jordan2240

I'll drink to that.

I think the shot I posted tells a much more interesting story than most of Sweet's shots, or at least makes one's imagination wander.

How do you deduce what any of the subjects went through in their lives by looking at these photos?

I get it. Sweet was trying to record a specific time and setting, and I was taking a vacation snapshot. That doesn't stop me from comparing what Sweet did with typical vacation snaps, regardless of his intent. I don't see where he was intentionally using a specific 'color palette.' As I said before, the colors represented are those one would see at pretty much any beach. At this point, I don't even know what we're in disagreement on. You don't think his pics are anything special, and neither do I. Did he capture the 'vibe' of Miami beach during the era in which he took the shots - perhaps, but I don't see where he did it in an extraordinary way - simple as that. There are likely thousands of pics taken during the same era at the same place by people on vacation that do it just as well.

I never indicated my example was 'art,' though what one could call art is quite varied and subject to opinion. I've looked as Sweet's shots a number of times, and have yet to see them as anything other than vacation snaps. Yes, he got people to pose for him and to look in his direction. Not sure there is a special talent in that.

Well, I guess if you see me as a problem because I see Sweet's beach shots as being of the same quality as many family vacation snaps, that's your prerogative. I don't recognize it as a problem. Perhaps I need an intervention.

Thanks ruslan. I'll take a look at their work. It's certainly interesting how much people's opinions diverge on 'art.'

I posted it because I thought it was an example of a 'documentary photo' at the beach, which is what I saw in Sweet's beach photography. Certainly, I could have posted different shots that I didn't think would have the same sort of impact. Had that shot been part of Sweet's portfolio, I wonder what the reaction would have been. I don't know that his beach series documented a place and time extraordinarily well, but it certainly did document a place and time. Whether it was one day or many days cannot be discerned by the photos. Shoe boxes are full of family pics that document a place and time, which is why I see nothing out of the ordinary with Sweet's beach series. I haven't looked at his other work, so make no judgment of him as a photographer in general. I'm sure he was better than I am.

Point taken.

We'll leave it at that then.

I have often appreciated the effort that goes into art (or anything) that I haven't particularly liked even if I don't see anything that would indicate a particularly notable effort in Sweet's work. My point in the comment you reference was to inform the other poster that he wasn't likely to get a lot of responses to his request since none of the posters in this thread save one (that I can recall) indicated a particular fondness for Sweet's photos. We all know that opinions about art are quite subjective and even variable, as one might dislike something one day and like it the next. I recall listening to music or watching movies that I 'hated' or 'loved,' until I listened to it or watched them again. With photography, seems I either like it or not, and my initial impression rarely changes. I think that's because, unlike with music and film, one looks at a photo and has an immediate reaction, or doesn't. I certainly don't 'hate' Sweet's work, I just find it ordinary, at least what I've seen in the 'beach' portfolio.

In regards to your last sentence, likewise.

How am I 'limiting the experience of art' to what I like? I looked at the photos and found them to be rather ordinary. Are you equating not liking something to limiting?

You stated at one point that "we'll agree to disagree," which I assumed was in regard to the aesthetic of Sweet's work, which I find ordinary. So I was merely pointing out that, perhaps we don't disagree at all.

Bill, I agree that my snap shows no attachment with the subject, which is not surprising given I wasn't making any attempt at such, but was merely trying to document his look. I agree with you other points specifically regarding Sweet as well. Actually, seems that only one poster in this thread has stated he likes the photos.

I really don't see any specific use of color other than the colors depicted are those that one would typically find at the beach. The point I'm making is, here is a photographer who has gotten some accolades (apparently) for work that seems rather ordinary to me. Whether I or some 5-year-old has done it or not is irrelevant. An analogy would be giving someone who identifies as a runner accolades for running a 15-minute mile. Pretty much anyone of decent health could do that, whether they have or not.

I really don't see what one finds so 'visually and conceptually' appealing about Street's photos. To me, anyone bent on capturing a day at the beach with a 50mm lens (or equivalent) could do as well, in my opinion.

The point I was making is that there wasn't anything extraordinary in Sweet's shots for me, and that many people who enjoy taking pictures could easily reproduce a similar collection of images. Given you apparently don't find Street's pics any better than your own, I'd assume you agree (unless you find your own work to be extraordinary).

So what do you think makes Sweet's shots more appealing than your own 'street photography' shots?

I'd suggest that nearly anyone with a camera could hang at the beach for a day and come up with a series of shots that are every bit as or even more interesting than these. The one I posted was just one of a number of shots I took at Cocoa Beach during the few days we were there. Perhaps if I posted them as a series, they'd show similar 'visual and conceptual continuity,' though since I wasn't concentrating on one specific subject (i.e. older folks), perhaps you would just see them as random snapshots (which is how I see Sweet's work - he was just more limited in what he took random snapshots of).

I'm talking about people who are known for their photography. I love to play golf, but no one would ever call me a 'golfer' after watching me play. Regardless, I'd never heard of Sweet, or many other 'photographers,' but I assume that he had some notoriety given there is a Netflix documentary about him. But looking at his 'beach' portfolio, I simply don't see anything that anyone with a camera who liked to take pictures couldn't have snapped, so I wonder where the notoriety came from. I suspect his shots will have meaning to those familiar with the time and era, but as someone simply observing a portfolio of beach pictures, none of them made me feel any particular emotion.

So you can tell the people are Jewish migrants from New York by looking at those photos? Pretty much all old family snapshots provide a sense of place and time. My parents have box fulls of photos that do such, none of which were taken by someone who would have considered themselves a photographer.

I guess Phil and Sam see much more in the beach series than I do. Looks to me like nothing more than snaps of older people at the beach. I see no 'sense of time,' as they could have been taken 50 years ago or yesterday. I think many folks tend to apply 'genius' to art that simply isn't there (not that anyone has said Sweet was a genius). And many of the shots seem to be posed. Perhaps Phil (or anyone) can go into a bit more detail about how Sweet's snapshot of someone walking on the beach is any different from mine.

Well, I didn't go through all of the galleries, but what I did see looked to me to be snapshots that pretty much any tourist could have taken. I saw that documentary advertised on Netflix, and didn't think it looked particularly interesting, and based on the galleries you linked to (thanks, by the way), I don't think I'd have enjoyed it. I took this shot at Cocoa Beach Florida (shown here with no post-processing adjustments), and can't see where anything of Andy's is any more interesting. Of course, what makes it interesting is the subject, as there was no particular skill needed to press the shutter button, and I think that is the case with a lot of 'street (or beach)' photography.

Lately I've found that I like the look of certain pics that I open in ACR and reduce the clarity on, so I wanted to try that with this one, and liked it as well. Just seems to give the shots a kind of 'dreamy' feel to me. Anyway, I reduced clarity to -82 (that's just where I liked it by eye), then did an 'auto smart fix' in PS Elements just to see how few adjustments I could do and still like the shot. Obviously cropped as well.