shoes

[george013]

Just for fun.



George

[Shadowman]

Nicely timed and captured.

[Manfred M]

I like the concept, but there is so much other than the subject in the image, which detract from the shoes. Why not crop out the parts that don't add to the image? Simplifying the composition often leads to a stronger image.

[george013]

I like the concept, but there is so much other than the subject in the image, which detract from the shoes. Why not crop out the parts that don't add to the image? Simplifying the composition often leads to a stronger image.

I see what you mean. But now I'm missing the 2 different body languages.

George

[Manfred M]

I see what you mean. But now I'm missing the 2 different body languages.

George - what I would suggest is that you look at images that feature people in the monthly competitions on this site and look at the images that have done well.

While this is not a 100% thing, it does show that most images that the members at this site that vote feel are strong. These tend to be images that are technically well done, use the overall space in the image effectively and are usually relatively simple. The more one tries to fit into an image, the busier it gets and these shots are often not as strong as simpler ones.

Your title suggests that this image is about the shoes, so people will be looking at the shoes. The "2 different body languages" add to the complexity and make the shot too busy, in my view.

[george013]

George - what I would suggest is that you look at images that feature people in the monthly competitions on this site and look at the images that have done well.

While this is not a 100% thing, it does show that most images that the members at this site that vote feel are strong. These tend to be images that are technically well done, use the overall space in the image effectively and are usually relatively simple. The more one tries to fit into an image, the busier it gets and these shots are often not as strong as simpler ones.

Your title suggests that this image is about the shoes, so people will be looking at the shoes. The "2 different body languages" add to the complexity and make the shot too busy, in my view.

You lost your check list?

You're missing the essence of photography and that's the content. Not your checklist. The bodies are part of the content.

George

[Manfred M]

The bodies are part of the content.

I don't have a checklist. I look at an image to see if it is working well. If it isn't I look to eliminate aspects of it that are not contributing to the image or are a distraction. If you are trying to shoot the shoes, as per the title, what is all the rest of the material that has nothing to do with shoes doing in this image?

The best images are the ones that contain no unnecessary materials.

[george013]

I don't have a checklist. I look at an image to see if it is working well. If it isn't I look to eliminate aspects of it that are not contributing to the image or are a distraction. If you are trying to shoot the shoes, as per the title, what is all the rest of the material that has nothing to do with shoes doing in this image?

The best images are the ones that contain no unnecessary materials.

That's a very narrow minded approach. And often resulting in boring pictures.

Shoes are not just a peace of material. They're tools that you can wear or not. And for different reasons.
Develop a bit of imagination. I think that's very important. And humor.

George

[DanK]

I looked at this thread from the bottom up before reading it, so the first image I saw was Manfred's.

For the most part, I agree with Manfred, although I probably would have cropped less severely. The cropped image immediately draws the eyes to the shoes and to the contrast between the shoes in use and the shoes taken off, which your title suggests is what you wanted. The original strikes me as an image of four people doing stretches, with a firth person, positioned to block one of the others and missing her head, in the front. I'm not sure I would have noticed the shoes or paid much attention to them if I had.

But perhaps I too am narrow-minded and boring and lack imagination.

[billtils]

But perhaps I too am narrow-minded and boring and lack imagination.

No you're not.

But I can see where George is coming from and would agree with your comment on cropping less severely (and perhaps doing something about the red and white barrier and the person standing in front of it).

[Manfred M]

That's a very narrow minded approach. And often resulting in boring pictures.

Shoes are not just a peace of material. They're tools that you can wear or not. And for different reasons.
Develop a bit of imagination. I think that's very important. And humor.

George

George - I guess I keep forgetting that you know everything.

One of the best known pieces of advice that I have heard from many excellent photographers is that a painter adds material to a blank canvas, but a photographer takes a busy scene and removes things from it to create a strong image.

Let me once again repeat the suggestion in #5. Study these to see what the photographer has done in the monthly competetions and compare these to your own work. These are images that people on this site have entered and have rated. For the most part, the members here have a limited formal background in creating and judging images, but somehow still manage to identify good pictures. In general these are usually strong images, many of which would do well in juried competitions.

I guess, like Dan, I am narrow minded, boring and lack imagination too.

[george013]

George - I guess I keep forgetting that you know everything.

One of the best known pieces of advice that I have heard from many excellent photographers is that a painter adds material to a blank canvas, but a photographer takes a busy scene and removes things from it to create a strong image.

Let me once again repeat the suggestion in #5. Study these to see what the photographer has done in the monthly competetions and compare these to your own work. These are images that people on this site have entered and have rated. For the most part, the members here have a limited formal background in creating and judging images, but somehow still manage to identify good pictures. In general these are usually strong images, many of which would do well in juried competitions.

I guess, like Dan, I am narrow minded, boring and lack imagination too.

Pure nonsense. That are photographers that try to act as a painter: creating an image just for the image. Nice in fashion and advertisement photography. But strictly forbidden in news and documentary photography.

Did you ever have a look at your own photo's. Of course you did but as somebody else, a stranger. What do they show? Maximum focusing on just one element. Your photo's of Bolivia are reduced to a set of portraits. I want more. Keep painting, I'll try to take pictures.

Not so long ago I found a painting on Wikipedia of the Dam in Amsterdam. I directly wondered how photographers as you and others of course would judge it. Probably direct saying cut of the left part, that building in construction doesn't add anything. Or something like that. I like that painting. It's a kind of street photo from the 17th century. Busy.

Source https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleis_op_de_Dam. If you want to read it, there's an English version but without this picture.


George

[Manfred M]

When I get a chance, I enjoy wandering through art galleries and spend a lot of time looking at works and study how the masters achieved the looks. The lighting, the poses and the overall treatment of the subject are fascinating to look at.

The image you posted looks like a townscape from the Dutch Golden Age. Unfortunately, I can't find any specifics of the size of this image, but suspect it is larger than what you or I are looking at on a computer screen. The artist put in exactly what he felt was required in this painting, no more and no less. Everything plays a role here, including the clouds in the sky. I suspect when looked at close up, each individual face is different and interesting, yet the group has a different impact on the painting when looked at from a distance.



When I write about simplification, I write about removing elements that are either distracting to the overall image or do not add anything to the image. That does not mean an photo has to be simple or boring.


Busy can be good and effective, so long as it continues the theme of the image. Elements that distract or impact the overall feel of the image need to be eliminated. Elements that help tell the visual story need to be included. This is what simplification does.


1. Women Dancing - Final Day of Holi - Nandgaon Temple





2. Market Building - Riga Latvia






Let's look at some famous Dutch Golden Age portraits. Both these portraits are by Rembrandt. I know you like people smiling, but even the greatest masters did not follow your advice.










Is that approach all that different from the villagers I photographed in Bolivia?




3. Old woman at village festival - Puka Puka, Bolivia








What about the renowned modern photographer, Edward Burtynsky's image taken inside a factory in China? It is busy in the traditional sense, but by focusing on the repetitive patterns of workers and equipment in the building, he builds up a powerful image. That one woman at the bottom of the frame looking at the camera draws us right into the picture.



What about this one from China at a chicken processing plant? Again, not a classical take, but a very effective image. Burtynsky's images are huge, generally 1 to 2 m in height.




My final example is the Dutch / Canadian painter, Cornelius Krieghoff, whose paintings were not considered to be serious work at the time but are found in many art museums and private collections now. Again, these are busy, but every element is there for a reason.









The problem that I have with your image is that you gave it the title "shoes", yet they contribute very little to the overall image. The people stretching would have made an interesting image as well, but it would likely have been more effective if photographed from the front. The headless woman adds a pair of shoes, but is a major distracting element that keeps us from looking at the topic of the image; yet on her own (head included) and the shoes in the background without the distracting elements, she could have made a strong image too.

[george013]

I like people with an expression. Your model shoots were looking like pups. That's why I said: tell them a joke.
If you want to mention Rembrandt, here's something else of him.
Source https://www.mediamatic.net/nl/page/2...rembrandt-1631

Portraits where made in order. The painting had to show how important they where. I don't think that was the goal of your photo's. Wrong comparison.

Burtynsky photographed the input of industrialization and pollution of the world. That was his content and you can see that on every image of him. Wonderful!!!!!

The problem that I have with your image is that you gave it the title "shoes", yet they contribute very little to the overall image. The people stretching would have made an interesting image as well, but it would likely have been more effective if photographed from the front. The headless woman adds a pair of shoes, but is a major distracting element that keeps us from looking at the topic of the image; yet on her own (head included) and the shoes in the background without the distracting elements, she could have made a strong image too.

If that's all you shouldn't judge photos. I explained you how much the shoes are interwoven with the human body/legs/feet. You use them to walk and take them off if you want your mat to stay clean while exercising .
It's just a street shot.

I forgot. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...elbach_001.jpg
George

[rpcrowe]

In the concept of "less is more"; IMO Edward Burtynsky's two images would impact me more positively if he had cropped a sliver off the tops: avoiding the bank of fluorescent lights at the very top of the electronics assembly image and cutting of some of the ceiling of the chicken processing plant.

I am not saying that this would result in "better" images, just that it would result in images that "I liked better!"

I love the chicken processing plant image... The workers all dressed in the same color uniforms and slumped over at their jobs gives me a feeling of "1984" by George Orwell...

[george013]

In the concept of "less is more"; IMO Edward Burtynsky's two images would impact me more positively if he had cropped a sliver off the tops: avoiding the bank of fluorescent lights at the very top of the electronics assembly image and cutting of some of the ceiling of the chicken processing plant.

I am not saying that this would result in "better" images, just that it would result in images that "I liked better!"

I love the chicken processing plant image... The workers all dressed in the same color uniforms and slumped over at their jobs gives me a feeling of "1984" by George Orwell...

I'm glad Manfred mentioned Burtynsky. He has a series of a copper mine on his website. It's done by digging the ground. I don't know the English word for it. I planned to go to Germany where there's a brown coal mine just like that.
For those who don't know Burtynsky https://www.edwardburtynsky.com/projects/photographs


George

[Manfred M]

If that's all you shouldn't judge photos. I explained you how much the shoes are interwoven with the human body/legs/feet. You use them to walk and take them off if you want your mat to stay clean while exercising .

George you can explain all you want, but the image does not work well for the reasons that I and others have tried to show and explain. In general an image should stand on its own and the photographer should not have to explain it. Sorry, this image does not work for me.

It's just a street shot.

And that is a reason for having an image that is not particularly effective? A street shot should be just as well put together as any other photograph. Look at the works of Cartier-Bresson, Gary Winograd, Diane Arbus and others.

[george013]

George you can explain all you want, but the image does not work well for the reasons that I and others have tried to show and explain. In general an image should stand on its own and the photographer should not have to explain it. Sorry, this image does not work for me.




And that is a reason for having an image that is not particularly effective? A street shot should be just as well put together as any other photograph. Look at the works of Cartier-Bresson, Gary Winograd, Diane Arbus and others.

I'm just trying to answer your questions/remarks/doubts. What you like or dislike is quite personal.
I'm sure a lot of photo's from the old school will be rejected here when shown as just a photo.

It's just a street photo. I don't arrange. You see something or not. Any suggestion about taking another position is done by people that don't know what street photography means. I've been waiting with the camera pointed on the shoes waiting for people to pass between me and the shoes and hoping it gave me a satisfactory picture. Not waiting to long on my knees.

[Astro]

It's just a street photo. I don't arrange. You see something or not. Any suggestion about taking another position is done by people that don't know what street photography means.

George, you are being argumentative and somewhat ridiculous with your insistence that Manfred is at fault for his response.

I am not a regular street photographer though I am always on the lookout for interesting captures.

Your own image is obviously cropped, ie not SOOC, so you have chosen to present it in a specific manner and additionally chosen to title it 'Shoes'.
Given the title indicates what drew your attention to the capture in the first instance, Manfred's suggestion of a tighter crop to emphasise this makes perfect sense.
And it is also the way he would have chosen to present the image (possibly).

I took the following 'street shot' some years ago when I was with my wife on a retail therapy expedition, (hers), to a nearby town.



If I had posted it 'as is' I would not have been too surprised if Manfred, or you, or any other forum contributor suggested recropping to emphasise the key element that caught my attention... 'The Morris Dancers', and it would not be particularly surprising if you 'focused' on the group dancing off centre right.

Which is precisely what I actually did....



I cannot quite comprehend, why you are so unwilling to accept that someone else might see and 'present' your image in a different way from you....
It is what makes photography both personal and on occasion exciting, for me anyway, when I see how someone else demonstrates to me how they 'see' something differently from me.

Why else would I post in the first place?

[DanK]

James,

A very nice (edited) image, and instructive for this thread.

Dan