800 got junk

Richard · December 10, 2011

Very nice. I am a little surprised at how much grain it has, as it looks like light was not a problem. Intentional?

torags · December 10, 2011

Richard wrote: »

Very nice. I am a little surprised at how much grain it has, as it looks like light was not a problem. Intentional?

Thanks for the comments folks

Intentional

original:

Quincy T · December 10, 2011

So clever! Well done.

richardman · December 10, 2011

I see now you are full tilt on your pursue to make your photograph "art." :-) Well, stop that. post processing gimmick doesn't make the photos better, or artsy.

And if you have moved slightly to the right, that will get the woman's head slightly off center.

I think that would be a better artistic decision.

MHO of course.

Richard · December 10, 2011

richardman wrote: »

I see now you are full tilt on your pursue to make your photograph "art." :-) Well, stop that. post processing gimmick doesn't make the photos better, or artsy.

I don't have any problem at all with using post-processing to alter the appearance of an image. If it works, then go for it. The problem I see in this one is that the image itself is entirely contemporary--the big plastic bags, the phone number, the modern car. But I think of grainy images as largely a thing of the past, except maybe for low light shots (for those of us who can't afford a top of the line camera) or for film addicts. Some images lend themselves to an older look so adding grain or toning may enhance them, but IMO, this image is not one of them. Perhaps it's the mismatch that makes richardman think the grain is a gimmick, not the processing as such.

richardman · December 10, 2011

Actually, it's Rag's statement that post processing makes photograph into arts that prompted me into writing when this is clearly post processed :-) Probably the sheep photo too...

Richard · December 10, 2011

richardman wrote: »

Actually, it's Rag's statement that post processing makes photograph into arts that prompted me into writing when this is clearly post processed :-) Probably the sheep photo too...

Ah, right--the idea that art resides in the processing, not the capture. I don't agree with that at all, though I do think that processing can contribute.

torags · December 10, 2011

Richard wrote: »

I don't have any problem at all with using post-processing to alter the appearance of an image. If it works, then go for it. The problem I see in this one is that the image itself is entirely contemporary--the big plastic bags, the phone number, the modern car. But I think of grainy images as largely a thing of the past, except maybe for low light shots (for those of us who can't afford a top of the line camera) or for film addicts. Some images lend themselves to an older look so adding grain or toning may enhance them, but IMO, this image is not one of them. Perhaps it's the mismatch that makes richardman think the grain is a gimmick, not the processing as such.

Hmmm... Associations

I shoot a lot of dirt racing. Flying dirt is course, gritty and gravely. Lots of texture

From time to time I bring construction mat'ls to the dump. There the crushed concrete & splintered wood is full of texture

Both these cases are beyond the film grain of TriX (the basis of your "old" association), I just feel courser texture fits better in these cases

"I see now you are full tilt on your pursue to make your photograph "art." :-) Well, stop that. post processing gimmick doesn't make the photos better, or artsy.

And if you have moved slightly to the right, that will get the woman's head slightly off center.

I think that would be a better artistic decision."

Richardman; again - if you disfigure a capture beyond recognition in PP, that's art: it's an original new image. What I did here is an embellishment of a capture.

Now if you don't get the nuance right, in good conscience, I'm going to have to give you a D for the lesson

Jeeze...... you guys have me on my toes with this intellectual swordplay

richardman · December 10, 2011

Rags, I'm afraid few people still think that post processed photograph to create an original is the only way a photograph can become art. So I didn't get a D. Unless it's an XD emoticon :-) As to what grade you should get.... :-) May be an S for Standing Alone and feel right about it.

But it's none of my business. So you keep shoot pictures, and I will just keep my mouth shut. Although I think you do care about people's comments. Otherwise, you wouldn't be posting all these photos.

Nyarthlopic · December 10, 2011

That shot is just too funny, Torags! Personally, I'm not a fan of the noise. It's not about the modern vs old-time picture feel. I can't put my finger on it...the noise just doesn't work for me. I DO like the B&W processing, though. Overall, very good shot! Thank you for the share.

TonyCooper · December 10, 2011

I haven't been following this forum recently, but I'm glad to see certain things never change. All those
comments about the processing, and no comments about the catch itself.

I've been wandering around town with my camera for days and haven't come up with a shot that I
think is good enough for this forum, and here's a terrific catch of a scene that I'd would have given
an eye-tooth to notice. Perfect subject, great background, and a great marriage of angle-to-subject.

I'd have to hire a model and furnish my own props to match the shot.

Would it have been better without the film grain filter? Dunno. Don't care. Good shot.

richardman · December 11, 2011

Really Tony?

"And if you have moved slightly to the right, that will get the woman's head slightly off center.

I think that would be a better artistic decision."

This should be a counterpoint to all the "good catch." Agree? Disagree? No one cares?

TonyCooper · December 11, 2011

richardman wrote: »

Really Tony?

"And if you have moved slightly to the right, that will get the woman's head slightly off center.

I think that would be a better artistic decision."

This should be a counterpoint to all the "good catch." Agree? Disagree? No one cares?

Of the hundreds of candids I've taken, there are few - if any - shots that
I haven't thought later that if I had moved slightly to a different angle that
the result wouldn't have been better. Candids aren't studio-posed shots
where we always have the luxury of taking multiple shots from multiple
angles at multiple settings.

Your comment is more appropriate to a shot taken under studio conditions
where that artistic judgement can be played out by asking the model to
move a bit this way or to keep that pose while the photographer moves.

Most candids are grab shots where, at best, we can choose from a small
number of shots that we were able to take before the scene changed.
Usually, we're taking in the whole scene in a matter of seconds and
assessing the general scene, the background, and the position of the
subject. All the elements don't always come together.

That doesn't mean the shot isn't a "good catch".

richardman · December 11, 2011

You're kidding right? Please read all the recent posts from michswiss, RSL, bdcolen etc. Have you seen the contact sheet, say for example, Eisenstaedt's VJ kiss in Time Square? There are about 4 photos, all similar, and only one great photo. If all the elements don't come together, then it's a miss. Not near miss, not near hit, but an opportunity lost.

Rags is capable of very fine photograph. We know this is a good catch, but the final image could be better if he worked it a little. With this particular scene, the photographer should have enough time to move around. If other people are happy with "good catch," then so be it, but I would prefer if photographers try harder.

Richard · December 11, 2011

richardman wrote: »

Rags is capable of very fine photograph. We know this is a good catch, but the final image could be better if he worked it a little. With this particular scene, the photographer should have enough time to move around. If other people are happy with "good catch," then so be it, but I would prefer if photographers try harder.

Well, possibly. You're correct that the composition might have been improved had she been a little off-center, but the essential element that made the shot worth taking (the junk and junk truck juxtaposed) would not have changed or been improved. We don't know what distractions might have been introduced in the background by shooting from a different angle. OTOH, since the person was walking, it would have been easy to just take a couple more shots as she moved across the street, which would have gotten her off-center and also taken advantage of the diagonal line painted on the street. Unless, of course, a big bus that was out of the frame came along and blocked the view of the truck. It's easy in retrospect to rearrange things, but reality may not want to cooperate.

richardman · December 11, 2011

Richard, we don't know what's on Rags "Contact Sheet." May be that's the only shot he could have gotten, or may be he thought he has gotten THE SHOT and then moved on, or may be he has taken a dozen photos of the scene and this is the best one. We don't know.

I do know this, the best photographers in the world works the scene. Sometimes may be there is only one chance, but most people don't take advantage of the time they have.

Richard · December 11, 2011

richardman wrote: »

I do know this, the best photographers in the world works the scene. Sometimes may be there is only one chance, but most people don't take advantage of the time they have.

Right. I certainly try to work the scene whenever possible. I guess my real point is that--as you said--we don't know what's on the contact sheet, only what we see posted, so we shouldn't make assumptions about alternate shots.

richardman · December 11, 2011

I am not making assumption about alternate shots, I am pleading him to get even better :-)

Richard · December 11, 2011

richardman wrote: »

I am not making assumption about alternate shots, I am pleading him to get even better :-)

Cool. We could all get better.

torags · December 11, 2011

Thanks Richardman for thinking I can get better, I can't.

Richard & Tony you are exactly right, reality doesn't recognize "contact sheets".

The story about this is; I was stopped at a light, got my cam (left the car idling), got to the curb took a couple of quick shots on "P".

Got back to the car 'cause someone came behind me and left. I had seen her again one morning, but I was in full fast traffic and couldn't stop.

Passed that corner again on Tues mornings (same time) 3X or so, cause I wanted to get a facial shot with 800 Junk behind her. Haven't seen her again.

I'm on the lookout for a young dude who carries two bags that size on a bicycle, I want to get him.

May be unlikely, they have made rifling garbage cans against the law in this county (can you believe it?)

torags · December 15, 2011

Moving Day
Well I tried to stalk my junk aluminum can carrying bicyclist this morning (to satisfy my paparazzi urges).

My yield for the wait was this shot of what I thought to be another "junker". Not so, he had his living stuff loaded on.

After PP I noticed the thing on his forehead. That's a head light, he was probably on the road for at least an hour (since it was dark). I wonder how long he was on the road

richardman · December 15, 2011

I like it! Just crop slightly to move him off the center a bit, and I think this is a fine photo. To me, there is some kind of story here - with an empty lot and clean street and then he is carrying bags of stuff. The headlight definitely adds.

torags · December 15, 2011

Good call Richardman. Context is flabby and could use prunning

Truth be told , I would have liked more reveal of the load. But I dropped my cam and he passed, ... my bad

thanks for looking

800 got junk

Comments