I like it, Kaden. Nice coincidence that the van and car are about the same vintage - you could have said this was shot in the 70's and I wouldn't have thought twice about it.
If I had to pick on something, it would be the focal point: What am I supposed to be looking at? Even so, there's something I like about it that I really can't explain. Maybe someone more experienced will have a better answer for you.
BTW - to post images from PBase, just take the web address you already have there and add /original.jpg , exactly as that appears. You can substitute original with whichever size you want.
I just like the mood but the blown out spot detracts. I like the rich softness of the image - not having a single focus does not bother me because there is so much to take in.
This image is part of a larger group of images shot in a rainy day at the Tenderloin in SF. The blown out spots are water running down the lens, which I decided would be integrated as part of the aesthetics, with a certain level of abstraction which was common to photographers like Saul Leiter. Here is a link to the gallery in question:
I am nevertheless enjoying the controversy between the folks that believe
that photography must be concrete, objective, and immediately identifiable,
and sharp (no enigmatic, mysterious or intriguing elements). Or that the
focus or elements in it can distract and hence a need for clean visual
aesthetics. All valid criticism.
This is taking me back to critical views at Stanford U. classes...lol. I am
starting to feel right at home here. I would love to hear your opinions on the
photography of my good friend Gilles Navet, here:
