City street at night.

[whyified]

Shutter Speed: 6/1 second
F Number: F/13.0
Focal Length: 22 mm
ISO Speed: 200

Critique, please. (:

Larger size found here at DeviantArt: http://fc01.deviantart.com/fs22/i/20...defunction.jpg

[geotography]

whyified,

Me again. I like this one too...it's a bit small to appreciate. I enjoy your angle and shooting position which all lends itself to a sweet perspective of the street scene. You captured a some dynamics with people and the blur of moving vehicles. Try to make it a bit larger (within posting rules) and openable to your web album.

Best,

[whyified]

Hmm, it seems to be a bit troubling to people that I provide a link to a larger version of the given photo at the bottom of the original post.

[jdwalz]

Motion blur can get a little old, kind of like; been there, done that type of experience - unless you fully incorporate color as motion into the photo - as you have done here. The motion blur seems to be a natural part of the street scene, the color palette of the picture is in sync with the motion and it makes the scene extremely vibrant.

Two things:

You used a gimmick but you did so in an intelligent way as to make it an artful addition because it adds a dynamic of movement, a real feel of something kinetic, almost as though you should feel a breeze hit you just as you look at the picture.

The other point is that you captured a night scene filled with natural light, or electric and neon which is natural enough for night - and you did it without excessive flares or overexposed elements.
And....

That makes this a classic shot. Not just good but great.
I love the white street light, it sets itself in contrast to the warmer neons, and the State Theater marquee, well, the picture taken as a whole captures a scene of what seems like night time on small town street in America, washed in deep, rich color, juxtaposing the old and new with wires of blurred light.

Makes me think of Edward Hopper.

Great shot!

add.
If you look at this image, be sure to check out the larger image at deviantart.com

[whyified]

Originally Posted by jdwalz

Motion blur can get a little old, kind of like; been there, done that type of experience - unless you fully incorporate color as motion into the photo - as you have done here. The motion blur seems to be a natural part of the street scene, the color palette of the picture is in sync with the motion and it makes the scene extremely vibrant.

Two things:

You used a gimmick but you did so in an intelligent way as to make it an artful addition because it adds a dynamic of movement, a real feel of something kinetic, almost as though you should feel a breeze hit you just as you look at the picture.

The other point is that you captured a night scene filled with natural light, or electric and neon which is natural enough for night - and you did it without excessive flares or overexposed elements.
And....

That makes this a classic shot. Not just good but great.
I love the white street light, it sets itself in contrast to the warmer neons, and the State Theater marquee, well, the picture taken as a whole captures a scene of what seems like night time on small town street in America, washed in deep, rich color, juxtaposing the old and new with wires of blurred light.

Makes me think of Edward Hopper.

Great shot!

add.
If you look at this image, be sure to check out the larger image at deviantart.com

Hi, Jdwalz. Thank you so much for your great comment.
The only thing I don't fully understand is what you meant by using a gimmick. Maybe you can clear that up for me. Once again, thank you.

[jiminyClickit]

whyified,

It's a part of the website design that frustrates: when we try to start a Critique, and then have to go thru a link to look one more time at your photo, the portion we've typed goes gray, and looks like it's lost (it can be selected, copied, hit reply button, then paste). You can understand that it's great to have a good 600-pixel-longest-side photo to refer to for a thorough Critique.

[geotography]

Hmm, it seems to be a bit troubling to people that I provide a link to a larger version of the given photo at the bottom of the original post.

Probably not...I just missed it.

[jdwalz]

By gimmick, I meant the trailing remains of light in a time-exposure (even a brief one...) If you have ever seen the film Koyaanisqatsi or any night photography that is concentrated and focused on elongated light without having an actual central subject. To me this defines a gimmick; technique without content.

This would be anathema to what you did, at least in my eyes; you used a "toolbox" technique to produce a more beautiful scene. Night shots are difficult, finding the right location, capturing the essence of the scene and with the exception of bulb shots, night shots are based on structures of light and trying to blend and control light in order to create a meaningful portrait.
You did that for me in a cool technicolor explosion of luminesence.
Actually I should say that your photo doesn't employ a gimmick because the technique you used reinforced the content and did not distract, but less skillfully done, it could have gone the other way.

[adacosta]

jdwalz, nice comments.

whyified - a great picture, i really enjoy the colors, great perspective.

Can you lighten up the right hand of the photo? as that buiding begins to fall off into the darkness. or perhaps crop a little out?

great shot.

[whyified]

Originally Posted by jiminyClickit

whyified,

It's a part of the website design that frustrates: when we try to start a Critique, and then have to go thru a link to look one more time at your photo, the portion we've typed goes gray, and looks like it's lost (it can be selected, copied, hit reply button, then paste). You can understand that it's great to have a good 600-pixel-longest-side photo to refer to for a thorough Critique.

Alright, then. Sorry for that. From now on I'll post a 600pixel shot.