On 8/28/05, Juan Buhler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Frank, I think the shot stands by itself and doesn't need to be defended.
I wasn't defending this photo, which I actually like a great deal; I agree that it stands well on its own. I was taking (polite) issue with Shel's comment that it's all too typical of my other photos, and (the implication) that I should take and post photos that are focused and composed. As for the photo itself, if folks like it, I'm greatly pleased, but I certainly know that it's not everyone's style, and some just "aren't into it", which is fine by me. I always think that the more polarized responses I get, the more I'm doing my "job" (such as it is... <g>). > > I think Shel's "careful composition" phrase implies a desire for > thoughtful, maybe slow? framing. There's a lot to be said about > someone who can quickly compose on the fly, without thinking about it, > like this picture obviously was (and I mean that in a good way, as in > composing "with the heart" instead of "with your head".) > > BTW, the midtones look just a little bit washed up for my taste--but > I'm looking at it in some random monitor in Budapest, so it might be > that :) Well, I know my monitor's not calibrated, and my lack of scanning/PS prowess is by now legendary, so who knows, between you monitor and mine, how close your view is to the original print? <g> Thanks again for your comments - much appreciated. cheers, frank > > Cheers, > > j > > On 8/28/05, frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 8/27/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Sorry, Frank ... it does nothing for me. > > > > I certainly accept that not everyone will like this type of shot, and > > I appreciate your honesty and candor, Shel. I always appreciate all > > comments made by everyone, because I'm happy that people look at some > > of my photos and feel compelled to take the time to comment. > > > > > This type of work seems to have > > > become your forte, like the signature main course at a frequently visited > > > restaurant. It's nice every now and then, but after a while it's time to > > > try something else on the menu. Personally, I'd like to see some more > > > photos that are well focused and carefully composed. > > > > Quite honestly, Shel, I have to take issue with that paragraph. I've > > taken some "blurry shots", and yes, I've posted other PAWs that > > feature panned shots of two-wheeled vehicles. Some have had a great > > deal of motion-blur, some not so much. But, do me a favour and look > > at my PAW folder: > > > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=381188 > > > > Admittedly, there's a lot of crap in there, but how many photos are > > similar to today's post? 91 photos over about a year and a half, and > > I count three shots that I see as being similar - two blurry pans of > > bicycles, and one other scooter shot with much less motion blur. > > > > Now, admittedly, in my CMWC folder: > > > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=509434 > > > > there were some panned shots of bikes, but it was a bike race after > > all <g>, and as I explained, I went to New York with one lens (a > > 40mm), so was limited in what type of race photos I could take. > > > > You know, Paul posted a series of slow-shutter-speed pans of hot rods > > and muscle cars a couple of weeks ago - I'd say at least 1/2 dozen of > > them. I really enjoyed them, but did anyone say that he should move > > on and "try something else on the menu"? > > > > Yes, I do take these sorts of shots more than some other > > photographers, but (again), look through my folders and you'll see > > that the vast majority of my photos are "well focused and carefully > > composed" - okay, maybe not "well-focused", but I did try to focus, > > and I did carefully compose most of them, even though I may not have > > accomplished my goal. > > > > BTW, a final word, why do you think this wasn't "well composed"? Just > > because it wasn't a static shot, just because I had to react quickly, > > just because it was a one-shot grab, do you think I didn't try to > > compose in the viewfinder? The scooter was pretty close to where I > > wanted it to be in the viewfinder, I was well aware of the pattern of > > the scooter/pedestrians, and I felt at the time I released the shutter > > that this was the moment I wanted and the composition I wanted. It > > may not be perfect (I wish I hadn't cut off the bottom of the tires), > > and I guess I'm not necessarily saying it's "well composed", but it is > > certainly deliberately composed. > > > > Just so you (and the list) know, I'm not angry or in any way upset > > with you or the contents of the paragraph in question. I know that > > reading text means that one is missing the "emotion" of seeing and > > hearing the author in person. In fact I'm not upset at all. I just > > wanted to express my thoughts WRT what you said, because IMHO, you're > > simply not accurate (but I certainly accept that you're being > > truthful, as I'm sure you believe what you said). > > > > And again, this has nothing to do with whether you like the photo or > > not - I like it a great deal, so anyone can say they don't like it and > > it don't bother me a bit! <LOL> > > > > As always, I appreciate that you commented, Shel. > > > > cheers, > > frank > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson > > > > > > > -- > Juan Buhler > http://www.jbuhler.com > photoblog at http://photoblog.jbuhler.com > > -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
