enigmaphotography

Lighting was a pair of halogen work lights through two layers of very

thin white silk to soften it *a touch.* :-).

 

Framed prints and posters are available

href="http://www.cafepress.com/enigmaphoto/1085275">here

.

Posters and framed prints of this photo are available here.

Posters and prints of this photograph are available here.

Posters and prints of this shot are available here.

Posters & prints available here.

Hmm, I think those are both really valid comments for this shot at web resolution, but on the print, they make sense. The half moon is part of a broken glass pane, and the thin dark line is simply a different color and texture of wattle & dob :-).

Posters and framed prints are available

href="http://www.cafepress.com/enigmaphoto/1066492">here

.

@

I definitely like it! Great portrait :-).

@

@

@

Simply brilliant!

David, my son just observed that with necks this long, they sort of look like realistic rubber chickens :D, he he he.

Chicken riots, French flu...egad, methinks the ferigner in Taiwan is going nuts, but for some inexplicable reason, I pictured the numbers as ratings, as in a figure skating competition. Nekkid figure skating chickens. That set off gales of maniacal giggling, then I started reading the thread. I think I need a straightjacket by now.

 

Quite a plucky image, if I do say so ;-).

@

@

@

Jacob, thanks for the comment (they are rare, lol). I'm not surprised, the grain in the Delta 3200 gives it an older "feel." I tried something similar with D3200 in 35mm, and it just didn't work enlarged past 5x7 (the grain was distracting). Seems to work well in 645, though :-).

@

Framing. Yeah, that's a challenge. When I see a shot, I have about 2.5-3 seconds to raise camera and depress shutter before the subject turns tail and runs. I think I'll get better at it, definitely different than medium format in the studio where I shoot about 6 frames in an hours (10 if we're really hoppin'). In all honesty, its just a matter of me pre-framing the shots in my mind faster than I'm used to :-).

And James. Thanks. That's kind of where I'm going with these, and I do realize that they have the commercial value of dish soap. So be it. As I get older, I realize that one of my frustrations is how money seems to be the sole motivator of 90% of the people around me :-).

I've recieved fairly low ratings on other street shots posted to

photo.net. That's fine, ratings are meaningless. What it indicates to

me is that people have an alergic reaction to reality, which is also

fine. I also do fantasy photography in the studio.

 

I'm doing this series of street shots, probably over the next 4-8

months, without even the slightest intent of capturing beauty. The

world is a brutal place, and in many non-western cultures, that

brutality is worn with pride on the sleeve of the culture. For nearly

a decade, I avoided showing it, whether in photography or in print.

 

Then I realized that no one was shooting or showing it. Life is

unglamorous, glamor is something added later by a stylist or makeup

artist in cosort with a photographer in the studio.

 

Maybe I should call the entire project Life 101.

@

Yep, it really is. The blue building behind is a day care. The green

gate is the Fire Marshall approved egress route in case of fire or

earthquake. The gray structure to the right, and the green structure

to the left are illegal squatter's houses, and the wall built between

them is a result of a feud between neighbors. The Fire Marshall

doesn't care. The zoning department doesn't care about the illegal

houses. And what is left is a wall between them about 20cm taller than

the tallest pre-schooler.

But the thing is, giving this a 1 or a 2 on originality is just insane....I mean, if I were to not bathe for a month, take a photograph of my big toe (with toejam) and post it, THAT would justify a 1 or a 2. In all honesty, I think I'd give this a 4 on originality (its average, for my taste...I think its a shot that a lot of people would have done when presented with the same scene)....aesthetically, it doesn't really float my boat...I'd MUCH rather see it in color....but then again, I didn't SHOOT it, and it isn't MY shot, lol....so I'd probably give it a 5 on aesthetics (because I *can* see how some people might be aesthetically enamored with it, its just that I'm not).

 

I agree with the cropping/choice of placement of the horizon...Ida maybe mighta (if I would have been there, which I wasn't and have NO idea what's out of frame) gone with a 1/3 sky, 2/3 ground? Maybe? That would put the cross in the central third, I might have even put the cross RIGHT on the horizontal left 1/3 line?? But then that shot would be a compositional cliche, and I'd still give my own shot (if Ida shot it) a 4 on originality. Really really hard to get originality in landscapes I think, they've already been done.

 

I might have gone a little higher on the contrast, for more overall density, but that might cause some problems for the peak behind the cross (dunno)...

 

AND that brings me to the question of why the ratings matter anyway (I do like the shot, by the way, just not completely, slackjawed floored by it). I get an occasional 2 on a shot (and in all honesty, its often on nudes, and I've finaly figured out that some people must be rating nudes religiously, lol)...I also get people who say things like "bad skin tones, too yellow" on a color photo of an Asian woman....ermmm....well....I actually held the model's arm up to the monitor and guess what....it was perfect...and that guy gave me a 2 on aesthetics (with a genreous 3 on originality, he he). I actually got a laugh outta that one.

 

Don't worry about the ratings, pay attention to the critiques, but don't be afraid to even chuck THOSE out with the bathwater (errr, especially long rambling ones like mine).

 

My real point is that this is NOT a bad picture, its VERY different than what I would have shot...there are aspects of it that for *my* taste aren't quite poifect, but that difference in how people shoot the same subject is one of the fun things about life ;-).