Image quality and street photography

Image quality and street photography

  • Very important

    Votes: 16 8.8%

  • Important

    Votes: 72 39.8%

  • Not that important

    Votes: 79 43.6%

  • least important

    Votes: 14 7.7%
  • Total voters
    181
  • Poll closed .
Quality is not self-defining. Quality has to do with satisfaction of the objectives (either tacitly understood or as required by context) implicitly intended by the photographer. That's what Erwitt is driving at in his remarks about intention. Image quality that would be entirely appropriate for, say, Miroslav Tichy, might not be satisfactory for Edward Weston, and vice versa.
 
quality of image beats image quality every time

if people are looking at the grain, the sharpness or any technical aspect of the picture taking process then your picture has failed.

by all means work your best to get exposure and focus and all that stuff right... but in the end its the emotional not the technical part thats most important to your audience... Its actually the hardest to achieve and the most satisfying when you get it right

not a good technical shot... but it works for me

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3283/3123219752_defa0d45b9_z.jpg
 
"megapixels, detail, lack of noise/grain, proper exposure, focus and sharpness" are all subjective things, having nothing to do with photography.
 
Street photography is a fascinating and valuable form of expression... And I honestly really respect those who do it well, regardless of technical "image quality."

WITH THAT SAID. Sometimes it seems like street photographers are more concerned with having a sharp lens than a sharp photograph. :) My stereotype of a street shooter would be the guy with the $4,000 Summilux who takes blurry photos on Delta 3200. ;)
 
The photographer decides what she wants her photo to look like and if image quality is important or not. I think it takes guts and very clever photographer to shoot supersharp, superclean images in the street, because the street by nature is full of distracting elements and imperfections that you have little control over, like yellow rubbish bins LOL

Blocked shadows, grain, lens flares, motion blur, vignettes, plastic lenses, crappycams etc are commonly used to hide such imperfections, or even to "make" a photo by creating aesthetically pleasing artifacts.

Blocked shadows:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/vasilikos/3903908092/in/pool-908122@N25

Burned highlights:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hughes_leglise/353267884/in/pool-908122@N25

Blur:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dirtyharrry/4118626281/in/pool-908122@N25

Grain:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rafmad/3243262717/in/pool-908122@N25

Grain, flare and blocked shadows LOL:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/krameroneill/3223552619/in/pool-908122@N25

Crappycam:
http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive...K7O3RHKRCN9&ALID=2K7O3R14ATRO&PN=51&CT=Search

etc etc...

Others, like Matt Stuart, Paul Russel, Nick Turpin etc prefer the clean/natural looking type of image, and it matches the aesthetic and the subtle humor/irony they want to convey to the viewer, without hiding anything. This is in fact the more modern approach to street photography.

So, it all depends basically :)
 
Last edited:
Like uhligfd I don't know what you mean by image quality. I suppose it means sharp with no halos, and a smooth out of focus part. Sometimes I try purposely NOT to have that kind of 'eyeque'.
 
"I don't worry about how the picture is going to look. I let that take care of itself. You know--we know too much about how pictures look and should look--and how do you get around making those pictures again and again? ....It's not about making a nice picture. That anybody can do." --Winogrand.

I thought that quote was kind of suitable. It is from the first documentary that pops up on him when you do a search on youtube. It seems to make a lot of sense to me. It seems to draw a distinction between the photographer as a technician and a photographer as something else.

db
 
Alpacaman said:
Why do we talk as if they are mutually exclusive?
Click to expand...

Is anyone suggesting for an instant that they are mutually exclusive?

Surely not.

An image may have BOTH 'aesthetic quality' and 'technical quality' (however you define either); or 'aesthetic quality' but not 'techical quality'; or 'technical quality' but not 'aesthetic quality'; or of course neither, as Flickr so well demonstrates so often.

Cheers,

R.
 
Very important -- I ruthlessly throw away any 'decisive moment' I captured when the technical quality of the image is not good enough. To me, both the 'artistical' AND the technical quality of an image have to be on a certain level.

If I messed up the exposure or didn't manage to focus my subject then the shot sucks, even if I hit the perfect moment. But grain, non-perfect overall sharpness, lens flare or other minor shortcomings are usually not decisive to me.
 
Last edited:
Many of the posters asked how to define image quality. I think for the sake of discussion my focus was mainly the technical quality of the picture. I think the aesthetic quality of a photographs is beyond definition and way above my powers of description.


In my view technical quality is not that important for street photography. My main reason is that streets are not photogenic by nature and people who go about their business on the street are not all out to be photographed. the reality of street is lost if the pictures are post-card quality and technically perfect. But having said that, I'm also strongly against self-indulgence when it comes to some basic technical aspects of picture making. I feel its easy to get too self-indulgent when there are no rules and the result usually ends up destroying the canvas itself.

For one I'm against blocked shadows and blown highlights in a photograph of any kind. the shadows should never be absolutly black, meaning lacking any detail whatsoever and the highlights should never be completely white. because complete black or white is no longer a photograph but just dead space. Blur can be aesthetically pleasing but it should be used sparingly, and it should not be used as the picture-in-itself like abstract art. I feel photography, especially street photography should not deviate from the down-to-earth and gritty quality of the street reality. Street reality in my view is the life as it happens on the street. In other words, people don't walk on the street transformed into blurs and the sky is never completely white and the shadows are never completely black. Not to mention beautiful girls don't have space around them in a blur (bokeh) and cigarette smoke does not linger in space forever.

A street photograph with strong content can be very powerful without technical perfection. But that brings us to the question of what makes a street photograph strong. I think that would be a fascinating topic, probably initiated and dealt by some of the experienced photographers here.
 
ebino said:
Street reality in my view is the life as it happens on the street. In other words, people don't walk on the street transformed into blurs and the sky is never completely white and the shadows are never completely black. Not to mention beautiful girls don't have space around them in a blur (bokeh) and cigarette smoke does not linger in space forever.
.
Click to expand...

Nor is the world actually black and white .... so i guess b/w shots are a no no too :)
 
kevinparis said:
Nor is the world actually black and white .... so i guess b/w shots are a no no too :)
Click to expand...

This argument is the favorite one used by those who like to sensationalize their photos with the pretext that its not reality so we can do as we like. However, this is just an excuse.


b&w is a medium of description, not the description itself. What I mean is that b&w is just another way of describing the world not the world itself.

B&w is also an accurate description of the world, had it not been so it would not have been used for almost a 100 years for pictures of IDs, passports, photojournalism and crime scene investigation.


Just because Ralph Gibson says something, it does not make it the absolute truth. :)
 
I find the comparisons of time-sensitive and time-independant photography to be meaningless. With few exceptions, ("Moonrise' being one) if Ansel Adams didn't like the light, he could come back another day, set up and review his composition and confirm focus literally at his leisure.
But Mr. Capa didn't get any do-overs on Omaha Beach, and Eddie Adams apparently wasn't given time to make certain the background was just so in Saigon when he took General Loan's photo either.
PJ and street are about getting the shot. But sometimes the result just is what it is. That's not an excuse, but in my opinion, just the reality of the situation.
 
Last edited:
ebino said:
This argument is the favorite one used by those who like to sensationalize their photos with the pretext that its not reality so we can do as we like. However, this is just an excuse.


b&w is a medium of description, not the description itself. What I mean is that b&w is just another way of describing the world not the world itself.

B&w is also an accurate description of the world, had it not been so it would not have been used for almost a 100 years for pictures of IDs, passports, photojournalism and crime scene investigation.


Just because Ralph Gibson says something, it does not make it the absolute truth. :)
Click to expand...

I actually wasn't presenting an argument - just pointing out the slight absurdity of your statements about what is and isn't reality. Any photo that captures a dynamic moment is an artificial object

plus I have no idea what Ralph Gibson said and frankly my dear I don't give a damn :)
 
ebino said:
Many of the posters asked how to define image quality. I think for the sake of discussion my focus was mainly the technical quality of the picture. I think the aesthetic quality of a photographs is beyond definition and way above my powers of description.


In my view technical quality is not that important for street photography. My main reason is that streets are not photogenic by nature and people who go about their business on the street are not all out to be photographed. the reality of street is lost if the pictures are post-card quality and technically perfect. But having said that, I'm also strongly against self-indulgence when it comes to some basic technical aspects of picture making. I feel its easy to get too self-indulgent when there are no rules and the result usually ends up destroying the canvas itself.

For one I'm against blocked shadows and blown highlights in a photograph of any kind. the shadows should never be absolutly black, meaning lacking any detail whatsoever and the highlights should never be completely white. because complete black or white is no longer a photograph but just dead space. Blur can be aesthetically pleasing but it should be used sparingly, and it should not be used as the picture-in-itself like abstract art. I feel photography, especially street photography should not deviate from the down-to-earth and gritty quality of the street reality. Street reality in my view is the life as it happens on the street. In other words, people don't walk on the street transformed into blurs and the sky is never completely white and the shadows are never completely black. Not to mention beautiful girls don't have space around them in a blur (bokeh) and cigarette smoke does not linger in space forever.

A street photograph with strong content can be very powerful without technical perfection. But that brings us to the question of what makes a street photograph strong. I think that would be a fascinating topic, probably initiated and dealt by some of the experienced photographers here.
Click to expand...

Great post, well-articulated. You seem to have things worked out clearly for yourself, that's a good thing. I don't agree with everything you've said, but that's okay because this is a subjective and individual thing. When talking about art, I try not to use the words "never" and "should". These are too absolute and prescriptive for something so ethereal.
 
Last edited:
For me, if the subject/content is so compelling and it happens so fast and you know that there is a time or physical constraint, it's really about getting the shot at all.

Having said that, I believe with enough practice and experience, one could get better at it and have the speed and instinct to get great framing, spot on exposure, selective focus etc, to produce a technically good image and at the same time, giving it an aesthetic or even artistic quality that I reckon every good picture should have without any constraint.

So it's content first and quality second. But I will always strive for both.
 
Alpacaman said:
Why do we talk as if they are mutually exclusive?
Click to expand...

No one said that, but...

With street shooting they can be... And I mean most of the times...

If when we say IQ we mean all the IQ a format/lens/film combination can give in theory or in studio/tripod testing, and if with street shooting we don't mean shooting in the street but capturing real unexpected and vanishing situations that can last for a second or two, what generally happens is that even after our best technical efforts and preparation we get the shot but we don't have time enough for getting the highest possible IQ speaking from a technical point of view exclusively...

So as long as the content can be expressed, IQ is totally irrelevant.

The image could be sharper, or show more detail, but the content and what the image is, wouldn't change in any way... Wouldn't be improved...

Cheers,

Juan
 
Hammerklavier said:
For me, if the subject/content is so compelling and it happens so fast and you know that there is a time or physical constraint, it's really about getting the shot at all.

Having said that, I believe with enough practice and experience, one could get better at it and have the speed and instinct to get great framing, spot on exposure, selective focus etc, to produce a technically good image and at the same time, giving it an aesthetic or even artistic quality that I reckon every good picture should have without any constraint.

So it's content first and quality second. But I will always strive for both.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with this also. I have not done a lot of street photography, but, I have noticed that being ready and being able to make fast adjustments is a plus that gets better with experience.

Background is typically not an option, and you must do the best you can with framing and angle.

I'd rather get the "Moment" and hope I can work with it latter on better framing and cropping.... If not, at least I had the attempted image to work with. Better than not taking it, and wondering "What If..?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom