Critique

RSL

Hi all, I'd like to hear a critique of this picture as a street photograph from anyone who wants to take the trouble -- not its technical quality, that's fine, but from the standpoint of what a street photograph should be.

michswiss

As an image it doesn't do much for me. Very little story, juxtaposition, insight, irony, or sense of location. It doesn't seem to be much more than a shot of an older man having a nap on a bench outside a restaurant. It might have been something more if you'd caught the paper actually midair between his hands and the floor as it fell from his hands. Maybe another way of saying it is that the image is too passive both in terms of composition and content.

I'm not sure how much more of a critique you're looking for. You know as well as anyone that the magical moments in street are mostly microseconds in length. Sorta hard to go back and recreate them.

bfjr

michswiss wrote: »

As an image it doesn't do much for me. Very little story, juxtaposition, insight, irony, or sense of location. It doesn't seem to be much more than a shot of an older man having a nap on a bench outside a restaurant. It might have been something more if you'd caught the paper actually midair between his hands and the floor as it fell from his hands. Maybe another way of saying it is that the image is too passive both in terms of composition and content.

I'm not sure how much more of a critique you're looking for. You know as well as anyone that the magical moments in street are mostly microseconds in length. Sorta hard to go back and recreate them.

my thoughts exactly and said so much better then I could type

W.W. Webster

michswiss wrote: »

As an image it doesn't do much for me.

Does even less for me. It asks nothing, tells me nothing, and looking down on the subject doesn't help.

RSL

Okay, Jennifer. I thought you were away or something. If I'd realized you were paying attention I'd have asked for critiques from anybody but "michswiss," because I was sure you'd catch on to what I was doing.

Jennifer's right on the money. When I saw this guy yesterday I knew what I was going to do with a picture that otherwise I'd probably have passed up. This picture is a lot like too many pictures I see that claim to be "street" photos: a hobo sleeping in a doorway, some guy sitting in a stairwell, people walking on a street or talking on a street corner, somebody sitting on a bus, etc., etc., ad nauseam.

On another thread Richard suggested I not get hung up on taxonomy, and I agree it's easy to go overboard with definitions. But if we're going to call something "street photography" we need to expect some commonality in our understanding of the term; otherwise what we get is a random collection of snapshots that can, as Richard suggested, include pictures of puppies.

Technically this picture is about as perfect as I could have made it. The light is pretty good, the main plane of focus is tack sharp, etc., but, let's face it, there's no story there. Jennifer said it very well: "...the image is too passive both in terms of composition and content" to be a decent street photograph. It's just a guy sitting there, asleep. Maybe, by stretching another term, you could call it an informal portrait, but it's certainly not a street shot.

By the way, Jennifer, I walked by this guy twice with about a fifteen minute interval between passes. First time he was awake and reading and there was another person in the scene. Second time he was asleep. The first picture was better than this one, but still not good enough to keep. As you say, if I'd stuck around and caught the paper falling out of his hands as he nodded off I'd have had a street photograph, though a pretty weak one.

This morning, as I look through the new postings on Street & Pajamas I find a some actually critical statements. Maybe things are looking up. My thanks to Jennifer, Benjamin, and W.W. for taking the time to respond.

black mamba

RSL wrote: »

Okay, Jennifer. I thought you were away or something. If I'd realized you were paying attention I'd have asked for critiques from anybody but "michswiss," because I was sure you'd catch on to what I was doing.

Jennifer's right on the money. When I saw this guy yesterday I knew what I was going to do with a picture that otherwise I'd probably have passed up. This picture is a lot like too many pictures I see that claim to be "street" photos: a hobo sleeping in a doorway, some guy sitting in a stairwell, people walking on a street or talking on a street corner, somebody sitting on a bus, etc., etc., ad nauseam.

On another thread Richard suggested I not get hung up on taxonomy, and I agree it's easy to go overboard with definitions. But if we're going to call something "street photography" we need to expect some commonality in our understanding of the term; otherwise what we get is a random collection of snapshots that can, as Richard suggested, include pictures of puppies.

Technically this picture is about as perfect as I could have made it. The light is pretty good, the main plane of focus is tack sharp, etc., but, let's face it, there's no story there. Jennifer said it very well: "...the image is too passive both in terms of composition and content" to be a decent street photograph. It's just a guy sitting there, asleep. Maybe, by stretching another term, you could call it an informal portrait, but it's certainly not a street shot.

By the way, Jennifer, I walked by this guy twice with about a fifteen minute interval between passes. First time he was awake and reading and there was another person in the scene. Second time he was asleep. The first picture was better than this one, but still not good enough to keep. As you say, if I'd stuck around and caught the paper falling out of his hands as he nodded off I'd have had a street photograph, though a pretty weak one.

This morning, as I look through the new postings on Street & Pajamas I find a some actually critical statements. Maybe things are looking up. My thanks to Jennifer, Benjamin, and W.W. for taking the time to respond.

Unbelievable!! What a pile of unmitigated excrement. My heart goes out to Jennifer, Ben, and W.W. for apparently failing your test to " catch on to what I was doing ". Your continuing reference to our forum as " Street & Pajamas " is, frankly, wearing so thin as to become truly offensive.

Tom

bfjr

Hey Russ before the fire storm starts (I'm not getting involved), I would like to help clarify one thing:

PJ - PhotoJournalism

PJs - child pajamas

RSL

black mamba wrote: »

Unbelievable!! My heart goes out to Jennifer, Ben, and W.W. for apparently failing your test to " catch on to what I was doing Tom

No kidding, Tom, maybe you ought to read what they said again. They all caught it. Did you?

bdcolen

Richard nailed it - don't get caught up in.with taxonomy. Street photography is an ethos, not a thing. Further, as in any other form of photography, there is "good" street photography, mediocre "street photography," and lousy "street photography." And not every photograph taken in public is a street photograph, and some photographs taken in private are, because they reflect the ethos to which I referred.

And by the way, someone go tell Elliot Erwitt that you can't take "street photographs" of dogs. ;-)

RSL

bdcolen wrote: »

And by the way, someone go tell Elliot Erwitt that you can't take "street photographs" of dogs. ;-)

You got me, BD. And Elliott's my favorite photographer! Mea culpa. Bring on the dogs.

RSL

bfjr wrote: »

Hey Russ before the fire storm starts (I'm not getting involved), I would like to help clarify one thing:

PJ - PhotoJournalism

PJs - child pajamas

Okay, Ben, then we'll call it "pajama." Singular. Actually, even though he got pretty worked up, Tom's got a point. I've made my point, so I'll let it rest. But I still think "photojournalism" ought to be spelled out -- or maybe dropped. I haven't gone through all 158 pages of Street & PJ, but in the pages I've looked at I have yet to see a PJ spread. PJ requires a story, done either with photographs alone à la Robert Frank and The Americans, or illustrated with photographs, à la Gene Smith and the heady days of Life magazine, and that would be a pretty hefty post.

On a related point, I have no problem with the expanded selection of photographs on here, street, PJ, or otherwise. I do have a problem with giving newbies who are trying to learn what street photography is all about the idea that a picture of a guy asleep on a bench is a street photograph.

rainbow

Let me wade in here carefully, if possible. Using your thread to discuss this topic seems preferable to hijacking other ones, especially since the definition of "Street and PJ" seems especially important to you.

First, from your initial posts, it is apparent that you are well read and studied in this genre. And you have made a positive contribution in this regard. On the other hand, you are opinionated and might express it in a manner that others may interpret as arrogant. This can be disruptive and result in some polarizing of members against your posts because of the person, not the content. I go back and forth, but have mostly chosen to stay on the sidelines.

Whatever your definition of "street photography", it is unimportant to me because I have my own working definition that serves me well. If I go out with my camera into the public to take shots of whatever captures my attention, I am taking street shots. Candid, delightful surprises, strangers, unexpected, etc. can all play a part of this definition.

Googling "street photography" brings up the following two attempted definitions on the first page:

"Simply put street photography includes any photograph made anywhere in public places."
"Street photography is a type of documentary photography that features subjects in candid situations within public places such as streets, parks, beaches, malls, political conventions and other settings."

Now I realize that standards of what is a "good/great/boring... "street" photograph can and should vary. Your standards are high: kudos to you. All of your shots may be better than all of mine. But I do it for personal pleasure and that includes posting whatever shot I choose on this forum. Some hit and many miss. And many get little response. You are welcome to comment on any or not to comment. And hopefully I will learn from it. But if the response feels patronizing or negative without any attempt to educate or offer food for thought, then I believe it better not to respond.

There also should be a recognition of who the posters might be. I immediately recognize a first time poster here and am careful to be more encouraging than critical. Rather than say "It sucks because it does not tell a story", I might choose to say it differently like: "A stronger story would add to this photo." I suspect most of the masters you have studied have either had someone encourage them very early in their career and would likely have been circumspect in offering their opinions to someone starting out in the field.

Hopefully this is helpful in some manner. It is purely my assessment and thoughts on your posts for the past weeks. On the strongly positive side, I have also noted that you are completely willing to backtrack when called to task by another member rather than become defensive. I hope you will stay and become a positive contributor to our "Street and PJ" community (even if the name of the forum continues to rankle you).

michswiss

Three things...

1) Great comment Rainbow.

2) I'm probably hanging out more on the forums these days than I should but still not able to shoot as often as I'd like. :

3) If I were still in China, I'd give you a few Street and PJ shots...

bdcolen

Just one quick response to the PJ part of the thread - Photo journalism more often than not involves single images, rather than multiple images. A shot of a fire; a shot a mayoral handshake; a shot of an intersection in need of a traffic light; a shot of a demonstration; a shot of the aftermath of a suicide bombing; a portrait of a political candidate; a shot of high water smashing over a boardwalk; a shot of a child selling lemonade. Yes, some photo journalists are lucky enough to be able to put together picture stories. But for most, photo journalism is capturing what passes for news in a single image.

P. S. Rarely do we see photojournalism in this forum. But if it's going to be anywhere in Dgrinland, this is the place for it.

RSL

bdcolen wrote: »

Just one quick response to the PJ part of the thread - Photo journalism more often than not involves single images, rather than multiple images.

Okay, BD, I don't want to get into another hassle over semantics, but it seems to me that to call a magazine or newspaper article illustrated with a single picture "photojournalism" is a stretch, or, at the very least, a modern re-definition of the term. I know that back in the fifties, when photojournalism was at its peak, it was understood to be a story told in a sequence of pictures, with the words subordinate to the pictures. Anything else was journalism illustrated with a picture or two. Maybe the meaning has changed.

RSL

Thanks, Rainbow. What you've said makes sense. Yes, I'm opinionated. Another way to put it is that when it comes to photography I have definite ideas about what makes a good photograph. Those ideas come from sixty years of practice and study -- not only of photography, but of other art forms. The "arrogant" part, now that I reflect on it, comes, I think, from the fact that I've been an active participant on Luminous Landscape for more than two and a half years. Over there people know me, they know where I stand, and I'm free to state my case without feeling I have to beat around the bush. So far, I'm a stranger here, so maybe the way to clear the air is for me to introduce myself.

I'm a retired Air Force officer. I was a fighter pilot during the Korean war, and I started doing street photography in 1953 on the streets of Taegu. (The avatar I'm using comes from that period.) In the May issue of B&W magazine I received a spotlight award with a portfolio of some of my Korean street photographs. I did some commercial photography back in the sixties -- weddings, etc, hated it and quit doing it, so I'm an amateur in the true sense of that word, and intend to continue as an amateur. I sold a lot of photographs out of local galleries before the recent economy closed the galleries. At the moment I'm working on photographs for what I hope will be a book on our local penny arcade -- one of the last of its kind in the U.S., with some machines from as far back as 1900.

Yes, you're right, "street photography" is a very loose term, and looking for a definition on Google, or Wikipedia is a waste of time. Those definitions are written by people whose experience with street photography is pretty much confined to snapshots of their cat. But it's true, as Richard pointed out, getting too wrapped around the taxonomy axle can be counterproductive. So I'll agree with your understanding that the definition of street photography can vary. At the same time, it seems to me anyone setting out to do street photography ought to have a fairly clear idea of the kind of photograph he's after. I'm not talking about subject matter, but I am talking about geometry and the kind of human interplay that gives a street photograph its power. You learn those things from people like Cartier-Bresson, Frank, and Erwitt.

Lately I've been writing about street photography. I have one article about technique out to a magazine, and day before yesterday I started another about what makes a good street photograph. The following excerpt pretty much explains where I stand. The article is titled "Why Do Street Photography?" It starts out with a pretty standard explanation of the difference between street photography and photojournalism and then goes on:

"So with that definition in mind, let's ask the question again: why would anyone do street photography? What's important enough about people interacting with their surroundings to make it worthwhile to go out with a camera and shoot pictures of people who are complete strangers, and to risk disapproval and even anger if you're caught doing it?

"Of course, if you've been bitten by the street photography bug you already know the answer to that question. There's a rush of satisfaction when you realize you've caught an image that has the power, like a finely wrought poem, to convey something about human existence that words, by themselves, can't convey.

"In his wonderful book on the power of poetry, Poetry and Experience, Archibald MacLeish points out that poetry conveys its "meaning" not through the denotations or connotations of words, but through the interstices between images. And, in a sense, so it is with the best street photography. Within a street photograph the people, like words in a poem, must themselves be understandable, but the real power of the photograph is in the relationships between the people and the geometry of their surroundings.

"Cartier-Bresson's 'Lock at Bougival, France, 1955' is an example of that kind of power. The picture shows a family living on a boat, a boat one suspects is the family's livelihood. The father stands on the edge of the lock and looks in through a door at the mother, who holds a naked baby. The baby is being admired by a second woman who appears to be a grandmother. There are two dogs in the picture The dog on the bank of the lock looks devotedly at the man, while the second, on the floor beneath the woman, looks suspiciously at the photographer. This, perhaps, is a picture worth a thousand words. But no flood of words can convey the warmth and the love and the hopefulness that was captured and that emanates from this picture. Truly, the real 'meaning' of this photograph is in the interstices between the images."

From here the article takes off into other considerations such as the historical value of documentary photography. But to me, great street photography is a kind of poetry. Something less can be okay, but anything less should be a step on the way to that objective.

By the way, "Street and PJ" doesn't rankle me, but, as I pointed out earlier, I do think the PJ is superfluous.

Jennifer: Get off the forums and go shoot some pictures.

bfjr

RSL wrote: »

By the way, "Street and PJ" doesn't rankle me, but, as I pointed out earlier, I do think the PJ is superfluous.

Jennifer: Get off the forums and go shoot some pictures.

Welcome to the Street/Documentary Forum :lol

bfjr

bdcolen wrote: »

Just one quick response to the PJ part of the thread - Photo journalism more often than not involves single images, rather than multiple images. A shot of a fire; a shot a mayoral handshake; a shot of an intersection in need of a traffic light; a shot of a demonstration; a shot of the aftermath of a suicide bombing; a portrait of a political candidate; a shot of high water smashing over a boardwalk; a shot of a child selling lemonade. Yes, some photo journalists are lucky enough to be able to put together picture stories. But for most, photo journalism is capturing what passes for news in a single image.

P. S. Rarely do we see photojournalism in this forum. But if it's going to be anywhere in Dgrinland, this is the place for it.

Hey just dawned on me by the above definition this is PJ

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=206097

So yes we de PJ

RSL

bfjr wrote: »

Welcome to the Street/Documentary Forum :lol

Hey, Ben, I could vote for that -- even knock on doors for it.