I think the overall quality of the images in this week’s gallery is better, except for the police shot. I realize there is no definition of what is or is not a good photograph, but I’m not impressed with the shot. If a photographer wishes to show police presence, police aggression, or police interaction with the public without actually showing an attack or a violent scene, get the lead out and shoot riot cops, SWAT teams, or troops in camouflage walking down a city street. Has anybody on this list ever been to Israel, Spain, Germany, Brazil, or o country where the police routinely carry automatic weapons? Police in the UK dress as these two are dressed in so many venues that people no longer react with fear and panic when seeing them unless the location is in or near an airport or transportation hub. Get photographs of security forces when tensions are high and then I’ll congratulate you. When the photographer is under stress, then the senses are heightened and the pictures have the sense of immediacy this shot lacks. Dan Mitchell’s shot of the lighthouse, while more interesting due to the way it pulls the viewer’s vision into the back, is better, but still suffers a certain ’snapshot-ish’ quality due to its lack of the correct DOF or I presume, the use of a tripod. It’s a fine example of a shot which is supposed to be ‘good', but is only 'good enough'. I’m sure Dan intended it to be sharp, but was let down by not taking the equipment and camera shake into account. I will accept ‘puzzeling’ as a compliment for my ‘Lift Accident’ shot. Thank you. Jan Faul On Aug 19, 2012, at 12:35 PM, Howard LEIGH wrote: Actually people were using dSLRs for the same sort of picture - and the day before I used a dSLR type bridge camera for the same purpose!! I've never had any problem with the police and photography (yet :)) Art Faul The Artist Formerly Known as Prints ------ Stills That Move: http://www.artfaul.com Greens: http://www.inkjetprince.com Camera Works - The Washington Post |
