Some Street Photos of the 60's

Flowerman · October 25, 2009

A few from my Smugmug gallery - C & C please.
Photoman74.smugmug.com
New to posting don't know why only one took. - Oh well - the learning curve.

Richard · October 25, 2009

Hi Flowerman and welcome to Dgrin

. You can only attach one pic per post but you can link as many as you like. Just make sure external links are enabled in your SmugMug gallery. How To Post on Dgrin

craig_d · October 25, 2009

Not a bad picture, but the crying child's clothes seem overexposed -- not much detail visible. Also, there's a tricycle in the background that collides with his head.

I think this shot would probably have worked better with the camera horizontal and moved in a bit, because there's no real content in the top or bottom and the other children (who continue playing, blithely ignoring the crying boy) are too close to the left and right edges.

Flowerman · October 26, 2009

Richard wrote:

Hi Flowerman and welcome to Dgrin . You can only attach one pic per post but you can link as many as you like. Just make sure external links are enabled in your SmugMug gallery. How To Post on Dgrin

Thanks for the assistance Richard - it will take a while for this old guy to get it right - but right I will get it. I have a large gallery which I would like to share little by little.
ED

Flowerman · October 26, 2009

craig_d wrote:

Not a bad picture, but the crying child's clothes seem overexposed -- not much detail visible. Also, there's a tricycle in the background that collides with his head.

I think this shot would probably have worked better with the camera horizontal and moved in a bit, because there's no real content in the top or bottom and the other children (who continue playing, blithely ignoring the crying boy) are too close to the left and right edges.

Craig, thanks for the in depth analysis - you brought up several things I never considered back then. When I was into candid street photography - back in the sixties - my main purpose was to get the emotion prior to lossing the moment. I am amazed now that I was able to get as many emotional shots as I did - shooting mainly from the hip.
If I was to go back to Washington Square Park in New York City or any park with kids for that matter with my camera I most likely would be arrested for taking photos of children - times have changed.
ED

bdcolen · October 26, 2009

Flowerman wrote:

Craig, thanks for the in depth analysis - you brought up several things I never considered back then. When I was into candid street photography - back in the sixties - my main purpose was to get the emotion prior to lossing the moment. I am amazed now that I was able to get as many emotional shots as I did - shooting mainly from the hip.
If I was to go back to Washington Square Park in New York City or any park with kids for that matter with my camera I most likely would be arrested for taking photos of children - times have changed.
ED

And indeed you did get the emotion - and that's what this picture is about. I don't know where people are getting their "rules," about not having people at the edges of frames, etc., but throw away that rule book. Yes, the bike is hitting the kid's head - maybe that's why he's crying. In fact, that bike and his crying are linked, and I would hardly worry about that "problem." I like the two other kids, utterly oblivious, on the edges of the frame, each in his own little world - neither connected to each other, or to your subject. And btw - if we want to talk about compositional rules, etc, that's a nice triangle created by the two kids at the edges and the subject down in the center.

Anyway, nice shot, and welcome to the forum!

craig_d · October 26, 2009

B.D.: It's not that the picture is bad, because it's good; but when someone asks for C&C, I assume they want to know how it could have been better still. This one doesn't look to me like a naturally vertical shot. No, there's no rule against having things near the edge of the frame, nor did I say there was, but in this case, I would like to have had a little more space around the group. I agree with you about the nice triangle, though.

I don't know why you assume that the crying child and the trike have anything to do with each other. It's not impossible, of course, but there's no indication that that's the case. If he were walking away from the trike, I would agree that it was likely that he's crying because he fell off it, but as it is, he's just passing by it. I would guess that whatever he's crying about happened off to the left of the frame, but of course I could be wrong. The photo doesn't tell us that, and it isn't really important.

Not everyone who says something you disagree with is trying to reduce good photography to a simplistic set of rules to be followed without exception. Just sayin'...

bdcolen · October 26, 2009

craig_d wrote:

B.D.: It's not that the picture is bad, because it's good; but when someone asks for C&C, I assume they want to know how it could have been better still. This one doesn't look to me like a naturally vertical shot. No, there's no rule against having things near the edge of the frame, nor did I say there was, but in this case, I would like to have had a little more space around the group. I agree with you about the nice triangle, though.

I don't know why you assume that the crying child and the trike have anything to do with each other. It's not impossible, of course, but there's no indication that that's the case. If he were walking away from the trike, I would agree that it was likely that he's crying because he fell off it, but as it is, he's just passing by it. I would guess that whatever he's crying about happened off to the left of the frame, but of course I could be wrong. The photo doesn't tell us that, and it isn't really important.

Not everyone who says something you disagree with is trying to reduce good photography to a simplistic set of rules to be followed without exception. Just sayin'...

No, they don't and aren't. But we disagree on this one on just about everything. And no, there's no way to know that he fell off the bike - but that's sure that the picture says to me.

Flowerman · October 27, 2009

Bad attitude.

bdcolen wrote:

No, they don't and aren't. But we disagree on this one on just about everything. And no, there's no way to know that he fell off the bike - but that's sure that the picture says to me.

I never dreamed that this shot would generate such GREAT discussion. I reviewed my scans and was unable to find any other shots of this subject.
What caught my eye and thus the quick shot was the bad attitude of the other children in the area.
Another point I should make - these postings are as close to the original shot as possible. Perhaps some sharpening and conversion to B&W when a color slide just lost it beacuse of age. Ektachrome 64 did not age well - Kodachrome 25 did very well. Of course being stuck in a hot attic for 40 years doesn't help either.
I will be back with more posts for your C & C which really like.
ED

Flowerman · November 6, 2009

Street Images-1960's
Well here I go again - hope it works. I am posting a few shots taken yesteryear. One caveat, each photos title is really the feeling I had when was taken- of course interputed now. Later I will post a recent street shot which will give a better explanation. When taking these photos I never gave any thought to other than the main theme. Most were taken with an Argus C-3 with a 105mm "Telephoto" lense, either from the hip while standing or from the seat where I was sitting - few if any were taken with camera up to eye.
1. Lovers

2. Homeless

3. Sleeping it off

4. Lost soul

5. An Italian Game????

Some Street Photos of the 60's

Comments