Editing for street photography

[MarieH]

<p>Crop, color, black and white. I am currently fiddling with color effex pro (not all that crazy about this program as photoshop and lightroom give similar effects) but I am liking silver effex pro. Not sure where most street photographers stand on the editing process. Of course if you shoot film, its the dark room for purists, but is the digital dark room a good thing or an abused thing? I am trying to make up my mind about where to draw the line. I see a lot of high key, low key, hdr... Do you have a personal style..and what's your thoughts on it. Although this has probably been discussed already, I can't seem to find any current threads on it. Thanks.</p>

[dgoakill]

<p>I don't think there is a set standard for editing street (or IMO, shouldn't be as in keeping with the spirit of the genre). This is a long and heated debate depending on where you fall as a photographer. For example, some don't believe street should be shot in color, some don't believe street can be shot anywhere but an urban environment, some think it should be shot only with cameras that take film and have a big red dots on them that cost over $5000......<br /><br /><br />I personally try to keep my editing to a minimum and do only what I would do if I was in a dark room editing film. I try to crop in camera, which means I frame the shot as I take it. I will only slightly crop further in lightroom, if I was slightly off balance or a few degrees off level. Burn and dodge (contrast / brightness) the overall image as well as specific areas as needed.<br /><br />Really it's a personal preference. I've always approached street as having no rules. Ironically, the more you read about street the more structured people try to make it. I assume this is their way of defining it for themselves, artists' need limitations if for no other reason than a point of reference. You can't be cutting edge or breaking a rule if it hasn't been defined.<br>

Do what comes natural and keep trying new things until you find what works for you.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<blockquote>

<p>...but is the digital dark room a good thing or an abused thing?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>just like every other technique it's not the technique itself that causes "abuse" but the photographer at hand. I agree with Dave that it's all about personal preference so "abuse" if any, is very debatable and subjective.<br>

Personally I think the digital darkroom has brought a lot of good things. Having said that my inkjet/lambdaprints don't differ that much from my wet work.<br>

The notion that the darkroom is for purists is laughable. It's said many times before, what it all comes down to is your endresult. Use whatever suits you best. That's why I use both although by now virtually all of it is digitally rendered.<br>

As for plug-ins I'm able to try a lot of them thanks to my job. Most of them are crap or copies with a slight twist. SEP however is a positive exception and one of the best out there.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>The digital darkroom is not a good thing, it's a great thing, IMO. It allows me to get my photos to look just the way I want them. Many "effects" are overused and abused. There's a difference between that and making strong and committed statements with your photos. You've got to find that line. The ability to navigate the subtleties and nuances between a unique voice and abuse, between intentionally committed to a vision and overused is what separates out the more interesting photographers from the hacks.</p>

<p>As for hdr, high key, and low key, my own feeling is that those "styles" will be determined by content and expression. In other words, I see them used very often just because it seems like the photographer thinks they're cool effects. That's usually a danger sign. On the other hand, when those stylistic choices seem to integrate into the photo as a whole, seem to work with the content, the lighting, and other expressive tools, they feel organic and therefore don't stand out as effects or tricks, but rather seem to make a kind of photographic sense.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Everyone has to feel it out him/herself. You'll find your own way/style in due time...</p>

[MarieH]

<p>Very interesting thanks. I always feel that people who shoot film are 'artists'. I guess its the mystery of the dark room, but now I feel better,and will continue to use the programs as suits my content. I know that straight out of the camera some of my images are kind of 'meh' looking, but add color or contrast and maybe a crop (trying now to do the in camera thing..ain't easy tho) and its mostly improved upon. But somehow I feel like I'm lying..</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I always feel that people who shoot film are 'artists'. I guess its the mystery of the dark room</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have a darkroom setup (135 & 2 and 1/4 inches), if you want to feel more like an artist...we can work out a low price:)</p>

<p> </p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Back before digital, we all shot film. We were all artists then. Now look what's happened to us? How sad is that?</p>

[MarieH]

<p>Well the thing is now, like today, I must of saw a hundred people with cameras, point n shoots, top dslr's. and camera phones...seems everyone's an artist? lol@Leslie..got to admit that the digital world has made some aspects far more accessible to the masses. More than half my shots get the delete button.</p>

[asher]

<p>Look at the photo, straight out of the camera.</p>

<p>If it "works", keep it.</p>

<p>If it doesn't "work", move on.</p>

<p>Learn what works and what doesn't by studying photographs that you really like.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Nah, do what you wanna do. Photography doesn't have rules. Baseball has rules, and a rule book to explain them. Photography doesn't have a rule book. Just do whatever you want.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Jeff: Is that really true? After all, you're a pro. If you were to write a book someday to explain what works in your photography and what doesn't, wouldn't that be a rule book of sorts on how to see that type of photography, how to get clients, etc? </p>

[Spearhead]

<p>The question is about street photography. </p>

[spanky]

<p>Sigh!!! People spend far too much time worrying about how their work fits in with the work of others and far less time shooting and learning for themselves what works for them and what doesn't. For the record, I don't think street photography can be taught. Every shot is unique in the sense that it can never be repeated. There are too many variables involved so it's impossible to go back and re-shoot a shot that didn't quite work out as planned the first time around. I know there are some notable photographers that offer street photography classes for big $$ but that doesn't mean any one person can take that class and shoot like that particular photographer. This is why I also think critiques are useless as well. I don't critique other peoples work nor do I offer my own work up for critique although I welcome those who feel compelled to do so. I will state if I like a particular picture or not if asked, but that's about it. I also don't care for much of the color street photography I see these days. In other street photography forums I get the sense that color is a choice made by photographers to create an compelling picture that would fall flat in black and white due to lack of content. In a black and white image, it's all about content. Sure a b&w fine art print is in itself a wonderful thing, but in street photography content trumps all else. I see many color shots that have bright vibrant colors such as deep blues contrasted with bright reds and other warm colors. They appeal to the eye because that is the effect color has on us. When I read critiques on other street photographs I see that many people mention the use of color in the shot. So if contemporary street photography is more about how a photographer uses color in his/her shots then about content i.e. stating something about the human condition then why even bother taking a picture? With lack of content one looks at such street photographs as a work in the abstract. Why not just paint a composition with plenty of red dispersed around the canvass? I also feel the same way about b&w work that is purposely printed with very high contrast. Again, I look at these and as I try to find the intent and meaning of the picture, I cannot find it, but it is a visually appealing print due to the high contrast. So I enjoy the print (like I would of a color shot of a street scene) but with no content to hold my interest, I cannot "enter" the world of the photograph. Thus I after a short while I forget the image completely. One of the best compliments I've gotten from people who have seen my work in person is that even days later they still were thinking about my pictures. I think this is what all street photographers should strive for. Forget the extreme high contrast b&w and snappy color street shots and give us compelling moments that others who are not street photographers would miss. </p>

[AlanKlein]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't think street photography can be taught.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Marc: Your very well thought out post is a form of teaching street photography - for example the advantages of B/W over color. Someone especially those new to street photography would read it with interest and be effected in how they go out to shoot the street. At least initially. We all could use mentors and more experienced people to learn things to get us past the basics more quickly and fine tune experienced people as well. It saves a lot of wear and tear. Why do so many photographers think that photography is an exception? If I really got into street photography, I would love to go out with you for the day and see what you do and how you handle yourself. That would make me a better photographer.</p>

[Brad_]

Street photography is experiential, on a very personal level. It's more about being out on the street,

soaking in and understanding the dynamics, rhythm, and energy. And with that as your guide, finding and

snagging the uncommon, hidden in plain sight. It's not about sweating what your photos should look like

on the surface after the fact.

 

Content, influenced by the above, trumps whatever happens in post. And that drives what makes a street

photo compelling and memorable. Or not. What you do in post is tweaking to achieve a consistent look.

That's also personal, but done for other reasons.

[dgoakill]

<p>I've always been drawn to street work that affects the other senses besides sight. Smell in particular for street photography. If you're left with the impression of what a scene smells like, I think that's sign of a successful image. Texture (touch) is good too, but that is pretty true for most photography, especially black and white. <br /><br />Perhaps that's why so many gravitate toward black and white for street? Color, while useful is in a sense, is too easy as it plays off our sense of sight which can overpower (or mask in the case of an unsuccessful image) the sometimes subtle but more important details.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p> It's more about being out on the street, soaking in and understanding the dynamics, rhythm, and energy.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Exactly. It's why equipment, flash, color or b/w, post-processing, and everything else other than the experience of being on the street really doesn't matter. Those are personal choices for the photographer and to some extent for the viewer. <br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why do so many photographers think that photography is an exception?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Where is that written?</p>

[spanky]

<p>Thanks for your kind words Alan. I guess what I'm trying to say is that we are all influenced by other photographers and this is a natural, good thing. However, I just seem to find many photographers who are not getting the results they are after look to other photographers to provide them with an answer. A teacher can point someone in a certain direction but it is the student who must arrive. So what is the difference between a teacher and a student? When the student knows the answer to this, the teacher is no longer needed.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>For me, both as a photographer and viewer, street photography is about photographs as much as it is about whatever experience is had out in the streets. There are plenty of people out there soaking up the streets and experiencing those streets who aren't photographing. The difference being that a photographer is making photos. And it is precisely the photos, what they look and feel like, that is significant to me as a photographer and viewer. I am not in any way minimizing the experience, which every photographer has in making photos, street photographers no more so than any other photographer. All photography is experiential. But, that being said, I consider the photo a very significant part of what I am doing as a photographer and as a viewer, so I could never say for myself that the experience is more important than the photo. For me, photography is very much about what the photos look like. That's paramount, for me.</p>

<p>Marie, there's a sense in which all photographs and all art is a lie. That's the artificial aspect. It's the created aspect. The made aspect. I sense what you are talking about is a kind of accuracy or fidelity you might be after to the original scene. I don't feel compelled to be accurate beyond a certain point, though in some photos fidelity to the scene is more important to me than others. And I expect some accuracy from others in certain situations, such as photojournalistic ones. I respect that you feel you might be lying when you do certain post-processing things and encourage you to honor whatever feelings around that you have. I would also consider whether those are self imposed or imposed from outside yourself. In other words, is that what you think you <em>should</em> be doing or is it what you <em>want</em> to be doing. There's a big difference. But if you feel better not going beyond a certain amount or type of post processing, that makes complete sense for you as an individual.</p>

<p>Obviously, in the above paragraph, I'm using "lying" somewhat metaphorically. I don't really think all photography is a lie, though I do think it's partly fabrication. What would be a lie, and what I would have a problem with, is someone stating that they didn't materially alter a scene when they, in fact, did. If someone creates a montage and <em>actively</em> tries to pass it off as a single shot, that, to me, would be a lie.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> I am not in any way minimizing the experience,...

>>> For me, photography is very much about what the photos look like.

 

And I am not in any way minimizing the photograph and what they look like. One would think that's a given and obvious (but maybe not).

That's what I and others who engage in sp produce. What I am saying is those that aren't into sp, who think it's just about

going out and making photographs, will simply never get it. And that ultimately shows in their

photos.

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Brad, I guess from your original post here, I didn't get that you thought it was a given. Sorry for the misunderstanding.</p>

<p>You said <em>"It's not about sweating what your photos should look like on the surface after the fact."</em> And for me and many photographers I know it is very much about that, in addition, of course, to the significant experiences we have while photographing. I have been known to expend a lot of energy, even to obsess not just sweat, over what the photo looks like. But it seems like we may agree on all this, so it was probably just my misreading of what you said.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Brad, I do appreciate and understand your last post and agree that if it is <em>just</em> about making a photo, with no connection to what you are actually doing, that is likely to show in the photos. I will add that I don't necessarily think it will make a bad photo (and an not implying that's what you were saying). There are likely some very unengaged street photographers who make very good street photos, though likely a very different type of street photo. It would be interesting if anyone has examples of known street photographers who don't seem as personally involved in the street experience itself and yet make interesting street photos. </p>

[Brad_]

>>> Brad, I guess from your original post here, I didn't get that you thought it was a given.

 

Fred, of course it's a given. What I show on the web, put on the wall in exhibitions, put into photo journals, are...

photographs! It goes without saying I do care a lot about that.

 

The point I was trying to make is that sp is about being out there soaking in and understanding the environment and

its dynamics, and using what's gained from that process to drive what's captured. And that it's content, not post-

processing that influences the end result most strongly. Yes, post is important, but not a fix or filler for what's lacking in content.

 

Editing, for me, is a much broader process, starting on the street by choosing what I shoot, and more importantly

what I don't shoot because what's before me might be ho-hum with little chance of conveying something. From there

it's a culling out of bad captures and weak photos at home. The actual postprocessing is something I almost do on

autopilot knowing where I want to go and having a consistent look I'm trying to achieve. That's for posting online,

creating coherent photoessays, making photo journals, and other projects.

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Yes, Brad. I approach post processing quite differently. I don't do it on autopilot at all. I often go in all sorts of directions with my post processing, very much depending on what the content is saying to me and what I want it to look like. Though I may sometimes have reason for wanting a consistent look among photos in a series, etc., in other photos and even in some series and coherent projects, I'm not after that kind of post processing consistency at all and the post processing is as much a unique and intentional and engaged experience (meaning very not autopilot, for me) as is the shooting experience.</p>