Parking Lot

Miguel Delinquento

Taken recently during a jaunt around the older part of Seattle:



Comments always welcome


M

Flyinggina

It looks like a marvelous area for photography, Michael.

This one isn't working for me though. The man, who is in focus, is too small in relation to the background which is OOF.

I don't mind that the man is looking at the camera, but there is nothing else about him to hold my attention or intrigue me.

Virginia

Miguel Delinquento

Virginia, thanks for the feedback.

M

rutt

I agree with Virginia basically.

This picture also doesn't work on an abstract level. The composition is disorganized and isn't working for you. The man is a vertical element crossed by a horizontal element, the car in back. That might work OK except for the second car in back. Also the brick rectangle adds complexity to the composition without contributing. I tried a square crop, left, and it's a big improvement. I tried B&W in order to further simplify the image by removing the distraction of that big red rectangle.

All in all, you can make it a lot easier to look at, but you can't really add interest that isn't there in the first place.

Miguel Delinquento

rutt wrote:

[deleted]
The composition is disorganized and isn't working for you.
[deleted]

Well, it isn't working for you, but for the record, it does work for me. That said Rutt, I appreciate your thoughtful criticism and the time spent working the image.

M

bdcolen

Miguel Delinquento wrote:

Well, it isn't working for you, but for the record, it does work for me. That said Rutt, I appreciate your thoughtful criticism and the time spent working the image.

M

Me, I'm intrigued by it on some level. However...why do I suspect that you've done some weird post processing? If I'm correct, would you post this in "living color?" so we can see what's really here?

Flyinggina

Miguel Delinquento wrote:

but for the record, it does work for me. M

As a fan of your photography, I would really like to see this picture through your eyes. I often find that a picture that leaves many others cold really speaks to me, whether my own or someone elses.

As for my own, it is not in the sense of holding on to something just because I shot it and wanted it to work, but because it really moves me in some way that holds up over time when the feeling associated with taking the picture has faded.

Maybe after the discussion on this one has wound down, you will share your thoughts. I personally learn from how others see. It opens my eyes, so to speak.

Virginia

Richard

bdcolen wrote:

If I'm correct, would you post this in "living color?" so we can see what's really here?

No, no, no! Don't give in to Mr. Reality here. The processing is what gives it the feeling it has. I'm not a big fan of desaturated color images, but I think this one really works well. Of course, since you're in Seattle, maybe you didn't have to desaturate it at all...just another dreary day .

Miguel Delinquento

BD,
Certainly I have added some secret sauce during the process, but what you see is what I intended. I don't burn too many brain cells within this context on determining what's "really here" or not here.

For the record, if I was in a photo-journalistic or reporting mode with a requirement to present facts, my approach would be different.

bdcolen wrote:

Me, I'm intrigued by it on some level. However...why do I suspect that you've done some weird post processing? If I'm correct, would you post this in "living color?" so we can see what's really here?

M

Miguel Delinquento

Virginia, I appreciate your continuing the discussion with thoughtful words. Perhaps one day in the not-so-distant future I can satisfy your request. As with other people, it is far easier for me to articulate the strengths, weaknesses, and assumed objectives of someone else's shot, rather than my own. It kinda takes the fun out of it.

I tend to take a three-plane approach to evaluating my own work: sometimes I like the shot the instant I capture it; other times some serendipity happens during the development and printing (my darkroom days go back 40 years so these are embedded feelings and behaviors) and I'll work it to a point of self-satisfaction; then there is, as you said, the process of something holding up over a period of time. That latter criterion is a pretty strong filter.

Ultimately, the shot is. I don't mind if other folks don't "grok" it like I do. I've seen enough work that I don't like that's been produced by friends and peers become highly regarded and profitable. It's a wonderful planet.

But I do derive lots of value from people's constructive feedback like in this thread. The benefits I think apply to future efforts (mine and others) more than anything. People seem to learn rather well via analogues. And that's why we're here. And you've said that well.

M

Flyinggina wrote:

As a fan of your photography, I would really like to see this picture through your eyes. I often find that a picture that leaves many others cold really speaks to me, whether my own or someone elses.

As for my own, it is not in the sense of holding on to something just because I shot it and wanted it to work, but because it really moves me in some way that holds up over time when the feeling associated with taking the picture has faded.

Maybe after the discussion on this one has wound down, you will share your thoughts. I personally learn from how others see. It opens my eyes, so to speak.

Virginia

Miguel Delinquento

Richard,
I often agree with you about desaturated images--they tend to call attention to themselves rather than be part of a broader image. But it's healthy to break one's own rules now and then photographically at least...

You are pretty close to the truth about Seattle/western Washington from here on out to mid-March or so. :cry That's probably why we have the largest public library usage and movie attendance in the US.

M

Richard wrote:

No, no, no! Don't give in to Mr. Reality here. The processing is what gives it the feeling it has. I'm not a big fan of desaturated color images, but I think this one really works well. Of course, since you're in Seattle, maybe you didn't have to desaturate it at all...just another dreary day .

Patti

Late to the party and a newbie but I know what I like and I like the original PP'd version of this photo very much. I like the colour and texture of the wall without distracting me from the man on the left. The plain B&W version doesn't do it for me.

I enjoyed your work on your site.

rutt

Well, you made me think about my style of critique. I watched B.D. critique in his class, and it's often pretty much like what I did with this shot. Personally, I crave blunt honest criticism. I'd rather get honest negative comments than empty praise. I've hoped that the ethos S&PJ could be more like the refinery than the people forum.

But perhaps sometimes that approach can tend to close off new ways of seeing. And I certainly don't want to discourage anyone from posting here. You have a style which might be kind of an acquired taste for me. I'll try to keep that in mind for future postings of yours. Lots of wonderful stuff on your site, particularly landscapes and cityscapes.

So I looked again, a little more carefully. Ignore the smug tone of my previous post and reconsider the square crop.

Miguel Delinquento

Thanks Patti
Thanks Patti for your kind words.

M

Patti wrote:

Late to the party and a newbie but I know what I like and I like the original PP'd version of this photo very much. I like the colour and texture of the wall without distracting me from the man on the left. The plain B&W version doesn't do it for me.

I enjoyed your work on your site.

Miguel Delinquento

Rutt,
While I'm glad this triggered some introspection, really I was fine with your critique.

My original reply was to correct what appeared to me to be a slip of the keyboard--your writing 'you' instead of 'me" I took to be just like verbal slips. Sometimes when talking to someone (arguing would probably be closer) I'll carelessly use "you" when I really intend "me" or "I."

Since we're not hanging out over a beer, I have no sense of meta-communication. So my intention was to correct one of the few factual statements in this thread about whether the shot was working and for whom. And as I said above, the value of critique for me is for the next picture.

<whew>

I don't mind straight criticism either; you've read enough of my ramblings on the Refinery to realize that I hope. I head up a working photographer group in my community and we pull off some portfolio reviews now and then. I'm lucky to count as friends and peers some highly talented and internationally recognized photographers. As with BD, I value their critique immensely.

And thanks for your kind words.

M

rutt wrote:

Well, you made me think about my style of critique. I watched B.D. critique in his class, and it's often pretty much like what I did with this shot. Personally, I crave blunt honest criticism. I'd rather get honest negative comments than empty praise. I've hoped that the ethos S&PJ could be more like the refinery than the people forum.

But perhaps sometimes that approach can tend to close off new ways of seeing. And I certainly don't want to discourage anyone from posting here. You have a style which might be kind of an acquired taste for me. I'll try to keep that in mind for future postings of yours. Lots of wonderful stuff on your site, particularly landscapes and cityscapes.

So I looked again, a little more carefully. Ignore the smug tone of my previous post and reconsider the square crop.

bdcolen

Miguel Delinquento wrote:

BD,
Certainly I have added some secret sauce during the process, but what you see is what I intended. I don't burn too many brain cells within this context on determining what's "really here" or not here.

For the record, if I was in a photo-journalistic or reporting mode with a requirement to present facts, my approach would be different.


M

Fair enough - but then you've taken what you found, and quite consciously turned it into something other than what it was, which strikes me that that you've taken a shot that clearly belongs here, and now perhaps doesn't. In fact, one might argue that you've taken a photograph and turned it into...a photo illustration. A valid art form, a valid thing to do, but not documentary photography, not photo journalism, and not street photography as its normally defined.

Miguel Delinquento

BD, if your priority here is to discuss the ontology of documentary photography, then I suggest you initiate a new thread with broader visibility and participation. You are welcome to use this image as example B.

If, however, in this thread you want to win an argument with me, then, hey, I surrender. All I desire is to show a shot and get feedback.

If this shot and the thread doesn’t belong here, please pull the strings so the mod(s) can move it elsewhere. Perhaps little of value has been communicated along the way, and I don’t want to pollute or bankrupt the ideals of this forum.

M

bdcolen wrote:

Fair enough - but then you've taken what you found, and quite consciously turned it into something other than what it was, which strikes me that that you've taken a shot that clearly belongs here, and now perhaps doesn't. In fact, one might argue that you've taken a photograph and turned it into...a photo illustration. A valid art form, a valid thing to do, but not documentary photography, not photo journalism, and not street photography as its normally defined.

Richard

Miguel Delinquento wrote:

If this shot and the thread doesn’t belong here, please pull the strings so the mod(s) can move it elsewhere. Perhaps little of value has been communicated along the way, and I don’t want to pollute or bankrupt the ideals of this forum.

M

Au contrarie, mon ami. "...street photography as it is normally defined" is simply what has gone on in the past. New ideas, new approaches and new ways of seeing are exactly what we should be encouraging here. Besides, it would appear that there is already some flexibility:




Carry on, M.

bdcolen

Miguel Delinquento wrote:

BD, if your priority here is to discuss the ontology of documentary photography, then I suggest you initiate a new thread with broader visibility and participation. You are welcome to use this image as example B.

If, however, in this thread you want to win an argument with me, then, hey, I surrender. All I desire is to show a shot and get feedback.

If this shot and the thread doesn’t belong here, please pull the strings so the mod(s) can move it elsewhere. Perhaps little of value has been communicated along the way, and I don’t want to pollute or bankrupt the ideals of this forum.

M

It does neither, and I clearly overstepped my bounds. Please accept my appology, write it off to Swine Flu, and the fact that I some times take all of this MUCH too seriously.

Flyinggina

B.D. - I hope you are referring to the fear of Swine Flu and not to the experience of having it. If the latter, get well soon. If the former, I hope you and yours remain Swine free.

Virginia

PS - Michael, thank you very, very much for letting us hijack your thread. Minds have been enlightened, ideas exchanged, perceptions altered.

I agree, however, that perhaps a new thread is where the discussion should go from here.

bdcolen

Richard wrote:

Au contrarie, mon ami. "...street photography as it is normally defined" is simply what has gone on in the past. New ideas, new approaches and new ways of seeing are exactly what we should be encouraging here. Besides, it would appear that there is already some flexibility:




Carry on, M.

Just FYI - if I can stop laughing - I believe I posted this with the line..."Street is a frame of mind, not a place" - and I actually did it to make a point. :ivar :ivar

bdcolen

Flyinggina wrote:

B.D. - I hope you are referring to the fear of Swine Flu and not to the experience of having it. If the latter, get well soon. If the former, I hope you and yours remain Swine free.

Virginia

PS - Michael, thank you very, very much for letting us hijack your thread. Minds have been enlightened, ideas exchanged, perceptions altered.

I agree, however, that perhaps a new thread is where the discussion should go from here.

Having it, unfortunately.