Franku Loc: Wallingford, PA and Parrish, Fl

Taken a few weeks ago at Philadelphia City Hall

(Download)

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

Good catch.

Graham Smith Loc: Cambridgeshire UK

Hello Franku, I hope you don't mind me making a couple of observations on your picture?
A couple of quick paces to the left would have you photographing into the group of lovely girls giving the viewer connection to them , the only drawback to that is that lovely derrière wouldn't have the impact it does now ;-)
My other thought is that chopped off feet are best avoided.

Graham

Franku Loc: Wallingford, PA and Parrish, Fl

Thanks for your comments Graham.
I had just gotten my new Nikon 810 and made loads of errors.
I'll put a few more up for your review.
Thanks.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Another fabulous example of what it is about Street Photography that distinguishes it from other genres that are very similar, such as Landscapes or Street Portraiture.

There is no tangible object in the posted image which is the subject. Rather, the subject of the photograph is the intangible relationship between all objects. The subject is life. It's the relationship between people and their surroundings.

And to acquire a good photograph of life we necessarily need be careful to avoid making single objects within the scene too prominent lest the object becomes the subject. That detracts from the quality of a Street Photograph and pushes it towards another genre, such a making it a landscape or a portrait.

There is a very nicely stated video essay by Joel Meyerowitz that discusses how this affects a photograph. It is titled "What you put in the frame determines the photograph".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xumo7_JUeMo

At a couple seconds past 3 minutes into the video, Meyerowitz says this:

Looking at the posted image as a collection of objects just destroys what it is. Trying to better emphasize any of the objects, and in particular the group of attractive women or any single one of them, emphasizes the photograph as a collection of objects, and dampens the vibration that Meyerowitz called the "ephemeral connection between unrelated things".

Graham Smith Loc: Cambridgeshire UK

On a busy street it is not always possible to position your self optimally and there is often not enough time to fuss about the details of framing, the moment can be gone in a split second, this is why it's a good idea to shoot wider to allow for some cropping and you can afford to crop with a d810.

Graham

Graham Smith Loc: Cambridgeshire UK

Hello Apaflo, I do see a tangible subject, the girls. It is pretty obvious the the girls were what Franku was photographing. Perhaps you could explain why they are not the subject?

Graham

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

That is the problem, the girls are not the subject. And efforts to make them so detract from the image as Street Photography.

A careful reading of the article posted above, along with viewing the video by Joel Meyerowitz, very clearly explains why one does not want to make the girls the subject. If they are the subject it is a collection of objects, it becomes less Street and more Portrait. Unfortunately, for the reasons you previously described it is not a very good portrait (wrong perspective, wrong framing, etc).

As a Street Photograph it isn't bad as is, but could be improved. The image has already been cropped, but probably could be done a little better if even more of the shoes of those ladies were to be chopped off, and a little bit off the lady standing on the left edge too. Then a very subtle change would be to make a circular selection around the women, and feather it by maybe 500 pixels. Very slightly darken, to give them lower priority, the women. Adjust contrast to look appropriate. Then invert the selection and brighten the area around them, again adjusting contrast. These need to be relatively slight changes, with subtle effect.

These edits and the method of analysis implement the definition of Street as photographing life, and apply Gestalt Theory as described by Rudolf Arnheim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Meyerowitz
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xumo7_JUeMo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Arnheim
http://monoskop.org/images/e/e7/Arnheim_Rudolf_Art_and_Visual_Perception_1974.pdf
http://www.kenb.ca/z-aakkozzll/pdf/arnheim.pdf

Graham Smith Loc: Cambridgeshire UK

What makes Joel Meyerowitz so correct to you?. I see them as an opinion of one person. To constrict street photography to to view of one person stifles the view/opinions of others.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

You do realize that Joel Meyerowitz is co-author along with Colin Westerbeck of "Bystander: A History of Street Photography", which is recognized by virtually everyone as the definitive history of Street Photography. He is also one of the most recognized living Street Photographers.

Meyerowitz isn't exactly giving a constricted view. Did you look at the video? Yours might well be called that though! Your style of Street might well be limited to images with distinct visual objects as the subject. That is fine, and as I quoted from Meyerowitz, "There are plenty of ... great photographers but who only work in the object reality frame of reference." You too are certainly entitled to collect objects.

But the posted image does way better (as do a lot of the OP's posted images) when analyzed as an image of the relationships rather than the objects.

Graham Smith Loc: Cambridgeshire UK

I certainly do realise that.

You posted this in the "Is there interest in a Street Photograph section?" The text that you quoted from "A history of Street Photography" specifically refers to "subjects who
were unknown to him and, whenever possible,
unconscious of his presence."



Here is a significant passage from the Introduction on page 35. It specifically refers to taking pictures of subjects. you can't cherry pick to suit your own ends Floyd.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

That is just extremely obtuse!

First, it is Meyerowitz (and Westerbeck) who made the two quotes. So it isn't my doing to begin with. But they were not cherry picking at all. You are avoiding the context that I tried hard to make obvious, with such lengthy quotes, in both cases.

Meyerowitz in the video cited, if you would merely spend a few minutes watching it, does not ever say that collecting objects makes a photograph less of a Street Photograph, less of a great photograph, nor any other derogatory implication you wish to imply.

He just said he didn't want to copy objects. And he explained why in detail. It boils down to his firm belief that he can be more successful if he photographs the relationships. That is the style of Street that appeals most to Joel Meyerowitz.

You and I can aspire to object collection. That is our choice to make.

Nobody, except possibly you, is choosing one or the other as universal. I'm just saying that Franku posts a lot of SP images that are not object collections, and are about vibrating the "ephemeral connections between unrelated things" in a way similar to no less than Joel Meyerowitz. This particular image, in my very particular opinion, is far better when considered as vibrant rather than stagnant.

Franku Loc: Wallingford, PA and Parrish, Fl

Apaflo and Graham,
I have read both of your commentaries and viewed a few of the Meyerowitz videos.
Let me say that you have given me an education on SP that I could not have gotten anywhere. I have a pretty good understanding but I know I will refer to your comments a few times more.
I have the greatest of respect for you and thank you for sharing your knowledge with me.

Graham Smith Loc: Cambridgeshire UK

I'm assuming, rightly or wrongly, that when Franku took this picture he took it from the position he was at when he first saw it. If Franku had been standing in the position that I suggested when he stumbled on the scene would that have made it a lesser picture?

Not being obtuse just wanting discussion,
Graham

kruchoski Loc: Albuquerque, NM

I prefer thoughtful discussion of various viewpoints, rather than quoting chapter & verse of the experts' opinions, which tends to impose uniformity & group think. There are some artists whose primary claim to fame is that they challenged convention and, in doing so, encouraged (or forced?) others to look at the familiar in unfamiliar ways.