|
 _DSC3390 by Stingray of Doom, on FlickrIt was between street and landscape threads, and I flipped a coin.
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 07:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 02:26 |
|
|
Putrid Grin posted:
You chose poorly. I like it, but is anything straight in that photo?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
Casu Marzu posted:
Yeah, your mother.... Anyways I seem to be physically incapable of correcting crooked horizons or warped perspectives. It doesn't bother me most of the time. I know that to a lot of people its almost as big of a sin as having blown highlights. So its funny that I mainly shoot what could be considered architecture, which usually deals mainly with having your verticals and horizontals perfectly aligned. But as a true artist I am more concerned with the mood of the place, than having it depicted within Euclidean geometry.  ...because obviously you can't have both.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
Unless your goal is formalism and you're expressly using a view camera's movements to correct your compositions, there's absolutely no reason to fetishize the straight line, especially if you're shooting 35mm. Dorkroomers really need to fuckoff about this in general.
burzum karaoke fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Nov 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
Nothing in art is about perfection. That's for the realm of engineering.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
VendaGoat posted:Nothing in art is about perfection. That's for the realm of engineering.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
VendaGoat posted:Nothing in art is about perfection. That's for the realm of engineering. Perfection is for Physicists, Engineers are about gettin' it done. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
here are some photos I took on a street (street not pictured)  Subyng fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Nov 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
try it with a lime posted:Unless your goal is formalism and you're expressly using a view camera's movements to correct your compositions, there's absolutely no reason to fetishize the straight line, especially if you're shooting 35mm. Dorkroomers really need to fuckoff about this in general. If it's not a snapshot and it's crooked, it better be crooked for motherfuckin reasons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:If it's not a snapshot and it's crooked, it better be crooked for motherfuckin reasons. DUTCH ANGLE ERRYDAY.  err no that was intentional, not from shooting from the hip
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
Question for the thread: http://jmcolberg.com/weblog/extended/archives/the_ethics_of_street_photography/ Thoughts on this? Does consent blanket most concerns on ethics? From the thing: quote:I’ve long been critical of the macho culture of the Winogrand era street photographers, and I also do not like the idea that you can do whatever you want with your camera in a public space. Photographers need to be aware of the ethics of their endeavour.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
hi liter posted:Question for the thread: http://jmcolberg.com/weblog/extended/archives/the_ethics_of_street_photography/ I agree with him for the most part. I'm a student journalist and I've often found myself in situations where people don't want their pictures taken (scene of an accident, homeless camps etc.) but 90% of the time I can justify those as serving the public interest, and the 10% of times I don't think the image tells a story was telling it gets deleted. Now, some of the shots I've taken for work could also have been used in a hobby context, I could have uploaded them to flickr and fished for some favs, but when it's a sensitive subject like that I actively choose not to. When I take the image out of the context of the story, it just seems that much more exploitative. No one really visits 500px or flickr looking for narrative, and my image of the homeless becomes merely a shock-value art piece. Similarly, when I'm out taking pictures for myself, if a person I took a picture of asked me to delete it I would absolutely do that, but I'm also not going to ask every person I take a picture of for permission. Everyone is going to have different boundaries ethically. Some of my colleagues have no problem phoning up relatives of the recently deceased for a quote but I just can't do it. In both journalism and photography I think the variance of ethical boundaries just makes the medium that much more interesting. That said, don't take pictures of homeless people for street photography.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
hi liter posted:Question for the thread: http://jmcolberg.com/weblog/extended/archives/the_ethics_of_street_photography/ Short answer, yes it does but, the use of the picture also has to overcome the "onus". Context matters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:If it's not a snapshot and it's crooked, it better be crooked for motherfuckin reasons. Like my love of crooked things?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 06:45
|
|
|
hi liter posted:Question for the thread: http://jmcolberg.com/weblog/extended/archives/the_ethics_of_street_photography/ I too judge a photographer's life work and feelings about gender politics based on one viewing of a show curated long after his death. You can't always view a body of work through a modern lens. Winogrand made those photos 20-30 years ago (or more), of course his views on women might not be what a modern person considers progressive. I don't know that he intentionally made girls look bad and boys look tough, as is posited by that piece but goddamn if you are gonna start accusing people of inserting cognitive biases into their art work maybe be aware of the irony when yours shows up. Especially when discussing a photographer famous for literally not caring about what he is photographing in an abstract way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 09:31
|
|
|
 Markthal, Rotterdam by Cacator, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 09:51
|
|
|
hi liter posted:Question for the thread: http://jmcolberg.com/weblog/extended/archives/the_ethics_of_street_photography/ I am pretty sure reading this article killed some braincells... Comparing predatory lending to street photography, active vs. passive privacy (has he even been to England? or NYC for that matter?). The whole post boils down to "hey, some people don't like certain things, so be careful". Putting street photography and war photography/photojournalism in the same paragraph seems a bit sensationalist, don't you think?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 10:13
|
|
|
This may really tired and cliched and it may be entirely missing the point but I find a lot of street photography forgets entirely about the street said of things. So much street stuff compromises of, "Hey! Look at this weird/funny/foreign/disabled person." (also homeless person.) There seems to be fewer photographers who look to show the subject of the street amidst the actual street. There's often very little sense of place. When street was new and people are first looking at people doing anything unawares then sure, focus on the people. But now there's nothing distinct about the myriad of weird/funny/foreign people street photographers have bothered to the ends of the earth. And I mean all this in light of the invasiveness of street stuff. People have been done. Mrenda fucked around with this message at 11:37 on Nov 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 11:35
|
|
|
Thanks for the responses, they've all been informative. I wonder if digital photography has played a role in changing attitudes towards candid photos, now that photos can be tagged and uploaded anywhere as data points on an individual. And I liked your point Mrenda. I don't completely agree but I certainly understand your point and will try and think about context and environment much more conscientiouslly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
 Four Portaits by MedievalMedic, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
try it with a lime posted:Unless your goal is formalism and you're expressly using a view camera's movements to correct your compositions, there's absolutely no reason to fetishize the straight line, especially if you're shooting 35mm. Dorkroomers really need to fuckoff about this in general. Literally anyone can take a picture with crooked lines. It takes a conscious effort by the photographer to make lines straight. It demonstrates to the viewer that the image-taker put some thought into the composition. It's hard to visually justify to the viewer why you took a picture of that thing at angle of 43.725 degrees but it's immediately obvious if it was taken at an angle of 0, or 90, or 180, etc. degrees.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
To arrange elements within a frame in such a way that they function together. Anyone can take a photo with a straight horizin line too. You make it sound that like that's a challenge. They're just decisions in a process and to assume one is better by default seems pretty naive. burzum karaoke fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Nov 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
You know who liked straight lines? Hitler. He liked them so much people would would hold their arms out in a straight line when they saw him. He didn't even allow his own moustache to grow any wider or else it would cease being perfectly straight. And there aren't any 43 degree angles in his logo, either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
Sure, anyone can take a picture of a straight line, but the point is that takes a deliberate decision to make a line straight. It's infinitely easier to make take a picture with a crooked line than a straight one. There are a literal infinite number of angles you can shoot a subject from where the lines will be crooked relative to some axis. There is precisely one where it won't be. Someone taking a random snapshot, especially if they don't have experience with photography, won't even think about straight lines. How do you demonstrate that your crooked lines are the result of thoughtful composition rather than a thoughtless error? I'm not saying straight is always better than not-straight, but we're definitely not "fetishizing" the straight line, especially one the subject in question practically begs for straight lines. In that specific example I don't see any problem with the straight or crookedness of that picture, but I would say that straight = good is as elementary of a rule as the rule of thirds. voodoorootbeer posted:If it's not a snapshot and it's crooked, it better be crooked for motherfuckin reasons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
feigning interest posted:You know who liked straight lines? Hitler. He liked them so much people would would hold their arms out in a straight line when they saw him. He didn't even allow his own moustache to grow any wider or else it would cease being perfectly straight. And there aren't any 43 degree angles in his logo, either. he certainly kept the lines to the showers straight 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
Subyng posted:Sure, anyone can take a picture of a straight line, but the point is that takes a deliberate decision to make a line straight. It's infinitely easier to make take a picture with a crooked line than a straight one. There are a literal infinite number of angles you can shoot a subject from where the lines will be crooked relative to some axis. There is precisely one where it won't be. Someone taking a random snapshot, especially if they don't have experience with photography, won't even think about straight lines. How do you demonstrate that your crooked lines are the result of thoughtful composition rather than a thoughtless error? I don't think they necessarily have to be either one the result of careful composition or thoughtless error. If you make a "good photo" that isn't straight, it still functions as a good photo. Demonstrating whether or not the camera was tilted at an angle resulting from a conscious decision, circumstance or accident becomes irrelevant. feigning interest posted:You know who liked straight lines? Hitler. He liked them so much people would would hold their arms out in a straight line when they saw him. He didn't even allow his own moustache to grow any wider or else it would cease being perfectly straight. And there aren't any 43 degree angles in his logo, either. Also this, but unironically. burzum karaoke fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Nov 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
VendaGoat posted:he certainly kept the lines to the showers straight Actually, he also gassed homosexuals. 8th-snype fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Nov 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
try it with a lime posted:I don't think they necessarily have to be either one the result of careful composition or thoughtless error. If you make a "good photo" that isn't straight, it still functions as a good photo. Demonstrating whether or not the camera was tilted at an angle resulting from a conscious decision, circumstance or accident becomes irrelevant. If you make a good photo, then it will be good because the straightness of lack thereof contributed to making that photo effective, not the other way around. If I take a photo of an amorphous blob then nobody will question the straightness. But if I take a photo of Straighty McStraight on a straight street with a bunch of straight buildings, lightposts, signs, and windows, and they aren't straight in the photo, then we would begin to question, "hmm, would making all these straight things straight make the photo more effective?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
Shut up and take more garbage pics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Actually, he also gassed homosexuals. Musket posted:Shut up and take more garbage pics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
Medieval Medic posted:
I'm enjoying this photo a lot. Is that the artist, or just a conveniently placed person?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
Musket posted:Shut up and take more garbage pics. alright here is a straight picture of a straight building:  I know it's not PERFECTLY straight but VSCO cam won't let me rotate the picture with any greater resolution so preemptively get off my case
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
Subyng posted:alright here is a straight picture of a straight building: Needs more rise, less pointing up
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
hi liter posted:I'm enjoying this photo a lot. Is that the artist, or just a conveniently placed person? The artist. I nearly skipped this picture because while I was walking he was facing away, it took me about 10 steps before I realized the potential and doubled back and stood in position until he noticed and looked towards me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
not sure what you mean but there's an ugly blue construction barrier that is just cut off below that picture that I was trying to avoid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
Subyng posted:not sure what you mean but there's an ugly blue construction barrier that is just cut off below that picture that I was trying to avoid. I think he means rise as in lens movements on a PC lens or bellows-style camera.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
Ah okay. Well a shift lens is on my wishlist but I took the last three pics on my cellphone. I suppose I could put it through hugin or something but my phone camera only has like 3 megapixels or something so the resulting image will be pretty small. Which is okay I guess since you shouldn't be looking at cell phone pics in 100% scale anyway.
Subyng fucked around with this message at 03:50 on Nov 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
Subyng posted:Ah okay. Well a shift lens is on my wishlist but I took the last three pics on my cellphone. I suppose I could put it through hugin or something but my phone camera only has like 3 megapixels or something so the resulting image will be pretty small. Which is okay I guess since you shouldn't be looking at cell phone pics in 100% scale anyway. Disregard tilt-shift lenses, shoot tilt-shift bodies erryday. ...we demo'ed a large format camera the other day and I really want one now. Lightroom can help fudge some perspective issues, it's kinda magical.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 02:26 |
|
|
Shellman posted:Disregard tilt-shift lenses  Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 06:06
|
|