Laughing Man

I like the title and I like the image. The only thing I would do is make the image one stop lighter. That would bring out the

details in his face more and weaken the presence of the background.

As soon as I saw this image, I felt a sense of familiarity with this person. I don't know where, but sometime in my life I have met a very similar character and so immediately saw the laugh--my internal picture was more frontal. Had the title been "Crying Man" it would have caused me some pause, but often that happens when we bring ourselves to images.

My own feeling about the discussion on DOF is that it could go either way. I find that the figure/ground relationships here are so strong that the man has been sufficiently isolated and emphasized. The light, nebulous sky around the dark head and with the simple, dark background around his shirt set him off nicely. I don't see any offensive mergers or tangencies (features or tones) that cause the background to be pulled forward nor do I feel like the car is coming out of his chest. Even if there were less depth of field, I think with a 21mm lens there would have still been a fair amount of detail in the background, which does give us a bit of context.

One of the things I like here is that there is a pretty active circular rhythm (counter clockwise for me) established by the light dark adjacencies in the image. This augments the man's sense of motion in the area he occupies and pushes him forward in space. The sliver of space beyond the larger tree on the right, in front of his face, seems to portend a more quiet space where he doesn't exist as yet.

Not a comment on this image, but one of the things I think should be added to the discussion about street photography is that because things are out of our control doesn't mean an image is good when it isn't. An image still has to work and we still have to edit. A significant, singular moment might trump other considerations, but those cases are pretty rare and although every moment and act is singular, they aren't all significant. That is one of my biggest issues with a lot of street photography that I see, not every moment is that important. This image works, IMO, because it exudes an energy and emotion within good technique and design (although I do wonder if the face could not be ticked up a bit in tone--at least in this presentation of it, it does seem just a bit dark here).

Fred, I agree that he is boldly presented, and now we know why/how, at least in part,....it's because of the lens selection and the proximity of Steve to the subject. I don't know if this will make sense, but it's not so much a visual emphasis on him as it is a reduction of elements that might draw away from him. He clearly is the main subject, and I think I might "see" him if other elements weren't competing as much.

Having said that, I probably would have shot this just as Steve did. If you're approaching a person, relying on autofocus while shooting from the hip, and especially using a 21mm lens (hard to get a shallow DOF or background blur), the ability to fine tune this is limited. As Steve said, with this approach, you have to take what you can get, and what he got comes across very well. It's one thing to critique a studio shot, quite another to critique a spontaneous street shot.

Thank you all again. I appreciate all this discussion, not just because it involved my photograph, but also because of some of the general photographic subjects and thoughts the discussion touched upon. I'd like to make a few more comments:

I hope I am not egotistical about my photography. Although I enjoy the style in which I work, and am certainly not ashamed of some of my better work, I would not want to give the impression that I think of myself as some kind of ground breaking or significant giant in the field. I am what I am, and I am continually learning and reevaluating what I photograph, and what I have previously photographed.

That said, and at the risk of a thinly disguised plug, I am offering a link to a brief (8 minutes) video I recently made. It encapsulates better than any words I could write, how I see and feel about some of the photographs I have captured in the Chicago streets from 2008 - 2013. It also expresses, in terms of mood and music, how I sometimes see street photography in general. "Sometimes" is the key word.

http://stevegubin.com/p403964853#h6bc2fe28

Not necessarily, Fred. I wanted to convey that just because a photo is chosen for POTW does not necessarily mean that the photo, or the photographer, are the bee's knees. Photographs (mine and other people's) are like music to me in the sense that I may appreciate one over another at any given moment depending on where my mood and taste is at that point in time. I like this photo, but in some ways it is a "one trick pony" kind of photograph -- I'll get to that in a moment. Fred, I do want to say that I understand and appreciate your commentary upon street photogaphy:

I do agree. Although I might have desired a shallower dof in this image, I am okay with this image just as it is. But in regard to the notion of "taking what you get", I think John A offered an excellent cautionary comment about using this notion as a justification for anything one photographs upon the street (and Fred -- I know that is not what you were saying, and I know that you would be one of the last photographers to advocate an "anything and everything is okay" philosophy)

Absolutely, John A. Wise words to keep in mind for almost any genre of photography.

Lastly, I wanted to say a few words about "significant" photos, in the genre of not only street, but landscape, weddng, fashion, wildlife, or almost any photographic genre one could think of.

Everyone's tastes are different, but to me a significant photograph is one which often goes beyond the immediate impact (roughly similar to Roland Barthe's punctum, for those are familiar with his writings on photography) of the initial viewing. There is some greater depth to such an image which is only grasped upon a slower, lengthier viewing and appreciation. It may be a mood, or some subtle symbolism, or a surrealistic ambiguity that keeps bringing someone back to look and ponder. In this regard, "Laughing Man", to me, is not such a photograph. I like it for a number of reasons, but I cannot honestly say that it is an image which rewards deep study. What you see is pretty much what you get (despite one wondering what it is that the man is reacting to, or laughing at). That's why I referred to it as a bit of a "one trick pony."

I truly hope that some of the commentary that people have contributed here may help, or spark discussion, with other people who may come across it. In a general sense, not because it involved my image. I like discussions which talk not just about the POTW in question, but also touch upon elements which can help all of us in our own photography, no matter what genre we may prefer to work in. Thank you. You have all taught me something. (And that is not a gratuitous comment, I do mean it.)

Steve, thanks a lot for all you've said. I think you clarified a number of points well, and I especially appreciate your broadening of the "take what you can get" idea. What I'm suggesting is that just the depth you are talking about when you say, "There is some greater depth to such an image which is only grasped upon a slower, lengthier viewing and appreciation", may be right here, in the combination/relationships of your main subject matter, other content, exposure, and DOF.

I was going to respond to Stephen P.'s comment ("I think I might 'see' him if other elements weren't competing as much") by saying that I see these elements and their sharp focus as enforcing rather than competing. And that may be just the depth to be found here. The one-trick pony would be a lighter exposure, a shallower depth of field, and a more "pleasing" composition. Then it would be a look-and-move-on moment, adhering to a more tempered and benign sensibility. But your photo as is stops me in my tracks not just for the bold expression of the laughing man but because that boldness is textured and layered throughout the photo precisely by your shooting and handling of it as well as things that got caught in the photo which were out of your control.

Steve, I don't sense you would use "take what you can get" as an excuse. For me, there's a very positive sense of "take what you can get" which is an important part of street work and which actually seems to apply to this photo, not in terms of resigning oneself to certain elements or DOF as they are, but in terms of seeing the photo as blatantly portraying just that take-what-you-get sensibility, with no apology at all. An apology of sorts, IMO, would more likely be at play with a shallower DOF and the car a little more "prudently" positioned. That would be to temper a photo that, to me, better remains untamed.

You just gave me an "ah-hah!" moment. (Some of these things might be worthy of discussion in the Philosophy of Photography Forum.) I see what you are talking about. I would not make that argument about my own photo. Partly because it would smack of rationalization it if it came from me, but mainly because I did not come up with that observation...you did. But I think it is an insightful one that could be applied to certain photographs in general. It is certainly something that should be considered.

When we go through critiques of various photographs on PNet, and elsewhere, the critiques that offer any suggestions at all (other than "great!", "nice capture!", or "7/7!") usually seem to take the form of things like this (and I am NOT talking about my photo, I mean in general):

"I would have cropped a little more from the top and the left."

"Your subject is too cramped, I'd clone the background and give it more breathing room in the direction they're facing."

"Your whites are muddy, they're at about 210, not a true 255."

"That highlight in the upper right corner appears blown out to me and is distracting."

"It's a shame this wasn't more tack sharp. It looks too soft to me."

You get the idea. Critiques generally take the form of Photography 101 elements like composition, saturation, sharpness, depth of field, noise or lack of noise, etc. There's nothing wrong with that. But sometimes the consideration of a given photograph requires more than that in order for it to be appreciated. And some people (myself included, at times, I admit) are baffled and confused when they try to approach a photo in that way. And some people are downright hostile to it. You see it frequently in discussions of photographs or exhibitions that fetched a lot of money or media attention. "Of course, that's the Art world. I wouldn't walk across the street to look at that junk." I was guilty of this myself at one time. Sneering at things I did not really bother to try and understand. Sometimes, when we make an attempt at understanding "why" a given image or body of work is praised, whole new worlds of appreciation can open up to us. Getting back to what you said, it can be the very lack of simplistic, Photography 101 criteria, that lends an image a greater significance. There are some images by other photographers on P-Net that are like this, and which I think are striking and wonderful, but which seem to get very little attention. They're not tack sharp, they're not colorful, they're not perfectly composed, etc. But that's the way it goes sometimes.

Steve,

Everyone's tastes are different, but to me a significant photograph is one which often goes beyond the immediate impact .

I think you have put your"finger' on one of the most important subjects( at least for me),creating in the arts in general, and in photogtraphy in particular.

Why?

Because nowadys (and before) everyone has a camera ( or a brush,for the discussion)... for me the art starts when a photo transcends the everyday life, even though it depicts exactly that. The photographer skills (for me )is when he succeeds to show the extra 'mile" of the moment that toches the viewer's feeling and communicate with him/her, inner world. Not easy to do and needs a lot of time to develop , if ever..,

The merite of the POW ,is the time needed , to go the 'extra mile ' in critiquing a photo as well....;-)).

I see the relatively sharp background as competing rather than enforcing. That's not necessarily more "pleasing," "tempered," or reflecting a "benign sensibility." It simply would have the smiling man as a slightly stronger element within the frame without taking away the context that the background provides. However, I don't see that much difference between Steve's original and any of the tweaks that have been mentioned. Nothing that has been suggested would move this from a bold expression into a "look and move on" kind of photograph, IMO. The alternatives are much too minor to do that, at least as I've pictured them in my own mind.

Either way, I'm struck by the strength of the man's expressed emotion, and I wonder what's going on that has caused this unbridled reaction. I'm also struck by Steve G.'s ability to come away with this photo, because it is so far out of my own comfort zone -- I wouldn't even attempt it. That fact probably contributes a small part to my much larger and overall positive reaction to the photo.

Something I was always curious about is the almost mandatory B/W rendering of street photography. I suppose it looks more classic as opposed to color which has a more snapshot appearance.

Stephen, Fred, I think it's either enforcing or competing... I think it's two valid views on the same photo. What is the actual subject here? Is this photo entirely about the man, is he the sole and only subject? Then yes, shallow DoF would have been a more clear expression. To me, that photo would be rather self-contained, it is what it is, and well, there is nothing wrong with that. It would make a strong street portrait.
Is the surrounding as much an actor in this photo as the man? Is it about this man, and where he is? Then the photo as presented is done right. The latter would/could be more demanding on the viewer, be more ambiguous because of the extra layer introduced (an extra level of story-telling, I'd say), a photo that starts to ask questions. The extra layers aren't competing, they're adding.

As said before, I like this photo the way it is, I like the slight ambiguous feel that the surroundings give me, and the contrast between the surroundings and that huge smile. But I can see the attraction of this being more a portrait and less street - subtle differences, subtly different photo. Still good.
___
Michael, while I am not that much of a street photographer, for me the choice for B&W is usually driven by the fact that B&W seems to underline compositional elements better. Colour seems to compete on its own level, and can "obscure" forms, shapes and dynamics between elements; B&W seems to bring them out. In the better street photos, I find this often an added value as well - as it helps connecting between the dots, bringing story into a seeminly mundane moment.
Sometimes colour manages to be such a "binding factor" in a photo, so it's not either/or, but rather a per photo choice.
That said, I think for many street photos, the choice for B&W is a lot less considered, and indeed a sort of default classic look.

On black and white: If a photographer chooses black and white (for street photography or any other genre), hopefully they do so for a well-considered reason, not just because they think it is classic or mandatory. There is no rule book or governing body for street photography, and there are many past and present practitioners who successfully use color. For good or ill, I have a "noirish" sensibility and the vast majority of images I choose to share tend to be better presented in black and white. As Wouter said, B&W underlines compositional elements better (sometimes), and can help reduce a photo to certain salient elements that would be less noticeable in color. But sometimes a photo should not be converted to black and white.

I wish I could recall what thread it was in on photo.net (it occurred within the last 3 or 4 months), but someone posted a street image of theirs in both color and black and white. It was shot from the interior of a cafe or coffeehouse I believe. One person was seated inside, while another walked past outside the window. The color seemed a bit cluttered, while the black and white version seemed to create an immediate contrast and tension between the person inside and the person outside. (Bearing out, in this particular instance, Wouter's remark about B&W "bringing story into a seemingly mundane moment".

In the end, and once more quoting Wouter, "it's not either/or, but rather a per photo choice."

Thanks, Steve, Wouter, for your input on black and white.

It just struck me as curious that it's rarely, if ever, that an observer will wish to see a street photo in color if presented in B/W, where as the reverse is often the case. As an example, these photos are from two street photography FLickr groups, one is exclusively color, the other B/W:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/87759081@N00/
http://www.flickr.com/groups/bw_streets/

"Colour seems to compete on its own level, and can "obscure" forms, shapes and dynamics between elements; B&W seems to bring them out."

Good color work enforces.

Levitt 1

Levitt 2

Color, or any other element, that has a competing character, if done well, is not necessarily problematic. The color in the photos above, while integrated and seeming to be a part of the story, emphasizing the narraative, also has a competing character if you stay with it. It demands attention.

Competition within a photo, elements vying for attention, can be a good mechanism for creating ambiguity and tension, for establishing rhythms and adding punctuation, also for getting the eye to move around the frame and the imagination to wander. Complexity will usually come with some degree of strife. So can good street work. Street work and conflict ? . . .

"For good or ill, I have a 'noirish' sensibility"

There are some great color film noirs such as Niagara, Vertigo, Chinatown, and Red Rock West, among others.

Fred -- Great examples from Levitt's work. The first thing which stood out for me in each of them was their simplicity. There are few distracting elements in either photo. I'm not saying that this is necessary for a color street photo, but it did jump out at me. I also found the blue VW in the background of the first photo to be noticeable. I won't use the word "distracting", but I don't know that having it stand out to a viewer serves much purpose. But I also found the green of the car in the foreground, while striking, to be a complementary contrast to the girl looking beneath it.

I don't know what this iconic photo of Levitt's would look like in color, but it is a bit busier and I think the lack of color allows us to concentrate more on the odd panoply of characters.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-N9CCS7bN7Gk/TnBb3kG-C_I/AAAAAAAAAqA/XR3uiwstth8/s640/helen-levitt-new-york-group-people-looking-away-black-and-white-street-photography.jpg

An example of a much "busier" color street photograph by Joel Meyerowitz:

http://www.in-public.com/store/image/file/1188/02.jpg?1154345171

Is this too busy? Faced with a similar scene, my first instinct would be to focus on the grouping of people in the lower right foreground, particularly the man with the hat and cigarette and face partly lit by the late afternoon sun. But, environmentally, we get a larger slice of the city the way that Meyerowitz has shown it to us. I like the atmosphere of the photo the way it is. I don't know that it would gain anything by being in black and white. I agree that competition within a photo can create ambiguity and tension (color or b&w), but every busy or cluttered photo cannot be justified by that aesthetic. I know that you are not proposing that it works in all cases. Sometimes it can work, but it is up to the photographer to control the framing and proximity of a photograph to reduce those completing elements to the essential ones needed. And so much of it is subjective. As much as I like the atmosphere of the Meyerowitz photograph, I find the simplicity of Levitt's to be more successful. Each viewer will have their own threshold for how many competing elements make a photograph "work" and how many just throw it into the category of being too busy or cluttered.

No argument, I agree.

Steve, some great ideas being tossed about. Thanks.

I don't love Meyerowitz's street work, even though I tend to like busy street work. For me, the photo you linked to is not too busy. I can see the energy and environment you mention he was likely after. I just don't love the photo.

Here are two of his color street photos that are interesting to consider:

Meyerowitz 1

Meyerowitz 2

They are both on the busy side and both use a strong shadow, the one in the second being more disruptive and a little more original. Though there are graphic elements to each photo, obviously, they seem to be a bit less reliant on graphics than were they to be in black and white. They breathe a little more, IMO. The second one, in particular, in black and white, would be more noirish in character. Much as, like you, I love noir, I think that would undermine the second photo a bit. In color, the shadow has less of an ominous role and more of a fracturing role, sort of emphasizing the visual and felt rhythm of the street rather than anything particularly foreboding. In the first photo, the shadow has a presence but it reveals itself more as a puzzle piece than with the starkness it might have in black and white. Composition seems very strong and available in the first photo and the color doesn't seem to obscure that in any way. As a matter of fact, the color of the first photo seems to add compositionally.

Generally, Meyerowitz's quieter side of color works better for me.

Meyerowitz 3

Michael, Steve and Fred
Thanks for all your interesting links. I like best both Levitt's examples, as all our llife are composed with colors, and streets are especially full with them.

I think that when colors enhance the scene,( like Levitt's examples) I will prefer it better than B/W, but many of them (in my filles) are colors and B/W.

Again ,as Steve wrote, it depends as well on the photographer's priorities and point of view .

Michael, thanks. I wasn't aware of the flickr color street photography group. A quick find from the B&W group that I liked:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/shuttermaniacs/8707501518/in/pool-bw_streets

What I found interesting, just on a quick look, was that it seemed a bit harder to find a color photo that worked. There was this, an extreme contrast of light and shadow similar to some of the Meyerowitz that Fred linked to...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/markdm/6309417383/in/pool-streets_in_color

This...quirky framing and angle with flash (or so it appears) --

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dirtyharrry/5957071316/in/pool-streets_in_color/

And this, which unlike the previous two examples, does not rely on angle or light gimmickry. It's straight ahead, clean, and I think it nicely captures the atmosphere of the boardwalk, the beach, and the two subjects very nicely. I think it may gain atmosphere by its use of color.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/i5prof/5931282689/in/pool-streets_in_color/

Since this PoW will be in the archive as a street photography discussion, I thought the video mentioned in this thread might also serve as a guide for anyone interested in, but shy or hesitant to practice street photography:
http://photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00bvR3

In case that article ever disappears, here's a direct URL to the YouTube video:

Michael, I think the thing he stressed that is most important is the idea of practice. I think this is the most overlooked element of what we do--and I would also add the idea of "play" into the idea of practice. It is not only often not done with reference to using the camera and shooting but with respect to building our analytical/looking abilities as well. If we don't develop "muscle memory" in all aspects of the craft/art, then we will always remain a bit awkward in our processes.

I think this pic is technically good.However in my opinion ,it lacks a narrative or a sense of meaning.

This is just lovely, so real and I'm still smiling.