Ice Cream.

The first hot days, suddenly everyone is outside...

Any comments/ratings appreciated! Thanks.

Dear Roger,

You have rated one of my photos on photo.net http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2789176 as a 2 2. I would appreciate it if you would take your time to explain that grade, as I am new to photography and am keen to learn from professionals like yourself. I am eagerly awaiting to see some of your photos as well.

Even though your point of view on the image concerned is in the extreme minority, your view IS important to me, so please either leave a comment on how to improve (perhaps I should stop taking pictures at all and leave it to you), or reply privately by email.

Thanks,

Vlad

Dear Vlad

I'm not a professional, so take these comments as the view of just one person.

This is the first time I have rated photos in the photo.net critique section (and wasn't aware it was not anonymous).

I noticed that my scores for the various photos of yours and others were uniformly lower than other reviewers. I think that may reflect the standard I set for my own photos. After one of my photo-essay projects that lasted 10 days, I calculated that I got about one o.k. photo per 8-9 rolls of 36-exposure film. That's about 1 out of 300. Even after that, I do a further cull and select the absolute best.

Years ago, I wondered why I had such a low batting average, until I saw some proof sheets by the legendary Henri Cartier Bresson, and read that his batting average was even less. I hear anecdotes that National Geographic photographers go through many rolls of film to get each great shot.

All this is by way of background to say that, while your photo seemed technically fine --- good exposure, nothing terribly wrong in the framing, and clearly not the work of a rank beginner -- there just wasn't anything that grabbed me about the subject matter.

Have a look at this "aerial view" photograph of nuns, by David Moore.

http://www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/exhibitions/archived/2003/david_moore

See how the factors of light (white and black extremes) interplay with shape to create an artistic statement that goes beyond a plain, matter-of-fact reporting photo.

Another photo that comes to mind, when I critique your cafe/river scene, is Henri Cartier-Bresson's "Sunday on the banks of the river Marne".

You can see it at

http://www.magnumphotos.com/

go to the menu "Photographers", click on "Cartier Bresson

", click on the "decisive moment", and it's the one with the people sitting on the banks of the river -- the one with the fat man on the left hand side of the photo who is pouring a glass of wine.

http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/FramerT_MAG.aspx?Stat=Portfolio_DocThumb&V=CDocT&E=2TYRYD1D518O&DT=ALB

In Cartier-Bresson's River Marne photo, I feel a sense of interaction with the people, and almost begin to share in the relaxation of the family sitting on the banks.

With your photo, I do not sense any interaction with the people. I haven't made an emotional connection with the people eating ice cream.

For me, facial expression, or body posture is what telegraphs a message. In cases where there is no facial expression or body posture, then there might be something else, like the compositional elements in David Moore's photo, that convey the message. With your photo, I couldn't see any compositional elements that got me excited.

(I realise your photo doesn't appear to be taken with a very long telephoto, but as a general comment) I tend not to use telephoto lenses for street photography. My favourite is either the 24mm, 28mm or 35 mm which forces me to get up close and personal. While many street photographers like wider lenses, I tend to think that the distortion at 21mm or less can, in itself, be sometimes over-used as a gimmick to make otherwise ordinary photos look better.

There is definitely a "fear factor" that any street photographer has to overcome when taking photos of strangers from 1 to 2 meters away. But I think that is what makes such photos more exciting, because it brings the viewer into an interaction with the subject. I can't recall when I used anything longer than a 50 mm for street photography.

With street photography, it is a matter of following your instincts, and "suck it and see" -- not sure if they use that expression where you live, but where I come from it means -- try it, and if it works, it works, and if it doesn't work, it doesn't.

Putting myself in your shoes on that day, I note the consitent row of gentlemen in white shirts throwing a uniform row of circular shadows on the concrete. I'd like to have wandered down onto the promenade among them to see if I could make anything of that.

What about the contrast of the ice-cream vendor, in his quaint uniform, in contrast to the uniform white shirts of his customers who seem to be office-workers?

I'd be curious whether the large mass of white-highlight of the umbrella could be used to contrast the shadow on the street, and interplay with the white shirts and shadows.

This is not to say that any of these things would have ultimately produced a good photo, but I'd like to have explored them anyway. Remember, my batting average is less than 1 in 300, or worse.

If you haven't already, try studying the photographs of the great photojournalists, such as Henri Cartier Bresson, W. Eugene Smith, and any of the old Magnum photographers. See also how the masters of the more static portraits, like Paul Strand, composed their portraits, and see if those elements can be captured in your fast-paced street photos. See his photo "Family, Luzzara" (Search google images for samples of their work).

I love classic landscapes, like Ansel Adams. See if that same sense of balance or lyricism can also be expressed in the compositions of as-it-happens street photography. (That's a challenge I like to set myself).

Don't worry about becoming a clone of these photographers. Everybody starts out copying, but somewhere down the track, if you are really searching for your own vision, your individuality will take over.

If I can use an analogy -- when I started learning violin in 1968, I had to concentrate on the technique. Now when I play, I am totally unaware of the instrument, and have got to the stage where my soul connects with the music. That's how it can be with photography. We start to see patterns and shapes instinctively from the heart, without going through the mechanical analysis.

Vlad, I couldn't help sense from your statement: "perhaps I should stop taking pictures at all and leave it to you" -- that you were miffed by my low scores.

I am involved professionally in writing and publishing, and now own my own publishing company. When I was starting out, I found that few editors, who rejected my work, would take time to explain and guide me as to why my work was rejected.

Now that I have my own publishing company, I said to myself that I would take time to help authors understand why I rejected their work. But I found that many were hurt by my comments. Nowadays, I don't assume everyone wants feedback. I ask beforehand whether they want feedback. Strangely, I find that few authors agree to receive feedback. I don't know if that puts me in the minority -- I hunger for feedback, even if it hurts bad.

When I started out in writing, my bosses would return my work, dripping with red ink. This carried on for two years. I remember, when I was new to the job, retreating into my office, totally crushed and devasted at the ceaseless red slashes across my work. I resented my bosses accepting things one day, and criticising the same style the next day. Was there no consistency in their pattern of rejection?

These days, in my professional work, I sometimes receive compliments about my professional writing, but I also note that, because of the faster pace of business life, fewer of the younger generation are given the opportunity, or even desire, to receive the rigorous, often soul-destroying process of having one's work cut to shreds.

Here then are the comments of just one person. Take them as that -- one person's view.

Best wishes

Roger S

Dear Roger,

thank you for taking the time to write such an elaborate reply. Regarding this particular photo, I was standing on a bridge, and this is exactly how I wanted to see the scene. I passed this place every day for the whole year, and it was the first time I saw it in the sunshine, with all those similarly dressed people, and the newly-installed ice cream seller. To me it represents a glance down as I was walking on the bridge above, once again. Perhaps I should've zoomed in to include just the ice cream seller and the tables, to crop out the irrelevant (as I see now) part.

Regarding comments and ratings, I appreciate it when people leave a comment rather than just numbers. What upsets people on photo.net is what seems to be the pretty picture phenomenon, users having turned rating into a clicking game, rating away on pictures which everyone likes.

I can see that your "bad" rating is not the same as a "bad" of someone else. The bad rating doesn't seem as bad as it did before, since your valuation obviously differs from the majority of users. I guess as long as you hit 4 4 on average on those average pics...

Regards,

Vlad