Jump to content
© cSteve Gubin 2014

Van Buren and La Salle, Chicago 2014


cyanatic

Artist: STEVE_GUBIN; Steve Gubin;
Exposure Date: 2014:12:02 13:02:24;
Copyright: cSteve Gubin 2014;
Make: PENTAX;
Model: PENTAX K-5 II s;
ExposureTime: 1/80 s;
FNumber: f/6;
ISOSpeedRatings: 100;
ExposureProgram: Aperture priority;
ExposureBiasValue: 0/10;
MeteringMode: Pattern;
Flash: Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode;
FocalLength: 35 mm;
FocalLengthIn35mmFilm: 52 mm;
Software: Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Windows);

Copyright

© cSteve Gubin 2014

From the category:

Street

· 124,943 images
  • 124,943 images
  • 442,913 image comments


Recommended Comments

The thing I like about these pictures - and I'm sure this hasn't escaped you - is that they are a pictorial history of a certain time and a certain place. That's always been a very strong component of your photographs which exists quite independently of their wonderful esthetic qualities. These are pictures that will age like fine wine and never, never turn into vinegar.
Link to comment

this on is my favorite of your recent uploads: I like how the patch of sunlight (almost parallel to its companion, the stairs) invites my eyes and directs them to the most "visible" walking person across the street. Once entered to the photo, I realize the green traffic light - walking and leading to the three other  walkers - framed perfectly as if some higher power has placed them exactly where they belong.

And Jack is absolutely right: the longer I look at (and enjoy!) your photo, the more I like it.

Link to comment

If anyone cares to comment, I am primarily interested in hearing

whether someone who is not necessarily well versed in the genre of

street photography finds anything engaging about this photograph.

All comments, however, are welcome. Also, I have a pretty thick

skin by this time so your honesty will not offend me or hurt my

feelings. Thanks.

Link to comment

It captures the mood and atmosphere of the city. I'm guessing we're under an el here. The stabs of light, the thick lines on the roadway, the darks and light, for me, are not a distraction but rather about the rhythms of the city, and this is not nearly as cacophonous as some city scenes are. Normally, walking man street lights in street photos don't work for me, because they're used too ironically or even as a pun. Here, though, it works fine, because it's just a small element in what's going on overall and, somehow, its being centered gives it a graphic role, with a bit of whimsy, without appearing at all self conscious. Title this photo Walking Man and you undermine all that. There's a fair amount of murkiness here and it reads expressively and helps capture the sense of place. Don't know if this makes any sense, but the timing of the shot gives me a sense of deliberate spontaneity, the instinct for which seems to lie in the picture itself. This was the moment even though it doesn't appear exceptional but rather insightfully everyday.

Link to comment

Thank you all for taking the time to comment on this photo.  It does mean a lot for someone to take the time to do that, and I appreciate it.

 

Richard George -- " this really does not do much for me...I disagree about the bright streak across the road as I feel the perspective alone would draw the eye in, the light is an unbalanced distraction, somewhat overpowering the scene in my opinon...I think moving a bit closer would also help isolate the lady and breath a little bit more life into the picture..."

 

Thank you, Richard.  It is sometimes not easy to criticize someone else's photograph and I appreciate your honesty.  This is not to imply that the other commenters were not honest! 

 

There is nothing to dispute in your comments, Richard.  They are all perfectly valid and reasonable.  And there's the rub -- particularly in street photography.  How do we set up expectations of significant, or not significant, of good, or bad?  I am not comparing myself to Winogrand or Friedlander or Frank, but how do we look at a photo that appears to be a hodgepodge, or blurred, or skewed, and understand what it was that someone like John Szarkowski (MOMA Director of Photography in the 60's and 70's) found so valuable?  And how do we then apply that to some kind of assessment of our own work, or that of our peers who might also be relatively unknown?  I don't expect any answers to these questions!  Just ruminating.

 And Fred, thanks for the lengthy analysis, always appreciated.  Yes, this was under the El.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...