| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/31/2008 02:43:03 PM · #26 |
Most but not all: here is my last "reading"
But I have programmed a message that will appear from time to time on my lcd screen: "why are you showing me this person?" |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 04:56:23 PM · #27 |
After I thought about it, I don't know that categorically excluding shots of people sleeping/reading is the way to go. An old lady looking at a magazine is high on the snooze scale. But if the magazine is Playgirl... Well, you get my drift. Look for the story, not just the subject. (Or better yet, look at most of my portfolio for examples of what not to do!)
Message edited by author 2008-10-31 16:56:40. |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 05:52:50 PM · #28 |
I'd like to give it a shot (and hope you accept me despite the horrid pun)
Im in Riga, Latvia
looking foward to running around town |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 06:00:20 PM · #29 |
| It's about time malaka... |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 06:12:17 PM · #30 |
Thanks bvy... I may occasionally stray then...
Pawdrix, I will check out the interview tomorrow for sure... |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 06:16:45 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by bvy:
After I thought about it, I don't know that categorically excluding shots of people sleeping/reading is the way to go. An old lady looking at a magazine is high on the snooze scale. But if the magazine is Playgirl... Well, you get my drift. Look for the story, not just the subject. (Or better yet, look at most of my portfolio for examples of what not to do!) |
No waffling, now...
I agree with what you're saying but the rule does frame the tone and quality we're hoping to achieve.
Phew...I just needed to get one more reading shot out of my system before we start. Hope you guys don't mind? ;)
Message edited by author 2008-10-31 18:17:04. |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 08:01:41 PM · #32 |
| Anyone care to expand on "tone?" I mean apart from tasteless/exploitive of misfortune. |
|
|
|
11/01/2008 12:07:23 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by bvy:
After I thought about it, I don't know that categorically excluding shots of people sleeping/reading is the way to go. An old lady looking at a magazine is high on the snooze scale. But if the magazine is Playgirl... Well, you get my drift. Look for the story, not just the subject. (Or better yet, look at most of my portfolio for examples of what not to do!) |
No waffling, now...
I agree with what you're saying but the rule does frame the tone and quality we're hoping to achieve.
Phew...I just needed to get one more reading shot out of my system before we start. Hope you guys don't mind? ;) |
Fair enough. We'll keep it sleepless and illiterate. You're in, by the way.
The images... |
|
|
|
11/01/2008 08:42:21 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by tnun:
Anyone care to expand on "tone?" I mean apart from tasteless/exploitive of misfortune. |
Do you mean explain what is meant by "tone" or expand it to include other cliche/overdone subjects?
As for "misfortune"...I've seen enough homeless shots to last me ten lifetimes, so a nix on those would be nice (IMO) but I'm not the moderator.
To say not to take an image two people reading a news headline after the election with clear sorrow, sadness and disappointment on their faces would be ridiculous. That would be an awesome shot.
When I said "tone" I was referring to a refreshed and concerted effort to take images on a more cerebral level or process.
"At this point it's about studying, shape, form, light, shadow, movement, hands, feet, expressions and how they play with one another."
Since this Side Challenge is now on a second run, or at a graduated level we can now post shots at the next stage. Not having to post daily will give people freedom to allow scenes to develop without pressure in hope of capturing something of meaning.
  
If you watch that HCB interview I posted you will hear him refer to himself as an Anarchist maybe 8 times. I took it to mean that he has no rules or governance...outside of good composition. He also says that the brain is the worst thing to get in the way and it's all about "sensitivity" and the subconscious.
Still he had a sensitivity to read or see forms, light, shadow, movement (arms, legs, feet) expressions and how they visually inter played with one another.
In this image Posthumous writes, "It's that third shot, that's your decisive moment"...
What does he mean by that?
[thumb]727180[/thumb]
The first in the triptych is ok...cute but outside of cute it, holds little meaning. It's just three little girls walking. Billions and billions and billions of people are walking as we speak, so why section out these three or anyone else. What sets them apart? Why are you pointing at them (with the camera)and saying "hey look over there"?
Here's a Joel Meyerowitz video that kicks. I don't think there are any earth shaking images but he makes his points, very well with what he has.
He uses the phrase "looking for a significant gesture" ... "an interaction, a hug, a kiss, a goodbye" as something that sets a scene apart from the ordinary.
On the flip side he say's "you can't predict what is going to happen" and I disagree with that. If you are tuned in, you can sense things that are coming as he himself does when he predicts some action that is about to occur in his own photos. It's not precise but you can sense movement..or for example people leading up to a "goodbye hug".
What made me spot the Chinese Schoolgirls were that they were animated and happy. It was only a matter of seconds before they did something of interest or photo worthy...laugh, jump, throw their arms up in the air etc. If I ran to stay in front of them for a shot, I would have had two or three more different, decent images within the span of 30 seconds.
Message edited by author 2008-11-01 10:12:31. |
|
|
|
11/01/2008 10:59:51 AM · #35 |
oops
Message edited by author 2008-11-01 17:51:45. |
|
|
|
11/01/2008 11:51:26 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by salmiakki:
 |
Images here.
We can continue the converstaion here in the meantime, but post your shots in the images thread. Good luck everyone, and thanks for joining!
|
|
|
|
11/01/2008 05:51:23 PM · #37 |
Stumbled across this tonight. Interesting site.
Seconds 2 Real |
|
|
|
11/02/2008 06:21:27 AM · #38 |
|
|
|
11/02/2008 09:32:25 AM · #39 |
Well said, Sarah. To me, street photography is a lot like porn; don't ask me to define it, but I know it when I see it. We will lose a lot if we arbitrarily say "no this or that".
And I agree, a street shot can just have animals or birds in it.
Here's another site devoted to street photography: In-Public |
|
|
|
11/02/2008 10:27:12 AM · #40 |
| I have been reading and reading on street photography, trying to get a handle on what it is... and have come to the conclusion that there is no one definition... I like yours Germaine, :) .. but it is personal to each photographer and I think it has to be left at that ... to me it is how I see the world ... I fall short showing that because it is difficult to capture that moment accurately .. I usually use people but find wonderful stories in other photographer̢۪s shots that don't.. I am thinking of Melethia's shot of the pigeon that is sitting in the barren branch of the tree staring at the church steeple - called aspire.. (I am no good at linking, sorry) that was filled with emotion - there are many others.. in the link Germaine put below there is a photo of legs from the knees down with wonderful deep shadows that scream a story ... to me a menacing story and that too fits the bill of street photography - so I hope there is leeway for all our styles as we spend this month exploring each other's worlds. |
|
|
|
11/02/2008 10:41:54 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by Germaine:
Well said, Sarah. To me, street photography is a lot like porn; don't ask me to define it, but I know it when I see it. We will lose a lot if we arbitrarily say "no this or that".
And I agree, a street shot can just have animals or birds in it.
|
No arguments here. The definition of "street photography" is pretty inclusive.
However, that's why I didn't call this a "street photography" side challenge -- I called it a "street candid" side challenge. I wanted to shoot and see people. Are we really restricting ourselves too much with this criterion? There are people eveywhere, and it didn't seem to be a problem with the October challenge.
Again, the occasional anomaly is fine. (In fact, I did a side challenge entitled Still Life In The City.) I just hate to see this to turn this into an expo of pigeons and empty park benches. |
|
|
|
11/02/2008 10:58:37 AM · #42 |
| Well, since we did people in October, perhaps November should allow us to broaden our horizons. |
|
|
|
11/02/2008 11:55:55 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by bvy:
Originally posted by Germaine:
Well said, Sarah. To me, street photography is a lot like porn; don't ask me to define it, but I know it when I see it. We will lose a lot if we arbitrarily say "no this or that".
And I agree, a street shot can just have animals or birds in it.
|
No arguments here. The definition of "street photography" is pretty inclusive.
However, that's why I didn't call this a "street photography" side challenge -- I called it a "street candid" side challenge. I wanted to shoot and see people. Are we really restricting ourselves too much with this criterion? There are people eveywhere, and it didn't seem to be a problem with the October challenge.
Again, the occasional anomaly is fine. (In fact, I did a side challenge entitled Still Life In The City.) I just hate to see this to turn this into an expo of pigeons and empty park benches. |
I think we are saying the same thing in different ways. Personally, I believe that street photography isn't street photography unless it has some living creature in it, and the creature should have something human about it. To me, an empty bench at a bus stop probably isn't street photography. Someone sitting on the empty bench reading a newspaper is. Whether or not it's a boring shot is in the eye of the beholder. Street photograph is nothing if not anarchical.
FWIW, I've never run across the term "street candid" as opposed to "street photography". Just so we're on the same page, can we have a rough definition of "street candid". That's not meant to start a flame war, but I googled the term and came up with some pretty racy sites -- definitely NSFW.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2008 12:23:53 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by Germaine:
I think we are saying the same thing in different ways. Personally, I believe that street photography isn't street photography unless it has some living creature in it, and the creature should have something human about it. To me, an empty bench at a bus stop probably isn't street photography. Someone sitting on the empty bench reading a newspaper is. Whether or not it's a boring shot is in the eye of the beholder. Street photograph is nothing if not anarchical.
|
The point there was, let's push ourselves a little harder -- even if it means only getting half as many shots in this month. And fewer shots in a side challenge generally equates to more comments per shot.
Shots of people reading and sleeping are easy because a.) these people are still, and b.) they're not paying attention to what's going on around them. So we got a bunch of them, and people started losing interest. If it's really good, then by all means post it. One or two such shots may not be boring, but one after the other, they start to wear thin.
Originally posted by Germaine:
FWIW, I've never run across the term "street candid" as opposed to "street photography". Just so we're on the same page, can we have a rough definition of "street candid". That's not meant to start a flame war, but I googled the term and came up with some pretty racy sites -- definitely NSFW. |
"Street candid" is my own bastardization of the terms of the trade. It was an attempt to get folks to focus in on street photography that was, well -- candid. That is, street photography that showed candid shots of people in the street.
Just about anything paired with the word "candid" will bring up some racy sites. Try an image search on "street candid" instead (with "Safe Search" on, of course). |
|
|
|
11/02/2008 02:55:33 PM · #45 |
Maybe later...
Message edited by author 2008-11-02 15:12:34. |
|
|
|
11/02/2008 03:25:37 PM · #46 |
I thought the initial thrust of the first run of this side Challenge was to help people get out and take pictures of people...or strangers. Which lead us to the street.
Ergo...Street Candids. I assume that idea wasn't to box things in or out or define Street Photography, although the topic tends to lend itself to that discussion. I also posted a few shots if I recall, that weren't even close to being candid...so there's always room for flexibility.
Selfishly, I like looking at provocative images (with or without people) so that's where the other stuff started coming up. True, what people find interesting is objective but there is some consensus on what the general population might not find interesting...such as, waiting on a bank line. I'd say shoot whatever you want but be considerate to those of us who don't like bank lines...or at least make sure it's a damn interesting, colorful, sexy delicious, wild party of a bank line...with cool shadows or breaking shafts of light...
Keep in mind however, even Challenges add rules that might not be perfectly inline with peoples general take on a topic. For example, "Macro Without Bugs".
So honing in or out or away from some common themes shouldn't be so strange.
Message edited by author 2008-11-02 17:17:23. |
|
|
|
11/02/2008 05:33:33 PM · #47 |
Can I join in? After all, I seem to be hanging around with pawdrix far too much recently?!
|
|
|
|
11/02/2008 07:10:17 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by samchad:
Can I join in? After all, I seem to be hanging around with pawdrix far too much recently?! |
Certainly! But you know you must be a paid member to be able to post portfoio images. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 10/06/2025 04:15:22 AM EDT.
