Charleston III

lizzard_nyc · January 4, 2012

there are candid moments that speak to the viewer and there are candid snapshots that really only the photographer can appreciate. I think this one falls into the second one.

RSL · January 4, 2012

Exactly, Liz. But I do love the way the right frame cuts off that face.

bdcolen · January 4, 2012

bdcolen wrote: »

While I am often set straight by responses to photos that I believe to be more than they are -as no one is a worse editor of his or her work than the person who shot it - this is one where I am convinced you are both wrong.

First off, this is not a "snapshot." The framing is quite intentional, including the way the woman to the right is cut off, and the there is air around the woman on the left, creating the contrast between her dark suit and the light slipcovers and bright light.

Second, what I would argue the image conveys - if you think about it - is our constant recording of everything. Here are four people on New Year's Eve, and what are they doing? Eating? Drinking? Chatting? Playing games? No, they are capturing the moment - with cell phone and camera, and immediately checking the photos. As much as I find Susan Sontag painful to read, I have to refer to her comment in On Photography about the idea that tourists are often more intent on capturing proof that they have seen something than they are in seeing it. Add to that adults who are willing to stand around wearing hats that, well...

Finally, I would note that after I posted this on FaceBook, a very active Dgrin member, and excellent photographer - not that both of you arent both of those things

- left the comment: "A comment on our times."
So I'm right and you're wrong and that's all there is to it.

Richard · January 4, 2012

bdcolen wrote: »

So I'm right and you're wrong and that's all there is to it.

Sorry, BD, but I'm feeling pissy tonight so I'll add a few comments.

We typically use "snapshot" as a term of derision, but the fact is, the photos that normal people treasure the most are snapshots, not the stuff we try to do here. For me, the distinguishing feature of a snapshot is that it is an image that means more to the people in the shot or at the scene than to anyone else. It may also have any number of technical faults, easily recognized by photography amateurs. The blurry focus on the woman in the foreground is typical of such faults. I know you are a master of sharp focus in the distance shots and so perhaps this was intentional, but in this case a deeper DOF would have worked better for me.

As for the social commentary, yes, that was the first thing that occurred to me. When everyone has a camera, there'll be nobody left to shoot. Was someone taking a shot of you while you were taking this shot?

. I just wonder whether shots of people taking pics rather than being in the moment might be getting a little passé. Once you've seen (and taken) enough of them, the thrill is gone, and it becomes much like shooting bums sleeping on benches.

torags · January 4, 2012

First, The best line I've this year is , "herding dinosaurs" thanks bd, I relate....

One of the nuances of this forum is that the viewers look into the pictures, not at them.

The problem is - viewers patience is near zero, so if it's not in you face, it fails as an interesting photo.

It's not surprising because of the plethora of images on the new media (internet)

For me this image is too loose to get the photogs idea across; a tighter collection would have helped.

RSL · January 4, 2012

bdcolen wrote: »

So I'm right and you're wrong and that's all there is to it.

Believe it or not, I'd love to see more of that attitude on this forum.:D

bdcolen · January 4, 2012

Richard wrote: »

Sorry, BD, but I'm feeling pissy tonight so I'll add a few comments.

We typically use "snapshot" as a term of derision, but the fact is, the photos that normal people treasure the most are snapshots, not the stuff we try to do here. For me, the distinguishing feature of a snapshot is that it is an image that means more to the people in the shot or at the scene than to anyone else. It may also have any number of technical faults, easily recognized by photography amateurs. The blurry focus on the woman in the foreground is typical of such faults. I know you are a master of sharp focus in the distance shots and so perhaps this was intentional, but in this case a deeper DOF would have worked better for me.

As for the social commentary, yes, that was the first thing that occurred to me. When everyone has a camera, there'll be nobody left to shoot. Was someone taking a shot of you while you were taking this shot? . I just wonder whether shots of people taking pics rather than being in the moment might be getting a little passé. Once you've seen (and taken) enough of them, the thrill is gone, and it becomes much like shooting bums sleeping on benches.

DOF? I was shooting wide open @ either 2000 or 2500 iso. I worked with what I had.

Richard · January 4, 2012

bdcolen wrote: »

DOF? I was shooting wide open @ either 2000 or 2500 iso. I worked with what I had.

Fair enough, but the results are what the are. Guess besides needing a wider lens, you need a new body that goes to ISO 204800. I read in a thread here that it's so sensitive, you can get a perfect shot in total darkness with the lens cap on.

Quincy T · January 4, 2012

Richard wrote: »

Fair enough, but the results are what the are. Guess besides needing a wider lens, you need a new body that goes to ISO 204800. I read in a thread here that it's so sensitive, you can get a perfect shot in total darkness with the lens cap on.

Where can I get this ISO 204800? I heard it will make me good photography.

bdcolen · January 4, 2012

Richard wrote: »

Fair enough, but the results are what the are. Guess besides needing a wider lens, you need a new body that goes to ISO 204800. I read in a thread here that it's so sensitive, you can get a perfect shot in total darkness with the lens cap on.

rofl

bfjr · January 5, 2012

It took me a bit but there is something very, "Norman Rockwell" (see I can drop names too

)
Warm
Inviting
People who have reached that certain age and place in life where
the Hats actually make sense and are fun !

There's also something very important on the Mantle dead center
some kind of writing/letter, but very important to the people there. Just curious.

richardman · January 5, 2012

I am once again the weirdo.

This is a brilliant photograph. The shapes / lines, the expressions. Although I would prefer the right edge to have just a little more. Not all of him, just a couple more inches.

Convert it to B&W and it could be a classic shot (hey, I have to kick some controversy too :-) )

Ed911 · January 5, 2012

I see nothing interesting in this photo...other than a possible keepsake for the shooter....who inadvertently has cut off one of the people in the photo. Nothing artistic...just a snapshot that could have been taken by anyone with a cell phone...and no particular training. The fact that they are taking pictures with cell phones...ugh...so, who doesn't today. Nice spin bd...but not much merit to it.

As for Norman Rockwell...Im my HMO, I don't think so.

Richard · January 5, 2012

Sword and Scales wrote: »

Where can I get this ISO 204800? I heard it will make me good photography.

Nikon D4 rumors: http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=211422 We don't know whether it will really go that high (maybe "only" 102,400), but we do know it's going to be expensive.

Quincy T · January 5, 2012

Richard wrote: »

Nikon D4 rumors: http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=211422 We don't know whether it will really go that high (maybe "only" 102,400), but we do know it's going to be expensive.

Wow, I was totally joking. That's actually interesting/impressive/something I will probably never own.

bdcolen · January 5, 2012

bfjr wrote: »

It took me a bit but there is something very, "Norman Rockwell" (see I can drop names too )
Warm
Inviting
People who have reached that certain age and place in life where
the Hats actually make sense and are fun !

There's also something very important on the Mantle dead center
some kind of writing/letter, but very important to the people there. Just curious.

Interesting you ask about that, Ben - I almost fell over when I looked closely at that simple piece of paper between two sheets of glass: it dates from the 1850s, and is a bill of sale for female Negro.

bdcolen · January 5, 2012

Ed911 wrote: »

I see nothing interesting in this photo...other than a possible keepsake for the shooter....who inadvertently has cut off one of the people in the photo. Nothing artistic...just a snapshot that could have been taken by anyone with a cell phone...and no particular training. The fact that they are taking pictures with cell phones...ugh...so, who doesn't today. Nice spin bd...but not much merit to it.

As for Norman Rockwell...Im my HMO, I don't think so.

I doubt it, Ed.

bfjr · January 5, 2012

bdcolen wrote: »

Interesting you ask about that, Ben - I almost fell over when I looked closely at that simple piece of paper between two sheets of glass: it dates from the 1850s, and is a bill of sale for female Negro.

Wow that is something that I would of never thought !

I still see Norman

bdcolen · January 5, 2012

bfjr wrote: »

Wow that is something that I would of never thought !

I still see Norman

I do to - now that you mention it. And, for the record - the image was carefully composed, and the "chopped off" figure on the right is quite intentional.

bfjr · January 5, 2012

bdcolen wrote: »

I do to - now that you mention it. And, for the record - the image was carefully composed, and the "chopped off" figure on the right is quite intentional.

Yes that is what I thought as well.

Charleston III

Comments