Street - Drive-bys

seastack

Pink Dress. South Dakota, Oct. 2007

So ... this is a little different - part of a series I'm working on of "drive by shootings" of America (I wasn't behind the wheel). Some of the images are pretty impressionistic like this one. Like it, hate it, why? please be honest )

ian408

I like that. The blur, colors; it comes together nicely.

DavidTO

I like how the mountains mirror what imagine her stride to be.

pathfinder

Looks like Kodachrome

Marc Muench

Way cool right amount of blurrrrr right amount of light and composition works as well.

schmoo

Personally, it doesn't do much for me.... :hide

Keep in mind that I am apparently in the minority!

I think the idea of drive bys is a cool one! I would love to see more from this series. And I get the impressionistic feel of this for sure

Maybe I just ache to see a balance of blur and focus, as with most panning shots?

My $.02

kdog

schmoo wrote:

Personally, it doesn't do much for me.... :hide

Keep in mind that I am apparently in the minority!

I think the idea of drive bys is a cool one! I would love to see more from this series. And I get the impressionistic feel of this for sure

Maybe I just ache to see a balance of blur and focus, as with most panning shots?

My $.02

seastack

Wow, thanks for all the comments ... they mirror all the sides of my own thoughts. I'm surprised at the positive feedback ... goes to prove that risks are good and you have to follow your own vision )

Schmoo, i really appreciate your honest input and struggled with this here as well ... the conflict between wanting to see something a certain expected way versus what turns out. I see pictures all the time when I'm driving ... glances, juxtapositions, frozen moments at 40 mph, and the nearly seen ghosts in the periphery ... shooting this way is so different than landscape work in many ways, more emotional perhaps ... wrong word, more ... instinctual. There is so little time that it's just more from the gut. Interestingly enough, this image sums up South Dakota and the Black Hills more for me than any of the other pics from my few days there. Sometimes i think we focus too much on technique and what we expect, what we think others expect of us, than on how an image makes us feel on a less intellectual and more instinctual level ... but that's just my take. Landscape photographer William Neill, who is one of the kindest people i've ever met, has been working on this in his landscape work recently with intentionally blurred images of nature ... it's very interesting.

Thanks again, i'll pull together a body of drive-by work for here when it's a little more developed )

schmoo

seastack wrote:

Wow, thanks for all the comments ... they mirror all the sides of my own thoughts. I'm surprised at the positive feedback ... goes to prove that risks are good and you have to follow your own vision )

Schmoo, i really appreciate your honest input and struggled with this here as well ... the conflict between wanting to see something a certain expected way versus what turns out. I see pictures all the time when I'm driving ... glances, juxtapositions, frozen moments at 40 mph, and the nearly seen ghosts in the periphery ... shooting this way is so different than landscape work in many ways, more emotional perhaps ... wrong word, more ... instinctual. There is so little time that it's just more from the gut. Interestingly enough, this image sums up South Dakota and the Black Hills more for me than any of the other pics from my few days there. Sometimes i think we focus too much on technique and what we expect, what we think others expect of us, than on how an image makes us feel on a less intellectual and more instinctual level ... but that's just my take. Landscape photographer William Neill, who is one of the kindest people i've ever met, has been working on this in his landscape work recently with intentionally blurred images of nature ... it's very interesting.

Thanks again, i'll pull together a body of drive-by work for here when it's a little more developed )

Cool! I definitely look forward to seeing them.

I am with you in receiving photographs on an instinctual level. I always thought I was more prone to approaching it that way perhaps because of my gender, but regardless I understand that a photo doesn't have to be technically perfect to be an award-winning, gut-moving shot.

Recently I was looking at some landscapes by Jim Brandenburg and a few of his were completely blurry as well. True at first you think "Huh?" but IMO sometimes it works because it demonstrates something about the subject, but sometimes it doesn't... to whomever is looking at it.

If absolutely nothing else, a photo like this makes you stop to consider it on more than just a passing level. Obviously this shot works for quite a number of people, regardless of how I received it! I will have to look up this William Neil.

seastack

Schmoo, you might also look at Josef Koudelka, he's featured right now on Magnum's webpage. http://www.magnumphotos.com

anwmn1

No offense but it doesn't do anything for me either.

Though I see often where a partially or even a significantly blurred image captures the esscence of the subject to me this one does not. For me there is too little subject matter with the girl- we cannot get an idea of who she is- what she is doing- or anything of significance to understand the shot. The mountian being all the way to the top of the frame and the girls lower legs being cut off limit the shot as well. The background is also so dark and blurred that it lacks any significance. This could be taken driving down any rural road in America.

I am not a technical guy when it comes to photography at all- hell I don't even fully understand how all the functions and settings work together- I know what to do to get what I like but can't explain it on paper. I shoot by eye and more importantly feel. Though this shot may provide you with the feeling of your trip I don't think that emotion is expressed enough for the viewer.

Just my honest thoughts.

rundadar

Honestly? Love it!

Now, I am not going to 'critique' and over-analyze as to 'why' and 'how'. It's real. It's emotional. It conveys 'American' to me. It works much better for me than apparently much love image you've posted recently (with the person and the dumpster and a lot of graffiti) - not that that other shot was not a good one - but this is much stronger.

Tastes differ, of course - would be boring, otherwise

Well done! Thanks for sharing.

seastack

anwmn1 and rundadar thanks for the comments ) Appreciate the feedback and i love a good discussion. I almost entered this shot in LPS but chose the alley one instead because i thought it had more universal appeal. Both were taken the same day i think.

And rundadar, check out John Crosley's work, street from the 60's and today, huge portfolio. I think you will like, close to your work, and don't miss his discussion here.

pathfinder

schmoo wrote:

.....

Recently I was looking at some landscapes by Jim Brandenburg and a few of his were completely blurry as well. True at first you think "Huh?" but IMO sometimes it works because it demonstrates something about the subject, but sometimes it doesn't... to whomever is looking at it. .....

Funny you should mention him, Nightingale and I stopped for a morning in his gallery in Luverne, Minnesota on the way home from Glacier.

I bought his book "Chased by the Light"

His work is well worth a look.

As for Seastack's image, I have a soft spot in my heart for the warmth of Kodachrome. I rarely see "Kodachrome" anymore with digital images.

schmoo

pathfinder wrote:

Funny you should mention him, Nightingale and I stopped for a morning in his gallery in Luverne, Minnesota on the way home from Glacier.

I bought his book "Chased by the Light"

His work is well worth a look.

As for Seastack's image, I have a soft spot in my heart for the warmth of Kodachrome. I rarely see "Kodachrome" anymore with digital images.

Jim, i'm envious of the chance to visit his gallery! Chased by the Light was one of my first exposures to landscape photography. But only a month ago or so did I rediscover him and looked at his work with photographer's knowledge.

Sorry for the hijack.

seastack

schmoo wrote:

Sorry for the hijack.

No hijack, just a good discussion

Cantfeelmyfingers

OHHHHH ok, I didn't see this post before I commented on the other photo! For the specific series you're creating, I think this photo and the other photo I commented on are really neat stuff!