Tom DePuy Loc: Waxhaw, N.C.

glad to see that we now have a Street Photography Page...
now to see what we all actually consider Street Photography

(Download)

joe west Loc: Taylor, Michigan

:thumbup:

Nightski

What is your subject, Tom? What compelled you to take this picture. How did you decide to frame it up? Why did you decide to have half a person and a bloated arm coming into the frame? Why the floating head? Why is the only person who seems to be giving you her attention completely out of focus?

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

A great slice of life caught at an interesting moment. This is another Classic Street shot.

Macronaut Loc: Redondo Beach,Ca.

I admit, I have no real knowledge of SP and I hope to learn much here but, I have the same questions as Sandra.

jim hill Loc: Springfield, IL

Doesn't do anything for me. Too dark processing wise. Looks to me as no thought went into this - kinda like my Drive-By-Shooting series of which I have seven or eight decent photographs and literally ten thousand bad ones. It reminds me of the camera going off all on it's lonesome. No human needed.

I don't know what category of street this is but it needs better treatment.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Now you are on the hook! What better treatment, exactly.

Enough of it ain't this and it ain't that, what do you think would make it better? And explain exactly why it is better too.

I would like a little difference in tone mapping, to bring up the brightness of all the people in the foreground. Generally brighter areas draw more attention and makes that area more attractive to the viewer.

I do wish that lady in the center was in better focus, but it's too late for that now.

jim hill Loc: Springfield, IL

Floyd,

It would be helped if it were printed less dull. It is muddy in it's tonalities. And, it is all those things Sandra mentioned (who, by the bye, has one of the best eyes for critique of anyone working in UHH).

As far as my reasoning is concerned I am at a loss to explain why this is not a successful photograph. It seems to me to be a jumble of partial bodies and one I would never have considered posting unless I was really wanting to learn something. This photograph, in my opinion and that of others, is not even close to being a great example of "Street".

Now, having said that, this fellow has somewhat of an eye as I have checked his list of photographs before opening my big mouth and found a few that are really quite nice. He apparently wants to make beautiful photographs but is being constrained by something - I don't know what.

He works at it but success is eluding him as he goes on making the kind of photographs anyone can make. How do you break that habit? Stop photographing for a year and read the monographs and the writings of the great photographers of the 20th and 21st Centuries. Take classes from established photographers. Practice shooting through framing L's or a black cutout. Then go home and try to draw outlines of the important elements of the things you were practice shooting.

This may or may not be helpful. Depends on how it is taken and if he is really interested in growing photographically.

Regards,
Jim Hill

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

But is a great slice of life that was imaged, even if the photo produced is not as great. The slice of life, as pictured, is indeed in the Classic Street style.

It is also clear that many here do not even know what that means. They, and perhaps the OP (I don't know), might find the Street Photography Section to be a great place to learn, by exchanging ideas both with those they agree with and those they don't agree with.

This is not the place to tell people their efforts at Street are not up to some standard of excellence in an effort to have only those that are "a great example of Street" posted. We want the entire range to be posted. Perhaps some of the things you or I don't see as great might actually be.

jim hill Loc: Springfield, IL

Floyd,

I do apologize for misunderstanding the purpose of your new section and that of UHH in general. I was of the opinion that one of the main goals was, and is, to help others grow in their efforts.

I've had enough of the counterculture event which happened between 1964 and 1974. It produced some tf the worst degrading paintings, photographs and sculpture that, in my opinion, the world has ever witnessed. I have no desire to see that experience repeated.

Further, if you are led to believe that your efforts are placed on a high pedestal when they are not worthy of that praise is misleading and detrimental to growth as a photographer. It does not help to give anyone a false sense of their work for then where are they to grow?

In my retort I offered several ways in which this photographer might be able to improve. This is exactly the same advice given to me by my mentor and very close friend, Wynn Bullock, after I signed up for a class with him in which, at the conclusion, I had my prints lined up along the viewing rail and he said those exact same words to me: "Now here is an example of the kind of photograph anyone can make." The 6 months I took off from photographing were the best thing I had ever done as I read and studied everything of value I could get my hands on.

One year after that horrid experience I became his darkroom printer, printing over 225 of his very famous works. Usually in the amount of 20 prints each. And his negatives were fraught with technical problems that would have driven anyone else nuts.

All this being said, I feel an empathy with the OP. My words were meant as an assist and should be taken in that vein. Like I said, he has an eye and that is saying something as far as I'm concerned. Not everyone who takes up the camera has it.

Again, sorry to have misunderstood. However, in my communications with other members of the Hog I find the same sentiment exists.

Best regards,
Jim Hill

kruchoski Loc: Albuquerque, NM

I'm struggling to find some adequate words here, so bear with me & I'll just throw out an idea that I've been mulling over for at least six months.

What constitutes street photography and what creates compelling images are two different matters, in my mind. I worry less about the former ("real" SP) than the latter (i.e., compelling). The images I like most are those that "catch my eye," allow me to explore, then draw my gaze back to a particular point in it, and hold it. Yes, I like those that have a "subject" that is not so nebulous as "life" in general.

Setting my biases aside... if we were to compare, say, ten photos in a round robin fashion, assigning one point to the more preferred in each comparison and zero to the other, we could tally the scores at the end, then rank them in order of most preferred to least.

What might that tell us? At the very least, it could allow photographers & viewers to ask, "What makes this image 'better' than that one?" without preconceptions. And with that insight, a photographer could say to him/herself, "Gee, if I want that kind of response/reception to my images, I need to emulate those kinds of techniques" (i.e, the ones used in the top scoring photos).

There's much more I'd like to share (& explore) about this concept, but not now & probably not here.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

But people are each unique, and they have unique likes and dislikes. Those who really like Landscapes and those who really like Portraits and those who really like Street will always lean towards choosing different sets of images as "best".

An example that I have to deal with personally relates to the distinction between Street Photography and Street Portraiture. I really like them both, and every time I point a camera at a person I have to decide which genre I am working with on this particular shot. That happens because many of the techniques, particularly with composition, are literal opposites for those two genres. It's better to be closer for Portraiture and isolate the person in multiple ways, yet for Street a wider field of view that includes copious context and rarely any isolation of a person is better.

It is almost never just a case of how to get a better picture. It's always first a case of what kind of a picture, and then how to get that kind of better picture.


For this section the target is Street Photography. That is true even if somebody likes a portrait better... Our discussion in the main is always going to be more restricted than just what makes an image better, but will rather be what makes it better Street Photography.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

xxxxxxxxxxx
we'll....
this image definitely "captured a moment".
the moment occurred in an urban, rather than a rural setting.
it contains people...well...parts thereof.

but "classic street"?

Come off it, Apaflo; even your beloved, vaunted mentor Wynogrand would have binned this one.

In any lumper-splitter discussion, I almost always come down on the "lumbers" side. But this is ridiculous.

By what criteria or specific criterion does this image qualify as "street"?
Of 100 monkeys, each with an instant camera, two or three could easily come up with the equal of this.

I'm having a hard time concluding other than that the OP would appreciate some useful guidelines by which to classify his images. please....give him, and the rest of us, something substantive.

Dave

jim hill Loc: Springfield, IL

Yep!

kruchoski Loc: Albuquerque, NM

Quite true, in fact it's something that I've considered. But while this topic is frequently on my mind, I'm saving it for another time, perhaps another forum. (Any readers interested in more background, just PM me.)