katmaidog

<p>Here's what happened. <br /><br />There is a talented Street Photographer based in NYC by the name of Brandon Stanton, who has a FB page called Humans of New York. I am a big fan of Street Photography, and so I have been following him for about a year or so. With good result. He runs the kind of page that inspires one when his updates show up, and he makes me glad to be on Facebook.<br /> <br /> So...not long ago, Donna Karan of New York (DKNY) approached him with the idea of using some of his very cool, edgy and human photos as advertising. <br /> <br /> Here, let Brandon tell this part...<br /> <br /> "My name is Brandon Stanton, and I am a street photographer in New York City. Several months ago, I was approached by a representative of DKNY who asked to purchase 300 of my photos to hang in their store windows "around the world." They offered me $15,000. A friend in the industry told me that $50 per photo was not nearly enough to receive from a company with hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue. So I asked for more money. They said "no."<br /> <br /> Yesterday, a fan sent me a photo from a DKNY store in Bangkok. The window was full of my photos. These photos were used without my knowledge, and without compensation.<br /> <br /> In lieu of other recourse, I publicly asked DKNY to make a $100,000 donation to the Bedford-Stuyvesant YMCA in my name, so that deserving kids in my neighborhood could go to summer camp. <br /> <br /> They ended up donating $25,000.<br /> <br /> That was nice, but I'd like see if we can do better and raise the remaining $75,000 for the Bedford-Stuyvesant YMCA.<br /> <br /> That would send over 300 kids to summer camp for two weeks. Can you imagine the impact that would have? In some neighborhoods, the YMCA plays a critical role of stability and community. My neighborhood is one of those neighborhoods. <br /> <br /> $100,000 = OVER 300 KIDS<br /> LET'S SEND EVERYONE TO SUMMER CAMP!"<br /> <br /> So he set up an indiegogo page, hoping to make up the rest of the $100,000 (75-Grand that DKNY "couldn't come up with", despite their millions in assets). He asked for people to donate what they could to send these kinds to summer day camp. No minimum, no pressure, even a couple bucks would help.<br /> <br /> And guess what.<br /> <br /> People came out of the woodwork, and tonight, 8 hours short of the deadline, the project topped not just the $75,000 that would make up the rest of the 100-Grand that DKNY "couldn't afford", but donations from the little people, actually topped the 100-Grand. All by themselves.<br /> <br /> 300 hundred inner city kids are gonna be able to go to YMCA Summer Day Camp this year because of regular people who chipped in a buck here and a tenner there and a fiver here.<br /> <br /> Way to go, People of Earth.<br /> <br /> <br /><br />(the indiegogo link, <br>

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/346367/<br /><br />and no this is not spam, the project is closed)<br /></p>

<p>Some of my stuff...<br>

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=674200</p>

<p>I agree with Leslie. I think that all of them are good photos (you've got a good idea for composition). but only ther first one would really count as "Street" in my opionion.</p>

<p>In the rest of the photos the people are so far away that the photos could more accurately be classified as "Landscape"</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/8586682-md.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Barcelona, Spain</p>

<p>James, the photo of the Norwegian worker is entirely unposed. He was having a cigarette break when I spotted him, standing just as he is in the photo. I couldn't get away with talking his picture without him seeing me, so i raised my camera and eyebrows, he nodded "ok", and i got the shot.</p>

<p>I tried it in B&W, but I missed the sublte warmth of the fresh conmcrete and so left it in color.</p>

<p>Thanks for the compliment regarding the 1st shot.</p>

<p>Sometimes I get the shot without them seing me.<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/10285075-md.jpg" alt="" width="679" height="504" /><br>

other times I get spotted.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/8660950-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="503" /></p>

<p>Either way i don't say anything.</p>

<p>Unless I really really want the shot and they've already seen me and I can't get it without sasking them. So i do. usually they let me. but even then, since some of those shots came from countries where i don't spoeak the language, the "words" consisted of me holding up ,my camera with eyerows raised in silent "Ok?" And like as not they'll nod (also silently) and let me shoot the picture. This one was in Norway...</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6319964-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="515" /></p>

<p>If people are committing crimes (drug sales, prostitution, etc) in front of you, they will not want you to take their photos. Don't even try.</p>

<p>I shoot a lot of street, and some of the things I do to keep the confrontations down are:<br>

A. Use the viewfinder, not the LCD if you're shooting digital. Having the camera up in front of your face will give you a perceived wall of protection, and that perception will give you the courage to shoot. I know that instinctively it seems safer to use the LCD, where you don't have to have the camera in the obvious shooting position, but after four years of it I am convinced that getting the camera up between you and your subject will help you shoot.</p>

<p>B. If you think that you've just taken the photo of someone who will object (not criminals. they won't fall for this. see above), just keep shooting behind them as they walk past. This would be too expensive with film, but with digital it's no big deal to fire off three or four frames as someone you've just captured walks by in order to throw them off. I did that in the photo below (the older woman had stopped smiling after i shot the frame)...<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/8660950-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="503" /></p>

<p>C. Don't worry if you get spotted. Keep shooting anyway (see B. above) and keep in mind that sometimes the more powerful Street has someone breaking the 4th wall and looking right at you.<br>

I like the one below for that very reason...</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/7653478-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="510" /></p>

<p>D. I know that Street is technically supposed to be taken on the sly, but once in awhile I see someone and really want their photo but there's no way i can sneak it. So i ask, and some of my favorites have been these slightly "posed" Street. Like so...</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/8143698-md.jpg" alt="" width="679" height="603" /></p>

<p>E. Have fun. Shooting Street will make you aware of your relationship to the rest of humanity. We are indeed a very large family.</p>

Thanks, folks. I have photoshop. I guess what I should have said is that what i am really lookiing for on my PC (windows xp) is an image browser that will let me make some minor adjustments (cropping etc).

I hate picassa for a number of reasons, one being that rotations etc made in picassa do not actually affect the file, plus Picassa's need to have everything copied into the "my pictures" folder instead of reading images wherwe they are on disc results in a lot of duplication of said images and trememdous waste and loss of disc space.

Can anyone recommend a decent program for viewing and making small adjustments

to photos and other image files?

I have Picassa, but am REALLY unhapy with it for too many reasons to list here.

It doesn't have to be free, although cheap is certainly better than expensive.

thanks in advance,

Matt

Rob Bernhard, I'd thank you for the reply, but you've continually taken this debate into the "Getting Personal" department ("You clearly are in need of some help" "illogical, erroneous, and downright silly" etc etc) and this was never about me as a person so I'm gonna have to give you a tip of the hat and bow out.

As for all of the other PN Memebers who have participated in this debate, i thank you for taking the time to help me see things from a different perspective. MOST of you managed to keep it out of the personal realm and I thank you for that.

I'm gonna have to leave it at this however, since this is turning into one of those unsolvable debates that run in infinite circles among relative strangers on the internet and unfortunately the time I have available to invest in this sort of discussion is finite and in fact used up for the time being.

Again thanks.

NO..Robert M. JOHNSON...what in hell are you trying to say by posting those photos?

elaborate, man, You must have had something in mind to have put all three of those up?

I am listening.

Tim Holte, I have posted some pure shit on PN before. I know this because I got NO ratings. And yet, I've NEVER gotten ratings like this.

ever.

Why?

Politics.

To get six 3/3's in less that five hours is a political statement, no matter what you think.

To Daniel Lee Taylor...

"3/3 is not a "shit" photo." -snip- "To me 1/1 or 2/2 would be "shit".--DLT<p>

Daniel, it's not one 3/3 it's five. <p>

And yes, if we actually <i>GOT</i> 1/1 or 2/2 ratings I would agree with you, but nobody "gets" lower than 3/3's/ <p>

PN only lets the recipient get as low as a 3 in either category.<p>

so really, those five 3/3's might have been five 1/1's.

And for the record I think it was lefties who reacted to the image of Liberty on 9/11 and rated so low.

Thanks to everyone who responded.<p>

Lemme start with you, Rob Bernhard, since you went first. (I only use the formality of your whole name to differentiate between you and the Robert M Johnson who is making some kind of statement--I'm not sure what--with all of the photos posted on the bottom of this thread)<p>

"I've never had a photo get slammed this hard (5 3/3's and 2 4/4's)." Me<p>

"Two 4's is a /slam/ ? ? On a scale from 1 to 7? You must be joking." Rob<p>

Oh come on, man. You know that getting five 3's is getting slammed or else you would have mentioned them instead of the two fours when you denied that I got slammed. You don't win a debate by just leaving out the data that proves the point of the guy you're debating with. And for five of seven ratings to be 3/3's and the other two to be 4/4's <i>is</i> to me a slam.<p>

Please find me another photo similarly rated, and see how they compare.<p>

"I've gotten used to the 3/3's and they don't even bother me anymore." Me>><p>

"Clearly this is a lie."<p>

I don't tell lies and i don't really appreciate being accused of it, but I'm not going to take your accusation personally. I will tell you that I get at least a 3/3 or a couple of 3/3's on 99% of my submissions and it hasn't ever made me complain or whine that i am getting unfairly treated.<p>

To show you what I am talking about, below is copy/pasted off my Community Member Page/Posting History.<p>

EDIT: That didn't work with the html, so let me just say that out of 211 submissions I have gotten 286 3's for originality and 302 3's for aesthetics. My overall score is 4.37 for aesthetics and 4.40 for originality, so you can see that i am not bothered by the 3/3's or I'd have stopped submitting my work long ago, and i am not put off by the low scores. That's not what this is about.

<p>

So Rob...I don't lie.<p>

"I thought it was a good picture." Me<p>

"Why would you make it available for critique if you didn't want to see what other people thought?" Rob.<p>

I didn't say that i didn't want to know what other people thought. I said that I believe (and still do) that at least some of the ratings i got were based on people's reaction to seeing a photo of an American Icon up on PN on the anniversary of the WTC attacks rather than the merits of the photo itself. I'll never know, but I sincerely believe that if I had put this up a couple of weeks ago I would have collected my "normal" two 3/3's, a couple 4/4's maybe a 4/3 or two and then one lonely little 5/4.

<p>

I believe that the ratings i did get were at least partially motivated by political belief, and I believe that it was done by people who sit on the left side of the aisle reacting to what they saw as a cheap grab for ratings from "Patriotic" Americans who would react to the image on this day with high ratings. <p>

And so Rob, I disagree with your statement that...<p>

"The problem is that you are emotionally invested in your photo and that you expect people rating your photo to be as emotionally invested as you.

But no one is."<p>

and in fact that is my complaint; That people rated it based on emotions related to the day and what they thought I was trying to say by posting it today rather than any aesthetic or technical statement made by the picture itself.<p>

In other words i think it was the POSTING of the picture on this day that got rated rather than the picture itself.<p>

As for the rest of the PN Members kind enough to take the time to address this with/for me, i do know that there are some technical shortcomings of the photo if you want to look at it as a straight depiction of the Statue of liberty, but some of the things that made it stand out for me are:<p>

The light. The form rather than detail. The haze. As William mentioned, NYC is a hazy place, especially out there on the Hudson in the middle of the day, and I thought that it lent just the right feel with the waves reflecting the light in the same tone as the uplifted cranes, which in turn echo Liberty's arm.<p>

It feels like a big part of America is captured in that "snap" (I guess all of my shots are snaps really, ans i don't take the time to set any of them up), just as i think that a big part of England is captured in this shot here (although I will admit i like this one better), which still pulled in the eternal 3/3...<p>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/5546485-lg.jpg"/><p>

Mike Dixon...again, i don't lie, so I assure you that you can take my assurances that i was not pandering at face value.<p>

I am an American citizen and on this day i felt that it was appropriate to put up a photo of a symbol of our freedom that I find to be inspiring.<p>

I didn't do it for a ratings drive at all, but I have to admit that I am surprised at the negative reaction.<p>

Fred (Hiya, bud)..I never said that I was "not being sentimental." Please read my post again if that's what you got out of it. I DID put the photo up for emotional reason and I said so.<p>

Like so..."Even so, on this day I thought I'd put up something that means something to me about what today means.<p>

But I also said this..."I wasn't trying to wave the flag, or ring in a bunch of high ratings based on emotion and it wasn't as if I pulled the photo out of a box to run it by everyone on this day." <p>

and that's what i am talking about when I say that i think people reacted to the submission as if i had.<p>

and finally Robert M Jonson...what the hell are you trying to say?

I'm pretty left wing. Anyone that knows me in person knows that. I like the

apolitical nature of PN however, and it's one of the reasons I like being a

member.<p>

Even so, on this day I thought I'd put up something that means something to me

about what today means.<p>

So I put <a

href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=00MXvT&photo_id=6055371&photo_sel_index=0">this</a>

up (taken this past May when my wife and I went to NYC).

<p>

I wasn't trying to wave the flag, or ring in a bunch of high ratings based on

emotion and it wasn't as if I pulled the photo out of a box to run it by

everyone on this day. I'd had the photo uploaded to my PN account ever since i

went through the disc it was on last spring. It just seemed like a good day to

put it up. I already thought it was a decent photo or I'd never have had it in

my folder in the first place.

<p>

I've gotten used to the 3/3's and they don't even bother me anymore, and I've

gotten over that initial feeling of discouragement I used to get when a photo I

really liked came in with an average just barely scraping above 4/4, and

sometimes not even that. I'm geting better at deciding what I think is a decent

photo and I have gotten better at dealing with criticism.<p>

Even so...I mean jeez. I'd like to think it was because it was a shit picture,

but to my eye it doesn't look any worse than anything else I have posted and

I've never had a photo get slammed this hard (5 3/3's and 2 4/4's). A bit of me

can't help but think that it's in no small part due to the fact that some or all

of those who rated it were trying to tell me that they thought I was pandering

to cheap sentimentality. <p>

I assure you I was not. <p>

I thought it was a good picture.<p>

I thought that it said something about my country, and especially about my

country on this day.<p>

I live and learn.

Thank you Michael (and Walter).

I appreciate you putting an answer (and a tip) to this vexing puzzle.

What the hell?

Three days ago I posted a photo to the "Landscape" genre...

Since posting it I have received a fairly respectable 13 ratings of 5.45 Aesthetics and 5.27 originality.

I'm very happy about that.

That's pretty good in my book, and even a Top Photo as far as I know so I bopped on over to see if I'm there.

Nope.

In the past three days there are lots of landscapes, all the way down to 7 ratings for a 4.75 and 4.83, but mine is nowhere to be found.

what gives, man?

Yeah, I live in the East End of London (Yankee transplant since 2004) and the place fascinates me.

<p>

I AM, as you suggested, following through and continuing the project I started with that video (the ambient sounds of East London).

<p>

Unfortunately, although I could afford the sound/video equipment that you sugest, the nature of what i am doing prohibits the use of anything more noticeable than a small video camera. I am shooting this in a "Street" fashion, and were I to set up a big production with sound man and camera on tripod etc, the scenes i am trying to capture would melt away in front of me as people decided that they didn't want to be in whatever I am doing and left.

<p>

In defense of my equipment/technique, I will say that that was my first foray into edited video, and since then I have learned to use the equipment (both hard and software) more competently.

<p>

And yes, as much as the comments on (mostly other people's videos) on Yootoob make me despair, I always leave mine open in hopes of getting some feedback. Any feedback.

<p>

Annnnd, as long as I have your ear, er eyes, and we're talking about London video, <a href="

I agree with everyone above about video being just as challenging if not more so than still photography.

I have a "Street" video up <a href="