Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: RSL on February 23, 2013, 09:40:01 am
-
.
-
Not street, stairs.
Peter
-
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.
-
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.
-
RG = troll (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet))
There's a few places you haven't typed that out yet. And, you seem to be forgetting the obligatory "ROFL".
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
I'd love to see Woody try to take on Schewe some day. That would be fun to watch.
-
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.
-
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. ;D
-
I have had another look and It seems the two gentlemen may not be of a Caucasian origin, hence the underexposure?
-
Right on, Stamper. Those two guys are cadets with very black skin.
-
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
-
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.
-
C'mon guys, you surely see them for who they are: two bank robbers, one with a balaclava, the other with a gas mask ;)
-
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?
-
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? ;)
-
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 ;)
-
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.
-
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?
You mean the kindergarten fight that's going on for 2 weeks or so? Not really, au contraire I hope it's gone soon.
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.
So my attachment photo would fit this just fine?
-
I think this is a pleasing image and that it is well exposed for the largest area of the image—the white stairs. You can see detail in all of them, right down to the lowest. In my opinion, exposing for the stairs was the right call.
I don't think this image needs much detail in the dark clothing and faces but, if it does, it should be possible to get enough to satisfy.
I find the very small dark area in the top right corner out of place with the subtle tones in the major part of the image and I would clone away that area and replace it with some of the adjacent area and darken it a little.
I would also darken the hemisphere at the bottom centre to see if doing so added drama/tension to the image.
Great shot!
Roger
-
A really useful critique, Roger. Thanks. I guess I could have done this in the darkroom back in the sixties but it's a lot easier to do it now in Photoshop.