Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: michswiss on November 16, 2012, 06:56:01 am
-
(http://www.michswiss.com/Work-in-progress/Work-in-Progress-2010/i-zF9BNpc/0/XL/DSC00461-XL.jpg) (http://www.michswiss.com/Work-in-progress/Work-in-Progress-2010/11019108_Dkq8RK#!i=1279667653&k=zF9BNpc&lb=1&s=A)
-
It seems to me as though the curtin has just gone up and the play is under way. The bright glow from the windows gives the stage set depth and balance.
Bruce
-
Looks to me like a candidate for a Content-Aware Scaling in Photoshop. Too much empty space around the horizontal guy?
-
I love it! All these characters doing their individual things.
Somehow it reminds me of the play Zoo Story (Albee).
-
After looking at this several times, I find that a) it's an excellent photograph. Really very good. Lots to look at, lots of raised questions, and a fortuitous arrangement of objects into the bargain. b) I find the relatively high-contrast treatment you've given it a bit excessive.
The latter is a minor quibble and a matter of taste at that, and probably reflects my antiquated tastes more than anything else.
-
Sorry, Jenn, all I see is a mixed collection of hoboes doing nothing much. What did you see in this one?
-
Sorry, Jenn, all I see is a mixed collection of hoboes doing nothing much. What did you see in this one?
Aw, Russ! I guess you just don't understand "street." ;D
-
Sorry, Jenn, all I see is a mixed collection of hoboes doing nothing much. What did you see in this one?
Oh, boy! This is really getting more and more interesting.
Pass the popcorn!
-
I like it (and enjoyed perusing the other images on your page as well!). I agree with the contrast comment above, in part. I think the contrast works well on the pavement and building for texture, but feels a bit harsh on the faces/heads of the people, especially the glow on the bald guy. Adjusting brightness/contrast in targeted areas would be worth experimenting with. I like the diversity of the stories.... lots to look at.
-
Aw, Russ! I guess you just don't understand "street." ;D
Maybe not, Eric. Enlighten me. What is there about this picture that makes it "street?" I don't see a story. I don't see ambiguity. A few years ago I'd shot so many hobo pictures, and given away so many copies to the local hoboes that they started looking for me and asking me to "take my picture." But it's almost impossible to turn a hobo picture into a street photograph. Hoboes tend to be easy subjects because generally they're pretty helpless, but because there are so many people shooting hobo pictures they've become a standard cliché. Shooting hoboes is a turkey shoot.
Oh, and I agree with Slobodan. The composition leaves a great deal to be desired.
-
The pair on the left side of the frame anchors the "ambiguous" and "narrative" elements, for me. The central figure and the right side of the frame are just context, and I admit that's a lot of context for not a lot of street.
The composition feels quite nice to me. Slobodan has a point that it's a bit open, but I am ok with a lot of space in photographs. More than most people, I have noticed, I am comfortable with forms having a lot of elbow room. The geometry is not particularly strong, but I like the distribution of figures around the central group of 3 windows.
I only see one, or possibly two, hobos in here. Everyone else is, probably, waiting for a bus, or I prefer to think, waiting for something.
-
I agree that the figures are probably too contrasty. I haven't touched the original since I uploaded it a couple of year's ago.
And Eric, you're right. Russ doesn't really understand street. ;)
-
(and enjoyed perusing the other images on your page as well!)
+!
-
I agree that the figures are probably too contrasty. I haven't touched the original since I uploaded it a couple of year's ago.
And Eric, you're right. Russ doesn't really understand street. ;)
I'm mystified Jennifer. I've seen you do some really good street. I always assumed you knew what you were doing when you shot those pictures. I still think you understand the difference between good street photography and snapshots of hoboes, but if you're telling me you think this shot is good street then I have to conclude that something has clouded your judgment. Maybe it's too much time looking at garbage that fancies itself street photography on other sites.
-
I'd be interested on your definition of street. (I've seen your screed and not surprised it's failed to get published. You're angry, I get that.) I have never claimed that I follow a particular style. You're definition of street would leave it more than several decades behind. And irrelevant.
I guess I don't care. If you care to comment on my work in the future, please do it with a clean spirit. Photography should be fun.
-
I guess I don't care.
For someone who doesn't care, you sure have a lot to say - and some of it mean. On this one, I agree with Russ - the image is a mess with no saving compositional grace. It's a cheap shot of outliers, I believe you prefer to call them, as is your shot at Russ. Certainly NOT fun in my book.
Cheers.
-
For someone who doesn't care, you sure have a lot to say - and some of it mean. On this one, I agree with Russ - the image is a mess with no saving compositional grace. It's a cheap shot of outliers, I believe you prefer to call them, as is your shot at Russ. Certainly NOT fun in my book.
Cheers.
Seamus,
Russ is an angry old man. Until he decided that he knew best, I would never have added comments to one of my image posts. But, he made a decision to start belittling another person here that I hold in regard that isn't even a member of this forum. I sent multiple PMs to him suggesting he ease up, but easing up isn't in RSLs nature.
Personally, I disagree with his opinions on photography. I think his definition of street is outmoded and outdated and his attempts in the genre generally fall into the same category. You are his current pet project. I'm pretty sure it would be difficult for you to post something that he wouldn't either heap praise on or gently try to nudge you back into his world view.
This might sound mean, but it's the same ride I went on from the point I became an active poster on LuLa.
As to this shot? Oddly, it's one of the few I have in my collection that I've dropped in front of professional editors in a portfolio review. They thought it was good.
-
...it's one of the few I have in my collection that I've dropped in front of professional editors in a portfolio review. They thought it was good.
Me, too. Really good photographs ask questions. Your image is full of them.
Same thoughts on contrast, though. Small size, on-screen, it works. On print, or a bigger screen image, it is a little contrasty.
I don't think the composition is too "open". I like the separateness of the characters.
-
I don't think the composition is too "open". I like the separateness of the characters.
Everyone is on his or hers mark as the curtain goes up.
Peter
-
Russ is an angry old man. Until he decided that he knew best, I would never have added comments to one of my image posts. But, he made a decision to start belittling another person here that I hold in regard that isn't even a member of this forum. I sent multiple PMs to him suggesting he ease up, but easing up isn't in RSLs nature.
Hmmmm....Easing up doesn't seem to be in your nature either, Jennifer.If you hold Russ in such disregard, why do you bother engaging with him at all? Why give a damn what an angry old man thinks However, I seem to remember his pouring generous praise on many of your images here, so if he doesn't know what he's talking about, where does that leave the stuff of yours that he likes? According to your definition, it's crap because he doesn't know what he's talking about! And since he seems to like much of what I post here, it must mean my stuff is absolute crap as well. In that respect, you seem to agree with him because you've seldom had a good word for anything of mine.
As to the picture here, we'll have to agree to disagree. However, I'm puzzled why you feel the need to have it critiqued at all since, as you reveal, it has passed muster with all these professional editors you mention. Let me say in passing, I was an award-winning newspaper editor myself for over forty years, so I'm not exactly a babe in the woods when it comes to pictures.
As for that gratuitous remark about my being 'a pet of his'. you're absolutely right - it does sound mean. However, I'll take it on the chin and keep posting in the hope that someday, you'll see something YOU like.
Slainte, my dear.
-
I'd be interested on your definition of street. (I've seen your screed and not surprised it's failed to get published. You're angry, I get that.) I have never claimed that I follow a particular style. You're definition of street would leave it more than several decades behind. And irrelevant.
Hi Jenn, I'm not going to comment on your feelings or emotions about what you think is my "anger," but I do need to point out that definitions of art genres don't change over time. Street photography is a quite specific variety of fine art, "fine art" being defined as art created for esthetic purposes. I know that the "Documentary" web, for which you're currently moderator, thinks street photography falls within it's catch-all title. But it doesn't. Street photography was invented by people like Andre Kertesz and Henri Cartier-Bresson early last century, and it most emphatically wasn't and isn't documentary. Henri was the one who really defined it, and Henri was a Surrealist. A documentary photograph tells a story, and, to be good, tells it unambiguously. A real street photograph includes a story but poses a question and doesn't answer the question. A street photograph submitted alone as documentation for a story would be rejected out-of-hand by any sane editor. Documentary photography is supposed to answer a question, not raise a question.
From what you've said lately about street photography and photography in general I'd suggest you could profit from a study of art history and some serious reading on the history of photography. Seems to me I posted a link to my annotated bibliography on "Documentary." I think it's somewhere on LuLa too. You might want to look it up. If you can't find it I'll be happy to post it again for you.
Oh, and regarding those "screeds," (yes there are two of them on street photography and probably more to come), they'll never be published unless I send them out. In the sixties I used to write non-fiction and poetry and get quite a bit of it published, but I don't need the never-ending hassle involved in sending stuff out. Nowadays I post my screeds on the web and let it go at that. It's more fun that way.
-
Ha ha. I like this.
Russ, it has plenty of ambiguity. Yes, they may be "common" street people, which generally make for easy subject for Street photography, but they are doing some odd things, and the composition with the left looking woman and right looking man make that picture to me.
-
It's all over the place, Richard. Here's a crop that at least approximates street photography.
-
... Here's a crop...
Fantastic idea and one more reason (if we ever needed more) why we all should switch to Nikon D800: shoot once, in the approximate direction where something might be happening, and crop later to your heart's content. Create two 18 mpx shots, or three 12 mpx, or even four nine megapixel ones. Heck, with a good lens, one can achieve even five to 10 usable files. Imagine such a sales potential: press the shutter once, sell ten different images!
-
Not enough for me, SB. I want a camera with a wide enough view (and adequate resolution) so I can take ONE big shot and spend the rest of my days cropping my entire life's work out of that one shot. :D
-
You know what, Eric, I think Bernard is already living that dream of yours: stitching with D800 ;D
-
Come to think of it, I guess you're right (about Bernard).
-
I think I'm starting to understand the golden rule of street photography, only two people allowed per image.
-
Not at all, Ed. But people in a street shot should contribute to the story.