One more from tonight's cruise editing

[Chris Calohan]

HatManDo: Hat Salesman in Falmouth, Jamaica

[seamus finn]

I like that - great capture.

[RSL]

+1

[mac_paolo]

To me the background is way too distracting, especially where the newspapers fight with the hats.

[seamus finn]

That's the problem with this kind of shot - you have to grab it while it's there. I think the background is just about sufficiently out of focus to do the trick but agreed - more blur would be better in an ideal world.

[mac_paolo]

That's the problem with this kind of shot - you have to grab it while it's there.

I probably would have shot him as well. More probably I wouldn't have posted here on LuLa
IMHO the bright and colorful walls, in addition to the details, depict attention from the main subject.

[Chris Calohan]

Not as a defense, but most street shots, perse, are caught on the fly, at the best moment of capture (when possible). I could give the background more blur, but in this instance, I don't think the background detracted enough to not make the shot. To me, the colors of a city and its people was as important as the colors of the vendors. I was sitting in the back of a horse drawn carriage when I made the shot.

[RSL]

If I had a nickel for every time some "critic" has explained what I "should have done" regarding positioning and camera adjustment after looking at one of my street shots I'd be pretty well-off. It even happened a couple times with a self-described street photographer on another photo web site -- a guy who certainly should have known better, but whose comments (and pictures) made it clear he wasn't what he claimed to be.

As Seamus pointed out, you either raise the camera and shoot -- NOW -- or you forget about it. If you're not quite set up for the shot, that's tough. Only a landscape photographer would believe you can wait for the right light and/or "move around your subject" for the best point of view or readjust your aperture to decrease depth of field. But thanks to Photoshop's lens blur filter all isn't necessarily lost with a shot like this one. Here's an example of what you can do, though it takes time to make a good selection so you blur the background without blurring the foreground. I made this shot at around f/6 and the distracting background was all well in focus. Lens blur saved the day.

[mac_paolo]

If I had a nickel for every time some "critic" has explained what I "should have done" regarding positioning and camera adjustment after looking at one of my street shots I'd be pretty well-off. It even happened a couple times with a self-described street photographer on another photo web site -- a guy who certainly should have known better, but whose comments (and pictures) made it clear he wasn't what he claimed to be.

The discussion could be much more productive than this. Most probably you're partially referring to me (not regarding the street photographer) and I find your tone to be somewhat rude.
I politely explained my thought and the one who posts a shot should be open to -polite- critics.
FWIW, yes, I know what's street photography, what it means and, more importantly, what it doesn't mean.

To me, this shot is nice but not above average level. I don't agree that street photography should let the photographer ignore some basic principles, unless a memorable situation is being shot.

To reply just with compliments is very nice for the ego but of little use, IMHO.
Peace

[Chris Calohan]

This is a lot of work for marginal gain. I do think removing the woman from the scene helps but the additional blur...meh.

[RSL]

It doesn't work as well in color as it does in B&W, Chris. But even without the color, that's a pretty busy background, and the background isn't contributing to what you were grabbing. That's life.

[RSL]

The discussion could be much more productive than this. Most probably you're partially referring to me (not regarding the street photographer) and I find your tone to be somewhat rude.
I politely explained my thought and the one who posts a shot should be open to -polite- critics.
FWIW, yes, I know what's street photography, what it means and, more importantly, what it doesn't mean.

Sorry I hurt your feelings, Mac, but you took my statement too personally. Your criticism was mild comparison with some of the stuff I see. I'm glad you know what street photography means and what it doesn't mean, but have you done it? If so, let's see a post or two.

To me, this shot is nice but not above average level. I don't agree that street photography should let the photographer ignore some basic principles, unless a memorable situation is being shot.

But if a "memorable situation" is being shot, it's okay to ignore basic principles?

To reply just with compliments is very nice for the ego but of little use, IMHO.

On this point you and I couldn't possibly agree more.

[Dale Villeponteaux]

So much for my powers of observation.  I had to go back to the original after you mentioned you had removed the woman.  She escaped my notice the first time around.

[WalterEG]

I see no issue with increasing the separation twixt the hats and newspapers.  But removing the person?  Why?  What is wrong with context?  Does the semi-concealed person not add to the dialogue and/or the ambiguity?

By the way, I quite like the shot.

Cheers,

W

[Chris Calohan]

I did the edit to assuage a critique or two but for me, what I saw and shot is still the best POV given the circumstance from where I was shooting and catching him at a rare out of crowd moment. It's not the best of all worlds but few street shots are.