Cuban Street Photography

[Mike Buckley]

I generally don't like street photography compared to other genres and that's because I seem to have to wade through so much mediocre to bad photography to get to the rare really great images. I just now came upon a series of street photos that are consistently so good that they blow my mind; only one of them seems lacking to my eye and I don't remember ever thinking that about such a large collection of street photos.

See this.

[John 2]

There are some good street photographers Mike but I agree, much of the output that you see is mediocre to bad. Just because it's taken in the street isn't enough. More than any other genre, street photography needs a good seeing eye and very often, the ability to anticipate. In this respect, there are some stand out shots in the linked article. Well worth a look.

[Rob Ekins]

What! You can do great street photography in colour now, what's the world coming too....

Seriously though, type street photography into Google images and have a look at what comes up, maybe 5% of the images are colour..

[Shadowman]

No Lightbox attached but well worth the look.

[Dave Humphries]

Definitely worth a look, thanks Mike.

What! You can do great street photography in colour now, what's the world coming too....

Yeah, I know Rob, but at least they were shot with a 35mm lens
(well, all bar 3 apparently)

More than any other genre, street photography needs a good seeing eye and very often, the ability to anticipate. In this respect, there are some stand out shots in the linked article. Well worth a look.

Many of these are so good, the cynic in me thinks they can't possibly all be spontaneous - and apart from contrast enhancement, surely some had a PP crop.
That said, I'd love to be able to 'see' this well.

How he managed to concentrate while apparently on a Photowalk with friends is beyond me!

No Lightbox attached

There is a link to another place where they can be seen bigger (I also think there are a few more shots here too).

Cheers, Dave

[Shadowman]

Definitely worth a look, thanks Mike.



Yeah, I know Rob, but at least they were shot with a 35mm lens
(well, all bar 3 apparently)




Many of these are so good, the cynic in me thinks they can't possibly all be spontaneous - and apart from contrast enhancement, surely some had a PP crop.
That said, I'd love to be able to 'see' this well.

How he managed to concentrate while apparently on a Photowalk with friends is beyond me!




There is a link to another place where they can be seen bigger (I also think there are a few more shots here too).

Cheers, Dave

Thanks Dave,

That link really helps.

[Mike Buckley]

I agree, much of the [street] output that you see is mediocre to bad. Just because it's taken in the street isn't enough.

It seems to me that for so many people that actually does seem to be enough. As an example, I remember years ago criticizing a street photo (not here at CiC) that a lamp pole was "growing" out of the subject's head. All the street photographers criticized me for providing that kind of critique, explaining that there is only so much control one has when doing street photography. I responded by explaining that they wouldn't allow the excuse that the light was bad in a landscape photo when we can't control the quality of light, so we shouldn't allow excuses for street photography that we don't allow when reviewing other genres of photography. My comment fell on deaf ears.

[Mike Buckley]

What! You can do great street photography in colour now, what's the world coming too....

Indeed, it's so refreshing that so many of the images used colour to such great advantage.

[Inkanyezi]

How he managed to concentrate while apparently on a Photowalk with friends is beyond me!

Perhaps so, but after umpteen travels to Cuba since the year 2000, marrying there but returning with my wife several times and now planning to move there permanently, I fully understand that this can indeed be done on a photowalk; but it takes an eye for it and interest in creating such photography.

[Mike Buckley]

Nothing in the article explains that he did the photography while on photo walks with his friends, though nothing explains that the photography was not done that way. The article only mentions that he "traveled" to Cuba with his friends and that he did some non-photography stuff with them.

[RBSinTo]

It seems to me that for so many people that actually does seem to be enough. As an example, I remember years ago criticizing a street photo (not here at CiC) that a lamp pole was "growing" out of the subject's head. All the street photographers criticized me for providing that kind of critique, explaining that there is only so much control one has when doing street photography. I responded by explaining that they wouldn't allow the excuse that the light was bad in a landscape photo when we can't control the quality of light, so we shouldn't allow excuses for street photography that we don't allow when reviewing other genres of photography. My comment fell on deaf ears.

Mike,
I completely agree with you that there should be more to street photography than just being shot on the street.
However, I do think that in order to be constructively critical of this genre, one does have to expand their thinking.
So forgive me please if I am stating the obvious, but the added parameter with street/PJ that one doesn't have to contend with in many other photo genres is the element of time-sensitivity. I agree that one should not be excused for shooting landscapes in poor light, because the landscape will be there tomorrow or whenever, when the light is better, so the photographer should have arranged to return when it was.
But one often doesn't have that luxury when doing street or PJ. That particular composition or arrangement of persons or circumstance if not captured at the instant it occurs will likely be gone forever. And if the conditions or failings in the composition because of circumstances beyond the control of the photographer are less than ideal, I believe telling the story trumps these problems. This doesn't hold true in every single circumstance, and there are occasions when there is time to better compose or even come back another time when the conditions are better. But to ignore the reality of these genres with their additional challenges and simply judge them based on the same parameters one assigns to less time-sensitive photography types, is in my opinion shortsighted.
Robert

[Mike Buckley]

I understand the points you made, Robert. However, I believe they apply only to the decision about whether to capture the photo. Once we get to the point of deciding the quality of the photo that has been made, we shouldn't make concessions just because one genre is more more difficult to make regardless of the reason.

In summary, a great photo is a great photo and a mediocre photo is a mediocre photo regardless of the genre. Once we start thinking otherwise, we start down that slippery slope of saying things like, "Well, it was the best I could do at the time because I didn't have my flash unit with me." The photo that would have been great if it had been made with a flash unit is still mediocre even if it was the best possible photo to be made without a flash.

[RBSinTo]

I understand the points you made, Robert. However, I believe they apply only to the decision about whether to capture the photo. Once we get to the point of deciding the quality of the photo that has been made, we shouldn't make concessions just because one genre is more more difficult to make regardless of the reason.

In summary, a great photo is a great photo and a mediocre photo is a mediocre photo regardless of the genre. Once we start thinking otherwise, we start down that slippery slope of saying things like, "Well, it was the best I could do at the time because I didn't have my flash unit with me." The photo that would have been great if it had been made with a flash unit is still mediocre even if it was the best possible photo to be made without a flash.

Nicely gift-wrapped, but I think you must define "great" for this to be true.

[Mike Buckley]

I think you must define "great" for this to be true.

Agreed. Fortunately, each of us gets to determine that definition for ourselves.

[RBSinTo]

Agreed. Fortunately, each of us gets to determine that definition for ourselves.

Which takes us full circle back to your assertion that you comments fell on deaf ears.

[Mike Buckley]

Which takes us full circle back to your assertion that you comments fell on deaf ears.

I disagree. The reason my comments fell on deaf ears is because the others felt that when determining the quality of street photos, they also felt the standard should be lower because of the difficulty of the genre; they're definition of great for one genre is different than for another genre, whereas I think the same definition, whatever it is and whoever decides it, should be applied to all genres.

[Mike Buckley]

By the way, great discussion, Robert. Thanks for participating!

[Manfred M]

Thanks for posting this Mike.

Unfortunately, I suspect that as Cuba opens up, these types of photographs are going to become a lot harder to do. I read yesterday that US airlines are planning around 110 flights a day into Havana, and while I have not been to that airport (I jave been to others in Cuba), two luggage belts and limited processing capabilities by Immigration and Customs officials are going to make that even more challenging. I wonder how long those quaint buildings will last when international hotels jump in to buy / lease prime property and those old cars are bought up by American collectors.

I had looked at getting down to Havana a few times over the past three or four years, but things always seemed to get in the way, so I suspect I may have missed my chance.

It's nice to see that the photographer was shooting in colour (I sometimes feel I am just about the only one I know that consistently does street photography in colour). Two weeks of heavy shooting every day certainly gave the photographer a really chance to scout the locations and get in some decent shooting with some pretty nice shots.