photos photos photos, 2 years of street shooting.

hello, do you take pictures or do you receive them? do you pass visual energy or information? are you universal in your expression? why did the ancestors make a stamp of their hand in the cave? what do you think about in the moment when you press the shutter? what do you think about when your "exhale" change to "inhale"?

thanks for sharing, now i can ask myself as well.
 
hellomikmik said:
hello, do you take pictures or do you receive them? do you pass visual energy or information? are you universal in your expression? why did the ancestors make a stamp of their hand in the cave? what do you think about in the moment when you press the shutter? what do you think about when your "exhale" change to "inhale"?

thanks for sharing, now i can ask myself as well.
Click to expand...

Hellomikmik, what does all of that mean, and what are you now going to ask yourself?
 
I'm not usually a fan of street style shots, but I do tend to like your work, it's definitely a cut above most of the "street" photography I see.

My favourite is easily the one of the kid back-flipping into the sea, it's a real classic and looks timeless. Could easily grace the cover of National Geographic or something.
 
What about the negatives and the printing stage

What about the negatives and the printing stage

Simon,

as I have said in other threads I think some of your pictures are truly great, and could be "smuggled" into, say, "Earthlings" by Kalvar, and no one would think: wait, this picture is not as good as the rest. (And that is not to say you are copying styles - heck, I guess none of us can "un-see" Cartier-Bresson, Robert Frank, or Erwitt - just to say these pictures are very good!)

Paring down your pictures to a portfolio of about 12 to 15 pictures is a very important step - but there is one more aspect I am thinking about, and have been so for a while when seeing some of your posts: how about your developing, and printing?
If I am not mistaken, most of what we have seen are scans made from negatives?
I think it would be worthwhile to revisit the negatives of the "final" selection, and wet print some or all of them.
Also look at the pictures as such, what your intention was, how they turned out, and whether your exposure/developing/printing "match".

I really am not a stickler for photographic perfection when it comes to darkroom work. But I do suspect that your vision would come across even better if you finetuned the "output"/image chain, call it what you like.
Some of your pictures really "work" independently of such mundane "quality" issues, but especially the pictures you "explained" in your reply to Chris might benefit.

All the best,
Ljós
 
Simon,

By now you've read everyone's comments on your portfolio and it looks like you've taken them in stride, which is good as I don't think anyone meant any offense.

That said I have another comment to make and that it that I'm a tad bit frustrated in your responses. You were brave enough to put the portfolio to the group for everyone's review but you don't seem willing to listen to everyone's suggestions.

By and large it seems that everyone really enjoyed some of your work and thought that other bits of it weren't as strong or needed to be taken out of the portfolio all together. In every instance you've quoted their thoughts and then given a reason why you like the images and why they're relevant and why they work on a larger level.

That's fine, they are truly your images and how you express yourself but your reluctance to acknowledge the validity in everyone's thoughts is ill placed.

Museums and galleries are filled with images made by 'important' photographers that are only hanging because of the strength of the name, not the image itself. The cards beside the images are there to explain the perceived thought process of the photographer and give the observer a greater understanding of the image's importance. There is a lot of talk of negative space and symmetry that while interesting and sometimes true doesn't necessarily change the relevance of the image.

And that's true for images made by Sherman or Brassai or Eggleston or Simon or any of us. If it doesn't resonate with people then trying to explain it to them using 'curator' language will only alienate them. We can use words to explain away the faults in in image any of us make.

The comments people made here were in an effort to make you better. Some of your photos are quite nice, others are quite pedestrian. I think you'd be well-served to listen to people's opinions and try to use them in constructive ways. Explaining why images work for you and why they will work on a deeper level later is a bit silly.

Anyway, again I mean no offense. Best of luck with all of the future shooting.

Chris
 
Dear Simon,

hat's off to you, for multiple reasons!

First of all, like I said before I'm impressed and inspired by your shots! Even though there are some that I would not have taken, there are many more I could not have taken. Many of them take a keen eye and a fast response when coming across them, and often I lack either one or on some days both.

Also, it takes a certain kind of dedication in photography to put a set out to be critisized on RFF because in advance one can be certain that favorite shots might get slain because nobody sees in them what you saw or wanted to get across. It's much easier (read 'safer', 'comfortable') to put shots into the gallery and have them show up in the weekly Gallery Picks thread if they're good by anyones standards.

I'm interested in your explanation of what you saw in the shots, but feel you need at least a few shots more before you can arrange them in a set where people can get to recognize the 'little games' you play. And as a result I would leave them out now.

Words on not accepting critique I would only find in order if a photographer would get defensive, or even stubbornly refuse to alter a set, collection or portfolio. In your replies I found neither of that.
 
Rules are made to be broken. When breaking "set rules" in photography, it takes some courage and also talent. You see often the suggestion to focus on objects in the foreground and to allow the background to go out of focus. When focusing on the background, it is interesting to know whether the photographer did this on purpose,and if so,why.

I did not get a reply to my simple question about this issue other than ....
 
Simon, you excel in many many way, and I always enjoy looking at your work.
Your best images range from:
classical street-life scenes (vevey 56, 57, tuscany 1, hunt, onde, london 19, new year's eve)
light-shadow plays, a la Gibson (barcelona 64, subliminal dancers, montreux 47, cote'd'azur 17, vevey 69, tuscany 33, berlintangible,
street-life coincidences - think of In Public's Blake Andrews (Cote d'azur 11, rrr)

The weakest ones I find to be juxtaposition shots (assimilation, london 6 and 16, conscience and countenance, scarf matters, horny woman) - I understand they are highly rated these days - see a large chunk of the in-Public collective - but to me most lose interest very quickly. They lack the quality that makes me want to go back at them over again - they don't grow in time. Also, some coincidence shots (ballet 2, by cycles) and the dog/bird shots I don't find particularly strong.

We know, editing is a painful job, but somehow we have to do that. And often the photographer has too many attachments to specific images, that others wouldn't find as strong. Overcoming that bias, and the desire to show more instead of less, is hard. That's where critique (from a 'mentor' you trust) can be very useful. Over a 2 year span, how many truly good shots can one take? I would be happy with less then a dozen. These could end up in a portfolio, and become iconic images that form a photographer's recognizable voice. The other ones can still be good enough for exhibit, or a book.
I'm no expert in any way, these are just my personal thoughts.
 
gravityassault said:
Simon,

By now you've read everyone's comments on your portfolio and it looks like you've taken them in stride, which is good as I don't think anyone meant any offense.

That said I have another comment to make and that it that I'm a tad bit frustrated in your responses. You were brave enough to put the portfolio to the group for everyone's review but you don't seem willing to listen to everyone's suggestions.

By and large it seems that everyone really enjoyed some of your work and thought that other bits of it weren't as strong or needed to be taken out of the portfolio all together. In every instance you've quoted their thoughts and then given a reason why you like the images and why they're relevant and why they work on a larger level.

That's fine, they are truly your images and how you express yourself but your reluctance to acknowledge the validity in everyone's thoughts is ill placed.

Museums and galleries are filled with images made by 'important' photographers that are only hanging because of the strength of the name, not the image itself. The cards beside the images are there to explain the perceived thought process of the photographer and give the observer a greater understanding of the image's importance. There is a lot of talk of negative space and symmetry that while interesting and sometimes true doesn't necessarily change the relevance of the image.

And that's true for images made by Sherman or Brassai or Eggleston or Simon or any of us. If it doesn't resonate with people then trying to explain it to them using 'curator' language will only alienate them. We can use words to explain away the faults in in image any of us make.

The comments people made here were in an effort to make you better. Some of your photos are quite nice, others are quite pedestrian. I think you'd be well-served to listen to people's opinions and try to use them in constructive ways. Explaining why images work for you and why they will work on a deeper level later is a bit silly.

Anyway, again I mean no offense. Best of luck with all of the future shooting.

Chris
Click to expand...

you have no reason to be frustrated, chris, I read, thought about and will remember every comment posted here. I didn't reject any critiques or suggestions (let alone all of them). I respect them, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to go ahead and always do exactly what someone tells me. this would also be an impossible task, as, as you might have noticed, different people (and I don't mean myself) have different opinions about photographs. about the same picture, one says "this should definitely be in a final selection", the other says "why would anyone even take this photo". who is 'right'? I know neither of them, I don't know their work, their attitude, their background or how long and intensively they 'studied' public documentary photography. all I can do is take it as what it is - their opinion, not an axiomatic truth - and see how I can best use it.
personally, I like photos that are prone to trigger a "why would anyone take a photo of this?"-reaction but feature a little detail, a little twist to them that makes them work, while for some they still might not (I am very happy to see that there are people who see the same in these photos as I do). of course that doesn't mean all of them are great.

"I think you'd be well-served to listen to people's opinions and try to use them in constructive ways. Explaining why images work for you and why they will work on a deeper level later is a bit silly."

this does offend me. I'm not a little child nor am I new to the matter. I listen to everyone if he or she has something interesting to say (which is usually the case on rff) and I don't use 'curator language' to excuse my bad photography or make it seem more than it is. you obviously misunderstood quite a bit of what I was saying, and you seem to forget that usually I don't explain any of my pictures and there still are a number of people who see and appreciate what I mean. again, I'm far from saying that makes all of them great photographs, and I do respect people who might not see or appreciate these things in the same way.

I have cut down the selection on flickr (and might do so a little more) and posted a link to a tighter 'portfolio', but even if I hadn't I would still be grateful for all the feedback given and people's interest in my work.
 
Last edited:
raid said:
Rules are made to be broken. When breaking "set rules" in photography, it takes some courage and also talent. You see often the suggestion to focus on objects in the foreground and to allow the background to go out of focus. When focusing on the background, it is interesting to know whether the photographer did this on purpose,and if so,why.

I did not get a reply to my simple question about this issue other than ....
Click to expand...

sorry raid, I can't remember having been asked this before and thus thought it would be quite obvious. also, I know people who would have asked this as a joke (especially with regards to the 'rule' of focusing on foreground objects). I didn't mean to insult you, I realise you might not follow my work and therefore the question is probably legitimate.
I did it on purpose, I like the way I can work with this 'technique' as long as the OOF foreground-object is still distinguishable enough to add to the picture. here's a well known example: http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_la9je1CYBB1qbp5jho1_500.jpg the jumping man is clearly recognisable (despite being OOF and motion-blurred) but he wouldn't make half as much sense without the in-focus dancer on the wall in the background. I'm preaching to the choir of course. :)
 
Simon,

You and I have never met and I'm not going to get into an argument over a computer with you. I am sorry if my comments offended you, it was not then and is not now my intention.

I make my living with a camera so I'm quite sensitive to people's perceptions of their own work. I learned from great editors.

You said in your last post that you didn't try to explain your images...perhaps not but when you write:

"...another thing I like are clean geometrics in 'dialogue' with organic elements like here http://www.flickr.com/photos/simonsa...57626749926851 or here http://www.flickr.com/photos/simonsa...57626749926851 . this all may seem very simple and idiotic at first, but it can actually lead to quite interesting cultural and aesthetic 'studies' and be more than a puzzle for kids."

It seems that you are making an explanation.

But it doesn't matter, nor does it matter what anyone says about your photos, the way you express yourself is your individual voice. I only meant to critique what I saw and offer suggestions.

I hope the rest of the weekend is good to you. See you around RFF.

Chris
 
SimonSawSunlight said:
ps: sorry for the extensive use of the word 'street photography' for reasons of lazyness, it's a bit of a useless term and I don't like limiting my photography with such questionable definitions. no problem if you want to call it so, though.
Click to expand...

Many years (decades?) ago we used the term "candid photography," which has long been out of favor. If it were still extant "street" would be a subset of "candid."

Candid photography, often family snaps for the album, made no pretensions to be art. But let's face it, most of us here are striving to create art at some level. Many of us make big prints of our images and hang them on our walls. Why do we do that but to stake a claim on some level of artistry?

Most of my images are opportunistic, and virtually all involving people, the vast majority, are unposed. But some of them are not on the street. So, how to classify them?

Simon, you are not limiting your photography "with such questionable definitions" because "street" is not well defined. Might as well keep using it till something better comes along.

Harry
 
Some say that sugo is getting better with longer cooking.

I would edit the selection further down. There are different themes in the stream. I would split the stream into the main theme and the rest. In my opinion the main theme is represented by these images:

Montreux 47
Côte d'Azur 11
Lausanne 43
tuscany 20
squadron
onde
ballet 2
berlintangible 5
london 6
london 16
assimilation
ypsilon
by cycles
gestural contingency
rrr

Possibly these could be edited even a bit further down.

Anonther notable theme are hands. In my opinion this is a different set but of course there is some overlap. The hand theme is a bit underrepresented. I would suggest taking more shots.

Printing the photos and arranging and grouping the images in different ways may also be helpful for getting a feeling of how the images are working together. Wet printing on good paper or good digital printing may also be an interesting idea. Just to see, how it would look like.

Overall I like what I see and I think you have some good stuff going to expand upon. :) My personal favourite is rrr. Just my 2 cents. Ah, I forgot, I think the images do not need the titles as a hint. It may be more interesting for the viewer to discover that by him/herself.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom