23 October

Qarik · October 23, 2011

killer

Eddy · October 24, 2011

Luv it Rutt, well done...

jpope42 · October 24, 2011

Great image, fabulous composition. I really like the stories this implies.

lizzard_nyc · October 24, 2011

Agree--I loved when I first saw it too.

damonff · October 24, 2011

blue blue blue!

rutt · October 25, 2011

This was shot, edited (slight crop), uploaded, and posted here all from my iPhone. Recently, it has become my favorite camera. I always have it, which I suppose is the most important thing. But I like that it emphasizes composition and content over image quality.

When I took BD's class, he forced the B&W decision, by which I mean that he asked the question about every image what it would look like in B&W. No matter what the final decision, this made me look more critically at composition and content, since great color could not carry the day.

Using the cell phone camera imposes a similar discipline. Without meaning to compare myself to my betters, it also reminds me of HCB's decision to use 35mm instead of a press camera or Phillip Greenspun's decision to use a point and shoot.

bdcolen · October 25, 2011

And this killer shot is definitely a color shot. It is, in a number of ways, about color.

bfjr · October 25, 2011

I got the color
I got the implied story

but for me I'm going to have to be the odd man out on "Killer" image

Maybe I'm just not on board the CellPhone Camera thing.

Believe me when I say, I've visited this post many times now
and keep coming away scratching my head.

Extremely glad to see Rutt post however, feels like old times

rainbow · October 25, 2011

Everything hints at greatness for the moment caught, BUT the lack of clarity and muddiness of the subject brings it back to earth.

rutt · October 25, 2011

Yeah, the cellphone camera is a handicap, no doubt. But also a great exercise. Some that could be all time best end up just being good or satisfying (to the shooter.)' wonder what I could accomplish with a trip to PS? But that's really not the spirit of the thing.

rainbow · October 25, 2011

iPhone 4S is 8 MB... Have you upgrades?

And "spirit of the thing" is subjective. Why would you default to the Apple programmers generic processing after becoming such an expert on post processing? If you could make it better, why not?

Richard · October 26, 2011

rainbow wrote: »

If you could make it better, why not?

There are no rules. A little shadow/highlight and selective sharpening could help here.

bdcolen · October 26, 2011

bfjr wrote: »

I got the color
I got the implied story

but for me I'm going to have to be the odd man out on "Killer" image

Maybe I'm just not on board the CellPhone Camera thing.

Believe me when I say, I've visited this post many times now
and keep coming away scratching my head.

Extremely glad to see Rutt post however, feels like old times

The color, the composition, the joy.

bdcolen · October 26, 2011

I always quake at the thought of messing with one of Rutt's images, but...

i-82tm3hf-L-1.jpg

michswiss · October 26, 2011

Nor do I want to draw the wrath of the master post processor, but I much prefer BD's quick work over. Opening the shadows really helps bring the blue dress forward.

bfjr · October 26, 2011

michswiss wrote: »

Nor do I want to draw the wrath of the master post processor, but I much prefer BD's quick work over. Opening the shadows really helps bring the blue dress forward.

Yes that's better for me too.

bdcolen · October 27, 2011

michswiss wrote: »

Nor do I want to draw the wrath of the master post processor, but I much prefer BD's quick work over. Opening the shadows really helps bring the blue dress forward.

Just don't forget that all Rutt did was snap and crop

rutt · October 28, 2011

Very tempting.

sara505 · October 29, 2011

Sorry, but I don't get what the fuss is over this one. The subject is too far away, I can't tell what's going on, and what is the lump on the steps? I realize that Mr. Ruttenberg has kind of a cult following in these parts, but this image does nothing for me. Sorry to be the party-pooper.

damonff · October 30, 2011

There is nothing to get. Photography is not about getting it. It is about a frozen moment in time that is filled with emotion or truth, a moment that could not be expressed in another medium like video or HDR photography or painting. The moment that Rutt captured cannot be recreated because it was not posed. A girl exuberantly leaving church has different meanings depending on the viewer. She is captured almost in air. For me, the blue dress makes the shot and Rutt probably would not have even shot the girl had it not been for her blue dress. But anyway. I get slightly off put when photographs are dismissed because someone does not get it. If you don't get it, why make a sour comment? And a comment just about not getting it is one thing if one is trying to learn, but making a comment like the one above suggesting that someone has a cult following and therefore has photographs that are put on pedestals without merit solely based on the cult leader's mesmerization is tacky. We don't all see the same way. As Rutt has said in the past, he used to never shoot in b/w but after opening his mind and taking BD's class, he now sees why people shoot with b/w. But that doesn't mean he stopped shooting in color.

rutt · October 30, 2011

Making it all the way to having a cult following far exceeds my expectations.

rainbow · October 30, 2011

rutt wrote: »

Making it all the way to having a cult following far exceeds my expectations.

bow

scratch

bow

jose

bow

jonh68 · October 30, 2011

damonff wrote: »

There is nothing to get. Photography is not about getting it. It is about a frozen moment in time that is filled with emotion or truth, a moment that could not be expressed in another medium like video or HDR photography or painting. The moment that Rutt captured cannot be recreated because it was not posed. A girl exuberantly leaving church has different meanings depending on the viewer. She is captured almost in air. For me, the blue dress makes the shot and Rutt probably would not have even shot the girl had it not been for her blue dress. But anyway. I get slightly off put when photographs are dismissed because someone does not get it. If you don't get it, why make a sour comment? And a comment just about not getting it is one thing if one is trying to learn, but making a comment like the one above suggesting that someone has a cult following and therefore has photographs that are put on pedestals without merit solely based on the cult leader's mesmerization is tacky. We don't all see the same way. As Rutt has said in the past, he used to never shoot in b/w but after opening his mind and taking BD's class, he now sees why people shoot with b/w. But that doesn't mean he stopped shooting in color.

I think its an unremarkable picture and I think it's a valid remark to say if anyone else had posted this it wouldn't get the same reaction. It would be called a snapshot. Unless I am mistaken, we can make comments positive and negative about a photograph. I get put off by photographers who basically say if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it. We don't learn anything doing things that way.

rutt · October 30, 2011

Hey, please don't let this thread go all meta (if you know what I mean.) I snagged this with my phone and thought it was pretty neat and also thought it was pretty neet I didn't need anything but the phone to shoot, crop, and post it.

I am really happy that some people liked it and brought back to earth to know that it does nothing for others. And really amused (tickled?) to know that I might have a cult following. How cool is that?

Anyway, I love Damon (we have a longstanding and deep mutual cult going, the two of us.) His work often makes me wish I could do as well. And it makes me happy when he reflexively springs to my defense.

All honest feedback is welcome.

Pax

sara505 · October 30, 2011

Damon, thank you for explaining to me what photography is.

Rutt, thanks for having a sense of humor.

John, thanks for the validation.

Sorry to say this, but as a frequent observer and sometimes participant here, I am often put off by the cliquey-ness in this forum. I apologize if my comment didn't meet the approval of some, but sometimes things just need to be said.

rainbow · October 31, 2011

sara505 wrote: »

... I am often put off by the cliquey-ness in this forum.

Where would photography be with out click-yness?

lizzard_nyc · November 1, 2011

rainbow wrote: »

Where would photography be with out click-yness?

lol Rainbow.

I think all the forums have some sort of element of the clickyness. Go to weddings, people, animals, etc. they all have them and I think there is a reason why some develop a following as in Rutt's case here

.

I have to confess that I wanted to comment immediately after first viewing the shot, but I let it simmer a bit and made my comment.

My gut reaction was that all though I was captivated by the shot, I wanted more. I wish it had been a little less grainy, from closer etc. all the technical stuff, but I loved the emotion of the shot. Could be present day or could be 50 years old, it's hard to tell. It just made me happy to view it, technical issues aside

.

bdcolen · November 1, 2011

Not a fuss, just some interest. Yes, it would be better closer, but that's the reality of cell phone grab shots. Little girl dressed for church, running out of church. Nice colors, nice color contrasts, nice composition - evocative. Would be it better shot with a Hassie and a 150mm lens? Absolutely. Would Rutt have shot it with the 5D he hardly ever carries :-), of course. But...

23 October

Comments