# C&C my street shooting please



## keyseddie (Aug 8, 2014)

There was no parking anywhere near the Philly art museum, so I parked near Logan square and did street stuff, which I never did. Shooting fast and composing quickly proved difficult. Here are 2 homeless guys. What else? When I go to Key West I talk to them as some are veterans and some pretend to be. This first guy has a sign "gigolo" so ladies, I guess you can wake him for that. He's in the shadow below city hall, with William Penn watching over. A lot of dark in both images. Goes with the territory. I hope you can see ok on your monitor. Tell me what you think.






[/URL][/IMG]


----------



## keyseddie (Aug 8, 2014)

Next guy more dark. But he looks like a physically beautiful person. I hope his face radiates for you. This was the only vacant piece of bench in the park area.





[/URL][/IMG]


----------



## Light Guru (Aug 8, 2014)

keyseddie said:


> A lot of dark in both images. Goes with the territory.



Nope it doesn't go with the territory. They are just simply under exposed.


----------



## Warhorse (Aug 8, 2014)

You should get out more, and shoot more "street", you have some major talent there.

Okay, now that I gave you a trophy for "participating", what's up here, and where are you heading with this?


----------



## Derrel (Aug 8, 2014)

What do I think? I think these both look simply awful. Underexposed, fuzzy,low-rez, and boring. is this some kind of a test or something? Wanting to know who will suck up to you, and who will tell you these are awful?


----------



## sashbar (Aug 9, 2014)

Street photography is a VERY difficult genre, keyseddie. You can not (yes, by the way, Derrel is right, these are pretty shi**ty images),.. where I was... yes, you can not just think "OK, now I gonna try street", go out and then think, "Well, what do we shoot now?" 


If you want to shoot street you must have a reason, I mean there should be something that you have seen many times and wanted to keep it as a picture, as a frozen moment. Just think about it - what draws you to the street photography, what do you like. The funny juxtapositions, human emotions, the chaos of the colors, the unorthodox composition, the urban lines, the shades and reflections on city concrete and glass? 
I am convinced that to be a good street shooter you need to love a big city. I am not a really good street photographer, but I am drawn to it because I am a city animal. I do not care about sunsets, birds, flowers , roads that stretch to the horizon and trees. I am fascinated by the people and their interactions with the environment that they have created. 

Alex Webb ( who is a Semi-God of street shooting, and I am, like many, in total awe about the guy) says the street shooting is about discovery, and he is so right. By shooting street you discover things, but first you need to discover what is it that you want to discover. Then you will look for it. 

Portraiture photographers are farmers, they cultivate their land and have an almost guaranteed harvest. Street shooters are hunters. And the wood defeats them all the time. Alex Webb admits it himself. "Street defeats me again and again", he says. So it is not easy. Street photography does not give you an opportunity to be a weak photographer. If you are doing portraits, and you are not good, with some preparation and copying other's technique you can still produce a decent photo. If you shot street and your vision is not good enough, you produce sh*t. I know, I have produced loads of it. But, like the portraiture skills, the street vision can be developed and improved, if you work on it. Luck is another huge factor in street photography, but luck is proportionate to the time spent on the street.

As for discovery, Alex Webb is so right about it. Just a couple of days ago I was shooting in Kingston-on-Thames for 2 hours and had nothing. Zero. On my way back to my car, in the middle of an empty square, all of a sudden, I saw that little blond girl in an Arab scarf and had no time at all to adjust, just grabbed my camera, snapped it, and it was gone. So the picture is poor, nothing special, but that was a moment of a little discovery that has captured an emotion and a story which no portraiture can achieve. I wanted to ditch this image with the rest, but something tells me to keep it. 

You can buy "The Street Photographer's Manual" by David Gibson. It was published recently. He is pretty average himself as a photographer in my estimate, and I do not like some of his categorisations and rules, he also simplifies the genre to an extreme. But he is a very experienced enthusiast and a pro, and all in all he gives a beginner some great clues about how to start and what to look for and how to find theyr niche. If you have never done it before, the book is quite useful, with some top class, good and rather pedestrian photographs from variuos masters and the author. So good luck. Yes, and here is the girl


----------



## Chrispyphotos (Aug 9, 2014)

Definitely just flat out under exposed. Perhaps a little too much in both pictures that doesn't really add to the picture so I personally would have gone in tighter.


----------



## keyseddie (Aug 9, 2014)

Derrel said:


> What do I think? I think these both look simply awful. Underexposed, fuzzy,low-rez, and boring. is this some kind of a test or something? Wanting to know who will suck up to you, and who will tell you these are awful?


I respect your opinion and that of light guru. No test. I thought these images were good and I'm gonna go back in after my spanking and see what else I have and post some more.


----------



## keyseddie (Aug 9, 2014)

Thanks, all, I'll be back. Looking at them in a new day, a new way and your comments is working my puzzler.


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 9, 2014)

keyseddie said:


> I thought these images were good and I'm gonna go back in after my spanking and see what else I have and post some more.



It might be useful to dissect for yourself and understand why you thought they were good. Much of the impact of photography - and particularly street photography - is due to the shared concepts and ideas of the photographer and the viewer. The photographer sees something and captures it to present, hoping that the understanding of the interest he/she sees is shared by some part of the viewers. If too much is solely in the mind of the photographer and not in the frame, the picture fails.

"This first guy has a sign "gigolo" so ladies, I guess you can wake him  for that. He's in the shadow below city hall, with William Penn watching  over. A lot of dark in both images. Goes with the territory."

I can't see the sign, in fact the figure is dark and murky so I can't see it at all. And William Penn is looking over him? That concept is discordant with what you want to show us in the frame.
Way too much of that scene, and the next picture, is in your head and not in the frame.

Know what you are capturing and make certain the viewer knows it also.
In regards to pictures of signs and down at luck people; that is hackneyed. 
The funny signs are made to elicit pity and money especially in contrast with the state of the person holding it. Someone has created that scene, it is approximately the same in originality as shooting graffiti.

I don't have many/any limits to what I will do to make a point.
You need to decide where you stand in creating your statements.


----------



## keyseddie (Aug 9, 2014)

Thanks Traveler. I trashed the gigalo and re processed the other.





[/URL][/IMG]


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 9, 2014)

Since I think, and hope, you want the truth, I'll say what I think.
I have no idea what you find interesting and want to show me here.
The CVS bags pop out, but shouldn't.
Maybe he is homeless and sleeps days on the bench?
But that isn't either unusual or particularly interesting.

That's the center of street shooting for me.
I don't care about moody chit with heavily shadowed faces and emo running off the corners - if there is no idea or emotion or meaning in the content.
If it's just processing than it's like HDRing everything.
If the picture doesn't say something or show me something or make me feel something, it doesn't make it for me.


----------



## keyseddie (Aug 11, 2014)

I have thick skin, traveler, and don't mind at all your critique. I stopped by Philly's Chinatown, had dinner and chose these two to try and illustrate the vibrancy of the culture of this area. Thanks for any comments.





[/URL][/IMG]






[/URL][/IMG]


----------



## ristretto (Aug 11, 2014)

I like the second one, of the second pair.


----------



## gsgary (Aug 11, 2014)

Take a look at Alexy Titerenko's he is amazing as well as Alex Webb, and one of the first street photographers William  Klein, Garry Winnogrand, Bruce Gilden


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 11, 2014)

The second one first.

I would remove the perspective distortion  so that the walls indeed are parallel to the edges.
And remove the noise
Since the real centers  of interest are the people I would crop the text in English that draw viewers' eyes but leave enough Chinese text to provide some hint of the environment.




It is quite saturated and contrasty so I would lower the saturation/contrast overall



the reds still draw attention so I would lower them separately


this is still so busy that my eyes go everywhere so I would convert this to BW (now that contrast allows) so that the people are easier to pick out of the entire scene.


----------



## ristretto (Aug 11, 2014)

Nice B&W, I'd crop it tighter both sides though. Eddie, is this ok to edit?


----------



## keyseddie (Aug 11, 2014)

Thanks, Lew. Interesting. Ristretto, normally no, but Lew asked and this is an area of photography not in my comfort zone so yes, have at it. gsgary the Brit, that Alex Webb is quite amazing.


----------



## ristretto (Aug 11, 2014)

I see it more like this. But the phone number is so prominent - I think i'd clone it out. I know that's not a 'documentary' thing to do, but I'd do that here.


----------



## keyseddie (Aug 11, 2014)

Interesting, gentlemen, all of the edits. I'll never be a documentary guy. I think reality is overrated. In your edit ristretto, I'd have to exit remaining pole. Thanks.


----------



## ristretto (Aug 11, 2014)

Yes,_ all reality is subjective._


----------



## Browncoat (Aug 11, 2014)

Here's what they're not telling you. You might read this in a round-a-bout way in a book, but none of them (at least that I've ever read) have come right out and said the plain, simple truth:

You need a big pair of brass balls for street photography.

I'm not sure what you're shooting with, but you are definitely not close enough. If you're not up close and personal, don't take the shot. We want to feel like we're there. We need to see what you're seeing, and you shouldn't have to explain it to us. We want to see stories. I want to see in that man's face WHY he is sleeping on a park bench in the middle of the day. I want to feel his pain. With street photography, you can't just randomly shoot things that catch your eye...because that's exactly what your viewers see. Random stuff that has no meaning. 

Look at the work of Boogie and Vivian Maier. Contrast that with what you have here. Street photography is about 90% personality and 10% composition.


----------



## limr (Aug 11, 2014)

I disagree that you have to be brazen and in someone's face to get good street shots. Some scenes require more context to convey a meaning. Some moments are farther away - that doesn't mean you can't take the shot just because it's across the street. You can take photos without being intrusive, you just have to pay attention to everything. I mean _everything._ And you have to be ready to take the shot because it's often gone in a split second. For me, street photography comes down to two things: noticing and timing.


----------



## Browncoat (Aug 11, 2014)

I didn't mean that you have to be in someone's face a la Bruce Gilden. Just that you have to get in there and be able to mix it up elbow to elbow. It's all subjective, of course...but to me, that's the difference between "meh" street photography and good street photography: distance. I agree that some scenes are contextual, but there are a lot of street togs who just take photos of people looking at fruit at the market or crossing the street. Be close enough that they make eye contact with you, and 9 times out of 10, it will be a better photo.


----------



## limr (Aug 11, 2014)

Well yes, I agree that if the faces are an essential part of the "story" or message or meaning, then you've got to get close enough to see that. And it does require that the photographer become bolder than they might otherwise be. I know this is something that I struggle with, but it gets easier with time and practice.

I think one difficulty when someone is trying to do some street shooting is that it can be a lot of different things. Sometimes it's not necessarily about the person, but rather about the spatial relationship between the people that makes the image interesting. Or it can be a juxtaposition of colors or shapes, for example, that people have created with their presence. A couple of photos from another forum I'm on come to mind:

the 35mm PHOTO bureau: Shot of the Week #172
the 35mm PHOTO bureau: Shot of the Week #141
the 35mm PHOTO bureau: Shot of the Week #148

It takes a long time to be able to recognize moments that actually translate to other people. Sometimes you see something and you take a shot but when you look at the result, you realize maybe you took it a second too late or too early, or that the camera just didn't 'translate' what you saw into the image. It takes a lot of practice to tell the difference between a shot of someone just walking down the road and a shot of something interesting happening.

It also helps to be able to predict people's behaviors, which gets easier the more attention you pay to them. Here's one of mine that worked out because I noticed how the two were playing, I predicted what would happen next, and was ready to get the shot with the proper timing:


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 12, 2014)

I think the choice of crop leads to an interesting (at least to me) discussion.
There are probably an infinite number of decent crops for any picture and which one is the 'best' is discussable.
I think that every crop, particularly on a busy image, is an attempt to balance the contents of the picture with viewers' tendencies to assign weight to items depending on their position in the picture.
Inevitably things at the thirds seem more prominent and important and things at the very edge seem less important (except in specific instances not being discussed)
Readable text draws attention, as does bright tones and things like doors and windows that have an implication of motion.

So cropping off the edges to remove the door and the street opening tightens up the picture but also crowds important items to the edge and means that the third on the left is essentially unoccupied.
The one on the right brings attention to the interaction between the two men nicely but then that single post in the center becomes an issue.





The original crop was chosen to keep the people (important) off the edges and put them, as much as possible, in important spots. That meant keeping the door and the edge of teh building as a tradeoff.
Which crop chosen is by taste but there are good arguments and good reasons for both.
Perhaps my point is that design (in this instance, the crop) should be the product of decisions not just arbitrary.
THe editor must take into account how people see and parse pictures and then make a choice how to present the picture to the viewer.


----------



## ristretto (Aug 12, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> So cropping off the edges to remove the door and the street opening tightens up the picture but also crowds important items to the edge and means that the third on the left are essentially unoccupied.




The 'third on the left' in my crop contains three people. In yours it contains two people. 

The crop could be looser on the right, but not so much of the left: the guy far left should anchor the left side, not the pole.



The_Traveler said:


> "Perhaps my point is that design (in this instance, the crop) should be the product of decisions not just arbitrary."



The inclusion of the obliquely-leaning pole, looks ugly and distracts. The door is an ok element but the pole compromises it too much.


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 12, 2014)

ristretto said:


> The 'third on the left' in my crop contains three people. In yours it contains two people.



I'm not getting into an argument about whose crop is better, I posted to explain my decision process.

But you do misunderstand the meaning of 'thirds'.


----------



## runnah (Aug 12, 2014)

I agree with Lew for two reasons.

1. He is right.

2. He bought me lunch.


----------



## Browncoat (Aug 12, 2014)

Also gonna agree with Lew. And he didn't even buy me lunch.


----------



## ristretto (Aug 12, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> ristretto said:
> 
> 
> > The 'third on the left' in my crop contains three people. In yours it contains two people.
> ...



There's no argument. We have an assertion from you, and two cropped pictures to validate/invalidate that assertion.


----------



## chuasam (Aug 12, 2014)

Here is a good read 
http://****myphotoprofsays.tumblr.com
Specifically 
"You did NOT photograph a homeless person.
Didnt I say no bums? This is someone who does not seem to share your white supremacist views.  They are people YOU have power over and I told you not to photograph them. And you were a coward about this shot. You think youre going to get away with that? 

Give him a bell, just for being a prick. 

If youre interested in photographing people of color or people who live out on the street then youre going to have to pay the price to tell us something about them. GET IN THEIR FACE. Show us that youre moved. GET IN THEIR FACE. Show us their face. "


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 12, 2014)

runnah said:


> I agree with Lew for two reasons.
> 
> 1. He is right.
> 
> 2. He bought me lunch.



Money well spent.



Browncoat said:


> Also gonna agree with Lew. And he didn't even buy me lunch.



Runnah was here and he was crying because if he paid his children wouldn't be able to have shows for the winter, so I really had no choice.:violin:


----------



## sashbar (Aug 13, 2014)

You do not need a big pair of brass balls to shoot people from close range.  It Is a myth. I do it all the time. And I do not have brass balls.


----------



## sashbar (Aug 13, 2014)

Browncoat said:


> I didn't mean that you have to be in someone's face a la Bruce Gilden. Just that you have to get in there and be able to mix it up elbow to elbow. It's all subjective, of course...but to me, that's the difference between "meh" street photography and good street photography: distance. I agree that some scenes are contextual, but there are a lot of street togs who just take photos of people looking at fruit at the market or crossing the street. Be close enough that they make eye contact with you, and 9 times out of 10, it will be a better photo.
> 
> 
> View attachment 81896





I wonder if the photo is supposed to be an example of "close enough" ? Because in my book it is far from it.


----------



## keyseddie (Aug 13, 2014)

Sashbar, I like your "feathers."
After absorbing all the differing comments, both here and by following some of the links provided, I apparently titled the thread incorrectly. "Street photography" is much more involved than I thought and I applaud the efforts of those who pursue it. I see that it's not for me. I'm all done trying to change society, minds, or illustrating sadness or pain. I surely see the value of shooters like Alex Webb and marvel at his abilities.
I have been quite successful conveying positive emotion and appreciation though the kind of artwork I have produced since about the turn of the century. I'm just a pretty picture kinda guy, I suppose, and I am fascinated by the history of the European countries that give birth to much of my work. I do have a "slice of life" sector of my work that includes people and is patterned after the American artist Norman Rockwell, both visually and in content. I have three book projects in 2015 and need about 10-15% to illustrate daily life. An example below. The Il Campo is one of the most visited piazzas in Europe. This is the fountain area. The concept was to show each person doing something, being lost in thought, selfies, shooting, chimping, whatever. I have even moved a few prints of this, which surprised me.






[/URL][/IMG]

So, I wish to thank all who offered their opinions and critique. Now, can I delete my original shi**y images?


----------



## sashbar (Aug 13, 2014)

Oh, well, to deter you from street photography was most certaily not my aim   But I like the fact that you aim high and have high standards for your own work.  With the above Il Campo being a perfectly good street shot, I hope you are not yet entirely lost to street shooters community.  Good luck with your projects. 
And thanks for "Feathers".

Yes, and if I judged my photos on Alex Webb I would have smashed my camera with a hammer today.

And street photography is not always about social issues, sadness and pain. That would be extremely boring.  Very often people think that I shot a scene because there was some social context etc, whereas in fact I could not care less and just like the colors and lines and composition. With "Feathers" there is, of course a lot of sadness and even pain if you start thinking about it. But you can always shift your focus and replace sadnees with irony. Same person here, but a different mood and even some hint at humor. (But I a weaker shot, of course)


----------



## chuasam (Aug 13, 2014)

The il campo shot is awesome. I like it.


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 13, 2014)

keyseddie said:


> After absorbing all the differing comments, both here and by following some of the links provided, I apparently titled the thread incorrectly. "Street photography" is much more involved than I thought and I applaud the efforts of those who pursue it.



It's nice that you tried but it is definitely not for everyone.


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Aug 13, 2014)

chuasam said:


> Here is a good read
> http://****myphotoprofsays.tumblr.com
> Specifically
> "You did NOT photograph a homeless person.
> ...



DUDE, I know the person who made that site!! And I had the professor for Photojournalism!! lmao



keyseddie said:


> Sashbar, I like your "feathers."
> After absorbing all the differing comments, both here and by following  some of the links provided, I apparently titled the thread incorrectly.  "Street photography" is much more involved than I thought and I applaud  the efforts of those who pursue it. I see that it's not for me. I'm all  done trying to change society, minds, or illustrating sadness or pain. I  surely see the value of shooters like Alex Webb and marvel at his  abilities.
> I have been quite successful conveying positive emotion and appreciation  though the kind of artwork I have produced since about the turn of the  century. I'm just a pretty picture kinda guy, I suppose, and I am  fascinated by the history of the European countries that give birth to  much of my work. I do have a "slice of life" sector of my work that  includes people and is patterned after the American artist Norman  Rockwell, both visually and in content. I have three book projects in  2015 and need about 10-15% to illustrate daily life. An example below.  The Il Campo is one of the most visited piazzas in Europe. This is the  fountain area. The concept was to show each person doing something,  being lost in thought, selfies, shooting, chimping, whatever. I have  even moved a few prints of this, which surprised me.
> 
> ...




Please. Do not just give up on the images you want to create just because someone tells you they have to be a certain way. Though the classic version of street photography may not be to your liking you can still make great images in your own style.

 These crits, though sometimes harsh are not meant to push you away from your work they are meant to make you more critical of your own work so that you can improve yourself. If you take an image you think is absolutely astounding, wait a few minutes and look at it again with the intention of meticulously picking out every little flaw in it to the point that you hate it enough to go retake it, I guarantee that you will come back with an image 10x better than the first during your reshoot.

 Even if all you want to do is make it a pretty picture, go ahead and do that, but do it in the best possible way!! Don't just conform to a style because someone else tells you too, but you also shouldn't just tell yourself you can't do something well enough and give up on it.


----------



## chuasam (Aug 13, 2014)

I'm so envious! I would have loved to have had Thomas Roma as a photography instructor. My fav street photographers are Martin Parr, Gary Winogrand and Jacques Henri Lartigue.


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Aug 14, 2014)

Ahh!!! I was so wrong about that. Sorry, I'm thinking of a different tumblr that's inspired by that one with quotes from Owen Butler. I'm just so used to seeing his I saw ****myphotoprofsays and immeadiatly thought it was the one on him. I'll post a link when I find his.

Owen Butler Bio Im the meantime this is who I meant.


----------

