Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Adam and Eves  (Read 1227 times)
seamus finn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 802


« on: July 04, 2013, 05:24:54 PM »
ReplyReply

...turning a blind eye and a deafened ear?
Logged

Chairman Bill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1499


« Reply #1 on: July 04, 2013, 05:25:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Hmm. Is there enough ambiguity to qualify it as 'street'?  Wink
Logged
seamus finn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 802


« Reply #2 on: July 04, 2013, 10:19:22 PM »
ReplyReply

 
Fair judgement, Chairman. I always respect the Chair.

Keep in mind, though, that 90% (or some such figure) of all attempts at street photography end in failure, so I'm happy to be among the majority.

This picture, like most of its kind, and I certainly wouldn't hold it out as a model, is just a moment of serendipity - a little drama played out accidentally in its elements in front of a keen eye. Pure 'street' has that extra, inexplicable, ambiguous ingredient which is missing here. You can't define it, only recognise it but you know when it's missing.

Admittedly, I've shot better, but the bottom line is always the same: raw instinct. The curse and the magic can't be explained. I click. I get a rush. I imagine: 'I nailed it'.  And I move on. It's only when I come back to my files, sooner or later, that many of them turn out to be a bitter disappointment. 

Remember  Garry Winogrand. He died without seeing a lot of his work. He shot hundred of thousands of photographs. Many of them weren't even developed in his lifetime. The difference, however, is that he seemed to nail everything while he was out in the streets rather than hunkered up in a darkroom processing his stuff.

With me it goes like this: I see what I think is a striking, human condition and I shoot instinctively. And at that moment, I don't know what I've got although I have high hopes. Only later, the later the better, I find that most of the time I might have the occasional pearl but usually nothing.  And even when I think I have something, I'm still not sure because like most photographers, I'm my own worst editor even though I was a newspaper boss for over forty years. But then, I was objectively editing the work of others - a nice luxury.

Be warned: you are your own worst enemy in that regard.

I had completely forgotten about this particular little image for a very long time until I came across it tonight going through some nostalgic family files. (In the final analysis, they are the only ones worth keeping.)  For all anybody knows, this guy could be talking on the phone to his wife, but I remember thinking that he looked a forlorn figure. I have become familiar with that condition lately since the recent death of my beloved wife, but the picture was taken long before then. It goes to show that the human condition never changes.

Regards,

Seamus.



Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #3 on: July 05, 2013, 03:19:46 AM »
ReplyReply

For all anybody knows, this guy could be talking on the phone to his wife, but I remember thinking that he looked a forlorn figure. I have become familiar with that condition lately since the recent death of my beloved wife, but the picture was taken long before then. It goes to show that the human condition never changes.

Regards,

Seamus.





I send you my sincere sympathies, Seamus.

I hope that photography goes some way to filling the emptiness for you - it certainly has for me. It can't ever replace what's lost, but it fills empty hours, even more so because of the many of them spent in front of a blessed monitor, which is slightly more productive a
waste of lifetime than is a tv set.

Stay focussed on the good that's left - it is there if you look in the right places. But you do have to look.

Rob C

Logged

WalterEG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1155


« Reply #4 on: July 05, 2013, 06:54:47 AM »
ReplyReply

I like it Seamus,

For me it is a whimsical slice of life with little need for ambiguity.

Well spotted and well presented.

W
Logged
petermfiore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510



WWW
« Reply #5 on: July 05, 2013, 07:03:03 AM »
ReplyReply

What Walter said.

Peter
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6210



WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 05, 2013, 09:41:10 AM »
ReplyReply

A fun shot, Seamus. Reminds me of this one which was in a similar vein. Not as good as yours because the Eves aren't there, just their clothes.
Logged

fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #7 on: July 05, 2013, 10:44:26 AM »
ReplyReply

I like it. It has some interesting human drama there.  I'd like it if the composition were more compact.  I do have a post-processing suggestion, if you are into that sort of thing.

I would use content aware scaling in the center of the image to move the man closer to the mannequins.  What I am suggesting is to decrease the amount of separation between the two main subjects.  

I took the liberty of making a quick edit of it. I hope you don't mind.  I was working fast and without care so there are some quirks that could be fixed with just a bit more care.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2013, 10:49:00 AM by fike » Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #8 on: July 05, 2013, 12:32:57 PM »
ReplyReply

I prefer the original shot. The whole idea of physical separation is where the concept of personal, spiritual isolation happens.

The reconstruction kills that, making little point to the image.

Rob C
Logged

seamus finn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 802


« Reply #9 on: July 05, 2013, 12:59:08 PM »
ReplyReply

fike, thanks for your interest. The idea of using content aware simply wouldn't have occurred to me. However, I agree with Rob. The whole idea is the separation of the two elements, emphasizing the man's isolation. For me, bringing them closer doesn't work

Incidentally, Rob, I'm singularly grateful for your kind words of sympathy and understanding - much appreciated. What you say makes a lot of sense.
Logged

amolitor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 801


WWW
« Reply #10 on: July 05, 2013, 02:55:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Wait, Rob is offering an opinion? Has Derrida begun to pale, at last?!!

I quite like the original as is. I wasn't really getting the sense of separation, but the proportions don't bother me.
Logged

- Andrew

My awesome blog about photography: http://photothunk.blogspot.com
AFairley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1146



« Reply #11 on: July 05, 2013, 04:23:20 PM »
ReplyReply

I like the separation (any light/dark symmetry) of the original, particularly when you notice that the guy seems to be staring into the empty shop window and ignoring the eves. 
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #12 on: July 06, 2013, 12:30:33 PM »
ReplyReply

I like the separation (any light/dark symmetry) of the original, particularly when you notice that the guy seems to be staring into the empty shop window and ignoring the eves. 


Maybe he's just smart, and realises they aren't real.

Rob C
Logged

petermfiore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510



WWW
« Reply #13 on: July 06, 2013, 01:05:20 PM »
ReplyReply


Maybe he's just smart, and realises they aren't real.

Rob C


That's the ticket.

Peter
Logged

seamus finn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 802


« Reply #14 on: July 06, 2013, 08:59:03 PM »
ReplyReply

I guess he's smarter than he looks.  Unlike most of us here!
Logged

Riaan van Wyk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 682



WWW
« Reply #15 on: July 07, 2013, 10:47:53 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm dumb when it comes to "street" but even I get this. Well done Seamus- I see echoes of Elliot Erwit in the picture.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad