Mirror...mirror!

[Daisy Mae]

I am not sure I would be this relaxed being plucked and painted in plain view!

[Digital]

Sharon, this is an interesting photo. Looking at it makes you think about it; however I am not sure I like it.
This is MHO.

Bruce

[Daisy Mae]

That is perfectly ok Bruce......you gave pause to think about it and to post a response.

Thank you.

[Stagecoach]

Hi Sharon,

Not too sure if I would call it 'interesting' but there are some things us males do not really need to see. Will be interesting to hear the 'female' view of it.

[Rob Ekins]

Sharon,

I like it..

As with all of the shots you post I find myself looking at them for ages because there is usually a lot in them that is not obvious at first glance. In "The Show" for example I see so many different things in that image, it amazes me..

I think with this one if you toned down the main subject a touch the rest of the other really nice details would come forward a bit more.

I hope that makes sense..


Robbie.

[Marie Hass]

Dear Sharon,

I like this image. Would you consider a sqare crop to get rid of the half lady in the left of the frame? I like the view of this image, and also your treatment.



On second thought, the half lady helps to place you outside looking in, does she not? I think I would be inclined to leave your image the way it is.

Marie

[Daisy Mae]

Hi Marie, When I first looked at the shot out of camera I was tempted to go with that exact square crop as i felt it gave a more 'polished' result but later I realised that what was important to me about the 'story' was the proximity of this young lady's personal pamperings to the street and how seemingly oblivious she was to onlookers observing what I would consider to be quite personal and private moments. So I re-instated the passer by to bring back that dimension.

Thanks Robbie and Grahame for your comments.

[FootLoose]

I like the tonal range in this image, particularly the way you have lightened the subject's skin tones to make her the focus of attention. But if you hadn't have indicated what was going on here, I would never have guessed. (Initially I thought she was just a really laid back hair-dresser -- taking a break from whatever she does.) The perpertrator is a bit obscured by the sign in the window and on my monitor is nearly all black, so I pretty much miss him/her until I search for him/her.

After the woman relaxing in the chair, my eye is drawn to the other woman in the background (who seems to be pulling her pants up) and then to the woman on the left. So, I wonder if it would help to tone down the woman in the background a little and and increase slightly the lightness of the woman on the left? She is more important for the composition than the one in the b/g.

[William W]

The concept is good.

Keep the women entering the scene in the frame, she adds two elements:
– Firstly, as mentioned she definitively places the camera “outside”
- Secondly, she adds juxtaposition to the camera as she is not in interested whatsoever in the “beauty conditioning’ which is happening, inside.


Contrary to Greg's comment, it appears to me that the tonal range is quite poor. I think that it is possible the Black and White conversion is lacking in technique. The grey tones are bunched up and muddy. Also, the exposure may be a bit under.


Clearly the topic of the image is what is happening inside the beauty salon and from a voyeur’s perspective. So, therefore, the light and shade must be the most intense and the most dynamic inside that beauty parlour.

I have stretched the DR and the grey tone reproduction as an indicative and illustration of my point; the original is on top:


Have you considered this genre of Street Photography is akin to - THIS?


WW

[Daisy Mae]

Interesting Bill and thank you for your opinions.

I can only say that however 'poor' you consider my technique ( I was using silver effex pro 2) I vastly prefer my end result.

You state { ''Clearly the topic of the image is what is happening inside the beauty salon and from a voyeur’s perspective. So, therefore, the light and shade must be the most intense and the most dynamic inside that beauty parlour.'' } With that stated aim in mind I find it odd that you have chosen to use so strong a contrast in your treatment of the 'Voyeur.

As for the American privacy issues you kindly drew my attention to. I try to stay abreast of the laws and statutes as they pertain to street photography in the UK as that is where I am.

I appreciate your interest.

[William W]

It occurs to me that you could have perceived the previous comments as personal, or nasty . . .

SO - to ensure exact clarity and precise meaning, I note the words I used and explain further:

It was NEVER stated that your technique was “poor”.
It was stated that the B&W tonal range appears “poor” (on my monitor – yes it’s calibrated).
It was then suggested (not stated) that the B&W conversion technique could have been lacking as the cause of that poor B&W tonal range.

That you prefer your end result is fine by me.
My comments were not meant to convince you otherwise, but merely allow a consideration of another perspective and option.
If you are 100% happy with your B&W conversion – then the B&W tonal range you have is exactly as you want it.

It is totally un-clear to me how I treated the “voyeur” with strong contrasts – as the “voyeur” to which I refer, is the camera (the viewer).

It was clear to me at the outset that you are located in Scotland.
Also, from this image it occurs to me that you are deft at street work, well at least not afraid of it – in consideration of those facts, I merely thought it interesting to ask what your considerations / comments were on this voyeur sub genre of street work: considering the recent press about shooting through glass windows in the USA. . . nothing more nothing less – just merely opening a line of dialogue and NEITHER assuming NOR implying that you don’t know the law or what you are doing.

WW

[Donald]

I am not sure I would be this relaxed being plucked and painted in plain view!

It's okay once you get used to it!!

Can't see Bill's suggested image, so can't comment on the response to that. However, I like it very much is and think, as some others have implied, that the woman on the left absolutely makes it. My question, which no-once else seems to have picked up on, is about the, what looks like, hand-written sign on the window just being in the wrong place in terms of the composition.

[Daisy Mae]

It occurs to me that you could have perceived the previous comments as personal, or nasty . . .

I am glad that it occured to you and will take that as a gentlemanly apology!



Donald...I agree about the price list but figured I might get more than my legs waxed if I asked them to remove it for the duration of the shot and with our weather I need all the coverings nature provided.

[tomdinning]

I am glad that it occured to you and will take that as a gentlemanly apology!



Donald...I agree about the price list but figured I might get more than my legs waxed if I asked them to remove it for the duration of the shot and with our weather I need all the coverings nature provided.

It might be a warning to Bill not to interfer with the the fine work of a Scottish woman without being asked.
Well done, Sharon, for putting Bill in his place.

As for the photo, your original image is the one we all should go with since you thought it suitable to show us.
This is a classic story of human conceit and suffering. The almost faceless person torturing the woman in the chair while the public happily go on their way, passing without notice. This may very well be a reflection of our fear of interfering. Should the woman rush to the assistance of the victim? She ignores the brutality, pretending she hasn't noticed. The scrappy sign is an indicator to those who enter. Only in June do they offer such pain and expect you to pay for it. For the rest of the year they'll do it for nothing.
Women's beauty salons are a mystery. Having their goings on displayed to the public in this manner only adds to the mystery. Certainly not for the likes of me. I like eye brows to look like eye brows.

Thanks for the moment of intrigue and enlightenment, Sharon. Your photo is perfect in all respects because it tells the story so well.

[William W]

I am glad that it occured to you and will take that as a gentlemanly apology!

It was not an apology but an explanation of the exact words I used and the exact meaning of them.

I assumed it was implicit that posting an image in this forum one was soliciting comment and with that comment I merely added an illustration of the comment.

However, it's clear to me now that you did not want that and my editing and reposting your image was also most annoying to you.

For those assumptions I am sorry.

Unless asked, I shall not think to make comment on your images, again.


*

It might be a warning to Bill not to interfer with the the fine work of a Scottish woman without being asked. Well done, Sharon, for putting Bill in his place.

Stay out of it, tom: it’s not your business.

WW

[tomdinning]

Stay out of it, tom: it’s not your business.

WW

Since when? I didn't see any sign posted saying 'Keep Out'.
MAybe, if you want it to be private business, you should deal with it through the PM as you did with me.

No more love letters to me through the PM's, either, Bill. My wife is asking difficult questions.

[Marie Hass]

Sharon and Donald, I rather prefer the hand written sign where it is, as not only does it place us in our role (voyeur) but also places the emphasis on the woman in the chair rather than the woman doing what ever she is doing (What IS she doing?) That is an unanswered question in your image, Sharon. And when one is a voyeur, that is half the fun of an image.

Made me linger, and so thanks for that.

Marie

[William W]

For clarity - the PM that I sent to tom read:

"Stay out of it, tom: it’s not your business."

Hardly a love letter which requires explaining to his wife . . .

The response I received from tom, was far less than gentlemanly.

WW

[Daisy Mae]

I refuse to enter into this debacle...amusing as it is.

I will say only this on the subject of editing someone else photograph. ASK FIRST...it's a simple matter of courtesy and most members of this forum do so without needing to be told. I wouldn't dream of downloading someones creative property and altering it without their express permission. ( Even if it were not a simple question of manners I would consider that I may be infringing their copyright)

As it happens I have no issue with your C&C or your tinkering with my pic to illustrate what you meant ( aside from you not asking if you could download it) My issue was with your turn of phrase....which your very own words suggest you realised were open to such interpretation.... Quote message 11.

'It occurs to me that you could have perceived the previous comments as personal, or nasty . . '

If not commenting on my posts in future means you won't be hi-jacking my threads to indulge in a personal slanging match with another member then please do so.

Marie and Donald..thank you for your comments and for keeping things on thread.

[William W]

I refuse to enter into this . . .

You just have.
To it I shall respond, in point form:

***

I will say only this on the subject of editing someone else photograph. ASK FIRST...it's a simple matter of courtesy and most members of this forum do so without needing to be told. I wouldn't dream of downloading someones creative property and altering it without their express permission. ( Even if it were not a simple question of manners I would consider that I may be infringing their copyright)

Yes.
It is quite clear, now, that you require one to ask your permission.
I have mentioned that.

However, the CiC Code of Conduct does not require it -specifically:
“Code of Conduct:
Editing. Re-posting edited versions of other member's photos should be clearly aimed at helping the original photographer. Such edits should therefore preferably be accompanied by an explanation of what editing was performed, along with why this is thought to improve the original image. Edits with significant structural alterations/additions to the original (except slight cropping) are discouraged, and may be removed.”

***

My issue was with your turn of phrase....which your very own words suggest you realised were open to such interpretation.... Quote message 11.
'It occurs to me that you could have perceived the previous comments as personal, or nasty . . '

NO.
I realized that my words were open to MIS-interpretation by you, which I have explained.
There was neither lack of clarity nor lack of exact meaning in my written word.

***

If not commenting on my posts in future means you won't be hi-jacking my threads to indulge in a personal slanging match with another member then please do so.

NO.
Again you mis-quote to interpret meanings
What I wrote was quite precise:
“Unless asked I shall not think to make comment on your images again”

Investigation of the posts and the timeline will reveal I “responded to” posts which were slung at me rather than “indulged in” or “hi-jacked” the (not ‘your’) thread.

If you have an issue with the articulation, precision and clarity of my responses or the subsequent explanations I have provided in an attempt to allow you to clearly see what was my intent from the outset: or if you believe that the CiC Code of conduct requires changing: then I suggest you take these matters up with a Moderator or Administrator.

However, if you wish to continue these topics of conversation here, that's fine too.

WW