Art: our mods here are hard workers, tireless and do thankless work for nothing other than the joy of helping to maintain order in this place.
never said anything different......I said by confering with the OP it shows repect for the fact that an OP Kknows and understands exactly why they posted where they did and also how they do their post.....
They always try to do the right thing and they should always notify if a thread is moved. But they do not need to seek permission to do so. by the same token they need to put post back if asked to by the op and not argue with I thought it would get better exposure here.....most posters post in a specific section for a specific reason .......as I stated in my other post it is simply a matter of respect for the intellingence of an original poster to know and understand why and where they place their posts.....
You're entitled to your opinion of course, but I am explaining how things are done.
yes I am entitled to my opinion and so are you....on that we agree....I guess......as far as how things are done.....maybe they need some bugs worked out....you know tweeking..............
all comments are above in ARIAL BLACK...........others do it and they do not change the font, maybe they do not know how, other just use italics and it is left alone..........it is just telling me that my style is wrong in photography......it is a personal style and it is not wrong!!!!!
I do not have the time to try and break down each post I post inside of...it is a time thing...........I guess if I hit reply with quote and it automatically broke down the post then I would do it............
Art,
I asked you nicely. In the future I will delete posts in which you misuse quotes like this.
"First, street photography is, by and large, people photography - Yes, there are some street images where the urban landscape is the subject. But by and large, street photography is candid photography of people in a public environment; it's more about an ethos, a look, a feel, than it is about urban or 'street' per se.
Second, there is so little candid photography in "People" that allowing it in here is hardly going to turn this into "People." A candid captured moment at a kitchen table is a lot closer to "street photography" than it is to what's in the "People" forum. And, let's not forget that "documentary" is supposed to be included in here, and what is that but candid photography, usually of people?"
I'm not really sure what's at the heart of this to do, but it strikes me that there's too much back and forth over semantics. I'd suggest:
If we want to know what "photo journalism" is, open, or go to the website of, your daily newspaper. or Time, or Newsweek. If you do that, the answer will be pretty obvious: photo journalism is the long-time companion of written journalism. It is the reporting of news with photographs, or the illustrating of written news stories. It also includes free-standing images, used by newspapers and magazines to draw readers and fill space. Usually, those free-standing photos tell stories all by themselves - the kid bobbing for apples and the fall festival; the gorgeous sunset yesterday after a week of storms. And so on;
Street photography? Go look at the work of Gary Winnogrand, Lee Friedlander, Weegee, Helen Levitt, that of any number of photographers who shot and/or shoot in public places, usually urban, but sometimes in rural or suburban settings - or in malls - capturing images that often juxtapose conflicting elements, images that tell stories, images that are very often shockingly ambiguous, that are sometimes humors, that provide us with a tiny slice of the human condition. Street photography is NOT photography of streets;
Documentary photography? Go look at the work of Eugene Richards, Mary Ellen Mark, Susan Meiselas, Larry Towel, or any number of photographers who tell stories with photos, usual for magazine or book display - or now, on the web. Usually these projects are long term, are removed from the pressures of daily journalism. The emphasis may be on the story, or it may be on the photography. As with street photography, there is often a heavy emphasis on the photography itself - on the individual vision of the photographer.
What do all three types of photography have in common? They are all forms of candid photography. Tina is absolutely right that a well framed, interesting photo of a child eating dinner at the kitchen table belongs in a forum of street, pj, and documentary photography. So do wedding photos that try to capture the reality of the wedding - which is, after all and above all, a social event, a family gathering, food for an anthropologist or a documentary photographer.
And all of the above argues for being more, rather than less inclusive in this forum. I once again urge us to invite to this spot those people who are, above all, working to capture reality - as they find it, where they find it, how they find it. Without post processing it into something it's not.
Even though I don't often shoot images that should fit in here, I'd like to offer something that I've stated before (in other sections) that might be of some help.
I think having several categories to dgrin (forums) is great, and I think that most photogs gravitate to the ones that have interest to them without wasting their time looking through a mired of post that have no interest to them.
What I do see lacking, and what I read/hear as being an issue, is that a photog post an image in a forum and gets either little to no response, or responses that were no where close to what the OP was trying to achieve.
I think that falls squarely on us, the original poster.
My suggestion is: When you post an image to a forum and want C&C, state what your intentions were for the image. This allows the other members to get a grasp on your intentions, and that allows members to give feedback that fits the goals of the OP's image.
This would probably seem awkward at first, but after a while would help resolve some of these issues that exist in all of the forums.
When you post an image to a forum and want C&C, state what your intentions were for the image.
I agree. The posts I have had the best response to are ones where I have asked a specific question or come back with follow up questions. It is up to the OP to start the discussion. When I haven't done that, I am looking for an unfiltered response to a photo.
The posts I most enjoy are the ones where the discussion centers on what works or doesn't work in the image. The more specific, the better.
On how this forum is working, I really like having it separate. I am more interested in street and candids than portraiture. And the feedback here is specific to what I am interested in. So I say, it is working great!
I'd rather not know and would prefer to experience the image on it's own. It either works or it doesn't. If it needs explaining, it isn't working.
Once a discussion starts the artist can then describe what he was trying to do if it looks like people are seeing it in a way he didn't intend.
Precisely! If you have to tell us what you were going for - you didn't get there. But then, of course, we can discuss what you might have done better to get there.
Up to this point I've basically put up pics taken quite a while ago. I am so busy with the horses that I hardly have time to do some of this stuff. But what I realize after this new separate forum was started is how much I do like doing it. I'll get time in the next two months I'm sure.
I plan to just take the grip off one of my cameras, put on an old prime 28mm, and sit on a street bench relaxing with a cup of coffee. Let the action come to me for a while, move to another bench for a while. Mostly what I like is the relaxing nature of this stuff... Just... got... to.... make..... time......
Precisely! If you have to tell us what you were going for - you didn't get there. But then, of course, we can discuss what you might have done better to get there.
With all due respect BD, you do have a pretty narrow vision for how images should look. I was also referring to the other forums, that have a larger "umbrella" of image types.
I see it all the time; someone post an image & gets comments that aren't even in the direction that the OP intended, much later acknowledged by the OP. All that input was then a waste of everyones time and energy & not many will then come back and give input toward the "intent" the image was meant for.
I don't think an image should have to be explained either, but I'm talking about requested feedback for improvement, to help the photographer, not the responder, with their image goals.
With all due respect BD, you do have a pretty narrow vision for how images should look. I was also referring to the other forums, that have a larger "umbrella" of image types.
I see it all the time; someone post an image & gets comments that aren't even in the direction that the OP intended, much later acknowledged by the OP. All that input was then a waste of everyones time and energy & not many will then come back and give input toward the "intent" the image was meant for.
I don't think an image should have to be explained either, but I'm talking about requested feedback for improvement, to help the photographer, not the responder, with their image goals.
Just trying to offer some constructive input.
Have a good day
I think you're not giving credit to the "scatter knowledge" that occurs when something may veer away from the OP, and that benefits more than the OP. I know because I have benefited from it.
This is a PJ thread and I believe its normal to have some text with an image (title, location, time or other factor); it adds dimension and viewing pleasure. Even with landscape; location is freely given and rarely if ever criticized.
I think the thread is fine the way it is ... so far. (of course there should be more color..:D)
I think you're not giving credit to the "scatter knowledge" that occurs when something may veer away from the OP, and that benefits more than the OP. I know because I have benefited from it...
Not at all ~ If that's what the OP wants, then just post-it-up. But, if they are going for something specific and request C&C, then IMHO, the OP should state their goal up front. Then, input should be inline toward that goal.
Not at all ~ If that's what the OP wants, then just post-it-up. But, if they are going for something specific and request C&C, then IMHO, the OP should state their goal up front. Then, input should be inline toward that goal.
YMMV
Sure, if someone wants specific help with something, they should ask for it. If this was a forum for posed shots, and someone wanted to know if their peers thought their lighting set up worked, or what they could do to improve the set up, or wanted to know what people thought about their post processing, that would make sense. But particularly if what we're discussing is street photography, the image should speak for itself. If it doesn't, it's not successful. There is, of course, value in discussing why it's not successful. But no amount of prior discussion of intent inserts into an image what is not in the image for the viewer.
Sure, if someone wants specific help with something, they should ask for it. If this was a forum for posed shots, and someone wanted to know if their peers thought their lighting set up worked, or what they could do to improve the set up, or wanted to know what people thought about their post processing, that would make sense. But particularly if what we're discussing is street photography, the image should speak for itself. If it doesn't, it's not successful. There is, of course, value in discussing why it's not successful. But no amount of prior discussion of intent inserts into an image what is not in the image for the viewer.
I agree with you BD.
I did read through all of this post and you were talking about your hopes of expanding it to "Candid Photography" which is a lot broader than just Street Photography. Hence, my suggestion here.
Also, a recent posting here is exactly what I was referring: Someone posted an image of a glove, with an explanation that he was trying out some new conversion software. Paraphrasing, you stated that the image didn't do much for you, but you liked the conversion. Mission accomplished, simple and direct.
While SP or PJ is not my bag, I do appreciate good photography. I browse here every once in a while to see some of the excellent work that gets posted here.
Thanks for taking the time to respond. Keep up the good work
I think this forum is great. I haven't participated much because I have been out gathering material for another "journeys" forum magnum opus for the past six weeks, but (despite the fact that I have usually posted over there) I imagine I'll be mostly posting over here. Because here is the sort of thing I like to see and do.
I think this forum is great. I haven't participated much because I have been out gathering material for another "journeys" forum magnum opus for the past six weeks, but (despite the fact that I have usually posted over there) I imagine I'll be mostly posting over here. Because here is the sort of thing I like to see and do.
thumb Yay. Come on over to the dark side!!
Virginia
_______________________________________________ "A photograph is a secret about a secret. The more it tells you, the less you know." Diane Arbus
...a recent posting here is exactly what I was referring: Someone posted an image of a glove, with an explanation that he was trying out some new conversion software...
IMHO a perfect example of "what the heck is that doing in this forum?"
We've had a few early deep breaths, but the patient lives. In fact, I really feel the bar being lifted in terms of quality and objective. Seriously. My photography needs to improve dramatically and what I'm seeing in this forum will drive me.
We've had a few early deep breaths, but the patient lives. In fact, I really feel the bar being lifted in terms of quality and objective. Seriously. My photography needs to improve dramatically and what I'm seeing in this forum will drive me.
I agree with this, but really it's "B.D.'s forum." Not called that, but that's what's driving it. But fine. It's working. We are lucky to have it.
I agree with this, but really it's "B.D.'s forum."
It may feel like that now, since it's so small, but I certainly hope that it doesn't stay that way. As much as I appreciate B.D.'s input here, I'm hoping that he's not the nucleus of this forum, but a nice addition. Like Marc in Landscapes. He's the AIR there, but with so much activity over there, it's certainly not "his forum." It's much more diverse than that. This forum should be, too. And not calling it B.D.'s forum is a good start towards that end.
It may feel like that now, since it's so small, but I certainly hope that it doesn't stay that way. As much as I appreciate B.D.'s input here, I'm hoping that he's not the nucleus of this forum, but a nice addition. Like Marc in Landscapes. He's the AIR there, but with so much activity over there, it's certainly not "his forum." It's much more diverse than that. This forum should be, too. And not calling it B.D.'s forum is a good start towards that end.
Make sense?
I don't think it should be called B.D.'s Forum. But People is a large and diverse forum and he was the AIR there. Somehow you didn't feel the need to split Cityscapes off from Landscapes.
And partly I'm trying to goad B.D. into frequenting People and Weddings. Why post ballet and wedding pictures here, B.D.?
I don't think this is at all just BD's forum, and with all due respect to BD, I don't think he's the air in here either. BD is but one experienced contributor amongst a growing number with a clear voice. Just within a week I feel that this forum has gained contributors who have a strong clear viewpoint to add. Maybe there wasn't a need to split this out from People, but I know that at least for me, I really had little interest in popping into People but on rare occassions.
I think this section will only grow in strength from here on..
I really agree with Richard that discussions of how to organize dgrin are much less interesting than discussions of photography. But I can't help myself. I keep thinking about this.
So here is a very modest suggestion. A more descriptive subtitle for this forum. Instead of "Go Play in Traffic", what about something like "Cartier-Bresson, Weegee, Bruce Davidson, & you". Pick your photographers. But it's really about a tradition and giving a few names helps define it. "Go Play in Traffic" is funny enough, but really doesn't help us define what we are about.
I agree with this, but really it's "B.D.'s forum." Not called that, but that's what's driving it. But fine. It's working. We are lucky to have it.
I think it's unfair to say that. There are multiple AIRs on DGrin and they each have their own "forum". It doesn't mean it's not our forum as well. As with any DGrin member, I'm sure B. D. checks out the other forums on occasion.
I might be totally out of line with this idea, but wouldn't it be a good start to have two sub-forums one labled "Street" and one labled "PJ" so the viewer knows what the intent of the original OP is to begin with?
We have already seen occassions where the viewer does not know the intent of the photographer and assumes it is one or the other.
Hey MakeMeShutter. I don't think confusion exists between Street, PJ or Doco, rather when something is more about the individual (ie. a portrait) than the situation. But again, I think this will settle out on it's own. There are distinctly different styles, both photographic and critique wise, beginning to evolve between People and Street.
. A more descriptive subtitle for this forum. Instead of "Go Play in Traffic", what about something like "Cartier-Bresson, Weegee, Bruce Davidson, & you". Pick your photographers. But it's really about a tradition and giving a few names helps define it. "Go Play in Traffic" is funny enough, but really doesn't help us define what we are about.
Huh? Who are those people? and I'm really not interested in knowing.
I just take pictures and want to improve my images and be entertained by images by others. I'll find my own own way, blundering thru these forums without being intellectual.
PJ & street are terms that a broad base knows and is supported by thread titles in other forums
Huh? Who are those people? and I'm really not interested in knowing.
I just take pictures and want to improve my images and be entertained by images by others. I'll find my own own way, blundering thru these forums without being intellectual.
PJ & street are terms that a broad base knows and is supported by thread titles in other forums
It may have warts but I think it's working fine
The best way to learn photography and improve your images is to look at photographs. If you don't know who those photographers are, you should at least Google them. You might learn something!
Comments
Agreed. I'm grateful for this, thanks!
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Thanx
Art,
I asked you nicely. In the future I will delete posts in which you misuse quotes like this.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
Thank you, Tina!
I'm not really sure what's at the heart of this to do, but it strikes me that there's too much back and forth over semantics. I'd suggest:
If we want to know what "photo journalism" is, open, or go to the website of, your daily newspaper. or Time, or Newsweek. If you do that, the answer will be pretty obvious: photo journalism is the long-time companion of written journalism. It is the reporting of news with photographs, or the illustrating of written news stories. It also includes free-standing images, used by newspapers and magazines to draw readers and fill space. Usually, those free-standing photos tell stories all by themselves - the kid bobbing for apples and the fall festival; the gorgeous sunset yesterday after a week of storms. And so on;
Street photography? Go look at the work of Gary Winnogrand, Lee Friedlander, Weegee, Helen Levitt, that of any number of photographers who shot and/or shoot in public places, usually urban, but sometimes in rural or suburban settings - or in malls - capturing images that often juxtapose conflicting elements, images that tell stories, images that are very often shockingly ambiguous, that are sometimes humors, that provide us with a tiny slice of the human condition. Street photography is NOT photography of streets;
Documentary photography? Go look at the work of Eugene Richards, Mary Ellen Mark, Susan Meiselas, Larry Towel, or any number of photographers who tell stories with photos, usual for magazine or book display - or now, on the web. Usually these projects are long term, are removed from the pressures of daily journalism. The emphasis may be on the story, or it may be on the photography. As with street photography, there is often a heavy emphasis on the photography itself - on the individual vision of the photographer.
What do all three types of photography have in common? They are all forms of candid photography. Tina is absolutely right that a well framed, interesting photo of a child eating dinner at the kitchen table belongs in a forum of street, pj, and documentary photography. So do wedding photos that try to capture the reality of the wedding - which is, after all and above all, a social event, a family gathering, food for an anthropologist or a documentary photographer.
And all of the above argues for being more, rather than less inclusive in this forum. I once again urge us to invite to this spot those people who are, above all, working to capture reality - as they find it, where they find it, how they find it. Without post processing it into something it's not.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
Perhaps it should be extracted (perhaps lightly edited to make a standalone post?) and stickied?
I think having several categories to dgrin (forums) is great, and I think that most photogs gravitate to the ones that have interest to them without wasting their time looking through a mired of post that have no interest to them.
What I do see lacking, and what I read/hear as being an issue, is that a photog post an image in a forum and gets either little to no response, or responses that were no where close to what the OP was trying to achieve.
I think that falls squarely on us, the original poster.
My suggestion is: When you post an image to a forum and want C&C, state what your intentions were for the image. This allows the other members to get a grasp on your intentions, and that allows members to give feedback that fits the goals of the OP's image.
This would probably seem awkward at first, but after a while would help resolve some of these issues that exist in all of the forums.
I agree. The posts I have had the best response to are ones where I have asked a specific question or come back with follow up questions. It is up to the OP to start the discussion. When I haven't done that, I am looking for an unfiltered response to a photo.
The posts I most enjoy are the ones where the discussion centers on what works or doesn't work in the image. The more specific, the better.
On how this forum is working, I really like having it separate. I am more interested in street and candids than portraiture. And the feedback here is specific to what I am interested in. So I say, it is working great!
I'd rather not know and would prefer to experience the image on it's own. It either works or it doesn't. If it needs explaining, it isn't working.
Once a discussion starts the artist can then describe what he was trying to do if it looks like people are seeing it in a way he didn't intend.
Precisely! If you have to tell us what you were going for - you didn't get there. But then, of course, we can discuss what you might have done better to get there.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
I plan to just take the grip off one of my cameras, put on an old prime 28mm, and sit on a street bench relaxing with a cup of coffee. Let the action come to me for a while, move to another bench for a while. Mostly what I like is the relaxing nature of this stuff... Just... got... to.... make..... time......
www.HoofClix.com / Personal Facebook / Facebook Page
and I do believe its true.. that there are roads left in both of our shoes..
With all due respect BD, you do have a pretty narrow vision for how images should look. I was also referring to the other forums, that have a larger "umbrella" of image types.
I see it all the time; someone post an image & gets comments that aren't even in the direction that the OP intended, much later acknowledged by the OP. All that input was then a waste of everyones time and energy & not many will then come back and give input toward the "intent" the image was meant for.
I don't think an image should have to be explained either, but I'm talking about requested feedback for improvement, to help the photographer, not the responder, with their image goals.
Just trying to offer some constructive input.
Have a good day
I think you're not giving credit to the "scatter knowledge" that occurs when something may veer away from the OP, and that benefits more than the OP. I know because I have benefited from it.
This is a PJ thread and I believe its normal to have some text with an image (title, location, time or other factor); it adds dimension and viewing pleasure. Even with landscape; location is freely given and rarely if ever criticized.
I think the thread is fine the way it is ... so far. (of course there should be more color..:D)
my .02
Not at all ~ If that's what the OP wants, then just post-it-up. But, if they are going for something specific and request C&C, then IMHO, the OP should state their goal up front. Then, input should be inline toward that goal.
YMMV
Sure, if someone wants specific help with something, they should ask for it. If this was a forum for posed shots, and someone wanted to know if their peers thought their lighting set up worked, or what they could do to improve the set up, or wanted to know what people thought about their post processing, that would make sense. But particularly if what we're discussing is street photography, the image should speak for itself. If it doesn't, it's not successful. There is, of course, value in discussing why it's not successful. But no amount of prior discussion of intent inserts into an image what is not in the image for the viewer.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
I agree with you BD.
I did read through all of this post and you were talking about your hopes of expanding it to "Candid Photography" which is a lot broader than just Street Photography. Hence, my suggestion here.
Also, a recent posting here is exactly what I was referring: Someone posted an image of a glove, with an explanation that he was trying out some new conversion software. Paraphrasing, you stated that the image didn't do much for you, but you liked the conversion. Mission accomplished, simple and direct.
While SP or PJ is not my bag, I do appreciate good photography. I browse here every once in a while to see some of the excellent work that gets posted here.
Thanks for taking the time to respond. Keep up the good work
Virginia
"A photograph is a secret about a secret. The more it tells you, the less you know." Diane Arbus
Email
IMHO a perfect example of "what the heck is that doing in this forum?"
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
I agree with this, but really it's "B.D.'s forum." Not called that, but that's what's driving it. But fine. It's working. We are lucky to have it.
It may feel like that now, since it's so small, but I certainly hope that it doesn't stay that way. As much as I appreciate B.D.'s input here, I'm hoping that he's not the nucleus of this forum, but a nice addition. Like Marc in Landscapes. He's the AIR there, but with so much activity over there, it's certainly not "his forum." It's much more diverse than that. This forum should be, too. And not calling it B.D.'s forum is a good start towards that end.
Make sense?
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
I don't think it should be called B.D.'s Forum. But People is a large and diverse forum and he was the AIR there. Somehow you didn't feel the need to split Cityscapes off from Landscapes.
And partly I'm trying to goad B.D. into frequenting People and Weddings. Why post ballet and wedding pictures here, B.D.?
I'm just saying.
And as I said, I'm happy enough the way it is.
I think this section will only grow in strength from here on..
www.HoofClix.com / Personal Facebook / Facebook Page
and I do believe its true.. that there are roads left in both of our shoes..
So here is a very modest suggestion. A more descriptive subtitle for this forum. Instead of "Go Play in Traffic", what about something like "Cartier-Bresson, Weegee, Bruce Davidson, & you". Pick your photographers. But it's really about a tradition and giving a few names helps define it. "Go Play in Traffic" is funny enough, but really doesn't help us define what we are about.
I think it's unfair to say that. There are multiple AIRs on DGrin and they each have their own "forum". It doesn't mean it's not our forum as well. As with any DGrin member, I'm sure B. D. checks out the other forums on occasion.
Where would Documentary fit?
Tina
www.tinamanley.com
www.tinamanley.com
Hey MakeMeShutter. I don't think confusion exists between Street, PJ or Doco, rather when something is more about the individual (ie. a portrait) than the situation. But again, I think this will settle out on it's own. There are distinctly different styles, both photographic and critique wise, beginning to evolve between People and Street.
No need to divide further.
Huh? Who are those people? and I'm really not interested in knowing.
I just take pictures and want to improve my images and be entertained by images by others. I'll find my own own way, blundering thru these forums without being intellectual.
PJ & street are terms that a broad base knows and is supported by thread titles in other forums
It may have warts but I think it's working fine
The best way to learn photography and improve your images is to look at photographs. If you don't know who those photographers are, you should at least Google them. You might learn something!
Tina
www.tinamanley.com
www.tinamanley.com
www.HoofClix.com / Personal Facebook / Facebook Page
and I do believe its true.. that there are roads left in both of our shoes..