America, America, God's shed his grace on thee

[DiskoJoe]

The big truck in the background really makes it.

 

[sm4him]

Nothing more than a snapshot imo. If this were posted by anyone other than someone who's been here a while, it would get no attention or torn to shreds.

I'm confused by the above posts saying its anything more than a snap.

Well, maybe re-read exactly what I wrote, and what the other person wrote, and make an effort to see the photo for what it shows, rather than for its lack of adherence to some pre-determined technical or artistic ideal. It is a snap. A snap of the shutter. What I saw was that the shot was made with the camera moving, maybe even hanging off Lew's body on a strap, but no matter what, with the camera in motion...and as he walked by, he snapped the shutter, and there is all the "America" stuff...lots of small details that reflect current American society.

Like the mass of plastic storage totes on the left. the pickup truck, the woman stuffing her face, the Germ-X hand sanitizer bottle, the empty jar of snack food, the whole, unopened bag of carrots, the guy with a huge new "any size drink, $1" McDonalds 32-ounce soda cup. Yes, it is a "snap", one made on-the-go, in-motion, kind of haphazard in its framing. This shot COULD NOT HAVE BEEN made 15 years ago. Hand sanitizer is a new product. The $1 any size drink is a late-stage, recent McDOnald's response to the economic crash, designed to lure customers in these tough times.

I never said it's a great shot, because it's not "great", but it DOES have a lot of "Americana, 2013" in it. It is what it is. The shot is filled with symbolism, and cultural "icons"...the Germ-X, the huge McDonald's cup, people parking on a lawn, the huge sack of cheap white bread, and the weird looks of the people. It's a shot about a sliver in time. As I wrote above, this photo has "shot from a moving camera grab-shot aesthetic". It's a specific KIND of photo. It is not a posed, formal shot of a woman, or a studied, tripod-mounted, 5-shot focus stack landscape shot: it is a moving camera grab-shot. Not an especially fantastic one, but if you look, it has information in it that reflects our society, TODAY. Junk food, germ-killer, huge cups of soda. No wonder diabetes and obesity are an epidemic.

I'm not trying to disparage your opinion, only hoping to encourage those who might have read this far (anybody still here? TLDR?) to LOOK and to SEE what the photo is, and not ***** about what it is so obviously "not".

I struggle with photography like this (street photography, specifically, although I'm not even sure if this falls into "street photography" or something akin to it)--so I generally refrain from giving C&C or even giving a "like it, don't like it" response. But I always READ the comments, and look at the pictures, particularly when the poster is someone as clearly respected in this area as Lew, and when the comments are from those who have earned my respect, like Derrel. I can respect that PART of what makes this "more than a snapshot," in the sense that I think Geaux was using "snapshot," is that Lew SAW this Americana thing happening in all these seemingly random aspects of the photo.
Anyway, rather than ever responding with a "meh, just a snapshot," I for one always prefer to just silently consider the comments and see if I learn anything. Maybe one day, something will "click," other than the camera shutter and I will GET street photography in a way that would allow ME to do it. That day hasn't happened yet.

thanks for comments - and noticing the silly title mistake.
that has probably done irreparable damage to my Pulitzer Prize hopes.
@ Derrel yes, it was a total walk-by, shot from the hip at a cold stare. Dundalk is famous for its high tattoo to body ratio.

@Geaux, perhaps it is just a matter of different tastes?

Personally, I saw the "mistake" but thought it was on purpose. I didn't see "God's shed" as possessive; I thought you were saying "God has shed His grace on thee."

 

[Derrel]

Something I find interesting is that kids today have taken to using the word "random" and "totally random" as very positive things, worthy of praise and appreciation. My young son and his friends are fifth graders, and they have brand new Instagram accounts, which represent their very FIRST forays into photography.The most sought-after subjects for their photos are "random" and "totally random stuff". They are rejecting formal, traditional subjects and ways of showing them in photos.

From the mouths of babes?

 

[sashbar]

Something I find interesting is that kids today have taken to using the word "random" and "totally random" as very positive things, worthy of praise and appreciation. My young son and his friends are fifth graders, and they have brand new Instagram accounts, which represent their very FIRST forays into photography.The most sought-after subjects for their photos are "random" and "totally random stuff". They are rejecting formal, traditional subjects and ways of showing them in photos.

From the mouths of babes?

Interesting, I always thought that using the word "random" was their way of shielding themselves from criticism.

 

[The_Traveler]

What I consciously reject is the idea that photography is completely defined by good focus and adequate depth of field.

Nothing more than a snapshot imo.
I'm confused by the above posts saying its anything more than a snap.

When I was a child I didn't like a lot of tastes - mushrooms, garlic, asparagus and so on and I never could imagine how anyone would actually enjoy those tastes. And of course, sex seemed incomprehensively yucky. Years later and I like and enjoy all of them - and, obviously, those sensations haven't changed but I have learned to appreciate them.

What I liked about this shot was the unusual concatenation of virtually every single cliche about America in one spot specifically including the American flag shirt and the pickup in the background. (Virtually the only things missing were a handgun and a Bible, both of which were probably out of sight in the pickup.)
Yes, I would have liked it to be sharper and not look like a drive-by but I would also like to be wanted as a sex object by Scarlett Johansson but neither the sharpness nor the sex with Miss Johansson was going to happen - and in both instances because big bulky guys would get in the way.

But the minor IQ fail was not a disqualification for me.

 

[Geaux]

I'm not trying to disparage your opinion, only hoping to encourage those who might have read this far (anybody still here? TLDR?) to LOOK and to SEE what the photo is, and not ***** about what it is so obviously "not".

No offense taken and like Lew said, it's just a difference of opinion. I opened the thread, it grabbed absolutely no attention to me, but noticed something quite different in this thread. What normally happens to "noobs" wasn't happening, just seemed like odd favoritism, that's all.

It's just that I find majority of images like this are filled to the brim with "bitching what it is so obviously not" or ignored. Caught me off guard.

Moving along.

Edit: Just saw Lew's last comment and I totally respect your opinions and thoughts and thanks for the little more in in depth explanation on what you saw in the image. I didn't mean to come off as bratty and I apologize for making your thread part of my "soap box". It was more or less pointing out favoritism between posters that has somewhat driven me farther away from posting on this site recently.

Again, sorry about that Lew.

 

[Derrel]

I'm not trying to disparage your opinion, only hoping to encourage those who might have read this far (anybody still here? TLDR?) to LOOK and to SEE what the photo is, and not ***** about what it is so obviously "not".

No offense taken and like Lew said, it's just a difference of opinion. I opened the thread, it grabbed absolutely no attention to me, but noticed something quite different in this thread. What normally happens to "noobs" wasn't happening, just seemed like odd favoritism, that's all.

It's just that I find majority of images like this are filled to the brim with "bitching what it is so obviously not" or ignored. Caught me off guard.

Moving along.

I totally "get" what you meant,Geaux, and I appreciate the reply and understand your POV. But the difference is "noobs" often post snapshots of things like a dog. A cat. A kid with the top of his head AND his chin lopped off. Or a photo of their back yard at sunset. Pictures that have absolutely NOTHING of interest to anybody, except themselves. Lew's shot is as he puts it, " the unusual concatenation of virtually every single cliche about America in one spot specifically including the American flag shirt and the pickup in the background. (Virtually the only things missing were a handgun and a Bible, both of which were probably out of sight in the pickup.) "

And as Lew mentioned, he rejects the idea that ,"photography is completely defined by good focus and adequate depth of field."

I have to agree with him on that, since MANY powerful pictures have some degree of blurring or slight focus issues. As far as favoritism...I'm not really a big fan of The_Traveler's work...I don't show anybody favoritism. If a picture's good, I will call it good. I called his "not bad". I have at times, ripped his pictures. Same with amolitor's. And those of whoever. I spend a LOT of my time looking at pictures. If I like it, I'll say so. If it sucks, I will not hesitate to say so. I am an equal opportunity C&C'er.

As a kid, I was influenced by the work of Lee Friedlander, Diane Arbus, Robert Frank, Gary Winogrand, and others of that ilk. Many of their pictures would be roundly ridiculed here on TPF for their supposed lack of "technical merit".

 

[Geaux]

:hug::


And I'll probably hate saying this later on, but whats the difference between objectifying these people vs objectifying the homeless photo Lew ripped on for ethics not too long back? Not sure if these people would like their images spread over the internet and shown in spoke of in a "redneck" sort of way lol.

 

[JacaRanda]

Something I find interesting is that kids today have taken to using the word "random" and "totally random" as very positive things, worthy of praise and appreciation. My young son and his friends are fifth graders, and they have brand new Instagram accounts, which represent their very FIRST forays into photography.The most sought-after subjects for their photos are "random" and "totally random stuff". They are rejecting formal, traditional subjects and ways of showing them in photos.

From the mouths of babes?

As well as my 15 year old. I hear you loud and clear.

 

[JacaRanda]

What I consciously reject is the idea that photography is completely defined by good focus and adequate depth of field.

Nothing more than a snapshot imo.
I'm confused by the above posts saying its anything more than a snap.

When I was a child I didn't like a lot of tastes - mushrooms, garlic, asparagus and so on and I never could imagine how anyone would actually enjoy those tastes. And of course, sex seemed incomprehensively yucky. Years later and I like and enjoy all of them - and, obviously, those sensations haven't changed but I have learned to appreciate them.

What I liked about this shot was the unusual concatenation of virtually every single cliche about America in one spot specifically including the American flag shirt and the pickup in the background. (Virtually the only things missing were a handgun and a Bible, both of which were probably out of sight in the pickup.)
Yes, I would have liked it to be sharper and not look like a drive-by but I would also like to be wanted as a sex object by Scarlett Johansson but neither the sharpness nor the sex with Miss Johansson was going to happen - and in both instances because big bulky guys would get in the way.

But the minor IQ fail was not a disqualification for me.

Don't underestimate Scarlett's impeccable taste. I know I still have a shot. Much like photography, timing can be everthing

 

[The_Traveler]

:hug::
And I'll probably hate saying this later on, but whats the difference between objectifying these people vs objectifying the homeless photo Lew ripped on for ethics not too long back? Not sure if these people would like their images spread over the internet and shown in spoke of in a "redneck" sort of way lol.

OK, here's the difference.
That guy was only an example of how bad things get, we saw him up close, he had no 'agency' in the scene because the photographer was essentially using only his looks and the way he was dressed - both of which he had no control of. He was at the mercy of his situation. And there was no more to that picture but 'look at this guy in terrible straits.' All that stuff about he didn't mind and I paid him, all of that doesn't count in my mind. It isn't the ability to take the picture, it is whether you are being compassionate and using that person.

The picture above is of people choosing to be a certain way- and displaying it. They had power to do what they did and how they acted.

To me it is the difference between taking a picture of a chubby lady who was wearing a thong if she fell and her skirt went over her head displaying her butt and taking a picture of a obese person having a difficult time staying away from the sweets. In the first we would be using a situation over which she had no control to make her the object of derision. In the second we see the situation and understand it. Use the point it makes in a compassionate way.

I always use as a measure whether I would feel awkward if the picture I was shooting was my brother, daughter, etc.

 

[JacaRanda]

:hug::
And I'll probably hate saying this later on, but whats the difference between objectifying these people vs objectifying the homeless photo Lew ripped on for ethics not too long back? Not sure if these people would like their images spread over the internet and shown in spoke of in a "redneck" sort of way lol.

OK, here's the difference.
That guy was only an example of how bad things get, we saw him up close, he had no 'agency' in the scene because the photographer was essentially using only his looks and the way he was dressed - both of which he had no control of. He was at the mercy of his situation. And there was no more to that picture but 'look at this guy in terrible straits.' All that stuff about he didn't mind and I paid him, all of that doesn't count in my mind. It isn't the ability to take the picture, it is whether you are being compassionate and using that person.

The picture above is of people choosing to be a certain way- and displaying it. They had power to do what they did and how they acted.

To me it is the difference between taking a picture of a chubby lady who was wearing a thong if she fell and her skirt went over her head displaying her butt and taking a picture of a obese person having a difficult time staying away from the sweets. In the first we would be using a situation over which she had no control to make her the object of derision. In the second we see the situation and understand it. Use the point it makes in a compassionate way.

I always use as a measure whether I would feel awkward if the picture I was shooting was my brother, daughter, etc.

I really like this picture!

The explanation is like most every other aspect of photography that I have seen so far. Very subjective.

 

[bribrius]

sorry. just see a snapshot.
And not even a interesting one. I have piles of that crap on my external drive from "family events".

Americana? so I guess everyone that eat mcdonalds next to a American flag drinking a soda must be a worthwhile picture? Or how about everyone at a pie eating contest or a nascar event or any number of things... sorry lew. I aint buyn.
Your parade shot had some interesting artistic quality or something about it. This one, ehhhh. not much going for it really.

 

[The_Traveler]

And about getting 'favoritism.'

Maybe I get a second look and a second chance because I've posted a fair number of decent pictures and I'm not a complete dunce. So sometimes people think that even if they don't see something in it, maybe I do- and so they give the picture and the discussion a second chance.

That cuts both ways. How many people who have taken offense at something I've said about their treasured POS are just waiting for an opportunity to say something critical or nasty?
I'm not pretty and I'm not easy to get along with.
I generally don't give a crap whether I'm liked or not.
The things I care about the most are being honest about things I see and taking pictures.

 

[The_Traveler]

Don't underestimate Scarlett's impeccable taste. I know I still have a shot.

Based on this last sentence, I suggest you ask your doctor to double your dose of Seroquel and ask your spouse to buy a gun that shoots tranquilizing darts - just in case.