That pic is so interesting. At first glance it is the kid jogging(?) past the dogs. Then it seems the kid is walking the 2 dogs. Then you realize the lady has one of the dogs on leash, while the kid has the other. Even though that lady is waaaay back!
Live streaming your walk to your social media friends.
Kicking it with our best friend who doesn't do social media.
I missed focus on the dog. I was trying to get a smaller DOF to blur the background to frame and separate the subject. Looks like I got it backwards. Still learning the range finder, however I get right more often than not these days.
Live streaming your walk to your social media friends.
Kicking it with our best friend who doesn't do social media.
I missed focus on the dog. I was trying to get a smaller DOF to blur the background to frame and separate the subject. Looks like I got it backwards. Still learning the range finder, however I get right more often than not these days.
But, still I kind of like the image.
Enjoy
Steve
I think the dog shot works either way! If you didn't say anything...
Desmolicious wrote:
I think the dog shot works either way! If you didn't say anything...
---------------------------------------------
airfrogusmc wrote:
I think it works. The dog to me is not the main subject. I feel it has a supporting roll. The the man in the photo is just so interesting.
Thanks for the supportive comments guys. I am still learning to make images "about" things rather than technically correct images "of" things. When I miss things like focus I tend to lose confidence in my image even if it doesn't affect the story. My Leica journey is helping me with this. I also learn a great deal from the images you guys post, and the comments you make here in this thread.
Steve I don't think you missed focus. To me whats important is the man with the beard.
Also maybe let go of that whole story telling thing in single images. I have posted this before but I don't know if you ever saw this but Winiogrand talks about it here about 1:26 through about 2:46
&t=85s
airfrogusmc wrote:
Steve I don't think you missed focus. To me whats important is the man with the beard.
It does look like the plane of focus is behind the man, so the BG is sharpest, the man less so, the dog the least.
BUT ... I think this image is an example of how the focus can be missed, but there is still a gentle transition presentation that communicates, without it being a train wreck. Kind of a "minor marvel" in the way the glass transitions to yield latitude even when the technical isn't ... so technical. It was stated better somewhere else, but I think this is a worthy example of something that was a "miss", and still works.
Live streaming your walk to your social media friends.
Kicking it with our best friend who doesn't do social media.
I missed focus on the dog. I was trying to get a smaller DOF to blur the background to frame and separate the subject. Looks like I got it backwards. Still learning the range finder, however I get right more often than not these days.
But, still I kind of like the image.
Enjoy
Steve
I probably would have been tempted to focus on the dog... But but that would have been the wrong call. You got it right.
airfrogusmc wrote:
Steve I don't think you missed focus. To me whats important is the man with the beard.
Also maybe let go of that whole story telling thing in single images. I have posted this before but I don't know if you ever saw this but Winiogrand talks about it here about 1:26 through about 2:46
&t=85s
It's right on the money.
Watched it again. Makes sense. Thanks for the guidance.
Desmolicious wrote:
That pic is so interesting. At first glance it is the kid jogging(?) past the dogs. Then it seems the kid is walking the 2 dogs. Then you realize the lady has one of the dogs on leash, while the kid has the other. Even though that lady is waaaay back!
And the effect is compounded by the fact that the kid and the two dogs appear to be running together but the lady looks almost stationary.
1bwana1 wrote:
I am still learning to make images "about" things rather than technically correct images "of" things. When I miss things like focus I tend to lose confidence in my image even if it doesn't affect the story. My Leica journey is helping me with this. I also learn a great deal from the images you guys post, and the comments you make here in this thread.
Joel Meyerowitz talks about “of” versus “about” pictures in the following video (which Allen has posted previously). In his conception, “of” photos are essentially “copies of objects in space” whereas Meyerowitz himself wants to make pictures *about* “the ephemeral connections between unrelated things”. His interest is primarily in the relationships that a photographer can create with the camera. For Garry Winogrand: “Photography is not about the thing photographed. It is about how that thing looks photographed”. In other words, the nominal subjects that an “of” photographer strives to describe as exactly as possible are less important than what’s happening within the frame and how that winds up looking in a photograph. Allen’s photograph of the kid, the two dogs, and the lady does both: creates an ephemeral connection between the apparent subjects whilst also making that relationship ambiguous, even confusing, as only a camera in the hands of an accomplished photographer can do.
Love the way the frame is cut here Jonathon. The image is amazing in the layers of reality and the balance. The far left leg and shoulder bag balance the lady with the orange bags on the phone and the guy on the far left with the bag balances the woman coming into the frame on the far right. And his gaze on the left and her motion on the right move into the frame. The image almost looks like a diptych at first fast glance. There is a rhythm and motion to this. Then there is the monochromatic feel and then those two oranges (top of the phone booth and the two bags). One on each side
