chris_marolf1

Alexey Titarenko:

 

http://nailyaalexander.com/Artist/Titarenko.htm

The Footprint book for Bolivia is better than the Lonely Planet book for Bolivia, but I would get both. Forget about getting useful advice from fellow travelers. Realistically, they know as little about the country as you do. Why not ask the locals; after all, they live there?

 

The problem with relying on the Lonely Planet guide book or your fellow travellers too much is that you'll run into the same travelers in La Paz, in Uyuni, in Sucre, in Cochabamba, at Lake Titicaca, etc.

 

BTW, it is going to be freezing cold on the Altiplano this time of year!

I believe people photography is a direct reflection of our ability to relate to other human beings on a personal level. Those who are able to relate to strangers and to see what makes them interesting as humans are much better able to take interesting photographs.

 

I can spend hours looking at photographs of strangers; people who lived on other continents or in other decades, and those images never struck me as meaningless ...

Everything on my site, www.republicofpixels.com is shot with Provia 100F, as far as I recall. Contrast and speed is somewhat of a problem, but it's not that bad, once you learn to live with it. There are compromises to be made with all media ...

I think the key to successful people photography is figuring out how to relate to other people. If you are not comfortable with how you approached your subject, it will show in your photographs.

 

People photography is a very personal endeavor, and nobody here can tell you what is best for you. Don't waste time on photo.net, go out, experiment, and find out what you feel comfortable with. Start with environments you know well, try candids, try asking people. You'll learn much more from your own experience.

 

And Jeff is right - the choice of camera doesn't matter a bit, and you have all the lenses you need. Good luck!

<img src="http://www.republicofpixels.com/b&w/ChinaChesssmall.jpg">

<img src="http://www.republicofpixels.com/recent/WOODFACE.jpg">

<img src="http://www.republicofpixels.com/recent/pumpkinhands.jpg">

<img src="http://www.republicofpixels.com/recent/melon.jpg">

<img src="http://www.republicofpixels.com/recent/mask.jpg">

The issue with candid shots is not how your subjects feel, but how you feel about them. If you are comfortable taking someone's photo, your subject often won't worry either (assuming you are not violating any cultural rules).

 

Often times it's not as big a deal as you may think it is. I posted the photo in the "Americana" thread below. I was standing right next to the girl with the soft drink. She was taking a few sips, I was taking a few photos. And I'm sure none of the guys cared about either one of us. The whole incident took no longer than 15 seconds, and life moved on. Nobody noticed, nobody minded, no big deal. Isn't that what candid shots are all about?

The woman's face and her location makes this photograph memorable. Talk about an unusual location of a main compositional element ...

Emre,

 

Sorry I don't have anything from the side. Here's one that's the same angle, but a little more "in your face".

<p>

 

<img src="http://www.republicofpixels.com/recent/gun2.jpg">

<center>

<img src="http://www.republicofpixels.com/recent/gun.jpg">

<p>

</center>

Taken at a flea market in San Francisco.

I find one problem with baby pictures is poorly chosen backgrounds; busy bedsheets or distracting toys or other "stuff". You can take care of some of that by shooting wide open. I've found that a bounce flash is not too distracting while cleaning up shadows nicely.

 

More importantly, the same issues apply to baby pictures as to any other photograph of a person. What are you trying to say or reveal about that person? How does that person interact with others? What kinds of activities does it engage in? How does this person see the world? If you manage to communicate these feelings, your photos will be interesting.

 

Finally, for the sake of documentation I would get some photos that show the size of the child in perspective to something else. In hindsight, that always provides some interest.

Albert, I think your experiment is a worthy try, but I'm not sure it succeeds in your stated objective, i.e., making the leaves more interesting. The leaves and the people seem to distract each other as subject matters because there is no interaction or connection between the two. Look at Simon or Brad's photos; in both cases the human element may be secondary, but it complements the main subject.

Jan - I think this is good photojournalism, especially the shots of the striking workers at the meeting. I like those most because of the clearly visible human expressions and the intimate feeling they convey. It is apparent that you were able to gain their acceptance or trust (or else they didn't care about your presence, because they had other issues on their mind ...). Some of the other shots in the market or the church lack this sense of immediacy or connectedness, in my opinion. Out of curiosity, how are you using these images?

Roland - thanks for sharing these photos! They certainly succeed in conveying a sense of the problem, as you state in your introduction. I think the presentation of this body of work is critical, and a photo.net folder doesn't really do this work justice. Are you showing these images as part of an exhibit or a dedicated website as well? Is there accompanying text to explain the history and science, your mission, etc?

Does it matter? I've always wondered what is to be gained from these classifications. "Street photography" is supposed to be ... "Snap shots" are supposed to be ... As far as I'm concerned, a photo is good or bad; tells a story or doesn't. Classifications are academic and don't add anything to the understanding of the image. Or am I missing something?

<center>

<p>

<IMG SRC=http://www.republicofpixels.com/recent/cantorshadows.jpg>

<p>

</center>

A different kind of kiddie picture, for a change. Desaturated in PS and

worked to make the lighting harsher. Thanks for your comments!

I like the grainyness - it reminds me of a TV image, which works in this context.

I'll admit that I like the second version better, because I find that the composition and the movement of the figure create more interest. Not that there is anything wrong with the first one, but I feel we've all done something similar before - find an interesting floor pattern and liven it up with some people. The second photo goes beyond that formalistic approach. The thing I like about the first photo is the story it tells; circles or not.

The premise of your question is patently false: This forum has always been about sharing images, and it has never been a venue for people who couldn't get enough attention on Photo Critique.

 

What has set this forum apart from others is that people post here thoughtfully and respectfully. Also, as far as big egos are concerned, you might want to limit your observations to yourself and not make assumptions about the rest of us.

Thanks for your comments, Marc and Manu! Actually, the background in the original is not as light as in this file; I intentionally lightened the background in PS to better separate the pensative mood of the woman from the buzy background...

A jazz musician ...