Is this "street photography"?

[IzzieK]

I agree, the human element is obvious whether he/she is present in the scene or not. I know that not all hold this opinion, but for me that's OK and part of what makes SP so interesting.

The important thing, Izzie, is to get out and shoot. Call it whatever you want; just have fun.

Sergio

Why thank you, Sergio...it is always nice to read your comments, here and on others' posts -- you seem to have an amiable personality and always find a way to see the nicest things to say. I appreciate it very much as you see...

[IzzieK]

FWIW Izzie, that particular snowfall is what we have now and...it's the most we've had all season.

If not for the processing it will not have looked as bad, William...I think I made it look like it was sort of a mini blizzard..though it was one of those normal snow falling I have witnessed many times around here. I was once out in the January 2003 snow storm and it was great fun I thought at the time...I am only 5'feet all and the wind was stronger than I am but I did not blow away...there are worst. And on the plane to Grand Rapid, it was in Michigan I saw the most beautiful snow scenes in the whole wide world. It was sight to behold. And I thanked God for those memories that I will never see again this lifetime because I am NOT going to go to Michigan again in winter. Period.

[Shadowman]

Why, is your truck/car/automobile parked outside the house? Thanks John...I am just wondering about the kind I submitted here if it follows a genre of anything but environment shot. Actually my folder is titled "Snow" and then the month and year.

I once posted some images of graffiti marked buildings, the artist wasn't physically there; the police probably would have used the image as evidence had he or she been there. I would still consider the capture of the artwork as street photography, the key to SP is that you the photographer are out on the street.

[IzzieK]

If you're taking a vote on definitions - my vote is: No, neither is, mainly because of lack of Human content - arguably the second has a driver of the car camera left, but that content is not a major Subject and the human does not have even a minor impact on the image.

*



The second one is quite interesting. If you want a genre then "Cityscape" or as a subset of "Landscape", then "Landscape"

Maybe consider making it bleaker and more high key. Have a play with cropping. The tree, though a nice "frame" and it is often good for a Landscape to have a nice foreground frame - but in this bleak Urban scene the tree is kind of a distraction to my eye.

I like that 1/60th second Shutter Speed captures the snow falling - but the car's movement in a blur is a little off putting - not too much though - not sure about the car adding any relevance - maybe you should have waited until it passed through the intersection.

Here is a rough of what I see -



Cropped 15:7
Selective and various slight de-saturations of: green; yellow; red; and blue
Slight increase to highlights
Move grey point to make higher key, overall

WW

Aw this is the first time I will have to disagree with you...I shot that scene with the tree because I thought it was nicely framing the street in that kind of condition. I have moved the High Key slider a little too far I supposed so I moved it back a little just to show there are elements in the scene and it included the strength of the condition of the snow falling. The car, I just saw it coming in so I clicked my button and you know how the shutter lag is with a small P&S is not to my liking really but it is what I have. I only have shot each of the two shots I uploaded here...and I like the tire marks on the foreground showing how the snow is not really as bad, just not even an inch of it if the cars can go that much crisscrossing. The street signs, the pharmacy sign, the stop signs, I love them all but I want to show all of that without making the look of the scenery worst than it was. I guess it boils down to what I saw in this scene and what I like in it and why I took the shot. It was fun -- as Sergio said. Donald asked me once in one of my shots -- How did you like it? -- This is one occasion that I like what I saw and processed it the way I want. In the meantime, I do not think that the white scenery doesn't fit the white frame? Too many whites already in the picture.

Thank you for your input. I do appreciate your taking the time to comment and your suggestions are well taken. I will think about it again.

[IzzieK]

I once posted some images of graffiti marked buildings, the artist wasn't physically there; the police probably would have used the image as evidence had he or she been there. I would still consider the capture of the artwork as street photography, the key to SP is that you the photographer are out on the street.

But I wasn't. I was inside the car.... OK...I got what you mean...just bugging you...Thanks again. You always know I value your opinion and after reading all the responses here, I agree with you.

[William W]

Aw this is the first time I will have to disagree with you...I shot that scene with the tree because I thought it was nicely framing the street in that kind of condition. . .

That's good.

. . . I will think about it again.

Thinking about it is good: but do not necessarily change your mind.

WW

[pnodrog]

Aw this is the first time I will have to disagree with you...I shot that scene with the tree because I thought it was nicely framing the street in that kind of condition. I have moved the High Key slider a little too far I supposed so I moved it back a little just to show there are elements in the scene and it included the strength of the condition of the snow falling. The car, I just saw it coming in so I clicked my button and you know how the shutter lag is with a small P&S is not to my liking really but it is what I have. I only have shot each of the two shots I uploaded here...and I like the tire marks on the foreground showing how the snow is not really as bad, just not even an inch of it if the cars can go that much crisscrossing. The street signs, the pharmacy sign, the stop signs, I love them all but I want to show all of that without making the look of the scenery worst than it was. I guess it boils down to what I saw in this scene and what I like in it and why I took the shot. It was fun -- as Sergio said. Donald asked me once in one of my shots -- How did you like it? -- This is one occasion that I like what I saw and processed it the way I want. In the meantime, I do not think that the white scenery doesn't fit the white frame? Too many whites already in the picture.

Thank you for your input. I do appreciate your taking the time to comment and your suggestions are well taken. I will think about it again.

One of the most difficult skills a photographer has to learn is to assess their own photographs totally objectively and almost without reference to the original intent.

Will it work for a viewer that is looking at it for the first time?
What will it convey to them?
Are there any unnecessary or distracting elements that should be removed?

I prefer the simplicity of Bills crop. If the tree was to be an important framing element its trunk either needed to be included fully or its entry into the frame thought out very carefully.

Great that you are out taking photographs in those conditions.

[William W]

One of the most difficult skills a photographer has to learn is to assess their own photographs totally objectively and almost without reference to the original intent.

Sage.

WW

[Donald]

One of the most difficult skills a photographer has to learn is to assess their own photographs totally objectively and almost without reference to the original intent.

Is that possible? I fully accept the validity of the point being made.

Objectively - Yes. But I find it, I think, impossible to wipe the original intent from my mind and assess without reference to that.

[Sergio M.]

Is that possible? I fully accept the validity of the point being made.

Objectively - Yes. But I find it, I think, impossible to wipe the original intent from my mind and assess without reference to that.

In addition to what Donald has said, anyone examining any piece of art is bringing their entire life experience and history into that assessment. I don't believe it can be totally free of subjectivity.

Sergio

[pnodrog]

Is that possible? I fully accept the validity of the point being made.

Objectively - Yes. But I find it, I think, impossible to wipe the original intent from my mind and assess without reference to that.

Yeah is clumsily put. It may still be a good photograph but not convey the original intent and the photographer should be aware and either accept that it has happened or crop/adjust so the intent is restored (or discard). Sometimes when you are reviewing photographs you have taken in the past you will spot a photograph you discarded at the time because it did not convey what you had in mind (original intent) but you realise it has far more potential than you recognised at the time.

The real key is trying to be objective when viewing your own photographs. I have been intrigued at some contributors to this site making very valid observations about other's photographs then committing the same errors with their own.

P.S. To be fair to me do realise I wrote "ALMOST without reference to original intent"....

[William W]

. . . I wrote "ALMOST without reference to original intent".

My comment was about Paul's original and taken literally: i.e. the "almost" is to have meaning.

To Donald: yes I think, it is possible. I think it is also sometimes quite necessary especially in the case Paul has explained. Even if we start with a clear vision of the Final Image and we make the Photograph with that vision in mind I think that it often bodes well to re-think that vision of the final image.

To Sergio: I disagree, not everyone and not always all their entire life experience. I'd agree that most (many?) people when examining Art bring to a greater or lesser extent a certain amount of Subjectivity - but that's the point - training to be able to bring as little Subjectivity as possible is quite useful. A 'blank mind' re-examination one's work is a good thing and useful to the creative process.

I do the exercise often with students - they meditate, clear their mind and then look at one of their final image for only a second or two. It's useful. The idea is to look at the image in as fresh and virgin a look as possible. The more the exercise is done (with different images) the fresher the new approach is and the less 'history' is carried forward.

WW

[pnodrog]

There is no need to be objective or ignore original intent when viewing your own photographs for your own reference or pleasure.

It is when you are assessing them prior to sharing them with others that you have to make make an objective judgment of the photograph's weakness's and strengths then amend the image so it can be appreciated by a wider and more varied audience.

[William W]

. . . It is when you are assessing them prior to sharing them with others that you have to make make an objective judgment of the photographs weakness's and strengths then amend the image so it can be appreciated by a wider and more varied audience. . . .

it can be very important when sales and happy customers are part of the mix.

I note a quite lot of (forum) talk about W&P P'togs must have their 'own style' and one must 'develop a unique style' and never 'compromise your style' . . . I have never been sure about that being the best business practice.

An Architect who takes into consideration his Clients' likes and dislikes and their general artistic tastes probably designs more houses, makes more money and, as a result of forcing herself to adapt to a boarder range of styles, could just be more creative, too.

WW

[Manfred M]

Bill and Paul have made some excellent points. I suspect that all of us probably have less issues when we look for strengths and weaknesses in others work than our own. I can guarantee that this is not unique to photography (or art), but encompasses any other process that requires analytical skill, creativity or technical expertise. I can spend a couple of days painting a room in the house, give it a thorough once over for any issues and think I've done a great job, when my wife will walk in and say "you missed a spot and it's right over there".

I suspect it comes about through what I would look at familiarity with the product. In photography we scouted the subject, set up the equipment, scrutinized the setup, taken the picture, post-processed it and are then ready to show people. We have become so intimately close to it that we no longer see the "big picture", but someone who has just walked in can see the good (and the less good).

This is a technique I try with my own work. I'll leave the image up on the computer screen and will walk away for 10 or 20 minutes. When I come back I'll look at it and will try to look at what strikes me at first glance. I will fix that issue and repeat. Sometimes I can get things done right away, but at other times, it can take me hours or even days to complete my analysis and repairs. Every so often I will go back to an image I too years ago to rework it.

I've always felt that being the harshest critic of my own work would lead to me becoming a better photographer. I think this is finally starting to work.

[William W]

. . . I'll leave the image up on the computer screen and will walk away for 10 or 20 minutes. When I come back I'll look at it and will try to look at what strikes me at first glance. I will fix that issue and repeat. . .

Yes, Manfred - that's akin to what I was trying to describe - you described/emphasized the key ingredient better - the "First Glance" routine.

I have found that it works a treat for most people.

I think that you substitute 'meditation' by doing something else for 10 or 20 minutes - thus clearing your mind of the image and the processes that you took to make it.

Whatever mechanism works to clear the mind is OK - its the (new) "First Glance" which is the key to the "seeing it fresh".

WW

[Manfred M]

Yes, Manfred - that's akin to what I was trying to describe - you described/emphasized the key ingredient better - the "First Glance" routine.

I have found that it works a treat for most people.

I think that you substitute 'meditation' by doing something else for 10 or 20 minutes - thus clearing your mind of the image and the processes that you took to make it.

Whatever mechanism works to clear the mind is OK - its the (new) "First Glance" which is the key to the "seeing it fresh".

WW

Bill - as I said before, this is a common problem when people try to do creative work. At work, we used to say that someone who couldn't solve design problems was probably not busy enough, and of course, we were only half joking.

The old designers / engineer's trick was when you get stuck, go work on something else. That would get other things done and somehow or other, through either the subconscious mind working on in the background, or discussing the issue with colleagues, solutions would appear. Another trick would be to have a fresh set of (expert) eyes look at the problem and look at possible approaches to solving it. Kind of like posting an image on this site.

The whole purpose of working on the first thing that you see is that you are looking at the image with a fresh set of eyes, just as a total stranger would and would be noticing the same thing he or she would. The moment you start remembering the details, you might as well walk away again, because you are looking at it from the wrong perspective.