Critique Request

[shutterbud]

<p>Hi All<br>

I would be grateful to any member who has the time to peruse my gallery and offer advice on how to improve my work.</p>

<p>Many thanks</p>

<p>Steve</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>So would everybody else, Stephen.<br>

and please don't double post.</p>

<p>Reread the conditions of membership here.</p>

[MarieH]

<p>Hi Stephen: I like your subject matter and think you have a great field to work with and some interesting shots. I read that you deleted photoshop. I don't think its the way to go tho because photoshop can be useful to correct distortion or contrast or conversion to black and white, etc. I prefer images 'as shot' with the least enhancements, which takes some talent n my humble opinion, and therein lies the difference between good and great (I think). So kudos to a bit of photoshop as a useful darkroom tool in this respect.<br>

You could try the streetphotography critique forms, but unfortunately the ratings are badly skewed by friendships, loyalties, or just plain old revenge lol. But often people with experience and talent will offer their 2 cents to guide you. Find some of the photogaphers here that interest you and watch their work. There is plenty to learn from this site if you care to weed through it all. </p>

[garypeck]

<p>Interesting collection of snapshots - the work demonstrates emotional and physical detachment. Standing at a safe distance yields safe images with little meaningful content. The camera is simply observing and little more. Same lens, similar POV - redundant FOV - even same camera height. I would look at why are you shooting this stuff? What are the things that really interest you in pursuing these types of images, discover your passion - then refine your technique - use lenses - light - composition and all the tools available to you to strengthen your perception - viewpoint and approach. Compelling street images - hell any image, will fail shot 30 feet from the subject in flat light. If you hope to succeed and excel in your efforts - first look at your personal motivation, the why, and then passionately pursue that passion. </p>

[Carl Stone]

<p>Photoshop is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. Post processing is the the use of tools, much like a power saw is a tool used to build a house. You can build a house without using a power saw, but, nobody viewing the house once it's completed will know that. Many famous photographers created their finest work in the darkroom (wet or digital) after the shot was taken. </p>

<p>The bottom line is that what is important is the finished image, and not how you made it. There are no extra accolades for refraining from the use of post processing, aside from those that you bestow on yourself. Your task is to create interesting images, all else is secondary, don't let anyone fool you. </p>

[cyanatic]

<blockquote>

<p>Hi All<br>

I would be grateful to any member who has the time to peruse my gallery and offer advice on how to improve my work.<br>

Many thanks<br>

Steve</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Two comments: Be careful what you ask for, and...there are too many Steves on photo.net.</p>

<p>Okay, seriously -- What I say are only my opinions. I do not express them as absolute rules or requirements. Asking "how do I improve" in a genre like street photography is a dangerously open ended question. In something like landscapes, or studio portraiture for example, specific technical aspects could be addressed in relation to composition, depth of field, lighting, etc. Street photography is amorphous, less subject to strict rules and regulations. What do you want to achieve? What do you want to show or express? What do you want to share with your viewer (provided you want to do so)?</p>

<p>Before I talk about a few of your photos, I think Marie gives good advice in terms of looking at the PNet portfolios (or websites of those who do not put photos on PNet) of some of the active contributors to this forum. I would add to that the viewing of some of the "recognized" practitioners of SP, or those whose body of work contains significant examples of SP, meaning the usual suspects: Bresson, Evans, Strand, Levitt, Maier, Frank, Klein, Winogrand, Friedlander, Meyerowitz, etc. Also consider looking at websites that show the work of historical and contemporary street photographers (some of the links are more documentary in nature, but dig around and you will find street work). Just a few examples below, or you can easily find your own via google, or via blogrolls on the websites of other photographers.</p>

<p>http://www.in-public.com/</p>

<p>http://www.americansuburbx.com/</p>

<p>http://www.burnmagazine.org/</p>

<p>http://streetreverbmagazine.com/</p>

<p>http://500px.com/85mm/stories/</p>

<p>The point of all of this is to help you decide what moves you, what inspires you. Whose work do you like? Whose work do you not care for? Try to decide and work on a style or approach that interests you. "If one does not know to which port one is sailing, no wind is favorable."</p>

<p>Brief observations on some of your photos:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/16501781</p>

<p>It is cute (the child smiling at you), it is straight on, it is relatively close. But these qualities, as virtuous as they may be to the orthodox canon of Street Photography, do not automatically confer aesthetic significance to a photograph. That is not to say that a photograph which appears to be "just people" does not have significance. Explications of the work of some famous photographers have shown that what appears at first glance to be a simple or random image can be full of deeper meaning and significance. The visual "home run" (what is often misinterpreted these days as a Bresson-like "decisive moment") can often be very shallow and short lived. It is a matter of taste, style, and approach. If you find some deeper significance in a particular photograph of your own, you need to be honest with yourself -- is that symbol, or archetype, or deeper meaning really there? Or am I just kidding myself? In the case of the child and the woman I don't find much depth. I also don't see much of the environment which surrounded them. Inclusion of more of it may, or may not, have made this image more interesting. It's virtue, to me, lies in its directness of approach which, I think, should be commended and explored further.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/16219324</p>

<p>Again, only my opinion, but I am more engaged by this photo than by the one previously mentioned. There is a juxtaposition of two figures in dappled shade/light with a large patch of light against the wall between them. Their relationship is ambiguous. Their reason for being there is ambiguous. The purpose of the building and the doorway at the far left is unknown. Ambiguity and an off-angle is no more a guarantee of significance than a straight on shot, but in this case, combined with the visually interesting pattern of light and shade (and the inclusion of the environment in which these girls stand) I find this a more engaging street photograph than the one of the woman and child.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/16329509&size=md</p>

<p>I find this image interesting. Again, it possesses a certain ambiguity as well as visually interesting lighting. Seen close, there is a dim second figure in deep shadow within. Again, ambiguity is not necessarily a virtue, but it can be used effectively to engage a viewer by leaving it open to interpretation. It is also taken from behind, which is sometimes considered a "sin" in Street Photography. I think the mans profile and lighting are somewhat interesting, and your portfolio is not exclusively filled with images of the backs or sides of people. So I consider it on its own merits without getting into the fact that it was taken from behind. Again, it is a matter of personal taste. Not all approaches work all the time. There is something to be said for variety, in Street Photography as well as in life.</p>

<p>Good luck, and keep working.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<<em>I prefer images 'as shot' with the least enhancements</em>><em>>></em></p>

<p>First of all, you will often never know whether or not a photo was post processed, so you will often not know what to prefer, unless you assume post processing is the kind of blatant slider-bar overkill that you see regularly in the PN top-rated photos queue. That would be an unfortunate assumption. Much of the best post processing has a profound effect and yet goes relatively unnoticed.</p>

<p>It is those who see the use of Photoshop as adding "enhancements" who don't really understand Photoshop and so they would be the ones who would tend to use it badly, if they did ever use it.</p>

<p>"Enhancing" suggests improving something and improving something suggests there is something already there to improve. People who understand post processing understand that what they are after does not exist until their process is completed. It's not like they have mini-products on the way to the grand prize. The have a vision that they are realizing. They don't see developing film and choosing the temperature of the chemicals, for instance, as enhancing some abstract photo that already exists before it can be seen on the negative. They don't see printing as enhancing a negative to get to the next mini-product which is a print. Most good photographers have a fluidity of process that includes many steps. They don't see the previous steps as somehow flawed and in need of improvement or enhancement, they see each step as a lead-in to the next one and, at some point, their work is done.</p>

<p>Those, also, who don't understand post processing think it takes some sort of extra talent not to do it because, I suppose, it feeds their own ego to think what they are doing requires more than what others are doing. When Marie limits what Photoshop can do to adjusting contrast and fixing distortion she is fulfilling what the great Existentialists of the 20th Century knew a long time ago. People will run from freedom at every chance they get. Give me some concrete guidelines about what I may and may not do with Photoshop and I won't have to think for myself.</p>

[MarieH]

<p>http://erickimphotography.com/<br>

Here we go again. The Great Fred has spoken so be it. Smile.<br /> I am adept at photoshop, yes Fred, my daughter has a degree in illustration and design and much of her work at school involved photoshop. She taught me all about layers, masks brushes etc.. and how to use them. At first I thought it was all wonderful. But after I started looking at images by Vivian Maier who used composition and subject matter, and many other photographers, I felt different about the use of photoshop. But to each his own; my own is more on subject, and composition, than artificiality.</p>

<p>May the real Steve please stand up. Wink. Steve gives many links that are useful and I also follow Eric Kim who gives workshops on street. My aesthetic toward street has changed over time, and no doubt, yours will too Steve. Its ever evolving, what I disliked a couple years ago, I now find fascinating and that's how it goes.<br /><br /></p>

[tonmestrom]

<blockquote>

<p>I prefer images 'as shot' with the least enhancements, which takes some talent in my humble opinion, and therein lies the difference between good and great (I think).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which, if done expertly, is something you hardly notice. I for one use everything I have at my disposal to get it to a point where I am satisfied with the result. I for one think you sell yourself short if you leave it "as shot" because what comes out of the camera is just a starting point with a lot of potential left. So why not use that potential?<br /> After all, all this is about is what ends up on that wall in the end isn't it?</p>

<p>To use an anology, if one works with the Zone system the negative that emerges from the development tank is printed with a Basic Printing Time (BPT), in other words it's just a start after which one tries to print it towards its full fine art print potential.</p>

<p>Leaving images "as shot" in my mind is hardly the best choice to be made and sure as hell isn't decisive in any image ending up good or great because of that. Quite the opposite in fact. Then again, people should do as they see fit, it's no skin of my nose after all.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>They don't see the previous steps as somehow flawed and in need of improvement or enhancement, they see each step as a lead-in to the next one and, at some point, their work is done.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>exactly</p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>Stephen, looking at your work I think they are nice atmospheric shots but I don't see you in those photo's, there's no definite commitment I think. For one I think in a lot of those photo's you should have gotten closer and "into it". Also I think you need to revisit your compositional skills. Most photo's don't speak to me. On the other hand I think you've done pretty well given the short amount of time you're at it. As for any work in postprocessing (be it wet or digital) see my comment above. Anyway, you asked.</p>

[Carl Stone]

<p>Marie, you say that post processing constitutes artificiality. Just how do your images go from being seen by your eyes to the printed page, or in this case a computer display, without the use of tools? Nobody is cool merely because they use fewer tools than the next person. </p>

<p>I like to use analogies, so here's one. Your gives you a task and mom tells you to hop on your bike, run down top the store, and buy a can of coffee for your father's breakfast. You comply, and when you return, you tell everyone that you rode both ways using no hands. How does that affect the task of fetching the can of coffee? Who would care if you rode with no hands for the next month? But, you can bet the farm that your mom and dad were very pleased that you got the coffee back in time for breakfast. </p>

<p>Another way to put this would be to ask for critiques on images, and then later ask if anyone wants to change their critique because you are now revealing that you didn't use any PP in their creation. Again, who cares, aside from you? <br>

It's very easy to create barriers for yourself, but most often that isn't really necessary. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<<em>I am adept at photoshop, yes Fred, my daughter has a degree in illustration and design and much of her work at school involved photoshop. She taught me all about layers, masks brushes etc.</em>>>></p>

<p>I wasn't questioning your adeptness at Photoshop. I was questioning, and I'm glad to see many others doing so, your understanding of its use and relevance.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Oh, and please don't throw Eric Kim in my face. You want to worship your heroes, worship them, but please leave me out of it. Create your own path. Don't assume you need to be a Vivian Maier or an Eric Kim. The minute I see YOU doing what YOU want, which I actually do in some of the work of yours that I've seen, I will become interested, as I have in your work. The minute I see too many obvious reference either in style or methodology to some photographer you think has discovered the secret, I am bound to lose interest in you. THERE IS NO SECRET! Just do it.</p>

[MarieH]

<p>whoa Fred. I wasn't throwing anyone in your face. I was suggesting another link for Steve to look at. (This is his thread after all) I don't care for photoshop..no. I do use it. I use it as a means to show what I shot to the best of my ability with minor correction, color contrast crop etc. What I object to is taking a medioce photo, working some photoshop magic on it and presenting it as something else entirely. I suppose this is alright for photography in general if its what you want to do with your images. But if your presenting it as 'street photography' or candid...its no long that, in my humble opinion. I like lots of your images Fred and the way you shoot by the way. I prefer to shoot well, and use ps as I would a ladder, as a tool. It has its uses.</p>

[cyanatic]

<p>I'm not sure how we went from offering advice and opinions to Stephen Conkie to questioning the validity of Marie's objections to Photoshop. Maybe we're talking at cross purposes. Of those who seem to be relatively active in this forum, I don't see much evidence of overt (the heavy-handed slider push type mentioned earlier by Fred) post processing in their portfolios. Like Ton, I too use "everything at my disposal to get it to a point where I am satisfied..." But (and correct me if I am wrong, Marie) I do not think that is the type of post processing to which she is referring. </p>

<p>I also do not think that Photoshop, Lightroom, or any other photo editing software is going to help one emulate the work of Vivien Maier or any other highly regarded photographer (maybe it can help approximate the "look" of some of the work of photographers like Daido Moriyama or Ed van der Elsken, but that's another discussion). The moment depicted is the moment depicted, no matter the tools one used to create the final image/print. Photoshop is not going to make a so-so photo brilliant. So what are we talking about here? Street scenes fabricated from whole cloth? What kind of post processing does Marie find compromising in her work, and/or the work of others? And why should any of us care? If she feels proud or superior for not using it (and I don't see where she said any such thing, I took it to be a simple statement of preference), so what? </p>

 

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Here are a few I found interesting. These all had a sense of intent and being in the moment.<br>

<a href="../photo/16475782">The mote in thine eye</a><br />http://www.photo.net/photo/16475782<br /><br /><a href="../photo/16495349">Baby on shoulder</a><br />http://www.photo.net/photo/16495349<br /><br /><a href="../photo/16495343">Haircut pink sneakers</a><br />http://www.photo.net/photo/16495343<br /><br /><a href="../photo/16475780">Non-mirror</a><br />http://www.photo.net/photo/16475780<br /><br /><a href="../photo/16329501">coming home</a><br />http://www.photo.net/photo/16329501<br /><br /><a href="../photo/16329478">Couple dancing</a><br />http://www.photo.net/photo/16329478<br /><br /><a href="../photo/16257647">two dresses on a summers day</a><br />http://www.photo.net/photo/16257647<br /><br /><a href="../photo/16219324">two girls black and white</a><br />http://www.photo.net/photo/16219324<br /><br /><a href="../photo/16143017">rainy day blues</a><br />http://www.photo.net/photo/16143017<br /><br /></p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I was intrigued by Gary's comment:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"...the work demonstrates emotional and physical detachment ... The camera is simply observing and little more."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That could be an accurate reflection of a photographer's frame of mind and intent at that moment.</p>

[shutterbud]

<p>Hhmm. Food for thought. I must say that while I was anxious to get some feedback, I also felt some trepidation. This is a large forum and I keenly feel my inexperience. I will be taking note of those links! After posting this thread I had another look at the shots I've posted, using my most critical mode, and one aspect I feel I do have to improve is my framing. There seem to be many shots which I feel would have been improved from pulling OUT a tiny bit (or maybe coming right in?). I do not like cropping and try to do this as seldom/little/sparingly as possible as it feels like a lie, so easily accomplished online, since a small part of a full res image can be used to post a seemingly intimate shot. As to being detached, I will need to think about that.<br />I'm not quite sure why a camera should be other than an observational tool.<br />I do try to change the height I take shots from, but I will keep an eye on that.<br />What are my shots for? What are they trying to say? I would have to say "Here is China. Here are some people in the normal course of their lives." I have no agenda, no over-arching statement to make or to superimpose on complete strangers. I feel (and hope) that my subjects can speak for themselves. I want to competently take photographs of a moment in time, specifically <strong>without</strong> "<em>the photographer's art</em>" impinging on the process or subject, as much as possible. Those shots in which I am present, I tend to delete unless the interaction leads to a mutually positive interaction or the empowerment of the subject. I have had the opportunity to take shots of extreme poverty/suffering but this I seldom do. I have (obviously) now viewed tens of thousands of shots from other photographers and the ones which annoy me tend to be exactly those in which the photographer is present. Maybe this is becuase I have not as yet explored the work of the stalwarts of the ouevre, whose artistic hand is subtle? <br />I am very grateful for this thread being taken up. Please feel free to add further contributions.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>I agree mostly with Gary Peck and he said it very well. I think you do have an eye, but you just need to learn what exactly you want to show in each photo, and then bend your technique to put the eye there. There's a lot of photos with too much happening not connected to the subject and just distracting. Don't worry though, they remind me of a lot of my photographs at a certain point:) Just keep shooting and then reflect. After you shoot the same stuff for a while, it will start to evolve and your eye will improve. So keep going. You have the passion to get out there, keep doing it.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Stephen, I think letting subjects speak for themselves seems like an admirable goal, for some who want to do that. Why not? Go for it. It's just that that's not as easy as it might seem. Getting out of the way in a way to actually let subjects speak is not any easier than getting in the way, which is different from providing a point of view. Providing a point of view is something a photographer can do which will often give a megaphone to his/her subjects. A photographer's point of view and a subject's communication aren't necessarily at odds except when the former becomes a getting in the way, which it doesn't have to be.</p>

<p>Sometimes, not wanting to get in the way becomes detached to the point where it feels like the photographer is hiding behind the lens. That can come through and really affect whether or not the viewer can relate to the subject or not. Sometimes, such not wanting to get in the way comes off as defensive or objectifying or dehumanizing of subjects. So it's worth considering how not to get in the way. There are different approaches to doing that, all with different results and different effects on whether or not the subject comes through. For example, indifference can make a viewer not engage with a subject, so even though the subject is not imposed upon it's voice is still not coming through the photo.</p>

<p>I suspect that when people suggest a photographer's detachment as a criticism they are doing so because they, as viewers, are also made to feel detached from the subject by the photo. So, we all can appreciate a photographer's detachment when he can allow us to engage, through that detachment, more directly to the subject itself. But, when that detachment results in the <em>viewer's</em> detachment from the subject, that can be problematic and I suspect that's what some of the criticisms about detachment may be getting at.</p>

<p>Steve, it's becoming less and less clear to me what type of post processing Marie is referring to. She started out by saying she's put off (paraphrasing) by anything more than simple contrast adjustments, b/w conversion, and distortion adjustment. That leaves a lot of room to object to in the world of post processing. Later, she has talked about the extremes of Photoshop magic and deceit of presenting something as something it's not.</p>

<p>There's a lot of territory in there and I venture a guess that if Marie and I discussed it in more detail, we'd probably be more in agreement than it seems at this point. For instance, if someone were to present a great scene of the coming together of an important moment, say a well-dressed guy stepping off a ghetto street corner with a Rolls Royce approaching that might appear to be ready to hit him, and we found out that the photographer was deceiving us into thinking that was taken as one shot when, in fact, he had stitched together two or three to create the moment, both the photo and the photographer would likely be lessened in my eyes, and I imagine in Marie's.</p>

<p>But, the notion that if no (or very minimal) post processing is done we are somehow bringing to the print a more accurate rendition of what occurred at the time of shooting is, to me, simply wrong. Sometimes, quite a bit of good post work is necessary to recreate what one saw at the time. That might include dodging and burning, color shifts, white balance adjustments, bringing down highlights, opening up shadows, even using lighting filters to mimic certain emphases that were lost in the translation from actual scene to photo.</p>

<p>I wonder if we're really not just talking about being "offended" by out and out deceit (as in the case I imagined just above) or by just plain bad post processing. A bad photo is a bad photo and bad post processing is bad post processing. But bad post processing is no more an indictment of the idea of post processing (even to great extents) than bad photos are an indictment of the idea of photography.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>By the way, Marie, sorry. I did think the link to Kim was directed at me since it came in the same paragraph as your direct response to me. That, I now realize, was not what you meant by including the link and I appreciate your clearing that up.</p>

[MarieH]

<p>No problem Fred. Its easy to see how things misconstrue and go awry in the forum. Hi Stephen, welcome to the street forum :)<br>

I like this image of yours by the way:<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/16219322 Nice moment and interestingly framed.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> I would be grateful to any member who has the time to peruse my gallery and offer advice on how to improve my

work.

 

OK...

 

I agree wholeheartedly with Gary Peck. When I look at a body of work, I hope to discover a POV or an attitude the

photographer has with respect to some aspect of life on the street. That aspect may may be subtle and taken for granted

and unseen by others. But a street photographer will focus on that and amplify through composition and timing to the

point where it stands in contrast to whatever else is going on - making a great street photograph. That, among other things,

separates photos taken on the street as if on a vacation watching life from a distance, from street photography where a

view or position is taken and expressed accordingly. Gary's comment about detachment is spot on - it can be seen

through the majority of your photos. I would go further and say that "safe distance" may have to do with feeling

uncomfortable shooting close to people.

 

In most urban environments with lots of people, there's an underlying energy. That's lost shooting from a distance. Get

closer, much closer, and think about what you want in the frame. That will make your photos lively. For me, what *I* like

to find in good street photos include, but is not limited to, unusualness, attitude, gravitas (a certain weightiness or heavy

feeling), releasing strong narrative possibilities (even if I'm wrong as a viewer as to what's really happening), ambiguity,

nice light, elements in tension, irony, humor, thoughtful consideration to what's in and not in the frame,

happiness (not meaning people that are simply smiling), sadness, etc, etc. Also, I like photos that pose questions rather

than supply (all or most of the) answers. That speaks to ambiguity and mystery (much of that is accomplished through

framing and light). There's more, but in a nutshell, street photos that exhibit some of those characteristics will be ones

that I'll remember. But that's just me, speaking about what moves me with respect to street photos. I could go on, but

will stop there for now.

 

If your goal is to document general life from a distance, there's nothing wrong with that and you should continue on your

path. *IF* your goal is to create street photos that *amplify* aspects of street life, unseen or taken for granted, and speak

loudly to viewers, then think about some of the above. Also think about getting much closer to people - in their energy field, so

to speak. There are ways to go about that. I can expand on that in a subsequent post.

[Uhooru]

<p>Brad, well said. Personally, I think it would be really instructive to all of us, if you could expand on ways to go about getting closer to people. I'm a great believer in showing what you want to as if it was with a laser beam. so that thing is amplified, whether its a face, a feeling an interplay of light and form, etc etc. Sometimes I do feel uncomfortable getting where I want to get a photo of someone. Sometimes it comes easier, but I know you are a master of getting into that space. I also believe that whatever one projects, fear, friendliness etc. will be picked up on the street, so I usually try to adjust myself trying to make my space someplace others would want to enter into as I enter theirs. Sometimes I can do it, sometimes not. But I'd seriously like any pointers you have cause you are great at that.</p>

[shutterbud]

<p>Thanks Brad (and everyone else). I've been thinking all morning about the helpful and insightful comments from the membership. I am very relieved that this thread is so constructive. I have just logged onto Brad's homepage and noticed that many of the images on the front page re in fact taken from quite a distance, though obviously some are not. I have several headshots and closer shots taken both from closer to the subject and with a slightly longer lens (nifty). I am slightly dissatisfied with the FL of the 35mm I'm using as on a DX it neither gets you a normal FL nor a mildly wide FoV. But this prevaricating somewhat. I would say that as a Westerner in China you are noticed within seconds and to get as close as I suspect I am being advised to do, would be seen as rude. It is not a question of not being confident, rather respectful. I do not feel it is acceptable to get into someone's "energy field" in this socio-political environment. Believe me, I get on with things when I'm out shooting, despite the widespread attention I get. I am getting ok with stealth shots and have several I am very happy with. Will need to free up some space or resize them after work to let you see. I also feel it is possible that the Chinese reduced expressiveness/ zaniness etc, might have something to do with the feelings of detachment. I do have a lot to think about, but one thing I am now thinking about is "Do I need to have 'a thing' in my photography?" I do not want to produce images such as Brad does, good as they are- I have no qualms in recognising his superiority in this artform. But thi whole "Crazy streets of (insert name of city here)" does not interest me.</p>