hmm. I do agree with Christian on this pair. Neither of them are particularly interesting photographs to my eye, although technically nicely rendered.
I do agree with you regards "catching people unawares" or, more to my way of thinking, catching expressions candidly. That doesn't necessarily mean that they don't see the camera ... to me it means that they are not *responding* to the camera's presence unnaturally. Like the photo I posted yesterday, of the child and granny ... they were quite aware I had a camera pointed at them but they were not posing for the camera. Or like the street photography that Juan does so beautifully. Many of my favorite photos of people were made candidly this way ... a connection between photographer and subject was made, but without direct influence on the subject's ability to be natural and unposed. There are of course many appealing photos taken without the subjects' being aware of the camera too ... One of the favorites of this genre that I've made was this one, in San Francisco: http://www.gdgphoto.com/paw-2005/source/40.html Godfrey On Mar 7, 2007, at 6:43 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > Thanks for looking, Christian. I prefer to catch people unawares. I > don't hide, but I hope to get a shot of people without their seeing > the > camera. As soon as someone sees a camera, the situation is no longer > real. The shot becomes a pose. > Paul > On Mar 7, 2007, at 7:47 AM, Christian wrote: > >> Sorry, Paul, these two really do little for me. I never really liked >> the "voyeuristic" style of photography and you seem to catch these >> two >> people in odd moments. The one thing I do like is the B&W >> rendering of >> "signing" very nicely exposed too. >> Paul Stenquist wrote: >> >>> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5687917&size=lg >>> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5687954&size=lg -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
