truckster Loc: Tampa Bay Area

or, dog going ...

(Download)

Voss

Nice shot, T. Hope she's got a Pooper Scooper in her other hand.

IBM

Do you mean nice shot for a street photo, or for a foto in a displayed program called Street Photography , To me it's over exposed and
A overly common shot that's shot hundreds of times by tourists all over the world. Maybe I'm missing something, what am I supposed
To be looking for . Or are people just reluctant to tell the truth , for fear of hurting feelings . I'm usually going with my own thoughts as I
Do for all photos, I call them as I see them , I have seen. STREET PHOTOS THAT I THOUGHT GOOD , but sorry to say it's not this one .
I'm willing to learn . As there must be another meadeim or way of looking at at so called Street Photography

truckster Loc: Tampa Bay Area

I'm learning ... so most of my shots are just that ... shots. Overexposed. Actually I lightened it up a bit, maybe too much. Thanks for your comment it may help me on my next posting.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

You ask if you are missing something about Street Photography, and the answer is absolutely! But it is generic to all photography, not specific to Street.

You are directly equating "good art" with what you like. What you like does not define good art! Just because you like something does not make it good art, and there is no requirement that you actually like everything or even anything that is good art. That is true for everyone (just imagine a world were we all had the same likes and dislikes, there would be no variety and hence all expression would stagnate).

You have to learn what you like and specifically why you like it enjoy making art. The more a person understands themselves, as opposed to understanding art, the more they can engage with it on a personal basis.

But it is on a very different level that art itself, independent of what your personal likes are, has to be studied and understood if you want to critique the work of others, who thank goodness have different preferences than yours. A real art teacher, for example one with a Master of Fine Arts degree, may well teach how to implement a particular style or technique, but never as the sole route to "good art". It is just one of many and the real objective in teaching art is helping others learn to see when something new is indeed significant.

I would point out that in about 1911 there were 100 paintings by some unknown painter from Paris put on display in NYC, and the critics said they were trash. Not one was sold. Before being shipped back the whole lot was offered for one low price, and nobody picked it up. Those paintings today, individually, are worth hundreds of millions. The unknown painter was Pablo Picasso.

IBM

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

The only whites that are clipping (overexposed) are the tops of those tents in the background. Letting that area clip is a very reasonable personal choice because any detail there is a distraction.

I personally would have used a curves tool to change the tone mapping to be slightly darker and more contrasty for most other areas. But that is a personal preference. You have chosen a way to make it look very "sun drenched"!

The main point is that it is not correct to say that the image posted is overexposed.

IBM

If Pablo never became famous they would not be worth much today , and the way your sounding here ,there is no good or bad pictures it's all in the mind of the person viewing said picture, and I have been looking at pictures lots of them for over fifty years , and no amount training by a so called experts is going to sway me from looking at a picture that I don't care fore , and try to make me see all the lines
And all the other stuff that he says make it a piece of art , it's only there opinion and there all cut from the same mindset , you can easily taught all the fine arts degree , and what to look for , but knowing all that would as I still know what I like . I like most of Pablo paintings
But I know in a couple seconds if I like it or not ,I'm not looking at the why , and all my critic is. IMO ,

IBM

IN MY OPINION , I'LL ADD THAT FROM NOW ON ,

IBM

I looked at that dog and white tent age and, I can only , we'll you don't want to hear it. IMO

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

The point is that Picasso became famous and his "worthless trash" from 1911 is now valued at millions because it was great art in 1911. Alfred Stieglitz was the man who brought Picasso's work to America. He was not promoting it as what he liked, he said this is great art and when none of them sold he offered the entire group of paintings for less than $2000 each... saying the collection as a whole would be priceless. Stieglitz was right. He knew how to judge art.

You are still making the gross error of thinking you like all good art, and that only what you like is good art. That is logically absurd!

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Overexpossure is not a matter of opinion. It is a technical characteristic that can be measured. All whites that have a JPEG value of 255 are clipped and have no detail. All whites between about 245 and 254 will appear washed out but are not overexposed.

Again... get used to the fact that what you like is an opinion, it does not define good art. It only defines your preferences.

IBM

I still don't agree if. Picasso work was never seen before and his name was never known , but let's say all his work was pulled out of
Some ones attac, with no name or no clue what so ever of a painters name . and to make it more interesting say this person never acknowledged his finding of this art , and just proceeded to sell two a month in different countries and town. You tell me how many buyers
Do you think are going to write out thousand dollar checks , and say wow I don't know who made these, but I would have payed a million
Or five million , or ten million or much more for one of these . No I don't think he would get more than 2,3,or 4hundered for each one
Even if one of these collectors who know art ,they would not pay Any where near what there selling for today , do you think the blue genes
That are selling for $80 - $100 or more or running shoes, $150 to $250 , if there were no big name on them like Nike, Polo, Calvin cline
It's mostly in the name that people pay the big bucks for , it applies to every thing we buy perfumes, licker, even meat ,the cheapest stake
Has the same amount of protein as the most expensive cut ,weight wise . It's all in the name , even the name itself cost a fortune for some of these companies to buy and use on the net .

IBM

That is what I said , also good art as defined by some so called experts, is also there opinion, there is no good art or bad art it's how each viewer perceives it , it's like food , no expert on food can tell you what you should like , I like hot food , I eat a couple halapeenos, a week like
Most would eat apples , these art experts are far from expert, they are the same as wine snobs , who believe they can smell all the minuit
Flavors as well as taste all the fruits in wine. B.S. IMO

IBM

I believe the first group it was all worthless trash , it was just hashed over and over by a new wave of yuppie types of the day tell it became the in thing ,like just about every thing ,and it's not a gross error if I THINK! l like all good art or the other art it's my privilege of choosing and liking any
Kind of images made , it should not matter to you , who put down people who don't think like you , who died and left you in charge of telling
People what you should be taking in when viewing , you are only a thought processor like every one spewing words coming into your brain
We all carry on like that it's human nature , if it's not physically hurting any one and not braking any laws , it's all game so carry on with your
Thoughts