First attempts on PJ this year

travelways

I'm just wondering if these can be considered PJ or not...

#1 Ice fishing on Ottawa river



#2 Ice fishing on Ottawa river



#3 Ice fishing on Ottawa river



#4 Making snow for the winter festival



Thank you for looking.

* Sorry for the watermark - I have them stored in a gallery where the watermark is on.

michswiss

Hi Tatiana. The primary issue I have with the first three images is your distance from the subject. These are long-distance shots and I don't really have any sense of connection to what's happening. I like the composition and execution of #4, but it too is a little impersonal.

travelways

michswiss wrote:

Hi Tatiana. The primary issue I have with the first three images is your distance from the subject. These are long-distance shots and I don't really have any sense of connection to what's happening. I like the composition and execution of #4, but it too is a little impersonal.

This is what I thought too - thank you for commenting.

In the first 3 I wanted to capture the environment where the action happens because it's important for the subject of the image.

The last one, yes, it's missing some persons there - those are automatic machines...
Nobody was there around when I took it and it was so damn cold and windy, I couldn't
stay longer and wait for somebody to appear in the scene

Thank you again

TonyCooper

I've never quite been able to determine what qualifies as "Street" or "Photo Journalism" in this group. For "Street", in classifying my own photographs, I include any candid shots of strangers. Some I've submitted here have been "disqualified" because they were head shots without any surrounding context, but they still fit in "Street" by my definition since they are candid shots of non-posed strangers. YMMV.

I would use "newsworthy events" for the PJ classification, but I think the presence of people in the photo would be a requirement here. Not in general, though.

I wouldn't classify any of these photos you've submitted as Street or PJ because the people involved are not a focus of attention. As they show in the photographs, they are almost incidental. We know what's going on because they are in the picture, but the photograph are essentially landscapes. That doesn't mean that they are not good photos; it's just a classification issue.


You haven't asked for critique, but I would suggest that you consider not cropping to center quite so much. The first two are pretty much dominant element bang-in-the-middle. #2's horizon is noticeably askew.

bdcolen

photo-bug wrote:

I'm just wondering if these can be considered PJ or not...



Thank you for looking.

* Sorry for the watermark - I have them stored in a gallery where the watermark is on.

Yes, all of these could be considered photo journalism, assuming that they are being used to illustrate a story, or, with an extended caption, to tell a story. I can see the last image as a stand alone with a caption explaining what the machines are doing, and why it's being done. And I particularly like the third image, the long shot of ice fishing on the Ottawa River. The New York Times not infrequently runs shots from above like this.

Nice work.

Oh, the first two? Pretty dull.

travelways

TonyCooper wrote:

I've never quite been able to determine what qualifies as "Street" or "Photo Journalism" in this group. For "Street", in classifying my own photographs, I include any candid shots of strangers. Some I've submitted here have been "disqualified" because they were head shots without any surrounding context, but they still fit in "Street" by my definition since they are candid shots of non-posed strangers. YMMV.

I would use "newsworthy events" for the PJ classification, but I think the presence of people in the photo would be a requirement here. Not in general, though.

I wouldn't classify any of these photos you've submitted as Street or PJ because the people involved are not a focus of attention. As they show in the photographs, they are almost incidental. We know what's going on because they are in the picture, but the photograph are essentially landscapes. That doesn't mean that they are not good photos; it's just a classification issue.


You haven't asked for critique, but I would suggest that you consider not cropping to center quite so much. The first two are pretty much dominant element bang-in-the-middle. #2's horizon is noticeably askew.

Thank you. Obviously they are not street photos. They are rather documentary photos I would say - even though I don't know the definition of a documentary photo...

In case they are documentary - would be these category similar to PJ... I'm wondering

For some reason, I don't think they are too bad photos... however, again I'm wondering in what category of images would they fit, if in any... Critique - yes - critique please

OK, certainly I see that that they are not PJ - Thank you for your comments

travelways

bdcolen wrote:

Yes, all of these could be considered photo journalism, assuming that they are being used to illustrate a story, or, with an extended caption, to tell a story. I can see the last image as a stand alone with a caption explaining what the machines are doing, and why it's being done. And I particularly like the third image, the long shot of ice fishing on the Ottawa River. The New York Times not infrequently runs shots from above like this.

Nice work.

Oh, the first two? Pretty dull.

Thank you so much B.D. I agree that the first 2 a pretty dull - let's just ignore them