Fake? Fishy? WRONG? Cheat? Sheesh.
No, none of the above, depending on your definition of the words.
It is a fairly hefty crop, but, once again, no fakery, save the conversion to black & white (also, again, mixed lighting sources as with last week's).
The original, reduced to a smaller file but otherwise unchanged, can be seen here: http://richmason.com/temp/ordorig.jpg
I agree that the man in the foreground looks wrong. I suspect it's partly because he is out of focus and the low camera position gives him more prominence in the frame. I liked the picture for its oddness, and I found him and his expression to be the oddest--he looks like he has a little secret. The dark-haired woman probably looks softer than the man with the hat due to movement blur--the shutter speed was 1/30 second.
If I ever decide to post a cut-and-paste job to the Gallery, I'll let you know.
Some street photographers do cheat. They set up scenes (Robert Doisneau, for example). They remove content that they don't like. You know, like some wildlife photographers (Art Wolfe, for example).
Cheers, Rich
On Saturday, February 5, 2005, at 11:13 AM, Bob Talbot wrote:
Rich Mason - Fake?
After telling us last week's brilliant image was for real ther's for sure something very very fishy about this one. Either that or the lighting / focus is playing some pretty weird tricks on my eyes. Do streetphoto guys cheat? Well, they don't call it cheating but "enhancement".
The big bloke in the middle just looks WRONG. So wrong I can't really believe it's a fake: the lighting's all wrong on him and the scale looks out of true. The womam in the distant background looks sharp, so does the man in the hat yet the woman with the bottle - distance wise between the two of them - looks soft, slightly out of focus.
I confess, basically I don't like the image. I'm just looking long and hard wondering if it's a response to one of last week's reviewers who suspected Rich had been cutting and pasting assorted characters into a scene :)
http://richmason.com
