lisbon 2000 by george Untitled

Do not take me wrong, but this photo leaves me unmoved. There is someone running for cover, and the photographer was taking cover himself underneath a shop's window plastic cover ("toldo"). I go through this place nearly every day, and I appreciate the effort of conveying a feeling of cold, wind, and rain, and human elements battling against it. This past winter it has rained a lot in Portugal, much more than usual. However, this picture has too many distracting elements fighting for my interest, and none gets to win.

The glare coming off of the intersecting street and lack of detail in the street vendors to the left of it bothers me. I don't know how the sephia tone (gimmick) adds to the photo, but I think thats one of the reasons people like it so. There really isn't any detail except in the mosiac floor in the lower left corner and that bothers me too because I would rather be looking at the people. Overall I think its a little too contrasty. Nice shot, but the print needs work.

This is a terrrible way receive feedback about photography. Worth cannot be rated in a simplistic one-to-ten formulation. No photograph exists as an isolated entity. You should find people who (1) know something about artistic work and (2) are familiar with a body of photographs produced by you over a significant period of time. Only then will you receive an opinion that is worth anything. Above all, keep working and strive to deepen your vision of human experience. With all best wishes.

Overall I like this photo, but I find the far left side to be distracting and unnecessary to the image. This leaves me with one question, what would it look like shot vertically?

 

Albert Corenevsky

I am a sucker for any sepia print, so I was immediately drawn to this one.

However, as I began to "study it", I noticed some things that I had questions about... and a part of it just may be that I am viewing the print on a monitor, instead of on photo paper.

The highlights are gone in the center of the street. A tad of "burning in" could have ensured that detail was there, without the loss of highlight.

Next, I had a "funny feeling about the white stuff". It seems contrived. They seem to be "strategically located". If it is snow, why is there none on the clothing of the people? Was this taken through a window? Are some of these water drops on the window? Why are some so large? It also appears that the lens was "soft focus" or perhaps the picture was shot through glass, which may have reduced some sharpness.

In connection with that, is that the vendors faces are not "lit"... not an easy thing to do in a picture like this one.

So, then, if I am not looking at the people (dark, not identifiable) am I looking at the street? (Could use some burning to bring out lost detail.) or something down the street, which is where the light leads me... but when I get there... I see nothing of interest. Now, I am back to the person walking from right to left...

I purposely wrote the above, prior to looking at the tech specs.

The picture really gives me more of a feeling of a 1920/30-something print. I would have guessed that it was made with an older camera, larger format, lesser quality of lens than the Nikon's (assumption that it was one of the camera maker's lens may not be correct on my part.)

All in all, I have been very "picky", here.

If it helps... I would likely have rejected the Mona Lisa, because she was not smiling enough.

This is not a forensic or technical photograph. It is not intended to provide a grid map or "crime scene" record of this spot in Lisbon. It is a work of creativity and should be viewed as such.

 

Look at the geometry of the composition, the balance of its visual elements, the quality of its shades of grey. Don't worry about the manhole cover or how the figures at the left could be cropped etc.

 

The photographer has taken a simple street scene - some raindrops, a laneway, a cart with two attendants, a mosaic pattern, a manhole cover, the central figure in mid-step - and VISUALLY related these otherwise functionally UN-related elements. This is its charm.

 

He has presented an obviously uncropped frame. This is evidence of his skill in seeing the two-dimensional potential of the elements as they came together in his viewfinder, in one instant of time.

 

I really like this picture, partly for the very reason that it has taken me three attempts to describe just why this is so. A purely pictorial document.

I think this is one of the most interesting POWs that I've seen in the last year or two I've been checking out Photo.net. Various people's quibbles aside, to me it's much more interesting than 95% of the run-of-the-mill POWs. Reminds me strongly of Cartier-Bresson. I love the mosaic in the foreground. My two bits....

 

Scott Serata

I love how you have given a sence of depth off to infinity by looking directly down the street and picking up the foreground mosaic. The eye is drawn in the classic circular review of the photo back to contemplating the mosaic. A wonderful shot!

...with most comments so far. the picture is pretty, and decently done, and i don't want to pick on it because of a differing taste than the photographer, but it doesn't move me. i find it a little sterile, and devoid of emotion. a "found" shot without anything added.

I enjoy the reflection from the pavement in the foreground. I don't quite understand the white dots - snow? rain?

I always have a thing for monotone photographs. Love the spontaniety of this pix, not sure if the centre person had to be "arranged" to walk past the camera deliberately but the product looked as if it was captured in the nick of time.

While I am a realist photographer, I can appreciate photojournalism. I have been on a panel of judges for photojournalism contests (I can't imagine why). I believe this picture would be in the finals for consideration of first prize.

 

In my opinion it has quite a few areas of interest:

 

Immediately obvious is the "Old Charm" category. It is black and white, there are old buildings, and the tile design adds to the charm. This may could be increased by cropping it square (directly behind the leftmost person, and a tiny bit off the right). I especially like the old DOF focus technique which leaves most of the picture sharp. It is good to see a technique like this, that does not frequently come out of today's AF cameras. With this photo as a lesson, I will be sure to pay more attention to what my modern camera selects for me so I won't miss out on a shot like this (in the unlikely event I use it instead of the manual camera).

 

This photo has a leading line, a concept often missing from photojournalism. This makes the photo appear to be pro travel photography. It also has many different and interesting shades that were naturally in place at the time.

 

I especially like the special effects which are wide angle DOF focus, rainwater in process of falling, fog, and a minor meter screwup on the part of the Nikon. Truthfully, I would rather see this in photojournalism, with the beautifully exposed highlights, than the monotonous "cookie cutter" exposures of the more advanced meters. In this case, it had the positive effect of increasing the fog and some of the detail.

 

Like all good photojournalism, something is going on. Kinetics would be the rainwater, person walking, and the people visiting the small booth. And it would be that none of these people are bothered by the rain, and that displays a culture different from ours. I think that's another travel photography aspect there.

 

Since the photo is not really a technical marvel, and by that I mean could have used a fixed lens wide angle box camera, the photographer is to be commended on the artistic aspect of seeing that and when there was a beautiful picture to be made.

Lovely. Foreground is a plus. Do agree about the distracting alignment of garment hem and road surface. BTW - what lens? 20mm?

Looks good. I don't get a tru feeling for the people in the shot, the humam element. Except that they are cold the picture doesn't tell me anything about them. It does tell me when not to go Lisbon, however.

 

GS

Whatever were the judges thinking? The mosaic in the foreground is the primary subject of this photo.

I see wet, but I don't see the cold people were talking about, either.

The major flaw I see is the partially frozen large drops of water; they're clearly flowing off the edge of something in the near foreground, and they really really don't belong there. They somewhat obscure and distract from the interesting background detail, too.

Still, I find this a striking and likeable photo overall.

Yes there are details, uncontrollable etc.

Yes cropping might delete that sign.

But there is a story or a song or a poem in this picture.

Things like this inspire me to keep my camera on me all the time. Hopefully I will become as good as you guys!

 

This photo has no effect of me but to convince me that the effort I invest in photography is wasted, because I cannot judge a photo. The thing is: I don't like it. Moreover, if I was the one to take it, it would never get to be a picture of the week, for simple reason that I probably wouldn't even consider posting it (even though until now I only have posted pictures which I dislike or consider poorly done). The reasons are: it seems just too dark overall - I know this is intentional, common sense should prevent us from exposing a dark murky day into blazing brightness, nevertheless brightness I miss. Then I would have hated the photo because of the bright sky and its reflections slicing the picture in two - even if the cut is as well-placed as here, it disturbs me just like a smear of dirt on my spectacles sometimes does. I'don't want to say that I dislike it completely, but I fail to see anything exceptional about it.

This said, I wonder if use of fill flash would have improved or devastated the shot? Maybe it would have pronounced the raindrops enough to leave no doubt about the rain (which I didn't recognize at first), or maybe it would have pronounced the raindrops too much, rendering everything beyond a couple of metres invisible? I can't tell, I never used flash in rain, so if anyone did - what do you think?

I love the mosaic and atmosphere! just a comment on the critics, at the end it's just a photo. For the harsh critics: I would suggest you start looking first at your portofolios !!!

Forgive me, but this photograph has no title, there is no theme, or there are to many.

Technically - great.

Great Photo. Only one thing disturbs me. There are so many vertical lines and the fact the wide angle lens used was tilted forward slightly from vertical made it hard to concentrate on the feeling of the image. I think if the camera would have been level vertical (which would have of course eliminated some of the forground)it would have made for a more eye pleasing image. Just my 2 cents.

This is a well printed photograph, but it is really two photographs in one. For instance, by covering the left side of the photo and cropping out the canopy and figures on the left, you have a great photo on its own. I am bugged by the figures and the canopy. I can't figure what is going on with them. That said, this is a well exposed, well printed picture made by a photographer with a lot of feeling and expertise.

 

As an amature I thought the photo had a story. The design and brick work in the front caught my eye and carried me up to the street where I notice it empty. I knew then it was a miserable day.

The photo is nice. Good comp and coloration. Two small problems. I agree with the comment of the distraction of the bottom of the pedestrians jacket lines up with the line in the street where the cobble stones end and the mosiac begins. Also, I don't like the look of the vendors on the left. It ruins the timeless look the rest of the picture has (especially given the coloration). All in all, a very good photo

All the elements come together in this image, starting with the brilliant shaft of light reflected on the wet pavement and the overall matrix of cobbles. Then there are the the mosaic and cobbles in the foreground. While there _may_ be too much it, strategetic burning-in of the foreground would probably put that criticism to rest. The other elements: the crossing figure, the people at the vendor's stand, the hangings (laundry?) bridging the street in the background, the small figure standing in the distance, and the perfectly positioned manhole cover -- all seemingly unrelated, have been brought together at the proper instant from the proper point of view to be held in a ecstatic moment of visual tension.

Wow!

I don't believe originality to be a valid criterion for judging this image. For me the term is redolent of the categories used in camera club competitions. In one sense every image is an original in that it has been captured at a unique point in time and space; in another sense no image is original, merely somewhat different from others of the genre depicting the same or similar subjects or themes.

The street photography genre has been with us for almost a century. Think of Lartigue and Kertesz, as well as Cartier-Bresson who could have taken this photo. Indeed some of C-B's images are like this one. That does not detract from the validity of Laru's image nor even for a moment make it inferior because it may be derivative. Let's withold the term originality and apply it to those few photographers who break new ground, whose approach inspires other photographers to see, think, feel, and create images in altogether new ways.

Fine Business, Mr. Laru!

it's a nice photograph overall but could be improved. there are many elements to the photo: the vendor, the pedestrian, the roadway, and the rain. the roadway is a graphically dynamic element which fights for attention with what I think should be the center of attention: the pedestrian. there's a nice visual pun being played with the star-shaped mosaic foreground, which suggests flattened raindrops; unfortunately it visually overpowers the pedestrian, the element which suggests movement. Perhaps burning in the foreground (really burying the mosaic pattern) would make the picture more successful for me. The suspended white spots (rain through a storefront window) gives the picture some magic and is essential. Good work.