Pherdinand
the snow must go on
absolutely agree with that
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
agree with that, too. That's why someone's perceived extraordinary shot is for an outside no big deal at all- it only tries to pus a content which worked for the photographer in the right context but for an innocent bystander, it's just an interesting object or person on a pic (therefore, not really the merit of the photographer).
airfrogusmc
Veteran
And then there are those that only see in terms of RoTs so they dismiss work that falls out that and only shoot things that fall into it. So there's millions of look alike images out there on the world wide web taken by the RoTs army. No thought of self expression or why they took the photograph. They also don't understand that some landscape photographers follow a different rule. Rule 5ths or some call it 4/5ths so the RoTs people dismiss those images because they don't fit the guidelines LoL...
I say don't pay much attention to rules but learn about how to communicate effectively and that usually takes a very long time and is really a life long journey. How are the elements supporting your intent?
I love this one by Weston
"To compose a subject well means no more than to see and present it in the strongest manner possible." - Edward Weston
I say don't pay much attention to rules but learn about how to communicate effectively and that usually takes a very long time and is really a life long journey. How are the elements supporting your intent?
I love this one by Weston
"To compose a subject well means no more than to see and present it in the strongest manner possible." - Edward Weston
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Great quote...
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
So what makes this work for me is she is young and from the side she is hold the jacket you don't know if she is yet a woman. The guys looking and the reflection clearly shows that she is. Then you see the advertising poster that in the window that is what advertisers show as the perfect woman. So it I think it works on a visual level with all the repeating shapes (the stripes which are everywhere) and it starts to say a little bit about who we are as a society. Now whether it has any real merit I will leave to the others.
So let's hear your views. Like, hate whatever. HAVE AT IT...
OK who am i to give critique to anyuone else's photos but hey, here it comes anyway, since you've asked us all
but take it with a mountain of salt, of course.
First of all: You should not have "talked a bit about it". Even a title is sometimes too much for a picture (if it's a single picture and not documentary, should not need any introduction or background info).
Second: the words i made bold up in the quoted text. Seriously??
-you seriously couldnt tell, only from her face?
-you seriously think this is important at all in the picture?
I do like the girl and her reflection walking out of the image and the guys staring and you staring (=it gives me the feeling a bit that i am staring at her, too), it's a good composition with a good content. But it's too broadly framed, the stripes would balance it out if there was no big patch of nothing on the right and big darkness on the top. The ad-woman face doesn't add anything for me. Your explanation on the beauty ideal etc is therefore imo forced (again, explaining it doesnt make it appear), it is not in the image (the main subject is not in strong contrast with the ad face - she looks okay nothing wrong with her face or physical appearance thus there is no contrast).
So the girl w reflection, the guys looking, with the added level of the repeating stripes is okay, the rest detracts/makes it weaker for me.
Multiple "subjects" or messages in it, would be better with a single one in focus.
I find that images like this (repeating patterns, guys staring at a girl on the street...) are so often done in street photography, that in order to make it stand out, the subject itself (or the message if any) does not suffice, you need a very strong clean composition for it.
The old shot of the girl walking down the street in Italy and the many men staring at ehr worked because 1. it is old
2. there's a LOT of men with all different and well-visible faces / facial expressions which make the image a whole story, to look and recognize all the feelings/thoughts of those guys, and 3. compositionally it is ver well done, in balance and all around one central idea.But i'm certainly not qualified to critique that shot
i just mentioned it as comparison and since it was already brought up here, anyway...
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
i say rule of thirds (and most rules- not in traffic, of course
) is like light meters indoors i.e. a tool to help but not something to blindly follow.
willie_901
Veteran
"Who has the authority to critique your street photography?"
Every person who views my street photography has authority.
I have the authority to accept or reject their critique.
Professional curators have the final say.
Every person who views my street photography has authority.
I have the authority to accept or reject their critique.
Professional curators have the final say.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
First thanks so much for the comments and I know how forums work and I wrote some about it to get ball rolling. Plus intent in any image is HUGE.
I think from the camera side the bow in her hair and not being able to see her shape her age is bit ambiguous. No question with the reflection. And I do agree with Franks comments on the previous page that it is well balanced and this is the way I tend to see and put images together visually.
And yes I do think it is important because I think all better work is working on several levels. The more you look the more you see.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
I want to comment on the general idea of the critique. First, I suppose if photographs are seen strictly as commodity products, then the best critique is measured with one's wallet; no other comment required.
I've always been weary of professional photography critics, they say such ridiculous things that seem more informed by the world of painting rather than having an understanding of the way photographs are actually created. (Hypothetical) statements like "The photographer should have moved the building several feet further to the left, and made the light come from another direction" reveal their ignorance of the way photos are created, as if the photographer could have actually moved a skyscraper and the sun by the force of his will alone.
Photographs are often found things, sudden discoveries made; there's less for the photographer to control than what an oil painter could do on a blank canvas. The photographic artist is less in control, more like an observer, his images a record of what he uncovered.
~Joe
I've always been weary of professional photography critics, they say such ridiculous things that seem more informed by the world of painting rather than having an understanding of the way photographs are actually created. (Hypothetical) statements like "The photographer should have moved the building several feet further to the left, and made the light come from another direction" reveal their ignorance of the way photos are created, as if the photographer could have actually moved a skyscraper and the sun by the force of his will alone.
Photographs are often found things, sudden discoveries made; there's less for the photographer to control than what an oil painter could do on a blank canvas. The photographic artist is less in control, more like an observer, his images a record of what he uncovered.
~Joe
nongfuspring
Well-known
My take on the photo is that while there are these compositional/narrative elements within the picture (repetition of line, reflection of people on the other side of the street) that the others have rightly picked up on, I don't find these elements strong enough to make a significant impression. The reflection of the people on the other side of the street isn't really clear enough to make any meaningful sense of situation (this could possibly be enhanced with some PP), the repetition of line and shape isn't really immediately powerful, I didn't actually notice the poster at all until a second ago and only since you mention it; it all comes together as being fairly vague. I find myself being more intrigued by the image the more I look at it, but had this been on flickr, tumblr, or a portfolio I would have scrolled past without much of a thought. The most pleasing part of the image for me is actually the light and expression on the girl's face.
Also, to echo what Pherdinand said I really don't think you should caption your work the way that you did. There are some images that really require some context (not this one), and no work requires a pre-packaged interpretation.
Also, to echo what Pherdinand said I really don't think you should caption your work the way that you did. There are some images that really require some context (not this one), and no work requires a pre-packaged interpretation.
fotographz
Established
...post a photograph.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
“There are rules about perception, but not about photography.”
– Jay Maisel
– Jay Maisel
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
Speaking personally - there are people whose opinion I value (for differing reasons). Sometimes its because I respect their own art. Sometimes, their expertise. Other's their objectivity, or natural sense of composition, etc.
Who = who I determine. For my own reasons.
I listen to critique from everyone, but I definitely value some opinions more than others.
Who = who I determine. For my own reasons.
I listen to critique from everyone, but I definitely value some opinions more than others.
DominikDUK
Well-known
Fair enough. But before I dive deep enough to come to those conclusions, the first thing it needs to do (for me) is be visually pleasing. You may want the advertisement to be above her head because it creates this notion of the ideal woman in her mind. But visually, it doesn't work for me.
If I understand you right, I suppose the question becomes "Should you compromise the visual appeal to enhance some sort of philosophical/psychological meaning?"
I know when I shoot street, I only aim for visually pleasing compositions that come out of the chaos. Any sort of deeper meaning is just icing on the cake. I don't shoot street to convey to people something philosophical.
That said, I do have a project which is specific and is in the street and is using strangers as subjects. I am trying to convey something philosophical in this work, but I don't consider it "street photography". I am striving towards something else, completely different than my street work.
The other issue at play here is our ego and our ability to "covet" our own work. The below image is my favorite from a recent trip to India. I've posted it elsewhere on this forum. No one ever gave it any roaring applause on here (someone said my series was nice). But I keep coming back to it and it still shines to me. My own critique:
It could be a bit sharper (a bit of hand shake)
The spacing could be better.
Not sure if I like the mirror to the left so close to the edge of the frame.
What do you guys think?
The Image has a very cinematic feel and could have been superb but unfortunately it fails (for me) the unsharpness of everything but the mirror is what bothers me. The unsharpness would have worked if you were standing directly behind the barber/customer, but the other elements the man lying on the bench and the unsharp lady in the front make it busy, there is simply to much going on that is not totally out of focus but also not sharp. The same image with everything sharp would be reminescent of a Spaghetti Western or other interior shot in a western. I can understand why you like as all the necessary elements save one are there the color is beautiful, the scene and setting are superb but the last element that would make it outstanding is missing.
MIkhail
-
Interesting link- thanks for sharing.
If I had my doubts about the usefulness of master classes and workshops (I did not, i always thought they’re useless waste of money and time) they are vanished now.
Costa Manos is honestly telling how his picture would look like, if he took it, being there instead.
Nothing to do with education (is it even possible in such format?).
The “too easy”, “no people in frame”, etc. – in my opinion it’s a complete nonsense.
Still, thank you.
If I had my doubts about the usefulness of master classes and workshops (I did not, i always thought they’re useless waste of money and time) they are vanished now.
Costa Manos is honestly telling how his picture would look like, if he took it, being there instead.
Nothing to do with education (is it even possible in such format?).
The “too easy”, “no people in frame”, etc. – in my opinion it’s a complete nonsense.
Still, thank you.
Hsg
who dares wins
Everyone has their ideas of what is good street photography; however, one cannot escape the tradition of street photography. That tradition is dominated by people such as Costa Manos who have pioneered some of the techniques that others are emulating.
If you want to do street photography outside of the established street photography tradition, then you're either being innovative or you don't care; nevertheless, the tradition of street photography will always be there and those who know it will judge your work based on that tradition.
MIkhail
-
That makes sense, I cannot disagree.
Goes back to a bigger idea: everything that public likes now was effectively already chewed out for us by curators, historians, acclaimed critics, etc. New is always rejected first. Eggleston is the glaring example, or Saul Leiter even better one..
But my statement on usefulness of such exercises still stands.
Nothing new can come from exactly following the rules, whether it's Webb's rules, Costa Manos's rules, of Martin Parr's rules...
Hsg
who dares wins
I can see why tradition can be a burden, but I can also see why tradition is there in the first place.
For one, you can only break the tradition if you know it well, and secondly, if you break the tradition then you have to offer something that was lacking in the tradition, otherwise your break with tradition is simply a regression.
An 'easy shot' is a regression, unless you make a body of work based on easy shots that begins to form a pattern. For example Atget's work.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
"I really don't think you learn from teachers. You learn from work."
- Garry Winogrand
- Garry Winogrand
MIkhail
-
The "easy shot" that Costa Manos dismisses is an old new for a long, long time already. That's not even something that needs to be broken.
One thing that he said (and you mentioned as well) - there has to be one stem on which you hang your work, one governing idea, not random shots. With that I agree 100%. Weather your individual shots are easy to make or hard, that seems to me so "day before yesterday"... Especially with current level of photo equipment.
P.S. I am nto talking about proverbial "story" unless you are striving for being a reporter, dying profession by many authorities...