slurpy

[DarkShadow]

Agree on the processing is really bad.I see lines through the image,the sidewalk looks like it got rainbow treatment of coloring and the hot spots on the people and weird colors all over the place.I won't even touch the weight thing. If you shot RAW you can revert and start over but if it was shot Jpeg its probably a goner.

 

[bribrius]

Agree on the processing is really bad.I see lines through the image,the sidewalk looks like it got rainbow treatment of coloring and look at the hot spots aon the people and weird colors all over the place.I won't even touch the weight thing. If you shot RAW you can revert and start over but if it was shot Jpeg its probably a goner.

Another processing hater.
Thanks though i need to know this. Appreciated.
It is jpeg, i mostly shoot straight jpeg, especially on walk abouts.. Wasn't even shot with a dslr. I have the original though still.

 

[Derrel]

[ I just shoot what i see though. I saw it, i shot it. I didn't shoot it just based on the weight factor either (admittedly the belly shirt drew my attention) though, i liked the kid in the stroller in front as well and just the layout in general.

It's actually a pretty good street shot. It captures a very authentic moment, and it's an accurate depiction of our modern American life, and the people we see quite often. It's also very simple, with not that many elements, and no background people getting in the way of the shot; we're free to look at the subjects without photobombers in the background. It's shot with a longer lens, and it has a voyeuristic feel to it; you were clearly outside of their personal space, and in fact you were outside of their close public space, which adds to the feeling of observing, rather than being "there", and somehow involved. This is real life, as seen from a bit of a distance.

The processing causes this to be very impressionistic, rather than ultra high-resolution. It's almost as if the people are in a painting, almost as if they are just mere images...it makes me think of an image seen in something like an old, discarded newspaper advertisement section, one that's gotten wet in a puddle...the image has been reduced in clarity, it's been softened, it's been turned into more of an iconographic representation of the people, rather than a 24-megapixel, ultra-high-rezz modern digital image. And also, this is the era of the image filter...this is a time when MANY people, all over the world, are applying image filters to images. The idea that a lot of people cannot handle that is not surprising..old ideas and dogma dies hard and slow. Impressionist painters were rejected for decades by old thinkers. Color landscape and fine art pictures were rejected for decades by old-line thinkers. So...you're probably going to run into resistance on this from people telling you what is should have been like. I myself, I think it's interesting, but at this resolution, I think it loses a bit of its power; I LIKE the idea of obfuscating the "real-ness", but I think this has gone a bit too far...I want to see a bit more detail, but also, I like the way the image has been made impressionistic, rather than super-specific.

 

[DanOstergren28 3]

I like the dialogue that the image starts in my head, and I like the moment captured. The quality of the image leaves a lot to be desired though.

 

[bribrius]

[ I just shoot what i see though. I saw it, i shot it. I didn't shoot it just based on the weight factor either (admittedly the belly shirt drew my attention) though, i liked the kid in the stroller in front as well and just the layout in general.

It's actually a pretty good street shot. It captures a very authentic moment, and it's an accurate depiction of our modern American life, and the people we see quite often. It's also very simple, with not that many elements, and no background people getting in the way of the shot; we're free to look at the subjects without photobombers in the background. It's shot with a longer lens, and it has a voyeuristic feel to it; you were clearly outside of their personal space, and in fact you were outside of their close public space, which adds to the feeling of observing, rather than being "there", and somehow involved. This is real life, as seen from a bit of a distance.

The processing causes this to be very impressionistic, rather than ultra high-resolution. It's almost as if the people are in a painting, almost as if they are just mere images...it makes me think of an image seen in something like an old, discarded newspaper advertisement section, one that's gotten wet in a puddle...the image has been reduced in clarity, it's been softened, it's been turned into more of an iconographic representation of the people, rather than a 24-megapixel, ultra-high-rezz modern digital image. And also, this is the era of the image filter...this is a time when MANY people, all over the world, are applying image filters to images. The idea that a lot of people cannot handle that is not surprising..old ideas and dogma dies hard and slow. Impressionist painters were rejected for decades by old thinkers. Color landscape and fine art pictures were rejected for decades by old-line thinkers. So...you're probably going to run into resistance on this from people telling you what is should have been like. I myself, I think it's interesting, but at this resolution, I think it loses a bit of its power; I LIKE the idea of obfuscating the "real-ness", but I think this has gone a bit too far...I want to see a bit more detail, but also, I like the way the image has been made impressionistic, rather than super-specific.

thanks. 28mm. Appreciate the thoughts especially on the detail. Some dropped in post. The compressed 53kb web image probably isn't helping either.

 

[bribrius]

I like the dialogue that the image starts in my head, and I like the moment captured. The quality of the image leaves a lot to be desired though.

thanks for the comment dan.

 

[f2bthere]

I saw this when you first posted it and have thought about it several times and even described it to my wife. I came back to find it. I would not say that is a common experience and, like many on photographic forums, I do see a lot of images.

I was surprised more didn't find this image compelling. I would love to have a print of this image.

What do I think of the processing. I did not really notice it the first time I looked because the image was compelling. Normally, I would notice the processing. What does this mean? I'm not sure. It might mean the processing was spot on for the image and got the message across. Or it might mean the image was powerful enough to get past the issues of the processing.

I do wish there was not a line in the child's face.

I would like to see the image with more of a straight up look, or a more film-like look. If I had it, I would see what I could do with it in Black and White. What would it look like if you processed it the way you normally do?

The women are clearly overweight but they also look solid. This says to me that there is a respect from the photographer not an attitude of "looking down on" them.

The image also speaks to me of the women taking in high calorie drinks and passing this on to the child (and the other child I presume is in the wagon). Their way of being together in this raises thoughts and questions.

Weight is a complicated issue in our culture. I spent most of my life being over weight, as an ever growing percentage of our culture does and it is a serious problem. Since smoking has been reduced, this is a quickly growing source of most "preventable" deaths. This picture, for me, opens a whole set of conversations on this very nuanced topic.

Thank you for sharing this powerful image.

Keep doing what you are doing!

The strong reaction you got in other places says to me that you are striking a chord, one some people don't want struck. I do not see your photograph as disrespectful.