Just Some Dudes

katscanphoto · April 19, 2012

I like how both of the legs are in the exact same position, just about to take a step. Weird.

RSL · April 20, 2012

Sorry, Mole, technically it's very good, good contrast, good middle tones, but I don't see anything there except some dudes.

Bend The Light · April 20, 2012

The guy on the left is in camouflage, I reckon. He is dissappearing into the brickwork!

lensmole · April 20, 2012

katscanphoto wrote: »

I like how both of the legs are in the exact same position, just about to take a step. Weird.

Good observation I thought that was very weird too. Thank you! for the comments greatly appreciated.

Bend The Light wrote: »

The guy on the left is in camouflage, I reckon. He is dissappearing into the brickwork!

He does blend in well with the bricks and I think the pattern on the sidewalk adds to it as well. Very good observation! and Thank you for looking and for the comments very much appreciated.

RSL wrote: »

Sorry, Mole, technically it's very good, good contrast, good middle tones, but I don't see anything there except some dudes.

Thank you Russ ! but I think it makes a good street image based on some of the previous comments. What do you think based on something along these lines ? I know that you are aware of this type street photo others have used it although with more profound blending patterns.For reference a shot taken by an unknown photographer on their lunch hour while working for Joesph and Percy Byron
entitled Broadway North from thirty-eight street, 1898 and their are others. I am not comparing this with them I only want to know what you think about the concept and is it a street photo ?

RSL · April 20, 2012

I almost hate to answer your question, Mole, because if I start to say anything about the distinction between a good image made on the street and a street photograph there are several people likely to come down on my explanation like a ton of bricks, and I'm not interested in a fight.

But you asked, so I guess I'll answer, even though I may have to move on from Street & PJ if I do.

First, let's get one thing out of the way: It's a good photograph. It's well framed -- even meets the rule of thirds the way you've placed those dudes, and the diagonal of the receding sidewalk works very well -- it's tack sharp, at least as near as I can tell at 72ppi on a computer monitor, and the B&W conversion is perfect. So there's nothing not to like.

But in a street photograph either something's just happened, something's happening now, or something's about to happen, and it's that something that's the real subject of the photograph, not the dudes who are in it. Also, in a lot of really good street photographs there's that inexplicable thing that BD coarsely, but accurately, describes as "wtf."

As I've said before: you can't learn what makes a good street photograph just by talking about it. You need to study the work of the masters of street to really understand the difference.

lensmole · April 20, 2012

RSL wrote: »

I almost hate to answer your question, Mole, because if I start to say anything about the distinction between a good image made on the street and a street photograph there are several people likely to come down on my explanation like a ton of bricks, and I'm not interested in a fight.

But you asked, so I guess I'll answer, even though I may have to move on from Street & PJ if I do.

First, let's get one thing out of the way: It's a good photograph. It's well framed -- even meets the rule of thirds the way you've placed those dudes, and the diagonal of the receding sidewalk works very well -- it's tack sharp, at least as near as I can tell at 72ppi on a computer monitor, and the B&W conversion is perfect. So there's nothing not to like.

But in a street photograph either something's just happened, something's happening now, or something's about to happen, and it's that something that's the real subject of the photograph, not the dudes who are in it. Also, in a lot of really good street photographs there's that inexplicable thing that BD coarsely, but accurately, describes as "wtf."

As I've said before: you can't learn what makes a good street photograph just by talking about it. You need to study the work of the masters of street to really understand the difference.[/QUOTE

I meant to say in your opinion is this a street photo ? But again I have looked at some of the masters and I have referred you to one image mentioned in my last post and I will refer you to another where the photo is simply about the coincidental pattern nothing else. This is a candid photo and I think it has the elements that I have described although not as profound as the ones I have mentioned.Here is another one, can you tell me that their is something more to this image other than the pattern of the woman's blouse and the coincidental pattern of the barber shop.? The image Sidewalk and Shopfront,New Orleans 1935 by Walker Evans .

RSL · April 20, 2012

Okay, If I've found the right photograph, "Broadway North" is architectural. It's a beautiful picture of the street, and at this point very historical, but it's not a street photograph. Nobody is in the picture -- except way, way down the street. Nothing has just happened, nothing's happening, and nothing's about to happen. Walker Evans is one of my all-time favorite photographers, and I'm very familiar with "Sidewalk and Shop Front." That one has BD's "wtf" factor all over it. Yes, it's the coincidence of the pattern of the woman's blouse and the pattern of the barber shop. If you can find something like that and snap it, you've got a street photograph.

lensmole · April 20, 2012

RSL wrote: »

Okay, If I've found the right photograph, "Broadway North" is architectural. It's a beautiful picture of the street, and at this point very historical, but it's not a street photograph. Nobody is in the picture -- except way, way down the street. Nothing has just happened, nothing's happening, and nothing's about to happen. Walker Evans is one of my all-time favorite photographers, and I'm very familiar with "Sidewalk and Shop Front." That one has BD's "wtf" factor all over it. Yes, it's the coincidence of the pattern of the woman's blouse and the pattern of the barber shop. If you can find something like that and snap it, you've got a street photograph.

Russ whoever took the photo entitled Broadway North from thirty eight street loved the diversion of a striped dress caught against the striped awnings. Check it out, I don't think it is about architecture.

RSL · April 20, 2012

It's pretty clear I don't have the right picture, Mole. Google doesn't seem to be much help. Got a link?

lensmole · April 20, 2012

RSL wrote: »

It's pretty clear I don't have the right picture, Mole. Google doesn't seem to be much help. Got a link?

No I am sorry I don't ,but I got this information on page 84 from the book you armed me with entitled Bystander.

RSL · April 20, 2012

Okay. Got it. Same thing, I think, as Evans's shot, except not quite so pronounced, and not posed. Still, this one hits me as a great piece of history, but not so much as a great street shot.

But you're reading in the right place, Mole. Keep it up. Bystander is a treasure trove.

Patti · April 21, 2012

RSL wrote: »

Sorry, Mole, technically it's very good, good contrast, good middle tones, but I don't see anything there except some dudes.

except in need of a call to the fashion police?

Javier · April 21, 2012

Nice drive by ! Love the killer tones

RyanS · April 22, 2012

Mole,

How does this look with the cars cropped off on the left (and perhaps a bit off the top and bottom), leaving only the reflection to infer that we, the viewers, are street side?

lensmole · April 22, 2012

RyanS wrote: »

Mole,

How does this look with the cars cropped off on the left (and perhaps a bit off the top and bottom), leaving only the reflection to infer that we, the viewers, are street side?

You are welcome to crop it and post it up so maybe, I could see what you mean. I did sort of think about that . I will have another look at it . Thanks Ryan.

RyanS · April 22, 2012

lensmole · April 22, 2012

RyanS wrote: »

Hey ! I kind of like that better I think it gives more attention to the coincidental pattern of his jacket and the bricks. What do you think?

RyanS · April 22, 2012

Honestly, the jacket/brick thing isn't a strong enough element to grab me. Maybe if it was an image of just him in front of a brick wall it would be strong enough to hit me in the face.

If I were to guess what the image was about, I'd say it was the... interesting... fashion choices of the subjects.

lensmole · April 22, 2012

Javier wrote: »

Nice drive by ! Love the killer tones

I don't do drive byes ,that not how I roll . Thank you for the comments and for looking, much appreciated.

RyanS wrote: »

Honestly, the jacket/brick thing isn't a strong enough element to grab me. Maybe if it was an image of just him in front of a brick wall it would be strong enough to hit me in the face.

If I were to guess what the image was about, I'd say it was the... interesting... fashion choices of the subjects.

I think you are absolutely right Ryan . Thank you for input,very much appreciated.

Just Some Dudes

Comments