Footprints

[RBSinTo]

These are the steps to a store on Dundas Street in the heart of the original Chinatown district here in Toronto. Someone had put two sets of adhesive stickers of footprints on the stair risers, and every time I'd pass this premises, I'd think wouldn't it be a great photo if only.....
On this particular day to my amazement there was a barefoot, homeless person sleeping at the top of the stairs directly at the end of the line of footprints.
As well there was another man in the scene reading a newspaper which I felt added a touch of Urban Life to the scene. Luckily I was carrying a camera with a wide lens set to hyperfocus, and so was able to get the shot without looking through the finder, and so didn't disturb either of the subjects. As an aside, this store is just a few doors away from where my Father had his first business and where my parents lived above that store when I was born.
Nikon SP rangefinder
Cosina Voigtlander 25mm f4 in Nikon S mount, manual focus
Fuji 100 ISO colour slide
5.6 @ 1/125th

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Robert,

I have to admit I didn't notice the person at the top of the stairs until I read your post

Apart from the footprints, the guy down the bottom overwhelms the composition - and after him, there are plenty of other distractions to tempt the viewer's eye; the red bordered banner on the right, several bits of bright litter on the steps plus the sky and building in the distant background - although granted that by the time my eyes were up there, I spotted the gold belt, then the (real) feet.

If you shot digital, I'd suggest cloning out (at least) the litter, but as you shoot film, I hesitate to suggest that - where do you stand on Post Processing like that?

[RBSinTo]

Hi Robert,

I have to admit I didn't notice the person at the top of the stairs until I read your post

Apart from the footprints, the guy down the bottom overwhelms the composition - and after him, there are plenty of other distractions to tempt the viewer's eye; the red bordered banner on the right, several bits of bright litter on the steps plus the sky and building in the distant background - although granted that by the time my eyes were up there, I spotted the gold belt, then the (real) feet.

If you shot digital, I'd suggest cloning out (at least) the litter, but as you shoot film, I hesitate to suggest that - where do you stand on Post Processing like that?

David,
Thanks for the comments.
I'm truly surprised that your eye didn't follow the leading line right up to the homeless fellow. I suppose he's so obvious to me bercause the circumstance made such an impression on me when it finally materialzed.
The scene is as I found it, with the person in the foreground sitting and reading. As with many candid street shots, I don't often get chances for "do-overs" if the conditions aren't exactly to my liking, so I take them when they present themselves. Who knows how long the "sleeper" would have remained there, especially if I asked the reader to leave and then take the time to police the area of trash. Also, there is a messiness to this particular area of the downtown, which is reflected in the bits of trash on the stairs.
As I mentioned in my little narrative, I rather like the fellow in the foreground, as this is the reality of the scene.
No I don't shoot Digital, but I must convert my slides to Digital in order to post them, so I could clone out this or that if I felt it impacted on the scene.
Sometimes I do and other times I don't just depending on the circumstances or my mood after I've scanned and am getting a picture ready to save.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Robert,

The scene is as I found it, with the person in the foreground sitting and reading. As with many candid street shots, I don't often get chances for "do-overs" if the conditions aren't exactly to my liking, so I take them when they present themselves. Who knows how long the "sleeper" would have remained there, especially if I asked the reader to leave and then take the time to police the area of trash.

the guy down the bottom overwhelms the composition

Perhaps "overwhelms" was the wrong word for me to use, "dominates" might have been better and even then - I don't mean in a bad way that he shouldn't be there. Just that I didn't see the second example of human interest.

I accept the essence of 'street', but as you might already guess, it is not a genre I try very often.

[Manfred M]

I wonder if the scanning process is causing some issues here.

The last few images that you have posted look soft (i.e. focus), have a significant magenta cast to them and seem a bit flat.

[RBSinTo]

I wonder if the scanning process is causing some issues here.

The last few images that you have posted look soft (i.e. focus), have a significant magenta cast to them and seem a bit flat.

You are right!
I checked the original in my computer and it is sharper than the one I have at my hosting site (which is where the shot posted here comes from) although I have no idea why. it is possible I either re-scanned it or did additional work on it after I posted it at my hosting site. I also adjusted the colour balance and attempted to re-post it at my hosting site. When they make the change (long story-you don't want to know) I'll re-post it. I don't think I can post here directly from my computer so I have to do it this way.
Thanks.
One of my biggest problems is my reluctance to sit at a computer for long periods to do post-processing. While some of my Digi-buds love this aspect of the process, I really don't and I guess it shows in some of the shots I post.

[Manfred M]

One of my biggest problems is my reluctance to sit at a computer for long periods to do post-processing.

Written like a true photographer. In the old film days in Toronto, a good shot would go off to the experts at Silvano's and they would do their magic. I understand (sadly) that they shut down back in 2012; a family business where the family did not want to carry on the parent's business (in this case, I suspect the business started by the grandparents).

I guess I'm a bit different as I spent as much time in the wet darkroom as I did out shooting, back when I first got into photography, so while I enjoy shooting, I find I can do things in the digital darkroom that I could not have even dreamed about 30 or 40 years ago,

[Hallen]

The composition on this will be difficult. I think that's one of the major challenges of street photography. It is what it is. I think that if you could pump up the exposure a bit, if possible, it could help. It's showing up more than dark on my computer. The gold belt you can see. It's much more difficult to see the sleeping "fellow" (maybe it's a gal?).

I like the idea that I see here of the utter indifference of the reader to the sleeper. The sleeper is just part of the city like the advertising and the junk. It may have been interesting to capture more of that ad. It's a nice contrast to the harsher realities of the shot. The foot prints are just one of those goofy things that people do in. It adds to the overall character of the scene and the bright color contrasts well with the rest of the stuff and the overall mood of the shot.

[RBSinTo]

Written like a true photographer. In the old film days in Toronto, a good shot would go off to the experts at Silvano's and they would do their magic. I understand (sadly) that they shut down back in 2012; a family business where the family did not want to carry on the parent's business (in this case, I suspect the business started by the grandparents).

I guess I'm a bit different as I spent as much time in the wet darkroom as I did out shooting, back when I first got into photography, so while I enjoy shooting, I find I can do things in the digital darkroom that I could not have even dreamed about 30 or 40 years ago,

Manfred,
I shoot virtually nothing but colour slide (except on those rare occasions when I've done paid work for others), and have never had any prints made from my personal stuff (much to the dismay of my wife who would like a few of my non-street photos printed and framed), so I only know Silvano by reputation, and not from any personal experience. But I do remember hearing how professional their photo services were.
As for the Digital Darkroom business, it really holds very little interest for me.
First, being the confirmed Luddite that I am, I simply haven't got the patience to sit in front of a computer for hours to play in Photoshop. In fact, for reasons I really don't understand, photography for me is more about the act of shooting than the final result.
If I've taken what I consider to be a good photo, it is enough that I took it and that it is trapped in the camera. Much of the time my slides sit unviewed for the longest time. and when I do finally view them it can easily be months or even years before I do a serious cull through them and scan the ones I want to show on the internet. Currently I have about 30 or 40 boxes of slides to go through, sort and scan. Why? I have no idea.
Second, I don't think that street photos need all that much playing around anyway.
And third, when I hear the other members in my Evaluation Group going on about the changes they suggest be made in the work of others, that are so minor and picky, I realize that often the Digivolk make these suggestions to change this or that simply because the technology exists to do so, and not even because they are necessary.
" I Lightroom, therefore I am"
Truthfully, I really don't even like the look of Digital Photography, as it has a hyper-realistic look to it that I find artificial, and reminds me of the hyper-realistic paintings of Ken Danby or Alex Colville. Too perfect for my taste.
I don't know if this helps explain my feelings on all this, but it's the best I can do.

[Marie Hass]

To me, comparing film to digital in terms of looks is like comparing figs to okra. Not possible. I have many family slides to go through and I am impressed by the differences of results based on the type of film used.

Thank you for posting.

Marie

[Manfred M]

Manfred,
I shoot virtually nothing but colour slide (except on those rare occasions when I've done paid work for others), and have never had any prints made from my personal stuff (much to the dismay of my wife who would like a few of my non-street photos printed and framed), so I only know Silvano by reputation, and not from any personal experience. But I do remember hearing how professional their photo services were.
As for the Digital Darkroom business, it really holds very little interest for me.
First, being the confirmed Luddite that I am, I simply haven't got the patience to sit in front of a computer for hours to play in Photoshop. In fact, for reasons I really don't understand, photography for me is more about the act of shooting than the final result.
If I've taken what I consider to be a good photo, it is enough that I took it and that it is trapped in the camera. Much of the time my slides sit unviewed for the longest time. and when I do finally view them it can easily be months or even years before I do a serious cull through them and scan the ones I want to show on the internet. Currently I have about 30 or 40 boxes of slides to go through, sort and scan. Why? I have no idea.
Second, I don't think that street photos need all that much playing around anyway.
And third, when I hear the other members in my Evaluation Group going on about the changes they suggest be made in the work of others, that are so minor and picky, I realize that often the Digivolk make these suggestions to change this or that simply because the technology exists to do so, and not even because they are necessary.
" I Lightroom, therefore I am"
Truthfully, I really don't even like the look of Digital Photography, as it has a hyper-realistic look to it that I find artificial, and reminds me of the hyper-realistic paintings of Ken Danby or Alex Colville. Too perfect for my taste.
I don't know if this helps explain my feelings on all this, but it's the best I can do.

All I can say is that we have diametrically opposed views on photography. I am someone who has always looked at the end result as important, and actually taking the picture is just part of the process; albeit a very important step. For me, the image straight out of the camera, whether it is a negative, a transparency or a digital file is just the raw material that still needs to be crafted into an image.

In my experience, the only time I get images that i don't need to tweak are when I shoot in a studio. There I can control things to the point where my SOOC jpegs don't need any more work.

[RBSinTo]

All I can say is that we have diametrically opposed views on photography. I am someone who has always looked at the end result as important, and actually taking the picture is just part of the process; albeit a very important step. For me, the image straight out of the camera, whether it is a negative, a transparency or a digital file is just the raw material that still needs to be crafted into an image.

In my experience, the only time I get images that i don't need to tweak are when I shoot in a studio. There I can control things to the point where my SOOC jpegs don't need any more work.

I don't consider myself to be an artist who creates works of beauty, but rather someone who documents situations, so I don't "craft" pictures, as you do. You, as most photographers have, embrace and celebrate the Digital World while I dispise it.
Again, lets just agree to disagree.

[John 2]

Robert, I think I would have to be with Manfred on this. I suppose many photographers will aspire to a degree artistry and creating works of beauty but even where this is not the case, isn't there also an element of wanting to show work that someone has taken the trouble to produce, in its best light particularly when it is offered for public consumption? I don't personally see that as anything to do with digital Vs. film. I spent as much time in a wet darkroom masking, dodging, burning and selecting the right paper for contrast as I do today on a computer. Even colour slides were masked for best effect. It's just that technology has made the job easier and faster. Something technological progress has been doing since Henry Fox Talbot first exposed his sensitised paper by removing the lens cap. And, please don't see this a criticism Robert (never start a sentence with "and" ). Every one enjoys this hobby in the way that suits them best and I respect that. It's just a point of view I felt worth adding.

[RBSinTo]

Robert, I think I would have to be with Manfred on this. I suppose many photographers will aspire to a degree artistry and creating works of beauty but even where this is not the case, isn't there also an element of wanting to show work that someone has taken the trouble to produce, in its best light particularly when it is offered for public consumption? I don't personally see that as anything to do with digital Vs. film. I spent as much time in a wet darkroom masking, dodging, burning and selecting the right paper for contrast as I do today on a computer. Even colour slides were masked for best effect. It's just that technology has made the job easier and faster. Something technological progress has been doing since Henry Fox Talbot first exposed his sensitised paper by removing the lens cap. And, please don't see this a criticism Robert (never start a sentence with "and" ). Every one enjoys this hobby in the way that suits them best and I respect that. It's just a point of view I felt worth adding.

John,
And I'm glad you did.
(Sorry. I just couldn't help myself.)
Truly, I wish there was a way to by-pass the entire Digital business and somehow show the slides directly.
Alas, there isn't.
Robert

[Manfred M]

I don't consider myself to be an artist who creates works of beauty, but rather someone who documents situations, so I don't "craft" pictures, as you do. You, as most photographers have, embrace and celebrate the Digital World while I dispise it.
Again, lets just agree to disagree.

I definitely do not consider myself to be an artist, but rather a decent technician that can create a decent image whether it is in the traditional "wet" darkroom or in the so called "digital darkroom". I think last year (2014) is the first year that I did not shoot any film; although I must admit my use of film went down when Kodak stopped selling and processing Kodachrome film.

My favourite output has always been the print. I started shooting slide film quite seriously when Cibachrome (later Ilfochrome) came out and I was able to get those rich tones and colours that product was so well known for. I was never one who enjoyed shooting slides for the sake of the medium as there was simply too much hassle in hauling out the projector to see the slides. What shooting slides taught me was proper composition and framing; there is no darkroom technique that can readily let on correct poorly executed slides.

I was always someone who burned and dodge my images and added a vignette using an enlarger. Those continue to be my most commonly applied digital darkroom techniques as well. Yes, I can go a lot farther with digital; and sometimes I do.

Do I miss shooting film; well yes and no. I miss the varying characteristics of the different films; how each different film had significantly different characteristics; whether B&W, colour slide and colour negative. I miss the things I could do with the grain. What I don't miss are the limitations of film; their relatively low speed, high price, the smell of the darkroom (or having to wait for days to get things back from the lab), the sensitivity to damage (especially when wet).

Do I love or hate digital? No, no more than I love or hate film. I like any tool that lets me take decent pictures. The nice thing about digital is that I can go from anything that I like; from those Danville and Corville images you so dislike to film looks via plugins like DxO Labs FilmPack. I find that this technique seems to work better than scanning slides or negatives for that film look; somehow I find that scanning seems to lose something.

When it comes to attention to detail; in my case, it seems to be due to my nature and education / work background. Engineers are trained and paid to pay attention to detail. My professional experience suggests when in doubt, a bit more attention to detail usually works out better than staying on the side of "good enough". Ethically (and legally) it is important to be able to stand in front of a third party (judge, jury or arbitrator) and state that "we exceeded all relevant requirement and regulations".

As for your not looking at your work; that seems to be a particular quirk that some street photographers seem to have. I'm thinking of Garry Winogrand or Vivian Maier, with their thousands of unprocessed and unproofed images. You are in fine company there.

[RBSinTo]

I definitely do not consider myself to be an artist, but rather a decent technician that can create a decent image whether it is in the traditional "wet" darkroom or in the so called "digital darkroom". I think last year (2014) is the first year that I did not shoot any film; although I must admit my use of film went down when Kodak stopped selling and processing Kodachrome film.

My favourite output has always been the print. I started shooting slide film quite seriously when Cibachrome (later Ilfochrome) came out and I was able to get those rich tones and colours that product was so well known for. I was never one who enjoyed shooting slides for the sake of the medium as there was simply too much hassle in hauling out the projector to see the slides. What shooting slides taught me was proper composition and framing; there is no darkroom technique that can readily let on correct poorly executed slides.

I was always someone who burned and dodge my images and added a vignette using an enlarger. Those continue to be my most commonly applied digital darkroom techniques as well. Yes, I can go a lot farther with digital; and sometimes I do.

Do I miss shooting film; well yes and no. I miss the varying characteristics of the different films; how each different film had significantly different characteristics; whether B&W, colour slide and colour negative. I miss the things I could do with the grain. What I don't miss are the limitations of film; their relatively low speed, high price, the smell of the darkroom (or having to wait for days to get things back from the lab), the sensitivity to damage (especially when wet).

Do I love or hate digital? No, no more than I love or hate film. I like any tool that lets me take decent pictures. The nice thing about digital is that I can go from anything that I like; from those Danville and Corville images you so dislike to film looks via plugins like DxO Labs FilmPack. I find that this technique seems to work better than scanning slides or negatives for that film look; somehow I find that scanning seems to lose something.

When it comes to attention to detail; in my case, it seems to be due to my nature and education / work background. Engineers are trained and paid to pay attention to detail. My professional experience suggests when in doubt, a bit more attention to detail usually works out better than staying on the side of "good enough". Ethically (and legally) it is important to be able to stand in front of a third party (judge, jury or arbitrator) and state that "we exceeded all relevant requirement and regulations".

As for your not looking at your work; that seems to be a particular quirk that some street photographers seem to have. I'm thinking of Garry Winogrand or Vivian Maier, with their thousands of unprocessed and unproofed images. You are in fine company there.

That never occurred to me, possibly because neither are among my photographic "heroes", who all happen to be either photojournalists or combat photographers.

[Ken MT]

I assume that you are using Fuji Velvia 100. Interesting that some P&S cameras try to imitate the rich saturation of Velvia with digital methods. I still have a number of Velvia films waiting in my freezer for the right day.

[Polar01]

Robert if you check the name Vivan Maier was a nanny not a photojournalist or combast photographer. Then again taking care of children for over 40 years could be thought of as combat.

Cheers: Allan

[bnnrcn]

Hi Robert I'm not going to interfere with the discussion about PPing images or not. I just want to say that I e-mailed the link of your thread 'Kensington Serenade' to a photographer friend of mine. He is actually a member of CinC but he stayed here shortly and he doesn't upload here any more. It is more true to call him an artist who breaks the rules and he usually shoots portraits and post process them by using the PP softwares thoroughly. He also has a lot of old photography equipment because he used to shoot with film in the past and he still shoots with film from time to time.

I have copied and pasted his words about your Kensington Serenade image. He says that :

' Fab. He is old school. This image works for me because it is honest and not manipulated. The framing was done thoughtfully. A bit off from the classic rule of thirds but it still works. I can tell that the photographer loves his subject. This last observation is the most critical aspect of photographing, and often ignored. I think one has to be in love with the subject in order to get a real honest and good shoot. Loving a subject is not about oneself but about the subject. The photographer didn't care whether people will later on approve his work or not. All he cared was capturing a lovely moment. It was not about him but about the subject.'

So, after reading all the comments above I just wanted to let you know that I can understand your approach to photography and I can understand why you have so many films shot and stored but not processed. Because what you feel while shooting them are more important to you.

So , I would say that let's accept each other as we are( BTW I'm not an experienced photographer, I have been shooting and learning just for about two years ). I liked most of your images you have uploaded here so far although I like PP ing my images according to where my heart takes me . And I know that you are shooting the scenes where your heart takes you.

So let's enjoy photography in the way we see things