Back to the future...back to the past...

bdcolen

(This was not a set up.)

thoth

Number one is fantastic, B.D. I was wondering where Skid Row's front man ended up! (Sebastian Bach)

Number two, I don't get much from.

Patti

Back to the Future indeed. This could be an 80s something shot. I like it a lot.

I seem to miss something in your shots like #2, bd. It's not ringing any bells for me.

TonyCooper

I guess I'm ever the contrarian. Number 1 is an excellent shot and interesting
shot, but it's a fish in a barrel. No one with a camera would pass it up.

Number 2, though, is the shot that most walk by, but BD saw. There's a
pensiveness in her posture with her hands clasped behind her and her gaze
directed downwards. I want to know what she's thinking, what she's puzzling out,
what decision she's trying to make.

bdcolen

Thanks folks - and glad you saw it, Tony.;-)

bdcolen

I've been thinking about Tony's comment about image #1, and the more I think about it, the odder it is. (I should preface this, by the way, by saying that I wish more,rather than fewer people, would criticism my postings - the idea of this forum is to share and learn.)

What Tony said is that the 'Back to the Future' image is an 'excellent and interesting shot, but it's a fish in a barrel - no one with a camera would pass it up.' First, thanks for the first part of the comment, but as to the second:

Not everyone with a camera sees the same things, values the same things, or creates the same images. And not everyone who photographs always carries some kind of camera. Would 'everyone' have made that shot? Many, many, people, including many on ths list, would not have, because they would have felt intrusive doing so; it is not a long lens 'snipe,' it was shot with a 50 mm from a booth slightly kattycorner and about eight feet away. Many people wouldn't have taken the hot because they would have feared a confrontation. Many would have concentrated on their own breakfast. And everyone who did see it and shoot it would have done so differently; some undoubtedly better, and some not so much.;-)

So what about the idea that if a scene is really compelling, 'no one with a camera would pass it up?' How many people shot the nurse and sailor kissing in Times Square on VE day? Two to my knowledge. How many cameras were there? I would guess there we, even in 1945, too many to count. I am not suggesting that my photo is in any way iconic, or on the same level as that one. But rather trying to point out that perhaps the single most important element in bad, good, or great photography is the most obvious - deciding to take the photograph.

Again, don't like the framing, the lighting, the exposure, the elements included, the processing? Critique away. And please understand, if I push back, it's to share knowledge and experience, not because I don't think my excrement doesn't stink - I, like everyone else, take plenty of stinkers. :-)

TonyCooper

bdcolen wrote: »

I've been thinking about Tony's comment about image #1, and the more I think about it, the odder it is. (I should preface this, by the way, by saying that I wish more,rather than fewer people, would criticism my postings - the idea of this forum is to share and learn.)

What Tony said is that the 'Back to the Future' image is an 'excellent and interesting shot, but it's a fish in a barrel - no one with a camera would pass it up.' First, thanks for the first part of the comment, but as to the second:

Not everyone with a camera sees the same things, values the same things, or creates the same images. And not everyone who photographs always carries some kind of camera. Would 'everyone' have made that shot?

Many, many, people, including many on ths list, would not have, because they would have felt intrusive doing so; it is not a long lens 'snipe,' it was shot with a 50 mm from a booth slightly kattycorner and about eight feet away. Many people wouldn't have taken the hot because they would have feared a confrontation. Many would have concentrated on their own breakfast. And everyone who did see it and shoot it would have done so differently; some undoubtedly better, and some not so much.;-)

So what about the idea that if a scene is really compelling, 'no one with a camera would pass it up?' How many people shot the nurse and sailor kissing in Times Square on VE day? Two to my knowledge. How many cameras were there? I would guess there we, even in 1945, too many to count. I am not suggesting that my photo is in any way iconic, or on the same level as that one. But rather trying to point out that perhaps the single most important element in bad, good, or great photography is the most obvious - deciding to take the photograph.

Again, don't like the framing, the lighting, the exposure, the elements included, the processing? Critique away. And please understand, if I push back, it's to share knowledge and experience, not because I don't think my excrement doesn't stink - I, like everyone else, take plenty of stinkers. :-)

Certainly, my "everyone" was meant to include "everyone in this group
who posts to 'Documentary'." That's pretty much implied by the fact that
the regular posters in the other DG forums don't usually take their camera
into restaurants.

I wasn't thinking that a Wildlife photographer would press his back to the
far wall because he had on his 500mm lens, that a Portrait photographer
would run out to the car for his lights and Pocket Wizard, that a Macro
photographer would frantically remove his extension tubes, that a
Landscape photographer would notice anything under artificial light, or
that a Baby photographer would jiggle a teddy bear to get the subject
to look that way.

In this case, "everyone" means the Usual Suspects who have motive
(they shoot "street") and opportunity (they take their cameras
everywhere)...and that's us in "Documentary" (aka: Street).

You have a good point mentioning that many of us are not
comfortable taking shots where the subject can notice we are
taking a shot. I pass up quite a few because I don't want the
subject asking me why I took the photo. I don't want confrontation
and I have trouble (as I think we all would) explaining to the
subject why I do "street" and photograph complete strangers.
It's a difficult subset of photography to explain.

As far as "seeing the shot", that's why most of us are here.
We can. We don't see 'em all, and we don't all do it right, but
we're all looking. "Everyone" here in this forum.

One of my biggest problems is seeing the shot but not
reacting fast enough. I may see the sailor and the nurse,
but the kiss is over before I get the camera up. Far too
many times, far too many, I'm past the subject(s) and bemoaning
that it would have been a good shot but I didn't react quickly
enough.

torags

Whoa... you guys are getting heavy....

Image comments: #1 is a good grab and Patti was right, it could have been taken in the '80s. It begs the question (to me); how do you get the time warp into the image, because we know bd took it now.

#2 is technically good, although it looks almost like it could use a wee bit of straightening - but it could be lens distortion. The subject is a pacer as I am, so I see nothing unique in the capture, I would have passed. An example of photogs bias that other people find interesting.

Healthy discussion...

RyanS

All my opinion, of course....

#1 - Cropped too close. Want to see more of the hot blond (pan right a little). Missing the foot of the main subject, want to see it all. Want to see more of that checkered floor and the rest of the environment. The diner looks straight out of the Back To The Future movie. Including more of the environment might have tied it together in a stronger way.

#2 - I know many here will disagree. I think the stoplight hanging in space is ultra-distracting. Want to feel closer to the subject. This far back leaves me with a feeling of disconnectedness, but I want to connect. The high angle leaves me seeing an odd effect with the perspective of the sidewalk. Is the subject a child? A LP? Looks oddly tiny, but not in a good way.

bdcolen

Some times, Ryan, one has to work with the lens that's on the camera, and the constraints of the environment. What you see is that a 50 mm lens could see. I could have come down about two inches, to the top of the Back to The Future poster frame, picking up about two inches of sneaker, but not the entire shoe. I could not have gotten more of the "hot blond" without cropping the Breakfast Club poster, which I consider far more important than a few inches of the "hot blond's" back. And more of the diner, which would have required using a wider lens, would have made the posters, and for that matter Mr. Whitesnake, smaller, and the photo is about him and the posters, not about the other patrons in the dinner, or the floor tiles. ;-)

As to the other - No requirement that you like the image, or that you think it's any good. But I'd suggest it's pretty obvious that's an elderly person, who happens to be short. The photo was composed intentionally to have her floating in the environment.

bdcolen

TonyCooper wrote: »

Certainly, my "everyone" was meant to include "everyone in this group
who posts to 'Documentary'." That's pretty much implied by the fact that
the regular posters in the other DG forums don't usually take their camera
into restaurants.

I wasn't thinking that a Wildlife photographer would press his back to the
far wall because he had on his 500mm lens, that a Portrait photographer
would run out to the car for his lights and Pocket Wizard, that a Macro
photographer would frantically remove his extension tubes, that a
Landscape photographer would notice anything under artificial light, or
that a Baby photographer would jiggle a teddy bear to get the subject
to look that way.

In this case, "everyone" means the Usual Suspects who have motive
(they shoot "street") and opportunity (they take their cameras
everywhere)...and that's us in "Documentary" (aka: Street).

You have a good point mentioning that many of us are not
comfortable taking shots where the subject can notice we are
taking a shot. I pass up quite a few because I don't want the
subject asking me why I took the photo. I don't want confrontation
and I have trouble (as I think we all would) explaining to the
subject why I do "street" and photograph complete strangers.
It's a difficult subset of photography to explain.

As far as "seeing the shot", that's why most of us are here.
We can. We don't see 'em all, and we don't all do it right, but
we're all looking. "Everyone" here in this forum.

One of my biggest problems is seeing the shot but not
reacting fast enough. I may see the sailor and the nurse,
but the kiss is over before I get the camera up. Far too
many times, far too many, I'm past the subject(s) and bemoaning
that it would have been a good shot but I didn't react quickly
enough.

All good points, Tony. And all issues we all have to deal with. I, too, am uncomfortable taking shots such as the one we are discussing. But I take them anyway. I guess it's a question of how much discomfort one can tolerate.

As to the question of who would or would not have seen the shot, I realize this is the documentarystreetpjwhatever forum, but I guarantee you that there are many people on this forum who either wouldn't have seen the shot, wouldn't have taken it if they had seen it, or would have asked the kid to pose for them in front of the poster - which would have produced a very different image.

Richard

TonyCooper wrote: »

I guess I'm ever the contrarian. Number 1 is an excellent shot and interesting
shot, but it's a fish in a barrel. No one with a camera would pass it up.

To me, a fish in a barrel shot is something you see all the time--a homeless person sleeping on the ground or a bench; a couple--each totally involved with their cell phones and ignoring each other. A cliché, in other words. #1 most definitely is not something you see all the time. The fact that (given the chance) other photographers might have taken the same shot does not detract from the image, but rather suggests that it was a shot worth taking.

bdcolen

Funny, when I explain my "no bums" rule to my students, is one of the things I tell them is that shooting Harvrad Square's "homeless" is "like shooting fish in a barrel." ;-)