# America, America, God's shed his grace on thee



## The_Traveler (Feb 10, 2014)




----------



## Derrel (Feb 10, 2014)

NOt bad. Has that kind of "shot from a moving camera gab-shot aesthetic". I like the expression of the two people, and the blurry, slightly jerky feeling REALLY adds a lot of realism, a sort of "you were there" feeling to it. Not that it's a great or fantastic shot or anything, but it really feels like an accurate and very real, unvarnished look at Americans in this decade of the 21st century.


----------



## pgriz (Feb 10, 2014)

It&#8217;s a very interesting shot.  There are so many little details that scream &#8220;America&#8221;, as distinct from Europe, or Canada, or South America, or Australia&#8230;

The McDonald super-sized soft drink, the Germ-X sanitizer, the T-shirt on the gentleman, his look, the table-cloth pattern, the jacked-up pickup truck in the background, the hot-dog that she&#8217;s munching on while ignoring the bag of peeled carrots on the table, the &#8220;big bread&#8221; in the plastic bag&#8230;  Individually, any one of these items will be more or less at home in almost any place, but taken together they record an &#8220;America&#8221;.


----------



## Geaux (Feb 10, 2014)

Nothing more than a snapshot imo. If this were posted by anyone other than someone who's been here a while, it would get no attention or torn to shreds.

I'm confused by the above posts saying its anything more than a snap.


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 10, 2014)

_God_.  Not _God's_.  

I doubt the song is about God's shed.


----------



## TheFantasticG (Feb 10, 2014)

480sparky said:


> God.  Not God's.  I doubt the song is about God's shed.



Ha. Glad I wasn't the only one with that thought.


----------



## BobSaget (Feb 10, 2014)

The Germ X is clutch.  Nice exposure.


----------



## snowbear (Feb 10, 2014)

Funny - I don't remember seeing you at the reunion.  I guess the beer can pyramid got in the way.


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 11, 2014)

thanks for comments - and noticing the silly title mistake.
that has probably done irreparable damage to my Pulitzer Prize hopes.
@ Derrel yes, it was a total walk-by, shot from the hip at a cold stare. Dundalk is famous for its high tattoo to body ratio.

@Geaux, perhaps it is just a matter of different tastes?


----------



## Braineack (Feb 11, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> @ Derrel yes, it was a total walk-by, shot from the hip at a cold stare. Dundalk is famous for its high tattoo to body ratio.



Yeah I was going to ask if shot from a moving car or something...nice capture considering.  Too bad you're exploiting them. :hugs:


----------



## LShooter (Feb 11, 2014)

A snapshot of a lady stuffing her face and I guy who doesn't want his photo taken. If you are making a statement that this is all of America you might want to get out more. For someone who has been banned and spend a lot of time tearing up other people's photographs; I'm not sure what your point is.


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 11, 2014)

LShooter said:


> A snapshot of a lady stuffing her face and I guy who doesn't want his photo taken. If you are making a statement that this is all of America you might want to get out more. For someone who has been banned and spend a lot of time tearing up other people's photographs; I'm not sure what your point is.





LShooter said:


> Nice to see the Travler banned. Not trying to be mean, but many of his posts were nothing more than bashing without any for of constructivness to them.


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 11, 2014)

LShooter said:


> A snapshot of a lady stuffing her face and I guy who doesn't want his photo taken. If you are making a statement that this is all of America you might want to get out more. For someone who has been banned and spend a lot of time tearing up other people's photographs; I'm not sure what your point is.




See #29 of AFI's best Film Quotes of the last 100 years
Different service, same rank


----------



## Derrel (Feb 11, 2014)

Geaux said:


> Nothing more than a snapshot imo. If this were posted by anyone other than someone who's been here a while, it would get no attention or torn to shreds.
> 
> I'm confused by the above posts saying its anything more than a snap.



Well, maybe re-read exactly what I wrote, and what the other person wrote, and make an effort to see the photo for what it shows, rather than for its lack of adherence to some pre-determined technical or artistic ideal. It is a snap. *A snap of the shutter*. What I saw was that the shot was made with the camera moving, maybe even hanging off Lew's body on a strap, but no matter what, _with the camera in motion_...and as he walked by, he snapped the shutter, and there is all the "America" stuff...lots of small details that reflect _current_ American society.

Like the mass of plastic storage totes on the left. the pickup truck, the woman stuffing her face, the Germ-X hand sanitizer bottle, the empty jar of snack food, the whole, unopened bag of carrots, the guy with a huge new "any size drink, $1" McDonalds 32-ounce soda cup. Yes, it is a "snap", one made on-the-go, in-motion, kind of haphazard in its framing. This shot COULD NOT HAVE BEEN made 15 years ago. Hand sanitizer is a new product. The $1 any size drink is a late-stage, recent McDOnald's response to the economic crash, designed to lure customers in these tough times.

I never said it's a great shot, because it's not "great", but it DOES have a lot of "Americana, 2013" in it. It is what it is. The shot is filled with symbolism, and cultural "icons"...the Germ-X, the huge McDonald's cup, people parking on a lawn, the huge sack of cheap white bread, and the weird looks of the people. It's a shot about a sliver in time. As I wrote above, this photo has "shot from a moving camera grab-shot aesthetic". It's a specific KIND of photo. It is not a posed, formal shot of a woman, or a studied, tripod-mounted, 5-shot focus stack landscape shot: it is a moving camera grab-shot. Not an especially fantastic one, but if you look, it has information in it that reflects our society, TODAY. Junk food, germ-killer, huge cups of soda. No wonder diabetes and obesity are an epidemic.

I'm not trying to disparage your opinion, only hoping to encourage those who might have read this far (anybody still here? TLDR?) to LOOK and to SEE what the photo is, and not ***** about what it is so obviously "not".


----------



## tirediron (Feb 11, 2014)

LShooter said:


> A snapshot of a lady stuffing her face and I guy who doesn't want his photo taken. If you are making a statement that this is all of America you might want to get out more. For someone who has been banned and spend a lot of time tearing up other people's photographs; I'm not sure what your point is.


I think you're missing the point.  Neither Lew (Nor anyone else) said that this represents all of the US (nb.  there's actually no such place as "America"), but it certainly does represent a view that much of the rest of the world has of the US population in general.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Feb 11, 2014)

The big truck in the background really makes it.


----------



## sm4him (Feb 11, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Geaux said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing more than a snapshot imo. If this were posted by anyone other than someone who's been here a while, it would get no attention or torn to shreds.
> ...



I struggle with photography like this (street photography, specifically, although I'm not even sure if this falls into "street photography" or something akin to it)--so I generally refrain from giving C&C or even giving a "like it, don't like it" response. But I always READ the comments, and look at the pictures, particularly when the poster is someone as clearly respected in this area as Lew, and when the comments are from those who have earned my respect, like Derrel.  I can respect that PART of what makes this "more than a snapshot," in the sense that I think Geaux was using "snapshot," is that Lew SAW this Americana thing happening in all these seemingly random aspects of the photo.
Anyway, rather than ever responding with a "meh, just a snapshot," I for one always prefer to just silently consider the comments and see if I learn anything. Maybe one day, something will "click," other than the camera shutter and I will GET street photography in a way that would allow ME to do it.  That day hasn't happened yet.



The_Traveler said:


> thanks for comments - and noticing the silly title mistake.
> that has probably done irreparable damage to my Pulitzer Prize hopes.
> @ Derrel yes, it was a total walk-by, shot from the hip at a cold stare. Dundalk is famous for its high tattoo to body ratio.
> 
> @Geaux, perhaps it is just a matter of different tastes?



Personally, I saw the "mistake" but thought it was on purpose. I didn't see "God's shed" as possessive; I thought you were saying "God has shed His grace on thee."


----------



## Derrel (Feb 11, 2014)

Something I find interesting is that kids today have taken to using the word "random" and "totally random" as very positive things, worthy of praise and appreciation. My young son and his friends are fifth graders, and they have brand new Instagram accounts, which represent their very FIRST forays into photography.The most sought-after subjects for their photos are "random" and "totally random stuff". They are rejecting formal, traditional subjects and ways of showing them in photos.

From the mouths of babes?


----------



## sashbar (Feb 11, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Something I find interesting is that kids today have taken to using the word "random" and "totally random" as very positive things, worthy of praise and appreciation. My young son and his friends are fifth graders, and they have brand new Instagram accounts, which represent their very FIRST forays into photography.The most sought-after subjects for their photos are "random" and "totally random stuff". They are rejecting formal, traditional subjects and ways of showing them in photos.





Derrel said:


> From the mouths of babes?



Interesting, I always thought that using the word "random" was their way of shielding themselves from criticism.


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 11, 2014)

What I consciously reject is the idea that photography is completely defined by good focus and adequate depth of field.



Geaux said:


> Nothing more than a snapshot imo.
> *I'm confused* by the above posts saying its anything more than a snap.



When I was a child I didn't like a lot of tastes - mushrooms, garlic, asparagus and so on and I never could imagine how anyone would actually enjoy those tastes. And of course, sex seemed incomprehensively yucky. Years later and I like and enjoy all of them - and, obviously, those sensations haven't changed but I have learned to appreciate them.   

What I liked about this shot was the unusual concatenation of virtually every single cliche about America in one spot specifically including the American flag shirt and the pickup in the background. (Virtually the only things missing were a handgun and a Bible, both of which were probably out of sight in the pickup.) 
Yes, I would have liked it to be sharper and not look like a drive-by but I would also like to be wanted as a sex object by Scarlett Johansson but neither the sharpness nor the sex with Miss Johansson was going to happen - and in both instances because big bulky guys would get in the way. 

But the minor IQ fail was not a disqualification for me.


----------



## Geaux (Feb 11, 2014)

Derrel said:


> I'm not trying to disparage your opinion, only hoping to encourage those who might have read this far (anybody still here? TLDR?) to LOOK and to SEE what the photo is, and not ***** about what it is so obviously "not".



No offense taken and like Lew said, it's just a difference of opinion.  I opened the thread, it grabbed absolutely no attention to me, but noticed something quite different in this thread.  What normally happens to "noobs" wasn't happening, just seemed like odd favoritism, that's all.

It's just that I find majority of images like this are filled to the brim with "bitching what it is so obviously not" or ignored.  Caught me off guard.

Moving along. 

Edit: Just saw Lew's last comment and I totally respect your opinions and thoughts and thanks for the little more in in depth explanation on what you saw in the image. I didn't mean to come off as bratty and I apologize for making your thread part of my "soap box".  It was more or less pointing out favoritism between posters that has somewhat driven me farther away from posting on this site recently.

Again, sorry about that Lew.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 11, 2014)

Geaux said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not trying to disparage your opinion, only hoping to encourage those who might have read this far (anybody still here? TLDR?) to LOOK and to SEE what the photo is, and not ***** about what it is so obviously "not".
> ...



I totally "get" what you meant,Geaux, and I appreciate the reply and understand your POV. But the difference is "noobs" often post snapshots of things like a dog. A cat. A kid with the top of his head AND his chin lopped off. Or a photo of their back yard at sunset. Pictures that have absolutely NOTHING of interest to anybody, except themselves. Lew's shot is as he puts it, "_ the unusual concatenation of virtually every single cliche about America in one spot specifically including the American flag shirt and the pickup in the background. (Virtually the only things missing were a handgun and a Bible, both of which were probably out of sight in the pickup.)_ "

And as Lew mentioned, he rejects the idea that ,"_photography is completely defined by good focus and adequate depth of field_."

I have to agree with him on that, since MANY powerful pictures have some degree of blurring or slight focus issues. As far as favoritism...I'm not really a big fan of The_Traveler's work...I don't show anybody favoritism. If a picture's good, I will call it good. I called his "not bad". I have at times, ripped his pictures. Same with amolitor's. And those of whoever. I spend a LOT of my time looking at pictures. If I like it, I'll say so. If it sucks, I will not hesitate to say so. I am an equal opportunity C&C'er.

As a kid, I was influenced by the work of Lee Friedlander, Diane Arbus, Robert Frank, Gary Winogrand, and others of that ilk. Many of their pictures would be roundly ridiculed here on TPF for their supposed lack of "technical merit".


----------



## Geaux (Feb 11, 2014)

:hug::


And I'll probably hate saying this later on, but whats the difference between objectifying these people vs objectifying the homeless photo Lew ripped on for ethics not too long back? Not sure if these people would like their images spread over the internet and shown in spoke of in a "redneck" sort of way lol.


----------



## JacaRanda (Feb 11, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Something I find interesting is that kids today have taken to using the word "random" and "totally random" as very positive things, worthy of praise and appreciation. My young son and his friends are fifth graders, and they have brand new Instagram accounts, which represent their very FIRST forays into photography.The most sought-after subjects for their photos are "random" and "totally random stuff". They are rejecting formal, traditional subjects and ways of showing them in photos.
> 
> From the mouths of babes?



As well as my 15 year old.  I hear you loud and clear.


----------



## JacaRanda (Feb 11, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> What I consciously reject is the idea that photography is completely defined by good focus and adequate depth of field.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Don't underestimate Scarlett's impeccable taste.  I know I still have a shot.  Much like photography, timing can be everthing


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 11, 2014)

Geaux said:


> :hug::
> And I'll probably hate saying this later on, but whats the difference between objectifying these people vs objectifying the homeless photo Lew ripped on for ethics not too long back? Not sure if these people would like their images spread over the internet and shown in spoke of in a "redneck" sort of way lol.



OK, here's the difference.
That guy was only an example of how bad things get, we saw him up close, he had no 'agency' in the scene because the photographer was essentially using only his looks and the way he was dressed - both of which he had no control of.  He was at the mercy of his situation.  And there was no more to that picture but 'look at this guy in terrible straits.' All that stuff about he didn't mind and I paid him, all of that doesn't count in my mind. It isn't the ability to take the picture, it is whether you are being compassionate and using that person.

The picture above is of people choosing to be a certain way- and displaying it.  They had power to do what they did and how they acted.

To me it is the difference between taking a picture of a chubby lady who was wearing a thong if she fell and her skirt went over her head displaying her butt and taking a picture of a obese person having a difficult time staying away from the sweets. In the first we would be using a situation over which she had no control to make her the object of derision. In the second we see the situation and understand it.  Use the point it makes in a compassionate way.

I always use as a measure whether I would feel awkward if the picture I was shooting was my brother, daughter, etc.


----------



## JacaRanda (Feb 11, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> Geaux said:
> 
> 
> > :hug::
> ...



I really like this picture!

The explanation is like most every other aspect of photography that I have seen so far.  Very subjective.


----------



## bribrius (Feb 11, 2014)

sorry. just see a snapshot. 
And not even a interesting one. I have piles of that crap on my external drive from "family events".

Americana? so I guess everyone that eat mcdonalds next to a American flag drinking a soda must be a worthwhile picture? Or how about everyone at a pie eating contest or a nascar event or any number of things... sorry lew. I aint buyn. 
Your parade shot had some interesting artistic quality or something about it. This one, ehhhh. not much going for it really.


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 11, 2014)

And about getting 'favoritism.'

Maybe I get a second look and a second chance because I've posted a fair number of decent pictures and I'm not a complete dunce. So sometimes people think that even if they don't see something in it, maybe I do- and so they give the picture and the discussion a second chance.

That cuts both ways. How many people who have taken offense at something I've said about their treasured POS are just waiting for an opportunity to say something critical or nasty?
I'm not pretty and I'm not easy to get along with.
I generally don't give a crap whether I'm liked or not.
The things I care about the most are being honest about things I see and taking pictures.


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 11, 2014)

JacaRanda said:


> Don't underestimate Scarlett's impeccable taste.  *I know I still have a shot*.



Based on this last sentence, I suggest you ask your doctor to double your dose of Seroquel and ask your spouse to buy a gun that shoots tranquilizing darts - just in case.


----------



## sarah_19_nz (Feb 11, 2014)

To me it is just a snapshot too. I also held/hold Geaux's point of view. I too was shocked at the well known, MUCH admired posters comments giving it praise so I sat and stared at the image for quite some time trying to see what they could see. I didn't see it. So in the end , this shot doesn't do anything for me. Just my opinion though and I'm certainly no pro.


----------



## baturn (Feb 11, 2014)

I think Sharon already alluded to this, but "God's" is a perfectly acceptable contraction of "God has".


----------



## baturn (Feb 11, 2014)

Oh, and I like the pic for what it is and think that except for the flag t-shirt it could as easily be Canadiana.


----------



## JacaRanda (Feb 11, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> > Don't underestimate Scarlett's impeccable taste. *I know I still have a shot*.
> ...


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 11, 2014)

sarah_19_nz said:


> To me it is just a snapshot too. I also held/hold Geaux's point of view. I too was shocked at the well known, MUCH admired posters comments giving it praise so I sat and stared at the image for quite some time trying to see what they could see. I didn't see it. So in the end , this shot doesn't do anything for me. Just my opinion though and I'm certainly no pro.



I play poker once in a while and I also read twoplustwo.com which is a site for discussions on poker.  Most of the time when they talk strategy, I just plain don't understand what is going on, the concepts seem to be just that nebulous, but yet these people are quite successful at winning at poker. 
So I have two options; I can assume that what they are saying makes no sense or I can accept that there are things that I'm just not experienced enough yet to understand.

On TPF, 99% of all the photography is pretty much bread and butter straightforward, smile at the camera stuff, you know, taking pictures. However some of us try to use photography as a tool to say things, not just record what we see. Those pictures may not be so obvious, either because they don't work or because the individual viewer may not be tuned into it as much.

In terms of increasing 'subtlety', I think this one is easy to get. The obvious contradiction between people demonstrating against surveillance, yet taking pictures of each other. That's understandable intellectually.








 This one is a little more difficult, the viewer has to have some idea of demonstrator against power, it's a feeling, an emotion that means more than a simple statement of what is going on.






And this is the most nebulous of all, everyone looking the other way at the parade as this one boy alone stares at the camera. All sorts of possible ideas run through my head but I can never have an answer. There is all this mystery about what and why.






Not all photography is digested work, out there so you can see or understand everything about it. Some of it requires the viewer to engage with the work.

Getting to be able to shoot like that, getting past the pretty picture in focus is what some of us are trying to do.


----------



## bribrius (Feb 11, 2014)

you grew up in the sixties! That's what this is. yeah, some of us wont get this, like me (generation x) we don't really get into politics and activism for the most part.


----------



## Geaux (Feb 11, 2014)

Lew, I just want to say I appreciate your responses for actually engaging instead of lashing out like other posters would. The above shots are rather engaging to me and draw an interest, I just don't have that same feeling from the OP. I also sense some animosity towards those of us who like the posed or planned type of photography. It's a different genre than what you shoot, but doesn't make it any less talented or photographic.

keep on doing what you do, even though I already knew you would.


----------



## jenko (Feb 11, 2014)

I like it. It shows a certain vulgar aspect of American culture. I do not believe every shot has to be pretty or formal to be interesting or telling.


----------



## sarah_19_nz (Feb 11, 2014)

Geaux said:


> Lew, I just want to say I appreciate your responses for actually engaging instead of lashing out like other posters would. The above shots are rather engaging to me and draw an interest, I just don't have that same feeling from the OP. I also sense some animosity towards those of us who like the posed or planned type of photography. It's a different genre than what you shoot, but doesn't make it any less talented or photographic.
> 
> keep on doing what you do, even though I already knew you would.




^^^ this!!!

I love those other photos you just posted! I see the story/meaning/message in those but the original photo just does NOTHING for me. I love your work Lew don't get me wrong.... I jut don't 'feel' that original image.


----------



## pgriz (Feb 11, 2014)

My take on it, is that when we are immersed in a culture, we become oblivious to the many symbols that populate our living space, and to the connections between things that are implied.  A culture generally has a world-view that becomes the lens through which we see the world and understand the relationships within it.  A person from a different culture will be less desensitized to the symbols, and will assume (or know) less about the connections and the meanings behind this web of interrelationships.  Partly because we are so used to dealing with the symbols, they sink beneath our conscious awareness, and in fact become effectively invisible, whereas to a newcomer to the culture these things are observed and seen at face value.  Over time, the newcomers learn the associations, the hidden meanings and subtext, and start to "see" the structures that form that culture.  

To me, this image has many of the "sub-conscious" symbols, that together look "normal" in one context, but would be very out-of-place in another.  The attraction in this "snapshot" is how Lew managed to get so many of the symbols captured at the same time.  As Derrel noted, this image could not have existed 15 years ago.  And it may be anachronistic in another 15.  So it works as a record of a time and place, of a culture and of an attitude.  It may even be worth using this image as inspiration for other "snapshots" that capture, for instance, the New Zealand peculiarities, or the daily life of Mumbai, or London, or Toronto.  Despite the homogenization of culture, it is still possible to see regional differences.  That collection of things that are specific to a time and place ARE interesting.


----------



## sarah_19_nz (Feb 11, 2014)

Coming from N.Z I see the original image as the 'spitting image' of a stereotypical American scene, and all the little things that make it 'American'... my mission is to now be on the look out for a very 'kiwi' scene


----------



## leeroix (Feb 11, 2014)

JD in a plastic cup?


----------



## limr (Feb 11, 2014)

bribrius said:


> you grew up in the sixties! That's what this is. yeah, some of us wont get this, like me *(generation x)* we don't really get into politics and activism for the most part.



Hey now, don't characterize us! Wasn't that the point of calling us Gen X? Because our defining characteristic was a lack of a defining characteristic? 

Lew, this is the shot that I would love to have taken but don't have the guts to take. Could it have been better? Sure. But can't everything be just a little bit better? I think this isn't your strongest work, but it's still a fine photo. And the parade pictures in that last post of you are outstanding.


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 12, 2014)

@Sarah and Geaux  





> I just don't 'feel' that original image.



And that's fine with me. 
(altho I would obviously rather that everything I do instantly strikes to the very core of each viewer's soul - but that may not happen.)
Not every picture strikes everyone in a good, sensible and useful way.
That doesn't mean either that the viewer is dumb or that the picture is bad; it just means a disconnect.

Too often, since most of what we see here is straight ahead stuff, the unstated implication is that when the viewer doesn't get it, it's the fault of the picture.
And 'I don't get it' becomes a judgement on the picture and the photographer.

All I am asking is that, if you see people (like me and others) pushing the boundaries of their work, try to understand what they are attempting and question it.  
That push-back and attempt to understand may be beneficial for both the maker and your own self.

(that effort to understand has been meaningful to me just lately.  I am writing a review of a gallery show that contains an abstract artist.  Her work is quite beautiful and perfectly presented. I think some of the work is quite beautiful but I can't extend myself to get the feelings that she says she is attempting to engender. And she asked me what I thought, I was taken aback by the question and, without thinking much, said I thought it was 'very decorative.' She was really, really hurt and sent me a long email. Both of us were wrong in that situation; me for not being prepared with some harmless platitude and her for expecting that the work which was so meaningful to her must affect everyone the same way. SO I've been reading about abstract art the last two days.)

Thanks again, both of you, for extending yourself in this discussion.


----------



## sashbar (Feb 12, 2014)

Intricate composition. Amazing light. Sophisticated colour palette. All these things make a good street shot. But it does not mean a street shot HAS to have all that to be good. Sometimes a straight, simple in your face shot is as effective and probably better, especially if the style reflects the content, the idea and the feeling. 
 I like the fact that the composition is simple, the colours are telling but not "artistic". Everything is mundane about this shot. Anyone could take it. Anyone with a camera. Or a phone. There is nothing sophisticated about this shot. Yet it IS sophisticated because the style beautifully complements the content. In a way it is a sort of a 'pop shot' as in 'pop art'. I have no idea whether it was intentional, I doubt Lew was thinking in these terms, he just saw it and snapped it, but it does not matter at all. We have here what we have. A dumb shot of a dumb pair in a dumb environment. And I like it. I am not saying it is a great shot (probably it is not dumb enough to be great), but it is an interesting shot to me. 
And as a foreigner I do not care whether it is Americana or Canadiana. I know the type. You can give the guy a Union Jack t- shirt, change some brands on the table, and it will be a perfect Anglicana. The Great Culture of Dumb Folks is universal. 
When I look at this picture I imagine the god himself descended on this party on a big shiny parachute. Because that is how these people would look like if they actually saw Jesus. Or an emu. Or a can of baked beans. Or me.
Just my 5 p. and a can of Coke.


----------



## ffarl (Feb 12, 2014)

Hey Lew,  I like the pic.  Hang on to it because I'm hoping that is hand sanitizer nonsense is a laughable part of our history sooner than later.  

   In order to accuse someone of exploitation, you have to suppose that you know their motives.  It's a slippery slope you'll never catch me on.  I used to get pissed that the ONLY photos you saw of my hometown (Detroit) depicted it in a negative light.  Photographers generally have their gear with them, and dang em all to heck if they don't get some shots of anything interesting they see.  It's what they do.  

   The subjects of this photo are interesting.  Good capture.


----------



## ffarl (Feb 12, 2014)

Also, when I hear this song from here on, I will hear it as: "God's shed, His grace on thee", as in "God has shed his grace on his own shed", and I will giggle quietly to myself.


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 12, 2014)

God's Shed


----------



## bribrius (Feb 12, 2014)

sashbar said:


> Intricate composition. Amazing light. Sophisticated colour palette. All these things make a good street shot. But it does not mean a street shot HAS to have all that to be good. Sometimes a straight, simple in your face shot is as effective and probably better, especially if the style reflects the content, the idea and the feeling.
> I like the fact that the composition is simple, the colours are telling but not "artistic". Everything is mundane about this shot. Anyone could take it. Anyone with a camera. Or a phone. There is nothing sophisticated about this shot. Yet it IS sophisticated because the style beautifully complements the content. In a way it is a sort of a 'pop shot' as in 'pop art'. I have no idea whether it was intentional, I doubt Lew was thinking in these terms, he just saw it and snapped it, but it does not matter at all. We have here what we have. A *dumb *shot of a *dumb pair *in a *dumb environment*. And I like it. I am not saying it is a great shot (probably it is not *dumb* enough to be great), but it is an interesting shot to me.
> And as a foreigner I do not care whether it is Americana or Canadiana. I know the type. You can give the guy a Union Jack t- shirt, change some brands on the table, and it will be a perfect Anglicana. The Great Culture of* Dumb Folks *is universal.
> When I look at this picture I imagine the god himself descended on this party on a big shiny parachute. Because that is how these people would look like if they actually saw Jesus. Or an emu. Or a can of baked beans. Or me.
> Just my 5 p. and a can of Coke.


tad quick with the dumb assumption, in my opinion.


----------



## ratssass (Feb 12, 2014)

"scuze me,while I kiss this guy"<---Jimmy Hendrix-Purple Haze


----------

