iwmac

Not staged. A real winter scene.

This was a candid shot, but as I recall there were other people with her.

At 180mm, it is not Lust, but merely wishful thinking.

Your best photo.

 

Vuk...comments?

Bert...It is not straight!!!

 

FIX IT! (please)

The 'blur' and any other 'art' effects in this series of photos is due to the time I had to take the pictures.

 

This 'series' was done for a Canadian magazine which was publishing an article on the terrible state of mental hospitals in Canada. The Art Director wanted 'an establishing shot' that would show that state. I was taken into the back wards of the hospital and I took photos for the magazine, but I also took as many other photos as possible, figuring that if I was ever in there again I might not have a camera. (They haven't got me yet. ;-).

 

 

 

This is indeed a family, just about to go out for dinner on a New Year's Eve. The dynamics and emotions are in reality very much as they appear in this photo.

Pretty colours.......but???? Hmmm...maybe just pretty colours.

Cartier-Bresson's photo definitely has more context, and is much more upbeat than mine.

 

Choice didn't come into this photo. I was photographing in the opposite direction and my attention was drawn to something behind me. The boy. It was truly a snapshot, cranking the lens as fast as I could for this very fortunate moment.

 

This was taken in a slum. The bottle was probably being taken back for a refund, maybe a penny or two, but to him, maybe a small fortune. And that is (I suspect) why the death grip on the bottle, and the downcast eyes are part of the concentration. He doesn't want to trip, doesn't want to risk breaking the bottle.

 

The Cartier Bresson photo is obviously more joyous, he is bringing home two bottles of wine, and he lives in a totally different culture. This photo and the other ones in this folder were shot in one of the worst slums in Canada in the mid-sixties, and early seventies, just before Urban Renewal.

 

This, as usual consisted of tearing down an established community, albeit very badly run down, and moving the populace to Public Housing, where the community no longer exists, and where the problems often become even worse, due to the displacement and the impersonal nature of the new housing, generally high-rise, or low-rise apartments, and where the crowding is even worse than it was in the previous slum. One bizarre irony of the slums in Saint John is that they had the best view in the city, they overlooked the harbour, and the train station and Main Street, so the inhabitants had lots to see. Of course it is all gone now, and there are new, modern (sterile) commercial (even, of course a McDonalds) buildings that have replaced what was once a vital community.

 

I have hesitated to upload this photo because of the inevitable comparison to the Cartier-Bresson photo, but I feel that it is different enough that it stands on its own.

Thank you Bernhard.

Margaret,

 

The 'gray thing' in the top right corner is a TV antenna, and the two hot spots are light bulbs illuminating the menu and the name. The photo was taken a little after dusk, so there was very little light.

Both, but the SP is long gone.

Thank you for the comment Barry.

 

This was a 35mm/f1.8 lens on a Nikon SP rangefinder, and possibly the sweetest lens I've ever owned.

Is it time to go back?

 

Really like this shot, and the way it flips from negative to postitive.

Beautiful panoramic shot! You make it look so easy. And, yes, the resolution of the lens/film combination is remarkable. The notable thing about your XPan photos is the incredible transparency. It is like looking through the monitor, rather than (as usual) looking at it.

The sad thing is that you don't understand that it is your very attitude that has made Amerika just what it is.

I couldn't resist.

 

Aldo, I thought I had a tough time.

 

You took the bait early, but Vuk advised me not to answer until Thursday, but then he decided to speak for me anyhow. Fortunately, in my case, it didn't make much difference. Unfortunately, in your case following his suggestion caused more of a problem.

 

I haven't had a chance to read the last fifty or so comments, but on a cursory glance, there is a lot to catch up with.

 

Besides the bad composition, the remote, detached view, the spots, (latter, very easy to take care of), the 'toning' if that is what it was is awful. I don't know what the point of it was, but it is ugly. Totally unnecessary. If you are shooting B&W, keep it that way. Artsy toning doesn't work with this sort of subject.

 

 

Reshoot most of the images properly framed and with the camera squared up.

The sky is a bit over the top!!

I rated this an 8 for aesthetics rather reluctantly. I am bothered by the photographers imprint in the lower right corner. It destroys the mood and beauty of the photo.

I contributed 3 (THREE) words to the gabble here, and out of that you get somehow that I don't like hats! Now that is an amazing leap.

 

Please do explain your great deductive powers to me, and maybe to anyone else who may (or may not) care to understand.

Well Vuk,

 

Looks like a portrait of a poodle, dancing. (In a dimly lit apartment.)

less.

Describing you as visually immature is probably being kind.

 

This 'simple' photo (and its title)speak volumes.

A very nice shot, but somewhat underexposed. This is the sort of situation that needs an incident meter reading.