Before we head down that rabbit hole, I'm curious if Promeneur is interested in an actual critique of his images. In other words, was that the reason they were posted?
Absolutely, I would welcome a sincere critique to deal with some of the problems in these two photos. Thank you in advance, but I would like to go first.
In the first photo, with the young man in the white skirt you can see that the light on his face is too strong, especially his forehead. With the young man closer to me you can see that the shutter speed is a bit too slow as there is motion blur in his left hand. It would have also been better to have a bit more head room in this photo.
In the second photo it would have been better with a shallow depth of field as the background is not all that interesting. The photo also needs horizon correction and it would be better cropped to get rid of uninteresting parts of the photo especially that blown out rock on the right.
In both photos you can see that I am out in the middle of the afternoon. I would like to hear how you would handle shooting in that kind of harsh light.
When I post photos they are generally sooc of camera, but if I do light editing I always will say so.
I might be slow to respond after tomorrow, but will be following DPReview as I travel as time permits. So, a disappearing act doesn't mean that I am running away from the thread or forum.
Thank you for your interest!
Cheers!
So with all that in mind, I will first offer that if you are happy with your images, then in some respects, really that is all that matters.
Once we get beyond that, from a purely "are these good images" perspective - well for me they appear to miss on a few points:
- The first image seems a bit soft in some areas (maybe motion blur on the most distant subject?) and yes, the highlights appear to be lost on the forehead.
I also agree the background is distracting, in that it doesn't feel separated - no "pop". Maybe shallower DoF, or possibly waiting a little bit longer to get in front of the statue - this would have also removed the person sitting on the step (actually it would have removed all the other people, because, truthfully, they aren't helping the image).
The lock-step is coincidental and mildly interesting, but in the end, it's just not enough.
The second image is a non-starter. The unfortunate perspective choice created a false attachment that is so prominent that it can't be overlooked. So despite the candid pose, this goes in the bin for me.
Now on to is it good "street photography"? Unfortunately, I don't think it passes the bar.
I'll spare you a long treatise on what the phrase means (to me) and just say that even if you corrected all the technical issues I mentioned above, they still lack something that moves them beyond "random pictures of people" label. The term punctum comes to mind.
Finally, let's address the dress and skirt. I'm going to make an assumption here (and please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) that you're not generally active in the LGBTQ community. To be clear, this isn't meant as a veiled accusation, but it does seem like a reasonable assumption based on the commentary that accompanied the two images - from which I infer that you found these two people interesting in a large part because of how they dressed not aligning with typical gender-labeled clothing?
So if that's the case, then there is a voyeuristic element to these photos that I can't quite overlook. Yes, you can easily make the case that all street photography has an element of voyeurism. But the "Everything is fair game" manifesto is no longer accepted in the most literal sense. Street photography etiquette is an ongoing discussion and has now come to consider the vulnerability of disadvantaged communities.
Having said that, making assumptions about the "intent" of a photographer is a pretty treacherous slope, and not something I'm entirely comfortable doing.
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/7ab0...at&fit=max&s=a105d609e055b719783a215c106a42ae
Ok, I've said enough...
