I'm ready for my flogging....

Seriously. Too telephoto, uninsteresting subject, bad composition, awkard lighting (did the best I could) or what?



Of course you can't infer it from the image, but it has 'value added' by being of Katrina evacuees in Houston (gathered by eavesdropping; a few weeks after the event) These people most likely lost everything. Yet, these kids are playing in the street downtown, like nothing has happened.

I'm thick skinned, and I don't mind rejection, but I'd at least like the comments from my peers. My day job is a scientist, so the process of submit/critique/review/resubmit is nothing new to me.

VIDALIA - not my deletion by the way... but anyway...


okay - first of all purely technical critique:

needs a good crop - the black beam down the right hand side is annoying, as are the fragments of a parking meter on the left hand side.

now for some more contextual critique:

- despite them being on moving 'vehicles' this is a very static image - there's precious little going on that keeps the viewer interested apart from some big novelty toys.

- there is an overall flatness to the image - look at some of the admin favs - there is often some kind of light/shadow dynamic going on that adds vigour and depth to the image. this doesn't have that. think about the time of day that you are shooting - mornings and evenings offer the dynamic horizontal light that is the street photographers mobile studio...

- finally, i don't think i am being too harsh here, but maybe the context that you bestowed upon the image in your stream isn't in the spirit of 'street photography' - you've presented them in your stream as 'nerds' - a freak show. i think the spirit of street photography is to observe what is going on and try to depict it in an original way.. look at the great street photographers - are their images derogatory? its far more likely that the images that you remember celebrate oddities instead of sneering at them....

what i am saying is, yeah, they're odd, i can and will laugh with you cos goddam it they're lazy! I'm with you 100% when it comes to that!

but on a purely photographic basis, a 'street photographer' would steer clear of the obvious route of 'ridiculing the absurd'. instead he/she would try and find some way of celebrating it.

hope thats useful...

totally useful.

What about this one? It got deleted...

IREES

you've pretty much said all i would have said.

as for 'value added' context - i'm sorry, but for me thats just a completely ridiculous concept.

if a documentary story (lets take for instance, ooh, relocated victims of hurrican katrina) can't be told in a sinlge image, it's forgivable. its a big story! however... when i look at your stream i don't see a single other image documenting this story... so to try to raise the quality of an image whose limitations you are very aware of by bestowing on it a context of which you had no idea when you took the photo... it kind of smacks of desperation. that's my point of view, and, without wanting to sound like a pompous git, (although i probably am) i reckon its valid because i am a professional documentary photographer. I want to see a story told by pictures. if i am looking at a photo documentary, i want beautiful, descriptive, high quality photos that tell me part of the story but also spark my imagination to think of another 100 related stories and scenarios that are merely hypothetical possibilities of my imagination... thats how powerful a photo can be, and what i strive to achieve when i shoot my personal documentary stories and portraits. i know i'm not achieving that on every negative, but i'm sure as hell going to try..

however, thats probably not the reason this image has been deleted. it was most likely for the technical reasons that you have already mentioned - poor framing, telephoto giving that uniquely one-dimensional feel, lack of interesting post-processing. this image for me is an example of why the street photographer has to get in close for this kind of shot - without doing so you're just not going to capture the energy and interesting composition that you are striving for.

well i hope thats useful too...

oceanhug -

technically:

- it needs a crop. the black corner in the top right, and the burnt out light in the top right need to go. i'd also get rid of the bottle and whatever else that is in the bottom right of the photo. by leaving them in, all you've made me do is think 'the person who took that photograph didn't really think about how he was framing the image'.
this single thought for me immediately overpowers anything else about the image.

a tutor when i was at college said something really useful to me once - this was that for an art director, picture editor, or realistically anyone in the professional photography industry to consider the subject and story in an image, the image itself must technically be of a certain quality before the context can come into play. i fully agree with this, and in the case of your image, i find it hard to force myself to look beyond these three intrusions into the frame.

okay so in my mind i am hiding these aforementioned intrusions, and what have i got? well realistically it's a kind of shoddy sculpture (a poor mans Louis Bourgeois) thats partially hiding a mans head. again, its just too static. there is no dramatic lighting to give atmosphere. the guy in the picture isn't interacting with the sculpture in an exciting, interesting way.

a number of photographers have tackled this subject of people in a gallery space, and i'd be surprised if our admins didn't know of them. i am suspecting that your image might have been judged against these photographers...

have a look at this link:

www.nickturpin.com/bigfolio/tate.html

this is awesome benny. thanks for taking your time to offer some feedback. here's one i think has potential but misses a bit. thanks again.

Not an image I've posted to this group before, because I'm not sure what the admins' take is on shots which are not "on the street". Most of my photography is taken indoors (at bars, gigs and clubs) but using a street aesthetic, and I'd be interested to hear what you think of it (especially bearing in mind that "the image itself must technically be of a certain quality before the context can come into play" - this is not a technically great photo but, in my opinion, technical quality is not the most important piece in the jigsaw).

OPENDOOREXIT

you're right, i think this shot has potential, and can be classed as a near miss. there's lots of good bits - i like the flare on the stone surface that he is sitting on, i like the dull reflections in the shiny surface behind the guy sitting down, and it has some interesting compositional lines - i think i can see how you are trying to make them work, but its not quite right.

when i looked at the photo in your stream and in full size, there was a suggested crop - i was thinking somewhere along those lines when i first looked at the image, but i think to be honest cropping this image isn't going to be enough.

so i guess the best thing to do is sign it off as one of those things and think about how you would go about shooting this kind of image next time.

so this ain't a question of technical stuff, more a question of composition and perhaps stealth technique. if i came across this situation when on a streetwalk, if i knew i wanted to photograph it the first thing i would do is not to rush it. my point being, lets face it he doesn't look like he is going anywhere in a hurry, so it's not like i have only one millisecond to take the photo.

the fact that he is a rather static subject also throws up a few problems - as i have mentioned on previous images, a static image can quite often be boring one. however in this case there are lots of geometric shapes and interesting environmental features that, together with the guy, could make up for this.

so i would stand where i presume you are, on the other side of the road, and think about how i want the image to look. perhaps frame it with my hands or something. then i think it would be a case of getting in close. its just got to be done. i think it would be possible to walk out to the middle of the road, stop, take the photo, turn around and walk away in a moment if you really know what you want in the frame. sure the guy might see you, but hell thats the street photographers risk right?

i've put a suggested crop on your image - i think there is currently too much in the frame that detracts from the guy in the middle. for me thats why this would have been removed. get in close. its scary... it makes your heart thump... but it makes for great shots...

benny,

Of course I know to get in close; that's the only shot over 50mm in my entire filckr gallery. However, it was the only way I would have been able to even attempt the shot. As was mentioned in a previous discussion thread, photographing children is a very difficult proposition. The cop just outside the frame was already looking at my suspiciously. There are no other photos of the event in my stream because this was a chance encounter, not a project I embarked on intentionally; they left on the trolley immediately after I took the picture. And I was aware they were evacuees when I took the photo. "A few weeks after the event" was after Katrina, not after the photograph was taken. Sorry for the ambiguity, I was being rushed out of the house when I wrote the post. And yeah, you may be a pompous git, but I suppose that's alright. If you asked my opinion on something I was professionally inclined in, I'd probably be harsh too. It's an underrated quality.

For the record, during the actual height of Katrina I desperately wanted to go shoot.. unfortunately, I was desperately studying for a major grad school exam... sigh. By the time I could dedicate an entire day to photography, most of the madness had cooled down a bit.

GULCH

i think it's safe to say that as a whole, this group suffers from an over abundance of 'sidewalk street photography'.

this was the opinion of hinius (another admin) - we chatted about this today after a round of 'beach street photography'. it would be great if more people didn't take the 'street' part so literally - we would end up with loads more interesting images. people interact everywhere - clubs, museums, discos, libraries, brothels.... so why not shoot 'street style' in these places?

the reality is that the sidewalk is a quite awkward place to shoot street. there's a lack of interesting angles. the people are generally walking in two directions. and one whole side of your frame can often be just traffic. so go looking people - look for open public spaces, look for alleyways, parks, squares, corners, parties, etc etc. just try and retain your integrity - shoot strangers, not buddies!

so gulch - moving onto your image. despite what you've said about technical quality not being the most important part of the jigsaw, the fact remains that it is a part of the jigsaw. you're imaging is missing this piece, and in my opinion in this particular piece you are missing is quite an important one, like an edge or a corner or summat!

just imagine if you'd removed a bit of that strange red cast, straightened up those vertical lines in the foreground, and.... my god... got rid of all that ridiculous, horrible NOISE!!! did you shoot this in a blizzard? grain in film is totally acceptable, and i really really hate those supergloss porcelain doll noise reduced digital images... however this amount of weird, pixelated noisy nonsense reduces what is a wonderfully caught moment to a fuzzy mess.

do something about that mate, and i honestly believe that with your eye for an image (in this instant anyway) you'll really be onto a winner.

opendoorexit,

Basically I just think the photo lacks vitality. How is this photo different than any other of a million possible pictures of people waiting at a bus stop? The person is too far away to discern any interesting expression or individuality that could give him interest as the subject of the photo. There is nothing unusual in the composition otherwise that gives it interest to me; modern geometric buildings just don't do it for me. They are as cold and harsh as the bus stop itself, which is fine if you're commenting on that condition, but I don't see that in this photo.

IREES - cool, cool - i was just blathering on as usual. you've got some good portraits in your people set.

at the end of the day - you've already stated the reasons yourself why the photo wasn't in the pool - i was just reacting to the 'value added' idea - my opinion of which i'll stand by. i hope you found what i had to say about that useful anyway!

cheers, from the pompous git! :-)

irees - thanks for the input. much appreciated.

benny - thanks for thorough critique. and again for setting up this thread. i learn something from these discussions and this group in general everyday.

peace.

Thanks for the critique. Just a quick explanation of some of the technical failings: image was shot at 3200ISO, 2 stops under-exposed, in a room with red lights, red walls and red seating. I could probably have got a better result by pushing exposure down from 1/50th to 1/25th, but other than that not a lot I could do without using a flash (yeuch!). The image was shot RAW, and I pushed it back as close to white as I dared (it went from around 3500K to 2000K), but any further and the woman at the back with the mobile phone started looking too blue.

Still, I'm very happy with the noise'n'all result. Not 100% happy, as I am with this photo taken under similar circumstances (minus the red lights), but 95%+ happy. And I very much appreciate your comment about my eye for an image. Onwards and upwards!

Okay, I'm new to street photography, it's been tough getting up the nerve to take shots of people without them either knowing or caring, as well as getting over my own self conciousness. I do enjoy it however, and try as often as possible. I got this one recently and really just fell in love with the shot, and see that it was removed. Any critique is welcome.

KONIAK

first of all, good on for you for taking those first steps into the world of street photography, and picking up the nerve to raise the camera to your face.

as for this image. my chat with hinius was wide ranging today. we discussed what we would change about street photography if we could. just one thing. i said that i would get rid of all the fucking mobile phones! it's pretty hard to get an interesting shot when someones chatting on a cellphone...

As for this image... i'm really sorry.. but it's just, well, a little bit dull... there's nothing going on. for a portrait (posed or candid) to make it past the admins in this group its got to be pretty special, because portraits aren't really what 'street photography' (in the eyes of this groups admins) is all about. it's not because we don't like portraits. I am a documentary portrait photographer. i.e i shoot documentary stories with portraits as the main thrust. i shoot street for fun and to keep my eye trained.

what would make a portrait 'special' enough to be kept in this pool? I'm not sure, but i guess it would have to be something really, really exceptional about the person who is being immortalised... so that pretty much rules out every homeless person, most outrageous gay pride marchers, and unfortunately for you most oriental ladies talking on their cellphones.

as a rule of thumb i try not to 'fall in love' with my shots. if you love everything you do, where is the room for improvement? okay so this image didn't get in the pool. next time you are out shooting, try looking for something thats out of the ordinary, like a tiny oriental lady walking 5 alsatians, or oriental sextuplets talking on cellphones in a line for a jewish bakery. okay so i'm being a bit over the top but you get my gist right? keep those eyes open....

on that note i am going to bed. i probably won't be online for the next two days, so hopefully this thread will keep on developing. please respect the rules (one image per week) and keep the critique invigorating and hopefully interesting for everyone (not just the photographer) to read!

cheers
ben

Ok, here's one. Dunno if I should be drawing attention to it cos it wasn't deleted from the pool! Maybe it just slipped past unnoticed! ;-)

No seriously, I've always loved photography but I'm only starting to take it a bit more seriously. I think this is one of my better photos and I'd love some real critique on it. Why did it survive? How could it be better? Thanks!

I've noticed a lot of crop suggestions and I'm torn over the crop on this shot that was deleted from the group. Thoughts?

The question I always ask myself about cropping is: how much can I crop before I am compensating for a failure of composition? If the aspect ratio of my image has to change in order to make it to work, I usually know I've screwed up.

I'm an absolute begginer, so I gotta be thick skinned (I guess it's the only way to learn something. Comments welcomed. Thanks people

i'm not finding this massively offensive but on the other hand its just missing something that i can't put my finger on.

i think ultimately it's the composition - there nothing going on in the left half of the frame. the eye contact with the lady is great.

for the record, if i saw this in the pool i probably wouldn't have deleted it. however it's not good enough to make me go WOW... hope that's a fair enough answer... i'm a bit short on words at the moment for reasons outside of photography, for which i apologise.

ben

more than enough. Thanks again for your time

SLP 2.0 - I think these scenes are really hard to get right. There's drama there, but it feels like you've either got to get in rrreal close to get the emotion on the faces, or you've got to compose the shot so that energy's pushing out of the frame, or so that the arrangement of the figures forms a compelling composition in its own right. This doesn't have that PJ feel - there's no tension to speak of, and I feel too distant from the people to pick up on their emotions, so I think what you have here is a snap of a stranger in a humiliating position. Might also have worked if you'd come at it from the perspective of the caregiver's - e.g., looking over their shoulders / along their arms so that the viewer identifies with a person in the frame. But ya gotta find a composition in there. Just my $0.02.

Thank you for the comments. Just one question... "PJ feel?" Wuzzat?

PJ = photojournalism

OK, I'm curious. I posted this to the group before and it got elbowed immediately. (OK - I realise I have no divine right to acceptance here).

Just wondered what's up with this - I figure it hits the spot: it's shot in the street, short lens, B&W, interesting subject. Plus the risk factor of photographing PLA personnel in Tiannenmen Square. People get arrested for stuff like that. Plus, it's one of MY favourite street shots, sniff, sniff...

PS: I will continue to launch missiles from my Home in North Korea until I receive an answer.



[PPS: Thanks for the replies, still not sure who hated the shot or why, but for now the missile launches are on hold. A couple of other points. (1) All the soldiers in the photo are Girls not guys. And (2) Although it's relatively unlikely I'd have been arrested for taking this picture, in China it's not adviseable to just walk up to police or PLA personnel and photograph them without their permission - you never know what they'll do. I'm clearly white and Western. Many of my Chinese friends have said they'd NEVER shoot pictures of officials, least of all PLA in Beijing, so it's definitely a judgement call.

@62Lofu:
Yeah, in my opinion, it's quite a good shot. The composition is good and technically it's good also...
I personnaly don't know if I would have deleted it but you certainly suffered from the insane amount of "picture-of-people-taking-a-picture-of-other-people" we get in this group. So I understand the deletion from this group even though I can't really say so much about the picture in itself.

Keep posting please; even though this group is really unfair.
Raoul

@62lofu:

is it really that dangerous to shoot pictures of PLA? I've snapped a fair few on two separate visits to Beijing without any of them being bothered, particularly in Tiananmen Square.

maybe i'm just invisible/invincible

You're just so fucking tough, you don't even realize how communists are scared of you man...

Don't be silly, its not dangerous to photograph the PLA in Tianemen Square, there's hundreds of tourists there everyday and they're all doing it! But only shoot with a camera... shoot them with anything else and you could start a war! ;-)

Absolutely love your photo tho. Don't think it should hav been deleted. I really love the relationship between the people and especially the pose of the guy taking the photo. I love the way you see the gate lightly in the distance, hinting at the location but allowing the figures to take precedence. And there's a really nice line guiding your eye from the photographer to the 2 girls to the gate. I don't know much but it looks really good to me!

BTW can someone comment on my photo above.... PLEASE?

Don't have a lot of time right now but wanted to say a few words about your photo Miss Milki.

For me, this one is a good example of "you need to get closer".

I don't think the bikes add much to the picture and I think they could have been left out of the frame to focus on the boys and the game -the faces, smiles, hand gesture...
Also, there might have been something interesting with the eventual pattern similarity between the board of the game and the window(?)...just a thought.

They are children and are usually not the most difficult subjects to get close to. I think it would have been better closer.
I might be wrong but that's my opinion, hope that helps.

hi miss milki... sorry for the lack of response from me too.. other things on my mind, but hey, here i am.

first of all if i'm going to be really anal.... i don't think it's chess. looks like its some kind of 'Mah Jong' or other derivative.

agree with raoul about the bikes.

ultimately - it's one of those shots for me that it's quite hard to critique. there's not much terribly bad about it - perhaps a little too much dead space at the top of the frame - but on the other hand it's not exciting me all that much. raoul is spot on. get in close and engage with the subjects and maybe you've got something. but it's hard isn't it? i 've been in vietnam myself - invariably if you get in close with your camera to kids on the street then you get that classic 'over reaction' that turns these photos into the same generic 'look at these poor ethnic kids, they're so poor but they're so HAPPY' shot that every clumsy western wannabe national geographic photographer gets.

so maybe next time (if you're fortunate enough to go back?) you could try more of a hit and run approach. sneak in, get the shot, leg it before you break the concentration of those two grandmasters in the making.

then go and reward yourself with some summer rolls, a cup of coffee with condensed milk, and a hand tailored tuxedo, made in 24hrs for $24.

I know this one is the old cliche homeless guy but I really liked the tones and contrast in the shot. I was a lot closer than it looks.

This one I could sort of see why it was deleted, because of a less than quality framing job and poor focus due to a hipshot. What's funny is, these pictures were taken for a photo assignment to immitate Robert Frank. My teacher is a huge fan of him. I got an A on the project and used those two pictures. Please be honest :)

Thanks a million guys! :-) You're both spot on... its hard to notice these things about your own photos. You're so right Benny, it isn't chess at all...just didn't know what to call it! And yeah it is hard to get photos of kids in asian countries without it looking really stereotypical...poor little happy kids...and they do tend to pose. Shoot and run sounds like an idea maybe I'll try it next time! :) thank u both for the critique and advice.

mmm...that was good coffee.

@Andy:
The first shot is another shot of a homeless guy... why not after all, I like some of them... sometimes...
However, the bike is a really obvious part of the image and I don't see what's interesting about the association between the bike and the guy and the floor. It doesn't add to the geometry of the shot either. In brief, I don't really "understand" the picture.

The second shot, I remember deleting it myself mainly because of the poor focus. I really don't mind hip shots and even quite like them but this one was too obvious in a way that the focus and the framing seem approximative for me.

Congrats on the A though... working on a sequel of "The Americans"? ;-)

Again, this was my opinion, for what it's worth... be aware that I never got any A in a photo class.

62lofu: ok i confess, it was me who deleted your shot. for what it's worth it took me a long to make up my mind - i actually like the shot. as migrant says, the composition is good, and it's technically good. but i still felt something was missing for this forum - hard to say what, but in the absence of obvious tension, the composition just wasn't quite strong enough to swing it for me. maybe it was because, outside of the fact that one person in uniform was shooting 2 others, there wasn't much more of interest. and i have to say that, if a shot needs completing with a title or explanation of the content / subject, then the shot's clearly not strong enough to tell its story in its own right, so i noticed that they were female soldiers, but in itself, that wasn't enough.

i do like the mood of the shot, and i've been happy to come across plenty of your other work when editing the stream.

Homeless, San Diego CA

Bullet eye-
For me there is a lot going on and nothing going on in this picture at the same time. To be a little brief and blunt at the same time you are to far away, shaky and the color is washed out. The two oo's in the upper right corner are distracting me from what your trying to photograph. I keep looking at that and not much else. Plus the person on the far left is obsolete. He keeps disapearing from my sight which for me means he should've been cropped out to begin with. Contrast wise it's a very flat image which makes it look smushy and two dimensional.

I think I see why you liked the scene though. A seemingly normal woman talking with a seemingly down on her luck woman. It could've made for an interesting and colorful photograph if you had actually gone over there to photograph them. Next time you see something like this you'll want to try and frame them tighter. You should try walking past them and as you do so raise your camera to you're eye, look at them and "snap". That would have eliminated so much of what is distracting in this picture.

Keep shooting and thanks for posting

The washout look is caused by the fact I took the pic. thru a window across the street from a small begal shop we were sitting in. The woman on the left was something else.

She has a doll baby in the cart an every once in a while she would take it out and rock it. Place the doll back into the cart, take out a paddle and spank herself on the right leg.

San Diego is a great town to visit.

Thanks for the help.

bullet eye,

The scene had tons of potential, but it's lost by technical problems (contrast), and not close enough. If you did it right, and filled the frame with the businesswoman's luggage contrasting the homeless person's luggage, it would have been a great shot.

I'm sure it was great to watch. The woman spanking herself sounds down right delightful.

As an amateur, I'd be glad for some feedback on why this photo was deleted from the group and how it might be improved.



Perhaps people who are not intimately familiar with Paris do not recognize the setting easily, but the fence surrounds the gardens of the French Senate and is immediately recognizable--as is the large-scale photo display, which was a national event in summer 2004 and documented the 60th anniversary of the French liberation during WWII and which etook plac amidst enormous protests over the visit of President Bush (because of Iraq). I am also reminded of my grandfather, who fought for Patton in France. There is, thus, a fair amount of symbolism and meaning captured for me and for others who might have lived or have relatives that lived through that era in history.

Thoughts on how to do better next time would be valuable.

Thanks.

@Clark:
I deleted the pic, so I'm gonna try to explain why.
First, it is not a matter of knowing the place or not, I'm from Paris and used to live in the 13eme.
I think this pic is good from a Photojournalism point of view but I don't really think it qualifies as street.
I don't really like to have to read a whole text explaining what the picture is about unless I am reading an article about this exhibition and your picture is illustrating it.

The composition isn't really exciting to me. It is just people looking at pictures on a fence, there is not "interaction" between those people and the pics.
I'm gonna give really bad examples but it would be better if the old man with the cane was looking at a picture of another old man with a cane or a very young guy jumping in the air (I know, bad examples, but I hope you get the idea). If he was, in some way, part of the picture.

I do think it is quite difficult to take good picture of people looking at pictures/art. Some do it very well though, Hinius has a few really good ones and again, Trent Park also.

Hope that helps. Again, I am just an arrogant self-taught photographer, so don't listen to me and keep shooting.

Oh! and @John gladdy:
For me, the post processing is too much and doesn't help me make sense of what's happening in the pic.

@john gladdy - kind of agree with migrant - the contrast is way out of control - there are blacks and whites but nothing inbetween, which is quite harsh on the eyes. it seems like more of a graphic or etching than a photograph.

Thanks guys . I almost took this critique seriously until i visited your pictures and realised that obviously this IS a joke thread.Cool.

@john_gladdy(AKa 47)

You got a bit cynical there, but you offered up the photo as it is, with no defense. Let me try to look at it objectively.
I think, there's a good picture in there somewhere. The oval form of the two men's shoulders has some good appeal. It has a nice fluidity to it, but the killer problem is that it looks too heavily processed.
Why have you kicked up the contrast so much?
Are you going for a look that you think fits the subject more? Kind of a bête noir 1940's feeling? If that's it, I'd say you strayed too far into resembling graphic arts of the period and less like photography from then.
I'd really like to see something closer to the original with this one - as I said, I think there's a good photo under there somewhere.

john_gladdy -

we're not trying to offend anyone here, just offering an opinion. take it which ever way you want, but the pointless sniping is fairly petty don't you think?

my point being that none of us here are claiming to be 'legends of photography' - just some people who are prepared to take the time to offer some friendly, and hopefully constructive advice, and create a community where people aren't scared to put their images up for critique and hopefully take on board advice and comments for the future. if you're going to take the critique badly, my only advice is to not post the image up for critique in the first place.

What Ben said.

I am happy to give my opinion if people ask for it but I never pretended that my opinion was the right one, far from that. It just is mine.
If you don't want to hear it, I really understand that because I'm not sure it is worth anything; but then don't post your pic here, please.

We just like to talk about pictures and street photography in this group. We think doing so could help everybody (and the admins first) take more interesting pics instead of just having a dead group full of laim images.
The idea of community and exchange is important in this group but we like to talk with people that don't get upset at the first critique.

Cheers and relax, it's just photos.
Raoul

You Guys are kinda right and i really shouldnt bait like that( note to self).
I apologise.
I guess i got on my horse because, to me, street, or any, photography is about interpreting a fleeting moment in as artistic a way as possible. And NOT about having a full tonal range mapped, or having the "correct" look about it and definately not about trying to emulate a particular style. every shot dictates its own treatment subjectively by the artist. Taking precise perfectly exposed images is , lets face it, a piece of piss. especially with todays equipment and while this is occasionally(reportage, etc..) adequate to convey the artists vision satisfactoriy, most times a treatment of some form suggests itself no? Also there is the problem of digital being WAY to clean. Stick a zeiss T series on a 5d, shoot at 50 asa and youll see what i mean. great great image quality/sharpness/colour fidelity blah blah......but..no soul/same as everyone elses pictures. The dudes of old sat in their little darkrooms for ever dodging and burning and god knows what else to get "The Look" that defined their vision. They also had 70 odd years of film stock development that gave them a massive choice of base look to start with. With digital we must post proccess the image or we cannot hope to achieve any stamp of originality in our work over and above the original composition.
: subject/available light/shooting position dictates framing
: framing/artists vision, feel dictates treatment
: treatment/printing, display media dictates finished pieces "look"
: hopefully that "look" gets somewhere near "ART"
Anyway
Jim: The reason it has so much contrast is that is how i felt it needed to be. The figure on the left has a slightly menacing vibe about him(you had to be there), but looks quite contemporary. The other dude Rides a 40's harley, dresses like an extra from some brando/cagney movie of old and sells designer 'retro wear' on portobello market.
So I felt a look that encompassed that whole vibe was the way to go.
The Full range from 0-255 is mapped onto this image, but i purposely then pushed the black levels about 15-20 and stuck 12% yellow into the white. It had a basic tri-x clone on it. A Bleach bypass and then some heavy grain added(all in the digital domain, obviously) Lightjetted up at 20x16 inches it looks KILLER. As it does on a barco or similar.
Once again sorry for the sniping.

I didn't like the post-processing because it felt like one of the fads I'm always seeing in young artists trying to cover fundamental deficiencies in their work, or a lack of effort.

it's a shame that my screen isn't fibre based.

anyway, i guess for me i just want to see some details in the shadows. i'd disagree with irees about a 'lack of effort' - it's pretty obvious to me that you do put a lot of effort in from the knowledge that you obviously have of the post processing.

i guess its simply a case of not quite fitting this groups 'type' - which really isn't worth getting upset about at all.

plenty of us still shoot film here - i personally shoot almost 100% film apart from (cringes) weddings! so i guess we try to achieve a lot of our light and dark dynamics 'in camera'. i generally tend to bin any shot that requires anymore than a basic retouch once i've scanned the negatives.

I didn't say he specifically showed a lack of effort; it's just what I tend to associate this kind of post-processing with.

Hey:)

I'm new here, so please be gentle with me! ;-) Here's one for you to rip to shreds:



Cheers,
Manny

Cool! its just as well that this overproccessed, non-film stuff sells for a grand a pop as i would have to either
a: do wedding photography(in which case i would take up plumbing)
or
B: lecture (those who cant etc..)
You admins all have VERY nice pictures(irees especially speak of lots and lots of fruitful college), but i think the deskjob comment in an earlier thread is valid. photography purely as a job of work is just another form of office work. learning techical excellence and the correct ways of doing something and then doing that instead of what you're meant to do with the information, which is to forget it and go do your own thing, breaking EVERY rule.
I'm glad you still shoot film, everyone who loves photography should
BUT; I have leica r6's contax's a blad and everything in between and NONE of them can best a good Digital SLR(we are talking eos5d d2x upwards here). It is only the lenses that are superior in some senses and adapters are available for all mine to fit.
Anyway...This is fun : ) Keep up the good work

mobybandy

- thats a good photo. it's got great emotion, and there is a wider story suggested that makes me want to know more.

however... for me it's not 'street photography' of the kind we would like to see in this group. it's more photojournalism or reportage. it feels like one image from a story that i'd like to see presented in 12 images. not sure what else to say really. i like it! but not in this groups pool! simple as that..

i'd be really grateful if this thread could return to being an image critique thread as opposed to what is slowly developing into a thinly disguised slanging match. if anyone wants to have a slanging match could they please start an 'i think you're a shit photographer thread'. knowing this group it'll probably be the most popular thread in months.

cheers

ben

Gosh John, I'd think you were trying to derail this thread. The "damning by faint praise" technique is pretty transparent. You don't have to proove anything to me. I'm doing what I love, do what you love.

Anyway. Let's get back on topic. It's been a week for me, so here's another one.

I've always liked this photo. It was taken in the airport; I've always wondered what this person was waiting for.



I don't care about any technical issues; it was taken with a mediocre camera, long before I was serious about photography. I'm just wondering "Is it street" :), and, do you like it? It hasn't been deleted from the pool because I haven't tried to add it yet.

@john_gladdy(AKa 47)
Give it a break, will you? The thread has CRITIQUE in the title.

Hey :)

Ben thanks for your comments. I wasn't sure if it was appropriate for this group so I took a chance! I came across this demonstration while out taking street pics with my C33 TLR so I took some photos of it. I guess you could say it's a case of street meets reportage, introduced by serendipity.
If you feel a deletion is in order I understand!

Manny

@irees

I think she was waiting for a 'buffalo soldier'.

but anyway - yeah i can see why you like this image. i like it too, just because it's a bit surreal. obviously you're well aware of where this image is lacking technically, however i think that the other thing that does hold this image back a little bit is the framing, which is a little bit obvious - slap bang in the middle for the main subject.

'is it street' - yeah why not?

would i delete it from the pool - if theres one thing that i think its good to be as an admin, then its consistent. because of that i think i would delete it. i've already said i find it hard to really love, and read further into an image, when the technical quality is poor, and i would have to apply that to this image. for me this image would be like a trinket or an item of nostalgia - it's fun, and you can look back at it and smile. as you said yourself, you took it long before you were serious about photography. be honest with yourself - how many of your images from 2-3 years ago would you place on a pedestal with what you are shooting now? its good to look back on old work and see progression, and also the roots of the photographer you are now; i'd treat this photograph as a point of reference. and thats about it.

cheers

ben

@mobybandy

try this group:
www.flickr.com/groups/35468135891@N01/

and this group:
www.flickr.com/groups/12504496@N00/

and this group:
www.flickr.com/groups/p-p/

cheers

ben

Hey,

Thanks for the suggestions Ben.

Manny

I thought this addition might stick in the group and was a bit surprised when it got booted (I shared some shots here a while ago, and have only just worked up the nerve to come back). I'd love to get a bit of constructive criticism on it.



I realize that straight portraits aren't well liked here, but felt that this was a bit more than that.

I'm pretty sure I had submited this to the group. Sometimes those late night photo fixings leave me disoreinted and sending pictures every which way. Anyways I keep finding myself looking back on my pictures and seeing flat and little deph. Havn't really been walking around lately mostly in the country driving around with my camera on my lap waiting for the sunset. What's relavent to all this is I need to harsh critique that would help me add what I know is missing. I read through the whole discussion and liked what was being thrown around. just looking for some help. thanks.

ditl,

What is interesting about the photo to you?

There are a bunch of ways to get depth in a picture. Wider lenses and perspective, or wider aperture, or getting closer, or better lighting, or higher contrast lenses (read: expensive). But usually just getting closer is the best way to give a photo more 3dimensionality. The farther away you are, the more compressed the perspective is: the more it looks flattened.

Just posted this to the group, imagine it will get deleted pretty soon..?

Any views on it?

@dce - good image, i like it, probably wouldn't have deleted it. however someone has so c'est la vie...

@dislocatedgerbil - it's a crop to square right? not a big fan of this, i kind of feel like people who do this should by a vintage TLR and just shoot square format. for what it's worth, you need to do more of a crop and get rid of those white vertical edges which just feel a bit weird.

apart from that it's an ok shot. i feel like i am saying this a bit too much, but it's another one of those images that is not that bad and not that great. don't take this as a major criticism. it would be asking for miracles for a photographer to produce masterpieces again, and again, and again. it's just not going to happen. if i look back on my last year of shooting, theres probably only 10-15 images (from hundreds) that still make me go 'yeah'. and thats just me. everyone else probably thinks they're bollocks.

if this was to land in the group i probably wouldn't delete it. the guy with the newspaper is pretty cool. but my one thought would be to try and make the most of the frame that your camera gives you to work with. this is a big crop. your camera shoots rectangles. try and utilise that whole frame. don't be lazy and rely on your zoom - make the difference by moving yourself.

I'm curious as to why this one got culled. I realize that two of the four people are seen from the back, but I was quite happy with this one. Certainly not one of my best, but not my worst either. Maybe another case of "not bad, but not great?"

In that case, any suggestions for making that scene a better shot?

"@dislocatedgerbil - it's a crop to square right? not a big fan of this, i kind of feel like people who do this should by a vintage TLR and just shoot square format. for what it's worth, you need to do more of a crop and get rid of those white vertical edges which just feel a bit weird."

I cannot afford a vintage TLR at the moment, and this is the first square crop I've done. As for the zoom issue, i took a few shots from about 4 - 5 feet away to the side( www.flickr.com/photos/dislocatedgerbil/184806108/ ), but they didnt turn out as well IMO. Instead, I stood directly across the street on the other pavement and shot at about 40mm on my 350D's kit 18-55 mm lens (hardly a big zoom). Standing closer would have made the guy with the paper notice me, and I probably wouldn't have got the shot.

All my other photos utilise the whole frame - I dont rely on cropping or post processing to get from a shot what i originally tried to, unless it's not possible at all. I just felt this photo suited the square format as there was a square frame already in the image, and there was nothing going on outside of it.

Thanks for all your comments, they are appreciated. If i came off as indignant there, it wasn't intended.

: )

Tatkyi village main street in Shan State (Burma). Nothing much happened there. After all, reducing stress and peaceful living. They look so healthy and so vibrant.

gustaf,

it's a great piece of photoethnography.. but it's sure to be contested here if it's "street." :)

Ok.....lemme have it....

Wow Sphinkter, I really like that photo a lot. I hope it was not deleted from this group. If so I would like to know the reasoning!

i have a massive hangover, and cannot face making any more critique right now. lets just say i woke up in an armchair. not good.

on that note, i will be away from t'interweb for the next four days so i'll try to catch up then. apologies to those who have not had any cirtique,

blleeurgh!

i find vitamin water mixed with black coffee and a hit of aleve does the trick in the morning....all together or separate...your preference i guess.

i have a massive hangover, and cannot face making any more critique right now. lets just say i woke up in an armchair. not good.

You think that's bad, I had to wake up to the sight of him waking up on that armchair...

Thanks shveckle...I don't think I posted it here. I posted some others that got deleted but that was before I realized the differerence between street portraiture and street photography...I think.

As for a hangover....take some advice from a diehard alcoholic and crack open a beer and force it down your throat. Once you get the first one down, you'll no longer be hungover. You can thank me later.

What about this collection of likable characters? Are these bad pictures or did they only get kicked because of the "street portrait issue"?





Thanks in advance for feedback!

Hey oceanhug,

Thanks for posting. I didn't remove the images, but there's really not much happening in them; I don't find the central point of interest to be strong enough and there's lots of extraneous background details that don't add to the image. Extraneous details can be good, but not in this way.

If it's any consolation, I think it's pretty damn hard to take good photos at a protest or rally. Most people just end up with lots of "blah" stuff. In my experience, the best stuff is always at the edges. That applies to lots of things other than protest photography :)

@marja:

I like it! It looks like that woman's about step in that grate! :)

Only problem: highlight corner is blown out.

Is it cropped?

Okay then, just discovered this group through a comment on this photo, so I have no idea if it'll stay the course, but I'd definitely love some critique. Carve away, people!

beat me up, I'm thick-skinned

Eduardo

briefly:

Marja - not bad, but i want the womans eyes to be open, and her to be a bit sharper. not keen on the overall composition - anything of interest is squeezed over to the left of the frame, leaving the right hand side devoid of any interest whatsoever.

Chadvw - this is band photography, not street photography.

mdumiao98 - seen this kind of shot done many times before. the perspective is interesting but really thats about it. the one thing that almost makes it work for me is that there is a guy to the left of the groom who is taking a photo back at you; however its not enough. it doesn't excite me.

lachlan - 'chest shot', is really, for me, little different to a hip shot. we all do them sometimes so no great shame in that, however if i think back to my own personal favourite street shots, aprroximately none of them are hip shots. the reality is that if you get a good composition out of a hip shot you are extremely lucky. the problem with this image is the huge expanse of blown out sky that dominates the right hand side of the frame. that, and its all just so static. the guy in the picture is fairly interesting, but mainly because i think he might be a robot. keep on shooting though, and lift that camera to your face. i'm also thinking you might need to be using a faster shutter speed as its pretty soft around the guys face, which is where you would definitely want some sharpness. as we have talked about elsehwere in this group, for us admins, street photography is as much about finding beautiful dynamics of shadow, light and texture as it is about the people in the photo. go find some amazing light; i lived in australia for 10 months and wish i could have the sydney light at my disposal! look at the trent parke thread on our discussion page for some inspiration on how you can shoot street photography in sydney.

eduardo - i like this photo, the light is great. try and find some more action though. also post a bigger size image onto your stream, as its pretty hard to judge a photo the size of a large stamp.

Thanks, Benny. I agree regards the 'chest shot'. I'm getting there gradually, but sometimes my nerve just fails me. At the moment I'm probably about 70% those versus 30% real shots when going for closeups of people in the street. I would never have believed it could be so hard!

Thanks for the rest of your comments, that is really helpful :)

Hi guys,

I took this photo on the (mean) streets of Rio, Brazil, hope it counts.

I've only recently got interested in photography, but am planning to photography my way around the world.



Any feedback would be graciously accepted..

Michael

undangerman,

I think that shot is really excellent. Probably the best in this thread so far. I have no real suggestions.

ummm... well...

yeah, nice shot, but honestly, no better or worse than about a million or so 'poor deprived third world children it's heart breaking' shots that you see everyday used by charities and newspapers etc.

in the same way as gustaf's photo earlier (as you critiqued yourself irees) it's ethnography. it's not street photography. sorry.

good shot but belongs in a different pool.

cheers irees.
bennybedlam, point taken. if i find anything more street i'll post.
many thanks for the feedback guys

I just joined to this group and added some street pics to my folder

I dunno, those kids look happy to me. Anyway, gustaf's had no real connection to our built environment, and it felt much more 'posed' and less a decisive capture than undangerman's. It was fine as ethnography, but it didn't speak to me as a photograph. What sets undangerman's apart, additionally, is the strength and variety of the expressions, which made it more than simply documentary.

Hey guys,

I think I had a photo taken out of the pool, but I'm not sure.
Would love some feedback on this pic though (just took it earlier today).



ps~ I'll wait for some opinions, see if it's 'pool' material.

After reading one of the above threads regarding the picture by undangerman i have come to the conclusion that BENNYBEDLAM is an asshole who wouldnt know a good picture if it bit him. Mr bedlam, not only do you have zero talent as a creative photographer, you also seem to have no idea about what photography, of any sort, is. The Picture posted by undangerman is a superb portrait with beautiful light and composition that would be a gem in ANY group he/she chose to post it to. The fact that you are so keen to criticise composition/technique without having any of either of these evident yourself, speaks volume.

I totally agree with Ben on his comment and I totally disagree with yours.

There is no place for comments like your last one that in this group, and that's why I won't say what I really would like to say here.

Please go open your big mouth and show your amazing talent somewhere else. It will save me some time as I won't have to delete your pictures from this pool anymore.
We don't like dealing with stupid people here. Not enough time. I'm really sorry.

You might want to be reminded of the existence of this:
www.flickr.com/groups/rejectedfromhcspwhining/