Silver

TonyCooper

leaforte

Cool shot!

DigitalMom

Great shot!! He looks like he had a fun time in the sixties lol

bfjr

I like it and I remember the sixtys !!

Wil Davis

Great shot, man…

bfjr wrote:

I like it and I remember the sixtys !!

…but how does the saying go?

"If you can remember the sixties…"



- Wil

black mamba

Terrific shot, Tony. Absolutely terrific.

Tom

michswiss

It's a pretty good conversion and you hopefully weren't in your car when you took it, but this isn't doing anything for me. Who's he reacting to? Is he looking at someone or just tripping again after so many decades.

TonyCooper

michswiss wrote:

It's a pretty good conversion and you hopefully weren't in your car when you took it, but this isn't doing anything for me. Who's he reacting to? Is he looking at someone or just tripping again after so many decades.

This post brings up the dilemma in choosing a thread title and deciding whether or not to add explanatory comment to a photograph.

The man pictured is a flea market vendor. Choosing "Silver seller at the flea market" as a title might result in someone saying "Don't tell me about the photo. Let the photo tell the story".

Why did I not show who he was reacting to? Well, I've been encouraged to get up close so I used only my 18/55 lens that day (focal length was 50mm on this one). The wide shot, which would include customers at his stall, wouldn't be shooting up close.

In fact, though, he wasn't reacting to anyone. No customer in front of him, and he seemed lost in contemplation. Can't put that kind of explanatory comment in the post, though, since the advice given has been "Let the photo tell the story".

michswiss

Nothing wrong with the title. So I guess he was just tripping.

B.D. added a variation of a quote from Robert Capa to one of my recent posts.

Yes, it's true, it's important to get close, and you get points for being close. But let's remember the expression is "If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough," it's not "Your pictures aren't good if you're not close."
Big difference.

Big difference indeed. Context adds a lot to a photograph. Get close, but don't forget to take a great shot.

I don't think I'd take this sort of shot any more unless I could get into an interesting position to challenge expectations: Behind him, looking up or down or just out; Make the empty space he might be staring into the subject.

So much for me to learn.

TonyCooper

michswiss wrote:

Nothing wrong with the title. So I guess he was just tripping.

B.D. added a variation of a quote from Robert Capa to one of my recent posts.



Big difference indeed. Context adds a lot to a photograph. Get close, but don't forget to take a great shot.

I don't think I'd take this sort of shot any more unless I could get into an interesting position to challenge expectations: Behind him, looking up or down or just out; Make the empty space he might be staring into the subject.

So much for me to learn.

I don't really understand that last bit of advice. I'd appreciate some expansion on that. The vendor is the subject of the photo, and the surrounding display of his wares tells what he does. How can shooting from behind him accomplish this? In a photo of his back, he'd no longer be the subject; he'd be peripheral to the scene. The wares he's selling are not an interesting subject for this forum.

From the back, the interesting shot would be if there was a customer in the booth that was a better subject. That factor wasn't present.

I'm also confused about how empty space can be more of the subject. In this photo, he is staring into empty space, but the empty space is incorporated into the scene.

I don't mind at all that the photo doesn't do anything for you. I'm just struggling with what you are suggesting that might work to make it more interesting.

I post in this forum to see how others see my photographs and to learn from their comments. To learn, though, I have to be able to understand their suggestions.

michswiss

The way I'd attempt to describe my advice is that there's a difference between an anchor in an image and the image's subject. In this case, your vendor would be the anchor. But his implied view of his surroundings is the subject. By looking into him, you've taken away what might be occupying his attention.

Maybe another way to say it is that your shots are mostly First Person images. This is your eye looking into a scene. I'm suggesting that you explore second or third person imagery.

ETA: I don't have good control of my own taxonomy or vocabulary yet, so take everything with a grain of salt.

rutt

Tony, relax and have a little more fun. I know you are getting a lot of advice and trying to take it in all at once, and, believe me, I know how frustrating this is.

Look at the stuff you posted when you first started to visit this forum and compare to your recent attempts. I like the more recent stuff a lot more! It seems you are getting something out of the feedback.

So, my advice, take in the feedback, but don't whip yourself with it. The goalposts for great photography are way out there. None of us is even remotely close to being a finished photographer in the tradition of this genre. We give and accept blunt critique here knowing that we all have a lot to learn.

TonyCooper

rutt wrote:

Tony, relax and have a little more fun. I know you are getting a lot of advice and trying to take it in all at once, and, believe me, I know how frustrating this is.

Look at the stuff you posted when you first started to visit this forum and compare to your recent attempts. I like the more recent stuff a lot more! It seems you are getting something out of the feedback.

So, my advice, take in the feedback, but don't whip yourself with it. The goalposts for great photography are way out there. None of us is even remotely close to being a finished photographer in the tradition of this genre. We give and accept blunt critique here knowing that we all have a lot to learn.

Thanks, but you have no idea of how much fun I'm really having. I enjoy photography immensely, and I'm out looking for shots four or five days a week. The photography is fun, but understanding the comments is often very puzzling. I see a suggestion to not shoot the subject head-on, and then I see that same photographer posting head-on shots.

While I do try to adopt the suggestions, what I like in this genre is capturing the person as the main subject, and capturing that person unaware of being photographed. I think more "candid" than I do "street" (if labels work).