How do you isolate subjects in crowded street?

[LindaM]

<p>I have been shooting lately in very crowded situations; first a street party, and then a festival. I have got some shots that I really like, but there is too much going on in the background. How do you isolate your subjects in a crowded street situation? Is it okay to do digital manipulation and still fall under the street category? It seems like most street photography I see here looks pretty direct or with very minor manipulation. I am attaching a couple examples of an image. The first with minor adjustments, the second with the background adjusted significantly to make the couple stand out. Thank you for any advice or suggestions!</p><div></div>

[LindaM]

<p>manipulated backgtound</p><div></div>

[luis_g]

<p> Selective framing, cropping, lighting, dodging and burning (as in your example), fill-flash, paying attention to the background, look for a less distracting background, etc. Of course, one can always <em>integrate </em> the subject into the background. Yes, it's ok to do manipulation in street photography.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Linda, the background looks manipulated away.</p>

<p>No genre tells you how much manipulation to do. You do what feels comfortable but also what looks good. Your redone background doesn't make sense lightingwise. Too sudden and severe a dropoff.</p>

<p>One question to ask would be if there's some sort of assumption in your question that isolating subjects is desired or necessary. Subjects can often harmonize well even with very busy backgrounds. Of course, you don't want them getting lost, though.</p>

<p>Depth of field helps a lot. If subjects are in focus and background is less focused, that helps bring attention more to the subjects. As you're obviously already aware, lighting helps, but more subtle drop-off in lighting can also do the trick. Perspective is a key. Had you shot up at these two you would have left behind a lot of the background. Had you moved a step to your right (if you could) there would be a bit more implied distance between your main couple and the two people immediately behind them.</p>

<p>I tend to think of ways I can use the people in the background to my advantage rather than trying to work against myself. It seems to be at odds with the situation you are in to want to ignore the background. For me, the creative challenge is to make what's there work. Can I figure out an interesting way to create a more complete story, given the raw materials I've got, rather than wishing I actually had something else, which would be an isolated view of these people.</p>

<p>It seems to me that just concentrating on bringing out the relationship here that was really important to you would be a good start. Here's an example of just a start. The background could then be lessened, but subtly. Also, you seem to have cropped tightly here. My guess is that, had you left a bit more breathing room and then did what you could in post processing to bring out the main couple, that might actually more effectively lessen the influence of the background than having cropped it away.</p><div></div>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>What you have done is similar to what any printmaker could do in a darkroom, using burning and dodging tools. More selective burning of the background might look more organic. Maybe dodge the man's face to help the contrast of subject to background.</p>

[Leonard-just-Leonard]

<p>use f2.8 for depth of field.</p>

[LindaM]

<p>

 

<p>Wow! You guys are fast! Fred, you are right. What I have done doesn't look natural. I like what you have done. I think I need to go back and work on this some more. </p>

 

</p>

[mark liddell]

<p>The places I photograph are very crowded and I just live with it, if the subject is strong enough the background people don't really bother me. It's a crowed place so I don't mind that my photograph makes the place look crowded.</p>

[LindaM]

<p>Mark, Do you have any examples you could show me? Thanks!</p>

[wingell]

<p>Linda, the suggestion of using f2.8 for the depth of field is good, and I would add that the consideration of DOF leads me to make a 70-200 2.8L lens my default street-shooting glass. Yes, it's heavy, but so??? :) Of course I have no idea what was happening directly in front of the couple in the image you posted, but if shot vertically, you might have moved the male subject's back off toward the left edge and been able to give the female subject just a bit more "breathing room." It's a sweet capture. All the best...Bill</p>

[Damon DAmato]

<p align="center"><a title="Scott by NoHoDamon, on Flickr" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/nohodamon/3911463538/" title="Scott by NoHoDamon, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2454/3911463538_8d59932b39.jpg" alt="Scott" width="700" height="560" /> </a> <br /> Isolation by shallow depth of field-- shot at f2.8 <br /> <br /> <a title="Doug by NoHoDamon, on Flickr" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/nohodamon/3860264961/" title="Doug by NoHoDamon, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2528/3860264961_aa4eda30be.jpg" alt="Doug" width="700" height="560" /> </a> <br /> Isolation by shallow quality of light. <br /> <br /> <a title="20090625-DSC_8484 by NoHoDamon, on Flickr" href=" title="20090625-DSC_8484 by NoHoDamon, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3632/3661588955_15eb2f874b_o.jpg" alt="20090625-DSC_8484" width="700" height="465" /> </a> <br /> Isolation by limited reach of flash.. <br /> <br /> <a title="20090625-DSC_8407 by NoHoDamon, on Flickr" href=" title="20090625-DSC_8407 by NoHoDamon, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2576/3662385244_970a1876a7_o.jpg" alt="20090625-DSC_8407" width="700" height="420" /> </a> <br /> Isolation by motion blur. <br /> <br /> <a title="Sarah Palin Rally Protesters-32 by NoHoDamon, on Flickr" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/nohodamon/2914324222/" title="Sarah Palin Rally Protesters-32 by NoHoDamon, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3233/2914324222_f85126e927.jpg" alt="Sarah Palin Rally Protesters-32" width="700" height="560" /> </a> <br /> Did not isolate. Background adds context.</p>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>Shallow quality of light was a typo, by the way.</p>

<p>Some of these are not crowded, but I think you get the idea.</p>

[ray .]

Learn how to make what's in the entire frame work together as a whole compositionally, or shoot and edit until you get that. As for manipulation, the way I

figure it, if it's more than a little, what's the point? Move on to another photo that's more successful and that you got right

in camera.

 

With all due respect, I don't think what Damon has posted here is street.. It's closer to the look of news reportage.

[Damon DAmato]

<p>I was just showing some techniques.</p>

<p>For what it's worth--<br>

The first photo is a friend of mine I happened to run into while shooting around the North Hollywood Subway station. Pretty much just a snapshot of him goofing around. Shot at f2.8.</p>

<p>Second is a guy I work with now and then. Another snapshot</p>

<p>Third is some people dancing out on Hollywood and Highland on the night of Michael Jackson's death-- more documentary than street.</p>

<p>Forth is a woman selling roses at Hollywood and Highland. I think it's more of a street portrait.</p>

<p>Fifth is a Republican pissed off at some Democrats. Not street, but not exactly news.</p>

<p> </p>

[Spearhead]

<p>There's nothing wrong with a lot of manipulation. Plenty of street photographers, especially from Japan, have done it and even made it obvious. There's no rules on manipulation preserving a "natural" look unless you're doing it for a nature book.</p>

[c_wyatt]

<p>There's nothing wrong with manipulation - but it's always going to be better getting it right when you click the shutter. I would say there are a few pre-processing ways, most already mentioned, to isolate a street subject:</p>

<p>Focus: Either through use of open aperture or motion blur.</p>

<p>Colour: Through use of corresponding or divergent colours.</p>

<p>Light/shade: Through use of black/white/grey in a monochrome image, or through contrast in a colour image.</p>

<p>But these are not useful alone, really it is composition that creates an effective, isolated subject. And that means using your eye, heart, head and feet.</p>

[ray .]

Manipulation to 'fix' something isn't usually the best option in my opinion. I think the best of Moriyama's work, for example,

still has strong content and composition out of the camera.

[LindaM]

<p>You guys are the best. All of this has been very helpful. I may be out at another street festival again tomorrow, so I will get to put some of your advice to use. In the mean time, I went back to the original and reworked it with consideration to all of your comments. I am much happier with this now. Thank you all so much!</p><div></div>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>There's nothing wrong with manipulation - but it's always going to be better getting it right when you click the shutter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> What is "right"? Different people shoot differently. "Right" is often unattainable out of the camera. Plenty of people learned to shoot in a way that takes a view that a photo is a process, not just a simple snap.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I think the best of Moriyama's work, for example, still has strong content and composition out of the camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wonder how you know this. A lot of Moriyama's work is heavily cropped and worked over.</p>

 

[fi_rondo1]

<p>You're right about Moriyama, Ray, however, he really goes at it in the darkroom... As Jerry Lee once said to him, "There's a whole lotta burnin' going on..." But, as you said, he's working with the image he shot and nothing but...<br>

Linda, working a crowd and waiting on a shot are things that might help. Manipulating your way through a crowd is sometimes tough; especially while pursuing your subject, but to get what you want requires patience and then the instinct to pounce when the time's right.</p>

<p>Or you can forget about context altogether and try to get as close as possible to the subject (it that's what you want)... These two weren't exactly on the lookout for photographers...</p><div></div>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>But, as you said, he's working with the image he shot and nothing but...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's true of anyone. It's a statement that doesn't have anything specific to do with Moriyama.</p>

<p>FWIW, Moriyama claimed that shooting and the darkroom were equivalent (quote can be found in <em>Platform</em> .) He had no attachment to the idea of shooting being primary.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>One of the best learning experiences I've had was, early on, shooting a day for night scene. It really expanded my horizons to consider my processing and my finished product before I even went out to shoot. Not that I do that all the time, by any means, so all of you who were about to pounce on me for not being spontaneous, put your shirts back on. I do, though, often shoot differently knowing what I want in the end than were I sticking to some vague and what-I-would-find-restrictive concept like "getting it right" in the camera to begin with. What I want out of camera is something that will help me realize my vision. It may be that some of the suggestions here will help Linda do that next time, but that won't mean she'll do less post-processing and it won't mean that what comes out of her camera is necessarily any closer to what she wants her final product to be. It will mean that she will have the raw materials she wants when she clicks the shutter. Sometimes, I don't get it the way I wanted or the way I think I wanted with the camera for whatever reason, and I can crop or dodge and burn and get something completely unexpected and unique. Sometimes, I am spontaneous even long after I click the shutter. I allow for happy accidents and unanticipated happenings through all stages of my photographing and processing.</p>

[ray .]

"He had no attachment to the idea of shooting being primary."

 

In my opinion some of his work suffers from not enough consideration of the shot itself.

 

At any rate, in Linda's case, I haven't seen a processing solution here that works to sufficiently fix a flawed photo.

[Norma Desmond]

<p>"I haven't seen a processing solution here that works to sufficiently fix a flawed photo."</p>

<p>That's likely because none have been presented.</p>

[ray .]

I'm open to being convinced that Linda's photo can be made to really sing. Any takers? Might be interesting.