Crossing Lower Broadway. Greenwich Village, New York City.
In keeping with my promise to post a photo every week taken with my phone, here is this week’s mobile photography post. I am @newyorklens on Instagram (view my feed here). You can read about my thoughts on mobile photography and Instagram here and you can check out some of my Instagram photos on Flickr here.
As I experiment more and more with photo-editing apps for phone cameras, I find myself falling more and more in love with mobile photography. I branched out this past week and tried out Photoforge2 and VSCO and it was something of a revelation to me.
Photoforge2 has quickly become one of my core editing apps for my phone images. It has many of the same tools you would find in Photoshop and/or Lightroom and its features are staggering in their editing and creative capacities. I still also tinker around with Snapseed and Noir.
As my editing app arsenal has grown, I have found myself deeply interested in how the current crop of photo-sharing networks differ from each other. I really love Instagram. The community (or I suppose I should say ‘communities’) there is/are enthusiastic and very welcoming. I can’t remember the last time I had such a high response to things I have shared relative to the amount of people following me. People seem far more invested in the people they follow on Instagram than on other networks I have tried out so far. However, my trials are limited since I have literally only been dabbling in phone photography for a little over 3 weeks and I have only been using a few of the newer networks I have tried for 1 or 2 weeks
A few people I know via other photography communities online turned me on to the world of EyeEm (you can view my limited feed and my EyeEm account here) a few weeks ago and I have been on Streamzoo for as long as I have been on Instagram.
I came across this article last week: Is Instagram Defining, and Therefore Ruining, Mobile Photography? which made for interesting reading in light of my photo-sharing network dabbling. While I feel that some of the author’s points are a bit muddled, there are some interesting points made that could probably be applied to all networks online in terms of the democratization of all forms of photography, mobile or otherwise.
One thing that I think the author may have wrong is that there are some very vibrant, serious mobile photography communities on Instagram that are focused on the art of mobile photography. Instagram is the most popular out of all of the photo-sharing mobile networks though and with multitudes of users comes an increase in noise. I think this is where EyeEm shines for people who are interested in viewing and sharing mobile photography that transcends snapshot-status. I find the talent on EyeEm to be staggering. However, I think that the interface design (specifically for iPhones) is a bit lacking and in some cases non-intuitive. The community is also very small in comparison to a service like Instagram and it can be hard to break through and find other people to interact with.
I will continue to post to all 3 networks though for now. I find that each network has its own strengths and weaknesses. I do enjoy the random spontaneity of my Instagram feed and slipping in a cat photo (or two, or three…or ten :) ) doesn’t feel like an assault to the people following me versus on EyeEm where the level of photography is higher and I feel compelled to post more serious photos!
—-
View my photography for sale here, email me, or ask for help.
(Source: memoriesareonlyghosts, via dys-phoria)
Monza, Italy (by ..illi..)
Clouds Rollin In
(via wbotd)
Morning on river Sava, Belgrade, Serbia (by ceca67)
(via dys-phoria)
Cape Bira (par Hengki Koentjoro)
(via dys-phoria)
Skyscrapers. Financial District, New York City.
When I was very young, I remember learning about vast mountain ranges that existed in what seemed like universes beyond New York City. I would regale myself with images of these towering feats of nature trying to imagine what it was like to come in contact with such powerful natural wonders. I used to think to myself “There is nothing like this here in the city, all we have are buildings.”
It wasn’t until my teens when I lived in New Mexico for a little over a year and more specifically when I got to experience the majesty of Taos that I was able to understand how infinitely small everything seems in comparison to the vastness of the world.
And yet, while I was in school there in Albuquerque, other students would ask me daily to tell them what it was like to live amongst buildings that soared to the sky.
It never occurred to me before that time that the man-made feats of architecture that I viewed on a regular basis were for these students what the images of mountain ranges were to me before I had the experience of seeing mountains with my own eyes.
When I moved back to New York City, I carried that new knowledge with me like a precious gift, tucking it away for safe-keeping.
And it wasn’t until I discovered photography, that I took that knowledge out from where I tucked it away for many years and started to view my own city with new eyes.
There isn’t a day that goes by that I don’t recall the time when I realized that New York City is its own man-made land of enchantment.
—-
View this photo larger and on black on my Google Plus page
—-
Buy “Enchantment - Skyscrapers - Financial District - New York City” Prints here, email me, or ask for help.
Afternoon sunlight on fire escapes. Greenwich Village, New York City.
The afternoon yawns with its mouth full of sunlight before it slips into the shadows of evening.
Fire escapes catch the sun’s gleam: staircases for dreamers propelling dreams skyward.
And the trees bow graciously in the lingering glow of sweet sunlight: courteous hosts beckoning wanderers to bask in the shared glow and warmth of the city.
—-
View this photo larger and on black on my Google Plus page
—-
Buy “Afternoon Sunlight on a Greenwich Village Street - New York City” Prints here, email me, or ask for help.
Someone should add ‘Eye of The Tiger’ to this gif.
(Source: leilockheart, via teddoxpert)
BY: Tomek Jankowski (via Paris Mon Amour on Photography Served)
![theatlantic:
Are London’s 2012 Logos the Worst in Olympic History?
After two years of ridicule, London 2012’s Olympic mascots, “Wenlock and Mandeville,” have at last found some fans. This week, fast food giant McDonald’s announced they would give away nine million free Olympic mascot toys modeled on the unpopular pair at their U.K. outlets, including at a vast temporary 1,500-seater restaurant planned for near the Olympic Park.
Setting aside the question of whether a monster hamburger emporium fits well with a celebration of physical prowess, McDonald’s decision to endorse the Olympic mascots is a rare vote of confidence for the Games’ visual branding. So far, London 2012’s visual identity has been among the worst ever, making this year’s otherwise well-planned games something of a laughing stock. Take those awful mascots, for example. Supposedly modeled on droplets of steel fallen from the stadium, Wenlock and Mandeville’s huge cyclops eyes make them sinister rather than cute. These widely parodied robots are essentially cuddly surveillance cameras. They’ve also been compared to sex toys and even linked to a cult conspiracy theory.
A more serious failure is the Games’ garish dog’s dinner of a logo. A slapdash mess in acid colors, it looks like its designers have accidentally dropped it on the floor, then decided to use the shattered pieces anyway. Modeled on the numbers 2012, it’s so mangled that the Iranians have claimed to see the word “Zion” in it, while bloggers have suggested it resembles something way too crude to print here. So far, no fresh visual success has distracted the public from the logo’s disaster – even Britain’s new Olympic torch looks like a cheese grater.
So why has London 2012’s visual identity been so poor? As Stella McCartney’s kit for the British Olympic team suggests, Britain isn’t without design talent. The shadow that Beijing’s Olympics still casts could be a possible source of London 2012’s visual diffidence, as British organizers have always been aware they could not manage the shock and awe spectacle of China’s 2008 Games.
Read more at The Atlantic Cities. [Image: Reuters]
Hello, nightmare fuel.
HAHA ARE THOSE REALLY THE MASCOTS?](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m31izp8leq1qcokc4o1_500.jpg)
Are London’s 2012 Logos the Worst in Olympic History?
After two years of ridicule, London 2012’s Olympic mascots, “Wenlock and Mandeville,” have at last found some fans. This week, fast food giant McDonald’s announced they would give away nine million free Olympic mascot toys modeled on the unpopular pair at their U.K. outlets, including at a vast temporary 1,500-seater restaurant planned for near the Olympic Park.
Setting aside the question of whether a monster hamburger emporium fits well with a celebration of physical prowess, McDonald’s decision to endorse the Olympic mascots is a rare vote of confidence for the Games’ visual branding. So far, London 2012’s visual identity has been among the worst ever, making this year’s otherwise well-planned games something of a laughing stock. Take those awful mascots, for example. Supposedly modeled on droplets of steel fallen from the stadium, Wenlock and Mandeville’s huge cyclops eyes make them sinister rather than cute. These widely parodied robots are essentially cuddly surveillance cameras. They’ve also been compared to sex toys and even linked to a cult conspiracy theory.
A more serious failure is the Games’ garish dog’s dinner of a logo. A slapdash mess in acid colors, it looks like its designers have accidentally dropped it on the floor, then decided to use the shattered pieces anyway. Modeled on the numbers 2012, it’s so mangled that the Iranians have claimed to see the word “Zion” in it, while bloggers have suggested it resembles something way too crude to print here. So far, no fresh visual success has distracted the public from the logo’s disaster – even Britain’s new Olympic torch looks like a cheese grater.
So why has London 2012’s visual identity been so poor? As Stella McCartney’s kit for the British Olympic team suggests, Britain isn’t without design talent. The shadow that Beijing’s Olympics still casts could be a possible source of London 2012’s visual diffidence, as British organizers have always been aware they could not manage the shock and awe spectacle of China’s 2008 Games.
Read more at The Atlantic Cities. [Image: Reuters]
Hello, nightmare fuel.
HAHA ARE THOSE REALLY THE MASCOTS?
(via dys-phoria)