Ahhhhh! Backgrounds!

baldmountain

One of the things that is driving me nuts is that many of the pictures taken for this forum are shot without regard to what is in the background. Most of the images have cluttered confusing backgrounds that ruin the shot. It's a pet peeve and bothers me enough that I wrote a thread about it here. I'll link to the original images even though they aren't street since they show what I mean...

Crappy cluttered background...



Better but still too much...



Yeah, that's it...



If you look at the images of the great photographers they usually have a clear, uncluttered background. Occasionally they may include a lot of clutter, but it is planned clutter. Their backgrounds are quite clean and don't detract from the focus of the image...

So, before clicking the shutter, look beyond the focus of the image and see if the background is really the background you want.

tortillatorture

well... i must confess, im a sucker for clean backgrounds,
i understand what you mean, but i dont fully agree with you.

this is street shots, and of course, some of the best shots i'v seen
is obviousely very planed shots, the backgrounds are picked out beforehand,
and yes, they are great to look at.

but in pj, docu, street, whatever... you most likely wil not plan your background all the time,
you are out walking with the people, not standing still and waiting.
things happen very fast, and very often capture an expression or a moment is much more important
than thinkin about clean backgrounds, agree?

michswiss

I'm working to become more aware of the background in my street photos. But most of the time at least getting a shot is the priority and if things work out, then study the scene for better composition and lighting.

Oh, and I don't think a big bright Parrot is the best background either.

sara505

I disagree. In street photography, the backgound is often an important part of the story. But that being said, the background has to also make some sense and add to the photo rather than being a confusing mish-mosh that detracts.

But an image with a subject that stands apart, with diffused, clear background doesn't strike me as street photography.

The background is important in street photography and is why it's called street photography, not studio photography or portraiture.

just my opinion.

michswiss

sara505 wrote:

I disagree. In street photography, the backgound is often an important part of the story. But that being said, the background has to also make some sense and add to the photo rather than being a confusing mish-mosh that detracts.

But an image with a subject that stands apart, with diffused, clear background doesn't strike me as street photography.

The background is important in street photography and is why it's called street photography, not studio photography or portraiture.

just my opinion.

I actually agree with you. The background as well as the foreground are often actors in a good street shot. But to baldmountain's point (hopefully), I think we can and should be more aware, if not more careful with overall composition. Hey, a tree might be spouting from some writer's head.

R.Leonardo

sara505 wrote:

I disagree. In street photography, the background is often an important part of the story. But that being said, the background has to also make some sense and add to the photo rather than being a confusing mish-mosh that detracts.

But an image with a subject that stands apart, with diffused, clear background doesn't strike me as street photography.

The background is important in street photography and is why it's called street photography, not studio photography or portraiture.

just my opinion.

Agreed. Street photography is one of the true places for photojournalism. Photojournalism aims to tell a story, often that requires background. While any photo can be poorly composed, street photography, is of a slightly different ilk.
A prominent foreground with an appropriate bokeh in street journalisum is as fine as sharp and deep DOF on a bigger scale. It is about telling the story. If the photo does not do that, it typically has to do with the overall composition, not the fact there is background that is "distracting". Again, it is not studio work.
I get excited on this topic as I teach photo journalisum. Stuff like this comes up a lot from learning students. Often believing they need to sacrifice a journalistic photo, cause the other "rules" about background apply. Not so.
To some degree, nature and landscape photos can have this element, but do allow for more creative manipulation. The tree photos shown, simply are week in composition, don't inspire emotion and are low on inspiration... has little to do with the "background" being cluttered.

torags

Perhaps your choice of subject has something to do background.

Sometimes when you may want more context and want the background included.

Personally my bull riding shots used to drive me crazy, they always had predominant audience in the shots (even with 2.8) and diminish the subject value.

I got Alienskin "Bokeh" software that has bokeh presets and it works like a charm.

BTW if you get close enough in stret you'll get bokeh