Cobblestone Cyclist, critique welcome
jmphotocraft
Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
What do you think of this street shot?
Just for fun, please play along.
Just for fun, please play along.
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
0
Comments
From there, I like the spiral staircase which leads you down and dumps you out at the cyclist who's exiting the frame almost like a continuation of the staircase. I'm not sure there's much 'story' to it, but for me it's one of those shots a cyclist would appreciate possibly hanging on a wall.
But man that road surface looks to suck riding on, especially if it were wet.
What is "1/10"?
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I'm implying that WHOEVER ON EARTH took this shot, it's a 1 on a scale of 10, 10 being something like Henri Cartier-Bresson and 1 being something like what I shoot.
It just stinks.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
The rider is blurry, though, so that negates the compositional qualities obviously.
This is what I thought of first when I saw it...
http://davesbikeblog.squarespace.com/storage/Smoking02.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1294410725302
.
Sam
It seems to me that this lacks most of what we think of a street photo having to have - Ambiguity? Nope - nothing ambiguous; guy on a bike, going down a hill. Humor? Nope - not unless we know the guy's going to go head over heels. Pathos? Nope - nor Eros. Sure, there are a bunch of interesting curves and lines, some of which intersect in interesting ways. I suppose you could call this an art photograph - if this is what you call art. But it's basically just a blurry, dark shot of a guy riding a bike downhill. Who ever this is, he'd do well to spend some time with the work of some of the great street photographers - like Winogrand, or Friedlander, or maybe Helen Levitt. Or that woman who was recently discovered, Vivian Maier. Now there's a street photographer.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
Inside joke aside, what a brilliant photo. All the curves and lines point to the cyclist. His position is perfect, just between the rails and his head is just touching the curb.
Nothing to say, dang, if only...
Well, I guess I can guess, dang, if only I have taken the image...
// richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com>
richardmanphoto on Facebook and Instagram
The photo is "Hyeres, France, 1932" by Henri Cartier-Bresson. It sold in 2008 for $265,000.
Before I knew that, I liked the image quite a bit.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
.
That's the type of questions I like to pose to myself - 20 or more years from now, will my images still look good?
This is why to me mega post-processing is a loser game. People's taste may change on a "look" of an image, but compelling content will always be compelling.
// richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com>
richardmanphoto on Facebook and Instagram
.
A negative, with the rights to use it, is... priceless :-)
// richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com>
richardmanphoto on Facebook and Instagram
Lensmole
http://www.lensmolephotography.com/
I like the decomposition they do here using the golden rule.
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=lttma%2Cn%3D30&qe=Y2FydGllciBicmVzc29uIGN5Y2xpc3Q&qesig=oIX_N4jDZvu6DVwQunPyAw&pkc=AFgZ2tlAuHln0CFi0-OchGSwYcPiFNDzz5_c35BLCVQxjLiXlSBMvwfcLJ69nqctLb0M4OJPVAvE7gM3LV4Fw11clj34jqK0Rw&cp=23&gs_id=24&xhr=t&q=cartier+bresson+cyclist&pq=cartier+bresson&pf=p&sclient=tablet-gws&tbo=d&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=cartier+bresson+cyclist&aq=0v&aqi=g-v2&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&fp=1&biw=1280&bih=800&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&cad=b
www.mind-driftphoto.com
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
Further, apparently the critique skills are at question...
Historical photography... bulllsh........
// richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com>
richardmanphoto on Facebook and Instagram
I think just about everyone realized this. Not only is the photograph famous, this ploy is equally as infamous in fooling over critical idiots who believe charts regarding the sharpness of your lens are the most important thing you can observe to improve your photography.
Oh... BD cut me some slack. You are saying that you don't grab an image, you compose it and that"s where an intuitive sense of some basic rules of composition "what feels right" comes to play.
www.mind-driftphoto.com
:hide
.
cause I was going to say that this Photographer has a lot of potential, but he needs to learn
to cull his work better !!
My Galleries
Flicker
G+
I wasn't making a statement about myself, Juano - but about photography in general. And yes, it is definitely what "feels right." I have no illusions that anyone other than my children will ever think about, look at, or otherwise be aware of my photography after I'm gone - oh, unless someone goes through the 30photos in the Boston Public Library collection, which I wouldn't bet on
P. S. This is not intended to be snide, snotty, or in anyway rude, but...I am amazed that anyone who is interested enough in photography to spend time here is not familiar with the cyclist, and with the general body of Cartier-Bresson's work, as well as that of the other greats of the 20th century. Seriously folks, you learn to write, and to improve your writing, by reading. You learn to photograph, and improve your photography, by spending time with the work of great photographers. I now have about 150 photo books in my library. They are my photo school. I realize many people don't want to, or can't, make that kind of investment. But many of those books can be found in any decent size public library. Looking at photographs in a serious way is, quite honestly, far more valuable taking almost any class, and certainly any workshop. The only advantage the class or workshop have over the books is that if they are any good, they provide you with feedback.
End of pompous lecture.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
Seems to me photography is a craft you learn by doing and perhaps embellished by some reading.
History is well... over. Believe me I lived some of it.
My critique of the image discussed would be: It has good graphic lines to a moving subject; but the sense of motion fails since there is not enough trail of the subject. He just appears blurred.
Those comments would be based on today's equipment capability.
Learning that it's taken with film (I'm guessing asa 100) I would excuse the blur, because of equipment limitations.
Somebody here posted a shot in an airport that used the same image concept; without the vintage value attributable to the image.
I thought the stairwell was as good or better than the "masters" shot.
A lot "Masters shots" have some hype value simply because they're in books, many are deserving, many are not.
Again, history is over.
I agree with bd on most of his views and he is very wise on photography, but I disagree with his reliance on books.
Maybe you have to take pictures, a lot of them of different things to get the "eye".
That's just what works for me
Excuse me, I gotta go. They're calling for 10' waves today at Steamers in Santa Cruz; I'm gonna shoot some surfin'
Right on, BD. Which is exactly why you can't define street photography with words.
www.FineArtSnaps.com
I don't understand this disagreement against reading, learning, and observing photography through books. I've read several. I think I'm a better photographer, because I went out and tried those things. Or, those books gave me inspiration in their photographs. I tell everyone to read Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson. I think it gives a huge advantage starting out.
It can be difficult to get straight answers on the internet, with half-truths and biased information. If some of these people who pick up a Rebel for Christmas and start charging for weddings by January would read a book on photography first, they would know that their pictures are typically pretty horrible (compared to a professional, or even someone who just takes it seriously).
I don't think B.D. relies on books. No one does. If you are reliant on books for every aspect of your photography, you are probably not going to make it too far, or you are going to take a very long time to get there. That doesn't mean they're not helpful.
People don't read enough anyway, in my opinion. They can't write anymore, that's for sure, but that's an entirely different conversation, which I won't get into here.
In the end, I'm not trying to change your personal opinion on books. But, objectively, I don't think you should be running around telling people not to read more about photography, because it is healthy to read in the first place, even moreso about photography if you are interested in it.
But I disagree with just about everything you said on that post.
// richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com>
richardmanphoto on Facebook and Instagram