Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => Street Showcase => Topic started by: GreggP on May 20, 2018, 03:18:11 pm
-
I'm a little intimidated posting my photos here after reading the discussion about street photography and what qualifies. I'm not nearly as experienced as many of you LuLa veterans, so my photography has room for lots of improvement. I've decided to start posting here because I feel I can get honest feedback that will help me improve. So I welcome any useful criticism.
I started shooting street photos only a few years ago. Many were just people on the street. I also took quite a few shots of the homeless because I thought they showed the cracks in society and exposed our failures or mistakes (not specifically them but us as a community). After a while, I started to feel like I was exploiting them for the sake of my photography and have since taken far fewer. Hopefully, those that include the less fortunate, will convey some sort of story that makes for a compelling street photo. I struggle with that. Another thing I try to avoid are shots of random people walking down the street. Especially of pretty females. I feel like that's stalking. I also try to avoid any sort of posing. I want all my street shots to be candid but that's not always possible when my subject sees me and responds with a smile or frown. On a few occasions, someone will ask me to take their photo. Although these are more like street portraiture, not real street photography by some standards.
My goal is to have a shot that tells a story, has a nice composition and/or artistic merit.
I'm going to start with those from a few years ago, so you can see how I've struggled with this.
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5322/30586342642_a48e205a38.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/NAP14d)
Two Men and a Trike (https://flic.kr/p/NAP14d) by Gregg Plummer (https://www.flickr.com/photos/72875222@N00/), on Flickr
-
Did I post this in the wrong place? I was hoping to get a little feedback/critique. Do I need to include the word 'critique' in the subject? Just wanting to make sure before I post another one of my street shots for critique.
-
Fatigue?
Rob
-
Admins, would it be possible to get this thread moved to the 'User Critiques' section?
Thanks!
-
I like the rich tonality and the guy’s expression. I am not going to go into whether that is good street, bad street, or street at all (as a genre), documentary, or candid. Doesn’t matter. I see it as a photograph. Two nitpicks: hand and foot. I find them distracting. The foot could be easily eliminated by cropping. You can’t do much with the blurred hand. That is something that could have need done only during shooting, either by using a faster shutter speed, or by waiting for the moment the hand movement ends.
-
1. I'm a little intimidated posting my photos here after reading the discussion about street photography and what qualifies. I'm not nearly as experienced as many of you LuLa veterans, so my photography has room for lots of improvement. I've decided to start posting here because I feel I can get honest feedback that will help me improve. So I welcome any useful criticism.
2. I started shooting street photos only a few years ago. Many were just people on the street. I also took quite a few shots of the homeless because I thought they showed the cracks in society and exposed our failures or mistakes (not specifically them but us as a community). After a while, I started to feel like I was exploiting them for the sake of my photography and have since taken far fewer.
3. Another thing I try to avoid are shots of random people walking down the street. Especially of pretty females. I feel like that's stalking. I also try to avoid any sort of posing. I want all my street shots to be candid but that's not always possible when my subject sees me and responds with a smile or frown. On a few occasions, someone will ask me to take their photo. Although these are more like street portraiture, not real street photography by some standards.
1. You have to start somewhere, and the shot posted is as good as any to start.
2. There is an ethical dilemma here. In one sense, anyone in a public place is fair game. On the other hand, you are getting a photo and they get nothing in return. It's an uneven exchange. I rarely take those kinds of photos of addicts/bums/mentally ill, but when I do I always try to give them something. Usually it's a $5 card to either a MacDonald's or a Subway. At least they get a meal. I never give cash. I'm under no illusion that my taking their photo will somehow help them. I try to make it a more even exchange.
3. You have to use your best judgement, but generally I will take those photos if it's not demeaning to the person. Or, you could take a cue from Bruce Gilden. ;D :D ;D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkIWW6vwrvM
Kent in SD
-
1. You have to start somewhere, and the shot posted is as good as any to start.
2. There is an ethical dilemma here. In one sense, anyone in a public place is fair game. On the other hand, you are getting a photo and they get nothing in return. It's an uneven exchange. I rarely take those kinds of photos of addicts/bums/mentally ill, but when I do I always try to give them something. Usually it's a $5 card to either a MacDonald's or a Subway. At least they get a meal. I never give cash. I'm under no illusion that my taking their photo will somehow help them. I try to make it a more even exchange.
3. You have to use your best judgement, but generally I will take those photos if it's not demeaning to the person. Or, you could take a cue from Bruce Gilden. ;D :D ;D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkIWW6vwrvM
Kent in SD
Good points. When I first came across these guys, camera in hand, the one with the backpack gave me a WTF look. I told him I was an amateur photographer who's just attempting street photography. Which was true because that was probably my first time out trying street photography. He then became very friendly and said they didn't mind if I took their photo. Then he struck a pose. I explained that I thought the most effective street photos were candid. So I asked if it was OK if I just hung around and shot a few photos of them doing whatever if I wasn't there. I've captured a few images of homeless guys who clearly look pissed off. I apologize and ask them if they wanted me to delete the image. Once a guy said I could keep it if I gave him some money, so I gave him $5 (btw, I like your gift card idea). I'll post that photo in another thread. I'm taking far fewer photos of the homeless now basically because of what you said about the ethical dilemma.
However, sometimes when I'm just walking around with my camera in hand, a homeless guy will ask me to take their photo. It happened last weekend in Chicago, as a matter of fact. I took his photo (he was holding a sign that said, "Need money for hookers" but I haven't posted it anywhere. He laughed at me for saying I thought it was taking unfair advantage of him.
-
3. You have to use your best judgement, but generally I will take those photos if it's not demeaning to the person. Or, you could take a cue from Bruce Gilden. ;D :D ;D
I would never feel comfortable doing that. When I first saw those flash street photos, I thought they were pretty cool looking. This guy, Boris the Flash (https://www.flickr.com/photos/76348612@N07/), does mostly color. Salvatore Matarazzo (https://www.flickr.com/photos/95787103@N07/) is another that I follow who does the in-your-face flash style. I'm not as big a fan anymore because I think it's too intrusive and their photos are all starting to look alike. They don't really tell a story. Just SURPRISE!!
-
For what my two cents are worth, if you can follow my drift; you've taken a simple street shot and because of the "over" processing tried to make it into something it wasn't: simple.
I see nothing particularly exploitative about these two gentlemen. Yeah, they're probably homeless or at least living on the edge but then again so are about a million and a half more just like them in the US. It's not their plight or whatever you make of them as people that makes the shot "street," but rather if the moment you are capturing is genuine and shown as such.
Hey, but I don't shoot a lot of street, so again, my thoughts are only to say, keep it simple.
-
For what my two cents are worth, if you can follow my drift; you've taken a simple street shot and because of the "over" processing tried to make it into something it wasn't: simple.
I see nothing particularly exploitative about these two gentlemen. Yeah, they're probably homeless or at least living on the edge but then again so are about a million and a half more just like them in the US. It's not their plight or whatever you make of them as people that makes the shot "street," but rather if the moment you are capturing is genuine and shown as such.
I agree with all of the above. The images I have more of a problem with are the ones of unconscious people lying on the street or are obviously seriously mentally ill. Those are the people I will give a meal card to if I take a photo. (And it's not very often I take those photos.)
Kent in SD
-
For what my two cents are worth, if you can follow my drift; you've taken a simple street shot and because of the "over" processing tried to make it into something it wasn't: simple.
What specifically do you mean by over processed? Another person thought the tone curve was too far to the left. Since I didn't use that adjustment in Lightroom, I take that to mean it looks too dark, which could be caused by adding too much contrast or clarity? At the time that this was edited, I was new to Lightroom and had just gone through a bunch of Anthony Morganti tutorials. I followed his "quick and dirty" recommendations, which included decreasing highlights to -100 and increasing shadows to 100. I then adjusted exposure to whatever I thought looked right on my old uncalibrated 1998 Dell monitor. He also recommended setting whites and blacks by holding the shift key while double clicking on the word "Blacks" and same for Whites to get the full dynamic range. I think the exposure was too low on camera, so I started with something that was pretty dark.
-
What specifically do you mean by over processed? Another person thought the tone curve was too far to the left. Since I didn't use that adjustment in Lightroom, I take that to mean it looks too dark, which could be caused by adding too much contrast or clarity? At the time that this was edited, I was new to Lightroom and had just gone through a bunch of Anthony Morganti tutorials. I followed his "quick and dirty" recommendations, which included decreasing highlights to -100 and increasing shadows to 100. I then adjusted exposure to whatever I thought looked right on my old uncalibrated 1998 Dell monitor. He also recommended setting whites and blacks by holding the shift key while double clicking on the word "Blacks" and same for Whites to get the full dynamic range. I think the exposure was too low on camera, so I started with something that was pretty dark.
The processing does look too dark on my monitor, and the histogram for this image bears that out (see original histogram below). There is very little in the upper third of the range (highlights & whites), and a whole lot of pixels in the lower half (shadows). So it looks unnatural (in my opinion) to what I would assume was scene with a much more even tonal range. If it looks good (full tonal) on your monitor, then your monitor is set too bright, leading you to process darker.
I have very crudely increased the exposure/shadows in your posted example and posted the results with the new histogram. Now, your interpretation is what is important. But I agree with the impression that it looks over processed/too dark, and you may not be seeing it on your monitor.
Other than that, I like the image. There is a distracting white blob (outlined) which I'd deal with, and you could consider a little cropping at the right (it's not contributing, IMO).
-
The processing does look too dark on my monitor, and the histogram for this image bears that out (see original histogram below). There is very little in the upper third of the range (highlights & whites), and a whole lot of pixels in the lower half (shadows). So it looks unnatural (in my opinion) to what I would assume was scene with a much more even tonal range. If it looks good (full tonal) on your monitor, then your monitor is set too bright, leading you to process darker.
I have very crudely increased the exposure/shadows in your posted example and posted the results with the new histogram. Now, your interpretation is what is important. But I agree with the impression that it looks over processed/too dark, and you may not be seeing it on your monitor.
Other than that, I like the image. There is a distracting white blob (outlined) which I'd deal with, and you could consider a little cropping at the right (it's not contributing, IMO).
Thanks a lot! I no longer use that old Dell monitor. About a month ago, I purchased a 17" gaming laptop with 4K screen. It isn't calibrated but I can see that a lot of my photos look pretty dark, so the Dell probably was set too bright. I'm saving up for a 27" external monitor and will buy a Spyder at the same time. Just curious, do you think the photo I posted in the thread "Looper (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=124921.0)" is too dark? That was processed on my laptop.
-
Just curious, do you think the photo I posted in the thread .... is too dark? That was processed on my laptop.
My experience is that Flickr tends to darken images down a bit when I post there. Here's a shot I took earlier this year and it's so dark it looks like it was shot at night!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/96826069@N00/26548382437/in/dateposted-public/
Kent in SD
-
My experience is that Flickr tends to darken images down a bit when I post there. Here's a shot I took earlier this year and it's so dark it looks like it was shot at night!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/96826069@N00/26548382437/in/dateposted-public/
Kent in SD
Yeah, that definitely looks like a night shot.
-
Thanks a lot! I no longer use that old Dell monitor. About a month ago, I purchased a 17" gaming laptop with 4K screen. It isn't calibrated but I can see that a lot of my photos look pretty dark, so the Dell probably was set too bright. I'm saving up for a 27" external monitor and will buy a Spyder at the same time. Just curious, do you think the photo I posted in the thread "Looper (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=124921.0)" is too dark? That was processed on my laptop.
No, Looper looks much better. Your monitor shows the image in the context of how its brightness and contrast are set. The histogram shows the actual distribution of tones in the image. Compare the original histogram for "A Conversation" to the one from "Looper".
Even though I have a calibrated monitor I always refer to the histogram as a "check". Occasionally I need to edit under different lighting conditions, and that can throw off my perception. This holds true for the camera as well – reviewing a shot on the LCD screen alone can be misleading. Have a look at the histogram, too.
-
Even though I have a calibrated monitor I always refer to the histogram as a "check". Occasionally I need to edit under different lighting conditions, and that can throw off my perception. This holds true for the camera as well – reviewing a shot on the LCD screen alone can be misleading. Have a look at the histogram, too.
Isn't the camera's histogram that of a jpeg, not the RAW file though? I agree it's a good place to start.
Kent in SD
-
No, Looper looks much better. Your monitor shows the image in the context of how its brightness and contrast are set. The histogram shows the actual distribution of tones in the image. Compare the original histogram for "A Conversation" to the one from "Looper".
Even though I have a calibrated monitor I always refer to the histogram as a "check". Occasionally I need to edit under different lighting conditions, and that can throw off my perception. This holds true for the camera as well – reviewing a shot on the LCD screen alone can be misleading. Have a look at the histogram, too.
Thanks for the comparison.
-
Isn't the camera's histogram that of a jpeg, not the RAW file though? I agree it's a good place to start.
Kent in SD
Yes, it's true that the post-shot camera histogram is typically not from the RAW data. That's where experience starts to matter. Even though my histogram (and/or "blinkies") may show some blown highlights, I've come to know about how much is still recoverable in the RAW file on my camera (yours might be different).
Of course, it may be neither here nor there for street shooting – you almost never get a second chance at the perfect moment, so you have to deal with what you shot. Fortunately, metering systems and dynamic range have gotten really good. If you're shooting in pretty consistent light conditions you can pay attention to the first few (test) shots, tweak exposure if necessary, then quit your chimping! Some real pros (not me) can set proper exposure without ever looking at their camera meter!
-
Of course, it may be neither here nor there for street shooting – you almost never get a second chance at the perfect moment, so you have to deal with what you shot. Fortunately, metering systems and dynamic range have gotten really good. If you're shooting in pretty consistent light conditions you can pay attention to the first few (test) shots, tweak exposure if necessary, then quit your chimping! Some real pros (not me) can set proper exposure without ever looking at their camera meter!
I typically use a camera of vintage 1930s to 1950s for street shooting. I meter with a Minolta IVf. Since it's not a spot meter (it's incident light) I generally have to rely on experience to fine tune the final exposure.
Kent in SD
-
I typically use a camera of vintage 1930s to 1950s for street shooting. I meter with a Minolta IVf. Since it's not a spot meter (it's incident light) I generally have to rely on experience to fine tune the final exposure.
Kent in SD
Ah, well I've never really been a street shooter. In the film days I used a Gossen Lunasix with the tele-spot attachment (7.5 degrees narrowest if I remember correctly). Nowadays I see the histogram in my electronic viewfinder!
-
I like the rich tonality...
+1
-
I typically use a camera of vintage 1930s to 1950s for street shooting. I meter with a Minolta IVf. Since it's not a spot meter (it's incident light) I generally have to rely on experience to fine tune the final exposure.
Kent in SD
Hi Kent, If you'll check B&H or Adorama you'll find that there's stuff out there much better suited to street shooting than cameras from the thirties to fifties. Even the Leica M series that came along in the late fifties will beat the pants off the earlier stuff. But digital blows everything else away for street.
-
Hi Kent, If you'll check B&H or Adorama you'll find that there's stuff out there much better suited to street shooting than cameras from the thirties to fifties. Even the Leica M series that came along in the late fifties will beat the pants off the earlier stuff. But digital blows everything else away for street.
"Blows away" in what regard? I own and use cameras made from 1880s to 2017, and lenses made from 1845 to 2016. Each gives images their own look, and each has their strengths. Digital cameras are faster to use, but the images from them tend to all look the same. It's also a dramatically different experience using equipment from different ages. Today I bought a Nikon D500, mostly to photo ice races/rodeos/air shows/wildlife. I also recently bought a box of glass plates (dry plates), which is 1880s technology. Each has their place. :) The great Brassai used a Voigtlander Bergheil 6.5x9 with dry plates for his ground breaking night street photos in 1930. (I have a Bergheil too.) ;)
Kent in SD
Below shots:
(1) Chicago busker, Leica IIIc & Lecia 5cm f3.5, FP4+
(2) Seattle Pike Place, Nikon D5300 & Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS
-
By golly, there's a guy with a sax. There's even a street in the picture. Must be street photography. Then, there's a picture of a street at night. Must be street photography.
-
By golly, there's a guy with a sax. There's even a street in the picture. Must be street photography. Then, there's a picture of a street at night. Must be street photography.
Exactly. ;)
Kent in SD
-
"Blows away" in what regard? I own and use cameras made from 1880s to 2017, and lenses made from 1845 to 2016. Each gives images their own look, and each has their strengths. Digital cameras are faster to use, but the images from them tend to all look the same. It's also a dramatically different experience using equipment from different ages. Today I bought a Nikon D500, mostly to photo ice races/rodeos/air shows/wildlife. I also recently bought a box of glass plates (dry plates), which is 1880s technology. Each has their place. :) The great Brassai used a Voigtlander Bergheil 6.5x9 with dry plates for his ground breaking night street photos in 1930. (I have a Bergheil too.) ;)
Kent in SD
I have a Brassaï tome, which next to the Leibovitz 1990 -2005 one is the least looked at monograph on my shelf. I used to think he had something to express, but in my view, turned out both he and I were mistaken.
Digital all the same? Really? The same camera can give you as many looks as you are able to design in post. In that respect, it is far more flexible than any film camera producing negs for wet prints ever was. And don't forget, the original remark was made in the context of a camera's use for street photography.
;-)
-
The great Brassai used a Voigtlander Bergheil 6.5x9 with dry plates for his ground breaking night street photos in 1930. (I have a Bergheil too.) ;)
The Great Brassaï also had to pose his subjects in the Paris whore houses because his equipment was so slow.
-
The Great Brassaï also had to pose his subjects in the Paris whore houses because his equipment was so slow.
The guy was a genius. He's really the first night shooter and overcame a lot of difficulties to achieve success. The emulsion on the plates he was shooting was about ISO 5, and the Heliar lens was usually stopped down to f11. I have about 10,000ws of flash power and would find it hard to reach that exposure. (I usually shoot ISO 800 & f5.6). He was still using magnesium strips for light--someone (Picasso?) nicknamed him the "terrorist" for his bright flashes. Many of his shots are classics. Keep in mind the time he lived in: Matthew Brady's photographers were known to pose bodies they found on battlefields for shots they took. He later began using a Leica M3 and came to America in the 1950s. I have that book too, but it just doesn't have the same magic. It doesn't seem very inspired to me. At any rate, my point is you can make great photos with any gear if you take the time.
Kent in SD
-
Yeah. I've been making photos since 1943. Needless to say I've used a wide range of equipment. Wouldn't trade my D800, D750, or Pen-F for anything that uses film.
-
The guy was a genius. He's really the first night shooter and overcame a lot of difficulties to achieve success. The emulsion on the plates he was shooting was about ISO 5, and the Heliar lens was usually stopped down to f11. I have about 10,000ws of flash power and would find it hard to reach that exposure. (I usually shoot ISO 800 & f5.6). He was still using magnesium strips for light--someone (Picasso?) nicknamed him the "terrorist" for his bright flashes. Many of his shots are classics. Keep in mind the time he lived in: Matthew Brady's photographers were known to pose bodies they found on battlefields for shots they took. He later began using a Leica M3 and came to America in the 1950s. I have that book too, but it just doesn't have the same magic. It doesn't seem very inspired to me. At any rate, my point is you can make great photos with any gear if you take the time.
Kent in SD
That is half true. Some people can achieve that, many can not, with any gear.
Because somebody overcomes a technical difficulty in the business of image making does not make them a genius. You pretty much say the same thing when you refer to his Leica work. It seems to me that you have conflated overcoming one problem with achieving greatness in another dimension: a classical confusion of technique with artistic merit.
Rob