Snowy Little Italy

[donbga]

This isn't painting. It's photography. There's a difference.

I didn't say it was painting. It's called print manipulation in the digital age. This isn't an argument so move on.

[RSL]

HCB wasn't always right, but he was right more often than he was wrong. There are, for instance, situations where cropping makes sense, but the point he was making with his refusal to crop was that you frame on the camera. If there's a car in the frame and you're not happy with the result, you move on to a different frame. You don't say, "Well, in the spirit of 'print manipulation' I'll shoot and get rid of the car in post-processing."

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Apart from the conceptual debate about print manipulation, I quite like the car there. It adds to the contrast between modern and classic, monochromatic and colorful, that the image is full of.

[graeme]

Apart from the conceptual debate about print manipulation, I quite like the car there. It adds to the contrast between modern and classic, monochromatic and colorful, that the image is full of.

+1

[RSL]

+2, but that's an aside.

[GrahamBy]

I hate people trying to make rules about what must or must not be done. On the other hand, often rules are based on good advice... for example, that manipulated photos very often just look wrong: either something looks awry, or it's done so well that it looks too perfect (as per excessively made-up models).

My personal impression is that chance does wonders for most photographs: my little brain is not up to inventing all the subtle ingredients that go into a good street photo, but sometimes they arrive by chance (with maybe some help from my subconscious). Often they won't, but if I insist on removing all the unintended elements, it's almost sure that they won't.

That was what amused me most about the McCurry "scandal"... aside from the sloppiness (ie the truncated yellow post that gave the game away), I found I prefered the originals in most cases. The "improved" versions usually seemed to me to be dumbed down.

So yeah, keep the car

[donbga]

HCB wasn't always right, but he was right more often than he was wrong. There are, for instance, situations where cropping makes sense, but the point he was making with his refusal to crop was that you frame on the camera. If there's a car in the frame and you're not happy with the result, you move on to a different frame. You don't say, "Well, in the spirit of 'print manipulation' I'll shoot and get rid of the car in post-processing."

You know there is a contemporary photographer that does regard his work like painting, Gregory Crewdson. So there are no absolutes in art.

http://tinyurl.com/jqdxmgn

http://tinyurl.com/jgbeskb

[RSL]

Yep. There are all sorts of weirdos out there. On the other hand, I really like Crewdson's concoctions. He's after a particular kind of sensation: usually a lonely one, and he often succeeds.

[John R]

Thanks for the link to Crewdson. Very interesting work. Reminds me of film sets. I think you really have to be dedicated and confident that all this kind of work will lead to some of kind of success.

JR

[Rob C]

A very nice picture, but it raises a question for me: why do people look at this genre and also attemtp to insert "technical" corrections that are of no importance whatsoever? That's not what this stuff is about, could be or should be about. This is all about mood, colour and atmosphere and, yes, ambiguity, at the very least via the interplay of languages.

I couldn't give a damn if verticals are off a little bit, and as for removing the car, it's part of the mood, for heaven's sake; goes perfectly with the snow and sense of alienation to the norm that snow always brings. Unless you're an Eskimo.

Rob C

[donbga]

Thanks for the link to Crewdson. Very interesting work. Reminds me of film sets. I think you really have to be dedicated and confident that all this kind of work will lead to some of kind of success.

JR

His shots do mimic film (movie) sets simply because of his need to create and control an entire mood. In some ways he reminds me of Hitchcock. Large sums of money are expended making each shot so everything obviously has to be scripted. Taking his entire body of work in this genre some of the motefs become repetitive and they vaguely remind me some of Hoppers work such as 'Office at Night', 'Woman in the Sun', 'Morning Sun' and of course 'Nighthawks' as well as others.

Looking at his prints up close and personal are a treat, the detail and sense of presence is unexpected upon first viewing . I've never enlarged any of my 8x10 work so it is tempting to do so.