- Messages
- 1,111
- Name
- Duncan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The first of our judges, Kramer O'Neill was kind enough to look through the photos and provide a few comments : (I've copied in the photos from the other thread)
OK, wow, that's a lot of pictures. This connection isn't very happy to load them all, but I'm sort-of snowed in in the foothills of the Colorado Rockies at the moment, and being a lousy nature photographer, I'm happy to have this diversion. Some thoughts:
First off, good job all. I take something like five to ten decent street shots a year, so doing good stuff in that tight a timeframe is quite the challenge. Here are some that particularly appealed to me, and bearing in mind that this is all subjective and what have you, here goes:
249 and 267.
Entry 249:
Entry 267:
Interesting examples of similar shots. Finding people in their private moments in public spaces can be very rewarding; the trick is to make it look good. 249 has some beautiful light, and a nice basic juxtaposition. The people on the right are a bit jumbled, but the diagonals created by the text, as well as those silver balls, somewhat compensate for the right being less than perfect. I'm generally not an advocate of cropping, so I'm not recommending that; I think it works overall. Just not, you know, perfect. (And good luck with that perfection thing, btw.) In contrast, 267 does something similar, but a bit "cleaner." The lights receding from the upper corners of the frame draw your eyes to the middle, and the public-ness of the space is implied rather than overtly pointed out by the presence of other people. To be a bit of a jerk, though: I would get rid of that post-production vignetting effect; I find stuff like that pretty blatant. I think the lines of lights plus the centrality of the main figure might already do what the effect is trying to do, so it's too much. Beyond that, I'm not much for post-production meddling. Which isn't to say I don't post-process the hell out of some of my photos; it's just that there's a difference between accenting elements that already exist on the film/sensor/whatever, and adding things that were never there to begin with. [And, of course, if that light-to-dark border actually is something on the window, I take it all back.]
Entry 54.
Very nice scene. I would recommend getting in tighter on the child in the foreground and taking advantage of a wide lens to include the people behind and to his right who are having similar reactions, as its now got some elements that aren't quite working in its favor. It works alright as it is, though. Bear in mind I don't necessarily know what I'm talking about.
Entry 19
Entry 47
Entry 162.
Ah, the much-maligned "classic" street photography juxtapositions. I am no good at these at all, so good show. With my admiration certified, a few critiques: 19 has that low-angle off-kilter thing that makes me think "hip shot?" I've had any number of internet disagreements with people who think those are a-ok, so let me not go down that road; I just think they tend toward haphazard compositions that don't incorporate compositional elements; you get the thing you're looking at, instead of a rich frame of life. Is that enough? Sometimes, it might well be. For 47, the juxtaposition isn't quite entirely there (we don't really have visual evidence that these Santas are unemployed, although the fact that they are here instead of the North Pole might be enough?). The ball "floating" over the head echoing the circles on the bag in 162 is nice, albeit not quite such a graphic match that it jumps out at you. It also shares a bit of an issue with 47: long lenses and/or cropping (which amounts to the same thing, since it "flattens" the spatial relations between elements). I basically never shoot with anything longer than a 35mm on a 35mm camera, or an 80mm on medium format cameras. It's a pain, yes, but it also makes for more dynamic frames.
Entry 35
Entry 43
Everyone who shot at the Lloyds building: Good job picking a location. My favorite is probably 35, because that guy looks great, especially in that context. The bright line on the left of the frame, unfortunately, messes things up a bit; a cleaner composition would have been nice. Well-spotted, though. 43 is nice, too, having that lost-in-a-moment quality.
Entry 38
38: nice shot. I might have liked a little more action in the main figures' proximity, but it looks good.
Entry 23
23: That's cool. Way to get right in there. There's something funny and self-incriminating about that guy's look, like he knows there's a pretty woman behind him, and that the photographer (and by extension, the picture's viewer) is actually more interested in her. This aspect may also be heightened by the presence of cameras aimed in our general direction. Cameras-in-a-shot type self-reflexive shots often end up being less clever than the shooter thinks they are (and let me tell you, I say this from personal experience), but this one really works for me.
So thanks for inviting me to comment, sorry to those whose shots I didn't mention (I hope I haven't gone on too long as it is), and good work all. Incidentally, if you don't mind the occasional incredibly harsh back-and-forth, the image critique thread in the Hardcore Street Photography flickr group can be a wonderful resource. Just, you know, go in expecting you might get your carefully-crafted work torn to smithereens. It's all part of the learning process, I suppose.
Thanks again,
Kramer
OK, wow, that's a lot of pictures. This connection isn't very happy to load them all, but I'm sort-of snowed in in the foothills of the Colorado Rockies at the moment, and being a lousy nature photographer, I'm happy to have this diversion. Some thoughts:
First off, good job all. I take something like five to ten decent street shots a year, so doing good stuff in that tight a timeframe is quite the challenge. Here are some that particularly appealed to me, and bearing in mind that this is all subjective and what have you, here goes:
249 and 267.
Entry 249:
Entry 267:
Interesting examples of similar shots. Finding people in their private moments in public spaces can be very rewarding; the trick is to make it look good. 249 has some beautiful light, and a nice basic juxtaposition. The people on the right are a bit jumbled, but the diagonals created by the text, as well as those silver balls, somewhat compensate for the right being less than perfect. I'm generally not an advocate of cropping, so I'm not recommending that; I think it works overall. Just not, you know, perfect. (And good luck with that perfection thing, btw.) In contrast, 267 does something similar, but a bit "cleaner." The lights receding from the upper corners of the frame draw your eyes to the middle, and the public-ness of the space is implied rather than overtly pointed out by the presence of other people. To be a bit of a jerk, though: I would get rid of that post-production vignetting effect; I find stuff like that pretty blatant. I think the lines of lights plus the centrality of the main figure might already do what the effect is trying to do, so it's too much. Beyond that, I'm not much for post-production meddling. Which isn't to say I don't post-process the hell out of some of my photos; it's just that there's a difference between accenting elements that already exist on the film/sensor/whatever, and adding things that were never there to begin with. [And, of course, if that light-to-dark border actually is something on the window, I take it all back.]
Entry 54.
Very nice scene. I would recommend getting in tighter on the child in the foreground and taking advantage of a wide lens to include the people behind and to his right who are having similar reactions, as its now got some elements that aren't quite working in its favor. It works alright as it is, though. Bear in mind I don't necessarily know what I'm talking about.
Entry 19
Entry 47
Entry 162.
Ah, the much-maligned "classic" street photography juxtapositions. I am no good at these at all, so good show. With my admiration certified, a few critiques: 19 has that low-angle off-kilter thing that makes me think "hip shot?" I've had any number of internet disagreements with people who think those are a-ok, so let me not go down that road; I just think they tend toward haphazard compositions that don't incorporate compositional elements; you get the thing you're looking at, instead of a rich frame of life. Is that enough? Sometimes, it might well be. For 47, the juxtaposition isn't quite entirely there (we don't really have visual evidence that these Santas are unemployed, although the fact that they are here instead of the North Pole might be enough?). The ball "floating" over the head echoing the circles on the bag in 162 is nice, albeit not quite such a graphic match that it jumps out at you. It also shares a bit of an issue with 47: long lenses and/or cropping (which amounts to the same thing, since it "flattens" the spatial relations between elements). I basically never shoot with anything longer than a 35mm on a 35mm camera, or an 80mm on medium format cameras. It's a pain, yes, but it also makes for more dynamic frames.
Entry 35
Entry 43
Everyone who shot at the Lloyds building: Good job picking a location. My favorite is probably 35, because that guy looks great, especially in that context. The bright line on the left of the frame, unfortunately, messes things up a bit; a cleaner composition would have been nice. Well-spotted, though. 43 is nice, too, having that lost-in-a-moment quality.
Entry 38
38: nice shot. I might have liked a little more action in the main figures' proximity, but it looks good.
Entry 23
23: That's cool. Way to get right in there. There's something funny and self-incriminating about that guy's look, like he knows there's a pretty woman behind him, and that the photographer (and by extension, the picture's viewer) is actually more interested in her. This aspect may also be heightened by the presence of cameras aimed in our general direction. Cameras-in-a-shot type self-reflexive shots often end up being less clever than the shooter thinks they are (and let me tell you, I say this from personal experience), but this one really works for me.
So thanks for inviting me to comment, sorry to those whose shots I didn't mention (I hope I haven't gone on too long as it is), and good work all. Incidentally, if you don't mind the occasional incredibly harsh back-and-forth, the image critique thread in the Hardcore Street Photography flickr group can be a wonderful resource. Just, you know, go in expecting you might get your carefully-crafted work torn to smithereens. It's all part of the learning process, I suppose.
Thanks again,
Kramer
)...
