Railbirds

TonyCooper

And here's what they're watching

bdcolen

TonyCooper wrote:

And here's what they're watching

Just suppose you had shot the second like this, and focused not on the dogs, but on your rail birds...

TonyCooper

bdcolen wrote:

Just suppose you had shot the second like this, and focused not on the dogs, but on your rail birds...

You've cropped out the "story", BD. What makes the dogs run?

thoth

TonyCooper wrote:

You've cropped out the "story", BD. What makes the dogs run?

I don't think the story is about what is making the dogs run. This photo is either about the railbirds, as your title suggests, or it's a sports shot. If it's about the railbirds then B.D.'s suggestion would go a long way toward bringing the subject into focus.

bdcolen

TonyCooper wrote:

You've cropped out the "story", BD. What makes the dogs run?

Sorry, Tony - I know that racing dogs chase a mechanical 'rabbit,' but I had to go back and look at the image to figure out what you were talking about. I'm guessing that 'thing' is the mechanical 'rabbit, but it doesn't change the image for me.

met

What's interesting is that at first viewing I didn't even notice what was in the bottom right hand corner until B.D. cropped it out. It was only after I read the comments that I had to scroll back up and see what was there. However, now that it was brought to my attention - that is the first thing my eye goes to and I find it rather distracting. I personally prefer the crop.

rainbow

Looking at the second photo, it looks like you can get a top half and a bottom half crop out of it.

Looks like the kangaroo in the back can't keep up with the dogs...

TonyCooper

met wrote:

What's interesting is that at first viewing I didn't even notice what was in the bottom right hand corner until B.D. cropped it out. It was only after I read the comments that I had to scroll back up and see what was there. However, now that it was brought to my attention - that is the first thing my eye goes to and I find it rather distracting. I personally prefer the crop.

I was going to let this discussion slide, but there have been more replies so I'll dig in. The top photo was the "Railbird" shot. The bottom photo was there only to explain what the railbirds were watching. I shouldn't have included it.

I'm surprised at BJ's crop. To me, it's a poorly composed photo that features neither the dogs nor the spectators. The rabbit (called "Swifty" at the track) is part of the "environment" that is touted as necessary in a photo.

If I'm going to photograph the dogs, then I want to be in tight on the dogs but let you know what they're chasing. Like this:


If I'm going to photograph spectators, I'll get tighter on them as here:

thoth

TonyCooper wrote:

I was going to let this discussion slide, but there have been more replies so I'll dig in. The top photo was the "Railbird" shot. The bottom photo was there only to explain what the railbirds were watching. I shouldn't have included it.

I'm surprised at BJ's crop. To me, it's a poorly composed photo that features neither the dogs nor the spectators. The rabbit (called "Swifty" at the track) is part of the "environment" that is touted as necessary in a photo.

If I'm going to photograph the dogs, then I want to be in tight on the dogs but let you know what they're chasing. Like this:
...snip...

If I'm going to photograph spectators, I'll get tighter on them as here:
...snip...

I think the problem here is how the photo was represented. Honestly, photo number one was just not a good photo. Yes it makes use of some formal compositional rules but does that really make a difference?

That leaves photo number two to carry the weight of the thread and, as it stood, it was not a strong street, pj or documentary photo. B.D.'s crop brought the people, who should typically be the primary subject of a photo in this forum, closer and trimmed off those elements that were not necessary to tell the story. Was "Swifty" necessary to demonstrate that these people are watching the dogs racing? Can you even tell it's a rabbit being chased by the dogs? I don't think so and agree that it was a wise choice to trim it off.

I know you are making a point with the last set of photos but I don't think that point is relevant to this discussion. This is a forum about people. The dog photo is a sports photo about dogs (a nice one I might add). The second is, indeed, about people but does it say anything about dog racing? There is a very subtle hint in the crib sheets the men are holding but I seriously doubt the average viewer would make that reference. So, as an attempt to associate those men with the track, I think it fails.

I think B.D.'s crop, though it is perhaps not compositionally perfect (and I doubt he meant for it to be as he was just providing a bit of guidance), is a very good nudge in the right direction. It makes clear those elements, in as minimal a way as possible, necessary to tell the story of the patrons at the racetrack. If that was not the intent of your images perhaps they are better suited in a category intended for sports?

Azzaro

Hi Tony........I don't have street shooting figured out yet..... But that close up dog shot ...... IS GOOD..... azzaro

TonyCooper

>

thoth wrote:

I think the problem here is how the photo was >represented. Honestly, photo number one was just not a good >photo. Yes it makes use of some formal compositional rules but >does that really make a difference?

I agree. I like the composition but I should have used a smaller f/stop to get the dogs on the track more in focus, and waited for a shot where the dogs were more visible.

I went looking for this shot, by the way. I had just made a comment in another forum that you rarely ("rarely", not never) can get an interesting shot that shows only the back of people. I thought of the railbird concept and stopped by the track.

>That leaves photo number two to carry the weight of the thread and, >as it stood, it was not a strong street, pj or documentary photo.

Again, I agree. I should not have included it, but I did because I thought some people would not understand the first picture was at a dog track.

>The second is, indeed, about people but does it say anything about >dog racing? There is a very subtle hint in the crib sheets the men >are holding but I seriously doubt the average viewer would make >that reference. So, as an attempt to associate those men with the >track, I think it fails.

I see your point, but - to me - those are clearly racing programs and there's a clear association with a track. But, then, I'm familiar with race tracks. (I never bet. I'm there because it's a rich area for photo subjects)

thoth

TonyCooper wrote:

I see your point, but - to me - those are clearly racing programs and there's a clear association with a track. But, then, I'm familiar with race tracks. (I never bet. I'm there because it's a rich area for photo subjects)

I recognized them immediately as an Aunt I spent summers with as a child was an avid horse racing fan. We'd go on rainy days when we couldn't work (they owned a waterslide) and she taught me all the tips and tricks for picking the winners. I'd be interested in knowing how many people knew what the men were holding in the shot.

black mamba

OK, I'll incriminate myself. I knew excatly what the guys were holding. Been there, done that.

Tom

bdcolen

TonyCooper wrote:

I was going to let this discussion slide, but there have been more replies so I'll dig in. The top photo was the "Railbird" shot. The bottom photo was there only to explain what the railbirds were watching. I shouldn't have included it.

I'm surprised at BJ's crop. To me, it's a poorly composed photo that features neither the dogs nor the spectators. The rabbit (called "Swifty" at the track) is part of the "environment" that is touted as necessary in a photo.

If I'm going to photograph the dogs, then I want to be in tight on the dogs but let you know what they're chasing. Like this:

Well, here's the problem, Tony. First, you said it was about raibirds. But what kind of 'railbirds?' Where? Why? Wazup? Were they watching a RAIN road train? It just didn't much work. Then you presented a shot of dogs - with some sort of raggy thing somewhere floating in the picture - and that had the railbirds in it. So I was suggesting a way to get an interesting railbirds shot, actually showing us what they were watching - but excuuuuuuse me.

Your photo with the bunny in the foreground is an excellent sports photo of racing dogs. Doesn't have a damn thing to do with street photography, but it is a terrific photo of racing dogs. And I can really see what the bunny is and get the idea that the dogs are chasing it. Nice sports photo.

Wil Davis

The crop makes it neither the one thing nor the other…

…but in this:

TonyCooper wrote:

snip…
Like this:


…snip

…had the wabbit been in sharp focus, and the doggies oof, then it would have been masterful

So, do you have a version like that, or are you going to have to do it again?

Nice pics!

- Wil

bdcolen

Wil Davis wrote:

The crop makes it neither the one thing nor the other…

…but in this:


…had the wabbit been in sharp focus, and the doggies oof, then it would have been masterful

So, do you have a version like that, or are you going to have to do it again?

Nice pics!

- Wil

If by "the crop" Wil, you mean my suggested crop, the idea was to indicate how it could have been shot - with the focus on the railbirds.

Wil Davis

bdcolen wrote:

If by "the crop" Wil, you mean my suggested crop, the idea was to indicate how it could have been shot - with the focus on the railbirds.

Fine, but in fact the "railbirds" were not really in focus, so I didn't immediately understand your point; IMNSHO your crop didn't improve the shot…

- Wil

PS: Just re-read you comment and see that you'd already mentioned the focus (sorry, my bad!)