raid
Dad Photographer
These are beautiful images, Peter. Your images look special to me. I don’t know what your secret recipe is!
benlees
Well-known
Definitely prefer the 2nd, but wish it has the look of the 1st. A person smoking looking at their phone is not particularly interesting, and at a distance the viewer cannot tell if they are relaxing (in contrast with the urban scene) or full of anxiety (matching/enhancing the urban scene). The 2nd is full of life despite no people in it. The silence is eery as it seems as it should be teeming with life but everyone dropped what they were doing and left. The light, the bric a brac paving in the foreground, and the sheet of fabric across the frame give it a lot of energy that matches the ad hoc nature of the whole scene.
Thanks for sharing.
Thanks for sharing.
raid
Dad Photographer
The first image looks like a painting from some picture book. The second image is also special.
willie_901
Veteran
Thanks for sharing the Facebook version.
daveoo
Established
The look of these photographs apart from the subject is different, but I don't find it distasteful. I can see using desaturated colors in these photos as working. And taking this processing look and applying it to an abstract subject might work. Or using the effect on an artificial light source. Can the look be unifying? Is there an Orton effect here? However these are your images, not ours.
I don't like the horizontal sheet or sail(?) in the second because it is blocking my view forward. The idea I get is there is a path through the clutter and teeming elements, but watch your step. And then the path leads to more clutter in the background and is this cozy or clostrophobic? Is there no rest in this photo on purpose?
The first photo has the main composition including the two foreground light posts and the woman between these posts. I see the woman in dark clothes and the two dark light posts together. Can one identify two more subtle sub-compositions including the close light post, the graffiti and the ground? The second is the far light post and some of the building. Are these photos busy because they are teeming with details and elements that relate, unify or form sub-compositions within the frame? What about clutter and needed exclusion as an opposite view? Busy detail photos are interesting to me if I can form relationships.
Are you trying to compose Wimmelbild images for adults, teeming with details and relationships? That would be my guess. And if so does your processing fit your style of composition? I see the look of the first photo as potentially unifying all the details.
Does this all work in your two photos is quite subjective, meaning for some or many this does result in a valid interesting image!!! Images cannot be invalid in my opinion. What if you printed the first image very large and removed the "viewing the photo on the monitor" issue?
I could be off trail with my comments, but I appreciate your photographic explorations and where you are going.
Only you can know if you have arrived.
I don't like the horizontal sheet or sail(?) in the second because it is blocking my view forward. The idea I get is there is a path through the clutter and teeming elements, but watch your step. And then the path leads to more clutter in the background and is this cozy or clostrophobic? Is there no rest in this photo on purpose?
The first photo has the main composition including the two foreground light posts and the woman between these posts. I see the woman in dark clothes and the two dark light posts together. Can one identify two more subtle sub-compositions including the close light post, the graffiti and the ground? The second is the far light post and some of the building. Are these photos busy because they are teeming with details and elements that relate, unify or form sub-compositions within the frame? What about clutter and needed exclusion as an opposite view? Busy detail photos are interesting to me if I can form relationships.
Are you trying to compose Wimmelbild images for adults, teeming with details and relationships? That would be my guess. And if so does your processing fit your style of composition? I see the look of the first photo as potentially unifying all the details.
Does this all work in your two photos is quite subjective, meaning for some or many this does result in a valid interesting image!!! Images cannot be invalid in my opinion. What if you printed the first image very large and removed the "viewing the photo on the monitor" issue?
I could be off trail with my comments, but I appreciate your photographic explorations and where you are going.
Only you can know if you have arrived.
peterm1
Veteran
Thanks to everyone who contributed. It gave me a lot to think about and was helpful. I posted these suspecting there would be a mixed response and that was how it turned out though I think mainly very positive so that was nice. As I have said I am pretty relaxed about criticism especially when I have asked for it. Its how we learn. There are too many comments to respond specifically to all of them but I will attempt to make a few responses.
daveoo Funny you should mention the tarpaulin or whatever it is in the second scene. For me it works - in fact it is one thing that drew me to the scene. I liked the way it broke the view I otherwise would have had of the whole alley. I guess that is a matter of personal interpretation. Yes these scenes are cluttered though I do not know if I had any specific motive or intent in taking the shots other than that they caught my attention. I think if I did have an intention (and maybe this came after the event rather than consciously, before I took the images) it was more that I wanted to show the contrast between Hong Kong's glitzy high rise, big finance side and the ordinary things of life. Scenes like this which are more or less abandoned and definitely unkempt, but which form an integral part of everyday life for inhabitants, are found a lot in HK - usually just around a corner in a side street somewhere. Most visitors do not look, or if they do they think "Ugly!" and move on.
Benlees I think the sense of abandonment or near abandonment was something that drew me. The second image is more typical of many side streets and alleys in Kowloon where most people live in very close proximity to each other (parts of Kowloon for example are said to be the most densely populated urban environments on earth and other parts of HK are not far behind.) Finding a place with no people (or one person who has obviously just popped out for a "ciggy" and will soon leave) is a distinct novelty in a place like that.
Yokosuka_Mike Thanks for your kind words. I am blushing. What more can I say. I take your point about posting several images at a time. Good thought. Finally, you say "We’re a bunch of grumpy old men". That's probably why I fit in. Just ask my wife .
Richard G Post processing is not everything but in my case it is something. It is a part of what I do - in fact it is a big part. My feeling about the images I wish to make is that I do not wish to make final images that just come out of a camera. I guess I am more interested in "image making" than in "image taking" (i.e. rather than in photography per se). I much prefer an end result that interprets the scene and is somewhat painterly in the image that then results. It is never just about what comes out of the camera, it is about what I do with it after. Some times it works, sometimes not. Sometimes I end up with a dozen variants of a specific image in my p.c. as I experiment with different styles then only publish one of them (or none of them). Sometimes I try a specific style and find I like it for a time but eventually discover new ways of presenting those images. All of this inevitably involves PP. But in putting these two images up for feedback I did privately acknowledge that some could feel they were over processed. I myself was not sure whether they worked or not, or if I had over done it. I think what I have concluded from this experiment is that some find it to their taste, some do not. And that is fine too. For me, I am always looking for a better way.
Rob-F "To my eye, the second photo is the one that is too busy." I understand what you say about this and the lack of a specific core subject. In way I think I had the same issue with it and wished there was a human subject as the point of reference for the image. But we cannot always have what we want when we street shoot as we cannot control what's happening in the world and need to take what we get.
I actually have had this photo on my PC for several years unprocessed, I think for that reason. Then recently looking back on older images I looked again at this one and realized it had something else - an interesting interplay of light and dark, shadow and light plus a sense of abandonment which is almost certainly what originally drew me to take it. And the presence of some red items in it help enormously. Red, just "pops". And so I then set about processing this (and another like it). I have composited these into a diptych and posted the composite below. I think in this composite image there is a bit more contrast in the above scene than the original version I posted in this thread - added in post to see how it works and to balance with its partner image which is naturally more contrasty.
The composite image of two alley scenes mentioned above.
daveoo Funny you should mention the tarpaulin or whatever it is in the second scene. For me it works - in fact it is one thing that drew me to the scene. I liked the way it broke the view I otherwise would have had of the whole alley. I guess that is a matter of personal interpretation. Yes these scenes are cluttered though I do not know if I had any specific motive or intent in taking the shots other than that they caught my attention. I think if I did have an intention (and maybe this came after the event rather than consciously, before I took the images) it was more that I wanted to show the contrast between Hong Kong's glitzy high rise, big finance side and the ordinary things of life. Scenes like this which are more or less abandoned and definitely unkempt, but which form an integral part of everyday life for inhabitants, are found a lot in HK - usually just around a corner in a side street somewhere. Most visitors do not look, or if they do they think "Ugly!" and move on.
Benlees I think the sense of abandonment or near abandonment was something that drew me. The second image is more typical of many side streets and alleys in Kowloon where most people live in very close proximity to each other (parts of Kowloon for example are said to be the most densely populated urban environments on earth and other parts of HK are not far behind.) Finding a place with no people (or one person who has obviously just popped out for a "ciggy" and will soon leave) is a distinct novelty in a place like that.
Yokosuka_Mike Thanks for your kind words. I am blushing. What more can I say. I take your point about posting several images at a time. Good thought. Finally, you say "We’re a bunch of grumpy old men". That's probably why I fit in. Just ask my wife .
Richard G Post processing is not everything but in my case it is something. It is a part of what I do - in fact it is a big part. My feeling about the images I wish to make is that I do not wish to make final images that just come out of a camera. I guess I am more interested in "image making" than in "image taking" (i.e. rather than in photography per se). I much prefer an end result that interprets the scene and is somewhat painterly in the image that then results. It is never just about what comes out of the camera, it is about what I do with it after. Some times it works, sometimes not. Sometimes I end up with a dozen variants of a specific image in my p.c. as I experiment with different styles then only publish one of them (or none of them). Sometimes I try a specific style and find I like it for a time but eventually discover new ways of presenting those images. All of this inevitably involves PP. But in putting these two images up for feedback I did privately acknowledge that some could feel they were over processed. I myself was not sure whether they worked or not, or if I had over done it. I think what I have concluded from this experiment is that some find it to their taste, some do not. And that is fine too. For me, I am always looking for a better way.
Rob-F "To my eye, the second photo is the one that is too busy." I understand what you say about this and the lack of a specific core subject. In way I think I had the same issue with it and wished there was a human subject as the point of reference for the image. But we cannot always have what we want when we street shoot as we cannot control what's happening in the world and need to take what we get.
I actually have had this photo on my PC for several years unprocessed, I think for that reason. Then recently looking back on older images I looked again at this one and realized it had something else - an interesting interplay of light and dark, shadow and light plus a sense of abandonment which is almost certainly what originally drew me to take it. And the presence of some red items in it help enormously. Red, just "pops". And so I then set about processing this (and another like it). I have composited these into a diptych and posted the composite below. I think in this composite image there is a bit more contrast in the above scene than the original version I posted in this thread - added in post to see how it works and to balance with its partner image which is naturally more contrasty.
The composite image of two alley scenes mentioned above.
bluesun267
Well-known
As a film photographer with only a practical relationship to digital, these photos seem to be about exploring a world that hovers in the nether region between painting and photography, and this type of practice has a fairly long tradition in photography, regardless of the technology employed. The question in my mind is always: does this represent the best of both worlds? Or something entirely 'other'? I'm not sure which of the two leanings I prefer; in historical, silver-based photographs with a 'painterly aesthetic', I find them most successful when there is acknowledgement of the impossibility of their simulation while at the same time being very successful in their technical approach. In other words: beauty with a nod to the weakness/inability of the technology to disguise itself as something it isn't. An analogy can be found in the tradition of the Dutch tulip painters who would often add a fly somewhere inconspicuous within the painting as a sign of humility and acknowledgement of mortality
Richard G
Veteran
Peter your skill and dedication are eclipsed by your fine character and good humour. I think I did not appreciate your intent sufficiently and I have always enjoyed your architectural constructions. Going beyond the straight original is certainly an artistic approach. Keep shooting, amd don’t listen to me.
In fact that’s the most important thing I’ve learnt in photography: develop your own vision and after looking and listening at everything on offer, ignore the precedents and rules and go your own way.
In fact that’s the most important thing I’ve learnt in photography: develop your own vision and after looking and listening at everything on offer, ignore the precedents and rules and go your own way.
peterm1
Veteran
Richard G Thank you for your kind words. I think you are absolutely right about people needing to try to develop their own style. Therein lies satisfaction. Of course when people start out they are still learning, often learning initially how to cope with the technical aspects as much as the artistic ones. So, often it takes time and effort to develop a style that is your own. I do not think that it necessarily needs to be a wholly unique style so long as it is a style that the creator is happy with and committed to. (So much the better if others appreciate it too). A number of years ago I had a short series of 3 articles published on Steve Huff's site (and one at Peta Pixel) about this exact topic, using my shots as examples of my style and talking about the search and experimentation needed in the pursuit. I called the articles "Developing Character and Style in Photography". Unfortunately his site has since been redesigned and some old articles including all of these have been lost (I used to have links to them in my RFF signature) but I still have the source material so perhaps one day I will find a way to put them up somewhere once more.
Bluesun267 I think you are right in that what I enjoy doing best of all is making images that are in a "nether world" between painting and photography. In this respect one of the photographic styles I like very much and admire is that of the late 19th C / early 20th C "pictorialists" who set out to make images that were artistic and painting like. This was more or less a response to traditional artists of the time (e.g. painters) who denigrated photography as being nothing more than a mechanical way of capturing images and hence not worthy of respect. The pictorialists' work is sublime.
I used to shoot film and that is how I originally learned what ever little I know about actual photography. And I stuck to film for much longer than many (I think I bought my first digital camera in 2008 or something like this). But I personally found digital photography to be liberating as it is conducive to experimentation (with little incremental cost and the ability to easily post process in a way I simply could not with film.) Don't get me wrong, I admire those who who have stuck to film as their medium, its just not my personal thing any more. I like your analogy with the Dutch tulip painters who left a "flaw" (in fact a symbol) in their paintings in the form of a fly. I often have flaws in my photos too - only mine are not deliberate.
Bluesun267 I think you are right in that what I enjoy doing best of all is making images that are in a "nether world" between painting and photography. In this respect one of the photographic styles I like very much and admire is that of the late 19th C / early 20th C "pictorialists" who set out to make images that were artistic and painting like. This was more or less a response to traditional artists of the time (e.g. painters) who denigrated photography as being nothing more than a mechanical way of capturing images and hence not worthy of respect. The pictorialists' work is sublime.
I used to shoot film and that is how I originally learned what ever little I know about actual photography. And I stuck to film for much longer than many (I think I bought my first digital camera in 2008 or something like this). But I personally found digital photography to be liberating as it is conducive to experimentation (with little incremental cost and the ability to easily post process in a way I simply could not with film.) Don't get me wrong, I admire those who who have stuck to film as their medium, its just not my personal thing any more. I like your analogy with the Dutch tulip painters who left a "flaw" (in fact a symbol) in their paintings in the form of a fly. I often have flaws in my photos too - only mine are not deliberate.