Street photography?

On 2/2/2016 10:29 PM, Ron C wrote:
On 2/2/2016 10:12 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 2/2/2016 9:49 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 21:07:41 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 2/2/2016 8:30 PM, Paul in Houston TX wrote:
PeterN wrote:
I took this shot of a musician enjoying himself, on a nice warm night
on the Savannah
River. Rather than show a literal postcard of this guy, I have tried
to convey my feeling
while listening to him.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/savanah_0160_1through%20Monet%27s%20Eyes.jpg




My opinion: too much Monet. Try about 1/2 the amount.
And add a slight touch of Monet to the face.
But... I don't use that software so don't know if that can be done
or not.

I have complete control over the amount. I place the processed image on
a separate layer. The amount of the treatment is easily controlled by
varying the opacity. To keep his face, I used a mask, the strength of
which can also be varied.

As I said earlier and will continue to say, I appreciate all
constructive comments, and consider them. In this type of image
there is
no right or wrong. It's all individual taste.

Okay, as long as you won't be offended, my first thought when looking
at it was Paul Simon dressed as a turkey on SNL years ago. Your
musician looks like he's covered in feathers to me. I don't think that
was your intent, and I suppose it could just be me...


I have a think skin and am not easily insulted. Comments about any image
I post do not insult me. Since my image was an impression, many will
have different opinions on what it represents. Please, don't feel you
have to hold back. It was not intended to be a neutral image and I know
many will hate it. I still look forward to comments.
BTW I deliberately posted that image in the hope that it will encourage
others to post, and more importantly, divert discussions away from that
stupid tool war.

There are two major schools:
photography == reality
and
photography == art

[OK, lots of middle ground]

The extreme sides of either school
will always be at odds.

Everything in between will have
varying degrees of disagreement.

Thus in general *"""YMMV""* rules.
[Um, as if this needs to be said.]
==
Later...
Ron C

Which is exactly why I don't get insulted if you don't like an image. If
I did scientific photography, I would only shoot for realism. Having
said that: there are times when the scientific portion should be emphasized.

I think of all my photography as more art, than record. I certainly do
not always succeed, but I try.

If I was doing product photography, I would have to seek a middle ground.

--
PeterN

On 2/3/2016 6:52 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 3 February 2016 03:12:20 UTC, peterN wrote:

I have a think skin and am not easily insulted. Comments about any image
I post do not insult me. Since my image was an impression, many will
have different opinions on what it represents.

That's what we're working out, as in what catogory would we place this in.
For me it'd be abstract.

I don;t see it as street photography and no more than sport or music photography.
I don't see it as hi-quality and I don't think you need a FF DSLR to get this sort of image.

Actually, rt is a large crop. i like the pixel count.

(reminds me of an image or two I have somewhere (most likely in an untiled folder) I should post here.




Please, don't feel you
have to hold back. It was not intended to be a neutral image and I know
many will hate it. I still look forward to comments.
BTW I deliberately posted that image in the hope that it will encourage
others to post, and more importantly, divert discussions away from that
stupid tool war.

yes well we know those on here that prefer the tools to the images they create, which is why they post endlessly about their tools but never a result they've got from them.



--
PeterN


Please do so.

--
PeterN

On 2/3/2016 9:43 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 2/3/2016 6:52 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 3 February 2016 03:12:20 UTC, peterN wrote:

I have a think skin and am not easily insulted. Comments about any image
I post do not insult me. Since my image was an impression, many will
have different opinions on what it represents.

That's what we're working out, as in what catogory would we place this
in.
For me it'd be abstract.

I don;t see it as street photography and no more than sport or music
photography.
I don't see it as hi-quality and I don't think you need a FF DSLR to
get this sort of image.

Actually, rt is a large crop. i like the pixel count.

(reminds me of an image or two I have somewhere (most likely in an
untiled folder) I should post here.




Please, don't feel you
have to hold back. It was not intended to be a neutral image and I know
many will hate it. I still look forward to comments.
BTW I deliberately posted that image in the hope that it will encourage
others to post, and more importantly, divert discussions away from that
stupid tool war.

yes well we know those on here that prefer the tools to the images
they create, which is why they post endlessly about their tools but
never a result they've got from them.


I like it. It might appear too much Monet-ish, but that is the feeling
intended I gather. I would've liked to have discerned the guitar a
little better. Other than that, I liked it.

On 2/3/2016 9:43 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 2/3/2016 6:52 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 3 February 2016 03:12:20 UTC, peterN wrote:

I have a think skin and am not easily insulted. Comments about any image
I post do not insult me. Since my image was an impression, many will
have different opinions on what it represents.

That's what we're working out, as in what catogory would we place this
in.
For me it'd be abstract.

I don;t see it as street photography and no more than sport or music
photography.
I don't see it as hi-quality and I don't think you need a FF DSLR to
get this sort of image.

Actually, rt is a large crop. i like the pixel count.

(reminds me of an image or two I have somewhere (most likely in an
untiled folder) I should post here.




Please, don't feel you
have to hold back. It was not intended to be a neutral image and I know
many will hate it. I still look forward to comments.
BTW I deliberately posted that image in the hope that it will encourage
others to post, and more importantly, divert discussions away from that
stupid tool war.

yes well we know those on here that prefer the tools to the images
they create, which is why they post endlessly about their tools but
never a result they've got from them.

I just looked at it again. Actually it looks good to me. The guitar is fine.
I really wouldn't change anything. The mood is wonderful!

On 2/6/2016 1:32 PM, tconway wrote:
On 2/3/2016 9:43 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 2/3/2016 6:52 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 3 February 2016 03:12:20 UTC, peterN wrote:

I have a think skin and am not easily insulted. Comments about any
image
I post do not insult me. Since my image was an impression, many will
have different opinions on what it represents.

That's what we're working out, as in what catogory would we place this
in.
For me it'd be abstract.

I don;t see it as street photography and no more than sport or music
photography.
I don't see it as hi-quality and I don't think you need a FF DSLR to
get this sort of image.

Actually, rt is a large crop. i like the pixel count.

(reminds me of an image or two I have somewhere (most likely in an
untiled folder) I should post here.




Please, don't feel you
have to hold back. It was not intended to be a neutral image and I know
many will hate it. I still look forward to comments.
BTW I deliberately posted that image in the hope that it will encourage
others to post, and more importantly, divert discussions away from that
stupid tool war.

yes well we know those on here that prefer the tools to the images
they create, which is why they post endlessly about their tools but
never a result they've got from them.

I just looked at it again. Actually it looks good to me. The guitar
is fine.
I really wouldn't change anything. The mood is wonderful!



Thanks for your comment. From my viewpoint the only really important
thing is that the image conveys something. Like or dislike, I have still
communicated.


--
PeterN