Okay - Try These....

bdcolen

New Years on the Outer Banks - No drive by. All thought through. All composed. All...

DonRicklin

Nice series, BD. Only thing I don't like about the 4th one is the White Tiara!

Don

damonff

love #1

rainbow

You have improved so much since your last post...

I can find something to like in each shot and can discern photographer intent in all. I like 2 & 3. Excellent fence shots: First made the better first impression, BUT I actually like the second one WITH the top part cropped just to the bottom edge of that platform on the left.

bdcolen

DonRicklin wrote: »

Nice series, BD. Only thing I don't like about the 4th one is the White Tiara!

Don

Thanks Don. Without knowing it, you raise an interesting and important point:
The White Tiara is a line of white rocking chairs. I was quite aware of it. In fact, I have several images from this same vantage point, and in each the dog's head is placed slightly differently. Several show a bit more of the chairs, making it clear that they are not a "white tiara." I ended up going with the best positioning of the dog's head and dog 'expression.' I didn't see a tiara, I saw white chairs - because I was there and knew that they were chairs. But I can now see how a virgin to the original scene might find the tiara puzzling and distracting.

A great example of how the photographer and viewer may see things differently.

Freezframe

It's #1-3 for me!
Shadows, foot prints in sand make great perspective.

Thanx for sharing!

Brady:D

thoth

Number one is a winner for me, as well, B.D.

DonRicklin

bdcolen wrote: »

Thanks Don. Without knowing it, you raise an interesting and important point:
The White Tiara is a line of white rocking chairs. I was quite aware of it. In fact, I have several images from this same vantage point, and in each the dog's head is placed slightly differently. Several show a bit more of the chairs, making it clear that they are not a "white tiara." I ended up going with the best positioning of the dog's head and dog 'expression.' I didn't see a tiara, I saw white chairs - because I was there and knew that they were chairs. But I can now see how a virgin to the original scene might find the tiara puzzling and distracting.

A great example of how the photographer and viewer may see things differently.

And to make it a portait keeper, maybe tone down the brightness of the chairs (I knew what they were, but the juxtaposition was bad!) or going B&W to alter the extreme contrast may help!

Don

street

#1 is barely *ok*, but the rest are commonplace and pedestrian- not what I consider "street" shots.

Is this what is taught nowadays at MIT as street photography?

thoth

street wrote: »

#1 is barely *ok*, but the rest are commonplace and pedestrian- not what I consider "street" shots.

Is this what is taught nowadays at MIT as street photography?

:lurk

Richard

street wrote: »

#1 is barely *ok*, but the rest are commonplace and pedestrian- not what I consider "street" shots.

Is this what is taught nowadays at MIT as street photography?

It was so nice and quiet without you, misterb.

Go away.

00SS

I really like #1 BD - the shadows, the lines, the way it makes my eye wander around the frame.

bdcolen

Thanks. Given a discussion/debate around an earlier image, I should say that what attracted me to this is that it reminded me of the Twin Tower site post-9/11, when the hunks of clading from the structures were sticking out of the ruins.

DonRicklin

bdcolen wrote: »

Thanks Don. Without knowing it, you raise an interesting and important point:
The White Tiara is a line of white rocking chairs. I was quite aware of it. In fact, I have several images from this same vantage point, and in each the dog's head is placed slightly differently. Several show a bit more of the chairs, making it clear that they are not a "white tiara." I ended up going with the best positioning of the dog's head and dog 'expression.' I didn't see a tiara, I saw white chairs - because I was there and knew that they were chairs. But I can now see how a virgin to the original scene might find the tiara puzzling and distracting.

A great example of how the photographer and viewer may see things differently.

Actually I was quite conscious of what I was bringing up. That is why I prodded you with the nit!

It is just the sort of thing Craig Tanner would discuss at length in one f his Daily Critiques at The Mindful Eye.

A good place to learn a lot, including how to talk about images as well as improve ones image taking!

Don

Patti

I don't mean to offend but I'm confused. They're nice shots but I don't see anything street about a photo of a dog's profile or some interesting fencing. Maybe I'm missing something key here.

I'm sure I read somewhere on this forum awhile back that animals have little to no place in street shots unless they lend weight to the context and that people are a required element (discussion about the cat in the alley with laundry shot perhaps). I'm not wanting to argumentative, just trying to sort out what I'm misinterpreting - what belongs in the forum and what doesn't. I think I'm lacking an eye for street shots. I often shake my head and wonder what others see that I'm obviously missing.

HELP ME PLEASE!!!

Richard

Patti wrote: »

I don't mean to offend but I'm confused. They're nice shots but I don't see anything street about a photo of a dog's profile or some interesting fencing. Maybe I'm missing something key here.

I'm sure I read somewhere on this forum awhile back that animals have little to no place in street shots unless they lend weight to the context and that people are a required element (discussion about the cat in the alley with laundry shot perhaps). I'm not wanting to argumentative, just trying to sort out what I'm misinterpreting - what belongs in the forum and what doesn't. I think I'm lacking an eye for street shots. I often shake my head and wonder what others see that I'm obviously missing.

HELP ME PLEASE!!!

I think the answer is that not every single pic on this forum is a street shot. As you may know from earlier discussions, I don't want to play the role of taxonomy cop here. Sometimes I move posts to another forum if I think they will have a better reception there, but in general I don't much worry about it. I'd much rather look at a good image of a fence or dog than a mediocre street shot. Your work demonstrates that you understand street shooting perfectly well, Patti, and do a great job of it.

Patti

Richard wrote: »

I think the answer is that not every single pic on this forum is a street shot. As you may know from earlier discussions, I don't want to play the role of taxonomy cop here. Sometimes I move posts to another forum if I think they will have a better reception there, but in general I don't much worry about it. I'd much rather look at a good image of a fence or dog than a mediocre street shot. Your work demonstrates that you understand street shooting perfectly well, Patti, and do a great job of it.

Thanks for responding and for the clarification, Richard.

bdcolen

Patti wrote: »

I don't mean to offend but I'm confused. They're nice shots but I don't see anything street about a photo of a dog's profile or some interesting fencing. Maybe I'm missing something key here.

I'm sure I read somewhere on this forum awhile back that animals have little to no place in street shots unless they lend weight to the context and that people are a required element (discussion about the cat in the alley with laundry shot perhaps). I'm not wanting to argumentative, just trying to sort out what I'm misinterpreting - what belongs in the forum and what doesn't. I think I'm lacking an eye for street shots. I often shake my head and wonder what others see that I'm obviously missing.

HELP ME PLEASE!!!

Nope. The dog has nothing to do with street photography. And I don't think the snow fence does either. As to the other two - I have argued since this forum began that it should be the Real World Forum, rather than be confined by the notion of Street and PJ. For one, if we get one shot out of 500 that could in anyway be considered "photo journalism," it's allot. And two, much of what we are calling street really isn't. But in posting some of the 'off subject' things I post, I realize I am occasionally trying people's patience. Sorry Patti. ;-)

And having now seen Richard's response - and thanks for your indulgence, Richard:D - I'll add a few things:

When I post "off topic" shots, I usually post shots that I believe reflect a 'street photography' ethos - and that I have approached as I would a street shot. Okay, okay, the dog doesn't fit - but I like it. . But if I had posted that same snow fence in an urban parking lot, say, after a snow storm, with the shadows on the snow, I doubt you'd have said a word. If the four people sitting and looking at the iPad were doing so on a park bench, rather than in a living room, also no complaint, right? The woman and dog on the beach? Pretend they're on a sidewalk around the 'great pond' in NYC's Central Park.

Again, think 'real world.' Think seeing and capturing life as it is really lived - not posed, not set up, but photographed as it occurs. (Except for the dog. :ivar)

Patti

Thanks bd. I totally see all the other shots and their intent so thanks for humouring my query. I think a rename to Real World would be a good idea.

P.S. I knew it! That dog had professional model written all over him!

bdcolen

Patti wrote: »

P.S. I knew it! That dog had professional model written all over him!

Only because you can't see how fat he is...I'm always asked when "she's going to have her puppies?"