Four from NYC

bdcolen

lizzard_nyc

I like the additions B.D.
#4 is my favorite of the bunch. I like that you can see just a bit of the woman's hand as she pushes and mimick's the little girls reaction, plus the conversion is stellar.

I also like the boys is #3 and the woman looking directly at you.

#2 made me laugh when I first looked at it, and it still makes me chuckle now.

#1 is the only one that doesnt' work for me.

bdcolen

Thanks, Liz. Red's not your thing, eh? :-)

rainbow

An interesting set of photos and day in the Big Apple. The first caught my interest because of the guy's posture. It is almost as if he is stooping so that the kid doesn't have to reach so high to hold hands. (BTW, after reading your response to Liz, it surfaced above the barely aware stage that this was a color post from you with the three red shirts.

#2 -- I still cannot figure out where you are standing when taking this shot. What structure is across the bottom of the frame? And it is a somewhat bizarre shot...

#3 -- Are the kids fitting their necks between bars like those on the side? Reminds me of a "Leave it to Beaver" where the Beave got his head stuck in a similar looking fence.

#4 -- I hope that is a look of elation and not "Get me out of this!"

misterb

Nice and sharp.. film or digital?

bdcolen

rainbow wrote: »

An interesting set of photos and day in the Big Apple. The first caught my interest because of the guy's posture. It is almost as if he is stooping so that the kid doesn't have to reach so high to hold hands. (BTW, after reading your response to Liz, it surfaced above the barely aware stage that this was a color post from you with the three red shirts.

#2 -- I still cannot figure out where you are standing when taking this shot. What structure is across the bottom of the frame? And it is a somewhat bizarre shot...

#3 -- Are the kids fitting their necks between bars like those on the side? Reminds me of a "Leave it to Beaver" where the Beave got his head stuck in a similar looking fence.

#4 -- I hope that is a look of elation and not "Get me out of this!"

Interesting that the color didn't strike you. I'll have to convert it and see what it looks like
#2 I stepped out of my car, stood up, and shot over the roof of the car toward the bus stop
#3 - ! No, just leaning over.
#4 - Blissed out - I think.

bdcolen

misterb wrote: »

Nice and sharp.. film or digital?

I'm going to be honest and rude here. I don't know about other people, but "nice and sharp?" Who cares? If the images speak to you for one reason or another - including hating them for some reason, by all means comment. But "nice and sharp?" Come on. Why comment? Seriously. Some of the best, iconic images ever produced are not "sharp," certainly by today's standards. So what does "sharp" mean? Film or digital? Digital. But so what? Images aren't about sharp or not sharp, film or digital, this camera or that camera; they're about the subject, the composition, and how they do or don't provoke you, inspire you, make you laugh, make you cry, make you gag, or otherwise trigger something in you that might be called a 'reaction.'

michswiss

For me the original two images are probably the stronger, if not the most straight forward. But none of them really captivate me nor give me a sense of place. Not your best set.

bdcolen

michswiss wrote: »

For me the original two images are probably the stronger, if not the most straight forward. But none of them really captivate me nor give me a sense of place. Not your best set.

Fair enough.:D

misterb

bdcolen wrote: »

I'm going to be honest and rude here. I don't know about other people, but "nice and sharp?" Who cares? If the images speak to you for one reason or another - including hating them for some reason, by all means comment. But "nice and sharp?" Come on. Why comment? Seriously. Some of the best, iconic images ever produced are not "sharp," certainly by today's standards. So what does "sharp" mean? Film or digital? Digital. But so what? Images aren't about sharp or not sharp, film or digital, this camera or that camera; they're about the subject, the composition, and how they do or don't provoke you, inspire you, make you laugh, make you cry, make you gag, or otherwise trigger something in you that might be called a 'reaction.'

When I look at an image, I go through several stages of evaluation- regardless if the photographer is a neophyte or a dinosaur.

1) Is it processed nicely?

2) Is it sharp and crisp?

3) Is it composed nicely?

4) Does it tell a story, or invite my dwelling on it for an extended period?

5) If it merited a long look, is it outstanding or average.

6) If outstanding- why? And is it awesome because of what convention or idiosyncratic component?

Sooooo... with that said, you never made it past #2.

My curiosity about film or digital was just that- a curiosity on what equipment you used. Your signature line is not informative as to that rather simple fact.

I found your reply to my post dripping with sarcasm.. click here!

Qarik

misterb wrote: »

When I look at an image, I go through several stages of evaluation- regardless if the photographer is a neophyte or a dinosaur.

1) Is it processed nicely?

2) Is it sharp and crisp?

3) Is it composed nicely?

4) Does it tell a story, or invite my dwelling on it for an extended period?

5) If it merited a long look, is it outstanding or average.

6) If outstanding- why? And is it awesome because of what convention or idiosyncratic component?

Sooooo... with that said, you never made it past #2.

My curiosity about film or digital was just that- a curiosity on what equipment you used. Your signature line is not informative as to that rather simple fact.

I found your reply to my post dripping with sarcasm.. click here!

That's an odd way to look at photos. You choose to to gate a photo by processing and sharpness 1st?

Richard

Qarik wrote: »

That's an odd way to look at photos. You choose to to gate a photo by processing and sharpness 1st?

I would guess that's not what misterb does at all. Most people react instantaneously and intuitively to a work of art and either like it or not. There may come a later, analytical phase in which they try to pick apart the components to understand and possibly justify their reaction, but that is after the fact. The criteria he lists are part of this second phase. While any of those criteria may matter, I think it's a mistake to think that they all matter in every photo.

bdcolen

misterb wrote: »

When I look at an image, I go through several stages of evaluation- regardless if the photographer is a neophyte or a dinosaur.

1) Is it processed nicely?

2) Is it sharp and crisp?

3) Is it composed nicely?

4) Does it tell a story, or invite my dwelling on it for an extended period?

5) If it merited a long look, is it outstanding or average.

6) If outstanding- why? And is it awesome because of what convention or idiosyncratic component?

Sooooo... with that said, you never made it past #2.

My curiosity about film or digital was just that- a curiosity on what equipment you used. Your signature line is not informative as to that rather simple fact.

I found your reply to my post dripping with sarcasm.. click here!

Indeed it was. And I feel the same way about this list, because you begin by listing the things that should be at the bottom of the list. Is it processed nicely? Is it sharp and crisp? Perhaps these are the first questions asked in the average camera club evaluation, but I can tell you that, for starters, Henri Cartier-Bresson would flunk your test for many of his most iconic images. How about - does it grab me? If it doesn't, everything else is utterly irrelevant. Who cares is an image is sharp and well processed if there's nothing there? It's meaningless.
Composition? Yes, it's important because how you put the image together has to do with whether it captures and hold's the viewer.

I'd then suggest that if it merits a long look, and some thought and consideration, it's not "average," because the average photo doesn't merit more than a passing glance - there are too damn many photos out there to waste time on the average.

And, no, my signature does not tell you what kind of equipment I use or whether I shoot film or digital - most of the time I shoot digital. You may consider what equipment was used a "basic fact," important for some reason, but I'd point out that most books of photographs, and most exhibitions of photographs, never mention what camera or cameras were used - unless the photographer's work is sponsored by a particular camera manufacturer, and then what the mention amounts to is not neutral information, but an 'ad.' One can produce world class images with a Holga, and complete crap with a $12k worth of Leica equipment. While there is no question that certain cameras and lenses are better in some situations than other camera-lens combinations, when all is said and done there are only three pieces of equipment that really matter - the photographer's eyes and brains. (And by the way, I, like you, mostly use Olympus equipment - because Olympus gave me equipment. I previously shot, at various times, with Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Leica, and Rollei film equipment, most recently using Nikon F100s and Leica M6s.)

Finally, if you didn't like the images - and obviously you didn't - that's fine. But then why bother to comment about the "sharpness?" Just ignore the images you don't like. Quite frankly, I few a comment of "that's sharp" as being just as sarcastic as my response. I'd much rather you say 'this sucks because...' That would give me something to thing about and respond to.

Quincy T

I really think #1 is excellent, B.D. I always like to see a nice solid frame, and what does it better than a building entrance?! lol Oddly enough, this picture makes me think about so many different situations. It's almost like the child is stumbling out of the bar with his father the next morning. Obviously not the case, and probably not what you were going for, but I find it strangely hilarious. Probably just going for a surprise bathroom visit.

I would love to see it in black and white!

TheCheesehead

Love NYC shots, nice set. Was this in the Bowery? Kind of looks familiar.

misterb

Cartier-Bresson exclusively used Leica 35 mm rangefinder cameras equipped with normal 50 mm lenses or occasionally a wide-angle for landscapes. He often wrapped black tape around the camera's chrome body to make it less conspicuous. With fast black and white films and sharp lenses, he was able to photograph almost by stealth to capture the events.

Sounds like a guy I would like.. black & white films and SHARP lens.

Actually- I went through his stuff.. nice but not earthshaking to me.

bdcolen

TheCheesehead wrote: »

Love NYC shots, nice set. Was this in the Bowery? Kind of looks familiar.

Wrong borough - Brooklyn actually.

bdcolen

misterb wrote: »

Cartier-Bresson exclusively used Leica 35 mm rangefinder cameras equipped with normal 50 mm lenses or occasionally a wide-angle for landscapes. He often wrapped black tape around the camera's chrome body to make it less conspicuous. With fast black and white films and sharp lenses, he was able to photograph almost by stealth to capture the events.
Sounds like a guy I would like.. black & white films and SHARP lens.
Actually- I went through his stuff.. nice but not earthshaking to me.
[

"...and SHARP lens."
Actually, for most of the decades he shot those Leica lenses, and most others, were pretty much the equivalent of Coke bottle bottoms - nowhere near as sharp as the average crappy digicam kit lens. Today's aspheric Leica lenses, and the last generations of the non-aspherics are and were razor blades, but not the lenses used by the masters during the golden age of 35 mm photography.''

"I went through his stuff.. nice but not earthshaking to me."

Not surprising.

bdcolen

Kilroy NYC wrote: »

Number 4 would have been nice if:

1) That arm wasn't present -or-

2) A tighter zoom on the kids face.

The others are just lifeless and boring.

I agree with your second comment, and wish I had gotten closer, but only if I could have keptthe arm - which is an integral part of the image, both helping to frame the child, and providing information about what was happening - or injecting a touch of mystery into the image.

As to the third comment:
First, to each his own. Second, most of life is "lifeless and boring." What what I try to do as a photographer is capture those "lifeless and boring" moments that we usually fail to "see" because they are so much a part of every day life, and, hopefully, capture them in graphically interesting ways. Perhaps I failed at the second part with those images.

InsuredDisaster

bdcolen wrote: »

What what I try to do as a photographer is capture those "lifeless and boring" moments that we usually fail to "see" because they are so much a part of every day life, and, hopefully, capture them in graphically interesting ways. Perhaps I failed at the second part with those images.

It an interesting goal. I think it would be a fascinating study if you were to go back 10-20 years and post some of your "lifeless and boring" shots and see what people say. I think this would be long term, but you should repost these above images in 5 years and see what people say.

I think for me, the reason why some of the "greats" (street photographers) really work for me, even "garbage" home shots, is that I get to look at the past. I suppose the photograph doesn't improve, but the subject becomes more interesting.

I like your "day in our life" idea on your site. I also try to shoot a lot of "boring" life moments in my family life. Some of them I don't really even pay much attention to at the time and I certainly don't show the world my boring moments. But to me, these shots take on much more signifigance in the passage of time, if only remending me of the past, or making me wonder about it.

Out of this series, I like #3 the best. The boys looking down makes me wondering if they are thinking of the future or what.