Jump to content

tonmestrom

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    5,228

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Posts posted by tonmestrom

    Annoyed Subject of the Day.

    in Casual Photo Conversations

    Posted

    <blockquote>

    <p>I suspect this privacy issue highlights a difference in culture between the US and Britain.</p>

    </blockquote>

    <p>not, it's much worse than that. It's about someone pushing his own biased sense of morality down other people's throats. I hardly ever get into trouble out there or have discussions like the one above and I shoot all over Europe. This behaviour from people on the sideline who haven't got a clue what they are talking about however seems to become more and more widespread. The answer is obvious....</p>

    McCullin

    in Street & Documentary

    Posted

    <p>McCullin is a great photographer by any standard and his body of work is impressive, not in the least from a historical perspective. It has cost him a lot though like so many of them.</p>

    Is forum traffic dropping?

    in Casual Photo Conversations

    Posted

    <p>Jeff's rigth of course but there's more. There's too much yapping about equipment (if not downright fetisjism) and far too less photography.<br>

    There's too much facetious name dropping but knowledge about contemporary photography, let alone the history of photography? Few and far between.</p>

    <p>Too many people here are too dependent on a pet on the back as if that matters at all. Paired with no interest at all in constructive criticism which should and does matter.</p>

    <p>And I'm an optimist. Go figure.</p>

    LIving in streets

    in Street & Documentary

    Posted

    <blockquote>

    <p>For me, if not for you, there is a difference between shooting someone who's homeless and shooting someone who has a home, someone who has no place in which to enjoy privacy and someone else who does.</p>

    </blockquote>

    <p>sure there is a difference. But all too often there is way too much is projected into it. Shooting out there is all about using common sense and common decency and as such I still see no difference.</p>

    <blockquote>

    <p>Homelessness does influence the power you have when shooting, whether you wish to consider it or not.</p>

    </blockquote>

    <p>not by definition Anders, not hardly</p>

    <blockquote>

    <p>but I don't seem to remember a shot of a person visibly homeless.</p>

    </blockquote>

    <p>oh I've done them and when I was a lot younger all too often for the wrong reasons. Nothing wrong in being honest about it. Sometimes I still do and I do it in the same way I normally shoot my photography. sometimes I talk to people, sometimes I don't.</p>

    LIving in streets

    in Street & Documentary

    Posted

    <blockquote>

    <p>which I think is that you will take a photo of someone regardless of whether they're homeless or not and their homelessness is not a factor to you</p>

    </blockquote>

    <p>in essence, no it's not. Respect as they say works both ways and as such there is and should not be a difference. </p>

    LIving in streets

    in Street & Documentary

    Posted

    <blockquote>

    <p>Ton, for me, no, it's not the only thing that counts</p>

    </blockquote>

    <p>you took what I've said out of context Fred. I clearly simplified to make a point. Trouble is whenever the subject of photographing "the homeless" pops up a lot of people start to bend over backwards to prove their credibility or merely stating they don't shoot them "out of respect". <br>

    Photographically speaking there is no difference at all hence the good portrait etc.</p>

    <p>I find both points of view often rather cramped. I shoot a lot of people out there and the decisive factor whether I take a shot or not is hardly ever if someone is homeless.</p>

    LIving in streets

    in Street & Documentary

    Posted

    <p>why is it that whenever the topic of whether to shoot homeless people pops up it leads to this kind of discussion? As far as I'm concerned there is not a single no-go area.<br>

    The truth is much simpler. A good portrait is a good portrait is a good portrait. Isn't that the only thing that counts and should count whether it concerns a CEO or someone who is homeless.</p>

    <p>If the criterium is that it's done to death we just as well pack it in photographically speaking.</p>

    Capturing People - Composition vs Post-Editing vs Directing

    in Casual Photo Conversations

    Posted

    <blockquote>

    <p>I believe there comes a certain point where you start to realize that you can turn a bad shot into a good one with the right composition and relying on the post-edit for any flaws.</p>

    </blockquote>

    <p>Not only do I NOT believe that, I simply know that this isn't true from long experience. As for the rest of your premise:<br /> <em>1) The Intellect For Proper Settings (ISO/Shutter/Aperture)</em><br /> this is a matter of experience plain and simple<br /> <em>2) The Eye For Composition</em><br /> this can be developed and is, to a certain extent, also a matter of experience<br /> <em>3) The Charisma For Directing</em><br /> this is merely a question of personality and either naturally present (rarely) or acquired.</p>

    <p>A bad shot (your words) is a bad shot and stays a bad shot, it's as easy as that. You can improve a good photo in post if you've got the skills and take the time necessary (which many don't I think) but you can never, and I do mean never, turn a bad photo into a good one.<br /> For the most part creating a good photo is hard work and while this takes many steps it starts well before you press that shutter.</p>

    <p>And that concludes this sermon ;-)</p>

    <p> </p>

    Critique Request

    in Street & Documentary

    Posted

    <p>Stephen, looking at your work I think they are nice atmospheric shots but I don't see you in those photo's, there's no definite commitment I think. For one I think in a lot of those photo's you should have gotten closer and "into it". Also I think you need to revisit your compositional skills. Most photo's don't speak to me. On the other hand I think you've done pretty well given the short amount of time you're at it. As for any work in postprocessing (be it wet or digital) see my comment above. Anyway, you asked.</p>

    Critique Request

    in Street & Documentary

    Posted

    <blockquote>

    <p>I prefer images 'as shot' with the least enhancements, which takes some talent in my humble opinion, and therein lies the difference between good and great (I think).</p>

    </blockquote>

    <p>Which, if done expertly, is something you hardly notice. I for one use everything I have at my disposal to get it to a point where I am satisfied with the result. I for one think you sell yourself short if you leave it "as shot" because what comes out of the camera is just a starting point with a lot of potential left. So why not use that potential?<br /> After all, all this is about is what ends up on that wall in the end isn't it?</p>

    <p>To use an anology, if one works with the Zone system the negative that emerges from the development tank is printed with a Basic Printing Time (BPT), in other words it's just a start after which one tries to print it towards its full fine art print potential.</p>

    <p>Leaving images "as shot" in my mind is hardly the best choice to be made and sure as hell isn't decisive in any image ending up good or great because of that. Quite the opposite in fact. Then again, people should do as they see fit, it's no skin of my nose after all.</p>

    <blockquote>

    <p>They don't see the previous steps as somehow flawed and in need of improvement or enhancement, they see each step as a lead-in to the next one and, at some point, their work is done.</p>

    </blockquote>

    <p>exactly</p>

×
×
  • Create New...