will_perlis

"A fancy commercial or sports photo could be great in colour, but in my eyes, b&w has much powerful expression abilities."

It used to be that B&W as the only choice available. Since then tho', Hollywood and advertising agencies (now becoming one and the same) have learned to do color so well that B&W looks "realer" than color in many instances, IMO.

(Or perhaps is just early conditioning. When I see the much more rare WW2 combat still photos and movie footage in color it looks faked too. I'm used to seeing the real world depicted in B&W.)

"Also, the caption is indeed derogatory. This is just common sense.... a better caption (one suggestion: 'Dressing Up for a Flea-market Morning'"

Right. Marc should also have Photoshopped in a Rolls and driver waiting for her in the background, and smoothed out some wrinkles.

"Would you like this to be a photo of your mother?"

Yes, since mine is no longer up to cruising flea markets. I don't get "diminished" from this shot. She knows what she wants and is looking for it.

"...while not questioning the motives of any specific person in this thread-..."

Why care about motives at all, since they're ultimately unknowable and undoubtedly more complex than simple? Either the idea being put forward stands or it doesn't.

I really don't care if a surgeon is "motivated" by repressed sadism or a sincere desire to heal as long as the cutting and sewing is done with skill, and I like trains to run on time even tho' Mussolini liked the concept before me.

Michele,

Thanks for the comment. This one was pure good (and bad) luck. By the time I drove around the block again to get the shot he had moved his hand in front of his face. IMO, it was still too good to pass up.

And what would that easily discouraged person do when faced with a real live superb yet un-photoshopped image? Would he then be entitled to take the .357 way out? There are such images out there last I looked.

And to continue being contrary, I'd suspect someone learning PS instead of any basics will hit on some sad truths quite quickly after spending a few days trying to salvage pictures that would have turned out just fine with just a little thought combined with some knowledge of those basics.

And finally, if they're turning out PS masterpieces for their relative's enjoyment, why not? My grandmother had paint-by-number pictures hanging on the walls for years after my kids did them. The art world and art apparently survived.

"...i have a masters degree in mechanical engineering. i know all about geometric perspectives..."

The first thing you need to do is start a suit against the granting institution for fraud.

The second is to take your camera out, put it on a tripod, and have someone walk to and from the camera in front of some fixed objects while you note changes in proportions.

Either that, or take a full figure shot of Elvis and paste him on top of the standard picture of Mt. Fuji. Then try to tell yourself you just moved him to a more interesting location but didn't change any of the proportions.

Marc,

NO, IT DOES NOT! and it's easy enough to prove that to yourself with just a tiny bit of effort if you have a zoom or at least two primes of different focal length available. Try it, don't argue about it from the back of Plato's cave.

While we're at it, how about putting in some happy kids in a troika? Or Clifford, for a touch of color?

In the USA we're not at all swamped with images like this one. It's too dark and chilly for our advertisers to consider.

Our winter cliches run towards scenes of warmth and good cheer with all that cold and dark held at bay somehow, even if that feat is managed with a Sears Die-Hard auto battery.

Thanks for the wording. Yes, I was instantly reminded of some WW2 and Korean War photos, of a nasty hike I once made back from high-school in New York, and of a particular ice-storm in Alabama.

It's a very evocative picture.

Sure. I like details as much as any techie does. What I have reservations about is the position that there's an ethical or moral duty to alleviate any angst induced by information deprivation when it comes to seeing a picture hanging on the wall alongside a one-word title.

Had this been on the front page of the New York Time accompanying a news story about executions in Frodoland or wherever, I could understand the fuss.

Certainly not in this case. We are, I think, entitled to assume with 100% certainty that someone holding forth in Hyde Park is looking for attention. However, no one seeking it gets to dictate the tone of that attention however much Hollywood types and their image wranglers may try.

I agree about the down & outs being ignored as the default. To get more than the attention needed to step over them without tripping they have to be doing something besides surviving to engage an audience.

"Thus, the characters--though built with the raw materials provided by the actual faces and bodies of actual people--presented in this wonderful photograph have no intentions, and no lives outside of the moment presented."

Then does any photograph of people in any situation have any meaning beyond the idiosyncratic thoughts and emotions sparked at the instant of viewing it?

What I'm not apprehending is the utility of the concept of postulating no past and no future.

but context is at least somewhat important in this one. That it's from Hyde Park, London, UK provides and allows a different set of possible interpretations than would be reasonable if it had been shot in Hyde Park, Alabama, USA in 1975.

In any event, my thanks to Tony, Sheri, et al., for a fascinating picture and subsequent discussion.

"The forward left hand position cradling, or clutching the barrel grip, in addition to supporting the weight, is meant to counteract the reflex anticipation of the recoil, is it not?"

Not in my experience, and I've got a fair amount with things that go bang. If you can anticipate the moment of recoil you're not squeezing the trigger correctly, and if you seriously tighten up your grip with either hand well in advance you'll create muscle tremors.

In any event, recoil, as you said, isn't an issue. What I question is the use of the thumb as the main weight-supporting unit if you're talking about a reasonably sized lens like the Canon 70-200 or 100-400 if you're waiting for just the right expression or gesture on the part of a politicritter.

Try each style for a while with a big lens. Perhaps your thumb is as strong as my wrist, in which case the issue is moot.

And I have no objection to "argumentative". I could always send email to myself if I was looking for agreement. IMX, that gets boring in a hurry.

"I observed that gentlemen and ladies of the press commonly--and especially when using an unsupported telephoto lens--will hook the thumb of the left hand underneath the lens, with the palm open as if away from their face."

You mean with the weight of a heavy telephoto supported mostly by the thumb? That's hardly the way to hold one steady for low light shooting.

The techiques needed have been evolved and proven over centuries in another field; check out any informed discussion of how to hold a rifle steady while standing.

Dennis,

Take a careful look at someone walking. Each foot is stationary for a moment even while the body continues forward.

"The lens and filter, and other darkroom techniques, can only block certain wavelengths of light, or alter those wavelengths slightly in the production of the final image. Neither the lens, nor the filter, nor the dodging or burning, can add elements that did not exist in the original scene."

Tell that to the Soviets and all the others, be they artists, social commentators like Eugene Smith, or political machinators who've added or subtracted important elements to plain old film and prints.

Your basic assertion just isn't true.

As for this particular work, I'd suspect the Oslo FD would know if they dealt with a fire there. They seem to think they did.

"Does anyone really believe this happy couple would be calmly blowing out birthday candles as a 4 alarm fire rages outside?"

That's not an indicator of fakery. You can see that sort of behaviour in any large city.

How about some radical surgery?