At the night market

[mugge]

These images was taken at The Wednesday Night Market. I thought they were worth showing. C&C most welcome.

P1291174-Edit-Edit-Edit-Edit by Ole Hansen, on Flickr



P1291169-Edit-Edit by Ole Hansen, on Flickr

[Shadowman]

Nice shots.

[Manfred M]

These look like random grab shots, rather than something you planned.

A seasoned street photographer and not only sees the subject, but also considers the background and distracting elements before pressing the shutter release. Bright or high contrast elements lead our eyes.

In the first shot, I notice the two out of focus people (light shirts and identifiable faces) in the background, rather than your subject. Chose a crop that eliminates the problems.






In the second image, the direction that your subject's face is pointing defines your image, so why do you leave the distracting material on the left in the frame?

[Geoff F]

I was thinking along the same lines as Manfred but as an alternative edit to the first image I wonder about cropping tighter on the right side as well to end up with something like a 3 x 2 ratio?

[Manfred M]

I was thinking along the same lines as Manfred but as an alternative edit to the first image I wonder about cropping tighter on the right side as well to end up with something like a 3 x 2 ratio?

Geoff - there are all kinds of cropping and retouching options here. The main point I was trying to make to Ole is that one has to look at an image to see how it works and then ensure that the parts that are not making a positive contribution to the final image need to be eliminated. Ideally this is done when framing the image and selecting the shooting parameters, with minor work being left to when post-processing is done.

The beauty of showing a digital image is that (within reason) the actual crop has very few constraints, unlike in printing where we have to look at constraints like paper sizes or frame sizes.

[mugge]

I agree that the second image should be cropped tighter from the left. Regarding the first image I wanted a party atmosphere and therefore included people. I actually did a copy not unlike Manfred's.
Cheers Ole

[Manfred M]

Regarding the first image I wanted a party atmosphere and therefore included people.

In that case, you might have wished to use a smaller aperture (i.e larger depth of field) to ensure that the people in the background were in focus and framed the shot in such a way that you had not cut off the man's head.

[mugge]

In that case, you might have wished to use a smaller aperture (i.e larger depth of field) to ensure that the people in the background were in focus and framed the shot in such a way that you had not cut off the man's head.

I did not want people to be too visible. I could possibly have used a smaller aperture - yes. When I go around with my Olympus 45mm 1.8 I have it set on 1.8 80% of the time because it is my 'isolation' lens.

[Manfred M]

I did not want people to be too visible. I could possibly have used a smaller aperture - yes. When I go around with my Olympus 45mm 1.8 I have it set on 1.8 80% of the time because it is my 'isolation' lens.

I had noticed that you shoot at very wide open in much of your work.

Just remember that your Olympus 2x crop camera, a 45mm is like shooting a 90mm lens on a full-frame camera and your f/1.8 i wide open is like shooting at f/3.5 on a full frame camera, so not really all that shallow a depth of field.

Cosina, with its Voigtlander line of f/0.95 lenses has targeted the mFT market (i.e. Olympus and Panasonic 2x crop factor cameras) to give shooters the shallow DoF found on larger sensor cameras. The downsides of the Voigtlander lenses is that they are very expensive, manual focus and wide open, tend to be a bit soft, but they do give fantastic shallow DoF. Most folks that I know that are shooting those lenses are actually video shooters, rather than still photographers.

Shallower DoF is one reason I went to a full-frame body with fast lenses (f.2,8 and faster). That is the one really frustrating issue with my Panasonic is that I cannot get the shallow DoF (in fact it is also an issue with the 1.5x crop factor cameras we own). I found that I generally got better results by shooting at slightly wider apertures to get a decent depth of field.

The other thing to think about is whether this intermediate DoF you are getting is really working as well as you might want. It seems to be getting that middle ground, where the background is not all that soft so that you are actually getting a lot of distracting elements.

[Acorn]

Regardless of cropping aspects, I like the profile you have captured in picture No.2. Not much you can do about the bottle - maybe the water is iced and the atmosphere is hot.

[mugge]

I had noticed that you shoot at very wide open in much of your work.

Just remember that your Olympus 2x crop camera, a 45mm is like shooting a 90mm lens on a full-frame camera and your f/1.8 i wide open is like shooting at f/3.5 on a full frame camera, so not really all that shallow a depth of field.

Cosina, with its Voigtlander line of f/0.95 lenses has targeted the mFT market (i.e. Olympus and Panasonic 2x crop factor cameras) to give shooters the shallow DoF found on larger sensor cameras. The downsides of the Voigtlander lenses is that they are very expensive, manual focus and wide open, tend to be a bit soft, but they do give fantastic shallow DoF. Most folks that I know that are shooting those lenses are actually video shooters, rather than still photographers.

Shallower DoF is one reason I went to a full-frame body with fast lenses (f.2,8 and faster). That is the one really frustrating issue with my Panasonic is that I cannot get the shallow DoF (in fact it is also an issue with the 1.5x crop factor cameras we own). I found that I generally got better results by shooting at slightly wider apertures to get a decent depth of field.

The other thing to think about is whether this intermediate DoF you are getting is really working as well as you might want. It seems to be getting that middle ground, where the background is not all that soft so that you are actually getting a lot of distracting elements.

I understand what you are saying. I was considering the Pana/Leica 42.5 1.2 to get me a DoF that I want but the deal I got with my Olympus mark 2 included the 45mm 1.8 "free." I know for well the downside of 2x crop cameras but I believe there are more upside to the system. Consider this: I was recently at the Melbourne Zoo with my Olympus and 40-150mm f2.8 plus a borrowed mc 20 teleconverter. I met a gentleman with a full frame Sony and a 600mm lens. We spent about four hours taking photos and I managed quite well. The gentleman with his full frame camera and 600mm lens did not fare too well. Weight and size. For that reason, and for that reason only, I will never consider a full frame camera.

[Manfred M]

I understand what you are saying. I was considering the Pana/Leica 42.5 1.2 to get me a DoF that I want but the deal I got with my Olympus mark 2 included the 45mm 1.8 "free." I know for well the downside of 2x crop cameras but I believe there are more upside to the system. Consider this: I was recently at the Melbourne Zoo with my Olympus and 40-150mm f2.8 plus a borrowed mc 20 teleconverter. I met a gentleman with a full frame Sony and a 600mm lens. We spent about four hours taking photos and I managed quite well. The gentleman with his full frame camera and 600mm lens did not fare too well. Weight and size. For that reason, and for that reason only, I will never consider a full frame camera.

Ole - I understand the weight issue quite well. Size and weight were the main considerations when I bought my Panasonic mFT camera. I had it and two lenses; a 18-180mm and a 100-300mm along for a two month trip through South Asia, including almost 4 weeks at altitude (Bhutan and Nepal). I had a 55 litre backpack for all my worldly goods, including the camera gear.

Before I left, I spent 6 months shooting the camera to learn what I could and could not do with it. Shallow DoF was out, so was action photography and low light photography (anything over ISO 800 was marginal).

The important thing to do is to live with the limitations of ones gear. The one reason I went FF from my 1.5x crop factor camera was to get shallower DoF. I know I can't get shallow DoF work out of my mFT body unless I were willing to buy some expensive Cosina f/0.95 lenses.

[TonyW]

With street photography you are always relying on what is presented to you. I would accept some flaws in lighting, composition and extraneous elements. In the first of these images, I don't think it works if it is cropped more than the original. It is true that the two people in the background are distracting from the main element, the spaghetti, and it needs a little time to take in the whole picture. It's hard to be sure without seeing it but I think I would prefer the people to be more blurred rather than sharper but they need to be there.

In the second image, I want more space to the right of the girl with the bottle. However, again I would forgive non-perfect composition knowing that it is so often hard in the spur of the moment to frame things properly.

I thought both of the images were fun.

[Manfred M]

Tony - you have a completely different understanding of street photography from mine.

While there is an element of "relying on what is presented to you", any serious street photographer I know who would tell you that they approach their craft much like any other serious photographer; looking for a compelling subject, good lighting, composition and lack of distractions. Their images are deliberate and planned and are not "grab shots". Just look at the works of someone like Cartier-Bresson, Gary Winogrand, Vivian Maier, etc.

[escape]

Manfred called one of my shots a grab shot not to long ago. I still thught it was an interesting image despite it being a grab shot. One person said they had to will themselves to move their eyes off of a bright headlight in the scenr.
I found someeones definition of a grabshot. I beleive this is how Manfred is using the term.

A “grab shot” is a spontaneous capture of a scene or moment. Usually grab shots are far from polished. They may be at an angle, slightly out of focus, composed less than ideally or display other qualities of a rushed or incompletely thought through image."

[Manfred M]

Manfred called one of my shots a grab shot not to long ago. I still thught it was an interesting image despite it being a grab shot. One person said they had to will themselves to move their eyes off of a bright headlight in the scenr.
I found someeones definition of a grabshot. I beleive this is how Manfred is using the term.

A “grab shot” is a spontaneous capture of a scene or moment. Usually grab shots are far from polished. They may be at an angle, slightly out of focus, composed less than ideally or display other qualities of a rushed or incompletely thought through image."

A very good definition of a grab shot Daniel.

In principle, I have no issues with grab shots, when they work. The problem is that they often have serious flaws that are so distracting to the viewer that they are not particularly interesting or effective. Experienced street and event photographers tend to spot shots that are developing and wait for that moment.

The grab shots that I have seen that do work are ones that have a very strong emotional impact on the viewer that overrides minor technical or minor compositional flaws.

[William W]

. . . The grab shots that I have seen that do work are ones that have a very strong emotional impact on the viewer that overrides minor technical or minor compositional flaws.

An epitome:

[LINK]

WW

[William W]

With street photography you are always relying on what is presented to you.

I also have a different view to this premise: if I were 'relying on what is presented to you' then, as a 'Street Photographer' I have little if any technical skill and less of my artistic nuances as input - as a Photographer, I am beaten before I begin - I might was well leave the camera in the bag and just enjoy the view.

Additionally, a definitive (i.e. 'always') be it written or spoken, IMO, will usually forward a novice recipient onto to tenuous ground and thin ice, often stifling progress and learning . . . ergo: the emphatic challenge to the statement.

WW

[William W]

These images was taken at The Wednesday Night Market. I thought they were worth showing. C&C most welcome.

Definitely worth showing.

My critique will differ from the above.

I think that both images are examples of "this is not the shot" and I think that we can learn from that premise.

Image 1:



The Main Subject is the Noodles. The Main Story is that they (The Noodles) are suspended by one thread held by the Minor Subject's Hand (assumed a woman.) This Minor Subject's LH exhibits the emotion of not wanting that thread to break or anticipating that it will.

For this story BOTH of the hands of the Minor Subject need to be in shot. The third Hand (assumed male holding beer) adds balance and flavour - ALL other Subject matter is irrelevant.

IF the Main Subject is strong enough and the Story interesting enough, then the Background (distractions) will be less aggravating: arguably MORE of an OoF Background would assist this image; arguablely NOT having the two people in the Background at all would be better. Those points stated, one main lesson to learn is that there is not enough of the Main Subject in the frame.

How to we fix? In addition to considering how we "numb down" the background, perhaps by getting a better angle on the Subject, or by waiting for better Timing when the background moves and other methods, etc - one other good rule for Street Photography is "Shoot Wide - Crop in Post".

Example – Main Subject is simply the Coffee Cup, secondarily it is supported by two hands. Extremely shallow DoF assists, however and additionally the OoF Backgorund was darkened and the In Focus Foreground Subject Lightened (incrementally in small stages) in Post Production:



“Coffee in Grandstand” – SOPAC,2008

***

Image 2:



In Street work when we have a Subject(s) exhibiting unusual behaviour it is almost imperative that, as part of the story we capture at the least some of their personality and (hopefully, beneficially) also a reaction concerning that unusual behaviour. To capture these personality extras it is *almost imperative that we at the least get a Full Profile Face, or more.

In this image the Photographer was in the wrong position for the shot.

Example: Of the three Subjects the visually dominate Subject is the girl with her finger on her nose making a “Piggy Face” – because she is the Subject whose face is most square to the camera.



“Selfies” Paris, 2012

***

* "almost imperative that we at the least get a Full Profile Face, or more":

Shooting into the back of the Subject’s head usually requires a strong Secondary Element with a strong internal link to the Main Subject

Example: Self explanatory -



“Photographer”, Café NSW South Coast 2017

WW

All Images © AJ Group Pty Ltd Aust 1996~2020 WMW 1965~1996

[TonyW]

I also have a different view to this premise: if I were 'relying on what is presented to you' then, as a 'Street Photographer' I have little if any technical skill and less of my artistic nuances as input - as a Photographer, I am beaten before I begin - I might was well leave the camera in the bag and just enjoy the view.

Additionally, a definitive (i.e. 'always') be it written or spoken, IMO, will usually forward a novice recipient onto to tenuous ground and thin ice, often stifling progress and learning . . . ergo: the emphatic challenge to the statement.

WW

Bill, I think you are misrepresenting what I said and certainly what I meant. There is a lot of skill in getting a good photograph on the street. It is partly picking the moment and predicting what might happen so that you are in the right place. Then when you are there the conditions are often not ideal and you might have to cope with lighting that is not ideal and elements in the scene that you would prefer not to be there, so that getting the technically correct image is often a challenge. Among the street photographers that I have been with, it is considered not appropriate to control the scene in any way, just accept it as it is. There is a lot of skill in selecting a scene that will be interesting and finding the right point of view and framing but you are relying on the scene to exist.