And Then. . .

[Rob C]

Sure it is an over analyzation. 
1. Over analyzing is not wrong afterwards. 2. It doesn’t work on forehand.
The reason I over analyzed is to stop the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ discussion.

1. Not "wrong" but pointlessly too late!

2. When about to shoot, I agree with you. But because there should be reaction to whatever you see, not thought. Thought is too slow. You can think once you've found something static that you dig - hence my separate slot for street art -  but otherwise, I think you'll miss the boat.

Even with famous photographs one knows well, such as Leiter's shot from behind of the girl with the loose ponytail (Joanna, c.1947) it can come as a bit of a shock to discover the truth behind the image. I first saw the picture, untitled, online in various collections of the Leiter oeuvre; then, I bought the Steidl two-volume edition called Saul Leiter, early black and white (one book of his interior work, and the other of his outdoor photography). To some surprise, the shot is to be found in the indoor book, whereas the truth is that it's an outdoor picture. There are several such errors. But the biggie is this: having thought it to be a good representation of the decisive shot, if not moment, it turns out to be a snap of a family friend. Bang! goes the thought of a great street capture! A similar disappointment comes from other snaps of friends previously assumed to have been nothing but total strangers to the photographer.

Sometimes, too much information is destructive.

[Ivo_B]

You are trying too hard, Ivo

It is actually much harder to give negative feedback when you have a positive vibe with the person.

Yeah, that's the photo-forum, photo club syndrome.

[degrub]

When I was at Art academy, i complained why we always spent so much time discussing the crappy pictures. Why not discussing the great ones. I thought it was because breaking down shitty images is easy.
The teacher said it was the other way around. It was about finding the good elements in the crappy pictures and encourage the student to build on that.

In general, I'm not a big fan anymore of the obvious street work but I do take the time to find the strong elements (to my taste) when looking at a worthwhile image.
The example of Russ, the smoking blurred guy, The picture doesn't make me warm or cold but I admit that my first reaction was just to tease Russ, ok a bit childish, but that was the spiral we where in :-).
The image, as said does have it's own merits. And I will explain further, see picture below.

The yellow line is the main direction of the Picture's plain. the red lines are the lines that give the image dept and rhythm and the third line is the axis of the cigarette smoker. Images gain visual attraction when three lines are used to give dept and structure.
The reason I actually like the image is far away from the genre and for me the only important reason to like or dislike an image. If the scenery was of any interest, the photo would elevate above the average .

The image is actually good composed.
So, it is not so hard to give positive feedback on someones image, even if you don't have a positive vibe with the person.

Clearly the man and the doll are in their respective glass cages.
A good metaphor for much of this discussion.

[Ivo_B]

Sometimes, too much information is destructive.

Because it ruins that cosy projection, the one that gives you the warm and fuzzy feeling

[Rob C]

Back to my Academy docent. He claimed not able to project due to a kind of autism. I’m not sure if he played it or if it was genuine. I reckon the latter.
He was always hard on any work on the table and in his comments he stripped the projection from the image. That was very learning.
We had a lot of good discussions, after all, why should the ability of a viewer to project not be taken in account in the making of an image?
For me it is an extra element to play with.

You do that all the time in professional photography: you have to, or starve. The client's opinion is paymaster.

For your own personal, non-commissioned work, you have no idea who your "client" - in the sense of some eventual viewer - might turn out to be, and so you should always please the author - yourself. Trying to be all things to all men is creative suicide.

[Rob C]

Because it ruins that cosy projection, the one that gives you the warm and fuzzy feeling

Yes.

[drmike]

Over analyzing is not wrong afterwards. It doesn’t work on forehand.

So, is it the case that the successful greats have this analysis hard wired in their brain so that it is instinctive and their shots are more often well composed as well as having street characteristics?

We know that not all 'great' street shots from the past are quite what they seem but surely many are instinctive reactions to what they see - and are they just able to see faster than me?

Mike

[Ivophoto]

So, is it the case that the successful greats have this analysis hard wired in their brain so that it is instinctive and their shots are more often well composed as well as having street characteristics?

We know that not all 'great' street shots from the past are quite what they seem but surely many are instinctive reactions to what they see - and are they just able to see faster than me?

Mike

Talent is one and training the other I guess.

[Rob C]

Talent is one and training the other I guess.

Who trained HC-B? HC-B did.

;-)

[RSL]

It's been said many times on LuLa, but I'll say it again. It's like music. You either have it or you don't have it. I might add that the same thing applies to computer programming and a number of other things.

[drmike]

It's been said many times on LuLa, but I'll say it again. It's like music. You either have it or you don't have it. I might add that the same thing applies to computer programming and a number of other things.

However this is muddied as many people can attain a great degree of competence through training and application - some to the extent they'll give the best a fair run for their money. But for goodness sake don't ask me for examples!It does of course also depend on the audience.

Mike

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Who trained HC-B? HC-B did.

Nice try, Rob. HCB got a training in painting.

[Ivo_B]

It's been said many times on LuLa, but I'll say it again. It's like music. You either have it or you don't have it. I might add that the same thing applies to computer programming and a number of other things.

Having it is a condition, one of the conditions. If Bach didn't master writing music, if he didn't learn it, he would only be able to whistle his music.

And programming is a very bad example. You can't put any code together if you don't learn the syntax.

[RSL]

Not quite, Ivo. "Syntax" in code is very limited. Once you learn to deal with yes/no questions, you're in business.

[Ivo_B]

Not quite, Ivo. "Syntax" in code is very limited. Once you learn to deal with yes/no questions, you're in business.

Class based programming is really something more than yes and no and Fuzy logic even doesn't have a yes and no. Programming evolved a bit since Fortran.

[RSL]

However this is muddied as many people can attain a great degree of competence through training and application - some to the extent they'll give the best a fair run for their money. But for goodness sake don't ask me for examples!It does of course also depend on the audience.

Mike

I'll give you an example, Mike. I used to have a friend -- she actually was a friend of my wife. She was an "accomplished" pianist. She had achiever a great deal of competence through training and application, and she gave the piano a fair run for its money. But she played a lot like a player piano.

In the end, it's not a question of training, though obviously that's necessary before you can be a virtuoso. But if you don't have it; if you don't feel it, you'll be like that lady. Oscar Levant used to make mistakes when he played Gershwin, but it didn't really matter much, because the man was IN that music. His soul was in it. You could feel it.

[Ivo_B]

I'll give you an example, Mike. I used to have a friend -- she actually was a friend of my wife. She was an "accomplished" pianist. She had achiever a great deal of competence through training and application, and she gave the piano a fair run for its money. But she played a lot like a player piano.

In the end, it's not a question of training, though obviously that's necessary before you can be a virtuoso. But if you don't have it; if you don't feel it, you'll be like that lady. Oscar Levant used to make mistakes when he played Gershwin, but it didn't really matter much, because the man was IN that music. His soul was in it. You could feel it.

He didn't shake the play out of is sleeves.

[RSL]

Class based programming is really something more than yes and no and Fuzy logic even doesn't have a yes and no. Programming evolved a bit since Fortran.

So tell me how much programming you've done, Ivo, and in what languages did you do it? I don't give a damn what language you do it in, the principles always are the same. Yes the process has progressed, and we now have a lot of stuff canned in libraries that we don't have to keep re-doing. But at bottom it's still the same thing. I no longer do full-scale software engineering, but I do occasionally still do a bit of programming in C#.

[RSL]

He didn't shake the play out of is sleeves.

Can you explain what you think that means, Ivo?

[Ivo_B]

So tell me how much programming you've done, Ivo, and in what languages did you do it? I don't give a damn what language you do it in, the principles always are the same. Yes the process has progressed, and we now have a lot of stuff canned in libraries that we don't have to keep re-doing. But at bottom it's still the same thing. I no longer do full-scale software engineering, but I do occasionally still do a bit of programming in C#.

I was in a part of my industrial career a PLC programmer, Russ. I programmed Allen and Bradley's, Modicon's, Siemens and GE PLC's and others. I used Fuzzy logic in the control engineering. In fuzzy logic, things are not only true or not true, but they can be a bit true or a lot true. Modern programmable control systems don't allow to program boolean or in machine code.
At the bottom everything is the same, but if you don't understand how classes work in C, you are not going to get a snippet working. Don't tell me you had not to learn the language, at least a start of it, before you was able to code in C.