St. George Street

RSL

michswiss wrote: »

Russ, it's time for you to dive in and start sharing. Not every shot has to be
artistic here. It's more of a free for all. The whole Street & PJ nomenclature is off, its all about the
candid. Lift the discussion, as it were, through images. The dialogue can be disjointed though.

Okay, Jennifer. Here's a night shot from last year on St. George street in St. Augustine. It's one of my
favorites.

Maybe not every shot posted here has to be "artistic," though I'm not quite sure what you mean by that,
but every shot posted here ought at least to be one that didn't survive the post-shoot cull by mistake. In
addition, I'm sorry to hear that the "Street & PJ nomenclature is off." I hope you're wrong and that
people on here are trying to learn and do street photography, which, to me, is what cameras are for. I'm
not interested in a forum where people post their tourist pictures.

To give you an idea of what I mean, here's a paragraph from an article I recently submitted to a
photography mag. I won't tell you which magazine until I see whether or not they publish it. If I can't
find a home for it maybe I'll post the whole thing on here:

"Spending days on the street looking, and rarely seeing a situation worth shooting can become pretty
discouraging, so there's a temptation to just shoot some people on the street and call it a street
photograph. There's nothing wrong with shooting something you know isn't going to be good, in fact that's
part of the training process. You need to do that again and again to learn to get the geometry right. But
when it comes to posting or displaying your photographs you should be extremely critical, and to be able
to be critical in an informed way you need to become familiar with the genre. That calls not only for
reading, but for studying the work of the masters, including the ones I listed near the beginning of this
tirade."

I'd suggest to anyone on any street photography forum that they learn something about the genre by
studying the masters. Yes, a lot of their work is "dated," in the sense that what they've recorded is now
historical, but good composition and good subject matter is never "dated." The work of people like Henri
Cartier-Bresson, Elliott Erwitt, Mark Riboud, Helen Levitt, Robert Frank is no more "dated" than
Leonardo's Mona Lisa when it comes to the elements of fine visual art.

lizzard_nyc

ok.
I think most of us here want to learn and improve on our "street/pj" photography and most of us have read and still continue to read or review some of the works from the masters. I believe there is a sticky at the top of street/pj which shows links to many.
When the forum first started we all sort of agreed that "candids" should be included as well, there really is no other place for them on dgrin. I recently finished a whole summer of summer little league candids which would not have been possible without all I learned here in PJ because for the majority, none were posed. I also like to document family moments which are not posed.
As far as only posting your best only--that's hard for me, though you are likely right. Maybe our level of output would be much improved if we stopped accepting crap from ourselves and pushed ourselves to a higher level (something to seriously mull over). I know somedays I just post to post and it can easily become the norm. Maybe I should not be doing this. But this community is a tight one and sometimes I will just post to socialize with my fellow streeters. If I waited to only post my best, I may only get a few posts a year and I couldn't stay away from here that long.

As to your shot. Initially my first reaction was "this is one of your favorites?!" til I looked a little more into it. There is a story here. I like the intense eyecontact between the guy in the basketball jersey and the girl w/ the slight smile. I like the little details too, the young girl smoking, the other young girl sitting on the newspaper stand, she looks so very young, tough age to try and fit in. I do like the shot, but seeing some of your other work I still ask, this is one of your favorites?

For the most part you have me hooked and I want to see what you will post next, and like it or not you will definately be seeing more candids here, at least from me.

black mamba

I think for this photo to have any impact at all....or any real sense of a story to tell....you have to assume that there is eye contact between the boy in the center and the smiling girl. I don't believe such eye contact is there. She appears, to me, to be looking to his left and at a lower level than his head. Since my perception is that there is no visual contact between them, I feel it's a rather bland shot. If, on the other hand, I do assume the visual contact is there, the interest level in the shot is elevated somewhat....but not to a great degree. There's an ambiguity to this photo that puts me off a little....maybe that's its strong point and I just don't get it.

Tom

RSL

Tom, You don't have to assume anything. Look closer. She's staring at him and he's staring at her. And, yes, ambiguity is one thing you always try for in a street photo.

Just checked your home page. You went to Tarpon Springs and only shot boats and sponges? Tarpon is one of the greatest places in Florida to do street photography -- just behind St. Augustine and Ybor City in Tampa.

rainbow

I agree with Tom on the eye contact. I was going to post similarly, but with the clarification that this makes me like the shot more. My assessment is that she is definitely not looking at him -- to his left is where her gaze takes me. It is less clear if he is looking at her -- but my conclusion was that he was not. Rather, his head turn has me thinking he is looking at the mostly hidden person to her right.

So I like the "misdirection" of initially assuming they were connecting with each other, but on further observation concluding that they were not. The surrounding crowd adds much to the shot, especially the smoker. I also like your processing choices.

lizzard_nyc

rainbow wrote: »

I also like your processing choices.

you would

lizzard_nyc

RSL wrote: »

Tom, You don't have to assume anything. Look closer. She's staring at him and he's staring at her. And, yes, ambiguity is one thing you always try for in a street photo.

Just checked your home page. You went to Tarpon Springs and only shot boats and sponges? Tarpon is one of the greatest places in Florida to do street photography -- just behind St. Augustine and Ybor City in Tampa.

Tom will be one of the first person to tell you he doesn't consider himself a street shooter. He does enjoy it though and is always learning, though I can see why he stays out of the street/pj forum sometimes.
On further evaluation, I think he's likely right about the eye contact. I went back and looked again.

Ambiguity is good though, not arguing about that.

RSL

I wish there weren't a 1200 pixel limitation on posts. I can guarantee that in an 11 x 14 -- even in an 8 x 10 -- there's absolutely no question whether or not those two are staring directly at each other. Ah well...

RSL

lizzard_nyc wrote: »

When the forum first started we all sort of agreed that "candids" should be included as well, there really is no other place for them on dgrin. I recently finished a whole summer of summer little league candids which would not have been possible without all I learned here in PJ because for the majority, none were posed. I also like to document family moments which are not posed.

Liz, Maybe what dgrin needs is a family, snapshot, vacation and tourist forum. I have four sons, four daughters-in-law, seventeen grandchildren, and four great-grandchildren with one more on the way. Needless to say I do a lot of family shooting, but I wouldn't think of posting any of that on a web forum. Nor would I post the record shots I sometimes make on trips here and there. This forum advertises itself as "Street & PJ." I'd expect to see either street shots or photojournalism on a forum named "Street & PJ."

As far as only posting your best only--that's hard for me, though you are likely right. Maybe our level of output would be much improved if we stopped accepting crap from ourselves and pushed ourselves to a higher level (something to seriously mull over). I know somedays I just post to post and it can easily become the norm. Maybe I should not be doing this. But this community is a tight one and sometimes I will just post to socialize with my fellow streeters. If I waited to only post my best, I may only get a few posts a year and I couldn't stay away from here that long.

Here are the two paragraphs from "On Street Photography" following the one I posted earlier:

"Again and again I see howlers people post on the web as street photography, and I try not to laugh too hard because I've shot my share of flubs like these too. I'm sure I'm far from the only one who reacts that way. Fact is that even when you get good at street photography you'll shoot bags and bags of bloopers, a smaller number of not too bad shots, and the rare picture you should be willing to show.

"Beyond the rare picture that's showable there's the kind of picture upon which you'd be willing to hang your reputation. If you can average one of those a year you're getting pretty good."

I'll post again, though you've probably seen all the stuff I might be willing to post since you've gone through my commercial web. Yes, St. George Street really is one of my favorites, though it's not the only one. Why is it one of my favorites? Because there's a real story taking place right in front of my eyes.

In my own estimation, my best stuff is in www.FineArtSnaps.com, and I try to keep the number of pictures on that site to a minimum, but I also have a second web -- www.russ-lewis.com -- where just about anything that can pass initial inspection goes -- at least for a while. I add stuff over there and take it away. It's a moving target.

lizzard_nyc

RSL wrote: »

Liz, Maybe what dgrin needs is a family, snapshot, vacation and tourist forum. I have four sons, four daughters-in-law, seventeen grandchildren, and four great-grandchildren with one more on the way. Needless to say I do a lot of family shooting, but I wouldn't think of posting any of that on a web forum. Nor would I post the record shots I sometimes make on trips here and there. This forum advertises itself as "Street & PJ." I'd expect to see either street shots or photojournalism on a forum named "Street & PJ."



Here are the two paragraphs from "On Street Photography" following the one I posted earlier:

"Again and again I see howlers people post on the web as street photography, and I try not to laugh too hard because I've shot my share of flubs like these too. I'm sure I'm far from the only one who reacts that way. Fact is that even when you get good at street photography you'll shoot bags and bags of bloopers, a smaller number of not too bad shots, and the rare picture you should be willing to show.

"Beyond the rare picture that's showable there's the kind of picture upon which you'd be willing to hang your reputation. If you can average one of those a year you're getting pretty good."

I'll post again, though you've probably seen all the stuff I might be willing to post since you've gone through my commercial web. Yes, St. George Street really is one of my favorites, though it's not the only one. Why is it one of my favorites? Because there's a real story taking place right in front of my eyes.

In my own estimation, my best stuff is in www.FineArtSnaps.com, and I try to keep the number of pictures on that site to a minimum, but I also have a second web -- www.russ-lewis.com -- where just about anything that can pass initial inspection goes -- at least for a while. I add stuff over there and take it away. It's a moving target.

So we see things differently. I think there is a way to document certain family moments in a pj way. I do know the difference between a crappy snapshot and a well thought out photo documenting a certain moment. They don't all have to be on the street.
This does not mean I am not eager to continue to learn pure street, but if you stick around you will see that I will continue to post the occasional "slice of life" or candid family moment. Until we get a new forum running anyway.


As far as pure street. I think I have averaged more than one good one per year, and definately a few in the medium range and definately many clear misses. But they all get posted here if only to get tips to improve or to see if others agree or disagree with me.

RSL

Liz, If you're averaging more than one street photograph a year upon which you'd be willing to base your reputation as a street photographer either you're one of the top street photographers in history or your standards aren't very high. People like Elliott Erwitt and Steve McCurry publish a lot more than one top photograph a year, but if you were to ask them which ones they'd base their reputation on, they'd give you a list you could count pretty easily.

Yes, they don't all have to be on the street. If you really study the masters you'll find that a majority of street photography doesn't take place on the street.

black mamba

In a response to Liz, you said " Liz, maybe what dgrin needs is a family, snapshot, vacation, and tourist forum ".

If you would spend a little more time exploring all the great facets of Dgrin, rather than pontificating so much about how we all should adhere to your assessment of proper street photography standards, you would discover that Dgrin has just such a sub-forum for folks who like to function in that world.

I see in an earlier statement from you, relative to street photography, you said that, to you, that's what cameras are for. I gave that serious consideration and contemplated the prospect of not using my camera anymore in the pursuit of the kind of photography I most enjoy. I concluded that, if I did so, my picture production would, most likely, fall off to an unacceptable level.

Tom

RSL

We're a little testy this afternoon are we, Tom? If you don't enjoy street photography why are you posting on a street forum? Why not post on an airplane forum or a car forum since your homepage makes it clear that that's where your interests lie?

Actually, my assessment of proper street photography standards isn't mine. It comes from the work and writings of the people who created and built street photography to what it's become. If you'll bother to read Cartier-Bresson's The Decisive Moment, or even the excerpts from it in The Mind's Eye, you'll see that my ideas about street photography are a long way from original. Henri was the most capable writer on street photography, but there are others, and you'll find they all agree.

Seems strange to me that a forum titled "Street & PJ" wouldn't be about street photography or photojournalism, but maybe that's just my particular bias.

Syncopation

RSL

Whilst I understand your point of view, I'm not clear what your purpose is for making it. As it stands the definition 'Street and Photojournalism' as applied to this forum has been, and will continue to be, a loose one. Personally I don't have a problem with that, for many of the reasons that Liz has already pointed out. Furthermore this topic has been debated on several occasions in previous threads and at the risk of being dismissive, I'm bored with reading it all again.

If you're looking for somewhere to post/comment where the definition of 'Street' is more tightly applied there a number of groups on Flickr which fit the bill. If you're looking to change the way the definition is applied to this forum, possibly through the creation of an additional forum to separate the candids from the pure Street, then I suggest that your comments would be more effective if they were addressed to the moderators rather than the members.

RSL

Syncopation, You're right. I made a mistake. I assumed that a forum named "Street & PJ," and especially one upon which Jennifer (michswiss) was posting actually was what it claimed to be: a forum for posters trying to do fine art street photography and trying to improve their work. Jennifer is a very good street photographer, trying to make her already excellent work even better. That she's posting here really fooled me.

Incidentally, combining the terms "street photography" and "photojournalism" is an error. Photojournalism requires a whole series of photographs, often with accompanying text. Sometimes the central photo in a journalism series is good street photography, but the peripheral shots often aren't, and it's the collection of photographs that matters, not a single photograph. If you're in doubt about that, check Cartier-Bresson's The People of Moscow, which is a book based on extended photojournalism.

I'd suggest that instead of creating a separate forum for real street photography, Dgrin simply rename this forum as "Family, Tourist, and Snapshot" Then, nobody would "have a problem with that."

Thanks for making my error clear.

bfjr

RSL wrote: »

I'd suggest that instead of creating a separate forum for real street photography, Dgrin simply rename this forum as "Family, Tourist, and Snapshot" Then, nobody would "have a problem with that."

Until you pointed it out to us, we weren't having a problem with that.
How silly of us

RSL

Well, if you say so...

RSL

Don't know why I didn't think of this before...
Although cropping like this results in pretty crappy resolution when you have to cut the thing down below 98k, it's still a result good enough to make the point.

Anybody still think the boy and girl aren't staring at each other?

rainbow

RSL wrote: »

Although cropping like this results in pretty crappy resolution when you have to cut the thing down below 98k, it's still a result good enough to make the point.

Anybody still think the boy and girl aren't staring at each other?

My interpretation is still that she is not looking at him. Her eyes are centered looking at where her head is pointed. Her head is pointed close, by not at him... His gaze is less clear because the eyes are not really visible and could be looking at her or the blond.

Either way, I like the photo, perhaps moreso because of this ambiguity.

RSL

Any clearer now, Rainbow? Nobody and nothing except a featureless sky is above the kid on the left.

rainbow

RSL wrote: »

Any clearer now, Rainbow? Nobody and nothing except a featureless sky is above the kid on the left.

Actually, the pic is less clear...

But, no matter how much you enlarge it, my opinion differs from yours. I accept that I may be incorrect and that your viewing may be accurate, but I also allow for the opposite possibility, however unconvinced you will remain.

black mamba

You are beating the proverbial dead horse. None of the rest of us believe the girl is looking at the guy. No amount of blow-ups is convincing us otherwise. In the final analysis, though, it doesn't matter that you see it one way and we see it another. If you like the picture.....great. Do us all a favor and move on to something more constructive.

Tom

RSL

Okay, Tom. I didn't realize you had authority to speak for "the rest of us," but if that's true I'll have to accept the consensus.

By the way, if you're somewhere near the Rocky Mountain region I can recommend an excellent ophthalmologist.

Richard

RSL wrote: »

Okay, Tom. I didn't realize you had authority to speak for "the rest of us," but if that's true I'll have to accept the consensus.

By the way, if you're somewhere near the Rocky Mountain region I can recommend an excellent ophthalmologist.

:smack :argue :duel

OK, settle down guys. Ambiguity means that people can see the same image in different ways. The fact that Russ sees eye contact where others are less certain (myself included) simply proves that it is ambiguous. Move along.

RSL

You're right, Richard, it's no use arguing. I could make a Biblical reference about "those with eyes to see..," but it would be useless. The problem is that in these drastically degraded 72ppi .jpegs it's impossible to see the girl's pupils sharply enough to be able to tell. Only a print or a .jpeg at much lower compression could do the job.

But I'll extend my offer of a reference to a good ophthalmologist to you too.

Richard

RSL wrote: »

The problem is that in these drastically degraded 72ppi .jpegs it's impossible to see the girl's pupils sharply enough to be able to tell. Only a print or a .jpeg at much lower compression could do the job.

You will get better image quality on Dgrin by linking photos instead of attaching them: How To Post on Dgrin

rrosen1

Street or not street.

RSL wrote: »

Okay, Jennifer. Here's a night shot from last year on St. George street in St. Augustine. It's one of my
favorites.

Maybe not every shot posted here has to be "artistic," though I'm not quite sure what you mean by that,
but every shot posted here ought at least to be one that didn't survive the post-shoot cull by mistake. In
addition, I'm sorry to hear that the "Street & PJ nomenclature is off." I hope you're wrong and that
people on here are trying to learn and do street photography, which, to me, is what cameras are for. I'm
not interested in a forum where people post their tourist pictures.

To give you an idea of what I mean, here's a paragraph from an article I recently submitted to a
photography mag. I won't tell you which magazine until I see whether or not they publish it. If I can't
find a home for it maybe I'll post the whole thing on here:

"Spending days on the street looking, and rarely seeing a situation worth shooting can become pretty
discouraging, so there's a temptation to just shoot some people on the street and call it a street
photograph. There's nothing wrong with shooting something you know isn't going to be good, in fact that's
part of the training process. You need to do that again and again to learn to get the geometry right. But
when it comes to posting or displaying your photographs you should be extremely critical, and to be able
to be critical in an informed way you need to become familiar with the genre. That calls not only for
reading, but for studying the work of the masters, including the ones I listed near the beginning of this
tirade."

I'd suggest to anyone on any street photography forum that they learn something about the genre by
studying the masters. Yes, a lot of their work is "dated," in the sense that what they've recorded is now
historical, but good composition and good subject matter is never "dated." The work of people like Henri
Cartier-Bresson, Elliott Erwitt, Mark Riboud, Helen Levitt, Robert Frank is no more "dated" than
Leonardo's Mona Lisa when it comes to the elements of fine visual art.

I started doing street photography about two years ago. What happened to me is that I wanted to know more about the people in the pictures. So I started interviewing them and doing portraits. Most of the people or my peeps as I call them are mostly mostly homeless. Their stories are sometimes depressing.
We have a lot of throwaways in society. The second post in my blog is an example of my work. www.appleledgephotography.com

Quincy T

Epic necrobump.

TonyCooper

RSL wrote: »

Although cropping like this results in pretty crappy resolution when you have to cut the thing down below 98k, it's still a result good enough to make the point.

Anybody still think the boy and girl aren't staring at each other?

I do not see that connection at all. Not even close. What I see is a girl who
looking somewhere in space and not necessarily making eye contact with
anyone.


If you are relying on an aspect that so many people don't see, then
you've missed the mark. Especially in a photograph that has so little
going for it as this one.

bfjr

Quincy T wrote: »

Epic necrobump.

Oh no not again

RSL

I'm really sorry to see this one come back. There's no way I'm going to be able to prove my point at 72ppi on a computer screen. You need to see an actual print, where the resolution is good enough that the right sides of the whites of the girl's eyes can be distinguished. Ain't gonna happen here, even if I link instead of upload. Ben's right. "Oh no not again." Oh, and Tony, I've checked your web and I accept your compliment about the picture.