Back to Street

[RSL]

.

[petermfiore]

Not street, stairs.


Peter

[Chris Calohan]

I am very much drawn to the darkness of the two men and the darkness in the upper right corner...too much so. Moreso, I think I want to see more detail in the figures more than see the upper right disappear.

[RedwoodGuy]

I think you're slipping there Henri. But, I'm sure Hef or Bloggo will be along any minute now to stroke your uh, ego.

[RedwoodGuy]

RG = troll

There's a few places you haven't typed that out yet. And, you seem to be forgetting the obligatory "ROFL".
 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I think you're slipping there Henri. But, I'm sure Hef or Bloggo will be along any minute now to stroke your uh, ego.

Hey, Woody, good to finally see your attempts at humor. Keep working on that, success is only a few decades away.

[RedwoodGuy]

Your behaviour equals the description.

Cut the disruptive behaviour.

Cheers,

I'm guessing you have been on vacation the past couple weeks, Mr. AolGuy? Or, you have some filters on your glasses?

[pegelli]

It's a pity such a lovely shot gets overscreamed by a useless exchange of posts.

Agree with Chris that I would prefer a slightly different balance of light and dark in  the walking men as well as the top right corner, but both the scene in itself as well as the curves of the stairs work very well together. Almost too well composed for a street shot, allthough I can imagine this scene just came up and had to be taken in a split second. 

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I'd love to see Woody try to take on Schewe some day. That would be fun to watch.

[RSL]

Right, Pieter. It was at the Air Force Academy. I don't remember which building because it was long ago. M4 and 50mm, Tri-X pushed pretty far. No time for contemplation.

[stamper]

Because the image has an overwhelming amount of brightness I suspect the camera underexposed the figures and it would have been difficult to do otherwise because they are small in the frame. Their darkness imo nicely balances the brightness and makes it a worthwhile image. I won't blabber on any more because i don't want to steal someone's throne.

[stamper]

I have had another look and It seems the two gentlemen may not be of a Caucasian origin, hence the underexposure? 

[RSL]

Right on, Stamper. Those two guys are cadets with very black skin.

[Dale Villeponteaux]

The two figures need to be dark.  Two generic humans going round and round and round....  The story is why.

I don't really understand street, having grown up in small towns, but it seems street doesn't need to take place
in the street.  I hope my ability to appreciate it will grow.

Thanks for posting,
Dale

[32BT]

The two figures need to be dark.  Two generic humans going round and round and round.... 

+1

Spiralling all the way down… (hmmm, much like the conversations on these forums lately).

English not being my native tongue, I believe "generic humans" was meant to read "anonymous figurines".

I also like the contrast between the almost silhouetted people and the bright stairs.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

C'mon guys, you surely see them for who they are: two bank robbers, one with a balaclava, the other with a gas mask

[armand]

I do like the photo, but according to the definition of the street posted in the past by its author I don't see how this is "street". Where is the famous ambiguity? There are 2 guys going down the stairs. Nice stairs, nice composition but can't get any ambiguity. Without stretching it I mean, as if you think hard enough you can find ambiguity anywhere, even in a rock (did the rock fall, was it placed, will somebody move it, etc).
These being said, anybody kind enough to clue me in on this one?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Armand, are you living under a rock? This house is in danger of going down in flames, triggered by a street/ambiguity debate. Are you sure you want to rekindle it?

[James Clark]

I love the shot.  Great geometry,nice contrast in tones and strong compositional elements.  Fwiw I don't care about the relative darkness ofthe figures, though lighter figures obviously would detract from the arresting contrast.   On the other hand, I have a personal preference for high-key  scenes and could see a longer exposure with lighter, but moving figures as being a different, but equally valid, composition.  But I'm guessing the photographer didn't have a tripod handy

[Chris Calohan]

For me, novice I am at this thing called "street," the ambiguity is simple:

Webster's definition without any emotional or otherattacment: doubtful or uncertain especially from obscurity or indistinctness

Can you identify the two characters? No, they are quite anonymous in detail, age, position and really, to race. Ambiguous, I'd say.

Can you identify the setting where the two figures are? Well, the obvious is a circular stairwell, but it could be anywhere, thus, again, ambiguous.

Is it a planned, or caught image? Looks caught to me or else there would have been time to do a proper exposure on the two figures. That fits at least one common denominator of every street definition I've ever read.