Great people shots - some really nice, sincere smiles.
Advice:
1 - You need to turn the camera to portrait - too much wasted space with the horizontal crop.
2 - Segue from #1 - move in closer. With the 135 you should have plenty of frame-filling goodness available.
BubbaJon wrote:
Great people shots - some really nice, sincere smiles.
Advice:
1 - You need to turn the camera to portrait - too much wasted space with the horizontal crop.
2 - Segue from #1 - move in closer. With the 135 you should have plenty of frame-filling goodness available.
Thanks for your input/opinions.
1 - I shot in lanscape mode on purpose to collect enviroment. Portrait would take away much of what I wanted in the frame.
2 - Again - I didn't want to frame too tight. I wanted a touch of enviroment to show where these individuals were.
1 - I shot in lanscape mode on purpose to collect enviroment. Portrait would take away much of what I wanted in the frame.
2 - Again - I didn't want to frame too tight. I wanted a touch of enviroment to show where these individuals were.
Then why shoot with the 135 wide open? Nice bokeh and very pleasing on it's own, but it's either about the people, or the "what, when and where" of the people, or the when and where and the people are there for context. We can eliminate the last since you titled it "strangers" establishing it is indeed about the people. You assert you chose your framing for the environment but really there is nothing identifiable as to a what or where. My conclusion is that you just want to establish an understanding in the viewer that these are not studio shots but rather people captured in the wild - on safari as it were.
Please don't take my comments as diminishing your work - those are some mighty fine expressions and you captured the people well - I'm just not convinced on the framing. As I stated - I think what you're trying to establish is that these are "street" shots and not posed or in a studio somewhere. I would challenge you to attempt framing such that the person is maximized and just enough of the background to establish your environment - "not a studio". I hope that makes sense and doesn't come across as argumentative. Obviously a lot of folks are happy with your work - I'm just saying - could it be better?
regards,
Jon
^ Thanks for the input. Your stating opinions... so I'll take it with a grain of salt. Could it be better? Well being art is subjective and comes down to personal preference the answer is yes. To me, pesonally? No. I like everything about the way I shot this project and wouldn't change a thing.
In my opinion, shooting the 135L wide open is absolutley perfect for this project, and my framing is spot on for my goal.
I hope you were joking with your safari comment? It's very ovbious these are shot on the streets/sidewalks of a city/urban area. If that isn't outright & ovbious to you... and you need more detail, well I'm sorry. Perhaps each and every single shot doesn't show "street/sidewalk/city/people" in it, but most of them do... so you gotta kinda fill in the blanks.
I tried a few shots stopping down and I didn't like the results. Yes, you see more background, but the background started to become distracting. Like a telephone pole that would of been blurred to the point of not being a distraction, came more into focus and looked like it was growing out of one of my subjects shoulders. Wide open, it wouldn't of been so distracting and kept your eyes on the subject. Also, I admit, the 135L bokeh is just simply amazing.
80% of the shots show that "street/sidewalk/city/people/urban" vibe, and yes, landscape mode shows that best. The other shots that are just a blurred smear where the background isn't distinguishable... I would hope onlookers would have a clue enough to look at the project as a whole and fill in the blanks.
Lastly, the goal was to shoot strangers, and capture sincere, comfortable and natural expressions. That was the goal. Was that goal hit? I say yes. And isolation served this goal best.
Once again, another great set. I'm a shallow DOF *and* horizontal junkie myself, so these are right up my alley. Plus of course, your ability to go up to complete strangers and ask them to have their picture taken and get these results. I'm sure like anything it gets easier with practice, but I think it still takes a certain personality to pull that off, that few have.
neighbourboy wrote:
Once again, another great set. I'm a shallow DOF *and* horizontal junkie myself, so these are right up my alley. Plus of course, your ability to go up to complete strangers and ask them to have their picture taken and get these results. I'm sure like anything it gets easier with practice, but I think it still takes a certain personality to pull that off, that few have.
--David
Thanks, I appreciated it.
Is there any question in your mind as to what type of environment these shot were taken? Though I mentioned it... is it appearant to you?
m.shalaby wrote:
Regarding the bokeh - I personally love the look of it. The 135L is just pure magic.
The reason why I don't stop down isn't because of just that though.
I feel F2.0 gives enough environment to yield the feel of street portraiture, and anything more could of lead to distractions and draw attention away from the subjects. Some love the look, some ask for more background - can't please everyone I guess. I just did what I felt served the project the best.
Its funny that one said I must have the "nicest people" in my area. These people were all shot in the NY/NJ Metro area - an area that gets a bad rap for rudeness.
People are just people no matter where they are on earth... and if you take a moment, even if its just for 2 minutes to briefly interact with them, you'll see how, for the most part, internally beautifull people really are no matter where they are from.
This is what my project evolved into. In the begining it was just a self challange... but without me even realizing what I was doing, it turned into something bigger. ...Show more →
Put me in the "love it" category. I agree with your goals and I think you reached them in a wonderful way.
It's your vision. For those who'd like a little more focused BG, you seem to have a vision of how you'd do it. I'd like to cajole you into acting on your vision. Your vision is different but equally valid. It could lead to some great photographs for you, and you may also find it leads to some great experiences.
Is there any question in your mind as to what type of environment these shot were taken? Though I mentioned it... is it appearant to you?
You know, that's an excellent question. I read the description 1st in your initial posting, so I already knew.
But looking at them objectively - put all together I definitely think I'd know they were all in a street setting. Individually, some of them might be a little tough to tell, for example in this set numbers 1, 7, 8,10, 11, 13 if viewed as a single image - I might not think 'city'. 4 almost has a more small town look in the BG.
However, when viewed all together as one set (as I'm guessing you envision), the diversity of people with different styles, ages, races - all of them outside, some windy hair and glimpses of city settings in some of the pictures. Yeah, I'm pretty sure I'd very quickly understand these were spontaneous pictures taken in a city somewhere. And I don't consider myself the sharpest tool in the shed, so if I can figure it out, I think most could :-)
neighbourboy wrote:
You know, that's an excellent question. I read the description 1st in your initial posting, so I already knew.
But looking at them objectively - put all together I definitely think I'd know they were all in a street setting. Individually, some of them might be a little tough to tell, for example in this set numbers 1, 7, 8,10, 11, 13 if viewed as a single image - I might not think 'city'. 4 almost has a more small town look in the BG.
However, when viewed all together as one set (as I'm guessing you envision), the diversity of people with different styles, ages, races - all of them outside, some windy hair and glimpses of city settings in some of the pictures. Yeah, I'm pretty sure I'd very quickly understand these were spontaneous pictures taken in a city somewhere. And I don't consider myself the sharpest tool in the shed, so if I can figure it out, I think most could :-)
Thanks. Yes, I intended these to be viewed as a series and not individual portraits. Glad you see the theme and don't get a "safari" feel from them, lol.
While I would never discourage discourse, I can't understand the need to sort of nit-pick this set of images. If I can be half as good someday technically I will be happy. But m.shalaby is the photographer here. This was his vision and his artistic expression, realized how he wanted it to be. You can certainly say how you would do it, but to tell him he needs greater depth of field or that they should be in portrait mode (over and over....he addresed these issues once and that seems sufficient) is just overkill.
Would ya tell Van Gogh he used too much blue in Starry Night?
m.shalaby wrote:
^ Thanks for the input. Your stating opinions... so I'll take it with a grain of salt. Could it be better? Well being art is subjective and comes down to personal preference the answer is yes. To me, pesonally? No. I like everything about the way I shot this project and wouldn't change a thing.
In my opinion, shooting the 135L wide open is absolutley perfect for this project, and my framing is spot on for my goal.
I hope you were joking with your safari comment? It's very ovbious these are shot on the streets/sidewalks of a city/urban area. If that isn't outright & ovbious to you... and you need more detail, well I'm sorry. Perhaps each and every single shot doesn't show "street/sidewalk/city/people" in it, but most of them do... so you gotta kinda fill in the blanks.
I tried a few shots stopping down and I didn't like the results. Yes, you see more background, but the background started to become distracting. Like a telephone pole that would of been blurred to the point of not being a distraction, came more into focus and looked like it was growing out of one of my subjects shoulders. Wide open, it wouldn't of been so distracting and kept your eyes on the subject. Also, I admit, the 135L bokeh is just simply amazing.
80% of the shots show that "street/sidewalk/city/people/urban" vibe, and yes, landscape mode shows that best. The other shots that are just a blurred smear where the background isn't distinguishable... I would hope onlookers would have a clue enough to look at the project as a whole and fill in the blanks.
Lastly, the goal was to shoot strangers, and capture sincere, comfortable and natural expressions. That was the goal. Was that goal hit? I say yes. And isolation served this goal best.
Nitpicking on the rest is up to you....Show more →
Ok - sorry to have rained on your parade - they're perfect. Mea culpa.
The safari comment apparently threw you - maybe my sense of humor is out of whack - it was a reference to street photography - capturing pictures of people "in the wild" - not posed. Sorry if it was too oblique a reference. I must say i was surprised that you took the term safari in some other odd sense - a safari is literally a hunting expedition. I believe that what you were doing qualifies. Anyway - my comments were intended in a spirit of helpfulness but obviously not received in that spirit - so just ignore them.
regards,
BubbaJon wrote:
Ok - sorry to have rained on your parade - they're perfect. Mea culpa.
The safari comment apparently threw you - maybe my sense of humor is out of whack - it was a reference to street photography - capturing pictures of people "in the wild" - not posed. Sorry if it was too oblique a reference. I must say i was surprised that you took the term safari in some other odd sense - a safari is literally a hunting expedition. I believe that what you were doing qualifies. Anyway - my comments were intended in a spirit of helpfulness but obviously not received in that spirit - so just ignore them.
regards, ...Show more →
Maybe it's because your tone is sarcastic, combative, and lacking in social grace, that you get the responses you do. Yours seems to be a personality trait that is shared among a number of members of FM, and the OP is hardly the first victim of such manipulative tactics.
So perhaps you should consider the possibility that what you perceive as "helpfulness" is actually demeaning to others, and that it is not that others are failing to receive the message in the way you intended, but in fact that you are not delivering the message in the way you intended.
wickerprints wrote:
Maybe it's because your tone is sarcastic, combative, and lacking in social grace, that you get the responses you do. Yours seems to be a personality trait that is shared among a number of members of FM, and the OP is hardly the first victim of such manipulative tactics.
So perhaps you should consider the possibility that what you perceive as "helpfulness" is actually demeaning to others, and that it is not that others are failing to receive the message in the way you intended, but in fact that you are not delivering the message in the way you intended.
My last reply was a bit on the sarcastic side because I felt like I was being dumped on because I saw something different and offered what I considered to be valid questions. If my original post was somehow perceived that way I'm genuinely sorry - it really was intended as helpful. I re-read it and do not see any combativeness - unless the word challenge is somehow misread as throwing a gauntlet. I mentioned the expressions were wonderful and I loved the bokeh. However I was unconvinced on the framing and commented thus. I hope having an opinion isn't grounds for being charged as combative. I really must object to the charge that I was being "demeaning" - that is a stretch IMHO. If you have a personal issue with me we should take it up in a PM. I don't consider myself a "mean" individual and it kinda stings to have that levied at me.
