Stills

The man with no name?

I often think that about pictures that I take of strangers in public places. I get to know them, as pictured, quite well, yet I have no name for them and might not even recognise them in a different place.

Another of your pictures that uses sparse materials to good effect.

I'm not so convinced of this one though, but I'm struggling to say why. Perhaps because it does look like a movie still / promo shot. I guess that is it. I don't feel involved with the walker. Like, who cares if he finds his car?
 

"Another of your pictures that uses sparse materials to good effect."

That about sums it up, but I'd like to see this a bit darker and contrastier. A litle flatter and brighter and you'd have something out of 2001.

Not sure I get the Eastwood reference though.
 

The simple clean lines lead to the dark figure and produce an appealing composition.

I feel invited to walk towards the light.
 

I was thinking of 'in the line of fire' whilst I posted thus the obscure reference. Wish I was thinking 'the man with no name' though. Much more poetic. Hindsight is 20/20 I suppose.

John - see my post to auspicious' self portrait. I'd love to say that this is a critical analysis of the environment I live in - modern, clean, souless etc. It was nothing more than 'that looks good, wait for a person to stride in to the viewfinder and click'.
 

Guy, my lexicon doesn't run to 'kind of neat' or kind of cool' although I know what you mean!! Short of carting a tripod out to stare at a mountainside at pre-dawn I think that most photography is reaction although living with a community covering a project probably yields results quicker than letting lives coincide at the times one has the camera. But if we went with that lexicon above as viewers then critiques would be very short. No, the act of carrying the camera out and about (or even in the home) is the start of a process of selecting and rejecting. That some, or even most, photos are taken in 'semi-automatic' mode doesn't mean that a fair amount of judgement hasn't taken place along the way. The very fact of offering it to a viewer signifies that there is something that is considered worthwhile looking at - even if it is rejected. ...but I may be wrong!
 

'...doesn't mean that a fair amount of judgement hasn't taken place along the way': Understood. I suppose my judgement has been built up over many hours of pacing the streets of Tokyo and deciding when to click the shutter. That moment prior to clicking is near enough instantaneous as the flicker of an image worth preserving hits my cones and rods. My selecting and rejecting happens outside the camera. I'm furtively scouring my surroundings to find the shot. Once captured, further rejection occurs upon viewing those 36 odd frames. This latter process takes time. The catching (and for me the most enjoyable aspect of this pastime) is but a fleeting moment of excitement. Probably a reason why I returned to film - prolonging that excitement factor until I see the developed negatives. I therefore hope that I offer the viewer an aestetically pleasing experience.

Thanks for forcing me to think a little more about this subject.
 

"The catching (and for me the most enjoyable aspect of this pastime) is but a fleeting moment of excitement. "

I would push this one further back up the chain. For me the most exciting bit is the seeing. Why then photograph? Well, I find that the act of carrying a camera and trying to capture makes me look harder and see more. And then there are those wonderful bonus extras which I didn't see but captured anyway.

Using film is a time consuming, frustrating, error prone and very satisfying artistic experience.