Too cold to ride...above ground

bdcolen

lizzard_nyc

All I can think is "Cousin It"

You captured her in her own little world.
The little bit of the reflection on the window of the other passengers makes me want to see more.

Patti

lizzard_nyc wrote: »

All I can think is "Cousin It"

You captured her in her own little world.
The little bit of the reflection on the window of the other passengers makes me want to see more.

My immediate thought as well Liz. Window faces are great. I like this.

zoomer

The hands are cut in half, they are also the brightest part of the picture so the eye is drawn there.
The subject is her in her own little world, that along with the window reflection of the other passengers.
Crop it below the distracting lights at the top, and above the hands, make it more of a pano..there is your shot.
Remove the distraction so we can join her in the photo...in her own little world.
Basic stuff really....don't you teach photographer at a junior college some where....? Just messing with you , assuming you can take a little ribbing.

r3t1awr3yd

^^ Until I got to the bottom of that all I could think was "wow, I totally disagree" lol.

The first thing I notice is the top third of the picture and the draw of my eyes from her hair to the next face, to the next face. Almost like a sequence of faces from head-down to looking-up in a triangle kinda drawing my eye away.

Other than it looking a little soft to me, I really like it.

bdcolen

zoomer wrote: »

The hands are cut in half, they are also the brightest part of the picture so the eye is drawn there.
The subject is her in her own little world, that along with the window reflection of the other passengers.
Crop it below the distracting lights at the top, and above the hands, make it more of a pano..there is your shot.
Remove the distraction so we can join her in the photo...in her own little world.
Basic stuff really....don't you teach photographer at a junior college some where....? Just messing with you , assuming you can take a little ribbing.

! You're wrong!
Seriously - If we all went around cropping out every white or lot object that "distracts the eye," one, we'd be cropping out half the world, and two, we'd be totally altering the reality in front of it. Yes, the bag is bright, but in this case I don't think anything can distract from the young woman in her world of hair, or the reflected young women hovering over her shoulder. And, if I cropped it as you suggest, it would totally change the composition - which I don't want to do. All of which I would tell my "junior college" students. (All of that said, I could burn down the bag and hands ever farther than I did, but they are at the point where they're just going to go gray.)

bdcolen

r3t1awr3yd wrote: »

^^ Until I got to the bottom of that all I could think was "wow, I totally disagree" lol.

The first thing I notice is the top third of the picture and the draw of my eyes from her hair to the next face, to the next face. Almost like a sequence of faces from head-down to looking-up in a triangle kinda drawing my eye away.

Other than it looking a little soft to me, I really like it.

I just looked again, in terms of your "soft" comment. Given that it was shot at 1/30th @ f 1.7 on a moving subway, there may be a touch of motion blur to it. But so what? I ask that not defensively - as it probably sounds - but seriously. To me, qualities like 'sharpness' are way down the list of what I'm looking for in an image. Yes, it would be nice, all other things being equal. But as a friend of mine often says, "focus and exposure are grossly overrated."

For example...This photo by Daniel Kramer is one of my all-time favorite images; I would kill to be able to say it was mine. Do I say this because of who the subjects are? Because of the magical moment it preserves forever? Because of its evocation of an era, of a relationship? Absolutely. (And also because of the composition.) But isn't that what photography is all about?

Picture 1.jpg
(c) Daniel Kramer

zoomer

lol no you're wrong.
It is really easy to nit pick photos and just as easy to justify why the photo is that way. Opinions are what they are.

We all see photos from our own perspective. You like it with the distractions, I think it makes the photo less than it could be.
Really I only posted on this because this photo is a step up quality wise from the photos I am used to seeing from you on this forum, but due to the distractions I mentioned it does not quite hit the mark.

Though you might be open to a litte constructive criticism and some kidding around...since you evidently feel you are the final word on all things with photos, I won't make that mistake again.

bdcolen

zoomer wrote: »

lol no you're wrong.
It is really easy to nit pick photos and just as easy to justify why the photo is that way. Opinions are what they are.

We all see photos from our own perspective. You like it with the distractions, I think it makes the photo less than it could be.
Really I only posted on this because this photo is a step up quality wise from the photos I am used to seeing from you on this forum, but due to the distractions I mentioned it does not quite hit the mark.

Though you might be open to a litte constructive criticism and some kidding around...since you evidently feel you are the final word on all things with photos, I won't make that mistake again.

??? I am certainly open to kidding around; and not the 'final word' on anything, and am open to constructive criticism. The fact that I don't agree with your criticism, which was quite obviously offered constructively, doesn't mean that I am not open to criticism. (Would I rather the subject had not had that bright bag in her hand - or, for that matter, do I wish her headphone hand had not been white? Yes. Do I want to change the composition to a 'pano' to create an entirely different image to eliminate the bag? No. )

zoomer

cool
I went and looked at some of your stuff on your website.
I like the work you did in Somalia. That must have been an eye opening experience.
But my absolute favorite of all your shots is the girl in the subway door, just a face surrounded by all those much taller people.

Looking through your website gave me a better understanding of where you are coming from with your photography....and why you post the kind of shots that you do.

We do not approach photography from the same place, we see the world differerently....that is one of the reasons why I love photography so much. Everybody sees things differently and we are each open to interpret, like, dislike as we choose.

jdryan3

bdcolen wrote: »

But as a friend of mine often says, "focus and exposure are grossly overrated."

B.D - I never knew. My wife is a friend of yours!
Seriously, she constantly bashes me (OK, nudges) not to be so anal in these areas, specifically sharpness. I am much more forgiving in 'street' photos where there is almost an expectaion of blur and motion. But she is pushing for more of the type you showed with Kramer's image.

What is interesting is that it has become easier for me to do this because of what I perceive to be way oversharpened images I see all around these days. And not only in those weird HDR shots that hurt my eyes, but simple images.

Oh and I love the image as is, with the lights and reflections.

anonymouscuban

Hmm... I have to agree with BD here. Focus and exposure are overrated. A boring photo is a boring photo, no matter how sharp or well exposed it is. Kramer's photo is a perfect example. Great image. The photo draws you in. Makes you wonder about what they are celebrating or maybe she's just horsing around with the guy. It's interesting even though it lacks on the technical side. But you have to have an interesting photo to begin with, or else it's just boring AND blurry.

michswiss

Watched a documentary about Joan two nights ago and this image of Bob and her was used. What a relationship and what a woman.

bdcolen

zoomer wrote: »

cool
I went and looked at some of your stuff on your website.
I like the work you did in Somalia. That must have been an eye opening experience.
But my absolute favorite of all your shots is the girl in the subway door, just a face surrounded by all those much taller people.

Looking through your website gave me a better understanding of where you are coming from with your photography....and why you post the kind of shots that you do.

We do not approach photography from the same place, we see the world differerently....that is one of the reasons why I love photography so much. Everybody sees things differently and we are each open to interpret, like, dislike as we choose.

Funny, I went and looked at your website and we are indeed coming at this from from perspectives so different it's unlikely that we'll ever agree on anything other than that we disagree, but that we each have valid points of view.

bdcolen

jdryan3 wrote: »

B.D - I never knew. My wife is a friend of yours!
Seriously, she constantly bashes me (OK, nudges) not to be so anal in these areas, specifically sharpness. I am much more forgiving in 'street' photos where there is almost an expectaion of blur and motion. But she is pushing for more of the type you showed with Kramer's image.

What is interesting is that it has become easier for me to do this because of what I perceive to be way oversharpened images I see all around these days. And not only in those weird HDR shots that hurt my eyes, but simple images.

Oh and I love the image as is, with the lights and reflections.

By the way - I am not dissing sharpness, focus, etc. If I were, I would never have previously shot with Leica lenses capable of shaving the fuzz off a peach. But when all is said and done, what matters - to me - is what the image conveys, rather than its technical perfection or lack there of - that really matters. As I've said before, I find most of Ansel Adams work to be duller than dirt and highly overrated - though I have truly enormous respect for him as a photo technician and as a printer. Had he done nothing but develop the Zone System he would still be considered a giant. But most of the photographs? Sofa art.

sara505

My only thought is, I want to see what's in her hand. I assume it's her iPod (unless she's in the vicinity of Park Street, where there's WiFi coverage, in which case, she's texting).

And I agree Re blurry images - blurry is okay, as long as the image, in terms of the composition, light, and most importantly the story it tells - can hold its own. And sometimes, i.e. when one is trying to convey motion, blurry is actually an important part of the image.

bdcolen

I think it was an iPod, but it was hard to see. She was totally zoned out; might even have been sleeping. I did not see her move the entire time I was on the train.

damonff

I love the anonymity of the shot. Her hair covering her face looks neat in comparison to the face in the glass that is also looking downward. Her inner self? Her doppelganger? Cool moment.

bdcolen

damonff wrote: »

I love the anonymity of the shot. Her hair covering her face looks neat in comparison to the face in the glass that is also looking downward. Her inner self? Her doppelganger? Cool moment.

Thanks, Damon.

rainbow

I really like the hair obscuring her face totally. At first I thought it was just her way of coping with a subway commute before realizing that she was actually engaged with some electronic device.