No No These Are Street Photos, All of Them

bfjr

richardman

Lenswork, which is not known for Street Photo per se, has some nice samples of street photos in its latest issue (#97) with works from Stan Raucher and Vivian Maier. There is even a long interview between Brooks (Lenswork publisher) and Stan. Well worth a read.

RSL

#3's a street shot, Ben, but you need to bring those people up a bit, especially their faces. There's too much tonal imbalance between the left half and the right half in that picture. If I were doing it I'd probably lower the brightness on the left side a bit too.

With your permission, I'll show you what I mean.

bfjr

richardman wrote: »

Lenswork, which is not known for Street Photo per se, has some nice samples of street photos in its latest issue (#97) with works from Stan Raucher and Vivian Maier. There is even a long interview between Brooks (Lenswork publisher) and Stan. Well worth a read.

I'll have a look see, thanks.

RSL wrote: »

#3's a street shot, Ben, but you need to bring those people up a bit, especially their faces. There's too much tonal imbalance between the left half and the right half in that picture. If I were doing it I'd probably lower the brightness on the left side a bit too.

With your permission, I'll show you what I mean.

Whatever rocks your boat, Russ.

bdcolen

Yes, they all are - though I definitely need to see more of the scene surrounding the dog.

RSL

Okay, Ben. The only differences are that I've brought up the faces on the people a bit and subdued the poster in the left half of the picture. I really like the shot.

bfjr

bdcolen wrote: »

Yes, they all are - though I definitely need to see more of the scene surrounding the dog.

Again to close. Yeah I know I tried to include some but..............

There is another way you can see more. Next time your in my parts look me up, we'll walk
Venice Beach and you can take it all in

RSL

In my own opinion, and that's what it is: an opinion, #3 is the only street photo in the lot. The others are just pictures of people on a street. #3 plays off the graphic on the left with the people on the right. There's a story there, but it's impossible to know what the story is. In other words, it's pretty good surrealism.

bfjr

RSL wrote: »

In my own opinion, and that's what it is: an opinion, #3 is the only street photo in the lot. The others are just pictures of people on a street. #3 plays off the graphic on the left with the people on the right. There's a story there, but it's impossible to know what the story is. In other words, it's pretty good surrealism.

1st thanks for your effort/time to re process my image.
It is however the process that I tried earlier and then rejected.
It is not how I saw it or how I wanted to present it. The image now becomes your vision and
not mine. Again it is however a nicely evened out (tonality wise) image.

As to what is or is not "Street". As I and others have eluded to "Every Picture Tells A Story"
It is on the viewer to see it, or to find something else within that image that moves them, or to move on.
Moving a viewer is difficult as it should be, and most of my images are quibbling (thanks Jen )
but Buddy when I connect you can hear/see/feel the Bat Crack, which makes all the Failures worth while.

RSL

bfjr wrote: »

but Buddy when I connect you can hear/see/feel the Bat Crack, which makes all the Failures worth while.

Yes, and that's the one to post, not the failures.

bfjr

RSL wrote: »

Yes, and that's the one to post, not the failures.

Well I think I did, but You didn't like it !

rpavich

Interesting...for me #3 works the best and I'm going to humbly agree that emphazing the faces helped...but I'm a noob...what do I know?

This makes me want to go out on the street and see what i can come up with...


What lenses did you use for these?

RSL

bfjr wrote: »

Well I think I did, but You didn't like it !

Ben, you need to re-read what I've written. I very much liked #3, especially once a reasonable balance between the left and right sides of the picture was established and the faces of the people were brought up enough to let their expressions be read. I don't "dislike" the others. I just don't think they're the kind of pictures upon which you want people to judge your skill as a photographer.

RSL

richardman wrote: »

Lenswork, which is not known for Street Photo per se, has some nice samples of street photos in its latest issue (#97) with works from Stan Raucher and Vivian Maier. There is even a long interview between Brooks (Lenswork publisher) and Stan. Well worth a read.

My issue #97 of Lenswork arrived yesterday, and I finally got a chance to look at Stan Raucher's work, as well as a reasonable sample of Vivian Maier's.

As he readily admits, Brooks Jensen hasn't a clue about street photography, so he made the mistake of printing what I'd guess were samples of Raucher's work jointly selected by the two of them. If Raucher keeps on working at it and stops going to "workshops" long enough to learn something about street photography he may live to regret this issue.

Of the twenty pictures printed with Lenswork's magnificent attention to grayscale tonal ranges, only four were good enough that Raucher should have accepted them as representative of his street photography. Worse, because of Brooks's tone deafness to street photography, Lenswork printed the magnificent Vivian Maier portfolio immediately after Raucher's work. If you have eyes to see, you can't miss the difference. It jumps out at you.

From the exchange between Raucher and Jensen in the interview it's pretty clear that Raucher knows all about street photography in the abstract. I'm sure the concepts were explained to him in the many workshops he attended, and his heart's in the right place: As a reference for aspiring street photographers he gave, at the top of his list, Bystander: A History of Street Photography, which is my own favorite book.

But reading Bystander isn't the same thing as an extensive study of the photographs of the masters. Had Stan Raucher done that, first of all he'd have recognized that the first picture out of the bag in his Lenswork collection, "DeKalb Street, Brooklyn" is extremely derivative of Berenice Abbott's "Zito's Bakery, Bleeker Street, New York, 1937," and that Abbott's shot is so far superior that the comparison is embarrassing. Also, he'd probably have internalized a much clearer understanding of what makes a good street photograph. I don't think Stan was copying Abbott's work. I think he just didn't know about it. But the result is the same.

bfjr

rpavich wrote: »

Interesting...for me #3 works the best and I'm going to humbly agree that emphazing the faces helped...but I'm a noob...what do I know?

This makes me want to go out on the street and see what i can come up with...


What lenses did you use for these?

This is to me is a most excellent comment!
As I just recently said, an image needs to move the viewer and if this post moves you to
go out and shoot, then I am more the good with that and look forward to seeing what you
capture.

These images were captured on Film with 40mm 1.7 lens.

So go out and capture your own vision and maybe Russ will
tear into you as he occasionally does to me! You know "Misery Loves Company" :lol

bfjr

RSL wrote: »

Ben, you need to re-read what I've written. I very much liked #3, especially once a reasonable balance between the left and right sides of the picture was established and the faces of the people were brought up enough to let their expressions be read. I don't "dislike" the others. I just don't think they're the kind of pictures upon which you want people to judge your skill as a photographer.

I'm sorry I was not clear. I was referring to the post where you said I was not close enough.
That one I do believe is one of my better captures.

RSL

Okay, that's another similar situation. I never said I don't like the picture. As a matter of fact I do, and I think it was quick thinking on your part to get it at all. I still maintain it would have been a better picture had you been closer. To me the picture loses a lot its strength because of the clutter on the left side of the frame that doesn't contribute to the picture at all.