Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: drmike on July 27, 2016, 02:59:49 pm
-
This photograph by Niall McDiarmid
Young lad (http://niallmcdiarmid.tumblr.com/post/141544368745/holloway-road-london-march-2016-niall)
seems a little odd to me. It looks like the young man has been pasted in which won't be the case. I know in part it's because the background is out of focus and possibly muted but he seems to stand above the rest of the image. It's not as if his clothing is vibrant or anything. Is it just as simple as he's sharp and possibly the background has been desaturated, although I thought Niall didn't do that sort of thing?
Mike
-
Looks as if negative clarity (LR term) was used on the background.
-
Looks as if negative clarity (LR term) was used on the background.
+1. Maybe reduced contrast, saturation & negative dehaze too?
-
Uncanny valley-ish territory. IMO to the experienced eye the processing draws too much attention to itself.
-Dave-
-
I tend to agree but he does it with other shots as well where it works well but is perhaps less pronounced. I quite like most of his work which is a sweeping statement I know. I thought he was a minimal processing guy but now I can't find a reference to that.
Mike
-
Uncanny valley-ish territory. IMO to the experienced eye the processing draws too much attention to itself.
-Dave-
+1
-
Looks as if negative clarity (LR term) was used on the background.
Or a bit of Gaussian blur, or something like that.
To answer original question as I understood it: "it draws attention because lenses we have had experience with wouldn't produce this effect."
-
I think it's just a boring picture of a typical schoolboy doing not much of anything.
Why would anyone shoot it, never mind spend time playing with it? No matter how it's put through its paces in post it won't ever be, for me, anything more than that. (Not even a good 'tourist' photo. ;-) )
Rob C
-
To misquote you :) who gives a shit about the boy? It's the loony in the bus shelter who poses questions. That and I think the composition which seems good.
I doubt that you'd warm to many of his shots as they all seem quite mundane superficially. I think I'd be pleased if I could capture what he does.
Mike
-
To misquote you :) who gives a shit about the boy? It's the loony in the bus shelter who poses questions. That and I think the composition which seems good.
I doubt that you'd warm to many of his shots as they all seem quite mundane superficially. I think I'd be pleased if I could capture what he does.
Mike
-
To misquote you :) who gives a shit about the boy? It's the loony in the bus shelter who poses questions.
;D Processing aside I like the pic too. It has a stillness to it…
-Dave-
-
To misquote you :) who gives a shit about the boy? It's the loony in the bus shelter who poses questions. That and I think the composition which seems good.
I doubt that you'd warm to many of his shots as they all seem quite mundane superficially. I think I'd be pleased if I could capture what he does.
Mike
Really? Then a pìty he didn't get his focus right.
;-)
Rob C
-
I like it - particularly in the context of the project the photographer seems to be undertaking - photographing the characters on the street where he lives. Many pictures are better seen as part of a set or series - they are not as strong seen in isolation.
To me the effect just comes over a very shallow DOF - the light is very soft which contributes to the muted effect.
Jim
-
I like them as well and as you say work better as a set rather than in isolation.
-
And he gets a bit more exposure - I wonder how he managed that as I don't think he's not top tier
BBC web site which I hope works overseas (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-36941628)
-
Looking at these photos and then again at the first one of the young fellow at the bus stop, I now think the cardboard cutout effect we've commented on is due to shallow DOF combined with diffuse light rather than post work. One of the BBC pics has a similar look but (to my eyes) is clearly the result of a fast lens.
I like the photos. Nothing extraordinary but all quite good.
-Dave-
-
I think he is occasionally masterful in his use of colour and consistently not uninteresting if you take my meaning. As you say not earth shattering but consistently good. He must be a lovely guy to be able to approach such a range of people.
-
And he gets a bit more exposure - I wonder how he managed that as I don't think he's not top tier...
This phrasing (double negative) got me confused: is he top tier or not, in your opinion?
-
I think the double negative was just brain fade.
What I meant was I don't think he's considered to be top tier by those who are qualified to make these judgements. I'm sure he's not as well thought of as Martin Parr for example. Personally I think he produces some wonderful images from time to time and his body of work is wonderful.
Mike
-
A very average image in my book. Yes, the guy hiding behind his suitecase in the background adds something to the image, but it seems like random luck.
The subject would perhaps have been interesting 20 years ago, but who doesn't own a phone? Nothing special about the boy either,... There are few people walking on the sidewalks and it feels like a countryside town where not much is happening. It is hard to put a date on the image. Does that make the image interesting?
Technically this is average too IMHO. To me the car behind the boy is a no go to start with. Composition is average, tones are boring, colors aren't feeling natural nor especially attractive. The dof isn't special either, bokeh is neutral, it feels like a MF 80mm lens at f4.
I would have edited this one out at first raw selection pass without thinking twice about it.
Yet, as part of a larger body of work it may have a documentary value, but as an individual image?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I don't believe a photographer of his status albeit not the highest gets random luck. He saw that consciously or subconsciously. I agree it's far from his best but I'd love to be able to reject stuff like this :)
Mike
-
...Yet, as part of a larger body of work...
And that is what really counts in this case, the whole body of work, the concept behind.
-
And that is what really counts in this case, the whole body of work, the concept behind.
Interesting idea: so more individual mediocrity makes for a satisfying whole when seen as collected mediocrity? So fuzzy concept really does make sense after all.
Guess the art of editing is dead, old-fashioned or simply avoided. Political correctness would seem to be lurking somewhere in that spiritual mix! I always tell the majority of my pixel babies they are beautiful even as I kill them. No, that's a fib: I put them into a PS incubator and turn them into something else. I'm an old romantic: Frankenstein's creation does have charm. I firmly believe that the single great contribution of digital has been to allow me to shoot mental tannies, yet fondle them beyond the bounds of filmic decencies. Were I able to make music rather than just listen to it, I'd wax lyrical about the score and then the interpretation!
;-)
Rob
-
Interesting idea: so more individual mediocrity makes for a satisfying whole when seen as collected mediocrity? ...
Yes, Rob, the law of conversion of quantity into quality (Marx and dialectics) ;)
But seriously, that is nothing new, i.e., that subject matter dominates over medium or technique. The series is not about medium, technique or even photography, it is about fascinating samples of British characters.
You would be the first to argue that, when it comes to landscape for instance, the attraction of it often lies in God's creation itself (subject matter), rather than the photographer's creativity.
-
Yes, Rob, the law of conversion of quantity into quality (Marx and dialectics) ;)
But seriously, that is nothing new, i.e., that subject matter dominates over medium or technique. The series is not about medium, technique or even photography, it is about fascinating samples of British characters.
You would be the first to argue that, when it comes to landscape for instance, the attraction of it often lies in God's creation itself (subject matter), rather than the photographer's creativity.
Absolutely, rendering the photography, unless for some commercial purpose, next to redundant. I stopped being interested in landscape almost exactly about the time I stopped doing stock!
Such heresy aside, I do enjoy and respect a great deal of urban photography which, because of the human element, either due to its physical presence or simply by the fact of designed creation - the work of man as well as the presence of man, one might say - adds a certain interest measurable in human terms which, perhaps, literal landscape can't; could be it's simply too big for comfort.
Maybe it's just confusion over terminology, but from a photographic perspective, I'd find a lot more of interest in Rome than I do here in the tourist sticks. Yes, it's lovely up in the mountains as it is down by the sea, but lovely doesn't imply connectivity.
Rob
-
Let's chuck another one into the mix
Nice girl (http://niallmcdiarmid.tumblr.com/image/149375935135)
And she is a sweet looking girl too - agreed?
But is she the subject or is that weird yellow thing really the subject? Personally I would have lost the bus shelter but maybe he doesn't do that sort of thing. I'm thinking the yellowness of that object is a function of the way he deals with colour and nothing specific.
I like his shots of people but I quite like this too Not a person (http://niallmcdiarmid.tumblr.com/image/149700631455) as it's an interesting diversion.
-
Let's chuck another one into the mix
Nice girl (http://niallmcdiarmid.tumblr.com/image/149375935135)
And she is a sweet looking girl too - agreed?
But is she the subject or is that weird yellow thing really the subject? Personally I would have lost the bus shelter but maybe he doesn't do that sort of thing. I'm thinking the yellowness of that object is a function of the way he deals with colour and nothing specific.
I like his shots of people but I quite like this too Not a person (http://niallmcdiarmid.tumblr.com/image/149700631455) as it's an interesting diversion.
The technique - colour - reminds me of efforts to save the day when shooting models under stormy conditions that were meant to be summery ones. It happened as a result of using a low-powered Nikon A filter with Kodachrome. It didn't fool anybody - least of all me!
Rob C
-
Nice girl (http://niallmcdiarmid.tumblr.com/image/149375935135)
For me,... a boring snapshot that was fiddled via the vibrance slider. And remained boring. Just an opinion. Maybe it had a point to make?
Maybe if I got into his head-space by looking at lots of his photos I'd start to see them in some novel way?
Not a person (http://niallmcdiarmid.tumblr.com/image/149700631455)
That has some interest for me as a graphical composition.
-
I think this is a very average image in many ways
light doesn't generally fall light this in nature
burn tool to slightly darken all around the edges - with the exception of the lighter part on the ground behind the boy - this part is what feels odd to me (if any)
If you cover that lighter part of the image it doesn't have that feel.
shallow depth of field
IMHO
Best regards,
Sam