Flickr: curated street photography groups?

[photomoof]

Basically what I'm saying is, your 8x10 from a 1000x600 @ 72 dpi could look great from 8-10 feet away but up close it's likely not up to my standard.

We will just have to disagree on that. Your standard for stolen photos is just much higher than mine. 😎

Using "Auto..." on a quick conversion in PS produces an 8.5 x11 print which looks very sharp from a quick screen cap from Flickr.

Just printed one at the lowest quality on plain paper, looks great. Pretty much looks the same as it does on the web.

Original image size was 1295 pixels x 860 @ 72 DPI, from screen cap. Doc size in PS was 17.986x11.944 @72dpi which gives a lot of wiggle room.

I could easily have spent time and made the final print sharp as the original web image. Using Genuine Fractals 6, I could have gone bus shelter size.

 

[BLKRCAT]

You have to turn off resampling... You should be converting actual pixels, not scaling or resampling new ones.. If you start with 1295x860 you can't end up with 2793x1855 without a loss in quality.

 

[photomoof]

You have to turn off resampling... You should be converting actual pixels, not scaling or resampling new ones.. If you start with 1295x860 you can't end up with 2793x1855 without a loss in quality.

Yep, that is why I said "quick conversion in PS." As in "Auto...," one button stealing.

Point remains, even quick and dirty, the results are more than adequate for most thieves.

Let's not turn this into a treatise on how to steal images and print? 🙂

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I didn't find anything special in OP photos, to support his idea to curate another photogs.

Nor here is anything elite in curated street photography groups already existing on Flickr. Some of them trying to looks like elite, but it just to make posting in them more desirable.

Street photography on Flickr isn't about me, elite groups and distasteful, primitive moderators, no matter how big their names is small pond are.
To me it is finding street photogs I like. Where are some to enjoy on Flickr without useless moderation.

 

[kiss-o-matic]

Hey all, I decided to start a curated group. I've posted my two best photographs to get the ball rolling. Please join the group if it's what you're into. I have the time to be an admin, so the group will be updated regularly.

https://www.flickr.com/groups/2878404@N20/

How heavily will you be curating? I'll give it a look and add to it. The quality in HCSP is amazing, but it's more of Top Gun of groups. It's cool that there is one group like this, where getting a photo submitted is like winning an Oscar, but I don't think there's a need for another where the bar is set so high. I mean, go through any professional street photography book... how many of those would actually make it into the group? A few at best, I'd deem.

 

[Out to Lunch]

''Elite''...''Magnum quality photos''... all a bit distasteful. Cheers, P

 

[kiss-o-matic]

I didn't find anything special in OP photos, to support his idea to curate another photogs.

Nor here is anything elite in curated street photography groups already existing on Flickr. Some of them trying to looks like elite, but it just to make posting in them more desirable.

Street photography on Flickr isn't about me, elite groups and distasteful, primitive moderators, no matter how big their names is small pond are.
To me it is finding street photogs I like. Where are some to enjoy on Flickr without useless moderation.

The flip side to not curating a group? Most of the photos are really, really bland. Like... a lot.

Back to the OP: Try Street Photography Monochrome. It's far more strict now than it was.

 

[goamules]

Aren't all photographs subjective? Photos of the most common thing on earth (humans) living in the most common environment (cities) just bores the heck out of me, for example. Most street photography I take the time to look at is so cliched as to be irrelevant, to me. A homeless person sitting in a doorway. An inner city youth smoking a cigarette, a pretty girl walking past a store window. Angry people, poor people, cross dressing people....There are billions of photos of these things.

A street shot would have to be pretty impressive for me to notice. So the next reply will be "if you don't like them, don't look." OK, I don't. But a "curated" site risks just filtering out anything that person doesn't like, as always, and you'll end up with a homogenized set of work. Preaching to the choir, as it were. There isn't an objective criteria for what is "good", some like out of focus, some overexposed, some poorly framed, etc.

 

[BLKRCAT]

I think the takeaway should be to curate ones self rather than expect someone else to curate for them. I believe there isn't enough of this.

 

[photomoof]

I think the takeaway should be to curate ones self rather than expect someone else to curate for them. I believe there isn't enough of this.

AGREED!!

Recently looking back over images I realized I allowed galleries and friends to over-influence me, I did not print some of my most interesting work.

 

[Hsg]

Aren't all photographs subjective? Photos of the most common thing on earth (humans) living in the most common environment (cities) just bores the heck out of me, for example. Most street photography I take the time to look at is so cliched as to be irrelevant, to me. A homeless person sitting in a doorway. An inner city youth smoking a cigarette, a pretty girl walking past a store window. Angry people, poor people, cross dressing people....There are billions of photos of these things.

A street shot would have to be pretty impressive for me to notice. So the next reply will be "if you don't like them, don't look." OK, I don't. But a "curated" site risks just filtering out anything that person doesn't like, as always, and you'll end up with a homogenized set of work. Preaching to the choir, as it were. There isn't an objective criteria for what is "good", some like out of focus, some overexposed, some poorly framed, etc.

Street photography is very personal. And that is why its difficult to understand the street photography of others and its appeal to them.

 

[Srono]

I just went through PS now to calculate sizes. a 1000x600 image at 72 dpi works out to ~13x8". But this is at 72 dpi. You will see pixelation. The printer has nothing to do with it.

At 240dpi (the lowest I go for a high quality print) the physical size is ~4x2.5"

If you are a bit tech-savy, you can download the better resolutions from flickr easily, not using screenshot.

 

[kiss-o-matic]

AGREED!!

Recently looking back over images I realized I allowed galleries and friends to over-influence me, I did not print some of my most interesting work.

This is going to be the case for any artist producing on any medium. Your favorite piece my mean nothing to anyone else. You should still know that you love it.

 

[jojoman2]

I don't think curated groups are homogenous at all. If anything I think curation allows for more variety simply because it filters out the dull, people literally just walking down a street, pictures that everyone who has ever picked up a camera has taken at one point at another while learning their craft.

And yes I agree the point is to curate your own work, to filter through and find what most closely resembles your vision (but again I put forth that's how you choose which of your photographs to submit to the group).

My takeaway from this thread is that curated groups are not for everyone. Flickr is just a platform to put your work on display. I've created this group to display my own work as well as the work of others I admire. It ain't gonna be perfect, folks, and most of you are in a different place with your photography than I am. I'm 22, have been taking pictures for less than a year, and haven't shown my work in many places yet.

 

[photomoof]

This is going to be the case for any artist producing on any medium. Your favorite piece my mean nothing to anyone else. You should still know that you love it.

My thought now, looking back, but money coupled with youth is confusing. 🙂

 

[gb hill]

Curating groups like HCSP on Flickr eventually turn into a buddy system. If you don't fit into their little niche of photographers you can forget it.

I guess flickr couldn't get on with disbanding Pro when they charged about 25 bucks annually then gave everybody a free terabyte. Now they want you to go Pro & charge you 50 bucks a year. Plus they want to make revenue by selling your photo's to stock agencies. What a rip off.