Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: seamus finn on November 04, 2012, 12:09:36 pm
-
Brisbane, Australia
-
Ouch!
I can't imagine carrying all that around on my feet. But it's a fine photo.
-
Result of strolling through the Valley I presume Seamus.
-
That's seeing, Seamus. Good shooting.
-
Not the Valley, Walter - this one was in the street to the left just around the corner at the top of Queen St. Mall. Here's another version:
-
...assuming "Paul" was off somewhere while you were being drawn to her "boots"? Seems they were only the ti() of the iceberg... ;)
-
Brisbane? Location has to do with this shot how? I assume from the various angles that you had time to work the scene and that she likely knew you were there. Why not give us something interesting including her context in the setting. As is, it's a little voyeuristic.
-
I thought at first you had a foot fetish then you moved further up. Did you get your face slapped... and was it worth it? Interesting images. Can't wait for the next one....or two. ;)
-
Brisbane? Location has to do with this shot how? I assume from the various angles that you had time to work the scene and that she likely knew you were there. Why not give us something interesting including her context in the setting. As is, it's a little voyeuristic.
Your question re location is relevant, how? I invariably say where I took a picture.
Strange, but when I showed the girl the three I had taken, she gave me a dazzling smile, asked me to email them to her and thanked me charmingly. She certainly didn't feel she had been 'voyeurised' and if she didn't, I don't know what your problem is. Here's a definition of voyeur:
1. A person who derives sexual gratification from observing the naked bodies or sexual acts of others, especially from a secret vantage point.
2. An obsessive observer of sordid or sensational subjects.
If you don't mind my saying, I suggest you lighten up.
-
Seamus,
What a couple of telling pictures to take and post. So close in time and place but world's apart in narrative and reward.
Well seen, well considered and well presented.
The second one carries with it a passionate connectivity whereas the original carries the mystery of detachment.
Cheers,
Walter
-
Your question re location is relevant, how? I invariably say where I took a picture.
Strange, but when I showed the girl the three I had taken, she gave me a dazzling smile, asked me to email them to her and thanked me charmingly. She certainly didn't feel she had been 'voyeurised' and if she didn't, I don't know what your problem is. Here's a definition of voyeur:
1. A person who derives sexual gratification from observing the naked bodies or sexual acts of others, especially from a secret vantage point.
2. An obsessive observer of sordid or sensational subjects.
If you don't mind my saying, I suggest you lighten up.
I'd be more than happy to lighten up and I'm normally a post and leave it sort of person. But while it's against my nature, I'm recently trying to be more of an activist poster online.
You don't invariably share the location of your shots. A quick check of your posts on LL was straight forward enough. I'm not against disclosing that information. Just the opposite, I'm all for letting people know where I was when I took a shot. But, with these particular shots the detail adds nothing.
To your subject. I'm guessing she's made a decision to stand out and live her own life. I am very cool with that. My personal decision is to not take street shots of these folks. If I take their shots, it's with permission, engaged and a context shot or an environmental portrait. But that's just me.
It could have been about her, or it could have been about other's reactions to her, or it could have been about how her feet or legs related to other's feet or legs. The second shot begins to get there with the upper left of the frame. The shots are impersonal without much else of interest.
To the voyeuristic. There is nothing there about the person or her context. It was first about a pair of disembodied boots and then legs with a gauze skirt over boots. She has tats as well. Voyeurism is context dependent, and I reread the definition before posting. I am not saying this is sexual at all but in my view it's close to the same as shooting homeless folks just to have the image. In my view, a street shot of a social outlier needs a selection of social normative folks to build the story. Or simply get a great portrait.
What I'm wondering is whether you took any shots that tell more of her story. You're obviously willing to get in there and I'd be curious to see what else you shot while tucked in.
-
I saw the lady in the street. I saw the deep,long shadows in the street. I saw the boots. I saw her black clothing. I was struck by the combination of boots and long mysterious shadow and dark mysterious clothes. I took one shot with my 18mm lens (thus very close to the subject and no hiding) on a Fuji X Pro1 (=28) without her knowledge and then I tapped her on the shoulder and asked her if she'd mind if I took a picture of her boots. She kindly agreed and seemed pleased.
I took two shot (the two here, the first one was no good), thanked her, showed her the images, and moved on. The whole thing took hardly more than a minute or two. I don't get your reference to not taking street pictures 'of these folks'. What folks? This is an ordinary lady on her way home from work. She's sitting at a bus stop. Are you suggesting she is something else? As for the tats, nowadays, I see tats everywhere, on all kinds of people. I thought I usually say where a pic is taken but perhaps not always as you seem to have found out, but anyway, it's a moot point.
-
I saw the lady in the street. I saw the deep,long shadows in the street. I saw the boots. I saw her black clothing. I was struck by the combination of boots and long mysterious shadow and dark mysterious clothes. I took one shot with my 18mm lens (thus very close to the subject and no hiding) on a Fuji X Pro1 (=28) without her knowledge and then I tapped her on the shoulder and asked her if she'd mind if I took a picture of her boots. She kindly agreed and seemed pleased.
I took two shot (the two here, the first one was no good), thanked her, showed her the images, and moved on. The whole thing took hardly more than a minute or two. I don't get your reference to not taking street pictures 'of these folks'. What folks? This is an ordinary lady on her way home from work. She's sitting at a bus stop. Are you suggesting she is something else? As for the tats, nowadays, I see tats everywhere, on all kinds of people. I thought I usually say where a pic is taken but perhaps not always as you seem to have found out, but anyway, it's a moot point.
I might have done something similar to what you've described with the exception of posting the shots themselves. They aren't that interesting.
My personal decision is to not take street shots of these folks.
I figure it's only right to quote myself. I really do appreciate and accept self presentation and I have regular sit-down conversations with the panhandlers in my community. It's a matter of respect. The "These Folks" element is pretty much why I avoid presenting them in an image simply because they are people. They are by choice or necessity outliers. To engage in that discussion is to decide to have a conversation with underprivileged or exceptional folks. I'd expect the resulting shots to be much more powerful.
-
You've lost me. If you don't like the shots, fair enough. Anyway, let's not fall out about it.