The Art of Street Photography XXV

1e417b883f1642839d1bff772991ac76.jpg

--
https://www.facebook.com/The-Laographer-919568698161529/
IMO, photos of people looking at their phones, no matter what the background, are inherently uninteresting.
Thanks for looking and commenting. It was the umbrella which made me take the shoot.
This is a lot more interesting than your run of the mill cellphone shot. One trick is to keep shooting until she looks up. Sometimes works. This is a good use of the shooting from below eye level approach, which I recommend against for beginners. It tends to create an unnatural point of view and detach us, as viewers, from our placing ourself in the scene. It also tends to detach the photographer, in subtle ways.

Here we have a very arresting pattern, which is undercut by the face focused on the distant reality reflected in the cellphone, the detached upward gaze, and the general softness, whether caused by focus or camera motion, but that which should be be sharp and stand out, is soft.

What equipment were you using?

--
Frank
http://sidewalkshadows.com/blog/
Photos look better in Original Size
Shot in downtown Manhattan, unless noted
I was using a small APS-C mirrorless camera with a 35mm equivalent lens set on aperture priority mode with f/2.0, manually selected ISO 12800, and the shutter speed set by the camera was 1/200 (because I take the shots without stopping while walking I need a high shutter speed, the reason I take the shots while walking is because it enhances my stealthiness).
I understand the need for stealthiness on the approach, but I think 9 times out of 10 stopping to compose will get a better shot ... if your approach was good, then your subject won't notice until the shot's been taken - after that it doesn't matter.
Since I got the tiny A6000 with tilt screen I've further developed techniques (which I had started with older DSLR) for shooting fast and furious, intuitively, and from the hip and LCD on the street, usually 16-20mm. It's liberating! I usually stop to compose through the EVF only if I have plenty of time, shooting a still image or waiting for something to happen in a particular context.

To make another musical analogy, it's like improvising jazz compared to reading a Bach invention (which Bach probably improvised). I do both, but the freedom of the former is wonderful.


8e963c906f2a46fb95d504fbf4db6e53.jpg





--
Frank
Photos look better in Original Size
Shot in downtown Manhattan, unless noted
 
I never take a shot that is spontaneous.

Every shot I take is spontaneous.

Really, you can't be spontaneous consistently unless you really know what you're doing. This picture is not spontaneous. It is carefully planned.

Perhaps improvised is a better word. What do you think?
 
What a cool composition. But the blur is too much for me here.

--
Which part of the image? Face and body are not too blurry to my eyes, and I like the motion blur of cars and left hand directing traffic. And, I almost got run over getting this shot!

Bourgeois! :-)
I have worked very hard, well my wife has, so we can join the haute bourgeoisie that HCB was born into, and I'm not going to give it up without a fight!

It's a matter of taste, but I would like to see the crisp colors be on areas that are nice and sharp. So the figure is too soft for my taste. What was the shutter speed.

I was just instructing a young relative that if I die taking a street photo in traffic to note it at my funeral --that I died with my SP boots on.



--
Frank
Photos look better in Original Size
Shot in downtown Manhattan, unless noted
 
But Frank...stealing? It's someone else's snapshot, not a model shoot, right? I don't find it using someone else's 'art'. If there was a whole setup, art directors, model, what have you, that would be another story, of course. But 2 people clowning....

Sal
Not literally stealing. I don't worry about the morality. I worry about documenting someone else's creativity without adding anything of one's self to it. At the least, if you're shooting at a different angle than the main photographer, make it a better angle, not a worse one.

As a general, when the gods of SP give me a gift horse, I mistrust it. I test it in my mindd before letting it within my walls --as a mixed metaphor.

--
Frank
http://sidewalkshadows.com/blog/
Photos look better in Original Size
Shot in downtown Manhattan, unless noted
 
Last edited:
This is priceless! The disparity in their expressions is so delicious.

Sal
One person is smiling and the other is not. Of course, both could have been smiling, or neither. But none of the above, IMHO, are priceless or delicious, certainly not both.

I can only scratch my head...

--
Sam K., NYC
http://skanter.smugmug.com/NYC-Street-Photography
“A camera is a tool for learning how to see without a camera.”
-Dorothea Lange
 
Last edited:
I understand the need for stealthiness on the approach, but I think 9 times out of 10 stopping to compose will get a better shot ... if your approach was good, then your subject won't notice until the shot's been taken - after that it doesn't matter.
I couldn't disagree more, Colin. A spontaneous, spur-of-the-moment shot will always supercede the planned and contemplative one...all other things being equal. Leave the elegantly composed images to painters, and the 1/125s slices of life to Photography! ;)
 
bbff855849db402b8209360200bd6922.jpg

--
Sam K., NYC
http://skanter.smugmug.com/NYC-Street-Photography
“A camera is a tool for learning how to see without a camera.”
-Dorothea Lange
Or tighter crop?

f1bc63f4d2a349809e6885c4e0fe1cf1.jpg

--
Sam K., NYC
http://skanter.smugmug.com/NYC-Street-Photography
“A camera is a tool for learning how to see without a camera.”
-Dorothea Lange
Prefer the wider view - I had to search for the vendor in the first version, I like the idea of him almost blended into the merchandise. The 2nd he is a little too obvious and I think the strength of the image is diminished.

--
Colin K. Work
www.ckwphoto.com
www.pixstel.com
 
be96fae049e141dab4d4a0608774dab4.jpg

--
Sam K., NYC
http://skanter.smugmug.com/NYC-Street-Photography
“A camera is a tool for learning how to see without a camera.”
-Dorothea Lange
Struggled with this one ... something not right. Unusually the sharpness doesn't bother me here. If it were sharp, it would be a so so portrait ... the slight lack of sharpness I think adds, gives a sense of being in the thick of it.

What I think is bothering me is a blue/cyan cast to the shadows.

--
Colin K. Work
www.ckwphoto.com
www.pixstel.com
 
I prefer the crop. It's more coherent. As to the musical quartet analogy....ummm... Not in my ears or to my eyes. Musicians have to lock onto each other and become one whole.
Not always in the same way. Have you listened to much free jazz? Seems like everyone is off on their own, but things come together by accident or by some higher design.
Yes, but by that analogy, the first version is the disconnected improv but missing a beginning and resolution, so we're left without context - the 2nd version it all makes sense again.

I'm not sure you can get away with taking a moment without the context - for me this is the massive difference between video and still.
But the crop tells a strong story, rather than raising questions as in the uncropped version..
Yes, I think it does. Thanks for the comment.
 
Obviously you considered the range of colours to be of major significance in the original, (righly so in my opinion). Maybe the title could reflect that

The crop loses that, and might work better if converted , when your title might be more appropriate.

Cheers

--

KenC
 
I never take a shot that is spontaneous.

Every shot I take is spontaneous.

Really, you can't be spontaneous consistently unless you really know what you're doing. This picture is not spontaneous. It is carefully planned.

Perhaps improvised is a better word. What do you think?
'Improvised' may be a better word to describe what I'm trying to get at. Isn't that the opposite of 'planned'? I don't see how the image can be both, though. Particularly, Laographer didn't plan to connect the compositional elements in the way they did - there wasn't enough time. In my experience, even though attention can be paid to a handful of elements in the frame when a shot is taken, it's difficult to observe or control all of them. Those outlier elements tend to make or break the success of the image, upon editing. (Editing is something that is never improvised or spontaneous!)

Perhaps a tighter definition includes the properties of the Ego in the picture-making process, and how much the photographer can give over control, get out of the way of the process, to the events in front of the camera (and the photographer). Laographer 'planned' to be out in the street at night, and planned to shoot close-up and at an angle, but I sense a moment or instant where control of the situation was released...resulting in a spontaneously recorded event where the photographer was standing in the right place, holding the camera at the right plane, and pressing the shutter at the right instant.

One of my teachers is a pupil of Larry Fink; she was given this challenge by him (her quote): "The assignment is to fill the frame with as many elements as possible without becoming a jumble,
an acrobat/juggler's lament; how many balls can you have in the air at once without any falling on you and creating an irrational end?
" This is very close to Garry Winogrand's and Joel Meyerowitz's early explorations with one another to take the image to the "limits of failure".

Getting in close, being unconcerned with sharp focus, or a level camera are planned events, I suppose. Allowing the elements of composition to fall where they may, to get one's Ego out of the way of the process, is also one of those contradictory mysteries that separates Photography from Painting. It's a wonderful thing when the photographer connects to the people being photographed; interacts with them through the picture-making process, while sometimes rendering him/herself invisible to the events at hand.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/12191517@N05/
 
Last edited:
4539d08faeb2441394dda04fa1586902.jpg

--
Sam K., NYC
http://skanter.smugmug.com/NYC-Street-Photography
“A camera is a tool for learning how to see without a camera.”
-Dorothea Lange
Sorry, don't get it. What am I missing?

--
Colin K. Work
www.ckwphoto.com
www.pixstel.com
Not meant to be a clearly definitive image - what do you see?

--
Sam K., NYC
http://skanter.smugmug.com/NYC-Street-Photography
“A camera is a tool for learning how to see without a camera.”
-Dorothea Lange
 
Last edited:
bbff855849db402b8209360200bd6922.jpg

--
Sam K., NYC
http://skanter.smugmug.com/NYC-Street-Photography
“A camera is a tool for learning how to see without a camera.”
-Dorothea Lange
Or tighter crop?

f1bc63f4d2a349809e6885c4e0fe1cf1.jpg

--
Sam K., NYC
http://skanter.smugmug.com/NYC-Street-Photography
“A camera is a tool for learning how to see without a camera.”
-Dorothea Lange
Prefer the wider view - I had to search for the vendor in the first version, I like the idea of him almost blended into the merchandise.
That was my original intent - but second crop was a last-minute afterthought, and probably wrong.
The 2nd he is a little too obvious and I think the strength of the image is diminished.
Agree. Thanks for the feedback...
--
Sam K., NYC
http://skanter.smugmug.com/NYC-Street-Photography
“A camera is a tool for learning how to see without a camera.”
-Dorothea Lange
 
Last edited:
Doesn't have to 'mean' the same thing for everyone....It makes me wonder, so I stop and look. Not lots of images do that.

Sal
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top