A Few Images For Consideration

bdcolen

Four street photos...C&C of course welcome.

tortillatorture

i have to love the "sex and the city" shot... i dont even mind the mirror at right,
you could of course crop a bit here and crop a bit there and i would love Jessica a bit sharper... but still... nice capture.

of the other 3 pictures i like the nr1 most, not in the mood for nitpicking today...

Qarik

lovely set BD.

thoth

I must say that I find myself too far away from the action in all of these shots B.D. I think the subjects are great but they all feel underplayed to me. Perhaps this was your intent, though?

The first, I think, is the strongest image and best use of the frame. I feel like daddy might be walking in just out of view.

bdcolen

thoth wrote:

I must say that I find myself too far away from the action in all of these shots B.D. I think the subjects are great but they all feel underplayed to me. Perhaps this was your intent, though?

It was in the first three. I wanted the beach space - by the way, that was shot with a 35 or 28 - I don't recall precisely which - so I was actually pretty close. The kids on the sidewalk I wanted everything that's on the right side of the frame, including the lettering that reads Beau Brummel. And the SJP shot is a "drive by shooting."

heatherfeather

I love #2... The composition and the space really draw my eyes in. I especially love the little guy getting such a kick out of petting the dog. It feels like these kids are at home in this place even if it isn't made for them. They are comfortable and at ease, and 2 of them are not even aware of you. I think this is perhaps my favorite of all I have seen of your work, BD.

thoth

bdcolen wrote:

It was in the first three. I wanted the beach space - by the way, that was shot with a 35 or 28 - I don't recall precisely which - so I was actually pretty close. The kids on the sidewalk I wanted everything that's on the right side of the frame, including the lettering that reads Beau Brummel. And the SJP shot is a "drive by shooting."

I suspected that might be the case. Out of curiosity (I don't want to spark another photo manipulation debate), do you do any cropping in PP when the work is for your own sake? I would assume that shooting for a particular client might require it, but how about when it's just for you?

bdcolen

thoth wrote:

I suspected that might be the case. Out of curiosity (I don't want to spark another photo manipulation debate), do you do any cropping in PP when the work is for your own sake? I would assume that shooting for a particular client might require it, but how about when it's just for you?

---

That's really not a manipulation question - cropping was a standard darkroom tool, and the general rule is what you could do -without standing on your head - in a darkroom, is okay in PS - burning, dodging, cropping, contrast adjustment, and sharpening.

Back to the question - yes, I will crop some times if I screwed up and cropping can give me the image I was trying for. My goal is to crop with the viewfinder, but...

If you're thinking about the sideview mirror - I wouldn't want it cropped out; it's part of the image, providing some context.

bdcolen

heatherfeather wrote:

I love #2... The composition and the space really draw my eyes in. I especially love the little guy getting such a kick out of petting the dog. It feels like these kids are at home in this place even if it isn't made for them. They are comfortable and at ease, and 2 of them are not even aware of you. I think this is perhaps my favorite of all I have seen of your work, BD.

Thanks.

Swartzy

Street photography is it's own artform for certain. I realize many are drawn to it but at times I personally don't get it....that makes it neither right nor wrong....just something that is ellusive to my eye. The first is fine, in focus, sharp and good comp...but...it's simply a mom and daughter looking out the window with clutter in front on the chair in front of them. Guess we can call this an environmental portrait. The 3rd does nothing...simply a snapshot on the beach. The 4th is intreging. This is a very nice shot. People about with a focal point of the girl on the cell phone. The lighting equipment makes one wonder if this is a recess between takes on a movie set. Lots of questions come to mind when viewing this photo. This is well done.

#2...again..kids playing with a dog..black and white with grain...a street snapshot....of course, like I say, art appeals to many different types of people. My son in law paints some bizzare stuff....to some, it isn't bizzare at all. It's hard to use the proper vernacular to describe what hits home and what doesn't. In any case, that's just my 2 cents but it's obvious you love this type of shooting and that's what is most important.

Not trying to ruffle feathers.

thoth

bdcolen wrote:

That's really not a manipulation question - cropping was a standard darkroom tool, and the general rule is what you could do -without standing on your head - in a darkroom, is okay in PS - burning, dodging, cropping, contrast adjustment, and sharpening.

Back to the question - yes, I will crop some times if I screwed up and cropping can give me the image I was trying for. My goal is to crop with the viewfinder, but...

Thanks for the clarification. It's always interesting to know how much, or how little, one does to their own work.

bdcolen wrote:

If you're thinking about the sideview mirror - I wouldn't want it cropped out; it's part of the image, providing some context.

No, not at all. I was just using the opportunity to get to know your technique a bit more. I did see a crop on the last image, when I suggested feeling removed from the subject. But I saw it as square and retaining the full width but then that wouldn't be your shot would it?

bdcolen

Swartzy wrote:

Street photography is it's own artform for certain. I realize many are drawn to it but at times I personally don't get it....that makes it neither right nor wrong....just something that is ellusive to my eye. The first is fine, in focus, sharp and good comp...but...it's simply a mom and daughter looking out the window with clutter in front on the chair in front of them. Guess we can call this an environmental portrait.

Oh? What are they looking at? What has the little girl so intrigued? What is outside the window?

The 3rd does nothing...simply a snapshot on the beach.

Hmmmm. What is this group of guys, dressed more for the street than the beach, doing there? What has drawn the attention of the guy on the left, and the young man in the center near the water. What is this scene about? (besides color, as it is obviously about color per se.)

And what makes something a "snap shot?" That it is not posed? That it is not composed according to a set of rules?

The 4th is intreging. This is a very nice shot. People about with a focal point of the girl on the cell phone. The lighting equipment makes one wonder if this is a recess between takes on a movie set. Lots of questions come to mind when viewing this photo. This is well done.

The "girl on the cell phone" is Sarah Jessica Parker," during a Sex and the City taping. But take some time and study the image, look at the various elements in in. She's not the only one on the phone. Are the two people talking to each other? Is each completely isolated, in his and her own little world, but in public and just a few feet from a colleague who is also isolated?

#2...again..kids playing with a dog..black and white with grain...a street snapshot....of course, like I say, art appeals to many different types of people. My son in law paints some bizzare stuff....to some, it isn't bizzare at all. It's hard to use the proper vernacular to describe what hits home and what doesn't. In any case, that's just my 2 cents but it's obvious you love this type of shooting and that's what is most important.

Not trying to ruffle feathers.

Not ruffling feathers at all - What caught my eye first was the kids - with that big honker dog - not what you usually see on a New York street. And then the informality of the kids, and their clothing, caused me to notice the store window, with its formal outfits, and the name of the store.

Street photography? Yes. But "street photography" isn't slang for "snapshot," it's an aesthetic. And I would be willing to bet that not liking it you are in the vast majority.

Do you know who the world's most successful photographer is - based on books sold, posters, calendars, etc.? (At least this was true a few years back)....Anne Gedes - the Australian woman who photographs babies as vegetables. Go figure. Of course the world's most successful "artist" is Thomas Kinkade, the "painter of light."

bdcolen

thoth wrote:

Thanks for the clarification. It's always interesting to know how much, or how little, one does to their own work.


No, not at all. I was just using the opportunity to get to know your technique a bit more. I did see a crop on the last image, when I suggested feeling removed from the subject. But I saw it as square and retaining the full width but then that wouldn't be your shot would it?

If I did that it wouldn't be the first time I did a square crop. I like squares, having shot quite a bit of 120 film. I do sometimes shoot thinking of square when I do.

thoth

bdcolen wrote:

If I did that it wouldn't be the first time I did a square crop. I like squares, having shot quite a bit of 120 film. I do sometimes shoot thinking of square when I do.

I like square a lot. It's my hammer and all the world's a nail so half of what I see is square. I really have to force myself not to crop everything to death.