Sheesh ... Street Photography is HARD!

<p>Thanks for all the pointers you gave me a couple of weeks ago. It helped me A LOT, but ... I truly think it takes a person of very special temperment to take street photos. You have to be both bold and patient. I was so afraid to take photos of anyone on the street. I was afraid someone would come up and say, "Why are you taking my picture? Get that camera out of here!" I don't like many of the pics, but wanted to share and tell you thanks for the help. Perhaps I'll try again when I have more time to simply sit down, enjoy a drink, and do more "people watching" than "site seeing."</p><div></div>

<p>Here's the second (and last) set of photos. The first one was of a family enjoying a lunch by the fountain while a young lady was passed out on the bench. The girl in the pink dress wandered into the photo and we all got a good laugh out of it. The last one is of a group of friends enjoying a hand-rolled cigar at the cigar factory. Thanks again everyone.</p><div></div>

<p>True, street photography may not be everyones cup of tea, but it looks like you're off to a good start. If you find this type of photography is the most enriching for you then that's great; you should cetainly keep at it. I cannot know for sure if I can say if it ever gets easy, but it does get somewhat easier with time. Remember, everything we experience in life occurs between our ears. Therefore, it's only the hurdles of our own making that me must overcome. Do this and allow the rest to fall into place.</p>

<p>Hi Laura, I think you're getting there. Being bashful isn't easy to get over.</p>

<p>This is a photo I took under a somewhat uncomfortable circumstance. The guys seemed pretty friendly, but look where the guy with the steaking knife is holding it, and his smile. The photo was taken a little south of Lagos, Nigeria. I'm not a street shooter, I seem to specialize in boring tourist snaps of bland landscapes, but working the streets (with a camera) is much more fun and very challenging.</p>

<p>I think I posted the pic in another street thread, apologies if it is redundant.</p><div></div>

<p>Laura,<br>

I'm just learning street myself, so I've not got a lot to share yet. I have more deletes than keepers still. But, practice is the key. I'm an introvert, so getting up close and personal with the camera is not natural for me. But, in situations where getting closer is almost expected, then I do. The picture you posted where the street performer is standing there could probably have been a lot closer, even environmental portrait close. Again, not wanting to sound critical as I'm working on this myself.<br>

I like the three-legged poodle. The down hill slant makes it feel like they were in a light jog. And, the anarchy symbol adds a nice touch of something.<br>

The family by the fountain with the passed out girl on the other side is also interesting. It is life. You found one of the juxtapositions that street photographers live for.<br>

If you shot in RAW, have you tried a B&W version of any of these shots? That can change the whole feel of the shot.<br>

You got your feet wet in street photography. That's good. You might want to try it some more and see if it grows on you. It has taken me several outings to get more comfortable with it. I like it though, because it captures the day-to-day realities of life in a way that other genre/styles of photography don't.<br>

DS Meador</p>

<p>I think you have a good eye for street. Getting over being bashfull is easy, it comes with time; the more you shoot the easier it gets. But, your eye is good. As my instructor would say get closer. the girl surprised at the fountain is great, crop it closer and you have a great photo there. The girl passed out at the fountain is another one you can work with. I still get bashfull some times; it blows over.</p>

<p>Street is the most difficult genre in photography. Guys who get great pictures on the street, and there are not that many, are in a category by themselves. It can be done though. I quit street photography because of the combination of advancing age and an increasingly brutal police force. All of a sudden it just did not seem worth the hassle anymore, after almost 20 years of it. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have more deletes than keepers still.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Welcome, because you can be sure that won't change. It's par for the course out there.</p>

<p>Laura, yes, it can be overwhelming and even intimidating but it takes acquiring experience. There's no substitute for that. Start out at events, local fairs and so on because people expect to be photographed there. It's a good way to get some experience.</p>

<p>Street photography can be very difficult. That I attribute to our own internal fears more than anything else. It does take time and experience to overcome this. My recommendations are:<br>

1. Persevere. Keep on taking photos.<br>

2. Get closer to your subject.<br>

3. Prefocus your camera if you can.<br>

4. Shot from the waist or hip. Interesting perspective and not nearly as noticable as bringing the camera to your face.<br>

5. Frequent people events where there are lots of people to shoot. You don't stand out as much.<br>

Good shooting,<br>

Leo</p>

 

<p>Laura, <br>

I don't think I saw the 'original post'.<br>

I have nearly 1300 photos on this site, and a huge presentation. A great number are 'street' photos, many of them taken in the last half decade, a few taken as long as 40 years ago. A few are 'icons' (Soldier with Rifle at People's Park, Berkeley, 1969. aftermath of Martin Luther King Assassination riots, Street Funeral Bobby Kennedy, Richard Nixon in mob on Powell St., San Francisco).<br>

I invite you to look at them, especially my very first post - 'Balloon Man', taken when I was 22 with a very cheap lens. It was taken at a parade. It's in my Black and White folder and is the first photo there and the first photo posted on this service when I knew nothing about the Internet 5-1/2 years ago.<br>

One famous photographer, Elliott Erwitt, who was three times head of the Magnum (photography) Agency, settled into 'street photography' at which he became a master, because he saw it required little monetary investment -- just some serious thought. All it took, he figured, was a camera, some film, and good subjects were all around. <br>

All the 'street' photographer had to do was apply his inventiveness to his surroundings and 'be there'.<br>

I tend to think of 'street' as 'thinking man's (woman's) photography. Whereas a great number of competent photographers tend to be rather nonverbal, and it takes no ability with words to be a successful photographer per se, 'street photography' generally requires or makes best use of an adept mind. <br>

Many great 'street' photographers tend to be quite bright and a substantial number also tend to be very verbal as well.<br>

In one sense, 'street' makes use of 'seeing and capturing' relationships, which may not always be so apparent to the casual passerby. <br>

Intelligence is defined as 'the ability to distinguish meaningful relationships'. Much of the best of 'street photography' is based on the photographer's ability though a camera and the four boundaries of the capture to define 'meaningful relationships' with his/her subjects -- through the use of photography on the 'street' - hence my conclusion.<br>

'Street' and 'documentary' frequently are the same, and when not the same often overlap.<br>

I endorse everything that Ton Mestrom wrote above. It is absolutely true. I remember in my early days when a darkroom tech showed me two really good shots on one roll. I was overwhelmed. Just getting one good shot on a 36-exposure roll was something that was seldom achievable, and to get two -- well that was joyous.<br>

Nowadays, with digital equipment, with which one can shoot and have no waste (except expendable and free pixels), one is tempted (and often does) shoot a lot more frames -- economics favor that. In the early days of the 35 mm slr, the only photographers who could afford to keep firing their 'motor drive' cameras were from the press services and the photo magazines and pictorial magazines. <br>

Now, with digital slr cameras and the ability to fire 5 and 8 frames per second at no additional cost, a casual photographer with good equipment can shoot as many frames as an old-time 'Life' photographer, or a Viet Nam photojournalist with a motor drive on his Nikon F (and not worry about changing film just as the going got good, or even misloading the film, which happened to everybody at one time or another.)<br>

If you take 1,000 photos or 10,000 photos and only one of them is a world class photo, but you show only that one photo, you may be on your way to becoming a world class photographer if you persevere and take hundreds of thousands of shots or millions and edit out all the crap. A good photographer should be a good photo editor (or be allied with a good photo editor whom the photographer can trust).<br>

Part of the skill in 'street' is recognizing what is good or what is not. (I tend to post a lot of crap, along with my best stuff, and use Photo.net as a 'sounding board' rather than to seek accolades -- ratings tell me what's popular, while critiques (especially from the better critics) help give me insight, which can be very valuable. While I like good ratings, I am not ratings driven.<br>

With time, as you learn what 'works' and what does not 'work' for you, your ability to 'see' through the viewfinder will improve greatly, especially with the help of study and with critiques for your photos. Study successful photos; you'll learn by osmosis - not just your photos but also those of others. <br>

Go to a book store, sit down with books of great 'street' photos, and just look at them for hours. As you view those photos your vision will expand - guaranteed.<br>

There is a word called 'previsualization' which I never had known before. I had the ability to do it, but it took one wonderful member here to help tell me that was what I did sometimes.<br>

'Previsualization' is the ability to 'see' without looking through the viewfinder, and understand how to put those four frame lines around a photo without snapping the shutter or even looking through the viewfinder.<br>

When you look around, 'previsualize' as though you were taking photos, and see how many possibly good or great photos you might see without raising a camera to eye. <br>

I did that tonight, without a camera, just to test. I saw maybe 20 or 30 good to great ones and might have been able really to take 10 wonderful photos (my ability in the limited time I have to take photos to 'see' and 'take' captures has improved greatly. I sometimes in a few hours now can get 4 to 10 postable photos as I am handicapped, but greatly productive, but have limited time to shoot).<br>

[i post on another service, and that portfolio can be found by Googling my name: the two services are not much duplicative.]<br>

Ton is right. Photograph where people expect to be photographed and may indeed want to be photographed. <br>

In fact, many people are great extroverts and will enjoy finding out they are being photographed, though not always.<br>

I always advised beginning 'street photographers' to go to a parade, get in front with their camera and start walking backward right through the middle of the parade, taking photos as they go, walking right up to parade participants as they go. <br>

If you look like you know what you're doing as you do that, act professionally, and don't carry amateur looking equipment it's really unlikely anyone will stop you, as you walk right through the middle of the parade, if you're not at a parade where cops are requiring local press passes and making no exceptions. You'll likely be mistaken for a newspaper photographer.<br>

You'll have the run of the parade and the ability to take any kind of photo you can imagine of people who are out their on display. Same for carnivals (well, not all, as Carney folks are often hucksters, often on probation or parole and can be downright trouble, if they are violating their probation/parole, or are 'wanted' which some are-- if you get a really angry look, just do NOT take that photograph. That also applies on the 'street' as wanted criminals envision one photo can send them to prison, sometimes for life, and they may tell you directly 'no photos'. Best take their advice -- it can be deadly serious from a hardened criminal.<br>

Use a telephoto zoom lens and stand off.<br>

Don't be afraid to only raise your camera and lens combination (only when you have all your camera settings preset, your focus point to where your subject will be in the frame you have previsualized in your photo you have previsualized) then raise the camera (often from a distance with a telephoto) and then take your photo, a process which may take only a second or two, then promptly lower your camera -- or just swing it around and make a point of intently staring through it at something that is vastly different than the photo you just took, as though that is your intended subject.<br>

People won't know you just took their photo, and you have NO obligation to tell them.<br>

There is no 'social contract' on the street about telling people they are your subject. <br>

Do not violate laws and good sense, of course, but in the USA especially on the street no one has an expectation of privacy and the same applies to almost all semi-public areas (malls are something to discuss, as shooting in malls is 'problematic, and likely to cause an encounter with ill-informed 'security guards' who lack education, have no appreciation for anything other than a ill thought out rule book -- or they may often make up 'rules' based on their own perceptions of what they think is right or wrong or what they think their minister/pastor/congregation would say, so do beware in such places.) Never give your name to such people or it may end up on a list and circulated; just walk out as is your right.<br>

They are powerless to arrest you, and most know it. If they don't have your name, they cannot circulate it and thus have you banned. They will have your photo of course, from surveillance cameras.<br>

As to expectation of privacy in the USA (and elsewhere) in any pharmacy, superdrug or department store there are tens and tens of video cameras recording every movement - same for filling stations, liquor stores, pizza parlors, and 7-11s. <br>

Just point that out to objectors - it may shut them up. Tell them their every movement has been filmed and ask why are they singling you out (be a little huffy if necessary, or instructive if you think that will work better).<br>

From time to time, you may be accosted, but the law is on your side, and try not to go toe-to-toe with anybody and just tell them (truthfully) that you are doing 'photo exercises' or 'working on your focus' and if a camera or lens is relatively new, that you're 'trying it out' or other less irritating phrases (always with a smile or with bonhomie) and be willing to engage non-enraged subjects who appear decent with chat. <br>

Just avoid those who ares spoiling for a fight -- walk away rapidly -- most objectors are also cowards and unwilling to invest energy to follow you. If someone asks you to 'delete' -- just 'refuse' unless they've got a gun or knife. If necessary in the USA, call a cop. The photo is YOURS, not theirs and they have no control over it, presuming you came by it without violating their rights. If forced to 'delete', take no more photos on that card and use 'undelete software and retrieve the photos they're still there, unless you overwrite them.<br>

The 'expectation of privacy' has a different meaning in other countries' especially in Europe where Ton shoots and where the whole idea of 'street photography' got its biggest start with the work of Henri Cartier-Bresson. Study Cartier-Bresson's voluminous work and you'll be surprised how much you'll learn -- you can Google his name and his images.<br>

There are many others, of course, (even predecessors) who are icons of 'street photography', and if you look, you'll find them, but Cartier-Bresson's photos also are marked by composition -- what he called 'geometry' -- in almost all, plus also 'the decisive moment' as he adopted the phrase, or 'images a la sauvette' (his words): 'images on the sly'. He famously hid his Leica under napkins (serviettes) in restaurants, etc.<br>

Street photography has a variety of approaches. Look in this service under the Top Rated Photos of all time (sorting engine) for some top rated 'street portfolios' -- but I caution you that some portfolios called' street' are not typical 'street' photos -- at least in the traditional sense, by my understanding.<br>

If you read every comment in my portfolio and under each photo, then digest my huge presentation: 'Photographers: Watch Your Background' which is addressed to the 'street photographer (and perpetually under construction), you'll have a wonderful introduction to 'street', although the comments are scatter shot through thousands of comments. It's quite a job to find all the good stuff but can be rewarding. <br>

I tend to get e-mails and comments from shooters on a regular basis that those comments (and my work) has become the basis for their understanding of 'street'.<br>

Also look through the work of some of this service's better 'street' artists -- Bob Kurt, who is very popular, Giuseppe Pasquali, who is much more formal; and a whole host of others. There's some wonderful 'street' work on Photo.net.<br>

Then look outside Photo.net's fishbowl at other artists. Go to Borders, Barnes and Noble or a very good large family bookstore and have a list of 'street' artists in mind -- or those who shoot 'street'.<br>

Look at their work and visualize how they were standing when they took every shot, what lens they must have been using, whether or not they were interacting with their subjects and if so, how they might have been interacting, and otherwise try to understand their captures. <br>

In short, do some analysis. That knowledge will creep in to your shooting by osmosis. <br>

I often shoot in foreign countries where I do not know the language, so I cannot communicate with 'subjects' - but am skillful at 'sign language' in a pinch as well as universal and very rudimentary English, which is now more widespread.<br>

Shoot friends. If shooting, and you are so close you have to ask permission, shoot the chosen shot, but KEEP SHOOTING until long after your expectation of permission has worn out and people revert to being themselves and turn off their smiley faces or their public presentation faces - then you'll start to get some 'reality' into your photos.<br>

That's a very good rule. Take that first shot, and when your subjects expect you to stop,. that's when to start your 'serious shooting'. Then keep shooting until you cannot avoid trouble, or you cannot get any more good shots.<br>

If something interesting happens, take the photo and if possible try to frame it well; If it's interesting to you, it may be very interesting to your viewers. Few people enjoy dull photos. Don't post the same dull photo either unless your project is to 'post the same dull photo' -- which seems to be a theme among some very prominent gallery level photo artists whose work is priced highly -- they are selling a 'theme' generally and a 'concept' as opposed to a 'great photo' You need to learn and know the difference. It may open avenues for you, too, which you were unaware of.<br>

Find and view photo galleries world wide which feature traditional, avant-gard and even 'street' photography, though most 'street' is older and 'classic' if it's found in a gallery. Most 'street' is black and white, which is classic, but some is color, which require a somewhat different sensibility. <br>

The gallery work can almost always be viewed 'on-line' though it doesn't hurt to go visit a few galleries in person. What appears to be a mediocre photo in thumbnail may be fantastic if seen 'blown up'.<br>

Photo net with its nearly 700,000 members is is just a small subset of photography and photographic taste in the world. <br>

Some serious photographers deride PN photography in general, but there are some first class pros here who sometimes publish their 'fun' work here under assumed names, but beware of trying to compete for high ratings - as you run the risk of repeating cliches.<br>

Try to be yourself, and imitate no one.<br>

If you imitate, that's all you'll ever be - an imitator.<br>

If you develop your own style, and it is popular, then you may possibly develop into a great or well-known photographic artist.<br>

But beware of catering to Photo.net tastes. When I first posted, no one here took photos like me, and many still don't like even my best work. <br>

I don't care.<br>

I have a photographic vision that is mine, and almost no matter how greatly disparate my subjects (which range from news to nudes, to landscapes to 'street', many members can identify my photos when posted, without seeing my name).<br>

I may treasure a photo that gets a 4/4 rating higher than a photo that gets 6/6s -- a look through what is successful in museums and galleries may give you a clue as to why that might be.<br>

Shoot to please yourself, but while you are doing that, try to expose yourself not only to the tastes of the Photo.net audience, but to the world not only of photography and the world of Photographic art, but also 'art' in general in which there is a place for certain kind of photography.<br>

Photo.net has a profound place in your development as possibly a serious 'street' artist, but it also has limitations. From the start, be aware of what else is 'out there', and avoid falling into PN cliches. <br>

While you may never become the 'top rated photographer' you may work your way into a serious artist.<br>

It all starts with asking a serious question, then digesting the answers, as you have.<br>

Also, 'street' requires a special kind of personality, but that personality does not necessarily arrive full-fledged in the photographer.<br>

It may be something that develops as one takes photos, learns that certain photos can be good to wonderful, and then compares the 'difficulties' of encountering strangers - or sometimes surreptitiously taking photos (not always) and sometimes doing so 'in their face' (a la Bruce Gilden) with the results. <br>

If the results are fantastic, and you recognize that, in time your personality may begin to understand that you are creating 'art' and that you are not just being 'intrusive' but are chronicling in an artistic way the universal human condition, and to the extent you are doing so in revelatory ways - especially ways that are exceptional or different from others taking such work, you are adding something special to the store of 'art' produced by 'street photographers'.<br>

Although from time to time you will make mistakes and be embarrassed or get into 'situations' which we all do from time to time, you will will learn 'street skill's' to help avoid that, and to minimize any problems, as these situations begin to repeat you will have time to think of 'damage control' retrospectively and apply it the 'next time'.<br>

'Street' is an area of photography that rewards the quick-witted and the able thinker with good reflexes. Many start with great sensitivity and are shy. Some cannot overcome their shyness and never develop.<br>

As others overcome their shyness, they never abandon their sensitivity, which can be one of the great elements which helps make make street photographs sometimes 'transcendent.'<br>

John (Crosley)<br>

(comment, copyright 2009, John Crosley, all rights reserved).</p>

<p>John, that is the best thing i've read in a long while.</p>

 

<p>Rich,<br>

Thank you so much.<br>

The above is the distillation of much of what's in my portfolio and thousands of comments, but it is only a small part. My portfolio comments, my critic's comments and my responses are rife with hundreds and perhaps thousands of hints for the 'street' photographer and these are some main points.<br>

It is copyrighted, because at some future time, I may wish to write about the subject for more formal publication -- perhaps a text.<br>

When I first came to Photo.net, there was some wonderful photography here, but few would explain 'how' they achieved their posts - it was all 'secret'. I vowed to be 'different' and share what I knew -- after all this is a sharing site.<br>

If this helps Laura, or you, become a better street photographer (or just a better photographer at all), you don't detract at all my any skills I may have - there is just no way you or anyone else can duplicate my style (or I yours).<br>

I don't get the point of keeping secrets, and thankfully, my style of 'openness' seems to have spread greatly since I've been on this service.<br>

I don't shoot for highest ratings (although high ratings are nice), but I do appreciate some of the wonderful critiques great members have shared with me, as many have influenced greatly my ability to compose and shoot with great speed and less delay for cogitation.<br>

I find I compose 'street' photos in my dreams sometimes, now, and while preparing my presentation 'Photographers: Watch Your Background' -- an attempt to show myself how I was doing something naively and somewhat erratically -- I stumbled on an important lesson not only for myself, but to share with other members.<br>

It is and remains what I think is Photo.net's largest 'Presentation' -- still unfinished -- book length, and perhaps some day to be turned into a book, (with the addition of lots more photos and commentary). <br>

More importantly, it has been cited again and again by photographers to me as helping affect their ability to 'see' and compose when they shoot 'street' as well as other genres.<br>

What's the point of 'keeping secrets', as was formerly the case with much of Photo.net's posting members?<br>

Nobody was ever going to 'steal' anything from me anyway, and I sought to break what I thought was a 'tradition of secrecy' that predominated here. I hope I've been successful, as my commentary 'style' seems to have been imitated by many, now.<br>

In the process, I taught myself lessons that no one else could teach me. <br>

Instead of exercising a great number of 'skills' without knowing exactly how, by writing about how those skills were utilized in creating those photos, and clearly explaining in writing to myself something I had not previously understood very well, I was able in writing to teach myself the lessons I set out to teach others together with hundreds of illustrations from my portfolio.<br>

Win - win! <br>

I saw no point in secrecy. <br>

Why join a 'sharing' club only to keep secrets?<br>

Thanks again, rich, I'm highly flattered.<br>

John (Crosley)</p>

>>> When I first came to Photo.net, there was some wonderful photography here, but few would explain 'how' they

achieved their posts - it was all 'secret'. ...

I don't get the point of keeping secrets, and thankfully, my style of 'openness' seems to have spread greatly since I've been

on this service. ...What's the point of 'keeping secrets', as was formerly the case with much of Photo.net's posting

members?

 

I'm calling foul on that. That certainly has not been my experience over many years on this forum. In fact I can't think of single situation where

that's been true; where someone has chosen to not reveal information that would be helpful to others. In fact I know there are many

people, including myself, who have responded to many private emails answering questions about technique, processing, stories, gear,

etc.

 

In addition, I and many others here have met other pnet photographers visiting on vacation or business for some local shooting on the street - and has generously been reciprocated when I travel. Sounds like a pretty welcoming and open group of people if you ask me.

<p>John,<br>

I agree with Rich. That is an excellent overview of street photography. I'd love to see a "finished" product in book form. I put finished in quotations, because it will probably always be a work in progress. The post was long and there is so much to digest. Would you mind if I make a personal copy for myself in MSWord to look back over in the future? I'll not distribute it or use it for any other purpose than personal review. I could do that without asking, but I respect your copyright and intellectual property.<br>

Thank you for posting it.<br>

DS Meador</p>

<p>I think the best way is to leave it unfinished - i never want to be in the position where i can tell myself ive taken my last photo.</p>

<p>Richard Pryor said something similar in relation to women. For matters of taste i'll avoid a direct quotation ;)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Are these all full frame? Don't be afraid to crop if you have to to remove distracting elements and keep just what is really needed in the frame.</p>

<p>It is hard and disheartening to come home after a few hours of shooting and find I haven't really got anything. I still push myself to review each frame, think about what it was that I was trying for and what made me want to take the picture even if it didn't work.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>DS Meador.<br>

Sure, go ahead and put a personal copy in MS Word for personal use for studying and carrying around. I have no problem with that. Thank you for respecting my intellectual property rights.<br>

John (Crosley)</p>

<p>There is no question that street photography is hard, Laura. It must be especially hard in the small town you live in and love as people tend to know each and know what everyone is doing. There are various approaches to street photography. One is the lurking kind where no contact is made between subject and artist. I the other is really more documentary where the the photographer knows his or her subjects and follows their lives on film. I think, Laura, you would be happier with the latter. You do have a flare for photographing people. </p>

<p>Brad -<br>

No need to call a 'foul', as many 'forums' were different, there is no 'hard and fast' rule, and all 'generalizations' are subject to exceptions.<br>

When I first came to Photo.net five and a half years ago there were numerous complaints voiced in comments under individual photographs that the photos sometimes were interesting and sometimes stunning, but often questions asked of the English-speaking photographers about 'this' or 'that' technique went unanswered, and that happened on a very routine basis. <br>

This forum may have been different. <br>

As pointed out above, 'street' photographers are cut from a different bolt of cloth, and tend not only to be more articulate than the average photographer, but also more intelligent, I think. I was not then a frequenter of this particular forum, so for this forum I cannot speak.<br>

I was giving my impression of Photo.net in general, and for that, the general tenor of Photo.net seems to have changed quite markedly away from one of secrecy in the years since I have joined. Some of the very visible members who were unabashed admirers of the 'style' of how I kept my remarks, have adopted a similar style in their portfolios - a style of openness and acknowledgement where secrets are few, so I hope I have made a contribution.<br>

There are few 'absolutes' in this world, as you so ably point out, and which I readily acknowledge, but at one time, this entire site was much more geared toward secrecy by its contributors - even if your personal experience was somewhat different. <br>

Remember also that at the time this site was overwhelmed by mate-rating cliques, low-rating cliques and a variety of other problems that since have virtually disappeared. <br>

What happened to your photo in critique often depended on what 'gang' you belonged to, and that may also have influenced how you yourself were responded to in other ways, or maybe just whose feathers you ruffled.<br>

New members almost certainly will never know the experience of having to watch for who was signed in when a photo was put up for critique, just to find out if a particular member was 'signed in' who was almost guaranteed to give a 1/1 or a 2/2 to almost any particular photo. Such a member could often accumulate pages of protests over such ratings on his portfolio, but for a long time nothing happened against such members. <br>

It seemed they thrived on 'negative attention'. They were spoilers, even if rare, and their rate could destroy the integrity of ratings for your photo. (The Administration no longer counts 1/1 and 2/2 ratings, though it 'keeps' them, it says).<br>

Sometimes photos lacking in major merit climbed high in the top rated pages, because 'friends' piled on in large numbers, giving absurdly high ratings, and, to help boost their friends' photos' standing, some gave rival photo contenders absurdly low rates, thus clearing the field for their friends' photos to rise further on the computer-generated Top Rated Photo sorting engine, thereby assuring 'high views' and a sort of 'stardom'. It was a system that rewarded 'who you knew' and 'who your friends were' as well as whose back you scratched.<br>

I did not play that game and only watched from the sidelines.<br>

Those were the mean old days, now almost completely disappeared - maybe completely disappeared, especially by semi-anonymous ratings.<br>

With such cliquishness, also was the era of secrecy, and if not experienced by you, Brad so much on this forum, it was pervasive throughout Photo.net If you 'knew' people, there may not have been 'secrets' but if you did not, there often were secrets. You did not have to belong to a 'clique' necessarily to prevent being excluded, but new members often were discriminated against, or those who simply were unpopular for one reason or another.<br>

I learned the best way out of that trap was simply to avoid rating altogether - I could not be accused of mate-rating if I did not rate, and simply quickly gave it up. And I did not kvetch much about low ratings, and replied to nearly every comment under a photo or in my portfolio. Such return commentary then was extremely rare, no matter who gave the comment, newbie or old salt, clique member or not.<br>

So, although it was considered 'common knowledge' that there were mate-ratings cliques, and constant complaints to Administration about them, which overwhelmed Administration, then, I was just not interested particularly and certainly not a participant in such business or even knew more than the general business of what was going on, having disassociated myself from such shenanigans.<br>

In time, with a larger staff, more computers and better programming, better rules, and finally a change in Administration with a large pocketbook to finance it all, most of the bad stuff seems to have been wiped out - changes started before the change of Administration.<br>

Those changes in ratings seem to have done in the mate-rating cliques and what I believed then was the concomitant culture of secrecy -- the culture of 'us' and 'them'.<br>

[This is a bit of PN history for those newer to the site, which is extremely well run these days, and always in my experience has been 'on the road to improvement' after seeing some substantial member abuses, especially off its ratings system. Even long ago its forum system (especially the Leica forum) was what became a case study in disaster, as trolls and other bad behavior abounded. <br>

Everything has improved greatly now, thankfully.<br>

And concomitantly, there are far fewer member secrets now than then. Cliques are pretty much non-existent, though friendships do abound, (and no doubt abounded then also, but sometimes were far more 'clique' driven then. Again certainly not 'all' friendships had anything to do with cliques then, and the bad behavior then was not perpetrated by the entire membership, though I feel such behavior did affect and infect the whole site.<br>

For a longer-term member such as Brad, then maybe a four-year member, it may not have been so apparent, but to a new member as myself, it was glaring.<br>

I made it my goal to be open, transparent, to acknowledge all comers and all comments, and to completely bypass the malfeasance then common on this site. <br>

Now it seems to have gone away.<br>

For which I am extremely pleased.<br>

(My post above is indicative of my attitude toward sharing - and I have had that attitude since joining Photo.net).<br>

John (Crosley)</p>

<p>Can you give even one example of "secrecy" here? I've read most of the posts, as moderator I have to, and I have never seen a post that I would say indicated a "secret" attitude. Combining this comment with comments on the ratings system is just plain weird - they are disconnected, and this forum in particular has never had anything to do with the ratings system. What you are doing is making a lot of comments about this forum and the rest of photo.net without any evidence of what you are saying. I can't let it stand without some sort of backup.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>" I truly think it takes a person of very special temperament to take street photos."<br /> <br /> I don't think so.<br /> <br /> It's about building your confidence and technique. Like anything you want to understand or do it takes patience and practice. It's a common misnomer that all you really need is a cam to take street photos...that's it, just point and press the big button. In essence that's the surface truth but the reality is a different matter. If your desire is strong enough you will succeed, however, if you are just a casual passer by you will not. Anything worth having is worth working for; if it was so easy where would be the value.<br /> <br /> </p>

To follow onto what Jeff has said, this forum has been *extraordinarily* open with respect to sharing knowledge. Everybody wants to and enjoys helping.

 

There must be hundreds (thousands?) of posts where the focus is about helping others get started. Whether it's how to get into

SP, how to engage people (or not), techniques, gear choices, snapping strangers, evaluating results, discussing aesthetics, post processing, legal issues, rights, talking about SP as art, getting over

shyness, and on and on. I have never seen a case where a member has acted in a manner to keep things secret. It just

doesn't wash and that includes all the forums on pnet as well as the S&D forum specifically; as the focus of this

post is about getting into SP. BS on the allegation...

"To follow onto what Jeff has said, this forum has been *extraordinarily* open with respect to sharing knowledge. Everybody wants to and enjoys helping."

 

 

 

 

 

 

.............Amazingly helpful in my opinion and i've been around for a time. It’s as if as there's a stampede to be helpful. I've never found anyone, literally anyone, who has been secretive in hiding their techniques. Indeed they have been more than enthusiastic in explaining them. I personally have found a PN a great resource for information...the emphasis being on "great".

 

 

 

The software is a bit strange sometimes.

<p>I equal parts laugh and cringe at my early attempts at street photography (which were toward the beginning of this year, with one very special exception. For me, street photography gets steadily easier, and it's probably no coincidence that I perceive the quality of my work rising at the same time. I've always had the ability to chat up random people wherever I go, as it's just my temperament. I'm introverted by nature, but I also like connecting with people. As you go along, I think you start to develop a certain intuition for identifying people who are fine with talking with strangers, and some of those even welcome it (like-minded people are the best kind, at least in this case). </p>

<p>It takes a lot of nerve to be a street photographer, particularly a good one. I don't classify myself at any skill level yet, though I suspect I'm a decent one. My gallery is mostly just street photos, although I've deleted most of my early attempts. </p>

<p>Today was a great example of the best and the worst of dealing with strangers. I was on the bus to a local mall area and ran across a couple young people while on it. They were very open and glad to both talk and have their picture taken. I ran through the rest of the roll in my N80 and then blazed through a roll of Kodak 400 B/W. We made good conversation and I obtained an e-mail address to send them the scanned images. Less than a couple hours later, I was taking pictures in the water area of the mall, as a duck had joined the assembly there. The duck provided the perfect way for me to start taking pictures, as it was unusual enough to warrant picture taking that didn't really raise anyone's eyebrows. I took just as many pictures of the kids playing, of course, but the point remains. Sometimes you make your own luck. </p>

<p>Later on, though, I was harassed by a fellow passenger on my light rail ride. A man wanted to know why I was taking pictures and what I was taking pictures of. Their tone was decidedly aggressive and I was caught off-guard (I can tell true inquisitiveness from rhetorical questions, just as most people can). He went on an extended soliloquy, and after I told him I wasn't interested in talking with him, I ignored him (even as he rambled on). I got off a couple stops early, keeping me from reaching my usual weekend shooting place. All was not lost, though, as on the short ride back, I sat next to a young woman who was busy reading a book. I asked if I could take a picture of her hand on the book and she informed me that she's also a photographer. A baker's dozen shots later, I was done and then off the train. </p>

<p><img src="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/82/360482.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>And there it is. </p>

<p>Sometimes, things work out beautifully. I've gotten very lucky several times recently, and I think it's just a matter of being confident, observant and quick enough to get your shot. I like talking with people I shoot when possible, and I find that if I form a connection with people, I take better shots. You may find the same, or you may prefer to be entirely observant. Each street photographer finds their own path :).</p>

<p>Laura,</p>

<p>first, I must admit I did not read all of John's musings above....apology for any repetitiveness....</p>

<p>Seems like you got off a good start, mind you, I am certainly not near anybody else here, being a newbie myself. I had a smile a bit when I read your post and then saw teh excellent baseball photos on you site. I have just returned from doing my first ever sports shoot (I am an amateur, so this was for fun) at the Senior Little League World Series. Sheesh, sports photography is hard... :)<br /> It seems to me that your background in sports makes you an excellent "anticipator" and "previsualizer" - what John said above. The "rules" of the game are human behavior patterns, mind you more unpredictable than sport rules, but it nontheless can often be anticipated. Just have to get closer - think 28mm, not 400 :)<br>

Keep shooting!!!<br>

So here my little homage to you:</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/9684877-lg.jpg" alt="" /> <br /> "Off Street" Photography - it's hard, too,</p>

<p> </p>