What's in a "type" and critiquing

[dionysios]

<p>Hello,<br>

I wouldn't necessarily type my photographs as "street". They may have a consistent look or approach, but I've been told that some if not most are not. And that is okay. The best description I came up with is "people interacting with the urban fabric". Some are blatantly architectural. I think I know the definition of street, having read the books and spent time with true street photographers. I'm not asking for a critique of pieces.<br>

I'd like to hear from you all what you think about the general approach. How would you describe it? <br>

On the general subject of critiques. I've put up some photographs on the Critique Forum but never got any replies. Of course my participation on this site has been minimal.<br>

Are others experiencing the same? What can I do to improve that?<br>

I like this site because of the good level of skill when wanting to find information or have questions answered.<br>

Where would you say are good places to get critiques of our work?<br>

Thank you, D.</p>

[sgust]

<p>Posting an image with a generic "Comments welcome" message will get you a lot of congratulatory feedback if it's a good image which is nice too get, but often not very helpful. I've found that submissions to the critique forum get more replies if you state a specific aspect of your image that your unsure of/want feed back on. It also helps to be an active commenter yourself, as often people will recognize your name from comments you've left and feel more compelled reciprocate.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I think I know the definition of street, having read the books and spent time with true street photographers. .</p>

</blockquote>

<p> What exactly is a "true" street photographer, say, as opposed to a fake one? Just curious... </p>

[dionysios]

<p>No, I don't want congratulatory or glib comments. I'm looking for experienced, thought-out advice. I'll state my intentions for the photographs more clear next time. You're right though, I need to participate more here. Thanks Siegfried.<br>

Leslie. I was comparing myself to that tried and true description of the photographer and the photography, and to the work of some friends. </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I gave up years ago trying to define street photography. Like art and porn, we know it when we see it. I used to have ridiculously narrow views of street photography and can only shake my head now at my ignorance. If we live long enough we'll learn the folly of saying "never" and "always".</p>

<p>Regarding critiques, sites like photo.net are geared toward single photo critiques. Without context such critiques are of little value to folks who are trying to develop a body of work or at least a style for a particular project. Such one-shot critiques are completely useless for documentary photography, photojournalism, or photo essays, and are of limited use for street photography.</p>

<p>In most cases, on sites like photo.net, you're asking people who might like photos of things in baskets (babies, puppies, kittens, flowers), landscapes, studio portraits or nekkid people posed seductively, to suddenly shift mental gears and offer a coherent and appropriate critique or rating of a photo of some person you just met on the street and maybe chattered with a bit before snapping a photo or setting up an impromptu portrait. Unless the viewer chooses to view and critique/rate only within the narrow context of a particular genre or category, they may have a bit of difficulty adapting quickly enough.</p>

<p>There's little incentive to offer more than generic praise, with an expectation of reciprocity. Folks who try to balance negative criticism with praise can expect to devote a lot of time and energy in exchange for relatively few thanks and a lot of whining from photographers who are accustomed to unfettered praise, or who will dismiss your opinion because your portfolio doesn't qualify you to evaluate theirs, blah, blah, blah. Even folks who are capable of offering serious critiques will eventually become discouraged after hearing enough whining from folks who asked for critiques but accidentally used the word "critique" instead of "compliment".</p>

<p>Personally - and folks are free to disagree - I don't see the need for too many single photo critique requests. One or two requests a year for critiques of a portfolio or focused body of work or project should be enough. Not a popular opinion, but there it is. Requesting dozens of single photo critiques a year seems a bit needy to me, but I'll admit other photographers do seem to flourish under that type of regular infusion of feedback, so it's okay.</p>

<p>At the same time, I'll confess, I enjoy social networking and have absolutely no problems with "Likes" and +1 feedback. I really enjoy seeing what other folks are up to in their photography and I believe we have an unspoken mutual understanding that it's not the same thing as a critique of a focused body of work or portfolio. It's perfectly okay to simply like something.</p>

<p>For a real critique, I'd pester someone whose opinions I respect, with the expectation of taking the good with the bad. Or I'd expect to pay for the service of an experienced photographer, artist, editor, gallery owner or curator. There are a handful of websites that offer this sort of feedback, but I haven't tried them.</p>

[gdw]

<p>If I may echo Siegfried's post. I state in my bio that I do not critique or comment on photographs that do not have a statement of intent from the photographer. It is a critique forum, if you post a photo it is assumed you need it critiqued or wish it critiqued. It is not necessary to say that comments are welcome or please critique. If they are not they shouldn’t be on a critique forum.<br>

Tell me what you wish for the photograph to convey and I have a starting point to determine how successful it is. Ask specifically what you wish to learn from the critique and if I can answer that I will. Without that I simply assume that you wish to be told how great your photograph is and frankly I don't have time for that. Critiquing a photograph can take from fifteen minutes to more than a day so if I do not know what you need I am not going to waste my time trying to guess. I go down the ALL less nudes filter because I do not comment on nudes. I read what the photographer says. If there is something to work with I look at the photo. So without a statement of intent or need I may not even see the photo. Needless to say, few offer a statement so I do not do many critiques these days. </p>

[leslie_cheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Leslie. I was comparing myself to that tried and true description of the photographer and the photography, and to the work of some friends.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Is there such thing as a tried and true street photographer? I wonder what are the qualifications:))) </p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/street-documentary-photography-forum/00WoVr?start=10</p>

 

[spanky]

<p>How important is this really? Isn't it enough to simply walk out the front door with a camera without any agenda, with no concepts or desire to take pictures which can be easily categorized to fit in with the kind the photographer wants to be? Is it really terrible if someone who thinks of themselves as a "street photographer" heads out one day to produce pictures that he/she feels will fit into that style but suddenly decides to spend the afternoon taking floral pictures in a community garden instead? Some say that a photographer needs a direction, a goal of some sort. I take an opposite approach. I head out and let whatever inspiration that comes guide me. I may end up in a different part of town then I anticipated. I may end up shooting differently then how I would have expected under the circumstances. Sometimes I head out to shoot only to find I'm just not feeling it anymore. For me this is all part of the fun. Tomorrow I'm going to shoot around Hollywood because I haven't done so for quite some time. I have no idea what kinds of pictures I will take, how long I will spend there, or even if I will actually feel like going there and not someplace else when I walk out the door...and I wouldn't have it any other way.</p>

[dionysios]

<p>I agree with you Lex about critiquing within a narrow categorization. I don't think it's useful. What we do want is to discuss how the composition fits the intent of the photographer; and considering the possible outcomes. I don't think I, or we, want to discuss how successful a photograph is based on how it fits a type, but rather how the application of principles and elements and techniques can help us achieve our intent. And I agree with you as well, Gary. To be exalted is not ultimately helpful to one's interpretations and expressions. As well, participating in an atmosphere of discussion such as this one here, we need to get the ball rolling by asking a question or starting with a statement of intent. In art and design schools we started dialogues and crits that way. Starting from a premise and seeing it through.</p>

<p>I don't want to get into a debate as to what street photography is; not here at least. I think it is reasonable to say that there is a description that clearly distinguishes it from some other categorization. You know, I never looked it up in the dictionary. It wasn't important. But to try and answer Leslie's question. I figured you're being a street photographer when you directly interact with the people and the rhythm of a city. I may talk with a lot of strangers when I'm out and about, exploring with my camera, discovering unknown corners, but that's so as I can get to know the place. Then I may remove myself from the context, step back and watch it all drift by. The result is what appears in my set. I don't think that makes me a street photographer. What do you think? At what level of interaction does one become a street photographer?</p>

<p>I admit that on a site like photo.net and 500px, when I am asked to categorize a photograph, sometimes it is not easy to distinguish it from "architecture" or "street". Ultimately it has no bearing on me and the general body of work, but sometimes I have no choice but to put it somewhere, and it typically isn’t going to be "fashion", and hopefully it won't piss off some hardliner. Did I word my question wrong? I wanted your impressions, whatever that may be.</p>

<p>Marc: I typically do what you described. Pick a spot in some city or countryside and spend time there. There is no preconceived categorization; that would be boring. A lot of times I get sidetracked because I find something else of interest. The only sure thing is finding a little espresso. But even if one is not on assignment, the challenge can be to stick with a theme. Although I admit this might not necessarily mean that the elements fall into a particular type. Even though my curiosity leads me to photographing in varied ways, there is a trend in my body of work. Do you find that for you? What do you do to break from that? I've started to experiment with photography again, see where it takes me this time.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>SP is a state of mind. Sounds pretentious? Somewhat, but I tend to agree...besides, that's much easier than articulating it:)</p>

[shutterbud]

<p>On the critiquing front, I have posted several times when I have thought a photo was good or bad enough to warrant it. I can't remember anyone replying to my comments, despite my attempts to be constructive and balanced. Some people react very badly when you burst their bubble, especially if there are several gushing previous "critiques". I find there is a real reluctance to face the need for improvement by many. Within hours of my registering my dislike for a certain style of photography I had a comment on one of my photos by "Anonymous" saying "This is disrespectful. You should change your approach to this type of shot". It seemed quite a spiteful way to "critique" someone's work. </p>

[MarieH]

<p>I think you are your own best critique. I know what I like and what I don't like. I use the street critique forum in PN, but I agree with what Lex has already said about the critique forum on PN. Stephen above as well. You can't say what's on your mind in many cases, you'll face retaliation. Its about maturity and learning to accept criticism (good and bad) and raising your own bar. </p>

<p>Most people on the forum seem to want ego stroking not an actual like or don't like and why. What particularly is a problem on PN is the ratings system. It mostly depends on how many 'friends' you have made. If your an infrequent poster, or commenter, you will most likely be ignored, as I've seen many really nice images go without comment. I think its best to post in various sites like 1x.com and flickr. I post there and have actually had one or 2 'explored' which means showcased in the 500 images Flickr 'elves' chooses to be 'explored' each day.<br /> I think this PN street forum is a good place to learn from.</p>

[MarieH]

<p>gateway time out grr</p>

<p> </p>

[shutterbud]

<p>I am a member of another forum dedicated to Street and I am truly grateful for the positive feedback. But no-one as yet has responded "I did something similar- have you thought about this treatment? Even with the vast expanse of the internet and the millions of cameras out there, it can feel a little lonely in this genre. It's like buying a truly high quality pair of jeans. It seems the only people willing to spend 200 quid on a pair of jeans want to look like starved urchins, recently-escaped convicts, or have a designer label on them. G-Star RAW jeans in "stonewash"? Oxymoron anyone?</p>

[spanky]

<p>Is there a trend in my body of work? I suppose so. The pictures I've been taking on the 3rd St. Promenade in Santa Monica for years and continue to do so might be one example. They are a specific set that are unlike other ways I have of shooting. I head there when I don't feel like shooting anything else but want to get out to shoot nonetheless. I remember one friend remarked that there appears to be a large number of overweight people in my photographs. I had never considered this and mentioned that since more Americans are overweight then those that are not (even I'm a little heavy for my height) its just sheer mathematics that overweight people will be in some of my photographs. I certainly don't scan a crowd and zero in on an overweight person for a photo subject. My choice of subjects works on an unconscious level so I cannot articulate why I may photograph one person or scene over another. </p>

[leslie_cheung]

<blockquote>

<p>What do you think? At what level of interaction does one become a street photographer? </p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's not about the interaction per se...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think I know the definition of street, having read the books and spent time with true street photographers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you think you know the definition of street, you are probably not correct. There's no such thing as a fake or true street photographer. We just take pics...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't want to get into a debate as to what street photography is; not here at least.<br>

I'd like to hear from you all what you think about the general approach. How would you describe it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are these two statements not just a little contradictory, Dionysios Psychas? we'd still like to hear your definition, if you don't mind:)</p>

<p> </p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>And not often, but we sometimes have critique threads here too. Feel free to directly post a pic in this forum...</p>

[dionysios]

<p>I don't necessarily think we are our own best critic. To often maybe, we make ourselves crazy. But self-criticism is important to our development as artist, if you will. We also have to learn how to be self-critical and how to give criticism. People who are not used to that have a sever reaction. When you're discussing and analyzing to find how one can achieve their intent, even when you don't say an image is good or bad, they can become offended. I'm finding this with a photo-group I'm helping organize. I fear that they've gotten used to the gushing two-word appraisals, and when someone simply says "that's nice" or does not comment on the many derivatives, that it might mean the image is forgettable. It isn't easy discussing what one of your images could have been; how a good one could have gone wrong and how a bad one could have gone right.</p>

<p>By the way, isn't that what we do ourselves with our contact sheets? Do you all still do make those?</p>

<p>My description is what I posted before.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I figured you're being a street photographer when you directly interact with the people and the rhythm of a city.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>With your camera.</p>

<p>Thanks for pushing Leslie. This is why I like these discussions. My friends, one who takes portraits mostly and the other who photographs the wilderness, also "just take pics", and a lot of them, and that's what pulls them. It isn't about the interaction? Maybe it is with what we interact. What do you think?</p>

<p>When I said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'd like to hear from you all what you think about the general approach. How would you describe it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I meant about impressions of my set, not SP. I did like reading through the post you linked to.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<blockquote>

<p>it isn't about the interaction? Maybe it is with what we interact. What do you think?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course, one could interact with people on the street and its rhythm. Often time, it creates more potential/photo op...but not really a necessity. Some of us interact, some not at all while others depend on their mood at the time...Everyone's a little different and there's no authority on SP. It's more about preferences, nuance and ambiguity. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Thanks for pushing Leslie. This is why I like these discussions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No problem, I don't think I was pushing but I do get that reaction often:) </p>

<p> </p>

[shutterbud]

<p>I certainly have to interact at times. I recently went to a couple of large hidden-away food markets at which I was probably the first Lao Wai in months. I had to interact not only to put my subjects at ease, but myself. Being the only non-chinese in the middle of it all was exhilerating, but I had to ensure that the people who work there, who spend a great portion of their lives there, knew that I appreciated this and the fact that I was just a guest.</p><div></div>

[dionysios]

<p>Thank you all for the comments and advice, and I hope to bump into you in the forums soon.</p>

[tudor_apmadoc]

To me street photography IMHO, is about the city, it's people, places, and life in all its aspects, both good and bad. I love

doing street photography. Here are some examples on my take of what street photography means to me

 

London :

 

Urban decay :

 

Eastern Market :

 

graffiti :

[studio460]

<p>Dionysios said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think I know the definition of street . . . the best description I came up with is "people interacting with the urban fabric."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I find myself struggling with the definitions of "street" as well, but I think that's a good one. I've only really shot "permissioned" street portraits so far. But, I've been studying others' work, and I definitely see some themes I would like to explore. But when I run out of opportunites to shoot people, I also like shooting "just" streets and nightscapes, which don't fall within the traditional delineations of the genre.</p>

<p><br /> Lex said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Like art and porn, we know it when we see it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I like "arty porn," e.g., Chas Ray Krider, Richard Kern . . .</p>

[studio460]

<p>Dionysios said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Where would you say are good places to get critiques of our work?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's often hard to find. My harshest critics, I've found among my co-workers. They don't pull any punches. And, as TV camera guys, they have some knowledge of lighting and composition (I shoot for a broadcast TV show).</p>

<p>I've resisted from posting work here for critique, because for the most part, I generally know pretty much what's wrong with any given image I've taken. Not to say that insightful critique won't point out things I didn't see, but it's hard to come by here on photo.net. Most images offered for critique here go un-commented, due primarily, I presume, to lack of interest.</p>

<p>So, I would venture to say--other photographers, or related artists, whom you know personally. They're usually pretty honest, and don't sugar-coat their commentary, and aren't making a public narrative (such as one would do on a forum), so there's no self-consciousness in the critique.</p>