ruslan

They are NOT cliches, they are subjects. Find out what cliche really means. I also feel bored to stay on this site which seems to become more and more toxic. I feel frustated to see how pretentious idiots (with pretentious nicknames) out of the photo.net stuff like illiterate posts and comments in this thread. So I say goodbye to the forum for good! I have a lot to do today!

Win a contest on Viewbug or make your work be published in National Geographic. You have not ever seen the works I told about. I do not shoot tits, nor asses, not penises, etc. I do a useful curator's work and teach. I wonder why you write here your idiotic assumptions and I am shocked by your unability of using Google to find what I really do, I have several people among my friends whose works were published in Italian Vogue. Their opinion has much more credit to me.

That is not nonsence, because there are other threads online about overused and dated cliches (earthy cast, feet with touristic BG, on and so on). And they were not started by me - they were started by different authors. If you don't see that thousands of people copycat each other this is your problem.

You seem not to understand what a cliche really is. It is not a sunset, not a sunrise, not a portrait. I do not shoot cliches, and overused ones - at all.

I don't want to boast but if they chose one of my work to print in their book, if I have been 4 times a finalist on a extremely, extremely competitive Viewbug (3 are portrait category, 1 is still life), during 16 months of my presence there, I never paid them for a pro membership, I may have the right for my opinion on photography. :)

I have posted about 30 or more cheap-and dirty works in no-words forum. You must have seen them. But... My best ones are not here. Are you on Viewbug? You may find me there.

I am now reading a brick-lke 800-pages book about R. Avedon's work in France and charming Audrey Hepburn. I like, I am astonished by Irving Penn and Brassai, Garry Winogrand, Lillian Bassman and Peter Lindbergh. That was real art. Those foot/boot "trends" from 2014 make me cringe...

The sites offer me those photos because they think I must like them. I wonder why photographers repeat that subject.

Keep it in a dry, dustless place. Never change lenses at a venue. No paranoia. I only shoot town streets and fashion. I never wear caps on lenses but I wear UV protective filters from unboxing any lens. I only have tissues and a blower. My lenses are in virgin, pure and untouched condition.

Scrolling through the photosites, works I see how the boards/admins promote and hype photos like this Or this I am fed up with that tasteless and uninspired, even boring 2014 cliches. Where is the real thing? Real art? Why do people copycat that feet/boots subject on and on? Some of them add VW Campervans and a fire! All the same! Enough of cloning!

Hmmm... Google told me nothing but a single FB link with drunken party with wet t-shirts. This is not a serious photo contest. I also base my opinion on what I see in books and I am not a novice. I was a finalist on Viewbug site. And I was published in National Geographic (though none of my works was street genre, and the link was given to Paul Ron here 13 months ago by his request). "Megapixels may help" - this was my meassage. Most ppl here did not understand the message. I love the quality whatever and wherever it be (sound, clothing and fabrics, steel finishing, etc). I hate second-rate consumer products, strong over and under exposing, watercolor & strong sharpening effect and digital artifacts, narrow DR).... The content and character come first, then go huge Mp count if the creator want to crop and exhibit his works in galleries. Regarding bad tech quality of smarphones - I gave a link above which was made by wizards of tech team on viewbug at ISO 100 (!). The shot has serious issues, artifacts and may be named technical trash (compared to new APS-C cameras let alone FF ones). Everyone may use what he/she wants! So.....smartphones are enough for amateurs but they will not be enough in some places (Chicago in twilight, overcast) the streets are dark. Their quality is not always good for large prints. Some users are trying to boost and embellish smarphone-made shots and it is often seen online... Yikes! Let's stop debating. I think I am telling to a concrete wall.

[uSER=10955656]@Ludmilla[/uSER] , what photobooks/albums on street photography do you have? Did you attend any workshops? Did you have any serious mentoring (online and offline)? Do you have publications? Your most beloved maitres of the genre? How did you fare in international contests (if participated)? Why do you profess purist's approach?

Read book about masters of street photography, if you hate street photography (as you once noticed), don't give advice on it at all. Real street photographer should not be afraid of shooting children or people, if you could not take a photo (being afraid of aggression) you would not be able to show anything but stone sculptures in the yard. Read about Brassai and how and where he could take his photos. This it what you missed in my previous post. ("Don't shoot children!!!" - This is utter bull sh*t! ) But one must be cautious with low sratum people (riff-raff, as Rodney Smith called them). Really, this is where one should be careful. There is a genre close to street, a street genre portrait. I won't show it here because PN does not permit to delete posts, and I don't want it to hang here forever. My initial post was that new tech can help break paradigms and purust's principles not to crop heavily. When all is done well and correctly, [uSER=10955656]@Ludmilla[/uSER] , nobody will know wth what gear and FL it was taken, everyone will be looking at the subject. And, BTW 24-35 mm paradigm is not so correct. Fred Herzog used longer FLs. Agreed, who disputed this?

Just right. I love reflections they make eyes more "wet", it creates some impact. Skin tones are good too.

1. Color depth 2. Details 3. Gradations betweeb dark and white 4. Organic bokeh (expensive lenses with relatively small count of elements can do). 5. 3D pop, leaded glass, etc (Yannick Khong knows) 6. Dynamic range Shall I continue? If someone has ear for music he/she clearly detects the difference between 30-dollar speaker/128 Kbit music and 5000-dollar speaker/loseless (FLAC) music. If someone has taste for tech side of photography of he/she is tetrachromat (trichromat)...... oh.... I gave the link of the sample. I do say clearly obvious things.

Lower end photography is being taken over by cellphones. Higher end photography requires better lenses that are invariably heavy. the "weight and size savings" of mirrorless was a temporary perk. Though Zeiss 55/1.8 and Loxia 50/2 are exceptions. Fine but small.

There is still another problem - a smartphone delivers a cheaply-looking trash, enough for online representation, so users have to embellish their works by faux-keh, HDR, etc. etc, making their shots looking garish and even more cheaply-looking. Future cameras will utilize artificial intellligence to recogniize women, kids, athletes performing tricks in the photos, etc. due to data bases. But sensor development will slow down in the nearestt future. As I noted in another post Lumix LX-3 sensor was very good though narrow DR - 13 years ago. Maybe there will be revolution and newer types of senser will appear.

Smartphones might be OK-ish in some situations but.... see those bokeh artifacts on the borders (link below)? And this is the latest "Apple Phone" (tested by dpreview). The colors are dull and "muddy" due to tiny pixels and bad color depth. The bolts and paint aren't reproduced in fine details. Link Nick I agree, eye recognition is not always perfect, but can be turned off. EOS 5DSR (paired with newest 35/1.4 L ii) is not bad either.

Before thinking about cash, it would be great if you built your amazing portfolio. It sells itlesf. Connections and reputation do sell the photographer too. Not his gear. Not a modern, latest toy in a dimwit's hands!

Not that amazing. There are lots of artifacts with those faux bokeh, watercolor paint colors, bad ugly details, noise, etc. I am actively using viewbug website (I am a curator there and several times a finalist of contests) as well as 500px website. Guess what? I see NO smarphones on the wall of fame section, in editor's choice section, etc. EXIFs are open, they can be checked! NO smartphones. I have never seen one. Top-end pros are selling themselves are using 30000-dollar digital Hasselblads (rare), many are using Nikon D850, D810, a lot of Sonys. Emin Kuliev (a top NY wedding photographer) uses a Sony. Lindberg used Nikon D810. Client is looking at your works and your reputation. Word-of-mouth matters too.

This is a DSLR in your link, some of them are controlled through a smartphone especially for videowork as well as MILC are controlled that way too. In the region/country where I live I do not know any client who order a photographer with a smartphone as a tool. The link shows photographers in my neck of the woods. Many of them have EXIF of their works. No smartphones there. All (no, 90% of them) are using full frame DSLR cameras. Time after time I visit dpreview website to see how good the latest smartphones are. Shocking thing to you, they are much, much worse than today's entry-level DSLR or MILC cameras. They are on par... say, best Lumix point and shooters made in 2006, still Lumixes with Leica f 2.0 zooms were still better than today's Iphones. Sad truth? Yes. You can check it out for yourself (there is a lot of data of older cameras available online). SP are hyped.

What a 19th century technology! I have Reebok warm and tough trainers made of some kind of nylon or alike fabric, with insulators - I can stand in water wearing them, and they do not leak, no waxing! I have 1995 Vanguard Havana bag, looks like new, no waxing! The negative thing about it that the bag does not have waterproof/dustproof zippers of the upper cap but I can put it on the wet snow - no leaks. P.S. Please, do not say that I am hyping Reebok here or spam or looking for debate over adidas fans, dimwits of all sorts! :mad:

BTW, Fred Herzog used longer FL a lot.

I understand your opinion, it translates some kind of purist's approach. But everything evolves. As for lens choice, I find 50 mm to be ideal for the place where I live (provinvcial town with really wide streets), 24-28 is good for more crowded locations or narrow medieval streets, medinas, etc. I find long focus is also usable for street as it isolates the subject. I use 40 mm on APS sensor ( 60 mm equiv) now and often find it "too wide". With 24 mm I have to stick to my subject so close that he/she would be able to hear the click of the shutter even through the noise of the street.

You will be less endangered, but you will never be another Robert Doisneau or Brassai. So back to equipment, with huge resolution you don't need to single out anybody but are able to have a shot of individual. Simply put, you shoot the whole beach or a grandstand (off your belly level using its tiltable screen) to get a personal shot or small group shot of extremely high quality (by cropping) later. Out of my practice I elaborated some technique to be invisible. Or extremely friendly if I want to shoot openly. Need no advice here. As for children (and three exclamation marks) I never show interest in them, but goofing around teens or doing stunts on their wheels, teenagers might be enteresting subjects to shoot.