Tony Rowlett Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Mike Johnston's <ahref="http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/10/some-classic-ph.html">post of Oct19</a> prompted me to purchase Alfred Stieglitz's <i>Camera Work</i> collection which I am impressed with. <p>I think looking at any important volume of photography like that one is a kind of training of the eye. What myeye has noticed in this book is a common theme that is perhaps Photography 101 but still important: "Watch yourbackgrounds" and I must say that, in an interesting way, most if not all of the photos in the book, where thebackground isn't the main subject, are all without a cluttered background. Once my mind latched onto that littlerule of thumb, it kept applying itself with every turn of the page. Interestingly, when the background is thesubject, it seems always isolated in a way. <p>One photograph in particular is of Notre Dam in Paris which is presumably the "subject" of the photo (based onthe title of the photo), but the focus is on the foreground on some tree branches/leaves and the cathedral in thebackground is blurry, yet the cathedral is the subject and it works really really well.<p>I think the photography in the book can be considered street and/or documentary photography (but there are alsomany portraits). Could it be that they just had a lot less clutter back in 1905 than we do now? I doubt it. How can I make my photos less cluttered and more like the stuff in Stieglitz's book? Backups? We don’t need no stinking ba #.’ _ , J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanky Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Practice. I still get distracting elements more then I'd like to. So I try to pay close attention to the background before pressing the shutter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray . Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 In painting class years ago, "background" was the unspeakable 'B' word. Point being that "background" is a pejorative, implying that what it consists of is an afterthought. You don't want it to look like an afterthought. Sculpture is for focusing on a single subject, but photography, like painting, is a 2- dimensional art form in which every square inch of the frame is the subject.<p>So one answer to your question is:<p> Try to see the whole frame at once, shoot a lot, and edit. <p>Another answer: <p>Limit the scope of what your lens is taking in. This might be easier with a normal lens, as opposed to wide angle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray . Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 .... and yet wider angle might be the ticket to get enough in the frame for it all to be interesting.. so take my second answer with a grain of salt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 <i>How can I make my photos less cluttered..</i> <p> Ray posts better pictures than words, IMO. ;) His terrific shot in the Pic of the day thread is the proof. Great composition and a riveting/engaging subject would make any clutter more of an interest than a distraction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 <i>How can I make my photos less cluttered.</i><p>If you are shooting on the street, stake out a location with both a good background and interesting possibilities. I've done this quite a bit with good result. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fate_faith_change_chains Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 " Watch your Backgrounds " Can be applied in both directions. Lee Friedlander for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsfbr Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 There is no background when you are doing street photography. Street photography, in my view, is about the interplay between a central subject and the peripheral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orvillerobertson Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 This seems to me a simple and basic question. Either use a shallow depth of field or shoot only when the background is not cluttered or when it coalesces successfully with your main subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_elder1 Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 I guess from a photo 101 point of view that it is as simple as the above posts suggest. Yet Dayrin's reference to Friedlander is interesting. The issue being how much clutter, noise, detail can you include within the frame and still make the photograph work. Deviation from the so called rules can lead to very intersting photographs. Another example of rule breaking is Ed Leveckis's work(formerly Edmo on this site) Ed breaks alot of the traditional rules with the result that he is producing some of the most intersting Street Photogarphy I have seen in years. By the way , for the most part , I am not one of these damned rule breakers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orvillerobertson Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 There's really no background clutter rule, though, John. The Photo 101 answer is merely a good starting point to learn from without Tony's jumping off into more expert work like Ed's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray . Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 I don't know, Ed's street photography is very traditional in many ways. What so-called rules is he breaking? I'm not being sarcastic, just curious what it is you're referring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 >>> I don't know, Ed's street photography is very traditional in many ways. What so-called rules is he breaking? Was wondering about the comment myself. He does have a great eye and imagination - and experiments in post. www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_elder1 Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 Examples of where Ed can be described as breaking the rules can be seen in his journal and is very worth the trip. Check out the following # photographs as examples of non traditional Street Photography: 374, 371, 368,364, 361,348, 346, 332, 328,327,315,314,307, 306, 296, 295, +287 for just a few. And if you don't agree that these images are not your tyoical Street Photography that's OK with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 <i>Ed breaks alot of the traditional rules..</i> <p> He does not break any photography rules and in fact almost all his images are conforming. Easier to educate one by looking at Ed's images on composition than reading any (boring) book. <p> Composition and light- he does a superb job playing with the light. <p> BTW, there are no "street photography rules". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprouty Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 http://www.leveckis.net/journal/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyr_smith Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 Rules, Shmooooles! There aren't any rules....!! http://web.mac.com/cyrs and here's proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_strohmeier Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 I think that the key is to study your background, and see if it helps your shot. It it adds to the shot, include it. If it detracts, remove the bad aspect, reframe or walk around and find a better frame angle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_Es Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 The important word is "context." What is the purpose of your photograph? Sometimes a subject in a "cluttered" background is appropriate. Here in Japan the urban landscape is cluttered. It is something you have to work with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orvillerobertson Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 Too much thought is going into this. When I'm shooting I'm almost totally driven by instinct, luck, and a kind of panicked guessing about the image. I could care less about bokeh, so most of my shots show the background in pretty good detail. Timing and where you stand are key in making the background contribute to the overall image. Ha, maybe I'm now putting too much thought into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now