What's your views.

<p>What and how much PP is acceptable to you? Also, does HDR treatment figger in street and documentary subject matter?? Its probably been bantered before, but here goes. I'm on the negative side, although I admit that I flirted with HDR until my taste changed.</p>

<p>No HDR and no cloning of objects into or out of the image. White balance, sharpening, contrast and saturation is okay. This opinion is from someone who does very little street photography, but from one who has opinions. I also believe that using software for conversion from color to b&w is okay.</p>

<p>Ya, Shawn thanks, that's how I've been leaning lately but I've seen so many users of PN with good street shots that ruin them in post. Thanks for voicing what I've been thinking.</p>

<p>How much PP is acceptable to me? In my own photos, as little as possible. Mostly just conversion to b&w (I occasionally leave a street photo in color if it works for me), contrast, and sometimes some cropping. I do have a continuing series called "The Street as Graphic Novel" that I occasionally work on. The images for that series are intentionally processed for desaturation, reds are emphasized, and local contrast/clarity is pushed to give a pseudo graphic novel look. </p>

<p>PP in other people's street photos? -- That's entirely up to them. If they're doing it for themselves and they want to heavily process, or use HDR, fine. If they want their work to be shown or purchased then they will probably need to have an intriguing and consistent style to their PP and ideally have some aesthetic thought and meat behind what they are doing. I have the impression that heavy PP and HDR would not be well received by the general SP community (ie, the practitioners). And that's putting it mildly. But you never know what somebody might come up with. </p>

<p>I don't think HDR figures at all in a documentary body of work, certainly not in the traditional journalistic sense of "documentary". The processing itself would intrude upon the subject matter of the documentary. Again, though, "rules" are broken all the time to serve some aesthetic end. <br>

</p>

<p>I think the end justifies the means. If the photo looks really great in HDR, then it worked out. If you want to clone little pink teddy bears onto a gritty black and white street scene of thugs selling crack on a corner, and you actually pull off some kind of alternate reality fantasy scene, then great....brilliant. OK, that really becomes a "digital alteration" photo but it could work as a street and documentary photo with an open-minded crowd.<br>

Hey, you know the times, they are a changing. Men can marry men; and women can form very good relationships with their German Sheperds. Rigidity is stifling to art, why should S&D be stuck in the age of rangefinders and tri-x?</p>

<p>Having said all that, I still use still use film, but I do post process in PS. The more I learn about PS the more features I use to try to get the best results.</p>

<p>I'm with E. I do whatever I want to make it look how I want. My only "rule" is that I get a result I like. I was a pretty heavy manipulator in the darkroom too. I'll screw around with the camera too. I slow down the shutter and shake the camera. I shoot through water glasses and plastic. I also set up street shots, more since I learned how many "classic" photos were set up. I didn't do it more because of that, but because I looked at them and figured out what I would do. When I look at a photo, I look at the photo, not the photographer's tools or a description of the technical processes used.</p><p>I have done some composites, but I'm not that good at it so there's only a few I show. </p>

<p>Whatever it takes to satisfy the aesthetic aims of the artist, or the technical needs of the documentarian. (see B. Croce, 1922, <em>Aesthetic as science of expression and general linguistic</em> (revised edition). New York: Macmillan.) This is by no means a new topic. It even, in its own way, occurred before the invention of photography).</p>

<p>Yeah, I agree with the camp that says the final image is what counts. This isn't photo journalism where there are strictures against certain post-processing. I generally strongly do not like HDR, but if someone did it and I liked it, than cool. </p>

<p>I`m going old school and saying if its a digital manipulation, no matter how good, it remains what it is. There`s got to be an essence of simplicity or purity or immediacy for it to be a street shot. If you caught a decisive moment, why the heck would you go and HDR it when it stands in perfection on its own? I think computer processing can compromise nutritional value, like refined and processed food. That`s just my humble opinion sirs. Let`s shoot and not spend so much time bent over a monitor. Been there done that.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There`s got to be an essence of simplicity or purity or immediacy for it to be a street shot.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Where's the rule book that says that's a requirement?</p>

<p>The Book of Marie? Ok anything goes..but I look at all your photos and I don`t see too much PP unless your really that GOOD.</p>

<p>:) I add and rest my case..maybe.</p>

<p>It's a little strange to bring up a topic for discussion, solicit opinions, and then close it off within a matter of hours. Something seems amiss. Bring up a controversial subject, get a few responses, state and then re-state your opinion, and then suggest that everyone goes back to shooting instead of addressing the topic you, yourself, brought up. ???</p>

<p>I'm with the camp that says that the processing goes along with the product and, if the two together work out, that's a good thing. If someone wants to worry about what label it gets, they're probably some sort of librarian or something.</p>

<p>Gee and a fond good evening to you Fred. I figgered the subject was now a moot point. I also said ok, if it works use it..in so many words. But I haven`t seen any street shots that are PP or HDR that make me say WOW or convince me they are better than "as shot" with basic enhancement. But if you know of any, please point me to them.</p>

<p><<<<em>If you caught a decisive moment, why the heck would you go and HDR it when it stands in perfection on its own?</em>>>></p>

<p>By the way, Marie. I think this is a good question. Here's my answer, though I've never done an HDR. Let's say, why would you want to post process it more than simply dodging, burning, and sharpening? While the decisive moment has much to recommend it and is certainly a significant part of the history of photography and street shooting, it is NOT the only thing a photographer may strive for, especially a documentary photographer but certainly any street photographer. Consider that narrative could be very important to some photographers. And even if they've captured a good moment (moments, even decisive ones, are rarely perfect!), they may want it to portray and convey a narrative and post processing can often lend a hand there. They may want even an incredible decisive moment to pack a particular kind of emotional/visual punch, and so some post processing can be a tool to achieve that. I sort of use "decisive moment" (often) as a starting point. Capturing one gives me joy but is often not enough for me. I want that moment to translate well into a photographic image and, for that, I may consider all kinds of choices at my disposal. If people want to remain somewhat pure and don't want to post process, I respect that and often get a lot out of their photos. If people want to do a lot of post processing work, I assess their work based on what they come up with, whether they shoot on the street, in the boudoir, or in a conservatory of flowers.</p>

Thanks. I haven't even gotten close to a decisive moment yet, in all honesty but I think I would leave

well enough alone if I did. I got my answer awhile ago. If its the means to an end use it. It seems to

be the popular vote. I realize its not all about the decisive moment and there is various styles even

within the category. I was just questioning how much pp figures in the Pn street shooters work in this

forum. I also took a trip to look at the responders photos to get an idea . It is helpful.

I am typically not the kind of guy who likes a lot of PP in his photos.

<p>I'll do whatever looks good to me or suits my whim at the moment.</p>

<p>With b&w film I'd routinely push even in daylight for extra contrast and grain. Tried all kinds of developing tricks, including mixing two or more print developers on film and stand processing to enhance grain without underexposing or pushing. Lots of dodging/burning and other manipulations with optical enlargements. </p>

<p>I've also used clear sheets of acetate fogged with hair spray to soften one exposure with yellow or magenta filtration, while printing the second or follow up exposures straight. I've used that technique more often with still lifes and landscapes than street or documentary photos, tho'.</p>

<p>With digital I've used tone mapping and contrast masking - not true HDR since I'm working with only single photos. Combined with layers it's useful for emphasizing natural light falloff rather than applying vignetting in post. Just another twist on equivalent darkroom techniques. This year I seem to be on a kick of going for deliberately murky monochrome conversions. Not sure I'll stick with that effect. Just seems to suit my approach this year, especially doing more "from behind" photos than I used to. I'm mostly looking for interesting body postures in certain settings, not portraits, so the faces are almost a distraction. Still looking for a unifying editing style and haven't settled on one yet.</p>

<p>I don't want to stray too far off topic (not that that has ever stopped us before…), but since the term "decisive moment" keeps coming up, I wanted to make a few observations about it. </p>

<p>(Insert standard PN caveats "Just my opinion", "no flame wars", etc, here)</p>

<p>I'm hardly the first person to say this, but I wonder if "decisive moment" as it is frequently interpreted (or misinterpreted) today, is really what Cartier-Bresson intended. (Which begs the question, "Should we care about, or practice, what he intended?") I also think it is outdated as a guiding aesthetic principle for what constitutes a "good" street photograph. I'm not saying that those who have participated in this thread so far think of "decisive moment" as the holy grail of street photography, but you don't have to look too far to find people who do think of it as a primary guiding aesthetic. </p>

<p>I'll stand by to be corrected, but to the best of my knowledge the term itself comes not from a direct quote from Bresson, but rather from an American book title. The book, first published in France, was entitled Images à la Sauvette . (Any French speakers here?) I believe this translates to the English equivalent of "Stolen Images" or "Images on the Run". It was Bresson's American publisher who decided to call the translated version "The Decisive Moment".</p>

<p>What Bresson said in the book (and which itself was influenced by a statement made by a Catholic cardinal centuries earlier): "…photography is the simultaneous recognition, in a fraction of a second, of the significance of an event as well as of a precise organization of forms which give that event its proper expression."</p>

<p>The classicist, or restrictive, interpretation of "decisive moment" is to me best exemplified not by any of Bresson's photographs, but in this startling image by Russell Sorgi:<br>

</p>

<p><a href="http://25.media.tumblr.com/wQZOj2K1Giszjupaj9Ak8bexo1_500.jpg">http://25.media.tumblr.com/wQZOj2K1Giszjupaj9Ak8bexo1_500.jpg</a></p>

<p>Shocking and horrifying on so many levels. Looking at the photograph, we know what the outcome is going to be. It is made even more horrible by the policeman just entering the doorway, the person seated inside the window (oblivious, in that moment, to what is about to transpire), and by the irony of the WWII "Give Till It Hurts" sign displayed in the window. </p>

<p>There are photographers whose work predates Bresson's that did some significant street photography that does not seem conform to the restrictive interpretation of "decisive moment". Walker Evans, Lewis Hine, Paul Strand, to name but a few. And there are many examples of significant street photographs taken during or after Bresson's time that do not seem to conform to the "decisive moment" aesthetic. Whether it be a woman eating an ice cream cone in front of a shop window (Winogrand), papers blowing in the wind (Ishimoto), children in masks gathered on an urban concrete porch (Levitt), or an oddly blurred image of two children on the street (Klein). As Fred has already alluded to, there can be many different aesthetics at play (surreal, juxtaposition of elements, atmosphere, strikingly banal, symbolic, geometric, light, etc.) which give a particular street photograph an aura of significance. And, to bring us back to where this thread started from, who is to say that someone cannot create that aura of significance by way of HDR or some other form of PP? It is not my taste, but that does not mean it cannot be done. </p>

<p>Finally, regarding moments, decisive or otherwise, I appreciate this quote from Garry Winogrand: </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"No one moment is most important. Any moment can be something."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's up to the skill and art of the individual photographer to make it so. </p>

>>> I was just questioning how much pp figures in the Pn street shooters work in this forum.

 

Not a lot. Just what's needed...

<p>I agree with all of the above. And that is a decisive moment I would not like to catch..the woman suiciding. That would stay with me forever, as that image no doubt will. <br>

Sauvette mean 'in haste' or as applied to photography I would think 'candid;' Right Brad, I haven't seen any real distortion or obvious PP in photos from users of this forum, it seem to be just enhancements however they are come by. In the street critique forum however I see many heavilly PP photos that are highly rated and it kind of threw me.<br>

Interesting reading, thanks for the inputs. Lex you make the darkroom sound mysterious and romantic.</p>

<p>As much as it takes. Not willing to let the camera make the final decision. I may not be very smart but I'm a heck of a lot smarter than any mechanical device.</p>

<p>but then, it's not just PP is it? What a lot of people tend to forget is that the outcome is influenced well before that. For instance, a photo shot on Delta 100 will look and feel decidedly different than one shot on Tri-X. Then there's lens choice and even more so camera choice. Given that PP is only a relatively small part of it all.<br>

To answer your question more directly: whatever it takes which normally isn't a whole lot.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Lex you make the darkroom sound mysterious and romantic."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is. The tactile experience, the moody lighting, the warm wet hands, massaging the image to tease out our personal <em>objet petit a</em>...</p>

<p>Of all the evocations of the pleasure of film that I have seen posted on Photo.net over the years, Lex' has to be the most compelling. ;-)</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p> In the street critique forum however I see many heavilly PP photos that are highly rated and it kind of threw me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Marie, are you talking about the general critique forum (as opposed to this forum)? Using the Browse Gallery feature for street photographs, I am sometimes surprised at what comes up. C'est la vie...</p>

<p> </p>