Waiting
Jan 14, 2016 05:57:17 #
Jan 14, 2016 07:28:44 #
fjrwillie wrote:
Does this qualify for Street Photography. C&C always welcomed.
An intriguing image. Maybe "weird" is appropriate. :-)
It is Street Photography if that is the way you choose to view it. That is how I like looking at it...
Jan 14, 2016 09:49:30 #
jim hill
Loc: Springfield, IL
fjrwillie wrote:
Does this qualify for Street Photography. C&C always welcomed.
Not in my book. This piece is further from Street than the crap I have been posting.
I don't know a lot about Street but I know what I like and this isn't in that camp. Not even close.
Critique: I don't care for the excessive vignetting of the sky. For what reason did you do that?
The placement is too obviously satisfying the rule of thirds - which I ignore at all costs. Just my thing.
The horizon is too close to the half mark.
Placing a figure on the right side of a piece with so much space on the left is antithetical to a left to right reading society sense of space. IMHO
Regards,
Jim
Jan 14, 2016 10:03:57 #
jim hill wrote:
Not in my book. This piece is further from Street ... (show quote)
Jim, did you try flipping the image? It might help you to see it in a better light.
Jan 14, 2016 10:11:51 #
jim hill wrote:
Not in my book. This piece is further from Street ... (show quote)
Poor processing on my part, not intended, will try to fix when I get home tonight. (bolded statement above)
Will take your other comments into consideration and see if it improves the presentation.
Thank you for the comments
Willie
Jan 14, 2016 10:33:29 #
AZNikon
Loc: Mesa, AZ
I would classify this more as "People".
fjrwillie wrote:
Does this qualify for Street Photography. C&C always welcomed.
Jan 14, 2016 11:02:40 #
jim hill
Loc: Springfield, IL
Graham Smith wrote:
Jim, did you try flipping the image? It might help you to see it in a better light.
Thanks, Graham. Just did as you suggest and it improves the piece quite a bit. Still don't like the vignette.
I do like the idea - now that the space is much improved with the flip. A solitary moment in what could be someone with any one of a number of human conditions contemplating whatever one might contemplate.
I will say that on first view my response was not accepting. However, as the day grows older the image sticks with me. Is that because it's terrible or because it is good? I know I've seen this kind of "good technique be damned" hanging on museum walls. Can't say what the curator of the Tate might think. If you know that person you might email him/her the image to see if there might be a response.
Jim
Jan 14, 2016 11:09:19 #
Graham Smith wrote:
Jim, did you try flipping the image? It might help you to see it in a better light.
While I can't flip it at work, I see what you mean...thanks for pointing it out. Will give it a shot when I get home
Willie
Jan 14, 2016 12:11:10 #
jim hill
Loc: Springfield, IL
fjrwillie wrote:
While I can't flip it at work, I see what you mean...thanks for pointing it out. Will give it a shot when I get home
Willie
Willie
Sorry Willie, the ultimate photo critic, a woman who knows what she likes and likes what she knows, Alice - my 2nd and 4th wife - just made up my mind for me. Her taste is impeccable.
I can't repeat what her response was when I compelled a critique from her about you attempt (which I felt was admirable) in polite society.
Just chalk it up to experience and move on.
Regards,
Jim
(Edit: I just checked you list and found quite a number of very nice images. It leads me to wonder about your reason for posting this particular image. It isn't nearly as strong as a number of your other images.
A fellow photographer based in Carmel, CA once said to me: "Most photographers don't have any idea of were file 13 is!" I think you get my point.)
Jan 14, 2016 12:27:19 #
fjrwillie wrote:
Does this qualify for Street Photography. C&C always welcomed.
I'm sorry, fjrwillie,
No, it doesn't qualify as "Street". It might fit under the rubric of "Documentary Photography", of which "Street" grew as a sub-set, but as "Street" per se it doesn't cut it. If you wish to get a feel for street photography, Google the images of Lee Friedlander and of Garry Winogrand. I recall a great show of their works (along with those of Diane Arbus) I saw at MoMA in '67. Every image by Friedlander and Winogrand in that show was of various aspects of the lives of people in an urban setting. Those two photographers were definers of what came to be called "Street" and I recall no images by either depicting people in other than an urban setting. you want to see more "street"? Google Atget,Cartier-Bresson,and Brassai.
Let's get real!
Why do you think it's called "Street"?
And why do some feel the necessity of illogically expanding the original meaning of the term to the extent that some actually wonder if a posted image of a scene in the wide embrace of nature might somehow fit the criteria for "Street"?
Dave
Jan 14, 2016 12:53:53 #
fjrwillie wrote:
Does this qualify for Street Photography. C&C always welcomed.
You ask "Does this qualify for Street Photography" I wont comment on the image in itself, only on you question.
I don't think that by any stretch of the imagination this can be classified as street photography, it fulfils none of the criteria that are used in the acceptable descriptions of the genre. If you search hard enough on the web you might find one or two people with their own agenda that might call it street but their agenda is to sell their books and to line their pockets.
Again, this is not street.
Graham
Jan 14, 2016 12:57:18 #
jim hill
Loc: Springfield, IL
Uuglypher wrote:
I'm sorry, fjrwillie, br No, it doesn't qualify as... (show quote)
Hi Dave,
Alice and I were in discussion regarding this topic yesterday. She posed the same question. I think it's and excellent one.
"Why are some trying to redefine the terms of the genre. Why are some trying to justify their 'crap' photographs (her term but with a word that begins with an "s" and has four letters ending in "t" ) by re-categorizing them into a totally subjective view presented with not the slightest interest in the beauty that photography can and should present in the various genres and each in it's own way. Nature is one thing. Streets are something else entirely. Both can and should be accomplished in as engaging a manner as possible.
To make the mistake of confusing either with the other is a disservice to both." - Alice.
From my viewpoint she is absolutely right in her assessment.
I am in agreement with her, and you.
Regards,
Jim Hill
Jan 14, 2016 13:04:50 #
jim hill wrote:
Hi Dave, br br Alice and I were in discussion reg... (show quote)
I think it might be fun to give the various genres a good shake up. We could include architectural photography in wildlife, landscape could include architectural, macro and panorama would make good bedfellows too. What a lark it would be.
Jan 14, 2016 13:07:44 #
jim hill
Loc: Springfield, IL
Graham Smith wrote:
I think it might be fun to give the various genres a good shake up. We could include architectural photography in wildlife, landscape could include architectural, macro and panorama would make good bedfellows too. What a lark it would be.
Hey Graham,
That's an excellent thought. What might we call it? I know. How 'bout PHOTOGRAPHY?
Jim
Jan 14, 2016 13:15:44 #
jim hill wrote:
Hey Graham,
That's an excellent thought. What might we call it? I know. How 'bout PHOTOGRAPHY?
Jim
That's an excellent thought. What might we call it? I know. How 'bout PHOTOGRAPHY?
Jim
I think Photography is a little too all encompassing and confusing, we might need to split it up into a number of what could be called, for want of a better word, genres, to enable people to focus on their specialities without too much overlap with other specialities.
Now all we need to do is invent a few genres, any suggestions?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.