Jump to content

Recommended Posts

"Slender Dreams"

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Out of sync"

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately we don't have a Dislike button. This picture is just disrespectful and serves as a good example of how to discredit streetphotography. Just my 2ct.

 

II wouldn't say that. I'd say the title is very unfortunate, not because I am shocked but because I firmly believe a phtograph's interpretation should be up to the viewer, it's not the role of the photographer to tell people how they should interpret it. Something like Street Name - Year would be much better imo. I don't like titles that are oriented because they seem to imply the viewer is not intelligent enough to make a link on his own about what's happening, so he needs the help of the pohotgrapher to explain him what it's about.

 

Now if one discards the title, he can imagine anything. Would it be called "dreaming about fine lingerie" people would react differently. I know a man from poland who would find this woman a bit underweight. It's all a matter of personal perception and interpretation.

 

I would argue that it's really a shame that some people think one should not photograph fat people because it's disrepectful, or children because it's creepy.

 

If the viewer has issues in his head and thinks immediatly about sex when seing children, or about morbidity when seing overweight people it is entirely HIS problem, not the photographer's and certainly not mine. I don't mind my children being photographed because they are part of an interresting scene or just because they are beautiful.

 

Why could only beautiful slim women, flowers, sunsets and men in suits be photographed? How is that any more sane and democratic than photographing everyone, the homeless included?

 

How is photographing the ass of a beautiful woman next to the rear of a race car and call it "nice bottoms" less exploitative than to photograph a not-so-slim one next to a scrawny mannequin and call it "slender dreams"? It is not. It's all about perception and street photography is often about juxtapositions of things that work in the picture without necessarily having anything to do in real life (here we can't even be sure that the woman is looking at the mannequin due to the angle, that made the picture work in the first place)

 

The title is unfortunate but the picture does not discredit street photography which is exploiting life to make interresting pictures imo. Somehow nobody has risen a concern about the '"out of sync" picture capturing a woman that one could depict as being probably anorexic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you citral. Bilbao, Spain.

Where they built the Guggenheim museum

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

sorry for the OT pic

Link to post
Share on other sites

II wouldn't say that. I'd say the title is very unfortunate, not because I am shocked but because I firmly believe a phtograph's interpretation should be up to the viewer, it's not the role of the photographer to tell people how they should interpret it. Something like Street Name - Year would be much better imo. I don't like titles that are oriented because they seem to imply the viewer is not intelligent enough to make a link on his own about what's happening, so he needs the help of the pohotgrapher to explain him what it's about.

 

Now if one discards the title, he can imagine anything. Would it be called "dreaming about fine lingerie" people would react differently. I know a man from poland who would find this woman a bit underweight. It's all a matter of personal perception and interpretation.

 

I would argue that it's really a shame that some people think one should not photograph fat people because it's disrepectful, or children because it's creepy.

 

If the viewer has issues in his head and thinks immediatly about sex when seing children, or about morbidity when seing overweight people it is entirely HIS problem, not the photographer's and certainly not mine. I don't mind my children being photographed because they are part of an interresting scene or just because they are beautiful.

 

Why could only beautiful slim women, flowers, sunsets and men in suits be photographed? How is that any more sane and democratic than photographing everyone, the homeless included?

 

How is photographing the ass of a beautiful woman next to the rear of a race car and call it "nice bottoms" less exploitative than to photograph a not-so-slim one next to a scrawny mannequin and call it "slender dreams"? It is not. It's all about perception and street photography is often about juxtapositions of things that work in the picture without necessarily having anything to do in real life (here we can't even be sure that the woman is looking at the mannequin due to the angle, that made the picture work in the first place)

 

The title is unfortunate but the picture does not discredit street photography which is exploiting life to make interresting pictures imo. Somehow nobody has risen a concern about the '"out of sync" picture capturing a woman that one could depict as being probably anorexic.

 

I don't know why but people get offended about almost everything nowadays.......perhaps the truth hurts sometimes and yeah, it's always easier to make it someone else's problem rather than our own. IMO, the title and the pic is very powerful. Definitely thought provoking...whether it is acceptable or not depends on who and where you are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

WhatsApp!!!

 

(X-A1,27mm,f/8)

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel so strange today.

(X-A1, 27mm, f6.4)

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know me better than anyone else

 

(X-E1, Pentax A 70-210)

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

My favorite in the thread so far.  Absolutely stunning.  Framing  is great, processing is awesome.  How did you have time to get low and frame so quickly? What did you shoot with/at?

 :-)  Thanks!

The pic was taken with the XF56 ... actually a bit (too) long for street.

I like the perspective near ground. I've seen the dog arriving 50m before, went down, waiting to take a "head shot" ... but he decided to tag his street ... i felt free to document his action. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately we don't have a Dislike button. This picture is just disrespectful and serves as a good example of how to discredit streetphotography. Just my 2ct.

Thank you for your comments. I fully appreciate your point of view and when you wrote "Dislike" you did press a virtual dislike button. The intention is not be disrespectful. The culture we live in, dreaming to be slender is a very positive thing and even to tell somebody that You will look great if you trim down a bit is considered very normal. So respecting your point of view, I will not change anything , the title or the picture as your norms don't work the same way in every country. Thanks for being honest with your opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Amsterdam with Fuji XT1, 10-24mm f/4

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Amsterdam, Fuji XT-1, 35mm f/1.4

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Amsterdam, Fuji XT-1, 10-24 f/4

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dam Square, Amsterdam, Fuji XT-1, 10-24 f/4

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vangough museum, Amsterdam, 14mm f/2.8

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vangouh museum, Amsterdam

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • I'm not exaggerating when I say that I have searched with great vigor (and at great expense) for a way to capture IR images with a Fujifilm camera for which I didn't have to use major amounts of sharpening to bring out the best. Zooms, primes, Fuji, Tamron, Viltrox, Sigma, Zeiss ... probably 20 lenses all told. Plus multiple IR converted Fuji cameras, X-T1, X-T3, X-T5. I even tried different ways of filtering IR, such as using the Kolari clip-ins and lens-mounted front filters. I was ready to give up until I almost accidentally tried one of the cheapest lenses out there -- the little TTArtisan 27mm F2.8. No hotspots that I could see, and best of all ABSOLUTELY SUPERB SHARPNESS across the entire frame. It's this attribute that I search for, and until now, never achieved. In my prior attempts, I listened to the advice from the "pundits", picking up a copy of the venerable Fuji 14mm F2.8, the Zeiss Touitt 12mm F2.8, Fuji 23 and 35mm F2.0, even the very similar 7Artisans 27mm F2.8, and none of them come even close to the TTArtisan for edge sharpness in infrared. Incidentally, I'm using a Kolari 720nm clip-in filter. Sure the TT has its issues -- vignetting at 2.8, tendency to flare with sunlight nearby, but all in all, this lens is glued to my X-T5 for now. This image was taken hand-held with this lens -- completely unedited!
    • Hy there When Im using the fan001 on the XH2s and I flip the LCD Screen vertically by 180 degrees then the image flips vertically, what is good but it also flips horizontally. The clean feed on HDMI is not flipping horizontally but its also flipping if the HDMI output info display is on. When I unmount the fan then the image flips only vertically. My firmware is updated to the latest version. Any ideas if there is a fix for that?
    • In reply to the original question, it all depends on what you mean by infrared.  If you mean "see thermal information", then I agree with the comments here.  However, if you mean near-infrared, the X-T4, or basically any digital camera can be modified to "see" it.  Check out Lifepixel.com and Kolarivision.com for more info. As regards lenses, I'm not exaggerating when I say that I have searched with great vigor (and at great expense) for a way to capture IR images with a Fujifilm camera for which I didn't have to use major amounts of sharpening to bring out the best. Zooms, primes, Fuji, Tamron, Viltrox, Sigma, Zeiss ... probably 20 lenses all told. Plus multiple IR converted Fuji cameras, X-T1, X-T3, X-T5. I even tried different ways of filtering IR, such as using the Kolari clip-ins and lens-mounted front filters. I was ready to give up until I almost accidentally tried one of the cheapest lenses out there -- the little TTArtisan 27mm F2.8. No hotspots that I could see, and best of all ABSOLUTELY SUPERB SHARPNESS across the entire frame. It's this attribute that I search for, and until now, never achieved. In my prior attempts, I listened to the advice from the "pundits", picking up a copy of the venerable Fuji 14mm F2.8, the Zeiss Touitt 12mm F2.8, Fuji 23 and 35mm F2.0, even the very similar 7Artisans 27mm F2.8, and none of them come even close to the TTArtisan for edge sharpness in infrared. Incidentally, I'm using a Kolari 720nm clip-in filter. Sure the TT has its issues -- vignetting at 2.8, tendency to flare with sunlight nearby, but all in all, this lens is glued to my X-T5 for now. This image was taken hand-held with this lens -- completely unedited!
    • No - I don’t think so - it means you can take pictures if you remove the lens completely - but I’m not sure that is a problem
    • I bought a manual lens over xmas and it took me a while to find the "shutter w/o lens" function in the menu settings.  So far I haven't found a way to either put that on the Q menu or marry that setting to one of the 4 custom modes.   Am I missing something? Is there a problem if I just leave that setting enabled even when the OEM auto lens is in place? tia
×
×
  • Create New...