Post by: 32BT on December 12, 2018, 05:18:16 pm
https://fstoppers.com/critique-community/street-photography
And before we pass judgement, let's wait for the actual selected images. I think they do a showcase of the top images.
Post by: Rob C on December 13, 2018, 04:54:22 am
Had the "genre" simply been Candid, then yes, a few would qualify, but then that would still not mean that, though candid (in this context, meaning unposed), they had anything new, funny, deep, or meaningful to relate.
Truly funny, though the defensive nature of some of the remarks on the side.
If there is one lesson to be learned from there, as from here, it's that people take their photographs way too seriously. It's the thing that makes non-photographers think photographers are, well, a bit strange.
Rob
Post by: KLaban on December 13, 2018, 07:49:09 am
Nice to see that other places are as polarized as LuLa; also, that as here, from the shown pics, few have the slightest idea what street is, other than that a street can be involved.
Had the "genre" simply been Candid, then yes, a few would qualify, but then that would still not mean that, though candid (in this context, meaning unposed), they had anything new, funny, deep, or meaningful to relate.
Truly funny, though the defensive nature of some of the remarks on the side.
If there is one lesson to be learned from there, as from here, it's that people take their photographs way too seriously. It's the thing that makes non-photographers think photographers are, well, a bit strange.
Rob
The alternative is that LuLa just becomes yet another form of social media. In truth and at times I can't help thinking for some it's already there.
Post by: Rob C on December 13, 2018, 09:22:38 am
The alternative is that LuLa just becomes yet another form of social media. In truth and at times I can't help thinking for some it's already there.
It always has been but another slot within the social media world; if there's a difference today it's that marketing is an ever more obvious part of its function, and I can understand why that must be so. My own, tiny Internet existence is consuming a large proportion of my pension income, and I am a minnow in comparison with what LuLa is able to offer, and what I presume it must spend in order to do what it does... little that's desirable usually comes free.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/social-media
Rob
Post by: KLaban on December 13, 2018, 10:49:08 am
It always has been but another slot within the social media world; if there's a difference today it's that marketing is an ever more obvious part of its function, and I can understand why that must be so. My own, tiny Internet existence is consuming a large proportion of my pension income, and I am a minnow in comparison with what LuLa is able to offer, and what I presume it must spend in order to do what it does... little that's desirable usually comes free.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/social-media
Rob
Ah, what you need is to monetise that internet existence to boost that pension. A pay for chat room of your very own, focusing on and defining photographic genre, perhaps?
;-)
Post by: Rob C on December 13, 2018, 11:41:57 am
Ah, what you need is to monetise that internet existence to boost that pension. A pay for chat room of your very own, focusing on and defining photographic genre, perhaps?
;-)
I can think of fewer responsibilities I'd rather avoid than running a blog.
Worse than a having a regular job!
:-)
Post by: 32BT on December 28, 2018, 04:49:02 pm
Post by: RSL on December 28, 2018, 07:48:45 pm
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 28, 2018, 08:29:13 pm
Thanks, Oscar. Petty sad.
Is that a freudian slip? ;)
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 28, 2018, 08:29:34 pm
For the record: the results are in (https://fstoppers.com/critique-community/street-photography/results)
Good collection.
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 28, 2018, 08:31:26 pm
... few have the slightest idea what street is, other than that a street can be involved....
Few have the slightest idea what the illuminati think Street is, other than that, most reasonable people accept the broader definition.
Post by: fdisilvestro on December 29, 2018, 12:06:52 am
Few have the slightest idea what the illuminati think Street is, other than that, most reasonable people accept the broader definition.
;D +100
Post by: faberryman on December 29, 2018, 07:09:14 am
Few have the slightest idea what the illuminati think Street is, other than that, most reasonable people accept the broader definition.Actually, I think it is the illuminati that don't have the slightest idea what street is.
Post by: RSL on December 29, 2018, 08:18:48 am
Few have the slightest idea what the illuminati think Street is, other than that, most reasonable people accept the broader definition.
You guys need to stop worrying your heads about this. It'll make you old before your time.
Post by: Ivophoto on December 29, 2018, 08:18:57 am
Actually, I think it is the illuminati that don't have the slightest idea what street is.
Let’s be fair to the Illuminati.
They have an idea what street ‘was’
Like my grandfather believed all guns are muzzleloaders.
Post by: RSL on December 29, 2018, 09:25:17 am
Post by: Rob C on December 29, 2018, 01:20:15 pm
Few have the slightest idea what the illuminati think Street is, other than that, most reasonable people accept the broader definition.
That's cheap: you have to define what reasonable people means for it to make sense or lend any gravitas to that statement.
:-)
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 29, 2018, 01:27:19 pm
That's cheap: you have to define what reasonable people means for it to make sense or lend any gravitas to that statement.
:-)
"Reasonable person" is a legitimate concept in the Western justice system. It is not defined there either, yet sufficient for courts and judges, precisely because it's meaning is self-evident. If the Supreme Court doesn't engage in semantic hairsplitting about its meaning, why would I?
Post by: Rob C on December 29, 2018, 01:59:32 pm
"Reasonable person" is a legitimate concept in the Western justice system. It is not defined there either, yet sufficient for courts and judges, precisely because it's meaning is self-evident. If the Supreme Court doesn't engage in semantic hairsplitting about its meaning, why would I?
Because justice is self confessedly blind, whereas you, Slobodan, are clearly not. You already know that the law is an ass.
Rob
Post by: 32BT on December 29, 2018, 05:01:19 pm
Of the selected images these are my favourites.
(https://cdn.fstoppers.com/styles/full/s3/photos/3243/12/7/40/4af81b1d7e9bd793672c0d4247c32576.jpg)
https://fstoppers.com/entry/318250
This image nicely depicts how we carry the burdens of our own grotesque imagination and how that affects our existence. A perfect metaphor about what life feels like at times for most of us. Head bend down looking at the ground, no longer looking where she might want to go, no longer knowing where she is heading, just pulling and pushing through life, tugging away each day from start to finish, from when we are born til the day we die. The burden so large it seems like start and finish right there in the image.
I believe this is great street, since it captures our attention with its to-the-point but balanced composition, its soft light and understated processing, which then makes one think about life. About the life of that particular individual, and then about life in general. This then allows you to make the connections between the elements in the picture and what they represent metaphorically, and thereby creating a solid narrative.
(https://cdn.fstoppers.com/styles/full/s3/photos/216629/12/6/32/e82124b5e1e815fe1ad366846a90c969.jpg)
https://fstoppers.com/entry/318032
Perfectly captures every conceivable contrast in just two elements. Small & big, light & dark, back & front, hunched & open, thereby even dislike & joy, defense & acceptance, young & old. With those last forms of contrast it even teaches us something about life: the older we get, the more we learn to accept the tribulations of life as a cleansing of the soul, nicely captured in the older person's religiously connotated stance in a downpour of rain.
Obviously, i'm assuming this is an actual and spontaneous situation. In that case it represents a great narrative quality derived from a slice of life. That makes it good street. If it is more or less posed or even composited, it remains solid narrative photography, but it would no longer qualify as street. In addition, if it was directed, i would also expect a slightly better balance in composition, something easily forgiven in an actual spontaneous streetshot.
(https://cdn.fstoppers.com/styles/full/s3/photos/184217/12/10/54/c844557856d194d0e34b69e0bb3eaa4c.jpg)
https://fstoppers.com/entry/318493
A little symphony in color. Not metaphorical street, but, as Rob likes to say, streetart. A fleeting impression of complementary elements and befitting colors sliced straight from life in an urban setting. Not posed as in a candid or informal portrait, but a brief moment of beauty as one could encounter while commuting to work. Perfectly composed, captured, and processed. The composition could stand on its own, but with the aptly sized and serendipitously appropriate figurine added, the image gets an entirely new layer of meaning from its colors and shapes.
Post by: 32BT on December 30, 2018, 06:34:33 am
Highest rated image:
(https://cdn.fstoppers.com/styles/medium/s3/photos/195692/12/10/47/d7c876b6bab8de5676011752702aaf72.jpeg)
Streetart:
(https://cdn.fstoppers.com/styles/medium/s3/photos/184217/12/10/54/c844557856d194d0e34b69e0bb3eaa4c.jpg)
I mean they both represent a similar kind of image with strong graphics in striking colors and a single individual, anonymised by size. The graphics and colors are the dominating elements which represent a typographical beauty. They are both spontaneous moments, slices of life in urban setting, captured outside the studio. Why then is it that for me (and apparently for the presenter as well) the first image does not represent street in the narrow sense of the word?
The difference is actually quite easy to demonstrate: if you imagine that first picture with a large white vase, or perhaps a white pilar instead of the person standing there, does it fundamentally change the image? For me personally, it would still be the same. In the second image however, if you remove the individual from that second image, you remove entire layers of meaning, which breaks it apart into a merely mildly interesting abstract no longer alluding to the african traditional theme that's brought together so effectively by that serendipitously appropriate individual.
In other words, in that first image, there is no interaction (neither literally, metaphorically, nor graphically) between the individual and his environment. It lacks binding of elements. You can replace the colors with different complementary colors, you can even replace the elements and it would still be a graphically striking image, but it doesn't communicate anything beyond the striking graphics, therefore it lacks a binding narrative.
Because it lacks a binding narrative, even just graphically, it no longer qualifies as street in the narrow sense of the definition.
Post by: 32BT on December 30, 2018, 06:46:24 am
Post by: RSL on December 30, 2018, 07:09:31 am
Post by: Ivophoto on December 30, 2018, 07:42:31 am
An interesting question kept my mind occupied: what is the fundamental difference between the highest community rated image and the "streetart" shot?
Highest rated image:
(https://cdn.fstoppers.com/styles/medium/s3/photos/195692/12/10/47/d7c876b6bab8de5676011752702aaf72.jpeg)
Streetart:
(https://cdn.fstoppers.com/styles/medium/s3/photos/184217/12/10/54/c844557856d194d0e34b69e0bb3eaa4c.jpg)
I mean they both represent a similar kind of image with strong graphics in striking colors and a single individual, anonymised by size. The graphics and colors are the dominating elements which represent a typographical beauty. They are both spontaneous moments, slices of life in urban setting, captured outside the studio. Why then is it that for me (and apparently for the presenter as well) the first image does not represent street in the narrow sense of the word?
The difference is actually quite easy to demonstrate: if you imagine that first picture with a large white vase, or perhaps a white pilar instead of the person standing there, does it fundamentally change the image? For me personally, it would still be the same. In the second image however, if you remove the individual from that second image, you remove entire layers of meaning, which breaks it apart into a merely mildly interesting abstract no longer alluding to the african traditional theme that's brought together so effectively by that serendipitously appropriate individual.
In other words, in that first image, there is no interaction (neither literally, metaphorically, nor graphically) between the individual and his environment. It lacks binding of elements. You can replace the colors with different complementary colors, you can even replace the elements and it would still be a graphically striking image, but it doesn't communicate anything beyond the striking graphics, therefore it lacks a binding narrative.
Because it lacks a binding narrative, even just graphically, it no longer qualifies as street in the narrow sense of the definition.
The two pictures are so different to me, it seems the first is coming from Venus, the second from Mars.
I’ll try to explain.
The woman on the stairs is IMO not such a strong image (it’s still a decent color picture) It is not more than what you described.
The first, on the other hand, is from a total other caliber. The vacuum in this image is huge. The sense of distance, in terms of miles but more importantly in social terms is dramatic.
The color scheme emphasizes the visual appeal of the image, this would not work that well in black and white.
Only my five cents.
Post by: RSL on December 30, 2018, 08:23:55 am
Post by: elliot_n on December 30, 2018, 08:27:18 am
I like the second image too, but it seems lighter. It displays good forethought and timing, and it's neat how it riffs on the colours of national identity. But the woman seems like a pawn in the photographer's game — there's no emotional charge there. (IMO, obvs.)
Post by: KLaban on December 30, 2018, 08:31:31 am
I'm always interested to see what street in color looks like in B&W. In this case, the strength of the picture is still there. Possibly even enhanced when we remove the distraction of color.
One man's distraction is another's attraction.
;-)
Post by: RSL on December 30, 2018, 08:58:57 am
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 30, 2018, 09:23:10 am
I prefer the first image. The suggestion that it would work same if the man was swapped out for a large white vase seems strange to me. Surely the image is activated by the contextualisation of this man's absorbed thoughts within the setting of a very inhuman looking city?
I like the second image too, but it seems lighter. It displays good forethought and timing, and it's neat how it riffs on the colours of national identity. But the woman seems like a pawn in the photographer's game — there's no emotional charge there. (IMO, obvs.)
+1
Post by: KLaban on December 30, 2018, 09:27:59 am
I know, Keith. To you, color is everything. And you do it well. But there's another thing called graphics, and B&W can bring the power of graphics out from behind the distractions of color, especially in photography, where you don't really have control of the color. The graphics are strong in this picture, even in its color version. But I think they're stronger in B&W. I'd like to see both version full-size.
Studying it, as I did at art college for a number of years, I'd like to think I understand graphics pretty well, well enough in fact not have to convert images to B&W to understand those qualities.
And, Russ, please, I'd like to think that colour is but a part of what it is I do.
Post by: rabanito on December 30, 2018, 09:30:13 am
Few have the slightest idea what the illuminati think Street is...
What are the "illuminati"?
Post by: Ivophoto on December 30, 2018, 09:31:47 am
Studying it, as I did at art college for a number of years, I'd like to think I understand graphics pretty well, well enough in fact not have to convert images to B&W to understand those qualities.
And, Russ, please, I'd like to think that colour is but a part of what it is I do.
And that makes you a more complete artist / photographer, Keith. The color toolbox is a complex one, not understood by many.
Post by: Ivophoto on December 30, 2018, 09:33:20 am
What are the "illuminati"?
Those who think the spotlight shines only on their face. I guess .....
Post by: KLaban on December 30, 2018, 09:34:01 am
Post by: Ivophoto on December 30, 2018, 09:35:57 am
I'd add that I think the graphics are more obvious, stronger even, in the colour version of the second image than the B&W version
Yes, I agree. The B+W version is crippled.
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on December 30, 2018, 09:39:02 am
Yes, I agree. The B+W version is crippled.
+1
The color doesn't distract, it adds atmosphere.
Cheers,
Bart
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 30, 2018, 09:47:49 am
What are the "illuminati"?
Googling is easy, but I’ll save you the trouble:
Post by: rabanito on December 30, 2018, 09:50:16 am
It is as the artist felt and presented it.
No van Gogh changed to B&W or Gustave Dore drawings changed to colour for me.
They are how they are.
BTW, the expressive power of some opinions here impresses me much more than the pictures themselves (!)
Post by: rabanito on December 30, 2018, 09:53:21 am
Googling is easy, but I’ll save you the trouble:
THAT's friendliness Slobodan. And in the right context.
Thank you
Post by: 32BT on December 30, 2018, 09:58:03 am
I prefer the first image. The suggestion that it would work same if the man was swapped out for a large white vase seems strange to me. Surely the image is activated by the contextualisation of this man's absorbed thoughts within the setting of a very inhuman looking city?
Inhumane looking structure, because i don't see "city". A dark blue monster with orange teeth, maybe. Remember, it is not about this being a bad image, on the contrary, but it is more about this being street in the narrow sense of the word. Maybe it is clear to others, and i simply don't get it. I don't see, or perhaps more appropriate; recognise a pensive state in the first image for example, or the vacuum of anonymity in the city, if that was what Ivo meant.
I like the second image too, but it seems lighter. It displays good forethought and timing, and it's neat how it riffs on the colours of national identity. But the woman seems like a pawn in the photographer's game — there's no emotional charge there. (IMO, obvs.)
I agree, but for me that would be more important in the first image.
Post by: RSL on December 30, 2018, 10:04:56 am
My opinion as a lowly newbie is that there is not such a thing like B&W being better than in colour or vice versa.
It is as the artist felt and presented it.
No van Gogh changed to B&W or Gustave Dore drawings changed to colour for me.
They are how they are.
BTW, the expressive power of some opinions here impresses me much more than the pictures themselves (!)
Hi Rab, When it comes to paintings and drawings I agree with you 100%. As Keith certainly knows, when you have a paintbrush in your hand you have complete control over the colors -- the colors that advance and the colors that recede, the colors that clash and the colors that blend. But the camera doesn't know the difference, so, many times color in a photograph can subdue the graphics. With a drawing, graphics are everything. Sometimes color in a picture can obscure the power of the graphics. I actually agree that in this case the B&W version doesn't top the color version. Then there's Ivo's opinion that the B&W version is "crippled." Interesting that most of his "street" shots are "crippled" B&W.
Post by: Ivophoto on December 30, 2018, 10:30:55 am
Then there's Ivo's opinion that the B&W version is "crippled." Interesting that most of his "street" shots are "crippled" B&W.
In this case, the B+W version is crippled.
In other cases, B+W is the better choice.
I live in Western Europe, in this time of the year, the short days are mostly heavily overcast and the light is very flat. This is the moment I prefer B+W, it is a way to overcome dull light, certainly in combination with clever user of pre or post process filters.
B+W tools are sometimes a good choice, color tools are that as well.
Sticking to B+W sometimes results in boring images, same can be said to color images as well.
For me it is not a matter of ‘or’ it’s a matter of ‘and’