How do you isolate subjects in crowded street?

[LindaM]

<p>I'd love to see what y'all could do!</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>Linda--</strong></p>

<p>For me, it's not about what we can do. Would you shoot this differently? Do you like it enough to make it work? My advice would be, if you want to continue with it, give it another good post-processing go around taking into consideration what you've read and been shown here, and see what you come up with. I'd start by challenging myself to consider several different specific ways I could approach it and then choose from there and try to execute it. Two specific ideas, as I read the thread, have been presented. One is lightening up and thereby drawing focus more to the couple. The other is really cropping in close to completely avoid the background. There are other possibilities. There's also starting back from your original pre-cropped version (assuming you had already cropped this). Go for it. I'd be much more excited to see what <em>you</em> can do.</p>

[allen_r1]

<p>I do not claim to be a street photographer but am a photographer who has done, viewed, and greatly appreciates street photography. I think, and this seems to be confirmed by the responses so far, that most street photographers tend to incorporate the background into the photo rather than viewing it as a "distraction". The latter view reflects more of a portrait mindset. IMO, context is very important in street photography and not something to be photoshopped away. </p>

[LindaM]

<p>Fred,<br>

Of course, it is up to me to make the photo work. Seeing what others could do with it might help me along. That being said though, I went back to it again. Am I getting closer? Is the cloning too obvious?</p><div></div>

[khi]

<p>I use my Australian cattledog "Ruff" to "herd" the potential subject away from the crowd into an alleyway alone and then I quickly snap their picture (after threatening that "Ruff" will bite them if they tell) Works perfectly ever time :)</p>

[LindaM]

<p>Allen, I don't want the street or crowd to go away, but I don't want it to distract from the main focus of the image either. I think the expression of emotion between this couple is something special, especially in the context that this was a very public event. I do think it is worth the extra photoshop work to make this image "work".</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>Linda--</strong></p>

<p>I think it's an improvement, for sure. Much of the improvement, for me, comes with the addition of more of the original storytelling. In this case, not cropping away so much background actually does make the couple more a focus of attention than having cropped in so close where the background became more of a foreground.</p>

<p>Including even the vote sign helps tell a story and make an impression. Also the younger, secondary couple comes a little more alive here. That couple could be much more of a subplot or counterpoint to the main couple if you saw any potential there. The cloning isn't that obvious. There looks to be a painting of a face (or maybe it's an actual person) under the dark canopy right next to the laptop that's for some reason really beckoning to me as an element I'd want to work with . . . a face in the crowd sort of thing.</p>

<p>The hardest thing for me to get over is the tall blond woman directly behind the main guy. She's caught kind of awkwardly and is commanding quite a bit of attention without really saying much.</p>

<p>I will say that by including the vote sign, which I do like, you've got a bit of an awkward crop on the woman's arm, so I know I'd be going back and forth on that bottom crop a lot. I'm not sure the vote sign adds enough to make that crop just above her hand worthwhile. It might help to drop the light off a bit as we go down the main woman's body, suggesting a shadow below her elbow or . . .</p>

[LindaM]

<p>Fred,<br>

I can't tell you how helpful you have been here! I will work on this image some more and probably post it to my portfolio. I have the utmost respect for your opinion, and am extremely grateful for all of suggestions! Thank you!<br>

Linda</p>

[khi]

<p>In all seriousness Linda, me thinks you're trying to hard to make this photo work. I agree with Ray. I'm not seeing that much going on. I think you should work on your composition more. I don't know what camera you are using, but don't be afraid to move-you could have moved to the right and maybe a little more in front of the couple-there may not have been anyone close behind them. If you like what you see that much, take 2, 3, 4 shots-different angles you know? Otherwise, use the crowd compositionally or shoot wide aperture to isolate them. Good composition is always gonna be better than Photoshop manipulation.<br>

Have fun.</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>Linda, if you are going through the trouble to PP the image with cloning and such, throw a bit of lens blur to the bkg too. A busy bkg that you've darkened is a dark busy background. Don't be afraid to shoot near wide open next time. You'll isolate better and as a bonus your shutter speed will go up helping out your hand held sharpness. </p><div></div>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>Louis, while I can think of a way or two to re-create that effect in a darkroom, in my opinion, that crosses the line when it comes to reportage photography.</p>

[photo_galleries]

<p>As already said, there's no right or wrong about this -- it's what works for you. IMHO, this image cries out for a tighter composition, and for me, a square format might work better. In any case, here's my interpretation:</p>

<p><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2550/4120837521_0676de43ec_o.jpg" alt="" width="450" height="450" /></p>

[razvan_peteanu]

<p>I'd try an even much tighter crop, focusing on the man's face (his emotion is the real story in this picture, the other people, except for the younger lady in the background, and elements are - at least for me - more of a visual distraction).<br>

With the small original image an upsampled crop doesn't have much quality, but this is the idea - working with the original should lead to better results.</p>

<p><img src="http://atstreetlevel.com/photo.net/00V3Mn.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="532" /></p>

[AJHingel]

<p>I have followed the discussion with interest. I clearly prefer the real thing and have not seen any of the PS work making the photo better than the original. However I would rather go back to the shooting situation and ask whether this was a just in time situation or his affection was reproduced at other moment. I surely hope so for the lady. Moving around and shooting multiple situation might be a better option than believing that such a shot can be improved significantly later on.<br>

I have not the slightest bad feelings about what can be achieved in PS but in this case I don't see improvements - yet.</p><div></div>

[Allen Herbert]

<p >“Moving around and shooting multiple situation might be a better option than believing that such a shot can be improved significantly later on.”</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Nice idea but unfortunately the photograph is often long gone while you are trying to dance the dance.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > Linda</p>

<p > </p>

<p >You have captured the moment perfectly; fortunately with real street photography you cannot stage manage the scene that’s what it makes unique…you are photographing behind the stage.. I personally do see anything wrong with your original photograph it is honest and that’s its strength……the total scene just as it was. </p>

[allen_r1]

<p>I agree completely with Keith's point(s). This is really a matter of composition. Had you moved more to the front of the couple and perhaps gotten a little closer, I think you might have achieved more of what you seem to be looking for. Post processing is not the solution to every problem.</p>

[allen_r1]

<p>I agree completely with Keith's point(s). This is really a matter of composition. Had you moved more to the front of the couple and perhaps gotten a little closer, I think you might have achieved more of what you seem to be looking for. Post processing is not the solution to every problem.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>

<p > </p>

<p >“This is really a matter of composition”</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I would agree, however, did the photographer have time to compose? How often does the street photographer have time to compose without missing the moment? Or, should we say that a street photograph should be perfectly composed to have any worth as some are implying? Those question needs to be asked before any other comments are made.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >“In this case, not cropping away so much background actually does make the couple more a focus of attention than having cropped in so close where the background became more of a foreground.”</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I would have thought the couple was the obvious focus of attention, the background merely adds to the overall scene giving a more balanced connection to the photograph. </p>

<p > </p>

</p>

<p > </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"How often does the street photographer have time to compose without missing the moment? Or, should we say that a street photograph should be perfectly composed to have any worth as some are implying?"</em> --Allen</p>

<p>No one is implying anything about perfect composition. It's not an all or nothing proposition. Posing these two extremes avoids a lot of meat in between "no composition" and "perfect composition."</p>

<p>Street photographers can't use "street" or "missing the moment" as an excuse for what makes a lousy photograph, which could be bad composition. Sometimes I catch potentially great moments and my composition is lousy so I toss the photograph. To me, the composition is part of the significant moment, so if the composition is off I probably didn't capture the moment after all.</p>

<p>True, sometimes an incredible moment will outweigh awkward composition. Definitely happens. More often, it doesn't.</p>

<p>Many street shots should simply be tossed instead of being heralded as supposed decisive moments whose composition doesn't matter.</p>

<p>Many are simply lousy photographs of significant moments. That happens. Not all and not even most and probably not even many great moments captured by a camera make good photographs. That, to me, is the difference between "the moment" and "the photograph."</p>

<p>Many street photographs, of course, are wonderful. It's usually when a bunch of elements, qualities, and aspects come together.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>In another of his books, Moriyama and Ariki [sp?] discuss Moriyama's heavy processing in the darkroom to alter the look of the photo.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p >“It's not an all or nothing proposition. Posing these two extremes avoids a lot of meat in between "no composition" and "perfect composition."”</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >The better proposition, that fleeting moment, is really about all or nothing, Fred. Sadly a really decisive moment has very little meat in between…it’s there and gone, Fred, quicker than the eye can blink. Of course there’s always a thousand and one compromises in between.... but we all know when the moment has gone…we then just take a photograph interesting as it might seem.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Sometimes I catch potentially great moments and my composition is lousy so I toss the photograph.”</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Sad thought, Fred. Unfortunately street does not always give the time for perfect composition. Something you have to experience to understand. Very sad that you would throw away a photo giving great moments and insights because a vase or whatever got in the way. Very sad indeed…. perhaps a photo copier salesman would agree.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >God is not just in composition, Fred, he inhabits many places in a photograph .Perhaps, he likes best. the feel of humanity other than just composition.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Dodging and burning is one of the most used "traditional" ways (meaning not the only or "right" way) of moving the eye around in a photograph in the darkroom. It works as well in the digital world. The eye tends to go to what is lighter. It can be subtle too if you don't want to hit it with a hammer, just look at your photo and darken and lighten in a way that it moves your eye to where you want. This is not even getting into setting what some call "mood". For in camera methods to isolate subject, Damon hit a lot of them.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>

<p > </p>

<p > The question that needs to be asked is why you think it's alright to completely dismiss composition out of convenience,</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I do, it’s about the subject matter. It’s like you saying if it is not sharp it is not a worthy photo. It’s about the content, that’s what really matters, Ray. I have not dismissed the composition….what I actually said is that a half decent photographer will try to achieve the best composition in the circumstances permitting. Bottom line it’s all about the photo whether it works or not.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >“A photograph is concerned with the entire space inside the frame. Just because you like one area of it doesn't mean you can ignore other parts that subtract from the whole. If it's flawed, it's flawed.”</p>

<p > </p>

<p >What you are really saying Ray is that regardless of content of the photo if it is technically flawed, in your take on flawed, it’s for the bin. If we decide on that formulae at least half of the “old masters” work are for the bin.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >A photograph is not just concerned with the entire space of the frame….it’s only concern is if it works as a photograph….</p>

<p > </p>

<p >who is making these rules? </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Point me in the direction of this rule book.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

</p>

<p > </p>

[russ_butner___portland__or]

<p>I get in tight and close, use wide apertures.</p>

<p><img src="<a href=" title="Goldilocks by quietlightphoto, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2287/3536800721_cd2bd3e703.jpg" width="500" height="389" alt="Goldilocks" /></a>" alt="" /></p>

[John G.]

<p>I'm surprised that no one has mentioned shooting with a wider angle lens. That's better for Street and tends to diminish the background.</p>