Ciggerete and sunglasses

[KenD]

"How much easier it is to be critical than to be correct. " Disraeli

 

[Nh3]

Actually I'm proud of this photo, I might cringe at the main subject but he was asking for it. 🙂

But I'm totally surprised that people are confused whether its a he/she. I assure you that he was a man and he was standing in a crowd smoking in such a flamboyant fashion that i couldn't resist photographing him.

And also without the girl on the left the whole sunglasses theme would have not worked and the smoker would've looked almost glamorous.

But I still feel that I did not really capture this photo in a way to portray my feelings about it.

Photography is VERY hard when ideas creep in and one moves beyond just taking the interesting and pretty pictures.

 

[KenD]

It is hard to imagine how mean-spirited photography will produce work that gives pleasure to the photographer or the viewer.

 

[Papercut]

Indeed ... I think it's (nearly) axiomatic that good candid photography is (almost) always motivated by some sort of (positive) feeling toward the subject (e.g., empathy, compassion, interest, or shared experience/identity etc.).

Even Robert Frank's famous "skewering" of America was a tacit acknowledgement of how American he himself had become.

 

[Nh3]

Indeed ... I think it's (nearly) axiomatic that good candid photography is (almost) always motivated by some sort of (positive) feeling toward the subject (e.g., empathy, compassion, interest, or shared experience/identity etc.).

Even Robert Frank's famous "skewering" of America was a tacit acknowledgement of how American he himself had become.

So, if I was a photographer during WWII I should have photographed Hitler with compassion and empathy? An extreme example but it makes clear that not everyone deserves compassion and empathy, and a photographer is under no obligation to be a Buddhist monk.

I'm as much of a flawed human being as the people that I photograph.

 

[Papercut]

They're your photos, Nh3; no one is trying to "obligate" you to do things a certain way or make you be a "Buddhist monk".

My point is only that nearly all the street / candid photography that I find truly engaging has a lot of positive connections between the photographer and the subject -- there may very well be exceptions that I am unaware of, hence my qualified statements.

In any case, there's no "obligation" for any photographer to shoot a certain way or even to shoot good photos. You are free to continue to make photos that do not communicate your mocking stance toward the people around you. 🙂

For what it's worth, I liked the cigarette / sunglasses photo, but as a visual statement I thought it carried none of your petty abhorrence for the guy, his activity, or fashion sense: I quite enjoy people who strut some, they add a lot of interest to the world, so I read the photo in entirely the opposite direction as you intended. It's a good photo in some sense, but any shot that requires a lengthy textual explanation so that the viewer can "understand it properly" has probably failed in an important way. That, of course, assumes that you care whether your viewers interpret your image(s) in the ways you intend.

I personally find the ambiguity of visual communication to be wonderful: people often see things in images that the photographer had no intention of "saying". Makes for a rich experience for both sides and highlights the fact that art is always a collaboration between the artist and the spectator.

 

[Matt White]

So, if I was a photographer during WWII I should have photographed Hitler with compassion and empathy?

According to Godwin's Law , you lose.

Anyway it's a silly analogy. Street photography is just people who happen to pass in front of your lens. You know nothing about them except what you see in those few moments. The interpretation you impart to the image says more about you than about them.

That's completely different from documentary images of well-known figures, where the photographer may be using the camera to articulate famous or notorious personality traits.

 

[Nh3]

Look, if I was satisfied with this picture I would have not posted it for critique.

I had failed to mock the guy with the picture so I wrote the long caption...

Next time I'll make sure that I get it right!

 

[Papercut]

Matt White ... that link to Godwin's Law was priceless. Amazingly, I've been using the internet (usenet, efnet/irc) since 1992, but I had never heard of that before. Simply priceless 😀

 

[Nh3]

If you go around with your camera looking for people "to mock", then please don't post them here.

Pixtu, you're not the forum owner or some sort of forum Godfather. I post what I post as long as it does not violate the forum rules.

At least I'm one of the few who's brave enough to post picture for critique.

 

[Nh3]

... And for the rest of you, to me honesty is more important than sentimentality. I also don't take photos to please others.

 

[Todd.Hanz]

At least I'm one of the few who's brave enough to post picture for critique.

Critique:

Your subject is too centered in the frame for my taste, also shooting from the side and slightly behind the subject gives the impression that you were nervous about getting caught (it has a somewhat vouyeristic feel to it), I'd go for a more frontal approach next time. The diatribe on sunglasses and smoking should have been left out of this discussion and the image allowed to speak for itself on it's own merit. It's obvious based on the responses from this thread that not everyone shares your disdain for smoking while wearing pretentious sunglasses. The image is well exposed and captures enough of the people in the background that the chosen apeture works well.

my 2cents

Todd

 

[uffda_x]

The bottom line is.....the photo is not anything special. Brave for posting photo...NO, Stupid comments after posting photo....YES

 

[xayraa33]

According to Godwin's Law , you lose.

Anyway it's a silly analogy. Street photography is just people who happen to pass in front of your lens. You know nothing about them except what you see in those few moments. The interpretation you impart to the image says more about you than about them.

That's completely different from documentary images of well-known figures, where the photographer may be using the camera to articulate famous or notorious personality traits.

Here is a site that lists more "Laws".

http://jamesthornton.com/theory/

 

[gb hill]

NH3 I then take it you wouldn't like this song. Pitxu this is for you. Love the avator.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cdN4f6x4J4

 

[charjohncarter]

Pixtu, your first post is really funny!

 

[WoolenMammoth]

... And for the rest of you, to me honesty is more important than sentimentality.

nh3, nobody that is honestly looking for a critique, as you state, could ever respond in the defensive manner that you have illustrated.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Yeah, that's why Ann Coulter photos are always so confusing.

That's got to be the ugliest pair of legs and ickiest throat I've ever seen on a woman.

And I can say that about Coulter because, as he-she's stated, he's more of a man than anybody who doesn't think like him.

And...what Pixtu said.

 

[Nh3]

The bottom line is.....the photo is not anything special. Brave for posting photo...NO, Stupid comments after posting photo....YES

This is your second post and you already call another member stupid?

I see great future for you here, noob!

 

[crawdiddy]

Not your typical "Marlboro Man".😀

Richard, you're now glamorizing nicotine addiction and pretentious sunglasses?

To what level will you next sink? Basque beret with sunglasses and cigarette? At night? Make it a Gitanes, the preferred smoke of the gypsies. How about one of those cliche striped French T-shirts? Button accordion? 😉