Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Chris Calohan on June 19, 2013, 12:04:18 pm
-
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7436/9086495300_6ffa12eaff_o.jpg)
-
Otherwise known as "the grace of God."
-
There but for Fortune (song) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_but_for_Fortune_%28song%29)
-
Well done, Chris. Sad...but notice the cell phone?
-
That's an Obamaphone, David, usually carried by drug dealers.
-
All the homeless people around here have cellphones...and a seemingly endless supply of cigarettes...weird.
-
It's Keef.
Rob C
-
You guys are too much :D
As for the OP, Chris, is there a way to get her to stand out from the fence a bit? Without re-shooting of course ;)
-
I actually brightened the fence to over-emphasize the social stigma associated with the have's and have-nots. I wanted her to appear closer to the fence than farther away. I might give cloning the fence in higher.
-
I actually brightened the fence to over-emphasize the social stigma associated with the have's and have-nots. I wanted her to appear closer to the fence than farther away. I might give cloning the fence in higher.
I bow to your artistic sense and do like the idea of cloning the fence in higher!
-
Tried some editing to raise the fence top, push her away from the fence, and work some of the contrasts in her clothing.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7387/9087308313_132ce6244d_o.jpg)
-
Cloning the fence higher was a good idea. However, the thing that kills the picture for me is the use of a fairly long telephone lens, all too evident from the foreshortening of the shopping cart. If you want to photograph the homeless, have the balls to get up in their face with a normal to wide lens so you actually have to engage with them. Not a bad rule for shooting any person, in fact. (Albeit a rule that I never follow, so I guess who am I to judge.)
-
24-70 at 70mm but I was shooting at 2.8 because the sun was on its way down, definitely below the tree line over my shoulder. I was across a narrow two lane road. It's not cajones I lack, it is respect for those I shoot that generally defines what lens I use.
-
24-70 at 70mm but I was shooting at 2.8 because the sun was on its way down, definitely below the tree line over my shoulder. I was across a narrow two lane road. It's not cajones I lack, it is respect for those I shoot that generally defines what lens I use.
That's a dangerous sentence; can be swiftly edited to indicate something very else!
Rob C
-
Maybe because it is early, Rob...maybe I am just dense (likely the latter), but not sure how an edit could change the meaning.
-
24-70 at 70mm but I was shooting at 2.8 because the sun was on its way down, definitely below the tree line over my shoulder. I was across a narrow two lane road. It's not cajones I lack, it is respect for those I shoot that generally defines what lens I use.
Okay - but don't take this personally:
Edited version:
"It's not cajones I lack, it is respect (I lack) for those I shoot..... etc."
Told you it was dangerous... maybe, though, it was just a time-zone difference and it was too early for me too.
;-)
Rob C
-
A badly constructed sentence, but what I don't understand is why using a long lens shows respect for a subject.
-
It's not like this group of people don't know they're poor, often unkempt, lacking in good hygiene, etc., so why get in their face to exploit their condition. Years ago I worked for a local TV station. One day, a Navy jet took a nosedive in the bayou pretty much behind his house. I got a good story and great video feed but they wanted me to go interview the widow of the pilot...I mean 30 minutes after she's learned that was her husband's plane. I told the station manager (via walkie talkie) I would not do that. He then blessed me out and said I was fired, so I put all his equipment on the ground and left. What possible good could have come from putting a camera in that lady's face that the long shot didn't already accomplish?
-
I don't see what the increased contrasts in her clothing is accomplishing. It strikes me as muddying up the hierarchy of the picture, now her face is subsidiary and, inexplicably, her outfit appears to be the dominant element of an already fairly busy picture.
The higher fence might be making some sort of point, but there doesn't seem to be anything of note on the other side of it, so I am not sure what the point of increasing her separation from it it. I guess there's more of a general sense of separation? The fact that she's on the same side as the photographer teaches against that, though.
I liked the first edit better.