because of the plainness of it and the two single beds.. that´s just me.

    so i do like it.. as with john though my computer screen is showing flaws.. colour cast.. again.. could be my monitor.

    cheers
    david

  • david duChemin
    March 9, 2009 at 10:58 am

    I’m new here, but lurking for a while. I feel a little like that guy at the party who’s desperate to break into the conversation but can’t find the lull. I mean that as a good thing, the conversations here are ones worth joining.

    It’s the contrasts in this image that work for me. As Carrie said, Where’s the other? I love that. I love the presence of the absence here. One bed full, one empty. One occupant asleep, one awake. I’d go so far to say one bed alive, one bed dead, but I can’t make up my mind which is which.

    CC and highlights don’t bother me, too distracted by the content for now and that by my way of thinking is a powerful credit to Michal. I’m also not distracted by the technique or the feeling of artful cleverness which I see in so much photography these days. They make me want to love the image if only I could get past the feeling that the photographer is smugly waiting for me to love it, to appreciate the irony or the cleverness. There i said it. Anyways, this doesn’t do that for me.

    Thanks Michal. And to the rest of you for having these conversations. Your love for the craft is obvious.

  • david bowen
    March 9, 2009 at 11:14 am

    if only I could get past the feeling that the photographer is smugly waiting for me to love it, to appreciate the irony or the cleverness.

    ________________

    that made me laugh david..
    it is in a sense a very commercial photograph as well as an artfully created one for me.. context of use could easily be an advert for a hotel / coffee / beds and the minds behind it could easily extend to a team of richly paid ´creatives´..

    for clarity i only mentioned the colour balance as i think in this instance, on this photo, it might prevent me from buying it.
    if i had any money.
    or space on the walls.
    :ø)
    david

  • Gordon Lafleur
    March 9, 2009 at 1:03 pm

    WARNING: PIXEL PEEPER COMMENTS

    for us pixel peepers, I looked at the photo in photoshop to see the rgb numbers. The whitest of the highlights are about 254 254 254, in a very small area, with most adjacent areas 250 250 250 or thereabouts. Neutral, and just about perfect for my Epson 7600 which will hold detail in white to about rgb253.

    RGB numbers elswhere show there is a definite green cast, perhaps a result of coloured walls or more likely a slight cross-over problem in post processing. The colour can be mostly corrected with curves, however the burned in areas then shift red/magenta, most likely a result of burning in normal mode rather than luminosity mode.

    Sorry for the techie stuff, however we cannot ignore craft.

    Techie stuff aside. I like the photograph. A nice, gentle little photograph, that asks questions, lets you make up your own stories, and captures a moment and feeling familiar to most of us.

    Cheers
    Gordon L.

  • Gordon Lafleur
    March 9, 2009 at 1:07 pm

    PS

    The photo looks great converted to black and white.

  • david bowen
    March 9, 2009 at 1:22 pm

    [geek] love it gorden [/geek]

  • david bowen
    March 9, 2009 at 1:22 pm

    don.. gor dOn

  • Gracie
    March 9, 2009 at 2:04 pm

    michal, this is beautiful. this is why most of the teachers say “turn around” the picture behind you is the one to take.

    carrie, ohh carrie. dont we love burn? thanks for your questions. left me gasping, unable to think.

  • John 'geek' Gladdy
    March 9, 2009 at 2:14 pm

    gordon. All geeks and pixel peepers.
    You had to go there didnt you. :))
    Now ive pulled my meters out and i have a definite 100% 255 across the board on the tip of the bedsheet, with a 98.9 – 99.2% around these areas. For print i would compress the output range from 10-245(ish) in rgb1998 so as not to have paper white or glazed blacks (unless that was the desired effect, obviously).

    Damm you man :)

    John

  • Geeky Gord
    March 9, 2009 at 2:46 pm

    John

    Depends what you are printing on, and with,(printing with your numbers on my printer would result in blocked shadows and greyed wimpy highlights.) and of course wether an image is intended for printing at all. rgb1998 looks grim on the web. Anyway, sorry for the blah blah blah.

    I know this isn’t a tech forum. However I feel strongly that craft has to be discussed here when appropriate.
    Photography is a technical craft (and it is a craft ladies and gents). How effective an image is, is the sum of a lot of factors, craft being one of them. The tighter your photo-chops, the more effective your communication.

    OK, I’ll stop now

    Cheers
    Geeky Gord

  • david b-geek
    March 9, 2009 at 3:20 pm

    laughing..
    it does look great in black and white, as mentioned :ø9

  • Ross Gordon
    March 9, 2009 at 3:27 pm

    GIVE ME A BREAK!!! Not so much about the photo, it’s basic and fine for art’s sake. But the comments here, I mean come on? This might as well been a Stieglitz masterpiece… So much fluff is put to all of this. Before I start to sound too self righteous, I will say there is some outstanding work here, however, most of what I have seen on BURN is O.K. at best… Which photos will actually stand up over time and WHY is what makes photography important. The days of DAH’s, WAA’s and SM’s are long gone along with National Geographic. So are the days of Bressons, Capa’s and Salgados with Magnum… Not to mention, soon so will be any great would be photojournalist’s with the disappearing newspaper industry. There are photographers out there who’s work will have a meaningful impact on photography in the future and I believe they are few and far between. Photography has a massive problem of being massively abundant and as a result cheap especially with the digital age. Unfortunately, as an art form that is more or less how it has been viewed historically and will continue to be viewed so long as it’s treated that way by it’s practitioners…

    I appreciate Burn as a showcase for photography but that’s about it because I don’t believe there is enough brutal honesty here.

    How bout everyone stop kissing DAH’s ass and instead try to find a copy of “Photographers on Photography”. Anyone who reads that book should come away with a revived idea of what photography is really all about or should be for that matter..

    Call me bitter, but that’s just my opinionated honest opinion….

    Now go ahead and pounce!!!

  • Dalber Candido
    March 9, 2009 at 3:29 pm

    Provocating… evocating…

  • wendy
    March 9, 2009 at 3:39 pm

    I love the separate beds,
    yet, the feeling of togetherness..
    the flesh of the hand,
    brings so much life to this image…
    I like crumpled sheets photographed,
    and the hand adds such a wonderful human element..
    I wanna snuggle under the covers..
    **

  • Gordon lafleur
    March 9, 2009 at 4:36 pm

    Hey Ross

    Welcome to the discussion.

    You raise a couple of important questions.

    I’m not sure why you are feeling so bitter, or why all this matters at all to you. Perhaps you are feeling un-appreciated or having a hard time making a buck these days. It certainly is getting harder to make a buck.

    Yes photography is “massivly abundant” out there, which certainly makes it harder to stand out from the crowd. Spending a little time cruising around the internet visiting photo sites will uncover some amazing work. I’m astounded at what is out there. I wonder how many of the old master types you mentioned would stand out in the current invironment.

    Photography is undergoing a huge surge in popularity due to the digital revolution, much bigger than the last surge in the sixties when all those 35mm slrs became the rage. The cameras now are smarter than we are. Myself and lots of other pros I know often shoot with our cameras set to program mode (P for professional) It is no longer a minor miracle that the photo “turns out”. People used to hire us just because we had big fancy cameras, and knew how to fiddle all them dials, and our pictures always turned out. Now, with a $500 dslr, any novice can take sharp, well exposed photos in almost any situation.

    So I’m not really getting your problem here Ross. There are too many photographers out there now? If so, is this increasing the level of visual literacy, or dragging it down? Did you like it better when it was a smaller club, confined to people who had the money to continually feed film into their cameras, knew how to use a light meter, fiddle them dials, and knew their way around a darkroom?

    Personally, I like what is going on. The work I’m seeing out there is amazing. I’m delighted to see so many people getting into photography. Some of my best customers are photo-keeners who appreciate what I do more as a result. It keeps me sharp. My stuff still has to be better than theirs. Yuh just gotta adapt.

    I’d love to hear more of your perspective.

    Cheers
    Gordon L.

  • david duChemin
    March 9, 2009 at 5:05 pm

    So out of curiousity, Ross, we’re defining what photography is all about by a book written almost 60 years ago? Have things not changed since then, is this art/craft/medium not somewhat organic? Furthermore, is the “fluff” not legitimate. Are Carrie’s thoughts, my thoughts, not legitimate reactions to the image? Or do we need to read Photographers On Photography before our reactions can be legitimized? I’m new here, but it seems like the discussions that go on are pretty open and passionate – I like that. So in as much as your bitterness seems to have a place here, why not the reactions of those who simply LIKE this image? Or does art/expression require pretense? Is not one of the things most celebrated about photography the essential democratic nature of it? I’m not kissing DAH’s ass or anyone elses – unless they produce something that moves me, makes me see the world a little differently; then I’ll at least thank them for doing so, if not outright kiss them – ass or otherwise.

    Cheer up, man. Plenty of room for you not to resonate with an image without it meaning those of us that do are remedial.

  • Ross Gordon
    March 9, 2009 at 5:34 pm

    Often after my outbursts I feel put in my place, as has been done here, more or less…

    1st, Yes Gordon, I feel unappreciated. I’m not sure why, most people tell me how talented I am and that they love my work. I can’t tell you how many time I have been asked, why aren’t you shooting for National Geographic? The problem is no doubt my own ego. However, I, as I’m sure many others have too, I have worked so long and so hard with this huge goal of being a Nat Geo. photographer. I have no idea why I put them on such a pedestal? Actually, Yes I do… For a long time Nat Geo represented the pinnacle of photography, at least in my time. I have been close on several occasions only to be told, in so many words that I’m not good enough. Well, I’ve been doing this long enough to know that’s simply not true… For a long time shooting for Geo was simply political, actually still is but Nat Geo is far from what it used to be so I actually don’t care about that anymore… And, Yes… There is a lot of good work out there it just seems so important nowadays to be validated… and YES, as I hate to admit it, I WANT THAT too.

    As for the money, I have been able to make a good living with photography with very little effort. So just for the record that has nothing to do with it.

    DAVID…. OK your right, you are why I feel put in my place. I didn’t intend to insinuate that people’s feelings about an image didn’t matter. Of course they do… I just think I’m better and know more than everyone else..

    Lastly, no matter when that book was written. I do still feel like it should be the photographers bible. Have you read it?

  • david duChemin
    March 9, 2009 at 5:44 pm

    LOL – Don’t we all.

    I haven’t read P.O.P but your comment sent me scurrying to Amazon to find a copy – I’ll read it the moment it arrives. I wasn’t implying at all that the book was irrelevant because of it’s age, just that there has to more to it than that.

    I have to tell you Ross, your honesty and, uh, contrition, are rare online. Kudos to you for coming back to the discussion and ‘fessing up – hard not to have a great deal of respect for a guy who’s that transparent.

  • Ross Gordon
    March 9, 2009 at 5:47 pm

    David

    POP is waaaaayy out of print and on waiting lists in vintage book store around NYC… I know its copyright infringement, but when I return home from my travels if you keep in touch. Ill copy it and send it to you… Its that important….

  • david duChemin
    March 9, 2009 at 5:50 pm

    Ross – let’s chat by email – info@pixelatedimage.com – perhaps I could borrow the book by way of copy, then return it by way of shredder. I can’t seem to get a copy here for less than $200.

  • Ross Gordon
    March 9, 2009 at 5:54 pm

    David

    Thanks for the notes… Im traveling right now.. check this out http://web.me.com/ragtraveler I won’t make it all the way around because of the economy and my sponsors but I will for sure send you my book as a lender when I get back if you keep in touch. However, I must tell you, if you don’t return it I will have to hunt you down….

    Best

    Ross

  • Jim Powers
    March 9, 2009 at 6:09 pm

    Never wanted to be a NatGeo shooter. Those guys work so damn hard. I always think of the video of Nick Nichols sitting in some forbidden swamp with flies so think he couldn’t close the back of his camera, while pointing out that very few photographers are willing to make the sacrifices it takes to be a NatGeo photographer. No kidding!

  • Jim Powers
    March 9, 2009 at 6:09 pm

    think = thick

  • Ross Gordon
    March 9, 2009 at 6:15 pm

    Jim

    I know that exact scene….. For the longest time I woulda said give it too me at any cost. Now, well, as long as I have a nice hotel a few beers and a hot shower after, I might still try to tackle that..

  • panos skoulidas
    March 9, 2009 at 7:51 pm

    All…
    just to lighten up the “heavy” atmosphere in this room…
    with a little funny link.. ( cupid wannabees and more… )… inspired by Rafal’s work and “Sabine”
    of course…
    DARK KIDS on the progress…
    take a look…

    http://picasaweb.google.com/innerspacecowpanos/EveningAtGRANDMAS?authkey=Gv1sRgCMX7hayQvffIqAE#slideshow

  • ben
    March 9, 2009 at 7:57 pm

    @gordon lafleur

    “Myself and lots of other pros I know often shoot with our cameras set to program mode (P for professional)”

    it shows.

  • ben
    March 9, 2009 at 8:00 pm

    i guess i should follow up a snide remark (apologies, spur of the moment. i would edit it, but hey, you can’t on here…) with something a wee bit more substantial.

    I don’t know any pro’s (or any of my non-pro photographer friends) who shoot using “P” on their camera. Sorry to get all technical, but why would you let a machine take full control of your exposures for you?

    Is it so that your photographs can look like the photographs of every other “dude with a DSLR”?

  • david duChemin
    March 9, 2009 at 9:43 pm

    @ ben – I’m left wondering the same thing. Set to P a camera can determine the “correct” exposure and…nope, that’s pretty much it. Aesthetic decisions? Not so much. I have yet to meet a working pro who would cop to using Program mode.

    @ panos – thanks for the levity.

  • david alan harvey
    March 9, 2009 at 9:56 pm

    ROSS GORDON…

    my oh my, what is your problem?? i do recall looking at your work and talking to you on the phone about it and taking my time to make some suggestions to you…it seems a little strange that you would come out blasting about photographers here KMA …you obviously have not read much of the spirited often disagreeing discussion that goes on here…it seems that most readers do like this particular picture and are saying so , but how in the world is that KMA and to what end anyway?? and if you do not like this picture why do you not write about that instead of going off on a diatribe about your career which has not quite taken off…c’mon Ross…

    in your drive to achieve something at Natgeo you have somehow equated your work with what you see there…better take a harder look….i recommend quite seriously photographers all the time to shoot for Natgeo, but you would not be one of them..at least not yet…i do see what you are trying to do in Ecuador with the cowboy culture and i do see some potential you may have, but you still have a long way to go my friend..and in my judgment you did not even have any picture submitted for BURN that i could run…and i was looking hard based on our phone chat…..

    not every picture published on BURN , with the daily updates, is going to be an all time icon to last forever in the categories with the photographers you mentioned….i do not search the world of photography for the pictures published here , but from the pool of submissions of the readers here…so what is represented are the best works of the readers of BURN today…now…but, somebody here IS going to do something special…some are off to a very good start….and when i show the best of BURN at Look3 in June, i think the audience will be quite surprised at all the very good work that has been published here in the last few months…

    you also have facts wrong at both Natgeo and Magnum…again, better take a closer look… and what you think you know, you clearly do not know…there are a lot of bitter young photographers out there who become bitter because they totally overestimate their own ability and then blame everyone and everything in the business because they just have not “made it” yet…i do hope you will not become one of these photographers…

    i do look forward to seeing more of your work from South America…if you stick with it and go for the more visual side of things, as per our conversation, then you may just be able to pull it all together…i will work with you, as promised, to this end…

    cheers, david

  • david alan harvey
    March 9, 2009 at 10:07 pm

    JIM…

    my son Bryan shot that TV footage of Nick with the flies…his first film when he was in the Ndoki jungle for 4 months as one of Nick’s assistants (ended up writing and editing the film for TV as well)…Bryan is at this very moment shooting in Afghanistan on a film….both of my sons, Bryan and Erin, grew up traveling the globe with me on assignments…so they got pretty good at dealing with life outside of suburbia….

    cheers, david

  • Gordon lafleur
    March 9, 2009 at 10:10 pm

    Ben

    You clearly feel threatened by the suggestion that great photos can happen on “P” without your divine and inspired guidance.

    Look, I’ve been taking photographs for longer than you’ve been alive. I learned photography with a 4×5 Calumet view camera. I learned how to do multiple flash location set-ups using wired togsether Graflex flash guns and 5b flashbulbs, and we figured out exposure and light ratios using guide numbers, none o’ them fancy flash meters then. I’ve taught portrait photography and lighting theory on a college level for many years. I had my own colour lab for years and am the best black and white printer I know. I know what I’m doing. I likely know more technical shit than many of you ever will.
    However to reject the technology available to us now is just plain stupid. Reminds me of the photogs who predicted the end of the world as we know it when built in light meters arrived.

    If you havn’t tried “P” M’boy, you may be missing something

    Actually, none of the stuff you would have seen on my website was taken on “P”. When I”m doing formal type portraits, I’m on manual.

    However much of my personal work is shot on “P”. Most of it is shot with a Fuji f30 point and shoot, or a Canon Rebel. And for quick spontaneous shooting, “P” is way smarter than you or me, certainly faster, and instantly changable if I want more or less exposure.

    “Purists” make me crazy. Get over it.

    Gordon L.

    .

1 2 3

Leave a Reply

You must login to post a comment.