stanley_rogouski

...

It says in the details that this was taken with the 18-55mm lens. To me this looks as if it was taken with something longer than 55mm.

...

I just finished reading a book about the American occupation of Vietnam, so the first thing I thought of when I looked at this photo (with the cantilever bridge and the old Soviet tank) was the Long-Bien bridge in Hanoi (which the US air force bombed repeatedly).

 

Then I realized it's the wreckage of a totally different war.

 

I didn't notice the dog so much as I noticed the damage to the tank, bad enough to ram a piece of steel down into the path of the treads, but not bad enough, or so it looks, to kill anybody inside.

 

So I came away wondering who knocked the tank out and what "Bosh" is referring to.

It almost looks like the typical jail in the United States, except for the fact that it's ramned right up against a building that's probably older than the United States.

But I still like the full version better.

The original is far superior to the crop.

 

With the original photograph, it looks as if the man is part of the tableau. He's walking along with the rest of them, only he seems out of place.

 

With the crop, it's not quite so clear.

This is extremely disturbing.

Was this during the RNC? I don't usually see police armed with semi-automatics up there.

It's not Union Square. I've seen a number of photograps of this exhibit so I have quite a bit to compare it to.

 

It's a nice, clean shot. My only suggestion would have been to find some way to convey a sense of there being 1000 others. Maybe you could have moved them a bit to the right. On the whole, however, a pretty good composition.

And use of the 28mm end of the D70 kit lens.

Very good image of alienation.

This has a quality about it that makes me think of The Matrix.

My first impression of the bright background was that the photo was taken on 9/11 and that it was dust. But then I noticed the people smiling and the way the cop with the video camera was so clean and realized it wasn't.

The blobs are distracting but they also give you a sense of the crowd and the energy of the crowd. The little thumbs up from Bush is good. It definitely indicates some kind of moment captured. Was this when he accepted the nomination?

How far away were you? I'm assuming that the good spots to take photos from were difficult to get. I saw the single photo of Bush on your site. What struck me about it is that he seems older than I imagine him as being.

I guess the logical inference you can draw from the guy who expected "hick pics" is that you were somehow successful at putting Bush in a positive light, that the photo makes all four of them look good. Perhaps the framing? But I don't know. I've seen Cheney's wife on TV and she looks much better than she does in this photograph. I had no idea she was that, hmm, rotund.

You look as though you're on 8th and 34th. How did you even get a camera out that close to the garden without getting tackled by secret servicemen and sent to lockup?

 

Anyway, I think you solved the problem of how to capture the level of security in NYC during the convention. Look up at the helicopters and the blimp (since taking photos of the barricades around the garden was pretty much out of the question if you wanted to keep your camera).

 

7/7. A perfectly orginal shot and I've seen several thousand of the convention week by now.

He has a number of images like this in "America in Passing."

 

Perfect shot.

Quite a good photograph. Good sense of lighting. Good composition.

 

But you actually let your politics weaken the impact of the photo with the caption.

 

If you had said "The American Solution" it would have worked. "Federal" and "45 auto" signify "American" and not "Palestinian" or "Israeli."

 

You'd need bullets with Hebrew or Arabic lettering if you want the caption to work.

 

Of course "federal" signifies "federation". "Federal" signifies the "federation" of all of the American states. So it's possible that the "solution" is a "federation" or a "federal" republic of the Israelis and Palestinians (similar to Switzerland) but somehow I don't think this is what you had in mind :)

They have a pretty good exhibit of Prospect Park photos.

http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/FramerT_MAG.aspx?Stat=Features_DocThumb&V=CDocT&E=2K7O3RJ9KQU9&DT=ALB

"Vintage" for this bridge means Travolta.

 

TONY. YOU NEVER CALLED ME!!!

How did you find a tree near Astor Place? Just for that it gets a high mark for originality.

This almost looks like something that could have been done by Ansel Adams or Edward Weston.

 

But I agree that it's a bit underexposed.

 

Anger is good BTW. If you're not pissed off you're not paying attention :)

This has a "painterly" look about it. I don't mean that as a judgement on the quality of the photo but that it kind of looks like something taken in the early 20th century when people used to smear vasoline on their lenses and try for a "soft focus" look.

 

At first glance, I thought it was the 42nd Street library from 5th and about 42nd Street. But I guess you're on the south side of the Museum?

 

As far as the quality goes, it's a pretty good start. As imposing as that building is, it's very difficult to get an original angle on it. You tend to be overwhelmed by the sheer size of it but when you bring home a photograph, nothing really works.

I don't know if it's a good photograph technically or can be printed effectively but I've been to Coney Island a few times and havn't really visualized it from this perspective so it's definitely original. It's effective because you create the image of the street lights leading up to the parachute jump.

What was the logic behind the very tight crop?

 

I think it works and puts the emphasis on her eyes and on the jewels but I wonder if you cropped it with a mind to putting it on the web as opposed to printing it.

 

If you printed it at 8 x10 or larger without the tight crop, I don't think the focus would be taken off her eyes and the jewels.