Good bokeh? Bad bokeh?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Pablo, Jul 8, 2012.

  1. Pablo

    PeterN Guest

    On 7/10/2012 9:00 AM, Pablo wrote:
    > RichA escribió:
    >
    >> You can sum up what people are trying to illustrate by saying,
    >> "whatever draws the eye from the main subject, or is distracting from
    >> it, is bad." Bokeh, is the idea of forming a backdrop (though it
    >> could be in the foreground, though you don't see it much) that
    >> compliments the scene without dominating it. This is why portraits
    >> are often done with a diffuse background, since the subject is the
    >> person or object being shot directly. If (for example) you have a
    >> lens that blurs out the background such that it creates some weird
    >> motion effect (blurred objects become curves, it's been known to
    >> happen with some lenses) then you can say that lens in that situation
    >> produced "bad" bokeh. In your case, it did something distracting with
    >> the OOF (out of focus) background tree branches and colours.

    >
    > Yes, and the lesson learned over all the rest is "don't shoot scenes like
    > that at midday". I know it's often mentioned as a rule, but I've now had it
    > drummed into me.
    >
    > Thanks to all.
    >

    Yet midday shots can be effective: You can see that the Sun is almost
    perpendicular to the dog. And the overhead sun brings up the water droplets.



    <http://peternewman.smugmug.com/Photography/public/21526966_dVBkNG#!i=1938395849&k=ZZBXTDp&lb=1&s=A>

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jul 11, 2012
    #41
    1. Advertising

  2. Pablo

    PeterN Guest

    On 7/10/2012 10:43 AM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 23:49:59 -0700, Savageduck
    > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    >> On 2012-07-09 19:00:31 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >>
    >>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 17:45:22 -0700 (PDT), otter
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I shoot a lot of crappy shots.
    >>>
    >>> Don't we all?
    >>>
    >>>> Sometimes it seems like there really should be a picture there,
    >>>> but when you look at it after the fact, it just isn't.
    >>>
    >>> Oh, yeah. Been there. Done that.
    >>>
    >>> When I come back home from a day of shooting, my wife usually asks
    >>> "Get any good ones?" I tell her I don't know until I've uploaded them
    >>> and worked with them a bit. Invariably, there's a few that I really
    >>> thought would work that fail dismally.

    >>
    >> Sometimes more than a few, and I wonder why I wasted the time and gas.
    >>
    >> That is when I try to become a Photoshop artist. Only after I declare
    >> those results nauseatingly beyond rescue do I accept defeat and think
    >> of how I will do things differently next time.

    >
    > I have spent a day out shooting and returned having not tripped the
    > shutter once.
    >
    > I have spent a day out shooting and returned with card full of images
    > and deleted all of them when I looked at the results.
    >
    > Last night, I left a bit early to go to my camera club meeting and
    > killed some time driving down the "downtown" street of Orlando. I
    > spotted these girls waiting for the Social (a nightclub) to open on
    > Ladies Night. I pulled into a Loading Zone, took one shot, and it's a
    > keeper for me.
    >
    > http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Candids/i-XcsJQdN/0/X2/2012-07-09-2-X2.jpg
    >
    > I know candid street photography is not of interest to those here, but
    > it's what I like to do.


    You will see a street scene in one of my SI submissions. While street is
    not my prime passion, to my eye the characters should be relating to
    each other, in some fashion, or a common theme running.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jul 11, 2012
    #42
    1. Advertising

  3. Pablo

    PeterN Guest

    On 7/10/2012 3:53 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >> On 2012-07-09 13:14:26 -0700, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:
    >>> Everything
    >>> visible in an image is part of the composition.
    >>> And the idea that image editing necessarily makes an
    >>> image into
    >>> "something it wasn't" suggests the gross error of thinking that
    >>> a picture represents reality, which is *never* the case. In
    >>> fact you've greatly manipulated the picture before pressing the
    >>> shutter release, and then again in the processing (either in
    >>> camera or externally).
    >>> The point is not what reality is, because a photograph
    >>> is never
    >>> reality, but rather what image will convey the message the
    >>> photographer chooses. Generating that image is what
    >>> composition, camera configuration, and image editing are all
    >>> about.
    >>> Setting the camera configuration correctly is
    >>> certainly a
    >>> requirement, but correctly processing and editing an image is
    >>> just as much part of the making of a great photograph.

    >>
    >> ...and regardless of your feelings regarding anything I have to say,
    >> this is another one of those times I find myself agreeing with your
    >> above assessment of what the process of producing a photographic image
    >> actually is, rather than what some would wish it to be.

    >
    > Photography is actually a communications medium. We use the
    > facilities of a camera to paint a message in the mind of
    > viewers.
    >
    > Much the same as with verbal communications, and as we certainly
    > see here with written communications, it is often the case that,
    > to paraphrase an old adage, "What I thought I said with my
    > picture ain't necessarily what you thought you saw when you
    > viewed it!" :)
    >
    > What Pablo has advocated needs to be understood for what it
    > actually is. A lot of folks make statements to the effect that
    > a good photographer gets it right in the camera, and then
    > falsely state that therefore a good photographer doesn't need to
    > post process. The truth is that for those who *lack* computer
    > skills and/or image editing skills, the pre-programmed settings
    > available for in camera processing are indeed very useful.
    >
    > It is however nothing but a hoot when folks claim that because
    > they lack computer or image manipulation skills they are somehow
    > superior photographers! Perhaps they are good camera operators,
    > but a good photographer knows a lot more than just that.
    >


    This is about the first time, in a long time, that you actually agreed
    with the Duck. In this one case I agree with both of you. However, to
    amplify: If I try t9 communicate a message and you get the wrong
    message, the failure is mine. That holds whether my communication is
    written, oral, or pictorial.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jul 11, 2012
    #43
  4. Pablo

    tony cooper Guest

    On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 20:21:16 -0400, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >On 7/10/2012 10:43 AM, tony cooper wrote:
    >> On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 23:49:59 -0700, Savageduck
    >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2012-07-09 19:00:31 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 17:45:22 -0700 (PDT), otter
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> I shoot a lot of crappy shots.
    >>>>
    >>>> Don't we all?
    >>>>
    >>>>> Sometimes it seems like there really should be a picture there,
    >>>>> but when you look at it after the fact, it just isn't.
    >>>>
    >>>> Oh, yeah. Been there. Done that.
    >>>>
    >>>> When I come back home from a day of shooting, my wife usually asks
    >>>> "Get any good ones?" I tell her I don't know until I've uploaded them
    >>>> and worked with them a bit. Invariably, there's a few that I really
    >>>> thought would work that fail dismally.
    >>>
    >>> Sometimes more than a few, and I wonder why I wasted the time and gas.
    >>>
    >>> That is when I try to become a Photoshop artist. Only after I declare
    >>> those results nauseatingly beyond rescue do I accept defeat and think
    >>> of how I will do things differently next time.

    >>
    >> I have spent a day out shooting and returned having not tripped the
    >> shutter once.
    >>
    >> I have spent a day out shooting and returned with card full of images
    >> and deleted all of them when I looked at the results.
    >>
    >> Last night, I left a bit early to go to my camera club meeting and
    >> killed some time driving down the "downtown" street of Orlando. I
    >> spotted these girls waiting for the Social (a nightclub) to open on
    >> Ladies Night. I pulled into a Loading Zone, took one shot, and it's a
    >> keeper for me.
    >>
    >> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Candids/i-XcsJQdN/0/X2/2012-07-09-2-X2.jpg
    >>
    >> I know candid street photography is not of interest to those here, but
    >> it's what I like to do.

    >
    >You will see a street scene in one of my SI submissions. While street is
    >not my prime passion, to my eye the characters should be relating to
    >each other, in some fashion, or a common theme running.


    Well, "street" presents what is there. It can be characters relating
    to each other, or it can be just the opposite:

    These girls are relating to the same thing:

    http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Candids/i-CNzrNCJ/0/XL/2009-01-25-XL.jpg

    This couple prefer other people's company to the company they're with:

    http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Candids/i-mSvPQqs/0/XL/2010-03-20-03-XL.jpg

    Or, it can be both. Somewhere I have an unscanned print from my film
    days of an elderly couple walking hand-in-hand, but his head is turned
    to look at the back of a sweet young thing they've just passed.

    My SI submissions for this round will not include "street". I tried
    some new things this time.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jul 11, 2012
    #44
  5. Pablo

    PeterN Guest

    On 7/10/2012 8:41 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 20:21:16 -0400, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 7/10/2012 10:43 AM, tony cooper wrote:
    >>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 23:49:59 -0700, Savageduck
    >>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 2012-07-09 19:00:31 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 17:45:22 -0700 (PDT), otter
    >>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> I shoot a lot of crappy shots.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Don't we all?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Sometimes it seems like there really should be a picture there,
    >>>>>> but when you look at it after the fact, it just isn't.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Oh, yeah. Been there. Done that.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> When I come back home from a day of shooting, my wife usually asks
    >>>>> "Get any good ones?" I tell her I don't know until I've uploaded them
    >>>>> and worked with them a bit. Invariably, there's a few that I really
    >>>>> thought would work that fail dismally.
    >>>>
    >>>> Sometimes more than a few, and I wonder why I wasted the time and gas.
    >>>>
    >>>> That is when I try to become a Photoshop artist. Only after I declare
    >>>> those results nauseatingly beyond rescue do I accept defeat and think
    >>>> of how I will do things differently next time.
    >>>
    >>> I have spent a day out shooting and returned having not tripped the
    >>> shutter once.
    >>>
    >>> I have spent a day out shooting and returned with card full of images
    >>> and deleted all of them when I looked at the results.
    >>>
    >>> Last night, I left a bit early to go to my camera club meeting and
    >>> killed some time driving down the "downtown" street of Orlando. I
    >>> spotted these girls waiting for the Social (a nightclub) to open on
    >>> Ladies Night. I pulled into a Loading Zone, took one shot, and it's a
    >>> keeper for me.
    >>>
    >>> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Candids/i-XcsJQdN/0/X2/2012-07-09-2-X2.jpg
    >>>
    >>> I know candid street photography is not of interest to those here, but
    >>> it's what I like to do.

    >>
    >> You will see a street scene in one of my SI submissions. While street is
    >> not my prime passion, to my eye the characters should be relating to
    >> each other, in some fashion, or a common theme running.

    >
    > Well, "street" presents what is there. It can be characters relating
    > to each other, or it can be just the opposite:
    >
    > These girls are relating to the same thing:
    >
    > http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Candids/i-CNzrNCJ/0/XL/2009-01-25-XL.jpg
    >
    > This couple prefer other people's company to the company they're with:
    >
    > http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Candids/i-mSvPQqs/0/XL/2010-03-20-03-XL.jpg
    >
    > Or, it can be both. Somewhere I have an unscanned print from my film
    > days of an elderly couple walking hand-in-hand, but his head is turned
    > to look at the back of a sweet young thing they've just passed.
    >
    > My SI submissions for this round will not include "street". I tried
    > some new things this time.
    >


    In each of the above images there is a theme or relationship. I think
    that a negative relationship is still a relationship. In your original
    image the young girls did not appear to have any thing in common. Yes,
    there is the sign, but to me there is no tie in. Just a shot with
    multiple people.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jul 11, 2012
    #45
  6. Pablo

    otter Guest

    On Jul 10, 9:43 am, tony cooper <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 23:49:59 -0700, Savageduck
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > >On 2012-07-09 19:00:31 -0700, tony cooper <> said:

    >
    > >> On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 17:45:22 -0700 (PDT), otter
    > >> <> wrote:

    >
    > >>> I shoot a lot of crappy shots.

    >
    > >> Don't we all?

    >
    > >>> Sometimes it seems like there really should be a picture there,
    > >>> but when you look at it after the fact, it just isn't.

    >
    > >> Oh, yeah.  Been there.  Done that.

    >
    > >> When I come back home from a day of shooting, my wife usually asks
    > >> "Get any good ones?"  I tell her I don't know until I've uploaded them
    > >> and worked with them a bit.  Invariably, there's a few that I really
    > >> thought would work that fail dismally.

    >
    > >Sometimes more than a few, and I wonder why I wasted the time and gas.

    >
    > >That is when I try to become a Photoshop artist. Only after I declare
    > >those results nauseatingly beyond rescue do I accept defeat and think
    > >of how I will do things differently next time.

    >
    > I have spent a day out shooting and returned having not tripped the
    > shutter once.
    >
    > I have spent a day out shooting and returned with card full of images
    > and deleted all of them when I looked at the results.
    >
    > Last night, I left a bit early to go to my camera club meeting and
    > killed some time driving down the "downtown" street of Orlando.  I
    > spotted these girls waiting for the Social (a nightclub) to open on
    > Ladies Night.  I pulled into a Loading Zone, took one shot, and it's a
    > keeper for me.
    >
    > http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Candids/i-XcsJQdN/0/X2/2012-07-09...
    >
    > I know candid street photography is not of interest to those here, but
    > it's what I like to do.
    >
    > --
    > Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida


    LOL, what a group! Nice shot.
     
    otter, Jul 11, 2012
    #46
  7. Pablo

    tony cooper Guest

    On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 20:49:06 -0400, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >On 7/10/2012 8:41 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 20:21:16 -0400, PeterN
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 7/10/2012 10:43 AM, tony cooper wrote:
    >>>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 23:49:59 -0700, Savageduck
    >>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 2012-07-09 19:00:31 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 17:45:22 -0700 (PDT), otter
    >>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I shoot a lot of crappy shots.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Don't we all?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Sometimes it seems like there really should be a picture there,
    >>>>>>> but when you look at it after the fact, it just isn't.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Oh, yeah. Been there. Done that.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> When I come back home from a day of shooting, my wife usually asks
    >>>>>> "Get any good ones?" I tell her I don't know until I've uploaded them
    >>>>>> and worked with them a bit. Invariably, there's a few that I really
    >>>>>> thought would work that fail dismally.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Sometimes more than a few, and I wonder why I wasted the time and gas.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> That is when I try to become a Photoshop artist. Only after I declare
    >>>>> those results nauseatingly beyond rescue do I accept defeat and think
    >>>>> of how I will do things differently next time.
    >>>>
    >>>> I have spent a day out shooting and returned having not tripped the
    >>>> shutter once.
    >>>>
    >>>> I have spent a day out shooting and returned with card full of images
    >>>> and deleted all of them when I looked at the results.
    >>>>
    >>>> Last night, I left a bit early to go to my camera club meeting and
    >>>> killed some time driving down the "downtown" street of Orlando. I
    >>>> spotted these girls waiting for the Social (a nightclub) to open on
    >>>> Ladies Night. I pulled into a Loading Zone, took one shot, and it's a
    >>>> keeper for me.
    >>>>
    >>>> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Candids/i-XcsJQdN/0/X2/2012-07-09-2-X2.jpg
    >>>>
    >>>> I know candid street photography is not of interest to those here, but
    >>>> it's what I like to do.
    >>>
    >>> You will see a street scene in one of my SI submissions. While street is
    >>> not my prime passion, to my eye the characters should be relating to
    >>> each other, in some fashion, or a common theme running.

    >>
    >> Well, "street" presents what is there. It can be characters relating
    >> to each other, or it can be just the opposite:
    >>
    >> These girls are relating to the same thing:
    >>
    >> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Candids/i-CNzrNCJ/0/XL/2009-01-25-XL.jpg
    >>
    >> This couple prefer other people's company to the company they're with:
    >>
    >> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Candids/i-mSvPQqs/0/XL/2010-03-20-03-XL.jpg
    >>
    >> Or, it can be both. Somewhere I have an unscanned print from my film
    >> days of an elderly couple walking hand-in-hand, but his head is turned
    >> to look at the back of a sweet young thing they've just passed.
    >>
    >> My SI submissions for this round will not include "street". I tried
    >> some new things this time.
    >>

    >
    >In each of the above images there is a theme or relationship. I think
    >that a negative relationship is still a relationship. In your original
    >image the young girls did not appear to have any thing in common. Yes,
    >there is the sign, but to me there is no tie in. Just a shot with
    >multiple people.


    Well, I don't expect everyone - or anyone, for that matter - to like
    what I like or see what I see.

    The commonality of the girls in the Social image is that they are all
    detached and self-absorbed and alone. They are waiting to get into a
    club where they hope to meet someone that is *not* part of this group.
    Not to be cruel, but they look like their chances are all equal: slim
    to none.

    They are not presented as a group of friends. They will be
    competitors for the attention of six people they hope to meet. They
    are intent on something that will happen - they hope - and not
    something that is happening to them as they sit there.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jul 11, 2012
    #47
  8. Pablo

    otter Guest

    On Jul 10, 11:49 pm, tony cooper <> wrote:
    > On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 20:49:06 -0400, PeterN
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >On 7/10/2012 8:41 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    > >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 20:21:16 -0400, PeterN
    > >> <> wrote:

    >
    > >>> On 7/10/2012 10:43 AM, tony cooper wrote:
    > >>>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 23:49:59 -0700, Savageduck
    > >>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >
    > >>>>> On 2012-07-09 19:00:31 -0700, tony cooper <> said:

    >
    > >>>>>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 17:45:22 -0700 (PDT), otter
    > >>>>>> <> wrote:

    >
    > >>>>>>> I shoot a lot of crappy shots.

    >
    > >>>>>> Don't we all?

    >
    > >>>>>>> Sometimes it seems like there really should be a picture there,
    > >>>>>>> but when you look at it after the fact, it just isn't.

    >
    > >>>>>> Oh, yeah.  Been there.  Done that.

    >
    > >>>>>> When I come back home from a day of shooting, my wife usually asks
    > >>>>>> "Get any good ones?"  I tell her I don't know until I've uploaded them
    > >>>>>> and worked with them a bit.  Invariably, there's a few that I really
    > >>>>>> thought would work that fail dismally.

    >
    > >>>>> Sometimes more than a few, and I wonder why I wasted the time and gas.

    >
    > >>>>> That is when I try to become a Photoshop artist. Only after I declare
    > >>>>> those results nauseatingly beyond rescue do I accept defeat and think
    > >>>>> of how I will do things differently next time.

    >
    > >>>> I have spent a day out shooting and returned having not tripped the
    > >>>> shutter once.

    >
    > >>>> I have spent a day out shooting and returned with card full of images
    > >>>> and deleted all of them when I looked at the results.

    >
    > >>>> Last night, I left a bit early to go to my camera club meeting and
    > >>>> killed some time driving down the "downtown" street of Orlando.  I
    > >>>> spotted these girls waiting for the Social (a nightclub) to open on
    > >>>> Ladies Night.  I pulled into a Loading Zone, took one shot, and it's a
    > >>>> keeper for me.

    >
    > >>>>http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Candids/i-XcsJQdN/0/X2/2012-07-09....

    >
    > >>>> I know candid street photography is not of interest to those here, but
    > >>>> it's what I like to do.

    >
    > >>> You will see a street scene in one of my SI submissions. While streetis
    > >>> not my prime passion, to my eye the characters should be relating to
    > >>> each other, in some fashion, or a common theme running.

    >
    > >> Well, "street" presents what is there.  It can be characters relating
    > >> to each other, or it can be just the opposite:

    >
    > >> These girls are relating to the same thing:

    >
    > >>http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Candids/i-CNzrNCJ/0/XL/2009-01-25....

    >
    > >> This couple prefer other people's company to the company they're with:

    >
    > >>http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Candids/i-mSvPQqs/0/XL/2010-03-20....

    >
    > >> Or, it can be both.  Somewhere I have an unscanned print from my film
    > >> days of an elderly couple walking hand-in-hand, but his head is turned
    > >> to look at the back of a sweet young thing they've just passed.

    >
    > >> My SI submissions for this round will not include "street".  I tried
    > >> some new things this time.

    >
    > >In each of the above images there is a theme or relationship. I think
    > >that a negative relationship is still a relationship. In your original
    > >image the young girls did not appear to have any thing in common. Yes,
    > >there is the sign, but to me there is no tie in. Just a shot with
    > >multiple people.

    >
    > Well, I don't expect everyone - or anyone, for that matter - to like
    > what I like or see what I see.
    >
    > The commonality of the girls in the Social image is that they are all
    > detached and self-absorbed and alone.  They are waiting to get into a
    > club where they hope to meet someone that is *not* part of this group.
    > Not to be cruel, but they look like their chances are all equal:  slim
    > to none.


    I have a completely different take on this picture. I think all of
    these girls have a good chance of getting what they came for, and
    possibly with some of the other people in this same group.
     
    otter, Jul 11, 2012
    #48
  9. Pablo

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 05:01:42 -0700 (PDT), otter
    <> wrote:

    >On Jul 10, 11:49 pm, tony cooper <> wrote:
    >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 20:49:06 -0400, PeterN
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> <> wrote:
    >> >On 7/10/2012 8:41 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    >> >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 20:21:16 -0400, PeterN
    >> >> <> wrote:

    >>
    >> >>> On 7/10/2012 10:43 AM, tony cooper wrote:
    >> >>>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 23:49:59 -0700, Savageduck
    >> >>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >>
    >> >>>>> On 2012-07-09 19:00:31 -0700, tony cooper <> said:

    >>
    >> >>>>>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 17:45:22 -0700 (PDT), otter
    >> >>>>>> <> wrote:

    >>
    >> >>>>>>> I shoot a lot of crappy shots.

    >>
    >> >>>>>> Don't we all?

    >>
    >> >>>>>>> Sometimes it seems like there really should be a picture there,
    >> >>>>>>> but when you look at it after the fact, it just isn't.

    >>
    >> >>>>>> Oh, yeah.  Been there.  Done that.

    >>
    >> >>>>>> When I come back home from a day of shooting, my wife usually asks
    >> >>>>>> "Get any good ones?"  I tell her I don't know until I've uploaded them
    >> >>>>>> and worked with them a bit.  Invariably, there's a few that I really
    >> >>>>>> thought would work that fail dismally.

    >>
    >> >>>>> Sometimes more than a few, and I wonder why I wasted the time and gas.

    >>
    >> >>>>> That is when I try to become a Photoshop artist. Only after I declare
    >> >>>>> those results nauseatingly beyond rescue do I accept defeat and think
    >> >>>>> of how I will do things differently next time.

    >>
    >> >>>> I have spent a day out shooting and returned having not tripped the
    >> >>>> shutter once.

    >>
    >> >>>> I have spent a day out shooting and returned with card full of images
    >> >>>> and deleted all of them when I looked at the results.

    >>
    >> >>>> Last night, I left a bit early to go to my camera club meeting and
    >> >>>> killed some time driving down the "downtown" street of Orlando.  I
    >> >>>> spotted these girls waiting for the Social (a nightclub) to open on
    >> >>>> Ladies Night.  I pulled into a Loading Zone, took one shot, and it's a
    >> >>>> keeper for me.

    >>
    >> >>>>http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Candids/i-XcsJQdN/0/X2/2012-07-09...

    >>
    >> >>>> I know candid street photography is not of interest to those here, but
    >> >>>> it's what I like to do.

    >>
    >> >>> You will see a street scene in one of my SI submissions. While street is
    >> >>> not my prime passion, to my eye the characters should be relating to
    >> >>> each other, in some fashion, or a common theme running.

    >>
    >> >> Well, "street" presents what is there.  It can be characters relating
    >> >> to each other, or it can be just the opposite:

    >>
    >> >> These girls are relating to the same thing:

    >>
    >> >>http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Candids/i-CNzrNCJ/0/XL/2009-01-25...

    >>
    >> >> This couple prefer other people's company to the company they're with:

    >>
    >> >>http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Candids/i-mSvPQqs/0/XL/2010-03-20...

    >>
    >> >> Or, it can be both.  Somewhere I have an unscanned print from my film
    >> >> days of an elderly couple walking hand-in-hand, but his head is turned
    >> >> to look at the back of a sweet young thing they've just passed.

    >>
    >> >> My SI submissions for this round will not include "street".  I tried
    >> >> some new things this time.

    >>
    >> >In each of the above images there is a theme or relationship. I think
    >> >that a negative relationship is still a relationship. In your original
    >> >image the young girls did not appear to have any thing in common. Yes,
    >> >there is the sign, but to me there is no tie in. Just a shot with
    >> >multiple people.

    >>
    >> Well, I don't expect everyone - or anyone, for that matter - to like
    >> what I like or see what I see.
    >>
    >> The commonality of the girls in the Social image is that they are all
    >> detached and self-absorbed and alone.  They are waiting to get into a
    >> club where they hope to meet someone that is *not* part of this group.
    >> Not to be cruel, but they look like their chances are all equal:  slim
    >> to none.

    >
    >I have a completely different take on this picture. I think all of
    >these girls have a good chance of getting what they came for, and
    >possibly with some of the other people in this same group.


    That's an interesting part about "street" photography. We can each
    construct our own story about what is pictured. It's actually a good
    thing, in my opinion, that there are different takes on what is shown.
    That indicates that there is something provocative about the image,
    and that's what we aim for in this genre.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jul 11, 2012
    #49
  10. Pablo

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 03:20:01 -0800, (Floyd L.
    Davidson) wrote:

    >tony cooper <> wrote:
    >>Well, I don't expect everyone - or anyone, for that matter - to like
    >>what I like or see what I see.

    >
    >True.
    >
    >>The commonality of the girls in the Social image is that they are all
    >>detached and self-absorbed and alone.

    >
    >Not at all! Three of them are even sitting so close as to be in
    >physical contract, and the lady to the left is clearly totally
    >absorbed in visual contact with those three. The two on the
    >right are nearly in physical contact, and while they clearly
    >know each other it isn't obvious that they actually know the
    >other group.
    >
    >But one thing is clear: this is not really a "candid" photo
    >because 4 out of the six people are looking directly at the
    >photographer and aware that they are being observed.


    I am not surprised that you have a dissenting opinion. I would be
    surprised if there is possible subject matter on which you *don't*
    have a dissenting opinion.

    We - the photographers who have a special interest in this genre of
    photography - generally don't attempt to dissect an image they way you
    have. We look for an interesting scene that engages the viewer,
    suggests a story, and evokes viewer reaction. We appreciate contrary
    views and diverse views because that tells us that the photo has
    scored some interest. For this reason, thank you, Floyd, for your
    comments.

    As far as the "candid" aspect, it is candid as opposed to being posed
    or set-up. That the photographer is noticed does not strip "candid"
    from the description. I have no idea how you define "candid", but no
    one that I have ever talked to or read the writings of has
    disqualified a photo as a candid because the subjects are aware they
    are being photographed. "Candid" describes a photograph taken where
    the photographer has not set the scene.

    I think that deciding a photo is not a candid shot if the subject
    notices the photographer is an exclusively Floydism.

    I generally shoot candids in a way to avoid being noticed. Not
    because I'm concerned about the candid aspect, but because I don't
    want the subjects to mug in any way. The third girl from the left
    seems to be reacting in this way with her hand gesture. Maybe, or
    maybe not.

    I was across the street from these girls, but in plain sight. Only #3
    seems to be noticing and looking at me. Number 2 is looking slightly
    to my left, and numbers 5 and 6 seem to be staring vacantly into
    space. I particularly like #6 because she seems zoned out.

    Whether or not they know each other is unknown. Two people waiting in
    any line may strike up a conversation even if they've never seen each
    other before in their life. And, this is a line of people waiting.

    >Those three ladies sitting in physical contract with each other
    >are not "a group of friends"?? For that matter the two on the right
    >almost certainly are friends too, though it's hard to say if the
    >two groups know each other or not.


    Their seating position is just as likely based on their arrival order
    as it is on their past association.

    Be as it may, I'm glad you paid enough attention to the image to make
    up your own story. That's what I hope for in this type of image. I
    hope it was because of interest and not just for a chance to offer an
    argument.




    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jul 11, 2012
    #50
  11. Pablo

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 07:46:09 -0800, (Floyd L.
    Davidson) wrote:

    >tony cooper <> wrote:
    >>On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 03:20:01 -0800, (Floyd L.
    >>Davidson) wrote:
    >>
    >>>tony cooper <> wrote:
    >>>>Well, I don't expect everyone - or anyone, for that matter - to like
    >>>>what I like or see what I see.
    >>>
    >>>True.
    >>>
    >>>>The commonality of the girls in the Social image is that they are all
    >>>>detached and self-absorbed and alone.
    >>>
    >>>Not at all! Three of them are even sitting so close as to be in
    >>>physical contract, and the lady to the left is clearly totally
    >>>absorbed in visual contact with those three. The two on the
    >>>right are nearly in physical contact, and while they clearly
    >>>know each other it isn't obvious that they actually know the
    >>>other group.
    >>>
    >>>But one thing is clear: this is not really a "candid" photo
    >>>because 4 out of the six people are looking directly at the
    >>>photographer and aware that they are being observed.

    >>
    >>I am not surprised that you have a dissenting opinion. I would be
    >>surprised if there is possible subject matter on which you *don't*
    >>have a dissenting opinion.
    >>
    >>We - the photographers who have a special interest in this genre of
    >>photography - generally don't attempt to dissect an image they way you
    >>have. We look for an interesting scene that engages the viewer,
    >>suggests a story, and evokes viewer reaction.

    >
    >Then you should make it very clear that you are conjuring up an
    >imaginative story not at all based on reality, that is solely a
    >figment of your imagination. It has nothing to do with the
    >actual lives of the people in the picture that inspired your
    >imagination.
    >
    >You didn't do that, and instead wrote that your imagination
    >probably was reality for those people.


    You somehow acquired the impression that my comments were the result
    of interviewing the girls and learning their life stories? You object
    to what I wrote, but you went to some length to fabricate what you
    thought the story was. And that is somehow different?

    >>We appreciate contrary
    >>views and diverse views because that tells us that the photo has
    >>scored some interest. For this reason, thank you, Floyd, for your
    >>comments.
    >>
    >>As far as the "candid" aspect, it is candid as opposed to being posed
    >>or set-up.

    >
    >It may not be "set-up", but they are posing for the observer.


    They are? Isn't this just you expressing what is in your imagination
    as reality? My imagination says they are not posing (with the
    possible exception of the hand gesture by the one girl) and your
    imagination has them posing. You don't see how hypocritical this is
    of you in doing what I'm doing but calling me wrong for doing so?

    >>That the photographer is noticed does not strip "candid"
    >>from the description. I have no idea how you define "candid", but no
    >>one that I have ever talked to or read the writings of has
    >>disqualified a photo as a candid because the subjects are aware they
    >>are being photographed. "Candid" describes a photograph taken where
    >>the photographer has not set the scene.

    >
    >But in this case you *have* "set the scene". Perhaps not with
    >spoken commands as might be the case with a model, but merely by
    >being noticed.


    Just how is raising a camera summoning the girls to that location, and
    placing them in seated order? What might they have been doing
    differently if I had not been there?

    >It isn't always that way. I commonly tell people that I shoot
    >"people pictures", and what I want is a picture of people doing
    >something... as long as what they are doing is not "being
    >photographed". They can be well aware that I'm taking pictures,
    >but the instant they change their character or activity due to
    >the pictures, it is no longer candid. It's someone posing for a
    >picture.

    \
    Wiki defines "candid photography" pretty well: "A candid photograph
    is a photograph that is made either without the subject's knowledge or
    without their explicit permission, hence they are captured unposed."

    Notice the "or". In this case, it is only clear that one girl noticed
    me. The other five may or may not have, but I don't think they did.
    You seem to be able to tell from the photograph what I was unable to
    tell standing directly in front of them (but across the street). My
    thought that at least five of the six girls didn't notice me is based
    on their physical bearing before and after I took the shot. They were
    much the same before I brought out the camera (a small compact model)
    and didn't react after.

    One of the most respected and emulated photographers who specialized
    in candids is Henri Cartier-Bresson. In many, many of his images the
    subject is quite aware of being photographed. Look at:
    https://www.google.com/search?q=hen...VEoSk8gSZvsHsBg&ved=0CF0QsAQ&biw=1400&bih=739
    or http://tinyurl.com/6pm7f5h for examples.

    Another famous candid photographer was Arthur Fellig (Weegee).
    Believe me, Weegee's subjects knew they were being photographed.
    https://www.google.com/search?q=wee...g&biw=1400&bih=739&sei=erH9T6_xPIO68ATkg_DFBg
    or http://tinyurl.com/7djzage

    >I know a number of people who simply cannot be aware of a camera
    >without posturing. I go ahead and shoot a few exposures to make
    >them happy, but it never makes me happy.


    I shoot a lot of bikers, and this is the biggest problem with shooting
    candids of bikers. They love to mug for the camera. Sometimes it
    works for me, though:

    http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Photography/Bikers/i-MNZChfT/0/XL/2012-03-11-98-XL.jpg

    >>I think that deciding a photo is not a candid shot if the subject
    >>notices the photographer is an exclusively Floydism.

    >
    >Because you have never given it enough thought, and are not doing
    >so now.


    My thoughts on this generally parallel the thoughts of most people who
    do candid photography that I'm contact with through forums. I'm not
    worried about not paralleling an outlier.

    >>Be as it may, I'm glad you paid enough attention to the image to make
    >>up your own story. That's what I hope for in this type of image. I
    >>hope it was because of interest and not just for a chance to offer an
    >>argument.

    >
    >I'm sensitive to cross cultural miscommunications.


    It's a full-time job when you consider anything that differs in any
    way from what you think to be a miscommunication.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jul 11, 2012
    #51
  12. Pablo

    Pablo Guest

    Pablo, Jul 11, 2012
    #52
  13. Pablo

    PeterN Guest

    On 7/11/2012 12:49 AM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 20:49:06 -0400, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 7/10/2012 8:41 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    >>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 20:21:16 -0400, PeterN
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 7/10/2012 10:43 AM, tony cooper wrote:
    >>>>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 23:49:59 -0700, Savageduck
    >>>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On 2012-07-09 19:00:31 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 17:45:22 -0700 (PDT), otter
    >>>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> I shoot a lot of crappy shots.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Don't we all?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Sometimes it seems like there really should be a picture there,
    >>>>>>>> but when you look at it after the fact, it just isn't.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Oh, yeah. Been there. Done that.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> When I come back home from a day of shooting, my wife usually asks
    >>>>>>> "Get any good ones?" I tell her I don't know until I've uploaded them
    >>>>>>> and worked with them a bit. Invariably, there's a few that I really
    >>>>>>> thought would work that fail dismally.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Sometimes more than a few, and I wonder why I wasted the time and gas.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> That is when I try to become a Photoshop artist. Only after I declare
    >>>>>> those results nauseatingly beyond rescue do I accept defeat and think
    >>>>>> of how I will do things differently next time.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I have spent a day out shooting and returned having not tripped the
    >>>>> shutter once.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I have spent a day out shooting and returned with card full of images
    >>>>> and deleted all of them when I looked at the results.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Last night, I left a bit early to go to my camera club meeting and
    >>>>> killed some time driving down the "downtown" street of Orlando. I
    >>>>> spotted these girls waiting for the Social (a nightclub) to open on
    >>>>> Ladies Night. I pulled into a Loading Zone, took one shot, and it's a
    >>>>> keeper for me.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Candids/i-XcsJQdN/0/X2/2012-07-09-2-X2.jpg
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I know candid street photography is not of interest to those here, but
    >>>>> it's what I like to do.
    >>>>
    >>>> You will see a street scene in one of my SI submissions. While street is
    >>>> not my prime passion, to my eye the characters should be relating to
    >>>> each other, in some fashion, or a common theme running.
    >>>
    >>> Well, "street" presents what is there. It can be characters relating
    >>> to each other, or it can be just the opposite:
    >>>
    >>> These girls are relating to the same thing:
    >>>
    >>> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Candids/i-CNzrNCJ/0/XL/2009-01-25-XL.jpg
    >>>
    >>> This couple prefer other people's company to the company they're with:
    >>>
    >>> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Candids/i-mSvPQqs/0/XL/2010-03-20-03-XL.jpg
    >>>
    >>> Or, it can be both. Somewhere I have an unscanned print from my film
    >>> days of an elderly couple walking hand-in-hand, but his head is turned
    >>> to look at the back of a sweet young thing they've just passed.
    >>>
    >>> My SI submissions for this round will not include "street". I tried
    >>> some new things this time.
    >>>

    >>
    >> In each of the above images there is a theme or relationship. I think
    >> that a negative relationship is still a relationship. In your original
    >> image the young girls did not appear to have any thing in common. Yes,
    >> there is the sign, but to me there is no tie in. Just a shot with
    >> multiple people.

    >
    > Well, I don't expect everyone - or anyone, for that matter - to like
    > what I like or see what I see.
    >
    > The commonality of the girls in the Social image is that they are all
    > detached and self-absorbed and alone. They are waiting to get into a
    > club where they hope to meet someone that is *not* part of this group.
    > Not to be cruel, but they look like their chances are all equal: slim
    > to none.
    >
    > They are not presented as a group of friends. They will be
    > competitors for the attention of six people they hope to meet. They
    > are intent on something that will happen - they hope - and not
    > something that is happening to them as they sit there.
    >
    >

    Hopefully we will all see artistic aspects of the world, differently.
    I don't see them as possible competitors. They appeal to men with
    distinct preferences.
    Some are well suited to men who prefer the larger woman. And others, may
    very well need to wear a flag over their face while if they engage in
    sex, for the proverbial reason.



    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jul 11, 2012
    #53
  14. Pablo

    PeterN Guest

    On 7/11/2012 7:20 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > tony cooper <> wrote:
    >> Well, I don't expect everyone - or anyone, for that matter - to like
    >> what I like or see what I see.

    >
    > True.
    >
    >> The commonality of the girls in the Social image is that they are all
    >> detached and self-absorbed and alone.

    >
    > Not at all! Three of them are even sitting so close as to be in
    > physical contract, and the lady to the left is clearly totally
    > absorbed in visual contact with those three. The two on the
    > right are nearly in physical contact, and while they clearly
    > know each other it isn't obvious that they actually know the
    > other group.
    >
    > But one thing is clear: this is not really a "candid" photo
    > because 4 out of the six people are looking directly at the
    > photographer and aware that they are being observed.
    >
    > I'd suspect that any look of "detached" is actualy caused by the
    > awareness of the photographer rather than a lack of attachement
    > to the group.
    >
    >> They are waiting to get into a
    >> club where they hope to meet someone that is *not* part of this group.
    >> Not to be cruel, but they look like their chances are all equal: slim
    >> to none.

    >
    > A judgment call on your part, for which you have no basis at all
    > to make other than in *your* social group they would not be
    > successful. Probabilities are very high that you would fail in
    > their group, and that they are in fact there because it is a
    > place where they are often successful.
    >
    > The problem is that we cannot judge people from different
    > cultures, or even sub-cultures, based on our value systems.
    > They must be judged on *their* value systems to get an accurate
    > concept of their value and ability to succeed.
    >
    >> They are not presented as a group of friends. They will be
    >> competitors for the attention of six people they hope to meet. They
    >> are intent on something that will happen - they hope - and not
    >> something that is happening to them as they sit there.

    >
    > Those three ladies sitting in physical contract with each other
    > are not "a group of friends"?? For that matter the two on the right
    > almost certainly are friends too, though it's hard to say if the
    > two groups know each other or not.
    >
    > Another point is that they are there at the time they are for a
    > specific purpose too, and that is indeed exactly what "is
    > happening to them as they sit there". If it wasn't for the
    > social interaction they clearly are engaged in, would they have
    > come at that time?
    >
    > Trying to judge people based on what they would be in *your*
    > world may be entertaining, but it is not productive.
    >


    Your comments profusely illustrates that we see the same image, and
    interpret it differently.

    It might be interesting to take a trip to Orlando, locate and interview
    the subjects, to see which of us has the correct interpretation.
    However, I do not have either the time or money for that type of
    inquiry. And if I did, I have other priorities.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jul 11, 2012
    #54
  15. Pablo

    PeterN Guest

    On 7/11/2012 12:49 AM, tony cooper wrote:


    <snip>


    > The commonality of the girls in the Social image is that they are all
    > detached and self-absorbed and alone. They are waiting to get into a
    > club where they hope to meet someone that is *not* part of this group.
    > Not to be cruel, but they look like their chances are all equal: slim
    > to none.
    >


    "Slim" is not a word I would use in describing that group.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jul 11, 2012
    #55
  16. Pablo

    PeterN Guest

    On 7/10/2012 11:21 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > PeterN <> wrote:
    >> This is about the first time, in a long time, that you actually agreed
    >> with the Duck.

    >
    > That is his problem, not mine. And note that he agreed with me, not
    > the other way around.


    And contrary to other postings of yours, you did not disagree with his
    agreement.


    >
    >> In this one case I agree with both of you. However, to
    >> amplify: If I try t9 communicate a message and you get the wrong
    >> message, the failure is mine. That holds whether my communication is
    >> written, oral, or pictorial.

    >
    > That is true only when the message is being received by someone
    > who is making an honest effort at understanding it. All too
    > often that is not true, and as is common here on Usenet we see
    > people who make every effort *not* to understand what the
    > intended message is, and instead work hard to concentrate on
    > something like pedantic spelling or purposely using a different
    > word definition.
    >
    > The same goes for images. In a typical gallery virtually
    > everyone just quickly passes by a photograph they don't care
    > for, but may spend a great deal of time dwelling on one they do.
    > On Internet forums, or worse yet here on Usenet, adding a
    > photograph to a contentious discussion is more than likely going
    > to result in any number of insulting comments that relate to the
    > emotional state of the poster and have little if anything to do
    > with the photograph!
    >
    > But your point was directed towards polite comunications where
    > integrity exists. If the photograph doesn't draw the right message
    > in the mind of any viewers, the photographer has mistaken the value
    > of that image. Of course not everyone likes every photograph though,
    > so even when the photographer does a terrific job it doesn't always
    > resonate with every viewer.
    >


    My images are intended for me to create a message, or share a pattern.
    At no time are any of them intended to be an appeal for universal
    understanding.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jul 11, 2012
    #56
  17. Pablo

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 20:09:09 +0200, Pablo <> wrote:

    >tony cooper escribió:
    >
    >> I shoot a lot of bikers

    >
    >Out of interest, how do you define 'biker'?
    >
    >I doubt the subject of that image has ever been on a motorcycle.


    You are quite wrong about this. "Seadog" was photographed at
    Sopotnick's "Cabbage Patch" bar in Samsula, Florida. (I don't need
    geotagging to know where I take photos) That's a hangout for bikers
    during Bike Week and Biketoberfest. He was standing by his bike when
    this was shot.

    I have no idea why you'd make such an assumption.

    As far as my definition of "biker", it's loose and includes anyone who
    rides a motorcycle more than recreationally but excludes old timers on
    Gold Wings and kids on crotch rockets. They aren't all Harley riders,
    but they are the ones that I usually photograph.

    You can see more if you're interested at my Biker gallery:
    http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Photography/Bikers/7335235_GnM84W#!i=1869114340&k=CRRzPjd

    >I think you mean 'scruffy people that want to be "rebels"', but are probably
    >all accountants.


    CPAs and dentists usually ride Ducatis.

    I no longer own a bike, but I've owned two vintage Moto Guzzis. My
    son has a newer Moto Guzzi (not currently running) and has owned a
    vintage BMW and a Ural with sidecar. Neither of us have ever owned or
    worn leathers.




    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jul 12, 2012
    #57
  18. Pablo

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:53:16 -0800, (Floyd L.
    Davidson) wrote:

    >
    >Your article is silly. There's no point in responding.


    I'll take that as capitulation.


    >tony cooper <> wrote:
    >>On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 07:46:09 -0800, (Floyd L.
    >>Davidson) wrote:
    >>
    >>>tony cooper <> wrote:
    >>>>On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 03:20:01 -0800, (Floyd L.
    >>>>Davidson) wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>tony cooper <> wrote:
    >>>>>>Well, I don't expect everyone - or anyone, for that matter - to like
    >>>>>>what I like or see what I see.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>True.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>The commonality of the girls in the Social image is that they are all
    >>>>>>detached and self-absorbed and alone.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Not at all! Three of them are even sitting so close as to be in
    >>>>>physical contract, and the lady to the left is clearly totally
    >>>>>absorbed in visual contact with those three. The two on the
    >>>>>right are nearly in physical contact, and while they clearly
    >>>>>know each other it isn't obvious that they actually know the
    >>>>>other group.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>But one thing is clear: this is not really a "candid" photo
    >>>>>because 4 out of the six people are looking directly at the
    >>>>>photographer and aware that they are being observed.
    >>>>
    >>>>I am not surprised that you have a dissenting opinion. I would be
    >>>>surprised if there is possible subject matter on which you *don't*
    >>>>have a dissenting opinion.
    >>>>
    >>>>We - the photographers who have a special interest in this genre of
    >>>>photography - generally don't attempt to dissect an image they way you
    >>>>have. We look for an interesting scene that engages the viewer,
    >>>>suggests a story, and evokes viewer reaction.
    >>>
    >>>Then you should make it very clear that you are conjuring up an
    >>>imaginative story not at all based on reality, that is solely a
    >>>figment of your imagination. It has nothing to do with the
    >>>actual lives of the people in the picture that inspired your
    >>>imagination.
    >>>
    >>>You didn't do that, and instead wrote that your imagination
    >>>probably was reality for those people.

    >>
    >>You somehow acquired the impression that my comments were the result
    >>of interviewing the girls and learning their life stories? You object
    >>to what I wrote, but you went to some length to fabricate what you
    >>thought the story was. And that is somehow different?
    >>
    >>>>We appreciate contrary
    >>>>views and diverse views because that tells us that the photo has
    >>>>scored some interest. For this reason, thank you, Floyd, for your
    >>>>comments.
    >>>>
    >>>>As far as the "candid" aspect, it is candid as opposed to being posed
    >>>>or set-up.
    >>>
    >>>It may not be "set-up", but they are posing for the observer.

    >>
    >>They are? Isn't this just you expressing what is in your imagination
    >>as reality? My imagination says they are not posing (with the
    >>possible exception of the hand gesture by the one girl) and your
    >>imagination has them posing. You don't see how hypocritical this is
    >>of you in doing what I'm doing but calling me wrong for doing so?
    >>
    >>>>That the photographer is noticed does not strip "candid"
    >>>>from the description. I have no idea how you define "candid", but no
    >>>>one that I have ever talked to or read the writings of has
    >>>>disqualified a photo as a candid because the subjects are aware they
    >>>>are being photographed. "Candid" describes a photograph taken where
    >>>>the photographer has not set the scene.
    >>>
    >>>But in this case you *have* "set the scene". Perhaps not with
    >>>spoken commands as might be the case with a model, but merely by
    >>>being noticed.

    >>
    >>Just how is raising a camera summoning the girls to that location, and
    >>placing them in seated order? What might they have been doing
    >>differently if I had not been there?
    >>
    >>>It isn't always that way. I commonly tell people that I shoot
    >>>"people pictures", and what I want is a picture of people doing
    >>>something... as long as what they are doing is not "being
    >>>photographed". They can be well aware that I'm taking pictures,
    >>>but the instant they change their character or activity due to
    >>>the pictures, it is no longer candid. It's someone posing for a
    >>>picture.

    >>\
    >>Wiki defines "candid photography" pretty well: "A candid photograph
    >>is a photograph that is made either without the subject's knowledge or
    >>without their explicit permission, hence they are captured unposed."
    >>
    >>Notice the "or". In this case, it is only clear that one girl noticed
    >>me. The other five may or may not have, but I don't think they did.
    >>You seem to be able to tell from the photograph what I was unable to
    >>tell standing directly in front of them (but across the street). My
    >>thought that at least five of the six girls didn't notice me is based
    >>on their physical bearing before and after I took the shot. They were
    >>much the same before I brought out the camera (a small compact model)
    >>and didn't react after.
    >>
    >>One of the most respected and emulated photographers who specialized
    >>in candids is Henri Cartier-Bresson. In many, many of his images the
    >>subject is quite aware of being photographed. Look at:
    >>https://www.google.com/search?q=hen...oSk8gSZvsHsBg&ved=0CF0QsAQ&biw=1400&bih=739or http://tinyurl.com/6pm7f5h for examples.
    >>
    >>Another famous candid photographer was Arthur Fellig (Weegee).
    >>Believe me, Weegee's subjects knew they were being photographed.
    >>https://www.google.com/search?q=wee...biw=1400&bih=739&sei=erH9T6_xPIO68ATkg_DFBgor http://tinyurl.com/7djzage
    >>
    >>>I know a number of people who simply cannot be aware of a camera
    >>>without posturing. I go ahead and shoot a few exposures to make
    >>>them happy, but it never makes me happy.

    >>
    >>I shoot a lot of bikers, and this is the biggest problem with shooting
    >>candids of bikers. They love to mug for the camera. Sometimes it
    >>works for me, though:
    >>
    >>http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Photography/Bikers/i-MNZChfT/0/XL/2012-03-11-98-XL.jpg
    >>
    >>>>I think that deciding a photo is not a candid shot if the subject
    >>>>notices the photographer is an exclusively Floydism.
    >>>
    >>>Because you have never given it enough thought, and are not doing
    >>>so now.

    >>
    >>My thoughts on this generally parallel the thoughts of most people who
    >>do candid photography that I'm contact with through forums. I'm not
    >>worried about not paralleling an outlier.
    >>
    >>>>Be as it may, I'm glad you paid enough attention to the image to make
    >>>>up your own story. That's what I hope for in this type of image. I
    >>>>hope it was because of interest and not just for a chance to offer an
    >>>>argument.
    >>>
    >>>I'm sensitive to cross cultural miscommunications.

    >>
    >>It's a full-time job when you consider anything that differs in any
    >>way from what you think to be a miscommunication.
    >>
    >>--
    >>Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jul 12, 2012
    #58
  19. Pablo

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 17:33:26 -0400, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >Your comments profusely illustrates that we see the same image, and
    >interpret it differently.


    That's one of the reasons that I have little interest in photographing
    birds, mountains, and covered bridges. They're pretty, but they don't
    engage thinking.
    >


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jul 12, 2012
    #59
  20. Pablo

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 07:46:09 -0800, (Floyd L.
    Davidson) wrote:

    >I'm sensitive to cross cultural miscommunications.


    I am still puzzling over this statement. I understand
    "cross-cultural" to mean interaction between disparate cultural
    groups.

    Wiki provides "By the 1970s, the field of cross-cultural communication
    (also known as intercultural communication) developed as a prominent
    application of the cross-cultural paradigm, in response to the
    pressures of globalization which produced a demand for cross-cultural
    awareness training in various commercial sectors."

    The best I can guess is that you define cultural groups much, much
    more narrow than I do. The girls in the image are (presumably)
    American from a reasonably similar cultural background to mine. They
    are not Inuits, Tibetians, or Kashmiri Pandits. At least one may be
    of Puerto Rican heritage, though. We are not all that disparate
    unless you are including age.

    So, why has my assessment of them qualified as a "cross cultural
    miscommunication"?




    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jul 12, 2012
    #60
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Annika1980

    PERFECT BOKEH WITH THE D60 !!!

    Annika1980, Sep 16, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    33
    Views:
    1,814
    badgerfish
    Sep 23, 2003
  2. Replies:
    12
    Views:
    3,035
    Michael Alan Chary
    Feb 23, 2005
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    532
  4. paul

    Bad Bokeh!

    paul, Mar 15, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    37
    Views:
    1,342
    Confused
    Mar 21, 2005
  5. John

    Bad media, bad files or bad Nero?

    John, Dec 31, 2007, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    1,268
    Keith
    Jan 8, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page