Skanter told me that I was getting no reactions. replied in a non hostile satirical manner.
Though I am on your ignore list for childish reasons, I agree with you in this thread.Sorry, I find this image to be a muddy, red mess, with little or no direction or awareness of light or composition. The highlighted arms - the only things that are lit - glaringly stand out from the shadowy, dark figures behind them. The chairs add noithing to the composition. That you find some obscure compositional concept (as you are wont to do) to “discover” what the photographer has “stumbled upon”, is certainly your perogative, but I don’t buy it. Had the photographer had the intent you describe, some decent PP might have made something more possible - but he didn’t. He just wanted to get a “reaction”.
A couple at the Wine Bar late on a Saturday Night
Well, I've stated in two posts why I like this image. Here's a third: Chato has stumbled onto producing an image that contains within it the compositional feature known as 'frames-within-frames'. There's a complex series of stories contained within the picture; structured to be seen simultaneously as one all-encompassing story, or as many different stories. This succeeds in producing a rich field of narrative responses for the viewer to mull over. Larry Towell and Alex Webb are experts at this.
Other than a beer-bottle colour cast and some inelegant post-processing, what else do you find lacking with this image that makes it "mediocre"?
When commenters say about an image that it fails for such-and-such a reason, I tend to look at it through their eyes, and try to visualize an improvement in the area under criticism. Take your colour cast issues as an example: Does correcting the colour turn this image from a "fail" into a roaring success? I think not. Chato's weakness in post-processing at best (worst?) makes for a diminished photograph...not a mediocre one. Same with your other post-processing suggestions: the woman's too dark face, the highlights, etc..
I find greater value in a battered old quarter than a shiny new penny. Post-processing concerns are a minor aspect of good photography.
I have no idea what the woman is doing - I can barely see her. All I said is that I think it is a poor photo, a shadowy, red mess with two brightly-lit arms, and that the OP’s titles and posts make it clear that his intent was mainly to get “reactions”, not trying to make a “frame within a frame” composition a la Alex Webb.I see. Steve thinks Chato may have captured the woman turning from his camera, and you're quite sure the woman is avoiding being photographed. I don't see that happening. As discussed with Steve, I think she is merely looking backward and downward for something that's grabbing her attention. The relaxed pose and countenance of the man she is with hints at that possibility.
Jeff, I’m sure if you try hard enough you can find -some- compositional similarity between Chato’s completely mediocre photo and Webb’s compelling one.
Its interesting that you rarely comment on any of the fine photos posted on this forum; but you tend to find some erudite aesthetic “concept” to “reveal” to us in what everyone else considers a poor or mediocre photo - I assume an attempt to display your superior insight?
Chato admits he was just trying to get a “reaction” from the female, as in all the photos in this sorry series. None of the above.
So you think non-awareness of the camera by the subject is an important criterion for street photos? Well, that would include most of them shot by everyone. How is this at all relevant to a photo’s quality?
Jeff, not intended to be “snide”, just pointing out what I’ve seen here and from your posting history over the years. If I am off base, please show where i am wrong in what I’ve observed.
Steve, don’t forget the series title, “Reactions, Late on a Saturday Night”.
All the images are captioned reaction "this" or reaction "that." Except this one, which is captioned: "A couple at the Wine Bar late on a Saturday Night."Steve, don’t forget the series title, “Reactions, Late on a Saturday Night”.
The caption on the image in "dispute" says NOTHING about reactions and as far as I know this young lady did not notice me photographing her.Nor does her boyfriend seem to be even faintly aware of this supposed knowledge.
SERIES and THREAD TITLE, “Reactions, Late on a Saturday Night”.All the images are captioned reaction "this" or reaction "that." Except this one, which is captioned: "A couple at the Wine Bar late on a Saturday Night."Steve, don’t forget the series title, “Reactions, Late on a Saturday Night”.
Second of course, I NEVER, on this or any other thread said that I was taking pictures to provoke a reaction. You simply made that up.
And instead of ADMITTING your error you keep making up more stuff. In my opinion, your actions are shameful.
She may have noticed she may not have. It "seems" to me I caught her in a moment of affection to her boy friend. I may be mistaken. In any even, over the course of the Two days in question I took about 120 images. The others from this post "happen" to be the ones where people noticed me shooting and reacted.
And? You mean the actual caption doesn't count? My words and descriptions don't count? You're really too full of yourself. Let me tell you something. IF I WAS shooting for "reactions" I would be the first to say so.SERIES TITLE, “Reactions on a Saturday Night”.All the images are captioned reaction "this" or reaction "that." Except this one, which is captioned: "A couple at the Wine Bar late on a Saturday Night."Steve, don’t forget the series title, “Reactions, Late on a Saturday Night”.
Second of course, I NEVER, on this or any other thread said that I was taking pictures to provoke a reaction. You simply made that up.
And instead of ADMITTING your error you keep making up more stuff. In my opinion, your actions are shameful.
I never said anything of the sort.
Hard work doesn’t always mean staking a location for hours and taking 100 photographs to get the right one. It can also mean the hard work of years spent studying and practicing that enables someone to take a single, instinctive photo “on the run” that is a wonderful composition of many complex elements. Eggleston for example simply took a single photograph of a scene.
Is that a euphemism?!?
Exactly. Street Photography is not Landscape Photography. Some of the best street photographers rely on speed and instinct, honed by many years of experience.
