Please don't see me

[lovelife65]

Taken from the hip, which is not something I practice much, thus a little funky, made a little funkier by me... but ....

[Manfred M]

Sorry Sharon, a soft figure in the foreground does not work for me. A bit higher shutter speed that froze most of the body but allowed a bit of blur with the foot and arm could have worked.

The back of a person tends to be relatively uninteresting but in some cases the approach can be effective when it is used to direct the viewer's eye to the main subject, i.e. the homeless person, but the balance is off here so it does not work particularly well.

The problem with off-the-hip shots is that they take a lot of practice to get right and even then, the success rate tends to be quite low. Keep practiciing as it is an extremely effective technique when it works.

[Shadowman]

Spot on targeting of your subject with your technique, image wouldn't be the same without the slightly blurred figure though, so have you considered cropping out the blurred or doing a special edit and have that portion of the figure extend outside the boundary of the frame?

[lovelife65]

Thanks John. I'm not 100% certain what you mean in terms of cropping out the blurred or extending outside frame.

Manfred,
In terms of the blurred figure, it was intentional. It may not follow "photographic rules", but some of the best photography out there (particularly "street") doesn't really. Not saying this particular image is fantastic, but there are lots out there that are, and often violate "rules".

Sharon

[Shadowman]

Thanks John. I'm not 100% certain what you mean in terms of cropping out the blurred or extending outside frame.

Manfred,
In terms of the blurred figure, it was intentional. It may not follow "photographic rules", but some of the best photography out there (particularly "street") doesn't really. Not saying this particular image is fantastic, but there are lots out there that are, and often violate "rules".

Sharon

Sharon,

You can find details on the concept here. http://photoshopelementsandmore.com/...960/out-bounds

[Manfred M]

Manfred,
In terms of the blurred figure, it was intentional. It may not follow "photographic rules", but some of the best photography out there (particularly "street") doesn't really. Not saying this particular image is fantastic, but there are lots out there that are, and often violate "rules".

Sharon - I don't look at the "photographic rules" when I comment on an image, but rather look at the technical, organizational and emotional impact of an image. From time to time I might use one of the "rules of composition" to try to explain why an image is working or not, but generally things are not that simple.

When I comment here, on the forums, I make exactly the same kind of comments that I do when I judge at photographic competitions. What works, what doesn't and why.

In my view, this is the image.

[lovelife65]

Thank you Manfred :-)
Part of the problem is that I like the guy walking towards the homeless man, and the message is directed at him. He was scrunching into his sleeping bag as the man approached. Yep, it was blown and therefore made more abstract.

I think the most I would crop out, which again violates general photography rules, would be something like this (which cuts the man up, but brings the focus to the homeless man).
I'm not sure what other edits you made, but it looks very over saturated.



So ya, will continue to work more on skill for sure. Sadly I don't always have my camera especially if kid is along.

[Shadowman]

Sharon,

In post #7, which general photography rules are you referring to and is it applied for all photography or only street or photojournalism? I was reading another photographer's article about her attempt at street photography and she said that although she liked the genre; she wouldn't practice it any further because of the strict rules against excessive (she stated "the often-stated belief that among street photographers that one should not change the image in any way...) editing and she would personally remove something if she felt it didn't add to the overall image as well as to do other fun things.

I don't believe a photographer should limit themselves to practicing or experimenting with the craft, furthermore if you reveal the changes you've made or refrain from submitting the images to outlets which might take umbrage at altered imagery then why not. The Out of Bounds edit is an obvious alteration to the scene and I can't see anyone believing that you are trying to fool them into believing the effect was reality.

[Manfred M]

I'm not sure what other edits you made, but it looks very over saturated.

I didn't really do anything more than crop the image and upsample it. I burned down the top left corner a bit as it was distracting. Working with a small image and cropping it and resizing unfortunately creates artifacts and that is what you are seeing.

I think the most I would crop out, which again violates general photography rules, would be something like this (which cuts the man up, but brings the focus to the homeless man).

Cropping does not "violate general photography rules". Street photography is often considered to be a form of photojournalism. In photojournalism, it is generally viewed as being unethical to change things in the image itself, but cropping removes parts of the image, so this is considered to be quite legitimate. You can't change something that isn't there.

If you cloned out some of the garbage lying on the sidewalk, that would certainly be considered to be wrong. In general, dodging and burning is also allowed in photojournalism, but the degree of what is done can be questioned.

The only real downside in cropping is that you are removing pixels. In an image that is shown on a computer screen, that is not a big deal but if you want to print, then it can become problematic.

So ya, will continue to work more on skill for sure. Sadly I don't always have my camera especially if kid is along.

Been there, done that, so I fully understand.



As an aside, your most recent edit is an improvement over the original as the man who is walking has a more diminished role in the image itself. The new position is all about directing the viewer's eye to the homeless man as opposed to being the main subject. I think a bit more of a crop along the top and right hand side might be worth considering. Right now your crop looks more accidental than deliberate.

The softness of the foreground element is still and issue, so finding the right balance between the distracting element and framing the main subject is the tricky part. Burning down the face and pants could help here.

[MrB]

Sharon, I suspect that you are more content with the composition that you have presented in Post #1 and, if so, I would agree with you. I don't want to remove the passer-by, or to amputate his legs, or to exclude his back, and his blur is a good effect.

It works for me as it is.

The subject is neither the homeless person nor the passer-by, but it is the implied relationship between the two. By including the pavement and the wall on the right, it seems as though the latter has just come around a corner not expecting to see the former. He can't help viewing the scene but is rushing past to alleviate his own discomfort at what he sees, while the rough-sleeper is not wishing to be stared at.

No doubt the photo could have been better, but you were limited by circumstances beyond your control at that moment in time. Happening to be so close, your iPhone has captured a wide-angle field of view, and the perspective makes the rough sleeper rather small compared with the passer-by. Having your 'proper' camera with a longer focal length and shooting from further away could have given them a more equal weight in the composition, but I think that you have done well with what was available to you.

Cheers.
Philip

[lovelife65]

Sharon, I suspect that you are more content with the composition that you have presented in Post #1 and, if so, I would agree with you. I don't want to remove the passer-by, or to amputate his legs, or to exclude his back, and his blur is a good effect.

It works for me as it is.

The subject is neither the homeless person nor the passer-by, but it is the implied relationship between the two. By including the pavement and the wall on the right, it seems as though the latter has just come around a corner not expecting to see the former. He can't help viewing the scene but is rushing past to alleviate his own discomfort at what he sees, while the rough-sleeper is not wishing to be stared at.

No doubt the photo could have been better, but you were limited by circumstances beyond your control at that moment in time. Happening to be so close, your iPhone has captured a wide-angle field of view, and the perspective makes the rough sleeper rather small compared with the passer-by. Having your 'proper' camera with a longer focal length and shooting from further away could have given them a more equal weight in the composition, but I think that you have done well with what was available to you.

Cheers.
Philip

Philip, thank you... You nailed it. We were right behind the gentleman in the photo.
I did not feel that yet another photograph of "just" a homeless person was very interesting, and what I try to capture more often is the relationships between people ... in this case the homeless person as well as someone that happened upon them. It would be more useful if I carried my real camera more often especially when in the City (in this case, Seattle, we had taken the boy to the children's museum). My iPhone is a terrible camera. LOL
As many homeless as there are in Seattle, people are still not that comfortable looking and acknowledging...

[lovelife65]

Sharon,

In post #7, which general photography rules are you referring to and is it applied for all photography or only street or photojournalism? I was reading another photographer's article about her attempt at street photography and she said that although she liked the genre; she wouldn't practice it any further because of the strict rules against excessive (she stated "the often-stated belief that among street photographers that one should not change the image in any way...) editing and she would personally remove something if she felt it didn't add to the overall image as well as to do other fun things.

I don't believe a photographer should limit themselves to practicing or experimenting with the craft, furthermore if you reveal the changes you've made or refrain from submitting the images to outlets which might take umbrage at altered imagery then why not. The Out of Bounds edit is an obvious alteration to the scene and I can't see anyone believing that you are trying to fool them into believing the effect was reality.

John, thank you for your thoughtful comments. It is interesting that a genre such as Street Photography can be so rigid. I don't believe making tiny edits to an image to capture better what was seen should be so frowned upon. I am someone who hates to edit photos (laziness maybe, and lack of skill).. so I do try to get as close as possible to what I want, but I often fail.

[lovelife65]

Thank you Manfred, you taking the time to comment is appreciated. As Philip has mentioned, having a real camera using the appropriate settings would have gone quite a ways to make this a better image as well.

I didn't really do anything more than crop the image and upsample it. I burned down the top left corner a bit as it was distracting. Working with a small image and cropping it and resizing unfortunately creates artifacts and that is what you are seeing.




Cropping does not "violate general photography rules". Street photography is often considered to be a form of photojournalism. In photojournalism, it is generally viewed as being unethical to change things in the image itself, but cropping removes parts of the image, so this is considered to be quite legitimate. You can't change something that isn't there.

If you cloned out some of the garbage lying on the sidewalk, that would certainly be considered to be wrong. In general, dodging and burning is also allowed in photojournalism, but the degree of what is done can be questioned.

The only real downside in cropping is that you are removing pixels. In an image that is shown on a computer screen, that is not a big deal but if you want to print, then it can become problematic.




Been there, done that, so I fully understand.



As an aside, your most recent edit is an improvement over the original as the man who is walking has a more diminished role in the image itself. The new position is all about directing the viewer's eye to the homeless man as opposed to being the main subject. I think a bit more of a crop along the top and right hand side might be worth considering. Right now your crop looks more accidental than deliberate.

The softness of the foreground element is still and issue, so finding the right balance between the distracting element and framing the main subject is the tricky part. Burning down the face and pants could help here.