Critique your own Street photos.

[MartinL]

It's pretty common to post photos for others to critique. And it follows that lots of people respond with some sort of feedback. Much less frequently do we post our own photos and tell what we like about them, or at least why they survived our editing process (in spite of whatever flaws are there.)

I tried this recently in the "teach appreciation of SP" thread. It's not easy, but here's what I found useful:

1. A few shots selected from one outing made clearer to me some common themes, values, and maybe some philosophy that I hold. That's good.

2. I can share with others why I shoot SP, and not just offer what I think are SP rules, standards, or definitions.

Here are the salient snips from that post. I'd like to read what others say------not about my pics (thought that's welcomed), but what does a small selection of your own photos reveal about your perspectives/philosophy? My "values" or philosophy is in bold.

http://www.pbase.com/mnl/09-03-07_soho

I like 001. The somewhat striking face of the man, who is clearly centered and should be considered the subject, is overwhelmed by the sour face of the woman behind him, but she isn't noticed immediately. That causes me to check out the other face, and even the "walk" symbol. I like the uneasiness created by things not being as they should and the intensely private and disparate thoughts in this crowd.

OK, that's pretty much what all 5 of these have in common----tension, some contrast, irony. # 005 places the dancer (this angle does not show her full outrageousness) practically in a traffic lane. Unexpectedly, the woman in the car doesn't see her or is ignoring her, rather than gaping. 002, the saleswoman with the big "flower," is not notable (funny hats are no big deal,) but the wearer of the jacket seems an unlikely audience or purchaser. OO3: two so-serious guys discussing the undiscuss-able that dwarfs them. In photo 004 the "subject" is a nearly empty canvas, again, an object of intense discussion.​

 

[sjw617]

You seem to be looking at the photos and telling us what you see. I would like to know why you took each photo (did you see everything you see now)? Do you see now what you saw as tripping the shutter?

Steve

 

[wyk_penguin]

Seems fun. This time I'll stick to photos taken in the open air and with people in it only although I do consider all candid shots as street photography, as opposed to staged portraits or landscape scenes which I have a lot more control on the scene. In a public area with people, you can only premeditated and plan so much.

Some of my recent ones on my trip across the USA. Not all the shots here are chance shots. Some are premeditated, #2 and #5 come closest to spontaneous while #3 might be considered to be composed by many.

#1 San Francisco near City Hall.

Scenes of desolation have always attracted me. In many of my photos you will see "the coldness of the world", so to speak. I am not particular against society, I just think that being able to capture that sense of isolation in the biggest cities of the world really speaks something about how I see the state of society today. It isn't a spontaneous shot, I was attracted by the colour of the ATMs and had the luck of a customer coming to access it and an empty street in the middle of San Francisco.

#2 San Francisco Lombard Street.

As I was waiting to cross the road to take me standard tourist photos of the street, I noticed the three people "doing their thing". This was really a split second decision to shoot. Over-exposed probably, but I like it that way. The background was totally gone so the attention was to the 3 people only

#3 Vegas Fremont St.

Street photo of a street photographer and a street performer.

#4 Bright Angel Lodge Grand Canyon

Just to show that it takes 6 people to shovel snow off a roof. My camera was set to take picture of the canyon, which were in full sunlight, hence the silhouetted figures. Snapped as the snow came off the roof.

#5 Holocaust memorial Boston

The memorial is lined with trees on both sides. I have yet to see a good shot of it in its entirety. I was walking and had the good fortune of this composition where the three people in the shot were well separated from each other. The bonus was the photographer. It would have been better if he was pointing that big zoom up for all to see, but this is good enough and it made my day.

#6 Washington DC near the White House

Typical shot from the hip crossing the road scene. Some of my friends have made fun of it as the oldies version of sex and the city. That's why I am sharing it here.

When I tell a story with a picture, I need it to tell the whole story. There is not guessing in #1 either you see the desolation or you don't. Of course, it is a decent composition and the row of red ATMs in front of a gray building does help to isolate the man. I don't always manage to tell a good story, I don't see any story in #2 and I don't want you to either because that would be seeing more than I had hoped to convey. It's just a nice composition that I managed to come across and capture. That's all there is. Nonetheless, they can still be good looking, and sometimes that's all that matters.

My flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/35491923@N05/

 

[MartinL]

You seem to be looking at the photos and telling us what you see. I would like to know why you took each photo (did you see everything you see now)? Do you see now what you saw as tripping the shutter?

Steve

This critique "taught" me that it's not all about what I see, but also who I am. My shots must stand on their artistic merit (uh oh😉) but they will also, unavoidably, express something about me, my preferences, personality, world view. The more insight that I have into these elements, the more I'm likely to refine my photographic "eye." Or not.

 

[MartinL]

I don't see any story in #2 and I don't want you to either because that would be seeing more than I had hoped to convey.

IMO, once you show a photo, you're not in charge anymore. 🙂 I see a story in the desolation you mention. #2 may not stand up as a single shot or as a print (I see some possibilities for bw), but as part of this group, it works well. A danger with this exercise is going over the edge with photo-psych-uber-interpretation, but seems like you are onto something with this theme. The only one that doesn't fit (my least favorite) is the women/group. Love the isolated guy on the roof (do you suppose he knows he's a star?).

 

[wyk_penguin]

Thanks for the encouragement.

Of course I am not in charge of what you want to think and I don't usually caption my photos beyond time and place, but I try to be unambiguous. Some sort of "writers' responsibility" kind of issue. I can write/photograph something that is vague, like the women crossing the street in Washington DC. What does that show? To me nothing. If a story had to be attached, it could be anything. Of course it might be fun to look at and develop your own conclusions, but I see it as laziness in my part to not have successfully broadcasted a piece of my philosophy across.

I should have mentioned that the 6 photos don't generate a series, probably #1, #2, #3 & #5 would be "The lonely urban landscape" but I wasn't thinking that when I chose these 6 pictures. In fact I was thinking quite the opposite, to show in as few photos as possible, what I consider as street photography. #6 was included solely because a friend of mine mentioned the Sex and The City thing.

In general, I find that my street photos don't have people filling the frame as many street photos do. Most of the time the people are quite small, which is probably partly due to my shyness, but also because I prefer showing more of "the big picture" (so to speak). I try to relying on the composition to draw attention instead of putting on an ever bigger zoom to create points of interest, which for me is a cheap trick. This probably came from my initial interest in landscapes where a larger zoom usually didn't improve the picture, nor were the 5lb telephoto lens especially alluring when it was time to pack up for a day's hike.

 

[williams473]

I'm not apt to critique my own work after it's finished, because for me critique is the way by which I decide which image(s) best convey the message. After all, when I first look at dripping wet negatives, there is a critique of technical ability - did I get adequately exposed negatives or not? From there, I make contacts or scan and begin a more aesthetic critique. Which images visually work? From these, I then critique myself again to decide which of the visually successful images convey meaning, a story or contribute to the larger project (if there is one.) So by the time I present something to be viewed, it is a statement that I approve of the image as one I feel to be a successful one.

I'll also throw this out - my friend used to challenge me when critiquing to never use the phrases "I like..." or "I don't like..." in the critique. Critiques are particularly useful to the photographer when they are more about the nuts and bolts of whether the image works or not.

 

[MartinL]

. . . .
I'll also throw this out - my friend used to challenge me when critiquing to never use the phrases "I like..." or "I don't like..." in the critique. Critiques are particularly useful to the photographer when they are more about the nuts and bolts of whether the image works or not.

Of course, I agree with this snip, and with the other responses in this thread. Wish I had settled on a different word than "critique"; maybe "talk about"?

Frankly, words are the medium I'm most comfortable with, and I'm trying to associate the challenges of verbal expression with the visual challenges of photography. (Trying to do this via a forum thread is questionable, but . . .😕)

Admittedly, this is all quite self-focused. But maybe there's room for this sort of reflection to add to nuts-and-bolts, and message, and so forth. I'll also admit that I've been accused, "there you go again, getting all philosophical." But I'm not the one who named this forum.🙂

I challenged myself in this way: "Martin, look at these photos you took (and at a fundamental level, you like) and tell me something I don't know." I answered (initially and superficially) "tension," "irony," "contrast." Penguin came up with "desolation"---I'm sure the most partial assessment, but I saw it too. The fact that he didn't plan these as a series makes it all the more interesting (another word such as "like" that is good to avoid.)

 

[kxl]

I've received quite a few negative comments about this photo -- blocked up shadows, blown highlights, soft, etc... but I actually like it quite a bit. Maybe it's because it invokes a memory not shared by those critiquing it.

What I see:

Poor children whose only relief from a hot summer afternoon come from a thatched roof of an old shack and a large tree in the background. The oldest child is tying/untying a rope that leads to nowhere -- somewhat symbolic of their plight.

What others don't see: the kid is actually untying a rope that leads to a fellukah as their father ferries a couple of tourists on a boat trip up the Nile.

 

[williams473]

KXL,

It's too bad you are receiving bad feedback on this image, it's quite engaging. I would hope the dense shadow areas and bright highlights are a choice on your part.

I can relate - I get feedback all the time that my photos are "too dark." Well, I like them dark, so dammit, they're going to be dark. I'm not trying to recreate reality, I'm making a photograph. It's obviously a choice to present photos a certain way, unless we lack ccontrol, which is something that can be worked on.

For my money, the highlights in your image are not "blown out," because I can see detail in all of the highlight areas. Even the squarish, negative space in the upper right hand area of the frame cannot be condemned without a pure white background to compare it to - it is impossible to tell if this is "paper white" or not, which is what constitutes "blown out" for me.

As for blocked up shadow areas, I'm okay with that if you are - it's your choice. And softness? Who said all photographs need to be sharp to work? Lord, there was an entire movement in photography dedicated to soft images. Sometimes I think people critique images against some sort of book-standard, instead of dealing with each image on its own terms. My instructor used to joke that most photographers go out with a Kodak manual in hand, or adhere to Ansel Adam's writings as if they are holy. I can't stand it in a critique when people tell me how they would have printed it, or worse, when they take it upon themselves to rework my image adding this and that. Armchair quarterbacks. I say to them, "Well you didn't print it, nor did you shoot it - I did. So how about some input on what's there, using what's in front of you, insetad of wishing something else was in front of you?"

So anyway, I vote positively for it - I am not sure about the meaning and story behind it without your explanation, but that's okay since we are not viewing the image within the context of a photo essay or show. But visually, I think this image works on all levels and is a successful photograph.

 

[sjw617]

KXL : Your memories have nothing to do with a critique of the photo. What you see is not a critique but an interpretation after the fact. A critique would include highlights, shadows, framing or other things along those lines.
Like the OP you are telling us what you see. You are not being critical (as in critique) but looking for anything to deflect the criticism. I guess it is natural to 'defend' a photo that you like.

Steve

 

[kxl]

William - thanks.

Steve - wrt to my image, you are right; my personal memories have little (if any) to do with its critique. But like William, I do believe that a photo is much, much more than its technical attributes.

However, in general, I believe that everyone's critique is colored by his own experience. As an example, Eisenstaedt's photo of V-J day would elicit a different type of critique from an old foot soldier who was in the trenches during that war (or perhaps any other war), than from someone who's never been in the military. We each look at a photo through our own individual lenses (pun intended), and react accordingly.

Keith

 

[MartinL]

Well, I think I understand my question or "challenge" better now than I did 6 days ago. Thanks to those responding. Here's another way of putting it:

1. Let's suppose a random selection of 10 of your photos that you've posted on flickr or rangefinder or wherever. These are categorically and very broadly Street Photos (by whatever definition you're using at the moment.)

2. These photos are tossed into a hat with similarly selected photos of 9 other photographers.

3. How would your photos be distinguishable (better than chance) from the others? Is there a theme, a trend, a characterization of your photographic eye or personality that makes you look for certain things (on average) and that you or a careful observer might detect?

🙂