Editing for street photography

<blockquote>

<p>Color, while useful is in a sense, is too easy as it plays off our sense of sight which can overpower (or mask in the case of an unsuccessful image) the sometimes subtle but more important details.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>on the other hand it can bring out exactly what you want to show or emphasize in what otherwise could prove to be a drab picture in mono. Personally I think choosing color is merely a technical choice and/or a personal preference. It's certainly no less suited than b&w is for streetwork.</p>

<p>The notion that content is the most important is something that falls on fertile ground here and yet that seems a bit to subjective. Some time ago the work of Cartier-Bresson was discussed when his work was exhibited in SF MOMA. That he's one of the all time greats seems beyond debate and yet it didn't do a lot for quite some people while others are lyrical about his work. In that sense I can feel some sympathy for Marc's observation when he states that criticues are useless. On the other hand that would render all work beyond debate and I don't think anyone would agree with that. That's why an adjective as content (as such) is really subjective.</p>

<p>Personally I think good photography, and certainly streephotography, should draw you in, should question or provide a mirror and challenge, should invite to discuss. However one chooses to decribe it it should certainly do something for and to a viewer (or the majority of viewers). In that sense photography is and should certainly be open to critique.</p>

<p> Super interesting responses. I like the no rules approach as Jeff said..hmm I think its content before color and I don't think color can really make up for it, although I have tried that. But then sometimes its a no-brainer, like this one I took yesterday. Although it looks ok in b and w, it definitely looks better, to me anyway, in color.</p><div></div>

<p>Ton, as you say much of this is subjective. The way I see content is in terms of how it is expressed photographically. The very same content can be shown in a way, as you say, that draws me in, that challenges me in some way, that incites curiosity . . . or it can be shown in such a way as to be uninteresting, trite, etc. For me, content is a significant starting point but a photo is often (NOT ALWAYS) not about the content <em>per se</em> as much as it is about the delivery of the content.</p>

<p>Like you, I find that color is no less suited to street photography than b/w. Just as contrast and tonality and gradation can help convey the sense of the content of a photo, so adept color work can accomplish the same sorts of expressive things. And just as color might be badly used or might be used gratuitously, so can high contrast be well used or badly used or high key or any number of styles used in black and white. It's got more to do with the sensibility behind the tools used than with the tools themselves.</p>

<p>Marie, can you talk some about what you feel the color is accomplishing in your photo and how the color makes it work differently from what might be possible in black and white. Thanks.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The point I was trying to make is that sp is about being out there soaking in and understanding the environment and its dynamics, and using what's gained from that process to drive what's captured.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I want to comment a bit on what Brad is saying, because I think it points at the biggest mistake made with street photography, which is thinking that it is just going out with a camera and capturing stuff. It's possible to get a few good photos that way, and there are a few photographers who I've seen capable of shooting in almost any environment and genre and do well. But their photos, while excellent and captivating, often lack soul.<br>

<br>

This isn't different than most photography (excluding technical commercial photography.) When I started shooting fights, I went to the gym several times a week. I photographed people training, talked to the fighters, talked to the trainers. I examined the dynamics inside the ring. At the fights, I talked to the judges, the state officials, the TV guys. Every single minute of this went into the photos I took, and it's why I became successful at it. I saw the news guys come in and take a few shots that would appear in the papers, not interesting.<br>

<br>

It's the same thing with the street. If you're someone comfortable being there, have the skills to interact either directly or indirectly with the people or the street itself, one will get to the point where it makes sense to start photographing. But it takes that level of familiarity to figure out what to shoot. I talk to people on the street, on the bus, in stores, wherever I go, regardless of having a camera. I talk to people I am not going to photograph. I talk to the security guards, the cops, the buskers. Every interaction goes into making a better street photograph. <br>

<br>

I could point out a negative example. I know nothing about nature or animals beyond what they look like. I wouldn't know the timing or location for a good shot of a bear in a river, no more than most nature shooters know when to get off the curb at a street disturbance. They probably wouldn't even be there, just as I'm not camping in Alaska waiting for a bear grabbing a fish.</p>

<p>Regarding post-processing, for street photos I do it to emphasize certain elements, to deal with the uncontrollable lighting and backgrounds that sometimes appear out of nowhere, and to make them consistent with my preferred style. I do a lot more post-processing on portraits and my music and theater work.</p>

<p>To answer Fred: For that photo, the color of the hat draws me into the scene. I like the compliment of the greys and whites, and it being a baby, most probably female, pink and pale the skin tones reveal a softness that I think I like against the hard light of the sun. For me, that's what I see in the color version. In the black and white, its a lesser impact, in my eyes.<br>

With some photos I feel undecided between color black and white, but if that's the case I will most likely choose b&w. I guess there is no wrong or right..just personal preference.<br>

Brad put up a color photo in a thread called 'gestures' of a man and woman, its color and in my humble opinion, its just perfect. I could see it in black and white, but the color is perfect... I like it when its that simple. <br>

http://www.photo.net/street-documentary-photography-forum/00aPJ0</p>

<p>Marie, thanks for your answer. I think Brad's photo works beautifully in color. It's very un-self-conscious and has a classy look which goes well with the content. The color seems a very integral part of the photo.</p>

<p>I had a very opposite reaction to your photo. I totally understand your preferring it in color and for the reasons you gave. And, as you say, it's a very personal matter. For me, the color works in the opposite direction, the hat actually pushing the girl out of the scene to an extent. It grabs attention and keeps the little girl very separated from the environment and feel of the fountain, whereas there's something in the content of the scene that has me seeing her as much more a part of her surroundings. The loud color seems to keep grabbing at me. For me, it pushes the photo more toward the feeling of an advertisement, gives it a kind of slickness, which is certainly not a bad thing. I actually think we are probably both seeing it similarly, as you have mentioned that the black and white has less impact. That's what I'd probably be looking for in this scene. More meditativeness and less of a certain kind of immediate impact. I think they are just different approaches to the content, and not that one is right and one is wrong or that one is better than the other. But it does help show how differently color and black and white can be used to express what a scene holds for each of us.</p>

<p>Jeff,<br>

you talk about familiarity, and I agree, but I think this word summarizes two different concepts. One is practical, and is about knowing the environment around you: whether it's a gym, a forest, or a city, it helps you because you can know beforehand what's going to happen, when, where, etc. But I think that the key concept, when we talk about photographs that have "soul", is empathy. If you can somewhat feel the fear or rage of a fighter, or the emotions of people in the street, and even those of animals, this is going to show in the photographs you take. And if you can't, your pictures can be technically perfect, and they can record interesting moments, but they'll never have soul.</p>

<p><em>"If you can somewhat feel the fear or rage of a fighter, or the emotions of people in the street, and even those of animals, this is going to show in the photographs you take."</em> <strong>--Alessandro</strong></p>

<p>I know what you mean, Allesandro, but want to make sure it's not taken as a given that if one has the feelings, the feelings will show. They can, but those feelings can be just as strong and yet be left at the scene. It's about being able to "translate" the feelings into photographic terms, SHOWING what empathy you have. These "feelings" may be a necessary start to get soulful pictures. Visualization and the handling of the medium must then build upon the feelings. The photographic danger -- I've heard some naive photographers talk about their feelings as if they show kind of automatically -- is that their feelings will be so strong that they will continue to see them in the photographs they make but no one else will, because they actually haven't shown them.</p>

<p>Taking pics of children and homeless people might be good cases in point. Many photographers taking such pictures have empathy with their subjects and really do feel for them as people. And yet so many pictures, to me, don't show this. It can simply be a matter of getting down on their level with the camera rather than pointing it down at little kids or people sitting in the street. Of course, there are times when it is more expressive and appropriate to point your camera down. The point is that putting together photographic elements will <em>show</em> the empathy or not.</p>

<p>I wouldn't want to assume that some "bad" photographs are the result of a lack of empathy on the part of the photographer, though I think many do lack both the familiarity and empathy you're talking about. I think it's often/sometimes the case the photographers have great empathy but lack the photographic vision or ability to show it.</p>

<p>Absolutely, Fred. If you have empathy, you will notice things that others will miss. If you're also a good photographer, this will also show in the (successful) pictures you take.</p>

<p>Just thinking out loud here . . . I wonder if it's also the case that if you don't have empathy you will notice things people who are empathetic may miss . . . in other words, where may objectivity fit in?</p>

<p>Mmh... I thought that objectivity in photography had been ruled out long ago :-)<br>

<br />Anyway, besides noticing something or not, you have to deem them <em>worthy</em> of notice, if you're going to take a picture, and here's where I think lies one big difference between more and less empathetic photographers. Another one is that you can see something interesting and decide <em>not</em> to take a photograph it, because you feel you might hurt the feelings of those on the other side of the camera.</p>

<p>As Jeff pointed out, photography, unlike games (like baseball) has no intrinsic rules. It also has no goals, runs, or other ways of "scoring".<br>

__________________________________________</p>

<p><strong>Ton - "</strong>The notion that content is the most important is something that falls on fertile ground here and yet that seems a bit to subjective."</p>

<p>"Every photograph is a battle of form vs. content" -- Garry Winogrand.</p>

<p>Ton's right: There's no universal consensus on the supremacy of content. For photographers like Garry Winogrand who spoke at length on the importance of <em>form,</em> and its relationship to content, it mattered. It's a sign of life that no one's definition (mine, too) encapsulates sp. The same applies to assertions about what sp is about. Most of those fall obviously under "what I and my buds do".</p>

<p>A simple Google search for "street photography is about" should clear that up. The range of results is broad, though many things will ring true for experienced, knowledgeable and insightful sp'ers. <br>

_________________________________________________________</p>

<p>Even though it will be discussed (more like flogged) in forums like this one eternally, historically speaking, color in sp became a non-issue sometime in the early 80's. No, I am not saying anyone should do it, only that it's been part of the sp landscape for decades. Color adds a large amount of information, variables and complexity to the mix.<br>

_________________________________________________________</p>

<p>While apparently favored in this forum, talking with people is not compulsory nor required for making great sp.</p>

<p>From</p>

<p>http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/04/frank200804</p>

<p>The truth of the matter is the book was a drive-by job. The pictures feel intimate, but in a way they are, like their creator [Frank], cold and Germanic. He [Frank] did not stop for lunch at the sharecropper’s house. He did not know the name of the undertaker for whom the funeral was held. “No time, no time. I had to move,” he remembered. And so he piled into his Ford Business Coupe and kept heading west.<br>

“I only ever spoke to one person,” he [Robert Frank] said. “The woman who got married in Reno. She called up her father to say she was married and he hung up the phone on her.”</p>

<p>So talking may appeal to many, but great sp is perfectly doable without it.</p>

>>> While apparently favored in this forum, talking with people is not compulsory nor required for making

great sp.

 

Is there anyone here who doesn't understand that as being a given? It's just that some people choose to...

<p>So enjoying this thread lol. Loved the link Luis. Drive by shooting, I got some 'good' photos that way but find talking to the folk is personally more satisfying.<br /> Fred, I look at your photos and I feel a darkly meditative personality, I look at mine and I see a somewhat bewildered (come from the suburbs) city dweller, somewhat awed by it all. But I imagine that will change too.</p>

<p>I also recall a photo by Eric Kim.."ethical or not". Its a dead Haitian girl killed by police for looting. Its a picture of her in death, clinging on the some generic paintings she had stolen. It affected me. In the next photo its of a gaggle of photographers, some adjusting their settings, some looking for the perfect angle of the dead girl. There is speculation that they even moved the body for a 'better' shot of her. I was moved by the first photo, but angered by the second one. There is a time to put the camera down. I have done so on many occasion..an old lady slipped and fell on ice, calling out for help. I could have shot that but decided to help instead..</p>

<p>Maybe I missed the shot of a lifetime..?</p>

>>> Brad put up a color photo in a thread called 'gestures' of a man and woman, its color and in my

humble opinion, its just perfect.

 

Thanks Marie, I appreciate it. I do shoot a lot of photos that stay rendered in color and (of course) they

are post-processed, to different degrees, depending in purpose. That's actually a great launching point to

address Fred's contrasting implication that my post processing is somehow not deliberate or intentional.

Nothing could be further from the truth. That lack of understanding is apparently from my use of the word

autopilot, which Fred latched on to and decided to interpret as meaning something else.

<p>Marie, I remember hearing a story (can't find a reference to it right now) that Weston told about coming across his crying young son one day and taking a photo even before comforting him.</p>

<p>As Luis has said, we are all driven differently.</p>

<p>Oh..and I knew that photo was not straight from the camera. I have never seen digital color as yet true to life as that appears to be. Skin tones are usually inaccurate unless processed in my limited experience. (orangey in shade, red in sun) no matter what camera. A memorable color shot, if all my color came out that good I would shoot color always. Our eyes see color..that's why I can't see black and white as being more 'neutral' as some people claim.</p>

<p>If you really look, the better street photography out there shows the shooter's personality seeping through their photographs often... </p>

<p><a href="http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lui62yZT3W1qe0lqqo1_500.png">HERE'S</a> the Weston photo of his son Neil. I've often heard photographers and artists say that their better judgment has little to do with it. They <em>have</em> to shoot or paint.</p>

<p>Content-form, do I have to choose? Looking through this thread, one thing I haven't seen really articulated is the role of light in photography. Personally, that's always been important to me particularly to the formal side of how I evaluate the craft aspect of photography and the quality of the photograph. I also don't get this color or not color? I would have to strongly reject the notion that color photography somehow masks or covers up lack of content or structure. There is a technical as well as an expressive side of working in color. But then again, I've been shooting mostly color lately :). I still love B/W, but I think it does nothing to enhance photographic subject and content but what I do think it does is distill certain formal content such as lighting and organization in the frame and for some reason can really enhance mood. I think its nice to do both.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"If you really look, the better street photography out there shows the shooter's personality seeping through their photographs often..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Probably does as well for the not so good street photography. Sure does for mine.</p>

<p>Great post, Lex! :-)</p>

<p>I do think that defaulting to B&W simply because that's what Street Photographers do can result in misunderstandings or missing the point of some captures- I hate having to shoot in RAW files as my laptop's not that fast and it can take an age to get through a day's shots, but it is great to have the option of changing colour palate or making up for my exposure shortcomings.<br>

Some people don't understand that monochrome and urban does not automatically mean moody or art. Summer scenes in particular can lose a lot in B&W- colour is the whole point of Summer!<br>

And I simply do not get this obsession with spikily sharpend and hypercontrasted PP.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I do think that defaulting to B&W simply because that's what Street Photographers do</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />They do? Did anyone in this thread suggest that? Have you not seen the color street photography that is out there? The only photo posted on this thread is color. Where did this idea come from?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And I simply do not get this obsession with spikily sharpend and hypercontrasted PP.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Take some time to look up Daido Moriyama, one of the greatest street photographers of the 20th century (still shooting but not as much), and very influential.</p>