"Dressing Well on a Flea Market Budget", Miami

OK, so there are at least one, or two, from 2005 that *do* exceed this 511 pixel limit, but the file size is still around 100K. I hope Marc will respond to this particular observation.

May I suggest the caption, "Flea Market, Miami" for this photo? The less a picture is specificized the stronger is the impact (except, of course, for newspaper pics, which this is not).

 

Also, to Jan Leathem: if the negative comments are inexplicable, so are the positive comments. We are expressing our opinions, and they need not always be complementary. If we cannot honestly critique art then this forum, and many others, would cease to exist. Further, the ability to compare the quality of works of art is fundamental to the appreciation of art -- it actually enriches the artistic experience, rather than devalue it.

 

I do agree with Marc G. that "Love at Maxim's" is a lovely picture. Also "Outside a LA Strip Club" (though slightly stereotyped without the caption), "Sunday Morning" and "Night Swimmer".

Thanks Peter. Are you saying that images in the portfolio section can be larger than what

can be posted in the forum threads? If so, I did not know that.

 

A few additional observations of my own. While I often carefully compose images through

the viewfinder, this is not one of those images. The camera was chest high around my

neck and was a "Hail Mary" shot. I took it when I wanted, but the timing was more centered

around her action, as opposed to what was going on around her. To wait for perfect

conditions would have been to miss her specific expression and gesture with the shoe.

This wasn't a studio session or a posed static subject, but instead a fluid personal

encounter.

 

I also find it interesting that some (not all) seeking perfect alignment of all factors often

feature primarily inanimate objects or landscapes in their own portfolios. In fact, some

have no people in them at all. Not that they don't photograph people, just that they seem

to gravitate toward highly structured and controlled images. This may well be a

generalization, but it's an observation none the less.

 

Another thing I find is that women often respond well to this image. Prints of this specific

photo have been purchased by a couple of collectors, and a few other people ... all of

which were women. I have offered it at charity auctions twice, and in both cases it went to

women. Just sharing an observation based on what has actually happened ... which has

been somewhat reinforced here.

 

A final note. Those who find the title demeaning assume that I authored it. Actually, it's a

paraphrased quote from the subject herself. That was the upshot of her conversation with

me. Everything she was wearing was purchased second hand. She was proud of that fact,

and that she exhibited classic taste on a limited "flea market" budget. The shoes she had

found, and was showing me, were Bruno Magli Alligator for $10.

Oops wrong redo, that one above is the original. Here's the adjusted one. Need more

coffee ; -)

With your new scan, I find I am now drawn more to her expression and to the texture and the brand on the inside of the shoe. Maybe "$10 shoe" would be a good title, but more importantly, I think that the various interpretations we've read so far have less to do with the title and more to do with associations we have with her attire.

 

Marc, I'd be interested in knowing how she reacted to having her picture taken.

Actually, knowing that the title derived from the subject makes me feel much more positively about the photo. Charming!

There are some photos which need a little explication to reach their full potential. For me, this is one of those. Now I like it.

Thank you, Marc

I think it's a good photo, taken in the right moment, right "pose" of the hand with the shoe, but I don't agree that it makes understand clearly that we are in a Flea Market. The shot is very close to the subject, it's ok, but the background doesn't show enough details - they're too far and blurred - to tell at the first sight "oh, a lady in the flea market!". I find it intersting brcause of the woman, her looking, but in my opinion it doesn't speak perfectly as said in a photojournalistic point if view.

I do believe Marc is right, and that we are a variegate forum where different kind of photographic styles are melt together. There are people that focus only on pure composition - thus inanimate objects; there are people that focus only one shooting other people - then perfect composition might or might not be desidered. As you said sometimes the expression on the face, the action, is more intresting than compositional perfection... and (i might add) to tell the story the image must not be too perfect, or it will drawn away attention from the story itself (and thats a great add to your picture in my opinion - I prefer not to do perfect shots but rather to have them a little dirt but a little more personal); other guys have other ways, so no doubt there are people criticizing the missing of a perfect compo, on their standpoint they fell themselves right, but others may (and in fact do) have different ideas. I didnt' know she was a former star but there was no doubt she is full of life and from the picture comes out her will to have more and more.

> then perfect composition might or might not be desidered.

Perfect composition is, IMHO, always desired. It may not be possible, but you can't take away its desirability. Also, "perfect" composition is not necessarily static or rigid composition. It can be very fluid and fluent -- and there are countless examples from the masters to prove this.

> I prefer not to do perfect shots but rather to have them
> a little dirt but a little more personal

I hope you will not mind this, Giuseppe, but that's a great excuse for bad photography and is apt to be misinterpreted. Are you saying you purposely take a bad shot? Of course not. So I assume you're saying, you like to keep the composition informal. No problems there. But informal composition is not absence of composition!Photo.net portfolios aren't necessarily representative of the owner's photographic interests (at least half of mine was a temporary measure to show travel photos to friends and family and I've been too lazy to take them off, and lack of a scanner forces me to keep lots of stuff to myself, not that I'm much good as a photog).

In good faith
Sid

Nothing implied by it Siddhartha. Just an observation on the variety of what people desire

to accomplish when making photos. It is my inclination to look at the work of those that

post, both critically and glowingly. It's like a bibliography so to speak.

 

But in retrospect, I'd have to agree with you, and keep those observations to myself, just

as I would want when offering an opinion of my own.

As a past POW (Prisoner of the Week) I can sympathise with Marc Williams - this is far from his best. The subject is striking but the treatment is so so. The framing is too tight, it is contrasty and lacking in tonal gradation - its dessication dehumanises the lady (who I am sure is quite a character). The use of extreme wide angle lenses for street photography became a cliche a couple of decades ago [iMO]. Still, congratulations, Mark, even if your best is elsewhere.

My initial response was more to the caption than to the photograph. Recognizing neither a flea market nor Miami, I had to read the caption to understand what was going on. At first glance, it was simply a snapshot of a sad old woman; then a sad old woman recoiling from the crowd in the background. What is the purpose of the picture?

If to tell a story, I feel that it falls short; if to embarrass or humiliate the woman -- great success.

It's a nice street shot showing a quirky old lady

with an eclectic -yet stylish- mix of outfit

the use of the wide angle adds makes it look like a

caricature.

I personally enjoy the fact that it's not one of those

beautiful-looking-clean-blah-blah photos ... good work!

Street photography is a realistic photography, it is oriented towards visible reality and won't always encourage serenity or comfort in its viewers. To the contrary -- a successful photograph should challenge our complacence . So, don't comfort us Marc, your snap is a succesful caricature and you shouldn't be afraid of admitting it. That lady's enlarged head, monstrous glasses and an elephant-sized lonely shoe are a total & successful confrontation -- you imposed some social awkardness on us, on me at least, I am certain of it. Can I laugh at this old damsel or is it socially unacceptable? If not, I should I feel pity for her old age or should I? Or, perhaps, I should feel compassion because of her vulnerability? It's up to us now, you see (that's assuming your viewers are not totally devoid of such sensibilites).

 

I don't understand Mike Spinak's arguments at all -- this snap is not about connecting with viewers, it is about making them feel uncomfortable -- it is about a poking a bizzarro looking old lady with a ridiculous glasses and attire in front of you nose -- I don't think Marc failed here because we all would have taken a good look at her if she crossed our path. And I don't care much if she is at the flea market in Florida or selling shoes on Fifth Avenue -- Marc's is not a documenatary shot .

But yes, this could have been done better -- the impact would be bigger if it was a frontal shot of her -- you would have to ask her, I suppose; and I suspect she would've agreed to it -- that's where you failed. And you risked nothing after this first quick snap (correct me if you did ask and she refused, I doubt it). That's the hardest part of street shooting. But let me quote from Diane Arbus, somebody whom I admire immensly "It's important to take bad pictures. It's the bad ones that have to do with what you've never done before. They can make you recognize something you hadn't seen in a way that will make you recognize it when you see it again." Diane ArbusGood luck.

I fully agree with the above post: the photo is basically a caricature, and its own character comes from the wide-angle extreme perspective. Thus, I doubt this is actually a street photo in the most common sense: street photo, as Maria wrote, "is a realistic photography, it is oriented towards visible reality". Here, the appeal of the photo comes from a strong, deliberate innatural perspective, and somewhat has to do with reality as much as an image reflected in a deforming mirror has.

This obviously does not neither add or detract anything to the value of the photo, which should have nothing to do with genre catalogation.

Maria, don't confuse an explanation of how a image was taken as being an excuse. It was

others who used the word "excuse", not me.

 

Seeing situational details as being an excuse requires the assumption on the part of

the reviewer that it is a bad photograph in the first place. In the end I kept the photo and

chose to display it ... because I do like it and make no apologies.

 

Whether or not it succeeds in tweaking conventional sensibilities is in the eye of the

beholder. With some it seems to have succeeded, with others not ... and yet with others a

Shakespeare quote from King Richard (having been spit upon), comes to mind ... " Me

thinks thou protesth to much" ; -)

Thanks for posting the much larger (144Kb) version, Marc. It is a shame nobody has acknowledged that it contains a lot more detail than the original up the top. I've decided that the woven pattern in the rim of her hat is the part that really sucks me into this image

Anyway, hope you will continue to enjoy being Prisoner Of this Week, I think David was, at least, right about that part... Cheers,

Okay, Mike Spinak is right about editing, but for me there are differing criteria for what a photographer might display on Photo.net versus what that same person might display on a commercial site--and thank goodness for that difference, lest PN lose a lot of its spontaneity and vitality.

 

The difference is obviously manifested in this case by viewing both Marc's PN portfolio, on the one hand, and his commercial site, on the other:

 

http://www.fotografz.com/

 

(Believe me, it is well worth the trouble.)

 

I am a writer in political philosophy (a.k.a. J. Landrum Kelly), not a photographer, by both training and vocation. I also teach Spanish at the college level to make ends meet, since it is sometimes hard even to give away works in political theory, and I hate the peer review process of academe. As a writer, I've tossed literally hundreds of pages for every one that I have published. Even so, I still enjoy writing informally rather than for the scrutiny of the full review process with an editor and a press. No, things are not polished in my informal writings, but sometimes I think that such writings get closer to the core of who I am and what I have to say. That matters to me. That's why I write.

 

By analogy, Photo.net is where we experiment photographically. This is where we play. May it always be so. Photography will always be play for me, but even for those for whom it is a vocation and a livelihood, there ought to be a place where they (and the rest of us) can pass around to our friends things that we find interesting.

 

Most everything on this site would be a professional outtake. That doesn't bother me as long as what is offered here holds my interest. This lady with her shoe and bizarre glasses presents us with a very interesting picture, and that is enough to stimulate good discussion, and that is enough to justify granting to this particular photo its status as Photo of the Week.

 

Thanks for the better upload, Marc. I might not hang it on the wall, but I will remember it. For those who decide that it is what they want to hang on their walls, well. . . more power to them, and more power to you.

Street photography is hyperrealistic photography, oriented towards

dissociative hyperreality.

Agreed. The picture is indeed very good, and Mike Spinak's comments

on composition are completely incongruous. What Mike wants is to

have this lady distanced from him by the means of composition; she

disgusts him, and he wants somebody to take her away from him. What

Mike forgets, though, is that his own halfconscious impulses have

little to do with photography. I'm sure he failed his Foucault.

Obviously this is a technically strong photo.

 

It also shows either courage or a little lack of self respect. Could be one or the other. Would this photo have been dared if the old lady had been an equally bizarre, but more alert young man?

 

There seems no reason for the photo, other than to ridicule. Interestingly, we don't see many images that ridicule alert, ill-shaped young women with bare midriffs. Or similarly up-close, of pot-bellied young men with ridiculous haircuts.

 

I wonder how we find it entertaining to ridicule the infirmities of the elderly, but not to ridicule ourselves or our peers?

 

Was this photo attempted only because the old lady couldn't defend herself, had feeble vision?

Interesting... I had a totally different feeling about this photo, John Kelly..

I thought it was a pleasant and wonderful character study. If I was that fiesty - bargin hunting beauty -- I'd be flattered!

I totally plan to be a long haired 60's looking 70 year old and I hope someone wants to capture my uniqueness someday! I get the feeling that she is proud of her look as well as her ability to find expensive shoes for $10. She knows her stuff ;-)

John, could you perhaps find an image of someone her age that is dressed "appropriately" so we have a basis for comparison? Then let's find a thirty-something guy dressed in a way that you think others might ridicule him (then show us how he "should" dress.)

 

Frank Zappa was doing a concert recording back in the seventies. The crowd started jeering when the cops made an appearance, to which Zappa responded "Don't kid yourselves, we're all wearing uniforms."

 

Indeed we are.

I think the photo is cluttered. I realise it's taken in a crowded place, but the bits of the "crowd" we see are too inconclusive to place the main subject.

 

Looking at the enlargement, I like that eye just peeking out from behind the eyeglasses frames. It give the lady extra humanity, which is important in caricature. The balance is pretty good.

 

When I say "caricature" I'm not implying meanness on Marc's part. After all, it was her decision to transport herself like this and go out in public. She's really her own caricature. That's the point of the picture, I think.

 

But it's the composition that confuses the eye. Too much white and she's a little too far to the right. I suspect this is probably because Marc shot the frame without using the viewfinder. Unbalanced composition is often what results in these circumstances.

 

In fact, it's an interesting point of argument to ponder whether a picture shot "from the hip" is a valid representation of what the photographer saw, as he or she didn't use the camera's viewfinder. Than again, when there is sufficient familiarity with the equipment, the camera becomes an extension of the whole body, rather than just the eye itself, and can be used with or without viewfinder reference.

 

I'm not saying it's a bad picture, in fact I think it's a pretty good one, opportunistically snapped with (at least implied by Marc) not much opportunity for a reshoot.

 

It just falls short of that tiny bit of extra empty space needed to separate out the lady from the background. My eye keeps being pulled away from her to other parts of the picture, but in those "other parts" there's not much that's really all that interesting or supportive of the composition or the story (with the exception of the palm trees - they're right on-topic).

 

It is possible to shoot a crowded scene and yet make your subject stand out. It's a matter of angle and persistence, DOF and many other things. And did I say "luck"? Luck comes into it a lot. I just don't think Marc's quite pulled it off here. But full marks for trying.

 

We've all seen ladies like this. Every city has one or more of them. People smile to themselves when they appear on the streets and say things like "Poor dear. Wouldn't you think she'd grow old gracefully?". In documenting that "type" of person the picture succeeds well, and in great detail. I feel, though, that Marc could have snapped another shot, perhaps from a bit further away. It would have been a different photograph, but maybe a stronger one, with more context.

 

A candid photographer's life is full of such opportunities missed.

Still, Peggy Guggenheim had beaten this lady on the glasses part.