shoes

[Manfred M]

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.

Actually, I don't let personal likes or dislikes enter into my analysis of an image.; I look at three things when I comment on an image; technical choices / execution; how well the photographer uses the space and the emotional impact on the viewer. This is pretty standard fare for evaluating an image around the world.

When you write that you don't like my portraits because the subject is not smiling, that is expressing a personal likes or dislikes. A more considered approach would be to evaluate the smile or lack of smile in the context of the image. A broad smile at an accident scene or at a funeral might not be appropriate and could impact how someone views the image.

You also have a strange view of what a street photo is. That is why I suggested you look at the street photography of some of the well known photographers of the past that were renowned for their street photography. They deal with the subject matter at hand but they arrange it in such a way that the elements create an aesthetically interesting product. A street photo is not a random shot where the photographer snaps away without considering all of the aspects of what creates a strong and compelling image. That's why I suggest that you look at how highly regarded street photographers work in this genre.


Have you looked at the works of some of the acknowledged masters of this genre that I suggested?



1. Henri Cartier-Bresson






2. Garry Winogrand






3. Diane Arbus






4. Vivian Maier




These are carefully considered images where the photographer arranged the content to be visually effective.

If I were to guess, your image of shoes is something most people might consider to be a snapshot, rather than a photograph.

[DanK]

I do very little street photography, but I recently read an interesting piece by a street photographer who said that there are two types of street photographers: hunters and fishers. He was the latter. A hunter walks the street looking for interesting subjects. A fisher finds a good spot--e.g., something like the wall in the Meier photograph above--and then waits for people to appear in that frame. The latter--which is what George said he did in this case--affords more opportunity to figure out framing, depth of field, etc.

[Manfred M]

I do very little street photography, but I recently read an interesting piece by a street photographer who said that there are two types of street photographers: hunters and fishers. He was the latter. A hunter walks the street looking for interesting subjects. A fisher finds a good spot--e.g., something like the wall in the Meier photograph above--and then waits for people to appear in that frame. The latter--which is what George said he did in this case--affords more opportunity to figure out framing, depth of field, etc.

That is an excellent analogy Dan. I use both techniques, depending on the situation I find myself in. I use the hunting style when i am new to a place and am exploring it for the first time. It lets me try shots and occasionally come back with something that works well. More often though, especially when I have a chance to return, I review the shots and go back to the "fishing" locations and "hide in plain sight" waiting for the subject to appear.

When I am in "hunting mode" I will explore the scene from different perspectives, especially if the subject is relatively stationary like in George's scene. When fishing, I move around a bit too, having determined favourable lighting positions and background issues I would like to avoid, so I shoot with an "active" style.

I do a lot of street photography when I am traveling, so it is definitely something I do a lot of.

Regardless of the style of street photography, what I do look for is both strong technical decisions as well as paying attention to the image I am framing so as to end up with a strong composition.

[george013]

I am now in paris and have only a cell phone. I will answer later.
George

[george013]

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?

Of course my picture is a crop. The D750 or Nikon or maybe any camera don't have a square sensor. That's not the point. I choose my composition for my personal reasons. When Manfred proposed a more agressive crop I answered "I see what you mean. But now I'm missing the 2 different body languages.". And that seemed to be a very bad answer. Followed by an advise "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." Anybody that gives me that kind of answer I'll ask "is that all you can answer??"
Look at post 5. Totally no substantive argumentation on my arguments.

And now your example. Why did you crop it as you did? Leaving the spectators, man and child, on the left in the composition? Probably you did it for no reason but they belong to the dancers. They explain why they dance.
Anyway, it's a choice the photographer makes. Anybody can make proposals how they would like it. But don't act imperative.

As said in post 1, just for fun. But growing to serious.

George

[george013]

Manfred,

I wrote

I'm just trying to answer your questions/remarks/doubts. What you like or dislike is quite personal.

among in reaction of post 13

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.

I never said I like people smiling. I gave you an advise to tell some jokes to your models, trying to add some emotion in them. To many times you're quoting and summarizing in a wrong way.

An explanation. When I say "what you like...." in the context above it wasn't meant personal but global like "what one likes...". In Dutch we can use also "you". It doesn't change much.

George

[xpatUSA]

A lot said in this thread about George's title "shoes" versus the image content.

Not much, if anything, said about the caption "Just for fun".

Based on the caption, I for one can understand George's recalcitrance ...

[DanK]

Oh, no. Not more...

Can this thread be closed? There is nothing to be gained by keeping this argument going. George likes the image: several of us don't. Several of us who don't have explained why. In my case, I didn't do this to try to convince George, just to explain so that others could weigh the reasons for their own use. George disagrees, but no one will be helped by continuing the argument.

[Donald]

Can this thread be closed? There is nothing to be gained by keeping this argument going. George likes the image: several of us don't. Several of us who don't have explained why. In my case, I didn't do this to try to convince George, just to explain so that others could weigh the reasons for their own use. George disagrees, but no one will be helped by continuing the argument.

I suggest that the best way to close it is for members to stop trying to get the last word in.