A Beach Scene

evanlavine · September 13, 2011

A scene from last Spring.

bfjr · September 14, 2011

For me it's taken a bit to grow on me but yeah I like it

evanlavine · September 14, 2011

thank you bfjr - I had fun with this one!

RSL · September 14, 2011

Evan, I agree with Benjamin that it grows on you, but I still haven't made up my mind about it.

evanlavine · September 14, 2011

I will take that for now Russ. I felt a little like Ingmar Bergman working on this one. : )

rainbow · September 15, 2011

My reaction to this is the same as your first shot (lady on transit): I look and think the focus should have been on the guy and the forefigure blurry instead... Plus side is that it is a good "mood" shot.

evanlavine · September 15, 2011

Interesting Rainbow - I think for this one I like the focus as is - but I do understand the way you "see" it. Thanks for making me look at this one a bid differently.

Richard · September 16, 2011

Interesting. My first reaction was the same as rainbow's--why have the person in the foreground in sharp focus when all you see is her back? But thinking about it a bit more, focusing on the guy in the background likely would have meant less blur of the background, which might be a distraction. In the end, this seems to be about separation--the distance between them, the man looking away--so perhaps the focal point is best left as is.

lizzard_nyc · September 16, 2011

To me nothing really seems in focus, yet it still works.
I like it very much, from the get go, and i have found myself coming back to it a few times.

Moody--yes definately.

evanlavine · September 19, 2011

Thanks Richard and Liz! I am glad the moodiness is felt. It was a game of cat and mouse, for sure, at least in my mind composing this!

bdcolen · September 20, 2011

Very, very nice. I get the objection of people who think the man, rather than the woman, should be in focus. But that would be a very different image, and would say something quite different. Shooting it that way would also have produced a much more predictable, and therefore less interesting image. Nice.

RSL · September 20, 2011

Evan, I've finally made up my mind. It's a good picture. It would make a great illustration for a novel, but I can't call it a street photograph.

Richard · September 20, 2011

RSL wrote: »

Evan, I've finally made up my mind. It's a good picture. It would make a great illustration for a novel, but I can't call it a street photograph.

Hey Russ,
Don't get too hung up in taxonomy. We play fast and loose here, as you have noted. Dgrin is simply too small to do otherwise. As I have said in the past, I'd much rather look at a good shot of a puppy than a mediocre street shot.

RSL · September 20, 2011

I agree, Richard, but at the same time I hate to see a picture of a puppy called a street shot. I like puppies. I've had several in my life and loved them all. I have many pictures of them. But none of those pictures are street shots.

I guess my problem is that during my 81 years I've made a serious study of the photographers you've listed as references, plus many more and I have a very high regard for the poetry of street photography. It seems to me that a forum that calls itself Street & PJ ought at least try to be a teaching tool for people interested in street photography and photojournalism.

From what I've seen so far it appears that on Street & PJ nobody is willing to puncture anyone's balloon and actually be critical. The "criticisms" are all back-patting. It's obvious that there are some quite accomplished street photographers on here and it's a shame that it's considered a faux pas to criticize. The serious, and sometimes even over-the-top, criticism I see on Luminous Landscape is one reason I like that forum. It really is a teaching tool, and there have been plenty of comments to indicate that even those who've taken a critical blast appreciate what they've learned from it.

Maybe I'm on the wrong forum.

evanlavine · September 20, 2011

Russ, I will defend this as a street shot. It might not fall into the conventions of some of the great photographers you and I admire, but why would this not be a street shot? Explain, please. I ask out of respect, only.

Does Street photography always have to mirror or mock society in some way? Why can't it tell a story within society using people as the characters in a play, like I believe this does - with nothing composed, using two random strangers who don't even know they are the stars - two people who in fact, probably don't even realize their lives intersected at this moment?

Oh, and thanks BDColen.

RSL · September 21, 2011

Okay, Evan. You got me. Yes, I'll back up and agree that it fits the requirements of a street photograph. There's a story there. The story's ambiguous, which adds to its appeal. I look back at my previous comment and realize I contradicted myself when I made it. I said the picture would be a great illustration for a novel. That sort of settles the story part. As you say, it doesn't fall into the conventions with which we're both familiar, but I'm not at all averse to seeing those conventions expanded.

evanlavine · September 21, 2011

Fair enough Russ, thanks for elaborating here!

A Beach Scene

Comments