wayne_harrison

it's a striking image, lovely to look at. if i hadn't been told, i

would have said this was a painting;watercolor, most likely. doesn't

look anything like a traditional photograph; but i suppose that's the

point, isn't it?

yes, very nice candid. love the timing; that's a great, expressive

face, also.

agreed that this is an interesting image. the car appears somehow

malevolent; consuming the suspended humanoid images. well done, tony.

allan, take heart. at least you don't see that image across the

breakfast table...

<p>

wayne (an old boy poster, also)

god, i love it: a capture of one of the universal characteristics of

the female of the species...the mirror stare. nicely arranged and

perfectly exposed. lovely profile, btw.

this really is impressive, tony. i spent an entire summer in nyc

when i was about 12, and the memory that has stayed brightest is well

depicted by this scene: the endless movement of limitless crowds.

that and duke snider hitting a couple home runs in ebbet's field. :)

ok; if brassai and kertez are frauds, and shouldn't be worth a

moment's glance, then this image is equally worthless. what the hell

do we expect from these environments: the rebirth of marlene

dietrich?

<p>

there is much that is beautiful in the everyday revelation of human

existence on display in places like this, and in the figures of men

and women such as shown here.

oh, i think the shot is terrific. the marvelous arrogance of this

woman is grounded in the courage of desperation. and the mystery of

whether or not there is a ring on the third finger, left hand, is of

course, by chance.

<p>

*perfect* depth of field, also. of course, that may be of

necessity. tech notes?

thanks, all, for your responses. i noted at the outset that i had my

own position about the issue, and i suppose susan stated it as well

as i could hope. still, i would add another element that i feel is a

necessary requirement for anyone who proposes to take pictures of a

particular genre: what we call "people pictures". that element is

courage. from time to time i find myself with camera in hand,

cruising my environment like a hawk floating over a broomsage field,

when i see an image form right in front of me that i just *know*

would be wonderful for one or more reasons. but instead of lifting

the box to my face, i flinch. why? maybe i waited too long, got

greedy hoping for perfection, and the magic was lost; but more likely

than not, i just was afraid to anger or embarrass the people i was

shooting. i believe that a truly great photographer of people must

be fearless, intellectually and physically.

<p>

maybe that's why so many who fit that description are females...

i would like to echo tony's sentiment concerning my wishes for long

nights and good times for all the participants herein. i also want

to voice my opinion that this site has the potential to become the

highest quality source of hands on learning process on the net. the

quality of images is indeed generally high--but the thing that sets

this outfit apart is the ability of many of the posters here and

those who only appear for the purpose of critical analyses to provide

very literate insights into the strengths and weaknesses of the

images that appear in the forum.

<p>

may i suggest that we attempt to expand the number of similarly

talented participants over this holiday period by hauling the keenest

observers and photographers available in some of the other, larger

forums over here to people photography? i know that this could be an

exercise not without its problems; but i think it may be better to be

a little more populated than a little less.

<p>

oh, well, whatever...but happy holidays to all!

it is often said that the south will rise again. this photograph

could be the reason why. :)

<p>

get out that confederate money, boys!

i really like this. spontaneous, intimate, with great timing. the

sense of movement is not overdone, and the xp2 handles the skin tones

very well.

what, just one response to this image?

<p>

the hell with this place; it's populated by sightless folks who don't

know how to type! :(

<p>

wayne harrison

just beautiful to see. see jane run. see wayne fall to pieces.

<p>

and the exposure is just amazing. :)

nigel: don't worry---j. spirer will be absolutely delighted with

that image: not one single inch of sharp focus or clarity! :)

<p>

if the truth be known, i think the damn thing is fascinating.

since i have a little down time, i would like to occupy my intellectual wasteland with an attempt at raising consciousness, whether mine or others concerning an issue that chris yeager touched upon, unawares, in his gracious response to critical acclaim arising from his last post. in short, he modestly suggested that the success of the image in question was simply a matter of "f8 and be there", which i believe is an old chesnut from the world of photojournalism. i thought that i would try to spark some discussion by setting this hypothesis, and see who would support it, and why:

<p>

a substantial number of the best photographs taken either by amateurs or professionals is simply the result of accident; that is, being in the right place at the right time, or being in a position to gain access to an unusual, beautiful, or otherwise outstanding human subject matter.

<p>

so, what say you all? if you are bored sometime, or just would like to play around with the idea, or actually give a damn, file your response at your leisure. i have my own position, but since i came up with the issue, and my spare time is up for now, i would hope that someone else start the ball rolling.

<p>

wayne harrison

take a look at the second image when cropped "panoramic" style at the

base of the window. that makes a terrific shot, imho.

now *this* is a neat concert shot! the edge exposure is very

attractive, and the open, dark distance makes for a very dramatic

view. good work.

god, she looks as if she is peering anxiously into the eyes of a

firing squad. if she was "happily married", these shots must have

been taken before the wedding.

not your fault, of course; some folks just don't "photograph"

well, especially in formal situations.

um, i can only see one image. that one, a headshot against a dark

background, i find to be very, very good. it is obvious that the

subject is comfortable with you as the photographer, which i think is

one of the keys to good portraiture.

my only complaint is the presence of the "ghosts" in the upper

right quadrant, which i feel detract from the impact of the

"suspended" image.

as eeyore often is heard to say, "thanks for thinkin' of me",

tom. but to be brutally frank, i was hoping for something a little

less, um...subtle. :)

the only image that i enjoyed was the last one. the others are

mundane and cluttered; of course, just my opinion.

a fascinating image, jeff; but one can hardly identify it as a

"concert photo".

while concert photos are far from my favorite genre, i do think the

second image communicates very well. the trick is not just to get

the blur, but to get the timing of body shape right. so many concert

pictures are simply wooden.

yeah, that *is* a neat shot of the guy and his daughter. she is

indeed a striking young lady. oh, btw, christel, thanks for the kind

words concerning "old hippies".