i think i finally did it...

[john_amiet2]

Sorry Donald, but I have to take issue with this statement of yours.

 

" First, you can't do street/people/candid's with a telephoto lens. That's wildlife photography and you might as well be shooting birds in a tree. BTW, I'm assuming this was done with a mild telephoto (and yes that includes 50mm). "

 

Apart from you, who said so? I didn't know there were 'rules', and if there are I am happy to break them, anytime it suits my pictures. I am not particularly a 'street shooter', but have done a bit and will do a bit more from time to time, but I do know my way round my gear and most of my subjects and would consider myself (or anyone else)stupid to not even consider the possibilty of another way to shoot except to a recipe. Recipes always produce the same product. The product may be good, but don't let it get boring if you can vary the approach, constructively, and that should include vary the lens as a possibility.

[paul_neuthaler]

The last variation is regularity

[sprouty]

<I>"First, you can't do street/people/candid's with a telephoto lens."</I>

<P>

Nonsense.

[furcafe]

Vuk's title is obviously a bit of a joke on "Sport of Kings," Donald.

 

-------------------

 

"PS. BTW, I think the English phrase you were looking for was "Sport of Kings""

[dennis_couvillion]

"i do not make exposure errors. quite frankly, i find this sort of suggestion as offensive as if you'd called me an imbecile."

 

Vuk... no need for that. Do you remember what your original question was. Here it is...

 

"what do you think?"

 

I was trying to give you some encouragement... Don't ask for opinions if you react that way to the answers, Vuk.

[robert_clark]

I think the exposure is fine and I would ignore the comments about getting closer - in this instance your distance is about right, any closer would lose the context.

 

I just hate photo's with titles.

[vuk_vuksanovic]

gentlemen.

 

sorry if i'd left the impression with some that i was looking for coddling. in fact, i expected some jokes at my expense encourging me to sell the leica. one thing, however: comments about exposure are the last thing i wanted to discuss. people who give advice about some sort of textbook contrast (or croppong) really wind me up. on the other hand, the suggestion that my use of a tele-photo lens (90mm, in this case) made for an absence of intimacy is geuinely instructive; that said, if you examine the postion/architecture, you will see that i really had little choice here--which perhaps implies i shouldn't have bothered. fair enough.

 

dennis.

 

i had just explained to someone else that the exposure was fine and you follow-up by repeating the criticism. understandable why i replied the way i did?

 

vuk.

[sparkie]

nice picture Vuk

[michael s.]

Vuk said: "i had just explained to someone else that the exposure was fine and you follow-up by repeating the criticism. understandable why i replied the way i did?"

 

Nope, Vuk. Since you asked, it is to me neither understandable nor excusable. I read Dennis' post. Dennis was trying to be constructive and encouraging.

 

Many criticisms will be repeated in this format, as will many compliments. Take a look above to see what I mean.

 

You were well out of line and should apologize.

[abufletcher]

Vuc, first I should have said that I actually like this photo as a photo. I like

composition and the contrast of the men in the light and the black of the roof

(nicely broken by the lights). My comments were prompted by what I heard as

your desire to become a better "street photographer" which I take you to mean

someone who makes photos of strangers in public or something like that.

 

And yes it is my own personal opinion that photographs of people should be

intimate. I personally just don't like the look of people photos made with long

telephotos (I was sorta joking about the 50). They make it look like the

photographer set up a duck blind on 5th street. I reckon there's quite a few

other photographers who feel the same way.

 

But maybe that just reflects the environment in which I learned photography;

The Arabian Gulf (Saudi, Kuwait, and Oman). It these countries you just DO

NOT point a big old telephoto lens at someone. You'd be asking for trouble.

And let's be realistic here: to get a waist up photo with a 200mm lens you still

need to be as close as 15 feet. In other words at 15 feet away with a long lens

your not fooling anyone. It the Gulf I swear people could "feel" a telephoto

trained on them from 100 yards! So I got used to getting close, getting

intimate, and then making "candids." People invited me into their homes. I

hung out in goat markets until I was as much a part of the scene as the

autioneer. Now this may not be "street photography either but it got my past

that thing about photographing "strangers."<div></div>

[mark feldstein]

Well Vuk, you completely missed my points regarding (constructive) self-criticism. My Socratic questions to you certainly weren't, by any means, intended as any criticism of your effort whatsoever, or to suggest that this particular photograph was a failure, whether an interesting one or not. Nor was I implying that you should abandon your efforts at documentary photography. Judging by the title to your post, it was pretty apparent that you were looking for accolades for a photograph that you viewed as a meritorious effort without any further explanation. And until this morning, I had never seen any criteria for critiquing work at Photo.Net.

 

Simply stated, I didn't understand why you recorded this image. There was nothing to me that suggested a race track, even in the title. It's a photo of four guys standing at a railing that could have been anywhere, including a baseball or amusement park. In short, my questions were intended to motivate you into self-critiquing your own work. With that insight comes wisdom, with wisdom comes personal growth.

 

I agree with those who mentioned not using telephoto lenses for "street photography". As Frank Capra said many times: "If your photographs aren't good enough, you're not getting close enough [to your subjects]." You can't do high end documentary work with a telephoto lens while hiding behind a tree or column or lamp post. You need to engage your subjects, get to know them, at least a little. If you're timid, fearful, shy, stand-offish, it'll be obvious in this type of work. And, I'll hazard a guess here and say it's probably a sure bet you didn't get a model release from your four subjects. And, if that's so, why are you publishing this image in the first place? <G>

 

As to Mr. Gibson's comments, which were:

"...as for Mark Feldstein questions, all of them as obvious as any ever listed, he obviously can't think, or is not generous to think. You asked us what we think. You got at least one LF pseudo-philosophical echo. A head shake and a chuckle is the best reaction to this waste of a keyboard."

 

While his reply to all this seems somewhat cryptic to me, perhaps Mr. Gibson needs to spend more time putting together more complete and coherent comments rather than perhaps vocalizing reflexive reactions to the views of others. If my questions were so obvious, why didn't Vuk ask them himself, or you for that matter? I think my thinking was intended to get others, including you, to think about Vuk's recent effort, and rather than defending or attacking it, be able to offer input based upon his reasoning for having recorded this image in the first place. NOW do you get the picture? ;>)

[sprouty]

<I>"...my use of a tele-photo lens (90mm, in this case) made for an absence of intimacy is genuinely instructive...</I>

<P>

Only if your intention was to be intimate. This may not have been your desired goal; you may heave wanted to provide an environmental context. Some may not appreciate the perspective but I fail to see how this could be judged as wrong.

<P>

A similar example: many people repeat the idea that the "ideal" portrait lens is a medium-tele (85 to 100'ish). There are plenty of images taken with a 35mm or wider that refute this notion.

<P>

Donald has expressed personal reasons why he doesn't likes wide focal lengths for his street work and I wouldn?t argue his subjective/objectives points. But ultimately they are <I>his</I> reasons and don't necessarily apply to you or the genre.

<P>

Personally I like the composition; I like the arrangements of elements and even the inclusion of the lights. It feels well balanced.

[iwmac]

Mark,

 

If you take a moment to just a wee bit of checking, you will find that Frank Capra was a film director, probably best know for "It's a Wonderful Life".

 

In chiding Vuk for his use of a mild telephoto lens and being a distance away, you are attempting to quote Robert Capa.

 

"ROBERT CAPA. by Mario Cutajar. (Museum of Photographic Arts, San Diego) "If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough," Robert Capa used to say. ...

artscenecal.com/ArticlesFile/ Archive/Articles1998/Articles0798/RCapaA.html"

 

Try Google sometine.

[iwmac]

to DO just a bit of checking.

[sprouty]

Mark: <I>"You can't do high end documentary work with a telephoto lens while hiding behind a tree or column or lamp post. You need to engage your subjects, get to know them, at least a little."</I>

<P>

Walker Evans: <I>"...wrote at the time, adding, "people's faces are in naked repose down in the subway." And the best way to catch them in the act of being themselves, he decided, was to take pictures without their knowledge.</I>

<P>

What you state is a preference, not a fact.

[vuk_vuksanovic]

mark.

<br><br>

what i meant by my title is that i felt i'd finally taken a street shot that was worth keeping (in my personal book of snapshots). i said that i was not a very good street photographer and i really meant that. this was not an exercise in false modesty and i am not looking for accolades, merely some confirmation from my leica pals that this is an "OK" shot and that perhaps i've finally met the minimum requirement. to be perfectly honest, i also posted for the sake of a bit of banter.

<br><br>

notice that it was fairly clear to some others what was going on here. it's the pencils and programmes that give the game away here: you don't see 4 guys taking notes at a baseball game. they also wouldn't be dressed like that!!! nonetheless, you do have a point and i think the pic would probably work best for in the context of a series. not everyone has been to the track...

<br><br>

when the scanner is fixed i'll have an idea if anything else on that roll is worthwhile, but i certainly will make more of an effort at woodbine once april rolls around--this past season was mostly about earning the money required to keep me in leica.

<br><br>

as for the 90mm issue, i believe there is a place for it on the street and an M-series 90 (especially the skinny elmarit) is <b>nothing like</b> a nikon or canon trele-photo beast. no more intrusive or intimidating than a summicron 50, IMO.

<br><br>

vuk.

[sammer]

Nice shot. Do you really believe that you don't make exposure errors, or was that a joke? Cracked me up anyway... makes you come off like you can't handle criticism that you don't want to hear. When you ask people what they think, don't be disappointed when they don't agree with you.

[dean_g]

Nice. I think the high constrast is effective for the compostiion, and it works formally better than many of the street photos I've seen. It's rather cool emotionally, which is good, IMO. The 90mm was a good choice.

[kymtman]

Vuk;

Make no apologies to no one. If you post a shot and there are one hundred viewers, then you have one hundred concepts and opinions of your work. It is not whether they like it or not ( not many like the Mona Lisa), but rather if you like it, and you say it is one of your O.K., so be it. I looked at your other work and to me was great on some and not so great on others, does that bother you? Well don't let it! If all see the same would not this be a boring place to live. Imagine a world without pictures or paintings! Diversity is the spice of life.