"Dressing Well on a Flea Market Budget", Miami

> The aspect ratio suggests cropping, likely the right side to
> exclude distracting elements.

I don't the pic is cropped -- it's 504 by 325 pixels, which gives approx. a 1.55 aspect ratio, more or less equal to the 1.5 aspect ratio of 35mm film. ?

Cheers
Sid

Just to clarify my comments regarding the possible derogatory nature (and I stress possible - I am merely expressing a personal feeling coloured by my own sensibilities) of the photograph, I was particularly referring to the caption, which may suggest that this person has only a "flea-market budget" - in other words she is a stereotypical 'poor old woman'. While I personally would not find being labelled poor a negative thing, this lady might find it embarrassing to be labelled as such - especially if she remembers the Depression and is, in fact, a rich pensioner who just enjoys a bit of bargain-hunting. Probably, she would not mind - I have no way of knowing - but just maybe she does. Or her husband. Or her son....

 

It is good to exhibit photos of recognisable strangers as documentary (with full and careful captioning), to preserve a slice of life and explain it to future generations, or even to express a universal poetic or philosophical concept - but not just as a 'quirky picture'.

 

Regarding the comment... "I don't see in any way how the dignity is/can be diminished. If you are a dignified person how can a picture take away your dignity?"... my answer is that it is all too easy to rob someone of their dignity either deliberately or acidentally through a photograph. How many times have you seen a photo of a celeb looking drunk? How many times is this simply because the photographer deliberately selected a shot of them in mid-blink? Instantly people assume the worst. Sadly in a world where first impressions last, exaggerating someone's features with a wideangle lens to make them look 'more eccentric' or 'characterful' (and I'm not saying this was the case here) can make people who do not know the subject imagine them in a certain way. The reverse is also true... the careful airbrushing and lighting of musicians, politicians, actors, etc. in commissioned portraiture can lend a gravitas or aura they may not possess. I am not saying this is a bad or good thing - it can be both. In art I would say it is almost always necessary. But documentary should try to reflect only truth, if possible, without distortion.

 

Please don't take my comments the wrong way. I am certainly no 'anti-street photographer' - as a glance at my portfolio will show, and in truth I doubt this photo would offend anybody - it has a warmth to it. But I think the points raised by Joseph and Douglas are worth exploring. If we don't bear these things in mind, it makes it easier for people to say we shouldn't take photos in public at all.

 

Apologies for the length of this post!

It's a good shot for sure, but the 'white patterns' in the background link very strongly with the ruffled scarf on the ladies' neck. My eyes keep getting distracted and play a kind of 'join the dots' with them, looking from one white point in the pic to the other, very annoying! sorry, but I love her expression!

Great portrait. I believe this photo truly captures her in her element. A good example of street photography and how simple candid moments tell a much larger story.

Great shot. Michael Seewald nailed it right on the head about this type of photography. The photo stands on its own. It is a moment in time. There is nothing "mean" about this at all.

Douglas made some interesting points about street photography. First that it should have some inherent meaning, and secondly that it should display some relationship among the compositional elements within the frame. I?m not sure I fully agree with that assessment but I think it is a fair place to start.

To me, street photography can or should serve to document daily life and or special events. In this sense perhaps the meaning may only begin to be understood many years after the photograph is taken and then by only a select few people.

Strong compositional skill (and editing) can make for more aesthetically pleasing photographs but then we often loose many incidental details that many years later become central to the documentary importance of the photograph.

The framing in this photograph is less than perfect but it does add to the sense of spontaneity and authenticity. Because of this, some photographers adopt a strong full-frame ethic. I am not opposed to cropping what I could not control at the time the photograph was made. In fact, sloppy framing can be used to insure that you do get everything you want in the frame and then tidy up the details sometime later.

The third thing that Douglass mentioned was the idea of completeness. Is this a complete composition and does the title add anything to my understanding? If this had an alternate title would it affect our impression of the photograph? It might have been, 'Well Dressed in Spite of Hurricane Devastation.' Many photographs need some help in the way of a title to have meaning for people who are not directly involved in the scene, unless the intent is limited to humor and sometimes even that needs a title to work. I see a lot of photos like this one marketed as birthday cards at the bookstore these days.

Joseph states that he dislikes photos that diminish the dignity or person of the subject. I think in this instance the title of the photograph rather than the actual content may be what makes it seem objectionable. Taking pictures of strangers is not nearly as easy as it appears to be. Technical considerations aside, it sometimes seems morally objectionable to hunt people with a camera. It is often obvious when photographing strangers that you are truly irritating them and that they would like you to stop. Along with the suspicion and distrust, it feels wrong to intrude into peoples lives in order to capture them for display in our personal photography zoo. No, I do not think of it as my personal photography zoo but I have the nagging feeling that someone else might.

Meaning, composition, completeness and ethics are exactly the things I have been thinking about for the last few weeks. Now I just want to go take some photos.

Marc -

I love the photo - I must preface my discussion with a disclosure - I am an Amateur Photographer, But I am a Consumer, I disagree with those that feel that the photo should tell the whole story. Context is everything. THe famous photo of the NYC Fireman raising the flag at The WTC site , needed little explanation at the time , But to our children it will need explanation. Your captionmakes it all work..

Excellent shot

Mike

The story is complete; we add our own thoughts to what we see, and see

enough or not, as we think. A well dressed woman who never learned how to dress, holding her glass slipper in a place

more modest than her dreams.

Very nice shot Marc. I guess most people just don't realize that while this isn't exactly the typical Miami Beach matron she's not exactly unusual either. I'm sure that she thinks that she looks dynamite and sexy dressed that way, and would find no fault with your photo of her.

This photo is a street photo pure and simple -- so far so good. But no photo is good just because it falls in some interesting genre -- architecture, candid, portrait, nature, street whatever. A photo is good because of a) aesthetics and b) context/connotation.

 

This photo doesn't have high aesthetic value. As has been pointed out, it is cramped, cluttered and probably shot from the wrong angle (how about a little further down and a little further away?) So does it redeem itself in context? A bit, yes -- it's an interesting subject in an interesting locality. But not enough to compensate sufficiently for a bad shot.

 

I strongly disagree with those who claim that the point of street photography is merely as a document of life. Great street shots are art, and as art they must be judged by the standards of art. Yes, a series of photos might be stronger than an isolated image, but the strength comes from the sense of completeness/narrative in the presentation, and it is an artistic strength. It doesn't make the individual photo better.

Many things can be considered a work of art but they are not all judged by the same standards. There can also be a valid argument for authenticity verses art when it comes to photography. A great street photograph can be judged for its accuracy and integrity to reality rather than its artistic merits. Things do not always start with an artistic intent. Sometimes functionality is the overriding concern and the art is only realized latter. Is a Hermes scarf any more functional than a discount store bandana?

 

I did not say much before about the photograph but I liked the way it has several complimentary circular shapes including the woman?s glasses. That contrasts nicely with the square architecture of the building behind her.

My main comment, is that the cadre is too tight and I do not see a lot of the suroundings. Also the photo is a bit busy.

I like a lot the wide angle, high viewpoint. I like the hat, glasses, the photo is quite original. My main comment though is that the cadre is too tight and I do not see a lot of the suroundings. So, for me when I look the photo I cannot really understand that it is a flea market. So, when I look at the photo I see just a lost old lady. Looking through the folders of Marc Williams I could find photos that I liked much much more.

Actually, without the caption it would be a more amusing enigma: Has this posh lady got one bare foot? Has she broken the heel? The incongruities provide the viewer with ideas for making your own story up. Nice whimsical shot and a good advert for the author's portfolio (I like the wedding work). B&W gives it the old Time/Life/Magnum feel. Is it nostalgia that motivates the large number of street photographers to shoot B&W, or is it just that the genre is supposed to be more downbeat, gritty, 'real', etc.?

Thanks for the comments so far, both negative and positive. It indeed is a grab shot of

opportunity, shot from chest height using a 21mm with lots of DOF due to hyper-focal

distance being used. Unfortunately, the scan is less than ideal and I really should hunt

down the neg. to improve the tonal depth with the better scanner I now have.

 

The subject interested me. According to surrounding merchants, she is an "institution"

around that part of Miami. She was literally a foot away from the camera, and we were

talking. Her conversation was as interesting to me as taking the photo was. It's a record of

our meeting nothing more, unless you wish to read more into it.

 

Basically, she was proud of her prowess as a flea market shopper with taste, who dressed

herself in what appeared to be second hand classic type clothes. The shoe she was holding

was a brand that cost hundreds new and pennies there. Diminished income, without

diminished tastes is a specter many of us face. It was interesting, for that brief encounter

to hear and see her answer to that.

 

It was shot in B&W because that was what was in the camera upon meeting her. It was wide

angle because that what was on the camera. The meeting was more important than then

the photo. I learned something from her.

... why this picture is an exquisite shot. I don't like it.

 

May be it's because I've never been at Miami. Plus, I assume that given my tiny experience in photography I can't appreciate each and every piece of art. I'm a complete novice, my own photos suck so please don't take my question as insult.

I'll say I'm glad that Marc's work is being featured for POW. I'll say that I unfortunately can't see in this POW picture anything close to the wonderful atmosphere of his "Love at Maxim's" in the same folder, or some of the pictures in his Wedding folder.

This POW is fairly funny, that's given. This being said,

1) I find the sharpness of this jpeg (not necessarily of the original) to be questionnable - including, presumably, some over-sharpening artefacts...?

2) I find the contrast too high.

3) I wish I could see her face a bit more, preferably with a great expression.

4) I think the wide angle and distortions work ok here, but aren't they a bit of a predictable way to help this picture stand out...?

5) I do not recognize Miami's flee market because I haven't been there. Still, a fun portrait to me, which quite well represents "a certain category of people" - and we'll leave it at that...:-)

PS: Marc, your "Love at Maxim's" is really a fantastic shot.

Miami?.... I thought it was a "Boca" thing!

You guys that don't get it just haven't spent enough time down here during the snowbird season.

 

Great shot & subject!

Caught my attention immediately.

Sorry, but I have difficulties with the composition. The lady's left arm (right pic edge) is contrasted by something white, maybe another sliced person's shirt arm?, the building in the upper left corner is random and compositionally useless by interfering with her hat.

 

I understand that and when street photographers just shoot and enjoy, but shot a second later, turned a bit so that the right edge is not so edgy might have been the ticket - in my view. Sorry; composition skills: only a 1.

Let me offer my congrats as well Marc. It made me smile. And to my eye it looked like perhaps you may have said something nice to her and she looked away in sort of a blush. And that leads me to my next thought. That's "my" reaction to it. My feelings. In looking at your critiques however there is something I don't get. Perhaps it's because I'm new at this, but I don't understand the few negative comments. My reasoning being that yes, there are technical aspects that experienced ones see and will critique....but as photography is art, then does not the "eye of the beholder" concept come into play? I've always thought the words "art critic" to be such an oxymoron. We all react differently to art, in whatever it's form. But to qualify a piece of artistic endeavor as bad or good according to ones own tastes, is, well, just that...ones own feelings, and should not extend to labeling a piece of art as either "good or bad". Just my thoughts. I had never read anyones critiques before and was just so surprised at the negative ones. Thanks for making me smile with your photo Marc.

I'm sorry, but the Emperor has no clothes. This is a garden variety grab shot, and not a terribly good one. The leg on the right ruins the cohesiveness of the composition; the photographer should have waited for a better moment. Don't tell me he was forced into it; nobody forced this individual to put this photo online.

Also, the caption is indeed derogatory. This is just common sense. However, the photographer is probably innocent of any intention to speak negatively of his subject. He no doubt is more familiar with the subject than we are (at least slightly, as he was there with her). He, therefore, has a context in which to place her. We, however, can only judge her by the caption.

Think about what would have made the photo better: at a minimum: no distracting leg, background either more in focus or more out of focus (I think the photog chose/was forced to choose a rather unfortunate compromise). And a better caption (one suggestion: 'Dressing Up for a Flea-market Morning' which contains rather harmless irony, places the pic in time which carries charm --obviously the time word could be changed to suit the reality, though reality is not necessarily the standard-- and has no derogatory implications. It also would kind of tickle us because we all can imagine ourselves in that situation. The word 'budget' is just too personal).

I suspect this photo was partly chosen because of the mistakes it contains.

Let's put some clothes on this Emperor!

No, no one forced Marc to post this picture, but I'm sure glad he did. As one who has suffered a few reverses (fiscal and physical) of my own over the last few years, and especially over the last ten months, I can appreciate and even respect this woman for trying to maintain a bit of dignity and even style in the face of all of the ravages of age and time--and, trust me, there is nothing ignoble about trying to do that. A lot of us will get a chance to try to salvage some dignity as we age, and I'll be a mere sixty in two weeks. Last week I was thirty-five and still doing fifteen-mile runs. Things change. Fortunes come and go. Families split. Spouses leave or die.

 

They say that old age is not for sissies. Well, perhaps I'm not old, but at sixty I won't be able to call myself middle-aged anymore unless I plan to live to one hundred twenty. I now look with a lot more empathy upon the elderly, not condescendingly, and anyone who reads Marc's masterpieces of gentility (there's no other way to describe his forum contributions) can ever interpret his work as deprecating of human beings who are trying their best to make it in a tough world where even the most morally perfect life is accompanied by the progressive physical degeneration of aging culminating in death.

 

No, of course the photo is no masterpiece of composition, and I think that it is fair to say that Marc never anticipated in his wildest dreams that this photo would be the one that was to be chosen PoW. I nonetheless see this photo as much, much more than a grab shot, even though in some ways one does grab what one can when one is on the move. I see it as a veritable testament to the human spirit, taken and posted by a person who personifies what the human spirit should be and can be, in both life and art.

 

Congratulations once again on PoW, Marc, but above all congratulations for giving so much of yourself through your work and through your words.

 

I'm still buying old cameras on that old internet flea market across the way, and I hope that I die taking a meter reading or snapping a shutter, in the style to which I am accustomed.

 

This is a perfectly lovely and spunky old lady, and I am glad that Marc captured, however imperfectly, her grace and style in the face of life's little, and sometimes not so little, reverses and misfortunes.

"Also, the caption is indeed derogatory. This is just common sense.... a better caption (one suggestion: 'Dressing Up for a Flea-market Morning'"

 

Right. Marc should also have Photoshopped in a Rolls and driver waiting for her in the background, and smoothed out some wrinkles.

What a kick!

 

This caught my attention instantly. You'd have to be a bit of an east-coaster or a city girl/

boy to appreciate this shot or even understand it. For those who don't get it ... you need

to get out more often and lighten up. Oy!

This image was originally posted after photo.net imposed a (soft) file size limit of 100Kb, back in late 2002. If you have a close looks at all of Marc W's uploads, it is easy to see that he almost never exceeds that 100Kb limit. Nowadays, file sizes are no longer an issue after the installation of the new PN servers in June 2003. But it appears that Marc has stuck to the former limit, regardless. There is another interesting aspect... None of his images exceed 511 pixels in either dimension (width/height). Perhaps that is done for easy in-line sharing his images in forum threads? I don't know... Whatever the case maybe, there has to be an image quality price to pay, by adopting a 47Kb file size for this particular web image. Perhaps Marc W. can throw some light on his approach to posting PN pics...

I've been looking at Marc's folders since joining back in late 2002 and I had a particularly strong reaction to this one. I'm surprised that nobody has picked up the fact that Marc's "grab shot" isn't just anyone. For those who still don't get it, we are presented with one of a world-wide celebrity - Dame Edna Everage!

Oh well, so much for an attempt at some humour... :)