Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: RSL on May 31, 2011, 09:23:56 pm
-
Traditionally street photography is black and white, but here are two street shots I think are better in color, and though the group on the street is pretty good in B&W, the pizza parlor abstraction dissolves in B&W. See what you think. Neither of these is the kind of once-in-a-year shot upon which I'd hang my reputation, but they fall pretty neatly into a somewhat lower category of OK.
-
I was tempted to say that they'd be more interesting with better subject matter (say, mountains and trees, for example), or that music does this much better than photography does, but I won't. ;D
Eric
-
In both of the images there are people looking at the camera, the first one especially so. It gives the image a posed type of look which I am surprised you seem happy about. In the first a move to the left to exclude the person on the right would have been better imo. The cluttered background doesn't help either. I have seen better from you Russ. :-\
-
Hi Russ
The first one is pretty good, but I would have concentrated on the chick in the background. And thus lost the picture. Or, I might have waited until the car in the background had been replaced by the Cadillac '57/'59 combination I always hope I'll meet some day; by then, both the older people in the front would have passed away and the blurred lady to whom I referred a moment ago would probably have also given up and gone home.
Such drama, such deliberation! No wonder there's so much for curators to discuss!
;- )
Rob
PS I'd happily hang my reputation, had I one, on that first shot. The second one displays an ironic sense of equilibrium -sorry, drifting away again...
-
Russ
Let me start by saying that I am no expert on "street photography".
Having said that, I totally "got" the two pictures (especially the wit of the first one) that Jennifer posted on "Outside the State Library". That picture keeps coming up in my mind all the time, it is as good as anything I have ever seen here.
I totally "don't get" what you are trying to say with these two. Try as I might, I see nothing.
What is even more puzzling to me is that you posted them. I would have thought that, following the ongoing debate, you would have posted something to strengthen your argument. It seems to me that, with these two examples of "street', you have weakened it. In fact, I think your landscape of the derelict farmhouse blows these two pictures clean out of the water.
Where am I going wrong? What don't I understand here?
Perhaps it boils down to the fact that even an idiot (like me) can tell the difference between a good picture and a poor one - even if he does not have the ability to explain why?
And that is all there is, good pictures and not so good ones...forget paint, photographs, landscape, street, portrait, nature and all the other boxes we all love.
If something is good we all seem to recognise it.
William
-
Actually, as if the shot needed any protective speak from me, Russ has gone beyond street.
I doubt he's even aware of where he treads with this one, not being into fashion photography and its heroes, but he's slap bang in the middle of the Helmut Newton ethic with his brutal images of Berlin society.
Some images of older women and men speak a language that you have to, unfortunately, be there to understand; not in Berlin, but in time. The conterpoint of youth rubs salt into the wound.
That's maybe the bit you couldn't get.
Rob C
-
Actually, as if the shot needed any protective speak from me, Russ has gone beyond street.
I doubt he's even aware of where he treads with this one, not being into fashion photography and its heroes, but he's slap bang in the middle of the Helmut Newton ethic with his brutal images of Berlin society.
Some images of older women and men speak a language that you have to, unfortunately, be there to understand; not in Berlin, but in time. The conterpoint of youth rubs salt into the wound.
That's maybe the bit you couldn't get.
Rob C
And you have only managed to confuse me more with that reply... ??? ;)
-
And you have only managed to confuse me more with that reply... ??? ;)
Absorb Sumo.
Rob C
-
Absorb Sumo.
Rob C
Will do. Can I borrow your copy? Or £ 9000.00?
-
Eric, Why not say it if that's what you believe?
Stamper, That's a fair criticism, and I'm sorry the shot looks posed to you. Actually, the people are looking at the camera but they don't know I'm shooting a picture. I wasn't out to do street shooting, and I was carrying the D3 with a 28-300mm lens on it -- a pretty huge beast that always gets too much attention. I was talking to a guy out of sight on the left. When I saw the scene I cranked the lens out to about 70mm by feel and shot from the hip. As far as the guy on the right is concerned, he's absolutely essential to the shot, both to offset the weight of the triangular arrangement on the left and as a contrast to the age of the woman. (See Rob's comment.)
William, You don't need to be an expert on any art genre to appreciate it. I have a course from The Teaching Company whose risible title is "How to Look at and Understand Great Art." You don't need instruction in order to "look at" great art, and you don't "understand" art; you experience art. (The course itself is interesting, though.) I'm sorry you "don't get" it, but everyone can tell the difference between a good picture and a poor one because that evaluation always is subjective. These two may be especially difficult because they violate the "street photography" canon.
Rob, Thanks for the kind words. Yes, I at least know who Helmut Newton was, though he's not my cup of tea. From what I've read about him he had every reason to produce "brutal" images of Berlin society. The whole point of the first picture is the play between the three principals: the inert guy on the left (who's always sitting there, by the way), the woman, who's the focal point, and the guy on the right Stamper wants out of the picture. I'll bet that in her twenties that woman was a beautiful girl -- the kind you, Rob, loved to photograph. Now the lines in her face reflect a history of hard experience: still a beautiful face but in a different way. Her alertness and interest in what's going on around her is offset and enhanced by the indifference of the guy on the left, and the depth of experience in her face is underlined by the callow glance of the youth on the right.
I love to photograph in this spot. The building on the left is a restaurant called "The Maté Factor," subtitled "A Common Ground café." There's always a different group of interesting people in front of it. Here's a record shot from a few days earlier. If you look closely you'll see the inert guy from the first picture. He's moved a few chairs to your right in this one.
Still no real comments on the abstraction. Has anyone noticed that the name of the place is "Hells Kitchen Pizza" or read the sign on the right? No, Stamper, the bearded guy in hell, on the right, isn't looking at the camera. He's looking off to my left.
-
[You are faster than me; this was written before your last post] If these "fall pretty neatly into a lower category of OK," I either envy your standards or doubt them. The excellent portrait in Sidewalk Gathering is enhanced by its less than completely controlled environment. The Chick may not be as focused as Rob would like, but that she is laughing ...
I not only enjoy looking at the "Pizza" photo more than any of yours that I can remember [which is saying something], but I think it's meaning is valid; different in kind though it is from much of your other work.
Bruce
-
If there ever was a good example for images in dire need for post-conceptualization or curator/gallery-speak, these are the ones.
But then again, I already admitted I do not know much about nor I like street photography (apart from, perhaps, Elliot Erwitt's type, or even better, Ernst Haas' or Pete Turner's one).
-
... nor [do] I like street photography (apart from, perhaps, Elliot Erwitt's type, or even better, Ernst Haas' or Pete Turner's one).
So you do like some street photography. Sounds as if you're about in the same place I am with respect to landscape photography, Slobodan. Elliott Erwitt, by the way, is my favorite photographer, with Walker Evans a close second.
-
In the first one, the face on the elderly woman near the center is riveting. She appears to be looking directly at the camera, but she is wrapped up in her own angst and is oblivious to the camera (she wouldn't even notice it if you picked it up to eye level and waved it around). The man at the left is also lost in his own world, and the young man at the right and the young woman in the background are too young to understand real pain. This one works for me, although some of the background elements seem irrelevant.
The "abstract" doesn't move me. The connection between the two signs seems a bit forced, especially since the "Hell's Kitchen Pizza" sign is almost unreadable, and Russ's signature is bigger than the other sign.
The third shot looks like a real keeper to me. The three windows frame three separate small stories that interconnect, and even the open door at the left invites you in to imagine other tete-a-tetes and encounters going on inside. I like this one a lot.
And the third one includes the necessary musicians. ;)
Eric
-
Will do. Can I borrow your copy? Or £ 9000.00?
You can borrow my copy if you live in Mallorca, but you only need €100 or so - Taschen makes a smaller but still damned heavy version that comes with a perspex X-shaped lectern that collapses flat for travel. Quite why one would choose to travel with such a tome is not clear, but the possibility is there.
It's the only Newton book I ever bought: found his work too hard to live with, but considering he's gone, now, and that he did so many wild things to open doors for us more gentle folks... anyway, June might need the cash. Like, I doubt that.
Rob C
-
If there ever was a good example for images in dire need for post-conceptualization or curator/gallery-speak, these are the ones.
But then again, I already admitted I do not know much about nor I like street photography (apart from, perhaps, Elliot Erwitt's type, or even better, Ernst Haas' or Pete Turner's one).
Then, Slobodan, how come the beauty you shot from a bus looking down into a restaurant or bar? It might not have been from ground level, but still street, and damned good; much as is your blue railroad, from even higher. I interpret 'street' in a less literal way; also, there is a kind of epiphany going down in my head since seeing the latest shot of the three windows: I used to be hesitant about shooting any musos on the street - buskers - but since doing my own stuff in bars and like that, I have come to take a totally benign stance towards those who make music in public places. Gone is the nervous doubt. Never thought that there'd be time left to change a spot or two on this old gattopardo.
Rob C
-
Russ, thanks for the patient reply. You are right:-
and you don't "understand" art; you experience art.
That feeling one gets simply did not materialise here. I see what you, and others are saying about the pictures. For some reason they did not "move" me enough to make that kind of effort that Slobodan refers to.
I suppose it is similar to what you and Rob experience when you look at most(?) landscapes, sort of, "so what...". The difference, I think, is I have no prejudices towards any kind of "genre".
Rob, I'll look up that cheaper option you mention. I have just spent a few bob on Bruce Davidson's "Outside Inside" so might have to wait a while. Shipping to my neck of the woods doubles the price of the book!
William
-
Russ, thanks for the patient reply. You are right:-
That feeling one gets simply did not materialise here. I see what you, and others are saying about the pictures. For some reason they did not "move" me enough to make that kind of effort that Slobodan refers to.
I suppose it is similar to what you and Rob experience when you look at most(?) landscapes, sort of, "so what...". The difference, I think, is I have no prejudices towards any kind of "genre".
Rob, I'll look up that cheaper option you mention. I have just spent a few bob on Bruce Davidson's "Outside Inside" so might have to wait a while. Shipping to my neck of the woods doubles the price of the book!William
I suffer with you! That's why I was devastated when my French friend with the bookshop in Pollença packed it in; he was very good with photography and stocked a helluva lot of stuff I'd have liked to buy but don't really have space into which to slip them all. I used to buy French PHOTO from him, and one of the great things it did was feature new books on the art. However, these were pretty well all available in France, and nowhere else - outwith Taschen's list - certainly not in Spain. I don't like buying anything sight-unseen, and books in particular, and neither am I comfortable with buying via Internet - seldom do anything financial that way.
Bought something from Amazon once - the delivery was prohibitive; I don't know how they have a market. I often used to buy in Scotland too, but the road trips there are now, sadly, but memories of happier days.
Rob C
-
Russ you obviously see much more in the pictures than I do.
Quote
Stamper, That's a fair criticism, and I'm sorry the shot looks posed to you. Actually, the people are looking at the camera but they don't know I'm shooting a picture. I wasn't out to do street shooting, and I was carrying the D3 with a 28-300mm lens on it -- a pretty huge beast that always gets too much attention. I was talking to a guy out of sight on the left. When I saw the scene I cranked the lens out to about 70mm by feel and shot from the hip. As far as the guy on the right is concerned, he's absolutely essential to the shot, both to offset the weight of the triangular arrangement on the left and as a contrast to the age of the woman. (See Rob's comment.)
Unquote.
You point out in a recent thread by John R Smith that images posted here are here for criticism? My criticism is - imo - valid in respect that two of the people are looking at the camera, intentionally or not therefore the posed comment is valid and detracts from what appears to be street photography. You state the third person is needed to balance the image. The out of focus face, half out and half in doesn't - imo - balance it. No balance needed if you crop it out and frame the other two more tightly. They without doubt are the picture which unfortunately is spoiled by the background. The good elements are overpowered by the distracting elements. A picture must be judged by all of what is there and not by some of it. A smaller aperture would possibly have the third person in focus. If something isn't adding to a picture then get rid of it. If you had posted the picture without the third person then I suspect nobody would have wished for it? Your ideas obviously differ from mine? As stated you have posted better.
BTW is anyone up for a points system when judging images. Say 5 out 10, or is that for camera clubs? ;)
I forgot to mention that the third image is - imo - a very good street image. Not as intrusive as the first posted but near enough to wonder what everybody is doing and talking about. One you can go back to a few times which means it has done it's job because you keep thinking about it? :)
-
Russ your third image I have looked at again. I have even dragged it onto my second monitor so that I can type and look at it. There are three images here. six or seven people on the left. Two people on the right all involved in their world and then there is the guy in the middle in red, who is possibly wishing they would shut up so he could get peace and quiet to enjoy his own little world. There is even someone behind the window possibly agreeing with the guy in red. This image is far better than the other two. It does it's job and is without doubt one of your best. ;)
-
Yup. Forget the first two, though the portrait of the elderly woman has something,
but the third is it (though I personally would straighten the lines keystone wise).
-
Russ you obviously see much more in the pictures than I do.
You point out in a recent thread by John R Smith that images posted here are here for criticism? My criticism is - imo - valid in respect that two of the people are looking at the camera, intentionally or not therefore the posed comment is valid and detracts from what appears to be street photography. You state the third person is needed to balance the image. The out of focus face, half out and half in doesn't - imo - balance it. No balance needed if you crop it out and frame the other two more tightly. They without doubt are the picture which unfortunately is spoiled by the background. The good elements are overpowered by the distracting elements. A picture must be judged by all of what is there and not by some of it. A smaller aperture would possibly have the third person in focus. If something isn't adding to a picture then get rid of it. If you had posted the picture without the third person then I suspect nobody would have wished for it? Your ideas obviously differ from mine? As stated you have posted better.
I forgot to mention that the third image is - imo - a very good street image. Not as intrusive as the first posted but near enough to wonder what everybody is doing and talking about. One you can go back to a few times which means it has done it's job because you keep thinking about it? :)
Stamper, As I said when I started my first reply, your criticism was a fair criticism. We always criticize from a subjective point of view since there is no other point of view. That's true even with criticism from people who advertise themselves as art critics. The difference between an "art critic" and a normal person is that the critic has "credentials" and can spout yards of BS to support his argument. But if you're a careful reader you can cut through the BS and get down to the real, subjective, argument.
Yes, the third image fits the street photography canon a lot closer than the first image, and I've included a cleaned up copy of it, along with a very similar one from the waterfront at Savannah, Georgia. Both of those are examples of classic street photography. A framed 17" x 22" print of the Savannah shot hangs on my studio wall.
It seems your main criticism of the first image is that two of the people are looking at the camera, so that makes the image something other than street photography. It seems posed to you. But make a run through the photography of HCB, the absolute king of street photography, and you'll find plenty of shots with people looking at the camera. If you look through the photography of Robert Doisneau, a very famous street photographer who was a contemporary of HCB, you'll find that a lot of his street shots actually were posed. In fact his famous "Le Baiser de L'Hotel de Ville," was posed using a couple of professional actors. Brassai, another famous street photographer from the same era had to pose his night shots of Paris bars and brothels because his equipment was too slow to do it any other way.
But I'm not going to argue that the first picture is classic street photography. It's not. As I said, it's outside the street photography canon. I don't know how to assign it to a particular genre. It is what it is. I explained why the out-of-focus face has to be there to complete the scene. The fact that you find it objectionable makes me even more sure I was right. That's exactly what it's supposed to be: a fuzzy face with a callow expression, thrust into the picture, a face that emphasizes the mature beauty of the woman in the center. I wish I could have thrown the face and the background even farther out of focus, but the lens was set at f/8 and there wasn't time to change.
Now, all this makes it sound as if I realized all these things, took them carefully into consideration, and then made the shot. That's how landscape photography works, or at least it's how it ought to work, and that's one reason why people do landscape: it's relatively easy, if sometimes tedious. But that's not how street photography works. When you do street you don't plan the shot and act on your plan. Street photography is kind of like hand-to-hand combat: you see a situation all at once and you react. In effect, you go down the street mentally throwing frames around things, and when a framed collection of things makes sense you lift the camera and shoot. Things almost always are moving and shifting and changing, so you don't have time to do an Ansel Adams: get out a light meter, measure the zones, calculate your exposure taking into account how you plan to develop the film, and carefully compose the picture on the ground glass. On the street you lift the camera and go bang! As Cartier-Bresson said, sometimes you feel as if you really got something but when you look at the picture on the contact sheet (nowadays the monitor) you see where you failed. But once in a while you find you really did get what you were after. That's when it all becomes worthwhile.
The second image isn't really street photography at all, except I shot it from the street. It's abstraction, and whether or not you might like it depends on whether or not you're comfortable with abstraction. Bruce likes it and so do I. But it's okay not to like it.
Sorry to make this such a long rant, but from what I see and read here there seems to be a dearth of understanding about street photography. I guess that's understandable since we're on "Luminous Landscape." But often enough I see Michael doing good street work, so I guess it's okay to post street shots.
Incidentally, William started his critique with a salute to Jennifer's "Outside the State Library." I'd like to stand with him and salute. Jennifer's work often reminds me of Elliott Erwitt, and those two pictures could be included in a book of EE's pictures with nobody knowing the difference. The first one, especially, is based on the kind of humor that makes EE so delightful. That's real street photography.
-
Thanks Russ for showing a straightened version of the third image.
And yes - I prefer this one.
-
But what happened to the color? The first one was so much lovelier and... more realistic?