Untitled

bdcolen

bfjr

man talk about harsh light and shadows, handled that really well.

I also wonder if this would not of been stronger with a lower perspective.

Got a personal kick out of what struck me as the difference between West & East Coast.

Here that family would be in the shade sans Coats & Shawls, but the dogs would be wearing coats

lensmole

It looks like the the small child in the stroller is hanging on to the leash pretty hard and is about too maybe go for a ride. Its a cute capture !

rainbow

Love the triangles formed (with figures and lines), the lines of the sidewalks and leashes, the rectangles, and the shadows!

Richard

bfjr wrote: »

I also wonder if this would not of been stronger with a lower perspective.

I think a lower perspective would be a plus for viewing the people and dogs, but might detract from the lines and shadows. I suppose it depends on what interests you more. Personally, I think this works very well as is.

black mamba

I've got a feeling, BD, that there's some strong connection between you and these people....perhaps these are even your dogs? You commented about a picture of mine that you didn't care for the excess of sharp lights and stark shadows....yet this shot is eaten up with those elements. You've often commented, regarding many photos, that getting closer would have benefited the shot. That observation certainly applies here. Even then, though, there's nothing really compelling about this shot to hold one's interest. I'm afraid this one doesn't make the grade.

Tom

RSL

Human expressions are powerful, powerful elements in street photography. If you doubt that, take a run through Gene Smith's "Country Doctor" or any Cartier-Bresson book. The expressions on these faces are bland. For this one to succeed there'd have to have been some sort of connection between the two -- anger, love, expressed indifference... something. But there's nothing. It's just two people exchanging a couple words on a street. The fact that they have dogs and a baby doesn't help. I also agree with Tom that the starkness of the overwhelming backlight detracts from rather than helps the geometry.

bdcolen

Well, good, Russ, except that Country Doctor is not, and has nothing to do with, Street Photography. Never has been. Never will be. It is photo journalism/documentary photography, at its finest.
As to this one: A. I make no claims for my images. B. The people are not exchanging words. Nada. They are related. They are standing together. They are waiting. For what? Who knows? You obviously wouldn't, because you feel that at "street photograph" has to be a billboard that screams "THIS MEANS THAT." Which, of course, is precisely the opposite of what a great street photo is or does. (And no, this is not a great street photograph; I'd like to think it's an intriguing image, though one that could be improved upon one way or another.

Country Doctor? Walking away, scratching head.

bdcolen

lensmole wrote: »

It looks like the the small child in the stroller is hanging on to the leash pretty hard and is about too maybe go for a ride. Its a cute capture !

Funny...the baby isn't holding anything. I think you are seeing one of the lines in the sidewalk as a leash. Which is fine. :-)

bdcolen

Richard wrote: »

I think a lower perspective would be a plus for viewing the people and dogs, but might detract from the lines and shadows. I suppose it depends on what interests you more. Personally, I think this works very well as is.

Yup, as you and Ben note, a lower angle might have been an improvement. There's always room for that...improvement.

torags

Well this time the convention "get closer" doesn't work.

The fishey vertical lines of the buildings is distracting from the subject

bdcolen

Interesting. I hadn't thought about that verticalish line on the right, but you're indeed right.

RSL

bdcolen wrote: »

Well, good, Russ, except that Country Doctor is not, and has nothing to do with, Street Photography. Never has been. Never will be. It is photo journalism/documentary photography, at its finest.
As to this one: A. I make no claims for my images. B. The people are not exchanging words. Nada. They are related. They are standing together. They are waiting. For what? Who knows? You obviously wouldn't, because you feel that at "street photograph" has to be a billboard that screams "THIS MEANS THAT." Which, of course, is precisely the opposite of what a great street photo is or does. (And no, this is not a great street photograph; I'd like to think it's an intriguing image, though one that could be improved upon one way or another.

Country Doctor? Walking away, scratching head.

Of course you're right about Country Doctor, BD. Immediately after I posted that I went out with a camera for a walk and on the way I realized what I'd said and almost rushed back to change it because I knew that if I didn't you'd catch it. So, get rid of the word "street" and everything falls into place.

Considering what I wrote in the article I posted a few weeks ago (http://www.externalconnections.info/text/SP.htm), and considering the number of times I've called for ambiguity in street photographs, I'm not quite sure where you got the "THIS MEANS THAT" idea, BD. Maybe you could dig up a quote. I suspect you're misunderstanding my call for some kind of interaction -- or obvious lack of interaction when there should be some -- between people in a street photograph.

And while we're on the subject, how about telling me what you think is "intriguing" about this image.

torags

bdcolen wrote: »

Interesting. I hadn't thought about that verticalish line on the right, but you're indeed right.

Aww... just an example of being anal....