This is street photography?

[zauhar]

Note to self: Enter Fotoura International Street Photography competition.

If I win, I will be overjoyed. If I lose, I can console myself by seeing what actually won.

Randy

 

[taskoni]

Thank you for the explanation !

I like the second one better too.

Regards,

Boris

 

[airfrogusmc]

It is no snapshot, but part of a series studying the behaviour of a group of solitary nudists on the beaches around Hoek van Holland - apparently a local social phenomenon. The photographer gives an explanation of the subject in the accompanying text. Did you miss the portfolios?

By the way, the picture in itself would be interesting in a Gursky way, with its odd duplication of industrial architecture on the horizon behind the chaotic texture of the dunes - it either is a strangely conceived post-processing manipulation or a highly unique vantage point. It certainly has a lot of structure and rhythm to it.

I would say most likely staged which goes against what many of the greats in this genre we about.
In Bressons words:
" 'Manufactured' or staged photography does not concern me. And if I make a judgment, it can only be on a psychological or sociological level. There are those who take photographs arranged beforehand and those who go out to discover the image and seize it."

 

[zauhar]

Regarding the "second place photo" in the set, does anyone accept as authentic the second reflection (in the front passenger window)? To me that is clearly a manipulation. Does the contest impose any rules regarding constructed images?

Randy

 

[taskoni]

It is no snapshot, but part of a series studying the behaviour of a group of solitary nudists on the beaches around Hoek van Holland - apparently a local social phenomenon. The photographer gives an explanation of the subject in the accompanying text. Did you miss the portfolios?

By the way, the picture in itself would be interesting in a Gursky way, with its odd duplication of industrial architecture on the horizon behind the chaotic texture of the dunes - it either is a strangely conceived post-processing manipulation or a highly unique vantage point. It certainly has a lot of structure and rhythm to it.

Dear Sevo.

No, I didn't missed the portfolios, I also like his other images better, and I find the second place winner's work more to my liking.
Just was curious why the people who like it like it - wanted to get their points, not to keep the thread to the stage - "the picture is great because I say so, you guys are too narrow minded and don't understand sh*t about photography".

Regards,

Boris

 

[sevo]

I would say most likely staged which goes against what many of the greats in this genre we about.

Well, there is staged and staged. You certainly cannot do a photo essay on nudists without prior permission, or you'll find yourself in court over privacy violations - but it does not necessarily follow that the individual pictures are posed and directed.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Regarding the "second place photo" in the set, does anyone accept as authentic the second reflection (in the front passenger window)? To me that is clearly a manipulation. Does the contest impose any rules regarding constructed images?

Randy

It looks to me like its people passing on the street to the left of the boy at the edge of the frame and they are so bright because the are in the direct sunlight and maybe brought up even more in post. Looks OK to me.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Well, there is staged and staged. You certainly cannot do a photo essay on nudists without prior permission, or you'll find yourself in court over privacy violations - but it does not necessarily follow that the individual pictures are posed and directed.

Only the ones that were there know for sure. Still an interesting and thought provoking image.

 

[zauhar]

It looks to me like its people passing on the street to the left of the boy at the edge of the frame and they are so bright because the are in the direct sunlight and maybe brought up even more in post. Looks OK to me.

You don't see the abrupt curvature of the reflection that clearly doesn't match the frame of the car window?

Randy

 

[sevo]

You don't see the abrupt curvature of the reflection that clearly doesn't match the frame of the car window?

It looks odd, but does not seem to be manipulated - ELA mapping that image does not show any irregularities at or around that reflection, the strongest evident manipulation to the image (besides brightness and colour levels) is rather strong sharpening applied to the (still blurred) girl in front.

 

[Darthfeeble]

I've always thought that it's the story in the photograph not that there's a Street. A candid slice of life.

 

[zauhar]

It looks odd, but does not seem to be manipulated - ELA mapping that image does not show any irregularities at or around that reflection, the strongest evident manipulation to the image (besides brightness and colour levels) is rather strong sharpening applied to the (still blurred) girl in front.

How would that algorithm detect a geometric manipulation? I am saying that the curvature of the reflection does not appear to match the shape of the reflecting glass.

While it is certainly possible that some weird combination of circumstances could produce that, to me it looks clearly unnatural.

Randy

 

[sevo]

How would that algorithm detect a geometric manipulation?

It cannot. But it detects increases or losses in detail, like the seams between parts in a composite image, as well as any attempts to hide them by blurring or with the repair stamp. Which would also catch out if that area had been warped. So it is a pretty good indicator that that reflection has been there in camera, and has not been significantly processed.

 

[airfrogusmc]

The blurred person in front/left reminds me of the way Frank used those kinds of things in his work. They are just visual elements that are not meant to be the subject. Supporting players only. Not meant to be sharp. The reflection looks right to me. The lady is passing by looking at the photographer also see the full image.

 

[shadowfox]

Why didn't the second one win?
The first one is ... well, trying too hard, maybe...

 

[BlackXList]

I'm finally going through the winners and runners up gallery now, and something's striking me.

Somebody earlier in the thread mentioned a "fine art" strain of street photography, and that's what I'm seeing a lot of in many of the galleries.

It's something that's often visible when people are shooting medium format, a very rigid composition, often with the person (at least nominally a subject of the photograph) pretty small in the frame.
I never understood why using a camera that would resolve more detail, would make photographers use less compositional space for their subjects.

I think this really helps me identify where I get no impact from many of the images, it feels like the subjects are just too far away to have any impact.

Of course there are the occasional shots where it works, or it's used to establish a visual pattern etc, but in general, if it looks like something from Street View, then (to me) it feels like something from Street View as well, no impact, no immediacy.

Similarly if the composition is entirely rigid, then it's not providing me with what I want from Street Photography, which is a more fluid and by it's nature reactive experience, it begins to feel rigid and staged (even when it's not) and that does nothing at all for me.

It's notable just how much more impact Javier Arcenillas gallery has than all of the others put together.
I'm not saying that ALL street photography has to be in such harsh conditions, and it's notable that several of the entries had shots that depended on reflections similar to Arcenillas first one, but none had the impact of his.

There seem to be 4 main trends this year:

The "Fine Art Street Photography" approach
On camera flash
"borrowing" very very heavily from Saul Leiter
the Nachtwey "top of the head" in the bottom of the shot.

 

[clayne]

For me, this competition turned out to be a two-horse race, with ''Runner Up'' No. 4 winning by a country mile, followed home at several lengths by No.9.

Every other entry fell into the 'also ran' category...

I also thought #4 (Giovanni Cocco) had the most honest non-gimmick based photos going on there as well. Even then, there's this air of "snapshot-ism" aka "look at what I'm not pointing out but you're supposed to realize as the viewer" vibe about all of the galleries on there. Perhaps that's the "fine-art" edge. Gets a bit annoying - as does the irony-driven photography and general lack of subject engagement. The whole "look at what I can see, observant aren't I?" driven style of photography is ultimately destined to burn itself out as it grows old amazingly fast.

 

[jsrockit]

The whole "look at what I can see, observant aren't I?" driven style of photography is ultimately destined to burn itself out as it grows old amazingly fast.

170 + years of photography doesn't support this though...

 

[RichC]

The whole "look at what I can see, observant aren't I?" driven style of photography is ultimately destined to burn itself out as it grows old amazingly fast.

170 + years of photography doesn't support this though...

As jsrocket says, these images are far more typical of photography, an opinion supported by history and usage. It’s more likely that the “decisive-moment street photography” style beloved by RFF will become relegated to the past. In fact, it’s arguable that it has already become irrelevant as a photographic approach, and has “burnt itself out as it grew old amazingly fast”: it’s certainly dismissed by most serious photographers (e.g. look through the portfolios of Magnum photographers who joined the agency within the last two decades).

The true photograph is the snapshot, a record of the world, showing the deliberate and the extraneous - and this applies to nearly all photographs: those being taken now, and those from the past. Fox Talbot - one of the inventor’s photography - alludes to this snapshot aesthetic that so many of you dismiss, in the world’s first photobook published in the 1840s, “The Pencil of Nature” (free, here):

It may suffice, then, to say, that the plates of this work have been obtained by the mere action of Light upon sensitive paper. They have been formed or depicted by optical and chemical means alone, and without the aid of any one acquainted with the art of drawing. It is needless, therefore, to say that they differ in all respects, and as widely as possible, in their origin, from plates of the ordinary kind, which owe their existence to the united skill of the Artist and the Engraver.

They are impressed by Nature’s hand; and what they want as yet of delicacy and finish of execution arises chiefly from our want of sufficient knowledge of her laws ... they will surely find their own sphere of utility, both for completeness of detail and correctness of perspective.

Although I speak of “snapshots”, this is mere shorthand: a snapshot is spontaneous with no artistic or other intent than to simply record, taken without regard to technique. The images in this competition - which Dabchick calls "look at what I can see, observant aren't I?” photography - are not snapshots: they show a high degree of technical skill, compositional ability and concern with narrative and our culture.

In contrast, the highly contrived, poor attempt at the “decisive moment” beloved by RFF is about performance, shape and geometry - not the essence of photography. These images are “all show and no go”. Most decisive moment photographs on RFF are nothing of the sort: they’re simply awkward moments and juxtapositions. The decisive moment is far more complex than capturing an aesthetic moment, often involving a person caught mid-movement. Even Cartier-Bresson acknowledges this: the decisive moment is composition plus the peripeteia - the “story telling” moment. It’s about capturing that time during the unfurling of an event that tells us most about what’s happening. Picture a kissing couple... It seems that for most (including RFF, judging from the gallery) the decisive moment is when they kiss - but you’ve missed Cartier-Bresson’s point entirely.

Let us return to our amorous couple – would not a picture of them a moment before the kiss, eyes locked on each other, lips parted, not quite touching, tell us more about their passion than the kiss itself? Or maybe the moment after, longing and desperation apparent as they part? The kiss itself tells us far less. This idea of picturing the perfect moment of a narrative is by no means new, and long predates Cartier-Bresson and photography: it’s Diderot’s instant, described by the critic in the mid-18th century.

In short, the images in this competition are far more relevant to photography and to culture, through their acknowledgement of picture-making and technology - both in the present and historical - than most so-called “street photography” encountered today (like much of the photography on RFF). And also far truer to Cartier-Bresson's forging of the decisive moment than the many pale imitations on RFF.

 

[zauhar]

As jsrocket says, these images are far more typical of photography, an opinion supported by history and usage. It’s more likely that the “decisive-moment street photography” style beloved by RFF will become relegated to the past. In fact, it’s arguable that it has already become irrelevant as a photographic approach, and has “burnt itself out as it grew old amazingly fast”: it’s certainly dismissed by most serious photographers (e.g. look through the portfolios of Magnum photographers who joined the agency within the last two decades).

The true photograph is the snapshot, a record of the world, showing the deliberate and the extraneous - and this applies to nearly all photographs: those being taken now, and those from the past. Fox Talbot - one of the inventor’s photography - alludes to this snapshot aesthetic that so many of you dismiss, in the world’s first photobook published in the 1840s, “The Pencil of Nature” (free, here):



Although I speak of “snapshots”, this is mere shorthand: a snapshot is spontaneous with no artistic or other intent than to simply record, taken without regard to technique. The images in this competition - which Dabchick calls "look at what I can see, observant aren't I?” photography - are not snapshots: they show a high degree of technical skill, compositional ability and concern with narrative and our culture.

In contrast, the highly contrived, poor attempt at the “decisive moment” beloved by RFF is about performance, shape and geometry - not the essence of photography. These images are “all show and no go”. Most decisive moment photographs on RFF are nothing of the sort: they’re simply awkward moments and juxtapositions. The decisive moment is far more complex than capturing an aesthetic moment, often involving a person caught mid-movement. Even Cartier-Bresson acknowledges this: the decisive moment is composition plus the peripeteia - the “story telling” moment. It’s about capturing that time during the unfurling of an event that tells us most about what’s happening. Picture a kissing couple... It seems that for most (including RFF, judging from the gallery) the decisive moment is when they kiss - but you’ve missed Cartier-Bresson’s point entirely.

...snip... .

A fine analysis Rich. I would suggest that the decisive moment style is now relegated to the dustbin because it is difficult. It is hidden. It involves much time, invested with no immediate result, a large element of chance, perhaps even the magic of ones psyche to put oneself at the right place at the right time.

Contrast the classic street photographer like Cartier-Bresson with his modern counterpart. (This is all fantasy on my part, so sue me.) HCB strolls the streets - or stays in one place. He has a simple camera, maybe only one lens. He does not appear to be doing much. At the end of the day he unloads his camera, ultimately ignorant as to whether or not he succeeded in capturing anything of value.

The modern photographer is constantly in motion. Gear to set up, maybe a tripod. Since he is a recorder of snapshots, of raw reality unencumbered by his own psyche, he can get right at it. He has immediate feedback from his LCD screen, and on silicon he is ready to accumulate thousands of images. At the end of the day, he knows exactly what he has. Back at his office, he spends hours enhancing the images (not quite snapshots, are they?), hours of constant activity.

In short, the modern photographer is the epitome of "Busy-ness". Like the office worker who needs to fill every hour with pointless meetings and email, constructing spreadsheets with numbers that in the end build nothing and fill no bellies. Just as the modern photographer has a rich Art House vocabulary to give apparent meaning to their toil, likewise the modern office worker has an extensive (if laughable) toolkit of words to justify all they are doing.

I doubt that many RFFers have illusions that the images they post are on par with notable photographers, rather they are sharing their current work with friends.

Randy

EDIT: Before I am pounced on, yes I did understand that you were not describing the contest photos as 'merely' snapshots, but rather recognized their subtle organization and structure.