PING: Tony Cooper

On 2016-07-13 17:38:45 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2016-07-13 17:24:53 +0000, PeterN said:

On 7/13/2016 11:50 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-07-13 14:49:48 +0000, PeterN said:

On 7/13/2016 10:22 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-07-13 14:18:52 +0000, PeterN said:
On 7/13/2016 9:44 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-07-13 12:27:10 +0000, PeterN said:
On 7/13/2016 1:44 AM, Savageduck wrote:
I thought you might find this work to your liking.
https://valeriejardin.wordpress.com/2014/03/20/the-streets-of-san-francisco/


Classic examples of Street. However,as an image why do they all look
so flat.

Isn't it obvious? They haven't had the PeterN treatment.

It seems to me that the test is, If they were your shots, would you
have made them so flat.
To my eye they are much too flat, and need some punch. I've seen
enough of your shots to feel you would like a bit more punch in them.

Think B&W film noire, or Henri Cartier-Bresson rather than "punch".


Would you be happier is I said the images lacked tonal quality?
HCB's images all had a tonality, that those images lack. Think Weston.

I would hardly call Weston a "street photographer". That is like saying
AA was a postcard photographer.
Add to that he was shooting large format, contrasty, somewhat abstract
landscape, still life, and character portraiture, certaily not classic
street.


So you think street should not have tonal gradations? (flat)

I think that all photography is subject to the decisions of the
photographer, and the whims of the taste of the viewer. In the case of
the quite good examples of street photography by Valérie Jardin, when
he made whatever decisions he made in capturing his images, he did not
account for your particular whims of taste, nor should he.

If you are baffled regarding what and why he did what he did, you could
ask him.

Here is a shot with "punch".

http://tinyurl.com/zvla2ej


--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-07-13 17:38:45 +0000, Savageduck
said:

On 2016-07-13 17:24:53 +0000, PeterN said:

On 7/13/2016 11:50 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-07-13 14:49:48 +0000, PeterN said:

On 7/13/2016 10:22 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-07-13 14:18:52 +0000, PeterN said:
On 7/13/2016 9:44 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-07-13 12:27:10 +0000, PeterN said:
On 7/13/2016 1:44 AM, Savageduck wrote:
I thought you might find this work to your liking.
https://valeriejardin.wordpress.com/2014/03/20/the-streets-of-san-francisco/



Classic examples of Street. However,as an image why do they all
look
so flat.

Isn't it obvious? They haven't had the PeterN treatment.

It seems to me that the test is, If they were your shots, would you
have made them so flat.
To my eye they are much too flat, and need some punch. I've seen
enough of your shots to feel you would like a bit more punch in
them.

Think B&W film noire, or Henri Cartier-Bresson rather than "punch".


Would you be happier is I said the images lacked tonal quality?
HCB's images all had a tonality, that those images lack. Think Weston.

I would hardly call Weston a "street photographer". That is like saying
AA was a postcard photographer.
Add to that he was shooting large format, contrasty, somewhat abstract
landscape, still life, and character portraiture, certaily not classic
street.


So you think street should not have tonal gradations? (flat)

I think that all photography is subject to the decisions of the
photographer, and the whims of the taste of the viewer. In the case of
the quite good examples of street photography by Valérie Jardin, when
he made whatever decisions he made in capturing his images, he did not
account for your particular whims of taste, nor should he.

If you are baffled regarding what and why he did what he did, you
could ask him.

Here is a shot with "punch".

I'd rather have a rum punch, thank you.

The originally posted pix are somewhat interesting, but tonally flat and
boring; too static. The figures could just as well have been mannequins,
(the English definition).

Mort Linder

http://tinyurl.com/zvla2ej

On 7/13/2016 1:38 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-07-13 17:24:53 +0000, PeterN said:

On 7/13/2016 11:50 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-07-13 14:49:48 +0000, PeterN said:

On 7/13/2016 10:22 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-07-13 14:18:52 +0000, PeterN said:
On 7/13/2016 9:44 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-07-13 12:27:10 +0000, PeterN said:
On 7/13/2016 1:44 AM, Savageduck wrote:
I thought you might find this work to your liking.
https://valeriejardin.wordpress.com/2014/03/20/the-streets-of-san-francisco/



Classic examples of Street. However,as an image why do they all
look
so flat.

Isn't it obvious? They haven't had the PeterN treatment.

It seems to me that the test is, If they were your shots, would you
have made them so flat.
To my eye they are much too flat, and need some punch. I've seen
enough of your shots to feel you would like a bit more punch in them.

Think B&W film noire, or Henri Cartier-Bresson rather than "punch".


Would you be happier is I said the images lacked tonal quality?
HCB's images all had a tonality, that those images lack. Think Weston.

I would hardly call Weston a "street photographer". That is like saying
AA was a postcard photographer.
Add to that he was shooting large format, contrasty, somewhat abstract
landscape, still life, and character portraiture, certaily not classic
street.


So you think street should not have tonal gradations? (flat)

I think that all photography is subject to the decisions of the
photographer, and the whims of the taste of the viewer. In the case of
the quite good examples of street photography by Valérie Jardin, when he
made whatever decisions he made in capturing his images, he did not
account for your particular whims of taste, nor should he.

Absolutely true. The photographer should account for his own taste.
Since I did not commission him, i would not expect him to process to my
taste. Indeed it would be dishonest if he did not make the image to his
own taste. OTOH that doesn't mean I have to like everything about the
image.


If you are baffled regarding what and why he did what he did, you could
ask him.

There is no reason for me to be baffled. The composition is very good,
and most of the subjects hold my interest. certainly I have a right to
express my opinion.


--
PeterN

On 7/13/2016 3:58 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:


snip


I'm not at all sure what "flat" means as a critique. Jardin's
post-processing does not bring out the details in the shadows, but
that's a processing choice. If black blacks are wanted, the shadows
don't come out.

Only if you assume that there are no tonal gradations in darker areas.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20160529_Air%20show_2987_Mono.jpg




--
PeterN