Faces

lensmole · November 25, 2011

I like # 1 & 4 out of the this group !

SamoBiker · November 25, 2011

I like #1. In #2 I find the cook more interesting than the girls due to the vintage sign.

RSL · November 26, 2011

1 and 4 are good shots, Ben. The rest, probably not the kind of work you want people to see.

bfjr · November 27, 2011

lensmole wrote: »

I like # 1 & 4 out of the this group !

Good. #4 is a warm up for an upcoming competition, theme is "Headlines".

bdcolen · November 27, 2011

Definitely #2, which is by far the most intriguing shot, fraught with possible meaning.

Photogbiker · November 27, 2011

Agree #2 has more of a potential story or tension to have fun with. Might crop a bit of the right off. The cook apparently from the Bakery is a classic character juxtaposed to the two more modern girls care free and listening to their ipods.

I like #3 for same reason, young guy in an urban setting in half the frame, with a classic Rolls Royce in the other half. Is it his? Is he really rich and just enjoys dressing down and going to the old neighborhood? Coincidence? Well framed for those who recognize the car.

RSL · November 27, 2011

Well, as usual, opinions vary.

Both #1 and #4 have an ominous feeling, #1 especially. Both pictures verge on surrealism, and they're both pretty good grabs. #4 depends on the guy looking around with a threatening expression on his face, but that's what makes the picture. If it were mine, I'd bring that guy's face up a bit with a U-point in Viveza. He'd be more threatening if his face sort of jumped out at you.

#2 is a picture of two girls giggling down the street while a merchant stands outside his business, hoping somebody will come by. But there's no interaction between the merchant and the girls, and the interaction between the girls is pedestrian at best. There's nothing else in the picture that relates in an interesting way to any of the people. Basically, it's a picture of people on a street.

#3 is just a guy with shades waiting for something -- a bus? A subway? The sidewalk and the car behind him don't contribute anything to the picture.

As I said: opinions vary.

Richard · November 27, 2011

2 and 3 for me in this set. The first is also a little bit bizarre, and I always like bizarre.

bfjr · November 27, 2011

SamoBiker wrote: »

I like #1. In #2 I find the cook more interesting than the girls due to the vintage sign.

Your a Local so you should know that's in front of "Canters" on Fairfax.

It's a shot that's growing on me, wish I had not cut off his foot however.

RSL · November 27, 2011

Richard wrote: »

2 and 3 for me in this set. The first is also a little bit bizarre, and I always like bizarre.

Fair enough, Richard and BD, but how about explaining why these pictures strike you as they do. Just saying "I like it" or "I don't like it" doesn't help. That's a vote, not a critique.

M38A1 · November 27, 2011

Wow, a Hookah....

bdcolen · November 28, 2011

RSL wrote: »

Well, as usual, opinions vary.

Both #1 and #4 have an ominous feeling, #1 especially. Both pictures verge on surrealism, and they're both pretty good grabs. #4 depends on the guy looking around with a threatening expression on his face, but that's what makes the picture. If it were mine, I'd bring that guy's face up a bit with a U-point in Viveza. He'd be more threatening if his face sort of jumped out at you.

#2 is a picture of two girls giggling down the street while a merchant stands outside his business, hoping somebody will come by. But there's no interaction between the merchant and the girls, and the interaction between the girls is pedestrian at best. There's nothing else in the picture that relates in an interesting way to any of the people. Basically, it's a picture of people on a street.

#3 is just a guy with shades waiting for something -- a bus? A subway? The sidewalk and the car behind him don't contribute anything to the picture.

As I said: opinions vary.

Boy, you really need a photo to spell out it's "meaning" in six foot high neon letters, don't you, Russ?

RSL · November 28, 2011

Well, if that's your "critique," BD, then thanks for the insight. Interesting comment. I've been pretty critical of some of the photographs I see on Street & PJ, but I've never let my criticism descend into ad-hominem territory. As an aside, I've never asked for "meaning," but, for a street photograph I do ask for some sort of story. Perhaps you're conflating the words "meaning" and "story." They're not synonymous.

bdcolen · November 28, 2011

Well, Russ, if you need a story, how about the glaringly obvious contrast between the tired old white neighborhood merchant, and the young black girls? Is the neighborhood, which between the delicatessen and the sign to the right, is/was probably Jewish, in flux? Is there conflict? Is he happy about the change? Is he hostile toward it? Are the girl's comfortable with the neighborhood? Is it theirs' or are they just passing through? Is none of the preceding true?

Is this technically the best photo that's ever been posted? No. But I guess, Russ, I find it pretty surprising that someone who seems to know so much about street photography, and is so extremely judgmental about the work posted - which I'd be willing to bet some people perceive as not only being "pretty critical," but also rather arrogant and high handed, wouldn't look at a photo such as this one and find enough to occupy his imagination for a good long while.

RSL · November 28, 2011

All right, BD. Now you're critiquing instead of voting. You might want to think about doing more critiques, especially since you're the "artist in residence." Street & PJ needs a lot more critiques than votes. Best to stick with the work itself, though.

Now, if you happen to be a New Yorker, the things you surmised certainly might be obvious to you. You might recognize the neighborhood as Jewish, and you might see a contrast between the merchant, who doesn't look terribly old or tired to me, and the young black girls. If you saw that juxtaposition as representing a neighborhood in flux you might wonder if the merchant is hostile toward it, and you might wonder if the girls are comfortable in it. The picture might resonate with you.

But if you happen not to be a New Yorker and you're in, say, a town in Florida, that street scene would seem absolutely normal -- even to the signs. Same thing would be true in Colorado Springs. And without the perception of conflict and flux the picture is, as I said, just a picture of some people on a street.

I'm not going to get into a pi--ing contest with you, BD, and I'm not going to trade ad hominem jibes. Yes, I know a few things about street photography. As I've pointed out, I've been doing it for roughly sixty years and I've studied it intensively because it's a wonderful art form. And one of the things I know is that to be successful a street photograph needs universality. If I have to be a New Yorker or a Floridian or a resident of Timbuktu to feel the impact of a picture, then it's failed as a street photograph even though it may be pleasing to a parochial group.

In this collection of photographs, #1 and #4 include human facial expressions that would be as recognizable to an Afghan camel driver as to a New York boulevardier. THOSE, at least, are street photographs. The other two... well, whatever turns you on. Personally, I'd have culled them.

bdcolen · November 28, 2011

RSL wrote: »

All right, BD. Now you're critiquing instead of voting. You might want to think about doing more critiques, especially since you're the "artist in residence." Street & PJ needs a lot more critiques than votes. Best to stick with the work itself, though.

Now, if you happen to be a New Yorker, the things you surmised certainly might be obvious to you. You might recognize the neighborhood as Jewish, and you might see a contrast between the merchant, who doesn't look terribly old or tired to me, and the young black girls. If you saw that juxtaposition as representing a neighborhood in flux you might wonder if the merchant is hostile toward it, and you might wonder if the girls are comfortable in it. The picture might resonate with you.

But if you happen not to be a New Yorker and you're in, say, a town in Florida, that street scene would seem absolutely normal -- even to the signs. Same thing would be true in Colorado Springs. And without the perception of conflict and flux the picture is, as I said, just a picture of some people on a street.

I'm not going to get into a pi--ing contest with you, BD, and I'm not going to trade ad hominem jibes. Yes, I know a few things about street photography. As I've pointed out, I've been doing it for roughly sixty years and I've studied it intensively because it's a wonderful art form. And one of the things I know is that to be successful a street photograph needs universality. If I have to be a New Yorker or a Floridian or a resident of Timbuktu to feel the impact of a picture, then it's failed as a street photograph even though it may be pleasing to a parochial group.

In this collection of photographs, #1 and #4 include human facial expressions that would be as recognizable to an Afghan camel driver as to a New York boulevardier. THOSE, at least, are street photographs. The other two... well, whatever turns you on. Personally, I'd have culled them.

Hmmmm..."New Yorker"... "Parochial group....Why don't you just say what you're really thinking, or ask what you really want to ask, Russ. One doesn't have to be a "New Yorker" to look at that Deli sign, and the wording on the sign to its right, and think Jewish neighborhood. In fact one has to have spent one's life in the likes of Colorado Springs to not think that. And if the white man on the left doesn't look old or tired to you that is simply a reflection of the fact that you are in your 80s, and so to you he is young. But I'm 65, and I'd be willing to put money on the fact that he isn't a day under 50 - which makes him old in comparison to the two young girls. And he looks tired to me. I suppose you also don't read anything in his expression.

By the way, it doesn't take a New Yorker to see what I see in that photo, it simply takes someone who thinks about what he or she is seeing. It's quite obvious from the palm tree on the left-hand side of the image that the photo was taken some place other than New York or Colorado - but that doesn't rule out the possibility of change in a neighborhood. And and is that shorthand for something else? And two, I'll ask the question I've been refraining from asking for some time - who died and left you in charge? I really don't need you to explain what a critique is or isn't, nor do I need you to explain to differences between cities. But being the street maven you are, you ought to be able to see the possibility of the things I'm suggesting.

By the way, the fact that you've been "doing" street photography for 60 years doesn't make you the last word on the subject, but apparently it does make you extremely opinionated.

torags · November 28, 2011

Wow you guys are past pizzing on each other shoes... you're up to the knees

Perhaps people see what they relate to in an image (not an opinion... just a thought - no opinion... really...:D)

(But this is getting to be fun..)

Signed by a tweener (tween 65 & 80)

RSL · November 28, 2011

Well, as I said, I'm not going to get into a pi--ing contest with you, BD. It's obvious that for some reason I seem threatening to you. I'm not sure why. In any case, I'm not a psychologist, so I'm not going to try to analyze the problem.

Believe it or not, there are delis in Orlando and in Colorado Springs, and merchants sometimes stand outside their establishments while African-American girls giggle on by. I saw almost exactly that same picture a couple years ago on St. George street in St. Augustine. I even shot a picture of the merchant in his apron, though I missed the girls. But I didn't post the result because it wasn't a successful street shot.

As far as "thinking" about a street photograph is concerned, if I have to think in order for a picture to get its effect across, it fails as a street shot, though it might be perfectly usable for photojournalism. Which is not to say it isn't worthwhile looking for more in the picture after the initial reaction. But a good street photograph should get its effect across on first glance.

bdcolen · November 28, 2011

RSL wrote: »

Well, as I said, I'm not going to get into a pi--ing contest with you, BD. It's obvious that for some reason I seem threatening to you. I'm not sure why. In any case, I'm not a psychologist, so I'm not going to try to analyze the problem.

Believe it or not, there are delis in Orlando and in Colorado Springs, and merchants sometimes stand outside their establishments while African-American girls giggle on by. I saw almost exactly that same picture a couple years ago on St. George street in St. Augustine. I even shot a picture of the merchant in his apron, though I missed the girls. But I didn't post the result because it wasn't a successful street shot.

As far as "thinking" about a street photograph is concerned, if I have to think in order for a picture to get its effect across, it fails as a street shot, though it might be perfectly usable for photojournalism. Which is not to say it isn't worthwhile looking for more in the picture after the initial reaction. But a good street photograph should get its effect across on first glance.

This exchange has been quite interesting in what it has revealed about your lack of understanding of street photography - your lack of understanding of photo journalism has long been obvious. Your statement above gets street photography and photo journalism as reversed as night and day. The best street photography is that which is at least somewhat ambiguous, and makes us THINK. The best photo journalism tells a straight forward story. You are right, however, that the merchant standing alone, wthout the two girls, wouldn't have been worth shooting - it's just a guy on the sidewalk.

RSL · November 28, 2011

Well, I still won't exchange ad hominem jabs, BD. But you go right ahead.

Your take on street photography is an interesting one, probably based on your experience with journalism. Photojournalism doesn't normally tell a story with a single photo. It requires a series of photos or text mixed with a photograph or photographs to tell a story.

I'd certainly agree that the best street photograph has a measure of ambiguity, which #2, above, by the way, hasn't. But the ambiguity doesn't necessarily make us "think." The best street photography involves a transcendental jolt that escapes definition either with words or with thought. It drives an "experience," usually about human proclivities or human behavior directly into our souls, bypassing words or thought. Incidentally, "Bougival," which you damned with faint praise does exactly that.

richardman · November 28, 2011

I know it may smell a bit like urine in here, but this is actually quite educational on different shooters' perspective on things. I agree with the writings from both of you, although I personally do not care about which is the correct definition for street photo vs. PJ themselves, so I skipped that part.

However, in terms of the power of the images themselves, #2 gets my vote and #1 gets half a vote. The other 2 are losers, IMHO. As for why, well, BD probably articulated what's engaging about #2 better than I can.I agree that there's less sense on ambiguity, but it's still a good photo, nevertheless.

lensmole · November 28, 2011

A successful image is one that tells a story and engages the viewer period, regardless of the genre, be it street photography/pj ,abstract, landscape,macro ,etc.

I am not sure what all the fuss is about ? It is one thing to communicate and share different views, but trying to be right about something only to make someone wrong, is an argument and not constructive.

Richard · November 29, 2011

RSL wrote: »

Fair enough, Richard and BD, but how about explaining why these pictures strike you as they do. Just saying "I like it" or "I don't like it" doesn't help. That's a vote, not a critique.

BD addressed #2 quite nicely so I'll just elaborate on #3. I see part of a cool guy and part of a cool car and a composition that pulls the two together nicely with strong diagonal lines. Then there's the G? for a touch of enigma--what does the rest of the sign say? The technical aspects (color, exposure, DOF) of the shot are decent and the framing draws you into the scene. It's not a masterpiece but it made me smile. YMMV, as always.

RSL · November 29, 2011

"Art is in the eye of the beholder," and sometimes what's in the eye of a beholder can help you understand why ophthalmology is such an important branch of medicine.

But it's always interesting to hear explanations for people's votes on art objects. Votes themselves are pretty meaningless, but explanations aren't. They're called "critiques." Critiques sometimes give you more insight into the personality of the critic than into the quality of the thing being criticized, but even when you disagree, differing opinions can elevate your understanding. It's pretty obvious that BD and I disagree on the qualities of the pictures in this thread, but from BD's comments I gained insight into some things I'd overlooked, so, for me at least it was far from a wasted effort. And I see that there are opinions on the quality of the pictures that differ from BD's evaluation and my evaluation. That's as it should be.

And, Richard (Man), there's no way to define a street photograph with words. A street photo has some characteristics that can be put into words, but many of those characteristics apply to other genres of art as well. The only real definition is a visual one, which, to me at least, is based on the work of the people who invented and defined street photography with their photographs.

So, it's been fun, and, I hope, enlightening. But it brings me back to a question I've asked before: Does Street & PJ want to see critiques, or is that too stressful?

Richard · November 29, 2011

RSL wrote: »

But it brings me back to a question I've asked before: Does Street & PJ want to see critiques, or is that too stressful?

Critiques are welcome here, as are pats on the back, votes, and humor. This is a public forum and people are free to participate in whatever way they choose.

torags · November 29, 2011

So... it's settled... right?

Nah....

The word art is thrown around haphazardly and is accepted by the choir. I have a contrarian view.

Art is originated, photography captures: that is a big difference

Art is irrelevant and photographs need not be.

Photos can move the viewer, they can revulse, make happy, anger and more. Art falls short (and I am surrounded with art in my home). I take photos and do art, so I see both sides.

There were two examples of photography that I thought were best growing up. Life Magazine and National Geographic (for bare breasts). In 1968 Life did an article on the starving children of Biafra during the Nigerian civil war. My daughter was 2 and I was horrified when seeing a starving child picking at a corn husk.

Having artistic endowments I was so moved I decided to do this; my first effort

http://ragspix.smugmug.com/Art/Starvation/15157661_LNvDV9#1133622623_2GZW3-A-LB

It was a social conscious piece that was unsaleable according the an art buyer, he wanted to see more. I did one more of racing greyhounds that was sold to a collector who had a Picassa. But the piece left me empty, it was irrelevant. It was another 30 years before I did another piece. I posted this link to give me credibility for my arguement.

So in art , if you have the inspiration you can transform material anytime into an art piece. In photography something has to happen to capture it. Of course you can handle the craft artistically.

Just my opinion

Angelo · November 29, 2011

I am totally enjoying this lively discussion. Thanks Ben for facilitating the effort.

bdcolen · November 29, 2011

torags wrote: »

So... it's settled... right?

Nah....

The word art is thrown around haphazardly and is accepted by the choir. I have a contrarian view.

Art is originated, photography captures: that is a big difference

Art is irrelevant and photographs need not be.

Photos can move the viewer, they can revulse, make happy, anger and more. Art falls short (and I am surrounded with art in my home). I take photos and do art, so I see both sides.

There were two examples of photography that I thought were best growing up. Life Magazine and National Geographic (for bare breasts). In 1968 Life did an article on the starving children of Biafra during the Nigerian civil war. My daughter was 2 and I was horrified when seeing a starving child picking at a corn husk.

Having artistic endowments I was so moved I decided to do this; my first effort

http://ragspix.smugmug.com/Art/Starvation/15157661_LNvDV9#1133622623_2GZW3-A-LB

It was a social conscious piece that was unsaleable according the an art buyer, he wanted to see more. I did one more of racing greyhounds that was sold to a collector who had a Picassa. But the piece left me empty, it was irrelevant. It was another 30 years before I did another piece. I posted this link to give me credibility for my arguement.

So in art , if you have the inspiration you can transform material anytime into an art piece. In photography something has to happen to capture it. Of course you can handle the craft artistically.

Just my opinion

Not all photography is art, but photography can be an art form.

torags · November 29, 2011

bdcolen wrote: »

Not all photography is art, but photography can be an art form.

Sure it can be, if you PP beyond the original frame image or if you make a collage poster for a little league baseball team. Not very elitist be more artful

bdcolen · November 29, 2011

torags wrote: »

Sure it can be, if you PP beyond the original frame image or if you make a collage poster for a little league baseball team. Not very elitist be more artful

This really is getting quite nuts. Cartier-Bresson was one of the great artists of the 20th century - who happened to use a camera as his "brush." The fact that we worked with elements already existing in the world, and waited for those elements, and his lens, to come to the alignment and balance he was seeking, does not make him any less an "artist." Alfred Stieglitz was an artist with a camera. Walker Evans often was an artist with a camera. Weston was an artist with a camera. Not a fan, but Ansel Adams was an artist with a camera. Joel Meyerowitz is an artist with a camera.

Sorry, but this debate really was pretty much settled by the first quarter of the 20th century. One doesn't have to "make up" everything for a work to be a art. As long as the final product reflects the vision and "artistic" choices of the photographer, a photograph can be as much a work of art as any painting, sculpture, or thrown pot. In fact, given the absolute crap that is produced by so many "artists" with paint brushes and sculpting tools, we should be thankful that there is photography that is art.

That's it for me - I'm out of this one now.

Faces

Comments