Lunch

dlplumer

bdcolen

dlplumer wrote:

And the point is?

Edgley

I have been working my way through all the threads in this area, and find it very confusing as to why some shots are regarded as good, and some not.

This is a classic case for me, what about this photo isn't right. I know that a photo is supposed to tell a story, but I see no less or no more with this one than many of the others that BD likes.

Could you help educate me please?

Thanks,
Simon.

dlplumer

Edgley wrote:

I have been working my way through all the threads in this area, and find it very confusing as to why some shots are regarded as good, and some not.

This is a classic case for me, what about this photo isn't right. I know that a photo is supposed to tell a story, but I see no less or no more with this one than many of the others that BD likes.

Could you help educate me please?

Thanks,
Simon.

It's all subjective. What one person likes, someone else doesn't. If he is a proclaimed expert than his opinion "must" be the "truth". I suspect for BD the lack of context is what's missing for him. And I certainly uinderstand that. But actually, the context for this particularly story is all in the face and the action. Nothing else imo is needed.:D Thanks for asking.

Edgley

Phew, as a techic at heart its sometimes hard to accept there isn't a formula somewhere that determines these things.

Normally I agree with the comments when they say one particular photo is the best, but there are quite a number of times that I think it looks like nothing more than a snapshot.

Wil Davis

An interesting discussion…

…there's a picture which often makes an appearance in the 3rd frame on the main Digital Grin header, (I'm sure you've all seen it), the one of the white bearded chap in the hat, drinking from a mug (tea, cocoa, soup, whatever…), and every time I see it I think "…bloody hell, the old chap is still working away at the damned soup or whatever…". My immediate reaction to the picture posted here was similar.

As far as the technical quality of the picture goes, for me it could do with a bit more contrast, i.e. it's a bit soft…

So, does it really need to have a point?

- Wil

baldmountain

Edgley wrote:

I have been working my way through all the threads in this area, and find it very confusing as to why some shots are regarded as good, and some not.

I think a good number of folks here look at an image an judge it purely on it's technical merits. They will discount an image right away if there are any technical flaws. They may look a little longer and see if the image fits properly into "compositions rules".

The problem with this is that many REALLY good images have major technical flaws and are compositionally bad. We are making art here. When you look at an image you need to examine the feelings, emotions and thoughts it creates in you. Does the image stretch your ethics or sense of what is right? Is it outside your comfort zone?

Edgley wrote:

This is a classic case for me, what about this photo isn't right. I know that a photo is supposed to tell a story, but I see no less or no more with this one than many of the others that BD likes.

I can't speak for BD but for me this is a technically nice snapshot. I don't know what the person eating is feeling or even if he likes his soup. I think the reason BD asks, "And the point is?", is because the image doesn't evoke anything...

Street and PJ is about creating an immersive environment where we can jump out of our normal everyday context and into the context of the photograph. If your image isn't allowing the viewer to do that, then it isn't succeeding.

bdcolen

baldmountain wrote:

I think a good number of folks here look at an image an judge it purely on it's technical merits. They will discount an image right away if there are any technical flaws. They may look a little longer and see if the image fits properly into "compositions rules".

The problem with this is that many REALLY good images have major technical flaws and are compositionally bad. We are making art here. When you look at an image you need to examine the feelings, emotions and thoughts it creates in you. Does the image stretch your ethics or sense of what is right? Is it outside your comfort zone?



I can't speak for BD but for me this is a technically nice snapshot. I don't know what the person eating is feeling or even if he likes his soup. I think the reason BD asks, "And the point is?", is because the image doesn't evoke anything...

Street and PJ is about creating an immersive environment where we can jump out of our normal everyday context and into the context of the photograph. If your image isn't allowing the viewer to do that, then it isn't succeeding.

You got my point dead on. What is the point? This is a well exposed, perfectly focused, very sharp image of a guy drinking/eating something. Homeless? Street person? Duke of Earl? I have no idea. It looks to me as though he may have a camera strap around his neck - Maybe he's a Dgrinner! It also looks to me as though this was shot with a long lens, but I may be wrong about that.

As to Wil's question - does it really need to have a point? Hell yes! Otherwise, what's the point? Seriously, what compels us to push the shutter release? Why do we want to capture a particular image? Don't we have to have a point? I.E. - 'This is the cutest little kid I've ever seen!' Or, 'This is the most glorious sunset/sunrise/moon over Miami that I've ever seen!' Or...Something. Perhaps we shoot to tell stories, or to capture beauty. We shoot for a myriad of reasons - but for a photo to be worth looking at, there has to be a reason, a story, a meaning of some sort.

True story - a few years back I was coming out of a Staples with a camera over my shoulder when I spotted a bike, in a bike rack, with great shadow on the sidewalk. I got all excited, pulled my camera up to my eye, checked the exposure, framed - and then I paused. 'Why,' I asked myself, 'am I making this exposure? Does the world need yet another image of a bike in a bike rack casting a shadow? Haven't I shot this picture 100 times? Wait! I have essentially this same picture in the 1968 George Washington University yearbook!" So I slung my camera back over my shoulder and walked away.

Now I'm not suggesting that I am right, or that I am the font of any wisdom - much less all. However - - I would suggest that every time you prepare to press the shutter release you should be asking some version of my questions. You should be asking the questions instantaneously, and subconsciously, but you should be asking them.

Finally, of course everyone is entitled to his opinion, and everyone's opinion is valid. I'm just a guy with a camera, passing through - like all the rest of you. :ivar :ivar

damonff

yes, bd, yes

Edgley

This is what is confusing me I guess.
There is another thread where the fact that we don't know what he is doing (and its up to us to figure it out) is a good thing, but, it seems to the majority, with this photo that doesn't work.

I am still at the stage where I leave my camera on high speed and try to take as many shots of what I am shooting as possible. I then find the good ones, I hope, when I get back.

I tried shooting our local high street today; what a rush! The first shots were the hardest, kept thinking I was going to get shouted out. What is worst is when one sees a shot, and wonders if one can get away with taking it. There were a couple that if the subject had changed direction I would have been caught red handed. I didn't get anything worth while but it was one hell of an experience.

There was an old lady, who looked like she was about to fall over and was looking around for someone to help her. Normally I would have gone up and given her a hand, but I found myself tucking into a corner, camera in position, ready to try and capture what happened. Didn't seem right, but did.

My last attempt was of two people exchanging directions, and I thought I got spotted. The bloke walked passed me and called out, excuse me, hold on a minute; my heart jumped into my mouth. Turns out he just wanted the other person attention as he had given wrong directions.

dlplumer

bdcolen wrote:

You got my point dead on. What is the point? This is a well exposed, perfectly focused, very sharp image of a guy drinking/eating something. Homeless? Street person? Duke of Earl? I have no idea. It looks to me as though he may have a camera strap around his neck - Maybe he's a Dgrinner! It also looks to me as though this was shot with a long lens, but I may be wrong about that.

As to Wil's question - does it really need to have a point? Hell yes! Otherwise, what's the point? Seriously, what compels us to push the shutter release? Why do we want to capture a particular image? Don't we have to have a point? I.E. - 'This is the cutest little kid I've ever seen!' Or, 'This is the most glorious sunset/sunrise/moon over Miami that I've ever seen!' Or...Something. Perhaps we shoot to tell stories, or to capture beauty. We shoot for a myriad of reasons - but for a photo to be worth looking at, there has to be a reason, a story, a meaning of some sort.

True story - a few years back I was coming out of a Staples with a camera over my shoulder when I spotted a bike, in a bike rack, with great shadow on the sidewalk. I got all excited, pulled my camera up to my eye, checked the exposure, framed - and then I paused. 'Why,' I asked myself, 'am I making this exposure? Does the world need yet another image of a bike in a bike rack casting a shadow? Haven't I shot this picture 100 times? Wait! I have essentially this same picture in the 1968 George Washington University yearbook!" So I slung my camera back over my shoulder and walked away.

Now I'm not suggesting that I am right, or that I am the font of any wisdom - much less all. However - - I would suggest that every time you prepare to press the shutter release you should be asking some version of my questions. You should be asking the questions instantaneously, and subconsciously, but you should be asking them.

Finally, of course everyone is entitled to his opinion, and everyone's opinion is valid. I'm just a guy with a camera, passing through - like all the rest of you. :ivar :ivar

Well he is not the duke of earl nor a dgrinner. It's all in the face and the action.

Mr. Quiet

dlplumer wrote:

I really like this shot. It tells many stories many different ways, for me at least.

I think that you did a great job with this picture, why? Some how I can SEE him thinking. To me it shows a quiet peace as he is heartily enjoying his meal.

bdcolen

Edgley wrote:

This is what is confusing me I guess.... There is another thread where the fact that we don't know what he is doing (and its up to us to figure it out) is a good thing, but, it seems to the majority, with this photo that doesn't work.


I am still at the stage where I leave my camera on high speed and try to take as many shots of what I am shooting as possible. I then find the good ones, I hope, when I get back.

First....Yes, ambiguity is one of the main features of good street photography. But I don't see anything in this photo that makes me care about what it is or isn't about. it's a guy eating/drinking something. So? Nothing in the image raises questions for me. It strikes me that it is what is is, and what it is isn't much. Sorry.

----

As to your comment about firing off a burst and then going home to see what you got...That's not photography, that's the visual version of giving 100 monkeys typewriters and figuring that one will type Romeo and Juliet. Turn off the high speed and put it on single frame, unless you're shooting high speed action. You decide what to shoot. You decide when to shoot. It's the only way you'll improve. Seriously.

I highly recommend the documentary War Photographer, for anyone who's interested in photo journalism or documentary photography. It's an Academy Award nominated look at the work of James Nachtwey, who is generally regarded as the greatest living war photographer. Watch the film carefully, and you will see that there are only one or two scenes in the entire documentary when Nachtwey holds down the shutter release to fire a burst of exposures. Every other time, even if he's shooting multiple images, he is taking single shots by depressing the shutter release repeatedly. He is making the choices, he isn't just throwing the processor at a scene. And, btw, you'll see he uses a handheld incident meter.

Edgley

I know that taking loads of shots is cheating, but I seem to find the one I want isn't the one I meant to take but the one a couple of frames before / after. I think that it also comes down to subject. I guess I even suffer the same problem with choosing a lens, so I end up with my 18-200 most of the time, but I do go out with different ones, and only one just for the challenge.

Until finding this area most of the time I end up shooting the same things, finding new targets is hard. Like you mentioned with the bike casting a shadow, however, I am still at the stage that I will take the shot. I presume the true art is finding a shot anywhere anytime, but I find that hard, no make that impossible.

Although when I was out yesterday I missed a perfect opportunity, there had been an accident and the husband consoling the wife would have made a great shot, if I had a camera, and the balls to take it

bdcolen

Edgley wrote:

Although when I was out yesterday I missed a perfect opportunity, there had been an accident and the husband consoling the wife would have made a great shot, if I had a camera, and the balls to take it

Bingo! And bingo! NO camera, no photo!:ivar :ivar

baldmountain

bdcolen wrote:

I highly recommend the documentary War Photographer, for anyone who's interested in photo journalism or documentary photography. It's an Academy Award nominated look at the work of James Nachtwey, who is generally regarded as the greatest living war photographer.

I watched this last night and found it a bit disappointing. Watching I got the feeling that there was an unspoken agreement between Mr Nachtwey and his subjects that he can take pictures and they would perform for them. Kind of a "nudge, nudge, wink, wink, know what I mean?" situation.

He does take some tough pictures though.

Maybe that is part of getting good street/PJ images. Being able to get others to perform for you while you take pictures. Rather than taking creepy stalker photos.