# Girl



## amolitor

c&c welcome, of course, and thanks in advance!


----------



## EIngerson

Not to sound rude, but I'm just not seeing the vision in this one. Kind of cluttered and my eyes wander about the photo.


----------



## runnah

EIngerson said:


> Not to sound rude, but I'm just not seeing the vision in this one. Kind of cluttered and my eyes wander about the photo.



Agreed. Hard to pick a subject out so its hard to understand the intent...unless that is the intent?


----------



## Rick58

Sorry Andrew, but I have to go with Eric on this one. I see the angle of the branch, and the angle of the car, but not much going on between the two.
I must like higher contrast then everyone else, because it seems I can't leave my fingers off of other kids toys


----------



## gsgary

Looks like a woman to me


----------



## pgriz

Call me blind and uncomprehending, but other than seeing an attractive woman in the foreground, and a guy in the background, I'm missing the connections between the visual elements.  Yet it had enough significance to you that you posted it.  So what am I missing?


----------



## amolitor

I will try to remember to come back and take this picture apart a bit, to explain what I see in it, and what I think makes it classic "street" but for now I'm going to let it rest and give others a chance to see what they see in it without my blathering.

Thanks everyone, and there is no way an honest opinion given without malice can possibly be rude.


----------



## Warhorse

I cannot see anything going anywhere here either.


----------



## Designer

I see a lot of visual interest.  I see good timing, good balance, and repetitive elements all over the shot.

Probably not what Andrew would say, that's just me.


----------



## smithdan

Agree with Designer.  Unfortunately the guy for me is somehow not part of the "story".


----------



## Tiller

I don't see anything.

Which brings up a good question. If amolitor brings up some amazing explanation, and we all go "Ohhhhh....", does that mean it's a good picture? Or should the connection be obvious at first glance?


----------



## Designer

Don't know what Andrew would say.  I think we all see it differently.


----------



## Rick58

Tiller said:


> I don't see anything.
> 
> Which brings up a good question. If amolitor brings up some amazing explanation, and we all go "Ohhhhh....", does that mean it's a good picture? Or should the connection be obvious at first glance?



To me, it's like saying "ohhhh...." after having a joke explained.


----------



## amolitor

Tiller said:


> Which brings up a good question. If amolitor brings up some amazing explanation, and we all go "Ohhhhh....", does that mean it's a good picture? Or should the connection be obvious at first glance?



That is an outstanding question, in fact.

In order the "get" any piece of art, there has to be some sort of shared culture or ideas. Space aliens that see with RADAR, reproduce by fission, with a religion based on the theory that everything unscrews are not likely to "get" any human photography. Buddhists from rural Asia 500 years ago would probably make little sense of christian iconography.

So there's that. Generally on TPF when we make a picture we're pretty much assuming that the people on TPF are a lot like us, and that they'll get a lot of the same sorts of things. Mainly western european derived culture, and so on. In our global world, people in asia and africa and generally familiar enough with western european cultures to be able to get a lot of the stuff, much of the time, so this is a pretty safe bet. This picture ain't that broad.

Orthogonally, TPF like any online community suffers from the problem of norming. Less now than in the past, to be sure, but there is still a print strong strain of consensus about what makes a good picture, and there's a strong tendency to like things outside that consensus less. TPF is one of the better communities in this regard, the norming tendency is relatively mild. Still, it's there. This isn't an indictment, at all. This kind of norming is totally normal, and in fact inevitable.

So, what do we have here? This picture is a bit narrow in appeal. If you're an aficionado of certain kind of street photography you're going to see some things in here. If you're not, you probably are not. The "culture" to which this picture might appeal is kind of narrow. When I "explain" it, I'm not correcting your understanding of the picture. Your understanding is what it is. What I can do is explain a little bit of what's going on within that "culture" that does notice the relevant features of this picture.

If I'd shown a picture of a cross to a 12th century Buddhist, perhaps he'd say "huh?". I can explain the story of Christ to him, and he might at second remove grasp the significance of The Cross in a picture. It's not gonna make him a Christian, though. Maybe he'll convert someday, maybe some day he'll "get" the picture in that way. But explaining it, while helpful, isn't going to make him "get" it in that cultural, visceral, way.

This picture is also substantially outside TPF's norms.

If you don't get it, that's cool. I don't mind, and I appreciate your remarks. It's all good input, and helps me understand how broadly or narrowly appealing my picture is.


----------



## Derrel

The woman appears to be briskly walking past the hair and nail salon, where outside, one of the stylists is texting and enjoying a coffee. SHe's blurred a tiny bit and out of focus due to the long focal length. It's a very brief moment in time. She appears from her general demeanor, to be a style-conscious, early 30's aged woman. He appears to be an early 40's, possibly Asian man, who works at the hair styling place. He appears as if he is walking very slowly, she very quickly. I dunno...I like that tenacious fall leaf still hanging on, right in front of the white of the door jambs, that's a lovely, tiny seasonal clue. It's not a super-great image, but it has a few things going on in it.


----------



## JacaRanda

She is on a time sensitive mission and he is not.


----------



## Derrel

JacaRanda said:


> She is on a time sensative mission and he is not.



Yeah, I thought about that. And also, similarly, their strides are not directly in synch, but are opposite. There's just "something about" that ever-so-slight bit of motion blur in her that gives a feeling of "time"...it's literally, a "showing" of motion over time, which is something that ultra-short exposure times do not convey, while slower times, the ones that give blurring effects, literally show us a person as she moves, over time.


----------



## sashbar

I tried to extract at least some value from this shot and all I could come up with was the guy with a leaf on his head and a 20% off price tag behind his back. And some moderate orgy of lines and shapes and shades across the frame.


----------



## Jetmugg

From a purely sexist point of view, her legs appear to be very well toned.  Perhaps she's a cyclist?


----------



## sashbar

amolitor said:


> Tiller said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what do we have here? This picture is a bit narrow in appeal. If you're an aficionado of certain kind of street photography you're going to see some things in here. If you're not, you probably are not. The "culture" to which this picture might appeal is kind of narrow. When I "explain" it, I'm not correcting your understanding of the picture. Your understanding is what it is. What I can do is explain a little bit of what's going on within that "culture" that does notice the relevant features of this picture.
> 
> If I'd shown a picture of a cross to a 12th century Buddhist, perhaps he'd say "huh?". I can explain the story of Christ to him, and he might at second remove grasp the significance of The Cross in a picture. It's not gonna make him a Christian, though. Maybe he'll convert someday, maybe some day he'll "get" the picture in that way. But explaining it, while helpful, isn't going to make him "get" it in that cultural, visceral, way.
> 
> This picture is also substantially outside TPF's norms.
> 
> If you don't get it, that's cool. I don't mind, and I appreciate your remarks. It's all good input, and helps me understand how broadly or narrowly appealing my picture is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A perfect description of a speed camera shot.
Click to expand...


----------



## timor

I have an explanation for this picture. Looks like Amolitor, subconsciously, maybe, finds this girl hot and that reason enough. In this depatment men have "*sometimes*" a tunnel vision.  That's all the philosophy.


----------



## runnah

I think some folks are reaching a bit here. Andy is a nice guy but I just don't see a single redeeming feature in this photo to designate it as a "keeper". Not sure what some folks are playing at, wether it's an ego-stroke, an attempt to sound arty, or just flat out don't know what they are talking about.

Again, nothing personal just my take on the critiquing.


----------



## gsgary

runnah said:


> I think some folks are reaching a bit here. Andy is a nice guy but I just don't see a single redeeming feature in this photo to designate it as a "keeper". Not sure what some folks are playing at, wether it's an ego-stroke, an attempt to sound arty, or just flat out don't know what they are talking about.
> 
> Again, nothing personal just my take on the critiquing.



What about the lovely legs

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## sashbar

timor said:


> I have an explanation for this picture. Looks like Amolitor, subconsciously, maybe, finds this girl hot and that reason enough. In this depatment men have "*sometimes*" a tunnel vision.  That's all the philosophy.



Exactly. I wanted to write about it too.


----------



## runnah

gsgary said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think some folks are reaching a bit here. Andy is a nice guy but I just don't see a single redeeming feature in this photo to designate it as a "keeper". Not sure what some folks are playing at, wether it's an ego-stroke, an attempt to sound arty, or just flat out don't know what they are talking about.
> 
> Again, nothing personal just my take on the critiquing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the lovely legs
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...


Hard to see because of the motion blur.


----------



## amolitor

I assure you my attraction is entirely conscious.

What makes this picture go for aficionados of classical street photography is the repeated shapes and postures. The girl, the man, the sandwich board, all pretty much the same posture. Together the three form another triangle (it would be better if the fellow above was about a foot further back). The branch and the car echo, to a lesser degree, some of the same diagonals.

Then there's a little contrast of implied narratives between the guy relaxing and mucking about on his phone, against the girl who is clearly Going Somewhere, and the other remarks people have made about seasonal notes and so on. It all starts from the geometry, though, the repeated triangles.

The geometry isn't particularly obvious here, it's somewhere between "subtle" and "not very good".

Almost all of this is, of course, completely accidental. I was going for "pedestrian versus guy on the deck" and hoping for something interesting to happen. But that's pretty much how street happens.


----------



## sashbar

I would suggest the new TPF Gallery:  PNA Photography,  aka Pictures Narrow in Appeal. I can flood this Gallery with beautiful PNA shots, promise.


----------



## sashbar

amolitor said:


> I assure you my attraction is entirely conscious.
> 
> What makes this picture go for aficionados of classical street photography is the repeated shapes and postures. The girl, the man, the sandwich board, all pretty much the same posture. Together the three form another triangle (it would be better if the fellow above was about a foot further back). The branch and the car echo, to a lesser degree, some of the same diagonals.
> 
> Then there's a little contrast of implied narratives between the guy relaxing and mucking about on his phone, against the girl who is clearly Going Somewhere, and the other remarks people have made about seasonal notes and so on. It all starts from the geometry, though, the repeated triangles.
> 
> The geometry isn't particularly obvious here, it's somewhere between "subtle" and "not very good".
> 
> Almost all of this is, of course, completely accidental. I was going for "pedestrian versus guy on the deck" and hoping for something interesting to happen. But that's pretty much how street happens.




Amolitor, with due respect, you can close your eyes,take a random street shot, then study it and find all the above ingredients - repeated shapes and lines, similar postures, triangles and "implied narratives". Most probably there will be someone who is going somewhere (or even Going Somewhere !). And a street shot without someone mucking about oh his/her phone in the frame is a big luck these days. 
Does it all constitute a good photo? You can not serve a borshch and claim it is tasty because all the ingredients are there: meat, carrots, beetroot, potatos etc. YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO COOK IT, MATE.


----------



## runnah

amolitor said:


> What makes this picture go for aficionados of classical street photography...



So if I don't like it I must not be an aficionado and incorrect?


----------



## amolitor

runnah said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes this picture go for aficionados of classical street photography...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if I don't like it I must not be an aficionado and incorrect?
Click to expand...


Liking it is irrelevant. If you don't pick up on the geometry, then you're not an aficionado. The words "correct" and "incorrect" don't even seem to be applicable.


----------



## gsgary

runnah said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think some folks are reaching a bit here. Andy is a nice guy but I just don't see a single redeeming feature in this photo to designate it as a "keeper". Not sure what some folks are playing at, wether it's an ego-stroke, an attempt to sound arty, or just flat out don't know what they are talking about.
> 
> Again, nothing personal just my take on the critiquing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the lovely legs
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hard to see because of the motion blur.
Click to expand...


Also wide open just how i like them

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## DougGrigg

I see balance, timing and geometry. I'll be honest that I'm not a fan of this image, but i love how the branch reflected mimics the weight of the car, the woman would be better if caught just slightly earlier in my opinion. 

Its a bit cluttered, but that just my opinion!


----------



## timor

amolitor said:


> I assure you my attraction is entirely conscious.


Mathematician first, ha ? :lmao:


----------



## pixmedic

Im on my phone at work so im not getting to see a very large image, but i like the lighter of the full images better than the darker.  Love the womans boots, and for some reason, the way you caught her mid stride reminds me of a Beatles album. Abbey road perhaps? Cant remember now... Been too long since i had records. 

My biggest nitpick here would be the branches in the way. I find them a bit distracting.  I personally might like this one better cropped down to just the woman and a bit of surroundings.


----------



## JacaRanda

There are actually a gazillion lines and shapes, way more than I saw initially.  However, I keep going back to her legs wondering how tall she is; that seems to be one helluva stride she just took.


----------



## BillM

I like the shot. And as long as you don't take 3000 pictures of her and start using them as wallpaper it's not creepy at all


----------



## vintagesnaps

This seems like not quite having the vantage point needed because of the car, which seems to be in the way and more of a distraction than anything. If it would have been possible to move a step or two to be able to shoot over or around the car the photo might have worked (or if the traffic light had changed and the car moved in time...). I usually think if something's in a photo it needs to work as part of the image or it's better to keep it out. 

Maybe waiting til she took one or two more strides might have gotten a better photo, or maybe it just wouldn't have worked. Doing sports and events I've found it's a good bit of time spent watching and waiting til the right moment, and I've had my share of times that I _just_ missed the shot. Looking at the door the photo appears to need to be straightened, and it might benefit from being brightened and/or the contrast adjusted (at least how it looks on here on my monitor). 

I feel like I see the intent, having the sandwich board in the foreground that has a blackboard look to it, and the sign in the same blackboard style next to the door balancing each other; the woman with the long stride and the man not, with the pattern of the fence in between. That's the best part of the photo but it seems cut off because the car seems to obstruct the view and takes away from the pattern and balance of the image. 

Photography obviously being a visual medium if it takes a lot of explanation then it seems like the photo just didn't really convey what was intended.


----------



## amolitor

The idea that everyone should view every picture identically, that there is no room for different backgrounds, different cultures, different lives, to affect how we see pictures is narrow minded and stupid.

The fact is that every picture has a set of pre-requisites to "get" it. Some require little, we consider these to be "universal" but of course they are not. They're just broadly accessible. Some are narrow, pictures of grandma at her 90th birthday are pretty meaningless to anyone who isn't related to grandma. The fact is that this is a picture that _is_ accessible to aficionados of a certain genre. If you don't get it, that doesn't say one single solitary damn thing about you except that you're not an aficionado of that genre.

Now you can quote me, because I'm attacking people:

By attacking me when I am at some non-trivial pains to be careful, to not denigrate you or anyone else, to explain some things in neutral and non-confrontational ways, you earn my ire.  It's insulting that you think so little of me that you cannot be bothered to read or understand what I wrote. I am accordingly insulted.


----------



## Derrel

I think the concept of equating human body positions with the position of an inanimate sandwich board is an absolutely huge stretch, a rationalization made after the fact. 

There's an old, old expression, "*You might someday mistake a shadow for a man, but you will never mistake a man for a shadow*."

The sandwich board = human body position is patently dubious.


----------



## Tiller

Holy cow Batman, this has gotten out of control. 

Amolitor, I think Runnah has a fair point, but you do as well.

I don't think you should have said "This will be appreciated by a certain type of street aficionados", simply because once you say that, there will be people who say they "get it", simply to be in a group.

Plus you've left no room for a third option. Either you're an aficionado so you like it, or you don't like it so you must not be an aficionado. Is it not possible to be an aficionado and not like it?

But I agree that you were not attacking anyone. I don't like the picture and I definitely don't claim to be any sort of aficionado.

Just my $0.02.


----------



## amolitor

Derrel said:


> I think the concept of equating human body positions with the position of an inanimate sandwich board is an absolutely huge stretch, a rationalization made after the fact.



Well, sure. That doesn't mean it's not there, eh? Almost everything in this picture is a sheer accident, I certainly wasn't thinking about the sandwich board when I shot it. I think you're arguing that I am digging up the sandwich board to support whatever fondness I might have for the picture, which is, sure, fair enough. But isn't that true of everything we see in a picture? We like it, we find things in it that we like, and there they are.

For a similar sort of comparison, and let me be careful here, I am not equating myself to HCB, look at Behind The Gare St Lazare, and note the shape of the roof lines versus the shape of the man's legs. There is an echoing of shapes here, arguably a rationalization after the fact as well. This isn't a comparison I invented. I think his picture would be less pleasing with flat rooflines in the background. Anyways, there's precedent for comparing these kinds of things.

My picture would certainly be less pleasing to me without the sandwich board, now that I've noticed it.


----------



## runnah

I don't understand this because I am not a reading aficionado.

Anyways you can think as you please and I shall do the same. I called you on some BS and you blew up so that leads me to think that you knew it is was so.


----------



## kathyt

You need to take some time off the forum amolitor. I am offended by this and your not even talking to me!


----------



## KelSS90

I first viewed your image when there were very few comments and thought "I don't really like it, but maybe I just don't get it." As this thread has spiraled out of control, I think that it basically it boils down to this:

You like the picture. A lot of people don't. If you don't like a corvette, and I go on and on about the amazing worth of the wheels or brake calipers that were put on it, that explains why I'm gaga about it maybe, but that doesn't mean you have to all of a sudden change your opinion. And it certainly doesn't make you less intelligent or a lessen person than me for having a different opinion. 


*I think that it is also very worth noting that when a newbie here posts C&C, they would be slapped on the wrist for reacting like this. Heck, if someone posts "I love this shot, what do you think?" , it is often replied "it makes is difficult for honest feedback when you preface a post with the fact that you love it". 
Just because you've been here a while and post often, does not mean that everyone must sing praises of all your work. Take the feedback, consider it, learn from it, and move on. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## amolitor

I never can remember that saying complicated things on the internet is a terrible idea. People will skim it, they'll lump it with some other stuff they read once and decide what you mean, and then reply based on that. What you actually _write_ is largely irrelevant.


----------



## KelSS90

Again, it must be easier to assume that people aren't reading your posts in this thread, than accepting the fact that they are reading your posts, comprehending your posts, and simply disagreeing with you. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## The_Traveler

amolitor said:


> I never can remember that saying complicated things on the internet is a terrible idea. People will skim it, they'll lump it with some other stuff they read once and decide what you mean, and then reply based on that. What you actually _write_ is largely irrelevant.



What comes across is you really do think that you're a great deal smarter and more sophisticated than the rest of us and that you're doing us a significant favor by sharing your time.


----------



## charlie76

EIngerson said:


> Not to sound rude, but I'm just not seeing the vision in this one. Kind of cluttered and my eyes wander about the photo.


What he said


----------



## terri

Anyone who isn't commenting on the image can count on having their comments removed from here on out.   When discussion turns from evaluating an image to evaluating the photographer, it's over.  

If some of you would learn to keep your personal opinions of others to yourselves, the forum would be better for it.   There is no reason this thread had to turn south other than people continued to jab the photographer as opposed to the photo.   Please refrain.


----------



## sashbar

OK, one more desperate attempt to salvage this masterpiece.


----------



## Derrel

amolitor said:


> View attachment 64413
> 
> c&c welcome, of course, and thanks in advance!



If I were to score this an a matted print in a judging situation, this image would score a 63, based mostly on plugged up dark tones, excessive dead and uninteresting space throughout the majority of the frame, and a lack of a *successfully-executed* concept. Like the huge preponderance of photos that I think we all make/take/shoot/snap/grab, whatever, this photo really does not rise to the level of P for Pick in Lightroom. It's a shot made on the street, from a distance, and as such it shows us the scene from afar, and does not involve us very actively. It's filled with modern urban clutter.

You want to talk about the "strength" or "virtue" of two humans snapped while walking, and a sandwich board sign as some kind of Holy Grail of virtue, well, fine, but this is a street snap, and not a very compelling one based on the reactions here. We could also go on to liken the horizontal lines of the concrete wall with the horizontal rails of the fence, as well as the horizontal rails that decorate the building facade. Or we could wax rhapsodic about the four white boards flanking the nail and hair salon's doors and groove on how those horizontal lines "echo" the upright steel fence posts. And hey--there's a brick wall in the upper-right corner, and the lower-left or OPPOSITE corner is ALSO a flat surface, but in a different orientation. Yeah...if you sit down and take a fine-toothed comb to this, we can come up with many similarities between elements. That's because people love to try and connect things that, often times, are not really connected in ANY substantive, meaningful way. And that's what you're try to hammer into our heads, Andrew--that this snap has some kind of magically amazing geometry that elevates it.

Again, I'd give this a 63 if I were to score this image.


----------



## kathyt

charlie76 said:


> EIngerson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to sound rude, but I'm just not seeing the vision in this one. Kind of cluttered and my eyes wander about the photo.
> 
> 
> 
> What he said
Click to expand...

I am also not seeing the vision in this image either. It is all over the place.


----------



## timor

One thing for sure, Amolitor knows, how to cause hot discussion around questionable images of his. It is not first time he probes mental state of this forum, , this time to the point, that Terri has to intervene. And there are tons of other offerings starved for evaluation, with zero or one responses.
This image is just a snapshot. More in it of spirit of Lomography, than in Amolitor's "A Little Portfolio", where he actually admits that.


----------



## pgriz

Whether or not I "see" what Andrew sees, and whether or not we agree that the image is "good" or not, isn't really the point.  Part of our own education or perception verification is to put out stuff we like (or aren't sure of) and see what kind of reaction we get.  If the image doesn't tickle everybody's fancy, what is the harm in discussing what we think works and what doesn't?  At worse, we will disagree. Pftt.  So there's no learning opportunity this time around, at least for many of us.  That's fine too.  Personally, I do really like when people post their offbeat images and make us work a little at trying to suss out the sense (or non-sense) in them.  Hefting barbells at the gym is kinda pointless in itself, except for the stimulus it affords our muscles.  If we don't get it - there's plenty more threads where we can frolic and have fun.


----------



## manaheim

The image doesn't work for me, either for what it's worth.  I think I see some elements you might have been playing with, but I feel like there are two many other things in the image that don't seem to tie into that, so it's muddied.


----------



## TJNY

I don't see it.  Then again, I am a simple fella.


----------



## EIngerson

The title you gave the thread and photo was "Girl" I take that as the "Girl" is your intended subject. all this talk of boards and lines and such is irrelevant. The fact remains that my eyes are not drawn to the intended subject. What's the point of all the debate?


----------



## Oxytocinbite

EIngerson said:


> The title you gave the thread and photo was "Girl" I take that as the "Girl" is your intended subject. all this talk of boards and lines and such is irrelevant. The fact remains that my eyes are not drawn to the intended subject. What's the point of all the debate?



Agreed.


----------



## JacaRanda

sashbar said:


> OK, one more desperate attempt to salvage this masterpiece.
> 
> View attachment 64492



BINGO!  The word ART on the sign says it all.  It is the reason for this thread.

Sashbar for Prez Feb. 1st - 28th or 29th depending on some weird rule.


----------



## Rick58




----------



## ceeboy14

I tried to see Andy's POV first before reading all the rest of the palavering that took place over the course of 4 pages of comments. I have to agree as the image was posted, there was a lot of disconnect between the signs, the hurried lady and the disinterested cell phone guy, but taking the image and removing the non-interest "debris," one can start understanding Andy's initial vision. We have two characters, both quite intent on a task before them. The lady is in a hurry to get somewhere, and because of the slowed shutter speed, we really don't know if she is in a hurry or intentionally blurred to appear so...though, does that make any difference?

On the second level (literally, in this case) we have a gentleman quite intent on reading a text message, this evidenced by his slower movement and the direction of his eyes. Neither figure seems the least bit interested in their immediate surroundings, therefore these elements become distractingly superfluous. With a little more conscientious effort in editing the scene, I think Andy could make this into a much stronger statement...would it still grab attention? I think so as there are all the necessary elements for a good street shot, at least by those elements I've read. This is one such possibility toward giving the shot a fighting chance.


----------



## Warhorse

The picture is still a dud IMHO.


----------



## jenko

Well, I'm not so sure about the brilliance of triangles or other geometric pleasures, but I do see social issues being touched upon in this image. 

There's the woman, who is blonde, shapely, wearing a short skirt, tight clothing, and high heels. She is representative of Western beauty ideals. The sign shows us some of these rituals and bourgeois privilege. The man looks asian to me, but that could just be me stereotyping--he could also be waiting for his turn or for someone else to finish up. I think the image would be stronger if he was an employee, and if that was more obvious, because than you would understand his role in the image as a service worker, and the driving force of it all, these Western beauty ideals. 

That's my take.


----------



## JacaRanda

It's tough for me to get past the thought of a gorgeous, physically strong and shapely woman, huffing it with purpose carrying a huge purse or shopping bag.


----------



## Designer

jenko said:


> but I do see social issues being touched upon in this image.



I see no connection whatsoever between the two figures.

It's just "street" and nothing else.  Good street.


----------



## Tiller

I don't think this picture would have gotten anywhere near the amount of feedback if it was from anyone else :mrgreen:


----------



## jenko

Designer said:


> jenko said:
> 
> 
> 
> but I do see social issues being touched upon in this image.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see no connection whatsoever between the two figures.
> 
> It's just "street" and nothing else.  Good street.
Click to expand...


I completely agree there's no relationship between the two. I wish there was one, though, besides belonging to a geometrical element. At least then something would be at stake, something would resonate emotionally. 

Seriously. If I want to appreciate shapes and triangles, I'll go look at The Raft of the Medusa, where the triangle actually means something, where there's something at stake, something to be learned by looking. 

The top of the triangle is supposed to be the height of the action. That is where the most important figure goes -- here, there's a guy on his cell phone; it's anti-climactic. He's at the top, yet he doesn't matter, he's just the property of a shape. Meaningless. 

Still, I wouldn't call this image a failure, because I do see an interesting connection between the woman and the hair salon sign. I just don't find the geometrical properties all that revealing or innovative.


----------



## EIngerson

You guys are really starting to reach hard to justify this image&#8230;&#8230;..


----------



## manaheim

I think andy tossed up his hands and left a while ago.


----------



## Rick58

Andy who? OHhhhh...That Andy. I remember him. He's the guy that posted here FIVE pages ago.


----------



## kathyt

EIngerson said:


> You guys are really starting to reach hard to justify this image&#8230;&#8230;..


Great minds think alike.


----------



## ceeboy14

I think more people on here spend too much time wanting to make the photograph theirs (or not) than ever speaking to the merits of what's before them. "*I would have liked *more space to the right, less contrast, in color and not black & white, in black in white not color..."I think the image would be stronger if he was an employee, and if that was more obvious, because than you would understand his role in the image as a service worker, and the driving force of it all, these Western beauty ideals," as if the photographer made a decision not based on the viewer's likes and dislikes. Folks, it's not yours to speculate on the want but what's in front of you. I find there is more time spent bashing ("I completely agree there's no relationship between the two," Say what...based on your judgment that is based on the triangles in the Raft of the Medusa. Given the direction Gericault's work was taking after that painting was accomplished, had he been made that painting earlier, on this forum he'd of either been totally panned for so-so work, or booted for suggestive work, or more likely, just ignored. Genius is sometimes not realized immediately by an artist. Sometimes it takes time. Jenko based more of her critique on not liking the bourgeoisie (this is the correct spelling) potential of the lady based solely on the issue of a short, tight skirt, blonde representing Western beauty ideals. Come on, tell me how this has squat to do with direction, geometrics, line, value, contrast or any other criteria for determining the value of a work. This was not an artwork where the artist could place everyone in an "ideal," provide the perfect lighting, drama, or place the most dramatic point at the apex of the triangle. It's a street shot, for HCB's sake. It's not terribly successful, but there are elements that could have been addressed and left Andy out of the equation completely, left some idealistic Romantic ideal back in 1830.

I've see stuff posted by Rick58 that was quite simple, quite plain but marvelously executed and ignored time after time. Maybe he's not in the club, maybe he's also seen as a Bourgeoisie pig because he's a white male, non-Asian, who makes more than minimum wage...most of you need to engage your brain before your fingers touch the keyboard. What a giggle.


----------



## runnah

ceeboy14 said:


> Maybe he's not in the club, maybe he's also seen as a Bourgeoisie pig because he's a white male, non-Asian, who makes more than minimum wage...most of you need to engage your brain before your fingers touch the keyboard.



So if he was poor and Asian woman we'd think differently? I think your idea train left the station without all the passengers on board, and the train was on fire, and heading off a cliff which also is on fire.


----------



## Parker219

I agree with Ceeboy, well I WAS with Ceeboy for most of that....well half of that....really the first part.

I think this thread is starting to run its course.


OP...post another photo!


----------



## JacaRanda

Parker219 said:


> OP...post another photo!


  :lmao:


----------



## jenko

ceeboy14 said:


> I think more people on here spend too much time wanting to make the photograph theirs (or not) than ever speaking to the merits of what's before them. "*I would have liked *more space to the right, less contrast, in color and not black & white, in black in white not color..."I think the image would be stronger if he was an employee, and if that was more obvious, because than you would understand his role in the image as a service worker, and the driving force of it all, these Western beauty ideals," as if the photographer made a decision not based on the viewer's likes and dislikes. Folks, it's not yours to speculate on the want but what's in front of you. I find there is more time spent bashing ("I completely agree there's no relationship between the two," Say what...based on your judgment that is based on the triangles in the Raft of the Medusa. Given the direction Gericault's work was taking after that painting was accomplished, had he been made that painting earlier, on this forum he'd of either been totally panned for so-so work, or booted for suggestive work, or more likely, just ignored. Genius is sometimes not realized immediately by an artist. Sometimes it takes time. Jenko based more of her critique on not liking the bourgeoisie (this is the correct spelling) potential of the lady based solely on the issue of a short, tight skirt, blonde representing Western beauty ideals. Come on, tell me how this has squat to do with direction, geometrics, line, value, contrast or any other criteria for determining the value of a work. This was not an artwork where the artist could place everyone in an "ideal," provide the perfect lighting, drama, or place the most dramatic point at the apex of the triangle. It's a street shot, for HCB's sake. It's not terribly successful, but there are elements that could have been addressed and left Andy out of the equation completely, left some idealistic Romantic ideal back in 1830.
> 
> I've see stuff posted by Rick58 that was quite simple, quite plain but marvelously executed and ignored time after time. Maybe he's not in the club, maybe he's also seen as a Bourgeoisie pig because he's a white male, non-Asian, who makes more than minimum wage...most of you need to engage your brain before your fingers touch the keyboard. What a giggle.



Well, I wasn't going to come back to this thread, but since you've decided to continue the discussion and make me the center of it ...

First off, I was not bashing anyone. Not amoliter, not his image, and certainly not the woman in the photograph. I usually comment when amoliter posts, and I read his blog sometimes. I have appreciated some of his images in the past and I make an effort to take his intent into consideration. I never called _anyone_ bourgeois, let alone used the word "pig." I was referring to the rituals on the sign. 

I'm interested in women's issues, so that is part of my experience. It's going to shape how I interpret something. The hair salon is a bourgeois experience for most American women. It's conventional, middle-class. Most people I know do not have a celebrity stylist come to their homes--they go the salon. I go to the salon. I have no problem admitting it is one of my bourgeois rituals. 

The woman does fit the ideal for Western beauty. I'm not saying she's a bad person for it. She's lucky! The idea that America admires shapely blondes in tight clothing is nothing new. And yes, it ties into western beauty ideals. I think it would be interesting if the guy were an employee because then one would see a relationship between her, the sign, and the man. 

As far as The Raft of Medusa goes, I admit I chose a random example. My point was that I felt amoliter was placing too much importance on geometrical shapes to carry the entire image. The image would be stronger, imo, if there was also some meaning to be derived from the scene, or at least a lingering emotional resonance. He placed a great deal of emphasis on the shapes being what he felt was part of the image's success. What he felt made it classic street photography. My critique of that is the fact that shapes themselves are not enough, at least not in a scene where there are human beings. HCB does have strong geometrical design at play, but there is always something more ... There's humanity and emotion. 

And if you truly respect amoliter's vision, and you think people spend too much time trying to make it their own, than why did you butcher it with your sliced revision and take out all of the elements he finds the most important? 

Lastly, I was simply giving my interpretation. If you disagree with it, than you do. I don't really care. We all come to an image with our own experiences. I would hope a critique forum would be open to discussing our interpretations as well as what is before us in an image. Because the maker isn't always conscious of everything. And the intent is only one part of the experience. I'm grateful when a poster takes the time to try and interpret an image or make technical suggestions. I'm curious as to what they see, because I know it's different from what I see. They are a different person with different experiences. According to you, no one should interpret anything. I disagree. 

As far as the "club" goes, I don't understand where you are coming from or going with that. 

I truly did not mean to offend anyone. I apologize if my posts were somehow offensive or bashing.


----------



## pgriz

At this point, the discussion is revealing more of our biases and perceptions, than it does of Andrew's intent or ability at capturing "street".  But I do agree with ceeboy, that we should take some of the energy invested in this thread, and spread it out to people like Rick who posts interesting (but not necessarily controversial) images.  Oh, and I missed the memo about the club.  Can someone forward me the rules and membership criteria?  I'd like to know what I'm missing if I don't ever find the magic door in.


----------



## lambertpix

pgriz said:


> But I do agree with ceeboy, that we should take some of the energy invested in this thread, and spread it out to people like Rick who posts interesting (but not necessarily controversial) images.



Like...like...like.


----------



## Designer

jenko said:


> I'm grateful when a poster takes the time to try and interpret an image or make technical suggestions. I'm curious as to what they see, because I know it's different from what I see. They are a different person with different experiences. According to you, no one should interpret anything. I disagree.



In the case of amolitor's image, I don't think there is anything to "interpret", and as far as making technical suggestions, it is very difficult to foresee technical problems when grabbing a quick shot.  We just take it as it appears, like it or not.  MHO.


----------



## Rick58

Wow, thanks guys. Someone does actually see my posts . Other then a handfull of still lifes, my stuff is usually considered "record" shots and probably not all that interesting. But I try to take them a step further and make them technically pleasing to the eye. If I miss the bulls eye, I'd like to know how to improve it. 

CB gave me a very good critque to my last WOW Chew. He just mentioned he would have liked to have seen a little more room on the right side of the frame due to the leaning building. I explained that I saw what he was talking about, but unfortunately, there was no more room to give. Perfect critque for me. I personally am not looking for at'ta boys, but honest, non belittling critque that will help me see things I may have missed.

It's all too easy to get lost behind a PC monitor and forget that you're attacking a person, not just a screen name, and the phrase "get tough skin" should never have to enter into the critque. I try to treat folks on here as if I'm sitting across the table from them and if I wouldn't say something to them face to face, I won't say it here.


----------



## pgriz

Rick, your on-line demeanor puts you in the "good people" camp.  Now we'll need to gang up on your artistic vision, just so that you can feel appreciated.


----------



## terri

If everyone is done discussing Andy's image, are we done here?    

The points people have raised about how their biases enter their assessments of photographs are interesting, but it's a discussion for another thread.   Just don't want to see this flare up again, and Andy's been uninvolved for the last...couple of pages, I think.


----------

