Sold Out

TonyCooper

He seems to have sold out of whatever he was selling from his truck, but is quite content to just sit there, sip his drink, and watch traffic.

sara505

TonyCooper wrote:

He seems to have sold out of whatever he was selling from his truck, but is quite content to just sit there, sip his drink, and watch traffic.

I like this shot, but would have preferred knowing nothing about it, left wondering.
I have come to believe that a good photo needs no introduction.
I do like it. I find it a bit humorous.

Wineman

He just does not want to go back to the wife!!! ...

I like the shot, thanks for sharing.

Z.

bfjr

Wineman wrote:

He just does not want to go back to the wife!!! ...

I like the shot, thanks for sharing.

Z.

Maybe she's the one that put em there, I mean I'm just sayin

bdcolen

sara505 wrote:

I like this shot, but would have preferred knowing nothing about it, left wondering.
I have come to believe that a good photo needs no introduction.
I do like it. I find it a bit humorous.

BINGO! I love this shot. It is just plain WEIRD - and weird is wonderful! However, when I start to read the explanation, the photo fails. Okay, where's the road? Where's the rest of the story?

IF this was supposed to show that he has sold all his goods and is watching the traffic goes by, it's an abject failure. However, if this is just an observed moment, it's a truly wonderful image. I'd like to believe that it's the latter.

TonyCooper

bdcolen wrote:

BINGO! I love this shot. It is just plain WEIRD - and weird is wonderful! However, when I start to read the explanation, the photo fails. Okay, where's the road? Where's the rest of the story?

IF this was supposed to show that he has sold all his goods and is watching the traffic goes by, it's an abject failure. However, if this is just an observed moment, it's a truly wonderful image. I'd like to believe that it's the latter.

I wouldn't know how to have taken the shot to conform to telling the full story. To get the road in, I would have to have pulled back to the point where the man's details were obscure. To show that he had sold all his goods I would have had to have been there earlier in the day and taken before and after shots.

My "explanation" was clearly stated as conjecture. I saw the shot, took the picture, and then conjectured that he had sold out of whatever he had in the first place and conjectured that he was content to remain seated and watch traffic.

bdcolen

TonyCooper wrote:

I wouldn't know how to have taken the shot to conform to telling the full story. To get the road in, I would have to have pulled back to the point where the man's details were obscure. To show that he had sold all his goods I would have had to have been there earlier in the day and taken before and after shots.

My "explanation" was clearly stated as conjecture. I saw the shot, took the picture, and then conjectured that he had sold out of whatever he had in the first place and conjectured that he was content to remain seated and watch traffic.

Well, there are two alternatives here:
The first was to use a wide lens and shoot relatively close, so that we could see the subject but also get some road and setting, if that's what you wanted to show. I may be wrong, but I get the feeling that you do allot of 'sniping' with a long lens. I'd get closer with a shorter lens.

The other, very easy solution, is to skip the story. Just post the image. Give it a title if you want to, but make the title ambiguous. "Truckin'" maybe? The great thing about this photo is what I referred to earlier as its weirdness, its ambiguity. What is going on here? Let us guess.

TonyCooper

bdcolen wrote:

Well, there are two alternatives here:
The first was to use a wide lens and shoot relatively close, so that we could see the subject but also get some road and setting, if that's what you wanted to show. I may be wrong, but I get the feeling that you do allot of 'sniping' with a long lens. I'd get closer with a shorter lens.

The other, very easy solution, is to skip the story. Just post the image. Give it a title if you want to, but make the title ambiguous. "Truckin'" maybe? The great thing about this photo is what I referred to earlier as its weirdness, its ambiguity. What is going on here? Let us guess.

Dead on. I use my 55/200 90% of the time. In this case, it was a divided highway and I shot from the opposite side. The truck was well back from the highway.

Not making excuses, but I'm uncomfortable shooting up close to people.
It seems intrusive to me. It might result in better pictures, but - then - I'd take fewer pictures because of my hesitancy of getting close. I don't like to be noticed by the subject.

I've had other comments about thread titles leading people, and seen comments on other people's work on this. Being more ambiguous in titles is a good suggestion.

bdcolen

TonyCooper wrote:

Dead on. I use my 55/200 90% of the time. In this case, it was a divided highway and I shot from the opposite side. The truck was well back from the highway.

Not making excuses, but I'm uncomfortable shooting up close to people.
It seems intrusive to me. It might result in better pictures, but - then - I'd take fewer pictures because of my hesitancy of getting close. I don't like to be noticed by the subject.

I've had other comments about thread titles leading people, and seen comments on other people's work on this. Being more ambiguous in titles is a good suggestion.

Allow me to make a suggestion - try to push past that discomfort. Seriously. It is something we all wrestle with - I know I do. It is perhaps the greatest challenge facing someone attempting to do street photography. But if you can force yourself to do it, you may find yourself getting more comfortable with it. (If you don't, you don't, and it's hardly the end of the world.) But when you stop and think about it, shooting someone from across the highway with a big honking 200 mm lens is no less invasive/intrusive that shooting them from three feet with a 28. In fact, it might be argued its more intrusive philosophically/ethically because its secretive.