Old School

Quincy T

Note: Man, this and the image with the little boy and balloon...I really have a tendency to put these strong, breaking lines in my images for no reason at all! Time to work on my photography skills and stop spending an hour thinking about buying a new lens.

Juano

Good shot nonetheless! I like the way he's looking back at you.

lizzard_nyc

Was this by B&H?
I'm sorry I missed you Quincy--next time:)


Photographer spots photographer--I like it.

lensmole

Good capture ! I would consider cropping some off the top . The vertical lines give it a sense of movement .The vertical format works good in this, but if you had taken it a bit sooner and framed him in the middle of the two large lamp standards ,might have worked better .

RSL

Terrific shot, Quincy. You framed it just right with the guy closer to the right side of the frame to leave room for the implied diagonal to the point of his gaze (you). Mole's right in a sense, but you'd have to have been able to move the camera to the left as he walked between the two lamps, and we can't be sure that was possible in the absence of what was off to the left. I certainly wouldn't crop this one. The balance is right.

With due respect to Mole, who's a good photographer, I have to say that I think attempts to tell a photographer where he should have stood, how long he should have waited, or how he should have aimed his camera differently are mistakes. Unless you're able to stand in the same spot at the same time you have no basis for that kind of criticism. Critiques like that remind me of civilian judges who've never been in harm's way feeling they're qualified to make decisions about what a soldier or a cop should have done under fire. Yes, there are a bunch of rules of composition that it's nice to follow, as there are laws that one ordinarily must follow, but to understand the situation you have to be there.

michswiss

Let the strong verticals play with you. During a review I subjected myself to at one point, the editor noted the consistent use of strong verticals as a potential component of my imagery. Play with it. Don't avoid it, but do learn to see it when it's happening.

Cool shot, btw.

lensmole

RSL wrote: »

Terrific shot, Quincy. You framed it just right with the guy closer to the right side of the frame to leave room for the implied diagonal to the point of his gaze (you). Mole's right in a sense, but you'd have to have been able to move the camera to the left as he walked between the two lamps, and we can't be sure that was possible in the absence of what was off to the left. I certainly wouldn't crop this one. The balance is right.

With due respect to Mole, who's a good photographer, I have to say that I think attempts to tell a photographer where he should have stood, how long he should have waited, or how he should have aimed his camera differently are mistakes. Unless you're able to stand in the same spot at the same time you have no basis for that kind of criticism. Critiques like that remind me of civilian judges who've never been in harm's way feeling they're qualified to make decisions about what a soldier or a cop should have done under fire. Yes, there are a bunch of rules of composition that it's nice to follow, as there are laws that one ordinarily must follow, but to understand the situation you have to be there.

Excuse me for living Russ! They are simple observations and my opinion ! Yes I would defiantly crop the top and all I mentioned was it " might" have worked better had he framed in in the middle of the lamp standards. No I was not their, but you don't have to be a Mental King to know the obstacles the photographer has to deal with shooting in the street,so it is not as though I don't take these things into consideration. I would think that one can always learn something from an image and look for ways to learn from them the next time one is out shooting. Wayne Gretzky always tried to improve his skills and was a great goal scorer because he always anticipated beforehand where the puck would be. Is their something wrong with the way I critiqued this image?

RSL

Sorry, Mole. But if your read carefully you'll see that my criticism wasn't about your specific critique. You're not the only one who does this. I've done it myself. I don't have a problem with a cropping suggestion, though I may not agree. But to suggest that Quincy should have made the shot sooner is to go too far. You can base a cropping suggestion on what you see in the picture, but you can't know what Quincy's situation was when he made the shot. The point is that when you say the photographer should have shot sooner or waited or backed up or moved forward you're outside the envelope of your knowledge of the shot. You can't possibly know what else would have changed had the photographer done what you suggest. The picture is what it is. You can critique what is, but you can't critique what isn't.

lensmole

RSL wrote: »

Sorry, Mole. But if your read carefully you'll see that my criticism wasn't about your specific critique. You're not the only one who does this. I've done it myself. I don't have a problem with a cropping suggestion, though I may not agree. But to suggest that Quincy should have made the shot sooner is to go too far. You can base a cropping suggestion on what you see in the picture, but you can't know what Quincy's situation was when he made the shot. The point is that when you say the photographer should have shot sooner or waited or backed up or moved forward you're outside the envelope of your knowledge of the shot. You can't possibly know what else would have changed had the photographer done what you suggest. The picture is what it is. You can critique what is, but you can't critique what isn't.

No worries Russ ! Thanks for the solid advice ! I will need to process it a little more.

Quincy T

Well, thank you everyone for your comments and compliments.

I agree, michswiss, maybe I should take some more time to evaluate why I have a tendency to see these strong verticals. It's certainly subconscious, but I do have a passion for verticals over horizontals in a lot of situations, so maybe that's showing up in my images no matter the orientation (like the balloon boy I posted earlier this week). I guess that is weird. Anyway:

As for the situation, I'll give it to you:

I was walking around after leaving B&H (you called it Liz, and I'm sorry I missed you too...) and was talking to my mother-in-law wishing her a happy mother's day. I had my camera down by my hip, as I often do, wearing my handy dandy BlackRapid strap. As I was conversing, I spotted this man with his crazy camera, and, holding camera in one hand and the phone in the other, I composed as he walked by rather quickly. I snapped two shots of him. The other I kept, and I will show you, but it's a "fine art" image if anything . I was also shooting in manual, which is an exercise I have returned to, as I aperture priority on the 7D can be pretty wild and crazy during the bright days and, from time to time, it's good to see light and formulate an appropriate shutter speed in my brain rather than let a computer do it.

So, the steps to this shot were:

1) Target acquired
2) Took the crazy shot I'll post down below
3) Recomposed, changed settings, and moved closer in the space of a couple of seconds
4) Shot the original post image.

Crazy shot, which is kind of neat I think...too bad the tree is so sharp.

Javier

Another killer street shot. The forum gets a name change and now we have true quality street shots showing up. Go figure.

Quincy T

Javier wrote: »

Another killer street shot. The forum gets a name change and now we have true quality street shots showing up. Go figure.

I don't think this belongs in Go Figure, but perhaps we could talk to Nikolai about that.

Also, thank you, Javier. I think we were posting some good stuff beforehand though!

Quincy T

Uhhh...so here's the thing about this picture:

http://www.louismendes.com/

Yeah.

That's awesome.

Holy crap the more I read about this, the crazier it gets! hahahaha. How wild is that?! A street image of a famous street photographer I didn't even know.

Harryb

RSL wrote: »

With due respect to Mole, who's a good photographer, I have to say that I think attempts to tell a photographer where he should have stood, how long he should have waited, or how he should have aimed his camera differently are mistakes. Unless you're able to stand in the same spot at the same time you have no basis for that kind of criticism. Critiques like that remind me of civilian judges who've never been in harm's way feeling they're qualified to make decisions about what a soldier or a cop should have done under fire. Yes, there are a bunch of rules of composition that it's nice to follow, as there are laws that one ordinarily must follow, but to understand the situation you have to be there.

I have to totally disagree here. Critique of images should take into consideration all factors that went into capturing the posted image.

Sometimes a move to the left or right, or up or down could have made a difference in the capture. Sometines taking the capture sooner or later would also have an impact on the effectiveness of a capture. All of this is apropriate material in a critique. If the OP wants us the understand the conditions of the capture they are very able to communicate that info.

BTW, the review of soldier's actions during war is kind of accepted these days. I remember reading about this in a book on the Nuremberg Trials.

RSL

Hi Harry, The problem with that is that a move to the left or right or up or down could certainly have made a difference, but you have no way of knowing what the difference would be. When you make a criticism like that you're assuming that nobody in the picture would have moved, or closed their eyes, or made a funny face... You just don't know. Even if the OP tells us all about the conditions of the capture, we still don't know what unexpected things might have happened to the scene when the conditions changed -- i.e., during a move by the photographer.

During the late sixties and early seventies I used to have lunch in the O club once a week with an army guy who had been a prosecutor at Nuremberg. Review of a soldier's actions during war may be accepted today, but during the Nuremberg trials we made up the law as we went along. I can accept a review of a soldier's actions by a military court, but not by a civilian court. Anybody who's going to make ex post facto decisions about a combat situation must have had his own butt on the line before he's qualified to understand what's going on. You're a vet. You must understand that.

bfjr

Quincy T wrote: »

Also, thank you, Javier. I think we were posting some good stuff beforehand though!

Now here's something I can agree with, the rest I don't know

Harryb

RSL wrote: »

Hi Harry, The problem with that is that a move to the left or right or up or down could certainly have made a difference, but you have no way of knowing what the difference would be. When you make a criticism like that you're assuming that nobody in the picture would have moved, or closed their eyes, or made a funny face... You just don't know. Even if the OP tells us all about the conditions of the capture, we still don't know what unexpected things might have happened to the scene when the conditions changed -- i.e., during a move by the photographer.

During the late sixties and early seventies I used to have lunch in the O club once a week with an army guy who had been a prosecutor at Nuremberg. Review of a soldier's actions during war may be accepted today, but during the Nuremberg trials we made up the law as we went along. I can accept a review of a soldier's actions by a military court, but not by a civilian court. Anybody who's going to make ex post facto decisions about a combat situation must have had his own butt on the line before he's qualified to understand what's going on. You're a vet. You must understand that.

Russ, photography is a never ending learning process. Personally I can only recall a handful of my own captures that I was truly satisfied with. I have improved because I try to learn from my mistakes and I've been fortunate to have others pointing out where I screwed up. Some of the best critique I've received was about the timing of my captures, my positioning when I took a capture, and the perspective I used. Whenever we critique an image we can only go by the image presented.

Now for the OT stuff. The military and police are subservient and ultimately answerable to civilian authority. Both are insular institutions with a prevailing CYA culture. I had a few discussions with Telford Taylor (Army general and Counsel for the Prosecution at the Nuremberg trials) which pretty much convinced me of this. My time in Vietnam also convinced me of the need for an external review of military actions. The Knapp Comission in NYC pretty much established the need for external review of the Police. Having been beat up by the police while photographing a demonstration was also a rather convincing example (to me anyhow) of the need for external review.

RSL

Hi Harry, I doubt you'll ever find anybody who'll agree more than I do that photography is a never ending learning process. I'll go further and say that unless you want to become a vegetable, life is a never ending learning process. And yes, I'm in the same boat you are: I probably can count the photographs I've made over the past sixty years that I'm satisfied with without taking off my shoes.

But you contradicted yourself when, on the one hand you said that the best critiques you've received have been about the timing or positioning of your capture, and then pointed out that we can only go by the image presented. The image presented can only tell us about the timing at the moment of exposure, not about what would have happened with different timing. We can guess at what it might have been, but that's the best we can do. Same with positioning: if we suggest different positioning for a different result, unless we've been there, we're guessing at what's outside the frame we're looking at, and we don't really know what the difference would have been. If we were talking about landscape I'd be closer to agreeing with you, but landscapes don't turn their heads, close their eyes, turn around, or walk away. Most of the pictures we deal with in this forum are people pictures, and people do all those things.

I think general Taylor would agree that at Nuremberg we made up the law as we went along. It was the first time in history principals on the losing side of a major war had been put on trial, which is not to say that before that losers weren't hanged or shot after a war. I think Nuremberg was necessary. After the enormities performed by the Nazis the world demanded revenge, and we had two choices: simply shoot the bastards or try them. The down side of Nuremberg was that it led to a thing like the International Court of Justice, which seeks to arrogate unlimited, world-wide jurisdiction.

But that's not what I was talking about when I said that a court made up of civilians with no military experience hasn't the understanding to pass judgment on an individual soldier in a combat situation. On the other hand, my time in Vietnam and other parts of Southeast Asia, told me the same thing it told you. During most of the time I was there the operation was run by military morons, and needed intervention by a politician with the abilities of a Churchill. Unfortunately we didn't have a Churchill.

As far as the Knapp Commission is concerned, I couldn't agree more. But I'd add a question to that observation: how did the cops get so far out of control in the first place? There was supposed to be civilian review all along the line. Where was it? Why was it necessary for the politicians who were supposed to be overseeing the cops suddenly to throw up their hands and bring on a Knapp Commission? See Lord Acton for the answert: Power corrupts!

lensmole

Quincy T wrote: »

Uhhh...so here's the thing about this picture:

http://www.louismendes.com/

Yeah.

That's awesome.

Holy crap the more I read about this, the crazier it gets! hahahaha. How wild is that?! A street image of a famous street photographer I didn't even know.

Very exciting ! I want to upgrade the status of my critique from good capture to Yaaahooo!

Harryb

Quincy T wrote: »

Uhhh...so here's the thing about this picture:

http://www.louismendes.com/

Yeah.

That's awesome.

Holy crap the more I read about this, the crazier it gets! hahahaha. How wild is that?! A street image of a famous street photographer I didn't even know.

That is pretty amazing

richardman

That's a great story. Who hinted to you that he's Louis Mendes?

bdcolen

Harryb wrote: »

Russ, photography is a never ending learning process. Personally I can only recall a handful of my own captures that I was truly satisfied with. I have improved because I try to learn from my mistakes and I've been fortunate to have others pointing out where I screwed up. Some of the best critique I've received was about the timing of my captures, my positioning when I took a capture, and the perspective I used. Whenever we critique an image we can only go by the image presented.

Now for the OT stuff. The military and police are subservient and ultimately answerable to civilian authority. Both are insular institutions with a prevailing CYA culture. I had a few discussions with Telford Taylor (Army general and Counsel for the Prosecution at the Nuremberg trials) which pretty much convinced me of this. My time in Vietnam also convinced me of the need for an external review of military actions. The Knapp Comission in NYC pretty much established the need for external review of the Police. Having been beat up by the police while photographing a demonstration was also a rather convincing example (to me anyhow) of the need for external review.

Excellent points, Harry - And on the OTT, isn't ir interesting that virtually every institution or group is invariably convinced that it should be left alone to settle 'it's own' problems, because after all, the rest of us 'just wouldn't understand?' I give you...the Holy Roman Catholic Church, Ultra Orthodox Jews in Israel and Brooklyn, southern white racists from 1840 to today, and, of course, the military. It is overnight by society as a whole that keeps our society civil.

Quincy T

richardman wrote: »

That's a great story. Who hinted to you that he's Louis Mendes?

A fellow photographer on 500px. He said: "ahhh Louis Mendes, the master of old school. This is a good capture. Didi he take your picture too? He's a slick cat."

It was really interesting to learn that randomly, rather than actively pursuing a picture of him while in New York.

Angelo

Quincy T wrote: »

...I really have a tendency to put these strong, breaking lines in my images for no reason at all!... Time to work on my photography skills...

Sounds like someone has developed a personal style that works well. This is a FABULOUS shot, As - Is!!!




.

damonff

love it...

Quincy T

To conclude this tale (perhaps), Louis Mendes has now acknowledged my photograph of him, and shared it with everyone on Facebook.

Annndd now I'm a published photographer ...I kid!