ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
MartinL:
Thank you.
I like 001 a lot, and 005 somewhat.
Because these are the only two where I'm not looking at the back of some people's heads.
Thank you.
I like 001 a lot, and 005 somewhat.
Because these are the only two where I'm not looking at the back of some people's heads.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I like street photography but it's not a genre I persue to any degree personally. I do feel though that sometimes trying to get someone to see in 'street' what you see ... is a little like convincing a child that broccoli is god's gift to vegetables and should be enjoyed and appreciated for it's obvious benefits.
Sometimes it's just not going to happen!
Sometimes it's just not going to happen!
FallisPhoto
Veteran
Are you sure that the problem isn't just that he is more discriminating than you are? Someone who is already familiar with other types of photography probably DOES appreciate GOOD street photography. There is a whole lot of crap to wade through to find a few gold nuggets though, just like in any other kind of photography. Just because a given photo is a street photo doesn't mean it's good. Good photo oportunities (both photogenic and interesting) just don't come along every day. This doesn't keep hundreds of people from ruthlessly snapping away every day at crappy compositions and trying to inflict them on others though. This said, I am very much against lowering the bar and trying to "teach" someone who may know better that a bad photo is a good one. It just might be that it's your own personal bar that needs raising. Then again, I don't know you and this may not be the case.
BTW, a tilted shot, or blur, if the tilt, or blur, doesn't add anything to the compostion, really isn't any good. It is almost certainly not a good idea to do it just for the sake of doing it. Frankly, 999 times out of a thousand, I don't see the point, and think it would have been better without it. Street photographers are no better than anyone else and most times you see that used it is like an amateur trying to do something in a darkroom to rescue a photo that is doomed to crapdom. Instead of plain crap, he just gets altered crap though, and he convinces himself it is high art because it is sabattiered/reverse-vignetted/photomontaged/tilted/blurred/etc. The sad fact is that, in order to get an interesting manipulation (whether done in-camera or in the darkroom), you have to have an interesting photo to start with.
acheyj
Well-known
FallisPhoto.
Right on !!
ron
Right on !!
ron
MartinL
MartinL
Thanks. This "exercise" is useful to me in the context of the OP's question. So if he's still "tuned in," I'd shift his question just a bit: I'd ask, Why do you appreciate street photography--as a viewer and as a photographer? It's not an easy question.
Some posters offer views (here and elsewhere) on what street photography is or isn't--should or shouldn't do. I'm satisfied with the "I-know-what-I-like" position, but that doesn't offer much opportunity for understanding and improving. So I try to explain what I like and examine my reasons and learn from the reasons.
So. . . . IMO the place to begin teaching appreciation is to understand your own photographic sensibilities. I'll try that with my group of five. I also 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.
I learn by talking about my photos: I learn by listening to others talk about their photos; and that's what I'd suggest to the OP.
wyk_penguin
Well-known
Street photos go by many names, grab shots, candid photography, etc. I don't bother to make the distinction, as long as it is in a public place with unaware strangers, it is enough a street for me. I guess sometimes its just for the rush of "I got it".
I find that talking about street photos cannot convey the mindset that I get into when I go photo hunting on the street. There is this sense that I am really hunting, I look at everything, I listen to the sounds consciously and I compose and fondle with the camera controls without looking. Then there is the, "THIS is IT!" moment when I take my photos. I don't usually compose through the viewfinder for these shots. All the photos I have attached were taken without composing. I look in the VF sometimes to confirm that I have pointed the camera right, but I don't try out different compositions through the VF when on I'm on the street; as opposed to checking every setting and composing carefully in the VF when I am in my "landscape mode".
My New York City
And an indoor shot in the Capitol. I sat at that location to wait for someone to come by, knowing the guards come down the escalator on the right. As much as this looks like a grab shot, the walking person was part of the composition from the beginning. I think it's more about the mind-set than the content of the photo that determines whether a photo is a street photo. Consequently, you'll have to take the photographer's word when he/she tells you that it was a "street photo".
I find that talking about street photos cannot convey the mindset that I get into when I go photo hunting on the street. There is this sense that I am really hunting, I look at everything, I listen to the sounds consciously and I compose and fondle with the camera controls without looking. Then there is the, "THIS is IT!" moment when I take my photos. I don't usually compose through the viewfinder for these shots. All the photos I have attached were taken without composing. I look in the VF sometimes to confirm that I have pointed the camera right, but I don't try out different compositions through the VF when on I'm on the street; as opposed to checking every setting and composing carefully in the VF when I am in my "landscape mode".
My New York City
And an indoor shot in the Capitol. I sat at that location to wait for someone to come by, knowing the guards come down the escalator on the right. As much as this looks like a grab shot, the walking person was part of the composition from the beginning. I think it's more about the mind-set than the content of the photo that determines whether a photo is a street photo. Consequently, you'll have to take the photographer's word when he/she tells you that it was a "street photo".
Last edited:
R
ruben
Guest
Maybe I'm just lazy, but my approach would be to show some photos that are generally accepted to be very good examples of street photography and ask the viewers whether they like the photos or not and why.
Of course, you should probably have a back up plan in case no one says anything.
I second very much the essence of this approach. Street photography is extremely dynamic. In a great composition you "freeze" an assortment of people, color, background etc, that will never be in the same place again in true life. Here a major distinction between street photography and let's say, landscape photography (and this too, up to some extent).
So you cannot walk with your friend at the street and teach him/her, because the creation is in your mind, in what you see out there, and how you see it. Street photography is alive in pictures.
Btw, in my personal case, it happens to me the same at every level of Photography and in every level of life too. Only when seeing big manual color enlargements of a local photog I came to "see" what is out there in Macrophotography. Only upon seeing time and again Vogue essays I tasted the high aesthetic value of Fashion photography.
And the same has happened to me with every other Art and craft, like music, sculpture, and ... shtrudel !
You have to taste it, you have to hear it, you have to smell it. Then the second phase takes place, and this one is not upon the teacher but upon the newcomer: To what extent she/he will feel about what is in front of she or he. Not everybody will become a fan of any brand of Art or Craft, just because she/him is presented with a great example. Every one with her/his own sensibilities.
But one thing is for sure - you will never come to like anything you are presented with low class or bad taste examples.
Cheers,
Ruben
Last edited by a moderator:
MartinL
MartinL
Our approaches are similar. We may not have enough control over a street environment to plan a shot, but we can be strategic in our preparations.