Untitled

[amolitor]

I don't see that it's particularly rule-breaking, to be honest. It's formally quite nice, not necessarily *strict* but nice. It follows a variant of the rule of thirds that you see quite a lot in successful images, in which one corner of the imaginary tic-tac-toe board stands alone as an image.

It's very "street" to my eye, a fortuitous confluence of elements at an instant of time, but with front-to-back depth of focus. It's a "street" photo that's shot like a landscape. Is that rule-breaking?

Does the grass come out mottled in the print? The linear features in the grass are utterly critical to this, leading the eye to the figure, but the mottled overall appearance I find unfortunate. There needs to be some texture there, but it feels a little much here. I wish the figure had more detail. I'm not 100 percent happy with the mass lower right either, for reasons I cannot put my finger on, and possibly just because that's where the overcookedness is most visible. Anyways, when you're shooting "street" you gotta take what you've got, right?

Rule-breaking isn't just a question of "you have to know you're doing it" it's a question of doing so with care. If you're going to break one rule, you should follow others, comfort and guide the viewer, give the viewer some solid grounding in tropes they know and feel good about, and then give them the one broken rule. Then, break it for a reason: to emphasize a point, to create a feeling, to evoke.

Well done, as usual, Russ.

Andrew

[fike]

...a little devil's advocate here.  I am not really feeling this image.

I am always a bit suspicious of pieces that are titled "Untitled."  Is the image so strong that it doesn't need a title, or does it lack a clear subject thus demanding the indeterminate titling. ( I am similarly suspicious about music that only gets a number too, but that is neither here nor there.)  The black and white version is too dark for me.  I have to visually search the image for meaning across a very dark and dour image.

The image lacks tonality despite the fact that the image was clearly taken in strong daylight conditions.  This makes me wonder, why have you made me suffer through such a dark rendering of a daylight subject? If it were taken at night, the dark rendering would be congruent with the conditions and it would be more harmonious.

There is a lot of space spent on shapes and forms that don't seem to contribute to the main subject (guy walking across field).  The trees on the right are a contrasty and indistinct as a framing device.  The deep shadow on the left creates this area in the lower left that holds no information or significance to me.

I think a more aggressive cropping that focuses your attention more on the subject may make a stronger image.  making a wider format crop where everything below the black shadow is removed might be better. I might even consider cropping from the middle of the shadow.  

[fike]

...one more thing on the crop.  Here is what I see as the essence of this image. Now tell me why you want everything else in there.

[amolitor]

I disagree with the tighter crops, completely. They're just pictures of a dude on a lawn.

This is a photo about large spaces, negative and positive (not negative? whatever). The dude is a focal point, a little reward for the patient viewer who is drawn in by the large graphical forms in balance around the frame. It's both "street" and landscape, both of which are about the entire frame and the objects and forms placed in it.

[RSL]

Thanks Andrew. No, the grass isn't mottled in the print. Most of the mottle in the B&W version comes from the conversion method I used. It doesn't hold up well on a computer monitor. Now that I've had the thing around for a while I've decided Slobodan's right. I like the Color version better. The B&W reminded me of a Cartier-Bresson picture of some people walking among trees, shot from a high angle. I've forgotten the title, and I don't want to take the time to go in to my library and check. It's not the same kind of picture, but the thrust is the same. Color changes the whole thing.

Marc, I'm afraid you miss the point of the picture. Both the trees and the shadows are essential. Your final crop is just some guy walking across a field. That's not really "the essence of the image." I don't explain pictures. It either stands on its own or it doesn't. Opinions always vary.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...one more thing on the crop.  Here is what I see as the essence of this image. Now tell me why you want everything else in there.

Hell, you can crop even further, the essence is the hand of man, not grass (one blade is just like another, so all you really need is one).

And that is where D800 comes handy!

Now, the only remaining puzzle is why is such a militant anti-cropper falling for every cropper's wet dream?

[fike]

...

Marc, I'm afraid you miss the point of the picture. Both the trees and the shadows are essential. Your final crop is just some guy walking across a field. That's not really "the essence of the image." I don't explain pictures. It either stands on its own or it doesn't. Opinions always vary.

That's okay. I don't need to like everything I see. 

When people say that the image "either stands on its own or it doesn't."  I always wonder if people say that because they don't have anything to say. I know that makes me sound like a total jackass, but if you don't want to explain or talk about an image, why put it online or in the user critiques forum? If the only feedback you get is positive and you don't ever engage constructively with an alternate viewpoint, then you won't be learning anything from the critique forum. 

Who knows, maybe I could also learn something if you could help me understand why you think all that stuff belongs in the image.  Maybe I could understand your vision better.  Right now I don't get it. 

...as for the tight crop I posted.  I did not mean to say that the very tight crop was a better image.  I put it their for discussion purposes: I wanted you to explain why all the other parts that you wanted to include in the image made it better.  But as you say, you don't explain your work. 

[RSL]

Now, the only remaining puzzle is why is such a militant anti-cropper falling for every cropper's wet dream?

You lost me there, Slobodan. As far as I'm concerned this picture is uncroppable.

[RSL]

Right now I don't get it.

 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

D800 = every cropper's wet dream.

In other words, why would someone who has no intention on cropping go for D800? The other reason would be huge enlargements, e.g., handy in landscape, architecture, fashion, etc. photography. But street? I've rarely, if ever, seen street photography enlarged beyond, say 16x20.

[amolitor]

Haven't you heard? His next book will be Penny Arcade 1:1 in a limited edition of 50 copies, signed forklift included.

[RSL]

D800 = every cropper's wet dream.

In other words, why would someone who has no intention on cropping go for D800? The other reason would be huge enlargements, e.g., handy in landscape, architecture, fashion, etc. photography. But street? I've rarely, if ever, seen street photography enlarged beyond, say 16x20.

Okay. Got it. But I'm gradually branching out into landscape. The other thing I've done for decades is what I'll call "wabi sabi," things made beautiful by age and use. If the fire ever gets under control, the temperature drops below 98, the smoke level goes down, and the highway west opens up again, I'll take my D800E back up into the hills and do some more stuff like this, but closer up -- that is, if B&H ever ships the camera. There also may be some interesting, if depressing, vistas left by the fires --  the kind of thing Josef Koudelka used to do so well. I crop if I have to, Slobodan, but I won't be any more likely to crop with a D800E than I am with a D3 or an E-P1. I don't bang away hoping to find a picture once the file's on my computer. I frame in the viewfinder.

Have you seen anything yet out of the D800 or D800E? You don't have to print wall-size to see the incredible detail, color, and dynamic range that's there.