Agree about the colour. But the content...

Originally Posted by michswiss Agree about the colour. But the content...

Political or photographic?

Originally Posted by bdcolen Political or photographic?

A bit of both.

I like the evening light, but there's not much there other that some young people hanging and protesting in an accepting community. Is the Au Bon Pain still there and the chess tables?

I don't want to get into politics, but some research and a lot of reading can bring ambiguity to something of a celebrity cause. Of course, ambiguity is a good thing as it should result in balanced discussion. Maybe worth taking to the "Big Picture"?

Originally Posted by michswiss A bit of both. I like the evening light, but there's not much there other that some young people hanging and protesting in an accepting community. Is the Au Bon Pain still there and the chess tables? I don't want to get into politics, but some research and a lot of reading can bring ambiguity to something of a celebrity cause. Of course, ambiguity is a good thing as it should result in balanced discussion. Maybe worth taking to the "Big Picture"?

Or not. I just like the light and the colors. No political statement intended one way or t'other. And look at the yellow triangle at the bottom of the tree on the right and you'll see the answer to your OBP question - still there, along with the chess players, the tourists, and the homeless.

I really do miss Cambridge some days. So many experiences and stories to tell. Good to see OBP is still at it. Never liked that store and I lament the day that Coffee Connection caved to Starbucks.

Originally Posted by michswiss I really do miss Cambridge some days. So many experiences and stories to tell. Good to see OBP is still at it. Never liked that store and I lament the day that Coffee Connection caved to Starbucks.

Ah, the Coffee Connection. Almost forgot about them. The great thing - maybe - about the Square is that it is such a time machine; it's this tiny little space where it's always 1968 or '69. Of course in the Square, it's always the down side of the 60s, with all the grittiness that entailed.

B.D: I like this one the best of all yours I've seen in my short stint here. Technically, you've nailed it well:

- The sun peeking underneath the sun on the flag: very cool connection there.

- Sun shine isolating the word "China" on the placard. Yes, I see it in a political sense, which is what makes this shot special, in my eyes.

- Vibrant colour of the street, instead of the boring B&Ws that kill street realism.

- Framing is good too. At first glance, cropping out the portion of the flag @ top-left seemed like a good idea, but that would compress the expanse of the scene, which is core to this picture.

Good work!

Originally Posted by sabesh B.D: I like this one the best of all yours I've seen in my short stint here. Technically, you've nailed it well: - The sun peeking underneath the sun on the flag: very cool connection there. - Sun shine isolating the word "China" on the placard. Yes, I see it in a political sense, which is what makes this shot special, in my eyes. - Vibrant colour of the street, instead of the boring B&Ws that kill street realism. - Framing is good too. At first glance, cropping out the portion of the flag @ top-left seemed like a good idea, but that would compress the expanse of the scene, which is core to this picture. Good work!

I always appreciate compliments, but for the record, while the image may be well composed, it's well composed nothing. I took it simply because I liked the color and light. And I posted it because I like the color and light. Otherwise? Bunch of people standing around with flags and signs. Period. No statement. No special meaning. I happen to think the black and white photo of the skull-tattooed guy with the dog, which has some ambiguity and irony, is a much stronger image.

As to black and white killing street realism, so much for Walker Evans, Henri-Cartier Bresson, Eugene Smith, Bruce Davidson, Helen Levitt, Gary Winogrand, Lee Friedlander, Robert Frank and on and on and on.

A street photo doesn't have to be black and white to be a good street photo, but most great street photos happen to be black and white.

Originally Posted by bdcolen I always appreciate compliments, but for the record, while the image may be well composed, it's well composed nothing. I took it simply because I liked the color and light. And I posted it because I like the color and light. Otherwise? Bunch of people standing around with flags and signs. Period. No statement. No special meaning. I happen to think the black and white photo of the skull-tattooed guy with the dog, which has some ambiguity and irony, is a much stronger image. As to black and white killing street realism, so much for Walker Evans, Henri-Cartier Bresson, Eugene Smith, Bruce Davidson, Helen Levitt, Gary Winogrand, Lee Friedlander, Robert Frank and on and on and on. A street photo doesn't have to be black and white to be a good street photo, but most great street photos happen to be black and white.

Actually, one can take ANY picture and trivialize it if one wants, like you just did with your own picture :) Yes, so much for those "great" photographers that you've mentioned. There are many more who have taken equally great street/PJ pictures in colour :) Cheers.

Originally Posted by sabesh Actually, one can take ANY picture and trivialize it if one wants, like you just did with your own picture :) Yes, so much for those "great" photographers that you've mentioned. There are many more who have taken equally great street/PJ pictures in colour :) Cheers.

Just out of curiosity, who are those street photographers whose color work compares to the black and white of Cartier-Bresson, Robert Frank, and Winogrand?

Originally Posted by bdcolen Just out of curiosity, who are those street photographers whose color work compares to the black and white of Cartier-Bresson, Robert Frank, and Winogrand?

B.D, YOU are one of them! Seriously, if I throw a name, you will trivialize that person to justify your argument. So, what's the point?

Capturing a powerful colour image is a challenge. However, if done right, it is more powerful than a B&W conversion. On the contrary, I find that B&W is the "easy way out", to quickly lessen distraction of the subject at hand and .. well make the scene "black and white", simplified. I prefer the challenge of shooting in colour whenever I can, as it preserves the scene as-is, for the most part. Cheers.

Originally Posted by bdcolen Just out of curiosity, who are those street photographers whose color work compares to the black and white of Cartier-Bresson, Robert Frank, and Winogrand?

John Smith.









Photography is such a subjective thing that I don't think it's a valid comparison/argument to say "This person's work is better just because his name is famous".....It has to be looked at on a case to case basis.

There are TONS, I mean, TONS of people that can take picture than any one of the above people (including John Smith).

Let's just accept Sabesh's compliment and move on......I find it funny that you are looking for compliments on pictures that look flat out boring/pointless (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=166764), and calling this interesting picture of yours "uninteresting". You have a very "unique" taste - I think you are better than "Cartier-Bresson, Robert Frank, and Winogrand" - Again, my definition of "better" is different than yours...

Originally Posted by cy88 John Smith.

Well, a., I don't post because I'm looking for compliments, and I am well aware of the fact that my work does not appeal to all tastes. In terms of the image in question, I posted simply because I liked the color and light. As I said, I think Jen's comment was spot on.

And two, to suggest than any John Smith is better than the three photographers I mentioned is the equivalent of saying, as some people do, that a kid in elementary school can produce a Jackson Pollack.

Originally Posted by cy88 Photography is such a subjective thing that I don't think it's a valid comparison/argument to say "This person's work is better just because his name is famous".....It has to be looked at on a case to case basis. There are TONS, I mean, TONS of people that can take picture than any one of the above people (including John Smith). Let's just accept Sabesh's compliment and move on......I find it funny that you are looking for compliments on pictures that look flat out boring/pointless (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=166764), and calling this interesting picture of yours "uninteresting". You have a very "unique" taste - I think you are better than "Cartier-Bresson, Robert Frank, and Winogrand" - Again, my definition of "better" is different than yours...

Originally Posted by bdcolen Well, a., I don't post because I'm looking for compliments, and I am well aware of the fact that my work does not appeal to all tastes. In terms of the image in question, I posted simply because I liked the color and light. As I said, I think Jen's comment was spot on.

Right, and you tend to get defensive when people's comment doesn't go "your way". Your way = what I said above.

Originally Posted by bdcolen And two, to suggest than any John Smith is better than the three photographers I mentioned is the equivalent of saying, as some people do, that a kid in elementary school can produce a Jackson Pollack.

Right, and there's nothing wrong with that. Is there?

You can be a prize winning by shooting ONE amazing picture, but that doesn't make you capable of shooting amazing picture at ALL time. This is the truth. With that said, I don't doubt that the people you've mentioned are good, great and amazing at what they do. However, there has to be one or more picture(s) that someone out there does that are "better" than one of theirs. With that said, I don't know what you are trying to compare here:

who are those street photographers whose color work compares to the black and white of Cartier-Bresson, Robert Frank, and Winogrand?

It's like saying "Do you like the styling of my long hair over the styling of your short hair?" and you respond - "Of course my short hair, because I am famous for my hair". It's not logical.

vs


With that said, there's no intention of me changing what you think. Everything in art is very subjective.

Originally Posted by cy88 Right, and you tend to get defensive when people's comment doesn't go "your way". Your way = what I said above. You can be a prize winning by shooting ONE amazing picture, but that doesn't make you capable of shooting amazing picture at ALL time. This is the truth. With that said, I don't doubt that the people you've mentioned are good, great and amazing at what they do. However, there has to be one or more picture(s) that someone out there does that are "better" than one of theirs. With that said, I don't know what you are trying to compare here: It's like saying "Do you like the styling of my long hair over the styling of your short hair?" and you respond - "Of course my short hair, because I am famous for my hair". It's not logical. vs There's no comparison.. With that said, there's no intention of me changing what you think. Everything in art is very subjective.

Well, it's hard to respond this way. But...
In terms of whether it's "wrong" to suggest that a third grader can do what Jackson Pollack could do...No, it's not "wrong," it's simply uninformed, and shows an utter lack of understanding of art and the artistic process.

As to the comparison of hair styles....What's your point?

And finally, can any one of us through a combination of whatever talent we have and sheer luck produce an image that may be better than one of Cartier-Bresson's lesser images? Probably? Does that mean that we are in the same league with a Cartier-Bresson? Of course not, because while we might produce our one image, he produced thousands, certainly dozens if not hundreds of which are among the best ever produced.

And yes, it is a fair question to say, point to street photographers who shoot in color whose work is as good or better - as street photography, as photography - as that produced by the photographers I mentioned. I'm not saying compare the color and the black and white and tell me which you like better, I'm saying compare the image - the framing, the composition, the emotional or intellectual impact. Certainly there are color photographers among the greats of photography. But when it comes to street photography, the great bulk of outstanding work has been done in black and white. That's not my opinion; it's reality.

Originally Posted by bdcolen <snip> But when it comes to street photography, the great bulk of outstanding work has been done in black and white. That's not my opinion; it's reality.

Yep, I agree. It's because most of these photographers shot with B&W in their prime, because it was cheaper than shooting with colour, or in some cases, B&W was all that was available. The newer ones shot with B&W because the older generation said it was better in B&W with no real reason

I for one, prefer colours, as I see the world in colour. Dwindling it down to B&W for the sake of "mood" and to "eliminate distraction" is another way of saying "I can't bother trying harder to get a colour picture to look good" (well, in most cases, at least). Give yourself a challenge: Shoot the world in colour as it is & see if you can convey that reality into a meaningful picture.

Also, is it really necessary to throw around other photographers' names in order to sustain a discussion? It really doesn't make that much of a difference to some of us, as we are not really fans of some photographers that you've mentioned. Cheers.

Originally Posted by bdcolen As to the comparison of hair styles....What's your point?

I've already said it. If you don't get it, that's fine. Let's move on..

Originally Posted by bdcolen And finally, can any one of us through a combination of whatever talent we have and sheer luck produce an image that may be better than one of Cartier-Bresson's lesser images? Probably? Does that mean that we are in the same league with a Cartier-Bresson? Of course not, because while we might produce our one image, he produced thousands, certainly dozens if not hundreds of which are among the best ever produced.

Who says that his stuff are always better than any one of the members on dgrin? Is there a scale that I can put the picture on?

It's nice to give encouragement to others when referencing to famous people. However, with your usage, it sounds more like discouragement because in your books, there's no one going to be better than those guys due to:
1) We don't like B&W as much as they/you do
2) Because they are famous

Pathetic.

Originally Posted by bdcolen But when it comes to street photography, the great bulk of outstanding work has been done in black and white. That's not my opinion; it's reality.

Why do you have to be so stubborn? Show me a book that said "Street photography should be taken in B&W".

Oh, my world is in color. I can understand if you have a condition with your eyes where you can only see B&W - I hope not, and if it is, I am sorry that I've offended you B.D.

Originally Posted by sabesh Also, is it really necessary to throw around other photographers' names in order to sustain a discussion? It really doesn't make that much of a difference to some of us, as we are not really fans of some photographers that you've mentioned. Cheers.

Most of the people on this forum are glad to hear BD and others discuss the masters of street photography and have learned a lot from those discussions. Perhaps this is not the right forum for you.

Originally Posted by Richard Most of the people on this forum are glad to hear BD and others discuss the masters of street photography and have learned a lot from those discussions. Perhaps this is not the right forum for you.

I actually like the forum. But I fail to understand why one should keep harping on the "masters" while most can simply Google them, look at their pics and be done with it