No title

TonyCooper

I do like to photograph people who are a bit different from everyone else walking down the street.

I've titled this "no title" because someone in another thread mentioned that they like to imagine their own story without prompting by the thread title:

Richard

This and your other similar post are nice portraits, but I think they are misplaced in this forum. They may have been walking down the street, but we don't see that and they show no interaction with the environment. Probably better to post them in People. Would you like me to move them?

bdcolen

Richard wrote:

This and your other similar post are nice portraits, but I think they are misplaced in this forum. They may have been walking down the street, but we don't see that and they show no interaction with the environment. Probably better to post them in People. Would you like me to move them?

Oh noooooo, Mr. Bill!! Please? If in fact Tony shot this as it lay, so to speak, I'd like to leave it here. No, this is not street photography. But if it is unposed, observed life, I don't think it does allot of harm for it to be here. Before I saw your comment I was going to say - this isn't street photography, but it is a very nice portrait. (Now, if it was posed, I take back everything I've written except the statement that it's a very nice portrait. )

TonyCooper

Richard wrote:

This and your other similar post are nice portraits, but I think they are misplaced in this forum. They may have been walking down the street, but we don't see that and they show no interaction with the environment. Probably better to post them in People. Would you like me to move them?

I'd rather you didn't. I've commented in a reply in the other, similar, image. Being new to "street", I'd like to better understand what is considered to be "street", and the only way to do this is read the comments.

The photograph is a candid of a person in a crowd. I chose, by camera position, to eliminate the environment because it would take away from what I wanted to capture.

bdcolen

TonyCooper wrote:

I'd rather you didn't. I've commented in a reply in the other, similar, image. Being new to "street", I'd like to better understand what is considered to be "street", and the only way to do this is read the comments.

The photograph is a candid of a person in a crowd. I chose, by camera position, to eliminate the environment because it would take away from what I wanted to capture.

But what you are chosing to eliminate is what makes it a street photo: environment. These aren't even environmental portraits, let alone street photos.

Richard

TonyCooper wrote:

I'd rather you didn't. I've commented in a reply in the other, similar, image. Being new to "street", I'd like to better understand what is considered to be "street", and the only way to do this is read the comments.

The photograph is a candid of a person in a crowd. I chose, by camera position, to eliminate the environment because it would take away from what I wanted to capture.

OK, Tony. I'd be glad to leave it as a point of discussion.

The distinction in my mind is whether you show context as well as the person. This shot only has the person and the sky. He could be walking down a street or in a desert. The only thing we know is that he's not indoors or under water. The distinction is not always clear; some very good street portraits have so much bokeh in the background that you also can't tell where the shot was taken.

In any event, I think this is a very good shot. Interesting face, great detail and good lighting to overcome the hat brim. I only suggested moving it to People because I think portraits are likely to get better appreciation and critique there, not because I want to play the bouncer who decides who gets into the disco and who doesn't.

rutt

Tony is posting here because he is trying to "crack the code" and figure out what we are about here and maybe trying to get B.D. to help him learn something. That's enough reason for an image to stay here.

rutt

And Tony, I like this one, too. It would also work especially well in the context of a documentary sequence.