Photoshop and street photography

Richard

BD made this comment in Mike Penn's Philadelphia Squared thread:

bdcolen wrote:

There is some unquestionably wonderful stuff here - particularly 1, 12, and 13. But there are many others that I'm just not sure about because I don't know if I'm looking at street photography or home Photoshopping. I find myself not trusting 2 and 4, because I don't know if the mist/steam is real, or PS generated.

So, question for discussion: If you can't tell, then why does it matter? I think we're looking at art, not PJ or documentary. Why not do whatever the muse dictates? Or is street not art? :scratch

michswiss

I'm too tired to answer the question thoughtfully and I'm sure others will chime in extensively over the next several hours. For me the question becomes: Did I see it or did I imagine it? Yes hopefully it is art, but the art is having captured a fleeting moment in some honest, expressive state. The PP should accentuate it, not be essential to it.

DonRicklin

Richard wrote:

BD made this comment in Mike Penn's Philadelphia Squared thread:


So, question for discussion: If you can't tell, then why does it matter? I think we're looking at art, not PJ or documentary. Why not do whatever the muse dictates? Or is street not art?

It is easy enough to find steam like that in a city. Seen in in Boston, plenty! It's only in two shots where my guess is that is how it was.

IMHO.

Don

mikepenn

DonRicklin wrote:

It is easy enough to find steam like that in a city. Seen in in Boston, plenty! It's only in two shots where my guess is that is how it was.

IMHO.

Don

I posted the RAWS in the thread.

Richard

mikepenn wrote:

I posted the RAWS in the thread.

Right. The steam looked real enough to me, so I didn't have BD's reaction. I suppose what I am questioning here is (assuming the appearance is identical) why it would matter if it had been faked.

alexf

Smoke looked real to me too. It is akin to swapping a dull sky on a landscape for a better sky. If it improves the image and does not look faked, I don't see a problem.

TonyCooper

I think this question is a matter of self-imposed ethics of a sort. I have no problem justifying cloning out a bit of trash, masking out an intrusive trashcan, or otherwise altering out a distracting element. I'd draw the line, though, at adding something significant to the image or somehow making a significant change to what was photographed. The "self-imposed" factor is deciding what is significant to the image.

It's kind of a moot point with me, though. I enjoy the chase and the capture. If the hunt wasn't successful, I'm not going to spend any time trying to make something out of nothing. I will spend time making something better with some minor adjustments.

thoth

My opinion is, if it's not there don't add it. If it is there then leave it. Street photography is the art of capturing the interest in real life and requires discipline and a keen eye. If you succumb to adding or subtracting things you didn't account for in the first place I believe you are only diluting your work and the genre itself. Perfect photos don't need perfect exposures and beautiful skies and missing lamp posts and fancy vignettes. It needs great composition, a good enough exposure to tell the story and, above all else, honesty.

DonRicklin

mikepenn wrote:

I posted the RAWS in the thread.

Okay, I missed that and still do. But, I do see where you say the steam was real.

Don

bdcolen

Richard wrote:

BD made this comment in Mike Penn's Philadelphia Squared thread:


So, question for discussion: If you can't tell, then why does it matter? I think we're looking at art, not PJ or documentary. Why not do whatever the muse dictates? Or is street not art?

The answer is quite simple - it's posted as street photography, not as fine art photography. If it's posted as street photography I expect it to be an accurate representation of what the photographer saw on the street. But I realize there are those who disagree with me, and so be it. But that of course takes us back to the question of what this forum is for. I would argue, once again, and quite strenuously, that this be renamed "The Real World," and be a place for photographs of life - featuring people - as observed, not as imagined. But let's get rid of the street, PJ, documentary categories. :ivar :ivar

bdcolen

TonyCooper wrote:

I think this question is a matter of self-imposed ethics of a sort. I have no problem justifying cloning out a bit of trash, masking out an intrusive trashcan, or otherwise altering out a distracting element. I'd draw the line, though, at adding something significant to the image or somehow making a significant change to what was photographed. The "self-imposed" factor is deciding what is significant to the image.

It's kind of a moot point with me, though. I enjoy the chase and the capture. If the hunt wasn't successful, I'm not going to spend any time trying to make something out of nothing. I will spend time making something better with some minor adjustments.

Sorry, but I think most people who take the three listed genres seriously would really object to cloning out trashcans, or anything else, from the photo. And if you're talking photo journalism, it's a firing offense.

black mamba

Darn, Tony, I should have known you'd pipe up with an observation on this issue. Unfortunately, you've apparently misspoken and I'm going to have to let you go. Don't bother trying to come back until you get your act together.

Tom

Richard

black mamba wrote:

Darn, Tony, I should have known you'd pipe up with an observation on this issue. Unfortunately, you've apparently misspoken and I'm going to have to let you go. Don't bother trying to come back until you get your act together.

Tom

Disagreement is fine here, but this doesn't contribute to the discussion. What's your point?

zoomer

PJ to me is capturing a scene as it accurs, with no artistic license or cleaning up, cropping and exposure compensation excepted.

Having said that, I believe any photoshopping required to make the photo look like it did to the eye, rather than how the camera recorded it is acceptable.

black mamba

Richard,

It's an attempt to inject a little levity into this discussion....and extrapolating that even further...into this forum. There's way too much seriousness that goes on around here. Too many hard lines are drawn in the sand. Differences of opinion are great, and more acceptance of those differences would benefit everybody. Folks need to lighten up.

Tom

TonyCooper

bdcolen wrote:

Sorry, but I think most people who take the three listed genres seriously would really object to cloning out trashcans, or anything else, from the photo. And if you're talking photo journalism, it's a firing offense.

I should have been more specific in where the type of adjustments I mentioned are appropriate. I wasn't thinking of just "street" and "PJ". I don't know what the third category is.

My photographic interests are varied. When I photograph a candid scene not intended for this forum, I'll clone out or mask out a piece of trash or a trash can. When I photograph something to submit to this forum, I won't. I have the ethics and the sense to know which to do where.

What I photograph is not always clearly defined as part of the "street" genre. I think of it as "candid" photography with some of it falling in the "street" category and some of it not. With something I consider to be "street", the trash can would be appropriate, and may even add to the image. When I get into that nebulous area of "candid, but not street", I may mask out the trash can as a distraction to the intended focus of the image.

I have never taken a photograph that I would consider to be photo-journalism. Not that I wouldn't, but I haven't seen the opportunity.

thoth

black mamba wrote:

Richard,

It's an attempt to inject a little levity into this discussion....and extrapolating that even further...into this forum. There's way too much seriousness that goes on around here. Too many hard lines are drawn in the sand. Differences of opinion are great, and more acceptance of those differences would benefit everybody. Folks need to lighten up.

Tom

Tom, you have yet to have anything concrete to say in any of these discussions. You pop up, shoot a snide comment, and pop back down. There is no levity there. These discussions take place because we feel they are necessary. We participate in the discussions with those people who participate. If you don't want to be so serious then why become involved?

TonyCooper

Richard wrote:

Disagreement is fine here, but this doesn't contribute to the discussion. What's your point?

I understood Tom was being sarcastic and laughed at the comment.

thoth

TonyCooper wrote:

I should have been more specific in where the type of adjustments I mentioned are appropriate. I wasn't thinking of just "street" and "PJ". I don't know what the third category is.

My photographic interests are varied. When I photograph a candid scene not intended for this forum, I'll clone out or mask out a piece of trash or a trash can. When I photograph something to submit to this forum, I won't. I have the ethics and the sense to know which to do where.

What I photograph is not always clearly defined as part of the "street" genre. I think of it as "candid" photography with some of it falling in the "street" category and some of it not. With something I consider to be "street", the trash can would be appropriate, and may even add to the image. When I get into that nebulous area of "candid, but not street", I may mask out the trash can as a distraction to the intended focus of the image.

I have never taken a photograph that I would consider to be photo-journalism. Not that I wouldn't, but I haven't seen the opportunity.

I think that is a very good separation of concerns. As long as our work is being honest to the intended audience then we're good. It's when we start cloning out garbage and pretending we didn't that our work becomes something else.

Richard

black mamba wrote:

Richard,

It's an attempt to inject a little levity into this discussion....and extrapolating that even further...into this forum. There's way too much seriousness that goes on around here. Too many hard lines are drawn in the sand. Differences of opinion are great, and more acceptance of those differences would benefit everybody. Folks need to lighten up.

Tom

OK, I guess I missed the humorous intent. I'm all for lightening up.

bdcolen

TonyCooper wrote:

I should have been more specific in where the type of adjustments I mentioned are appropriate. I wasn't thinking of just "street" and "PJ". I don't know what the third category is.

My photographic interests are varied. When I photograph a candid scene not intended for this forum, I'll clone out or mask out a piece of trash or a trash can. When I photograph something to submit to this forum, I won't. I have the ethics and the sense to know which to do where.

What I photograph is not always clearly defined as part of the "street" genre. I think of it as "candid" photography with some of it falling in the "street" category and some of it not. With something I consider to be "street", the trash can would be appropriate, and may even add to the image. When I get into that nebulous area of "candid, but not street", I may mask out the trash can as a distraction to the intended focus of the image.

I have never taken a photograph that I would consider to be photo-journalism. Not that I wouldn't, but I haven't seen the opportunity.

That breakdown certainly makes sense, Tony. And again, if we'd get away from the categorization, there'd be more room for play - or not. Because if we just said "The Real World," we could simply say that this is a place for photography for life as we observe it, whether in the street, at home, or anywhere else - what used to be called 'candid photography' - and say that only basic 'darkroom' post processing fits here; adjusting contrast, basic burning and dodging, and cropping. Period. And save the heavy PP for the other forums.
Just a thought.

bdcolen

Richard wrote:

BD made this comment in Mike Penn's Philadelphia Squared thread:


So, question for discussion: If you can't tell, then why does it matter? I think we're looking at art, not PJ or documentary. Why not do whatever the muse dictates? Or is street not art?

I've made several comments, but I realize there is one very important point I haven't made - I think MikePenn is a terrific photographer. I've made it a point to go look at his site, and would urge all of you to do the same. But after looking at the gorgeous work on his site, I am all the more convinced that what he's doing is applying an art/commercial style to street photography, which really turns the street photography into something very different from traditional street photography. Frankly, what he's doing is going to be far more appealing to most people today than the traditional approach. But...:D

mikepenn

That's right, the lines in photography are being blurred and the last thing it needs is another category. Photojournalism is one thing but "street" is something different all together. It's about your vision of what you are seeing not someone else's. I've had the privilege of working with some very well known street photographers and if you saw what they did in the darkroom or lightroom you might end up in a corner crying. I know of some very famous street photographs that were staged but some people will accept that over an actual moment but processed the way the photographer see's it. It's that type of thinking that kept photography out of the art world for so long. As for me I stay honest but I don't live in Bresson's zone 5 world, I live in Daido Moriyama's whatever the hell zone I want world.



But I do value and respect opinions.

dixonduke

I am very new to the game. And thought I would pipe in with just a simple observation, from my point of view.

For me when I first started to lurk here, I felt that the "Street & PJ" nomenclature represented 2 seperate and distinct disciplines (styles).

1. PJ - Photo Journalism, photos that are held to very high standards and ethics. I think back to the term, "The Camera Never Lies", as the mantra for PJ.

2. Street - Uses PJ form as its basis for subject matter, but permits the photographer to take artistic license and apply his vision/style to the captured image.

In my opinion, from my definitions, each discipline (style) has merit. Personally I enjoy both forms, and truly wish the "Street & PJ" form to stay as it is.

If there is any thing that should be done... improved on, well, what frustrates me from time time, is the following.

I find it distracting when photos are posted and implied to be PJ, but in the spirit of my own definitions, are more inclined to be categorized as Street.

So... Does Photoshop have a place in Street & PJ photography, yes. Utilized as the digital darkroom for "PJ", and an artists easel for "Street". Both have their application and both have their own merit.

The above is my opinion, and yes, I can be wrong.

TonyCooper

As a clarification to the difference between "street" and my type of "candid", and what I think can be ethically done with them, let me present a hypothetical example.

I have a photograph of two people standing against a wall...the people, and their pose, is interesting...but there is a third person partially intruding into
the frame, and that third person is blurred and doesn't fit with the two other subjects. I can't crop that third person out and retain the subject pair.

If I intend to submit that photo to this forum, I'll process the image - probably in black and white with strong contrast - with the third person included.

If I intend to submit that photo to another Dgrin forum, I'll do some photoshopping and remove the third person by selecting a blank section of the wall
and placing that on a new layer behind the third person and then doing a layer mask erasure of the third person.

The viewers in the other forums are likely to criticize the unaltered version because of the distractive presence of the blurred third figure. The viewers in
this forum would not consider the third figure to be a problem at all, and might even feel the third figure adds strength to the image.

As they say...horses for courses.

phillybikeboy

bdcolen wrote:

The answer is quite simple - it's posted as street photography, not as fine art photography. If it's posted as street photography I expect it to be an accurate representation of what the photographer saw on the street. But I realize there are those who disagree with me, and so be it. But that of course takes us back to the question of what this forum is for.

But where do you draw the line? Obviously, Weegee overstepped what are now considered the bounds of photojournalism, but would that also preclude him for the street genre? I can't help but think of his classic shot of the woman feeding her boyfriend a hotdog. That shot totally works precisely because the subject is looking directly into the camera. The presence of the camera and photographer changed the scene. To be sure, it's far lower tech than Photoshop, but the end result is the same.

Back when I was a member of the Fourth Estate, I saw these things in much more black and white terms....speaking of which, if it's supposed to be an accurate representation, what's with all the black and white? That's not how I see things, and often a good conversion will totally change the feel of a scene.

rainbow

"This forum is dedicated to the urban scene. In addition to photojournalism and traditional street photography, spontaneous shots depicting urban life belong here--even if no people are shown. Street scenes and candids, back alleys, graffiti, dimly lit bars, etc., all may be posted here."

Above is from the forum "sticky" that Richard posted to initiate the forum. For the most part, MOST posts have abided by these guidelines and few posts have been relocated. Unaddressed is the amount of photoshopping before PJ and traditional street is no longer being adhered to.

I lean heavily toward "reality". The more PP beyond traditional film processing methods, the farther it gets from "photography" and closer to the "art" side. So combo photos (eg - sky from a second pic to improve a landscape shot) don't really work for me. Photography has been about "capturing" a moment, not concocting or imagining a moment.

Having said that, two of my most recent posts have had the most PP that I have used as I learn and experiment with PSE7. The first ("Lion") was intentional just as a New Year wish. The more recent, "Wavelength" I used a blur brush and a desaturation sponge to accentuate the subjects' connection. Now is this okay or not relative to this thread's discussion, I don't know. It is not PJ, but it is certainly street. OTOH, this is not the norm for my posts, so on occasion if I (or others) stretch the limits, I don't expect too much pushing and shoving, either (maybe just a little nudging...)

michswiss

My personal preference is to not see extensive image modification, editing, texturing or toning. It certainly has its own beauty and can be used to great effect in urban photography with a well executed underlying image. I also think it would be detrimental to this particular forum, as I hope this is about improving skills in basic storytelling and composition. If the bones are right, then there is an infinite world to treat the image however one's vision leads them.

But, to Philly's comment above, what if the shot is staged in comparison to modified in post? Many of the Master's of Street didn't seem to have an issue with that idea. They weren't always absolutely at the ready when the moment arrived, but I imagine they'd seen the scene and were able to recreate it through staging and preparation. Other's have executed concepts that include inserting conspirators into settings with the goal of creating juxtapositions or situations that wouldn't be distinguishable from "Street" in it's pure form without knowledge from the photographers themselves.

Richard

As a consumer of photography, what matters to me is the image itself, not how it was produced. PJ aside, I really couldn't care if a shot was staged, photoshopped, strobed or shot with a pin-hole camera. If my jaw drops, IMO it's good work; if it doesn't, then it doesn't matter how "pure" its production was. I care very little for definitions and taxonomy since they are irrelevant to my experience when viewing a pic and are not helpful at all when trying to produce one.

thoth

Richard wrote:

As a consumer of photography, what matters to me is the image itself, not how it was produced. PJ aside, I really couldn't care if a shot was staged, photoshopped, strobed or shot with a pin-hole camera. If my jaw drops, IMO it's good work; if it doesn't, then it doesn't matter how "pure" its production was. I care very little for definitions and taxonomy since they are irrelevant to my experience when viewing a pic and are not helpful at all when trying to produce one.

I don't think this conversation is particularly relevant when discussing only our personal tastes. Certainly I appreciate a wide range of photography to include the heavily processed and even HDR. To me, this conversation is about the classification of photographs and how much is too much (or too little) in those classifications. Perhaps this wasn't your intent with the original post but it seems a far more valuable discussion than simply 'what are your tastes.' I do agree, though, that the definitions and taxonomy are also of little relevance to me when discussing what I like.

It is now, and will always be, necessary to classify art, whether photography or painting or pottery, for the sake of the collective catalog. This is similar to my previous topic on titles in that respect. So, to me anyway, the question is not 'do you like it' but, rather, should it be called this or that. If you're a fan of street, and everything under the sun was called street, how would you find what you were looking for?

bdcolen

thoth wrote:

I don't think this conversation is particularly relevant when discussing only our personal tastes. Certainly I appreciate a wide range of photography to include the heavily processed and even HDR. To me, this conversation is about the classification of photographs and how much is too much (or too little) in those classifications. Perhaps this wasn't your intent with the original post but it seems a far more valuable discussion than simply 'what are your tastes.' I do agree, though, that the definitions and taxonomy are also of little relevance to me when discussing what I like.

It is now, and will always be, necessary to classify art, whether photography or painting or pottery, for the sake of the collective catalog. This is similar to my previous topic on titles in that respect. So, to me anyway, the question is not 'do you like it' but, rather, should it be called this or that. If you're a fan of street, and everything under the sun was called street, how would you find what you were looking for?