First take on street photography

[wbrandsma]

Thank you Lili :salute:

 

[pcheywood]

Well done Wouter, moving in closer pays dividends as others have said previously.

With myself, I have to be in the mood, and find that where I live just doesn't inspire me to take pictures (familiarity breeds contempt I suppose ). However, I find it a whole lot easier using the GX100 than a DSLR, people seem to notice you with the SLR, but are more dismissive of small camera.

Paul.

 

[Nigel Rea]

Here's an interesting site that has excellent examples from a number of photographers.

www.in-public.com

 

[TRSmith]

Here's an interesting site that has excellent examples from a number of photographers.

www.in-public.com

Thanks for that link. Lots of great images there.

 

[Nigel Rea]

Take a look at the Galleries of Nils Jorgensen in particular.

They concur with Sean's advice point 5.


Nigel

 

[Sean_Reid]

Indeed, I like sean's view: buildings and such are part of the street, so concentrate on those for composition also!

have fun on the street, wouter, and love to see more!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ronaldbunnik/

Buildings, mailboxes, everything... One of the things that Stephen Shore used to stress to us is that *everything* in the frame is subject. What we often call background, is still subject. The tiny figures that appear in the distance in a Breughel painting are still painted very specifically. We have to do the same with our medium. This is one reason that I personally love the "window finder" - the RF or accessory finder with no ground glass. It allows us to see deep space clearly. Mitch uses an alternate approach of using the LCD to find the edges and then direct sight otherwise.

One consequence, sometimes, of SLR photography is that one sees only part of the frame clearly, one distance from the lens, (because of limited depth of field) and so the other elements in the frame, the other subject matter, is not seen well and thus not visually resolved in the picture. It's not so much of a problem when one is working across short space, as Robert Bergman often is for example, but it can be a big problem when one is working across the deeper space of a street, a courtyard, etc.

There's a great correlation between small sensor cameras and window finders. The cameras tend to record with great depth of field and the finder shows us infinite depth of field. In case the following is of interest (this is from a review of the Epson R-D1):

"...There are photographers who prefer rangefinders and others who prefer SLRs. Needless to say, there are pros and cons to each system. Rangefinder cameras are usually smaller, lighter and quieter than SLRs. Since they don’t use reflex mirrors, they tend to have less vibration than SLRs during exposures and this can be an asset when working hand-held at slow shutter speeds. Their lenses tend to be compact. The core advantage of a rangefinder, for me, however, lies in the way in which it allows one to see and frame the picture before it’s captured. A rangefinder shows one the world through a window with lines indicating the picture’s borders. That allows one to look at what will and will not fall within those borders. In other words, one sees the world of the picture about to be made as well as the world just outside it. This can give one a greater sense of the ways in which the picture might change by either 1) changing the framing or 2) allowing elements outside the frame to move into the frame. Epson’s 1:1 finder takes this strength one step further. Since the finder shows the world at life size, one can work with both eyes open. One eye sees the world as it appears in the frame; the other watches the world outside the frame that may soon enter it. Or perhaps we could say that the right eye sees the trees and the left eye sees the forest.

Then there’s the issue of viewing depth of field. An SLR normally uses an automatic aperture that remains open during composition and only closes to its set aperture at the moment of exposure. So, let’s say the camera has a 50mm F/1.8 lens mounted and set to an aperture of F/8. The exposure will be made at F/8 of course but the viewing used to compose and choose the moment of the picture will be seen through the lens wide open. That means that one will only see a certain range of distance in the frame (usually the foreground subject) clearly, everything behind and ahead of that focus zone will be blurred. So while the film or sensor will “see” at F/8 when the exposure is made, the photographer sees at F/1.8. It’s hard for one to make a picture he or she can’t fully see. One can get around this using a depth of field preview button but that method tends to work better when the camera is on a tripod. When working handheld, using a DOF preview button can be cumbersome and makes for a dark finder where things are harder to see. The rangefinder has the opposite problem of showing all distances from the lens in focus. One process is additive and one is subtractive. With the SLR, one must see certain distances out of focus and imagine what they will look like in focus. With a rangefinder, one sees all distances in focus and must imagine what some of them will look like out of focus. I prefer the latter way of working."

Its interesting to note that photographers like Winogrand, Frank, Levitt, Koudelka, etc. continue (continued in the case of Winogrand) to work with rangefinder cameras long after SLRs had been popularized. Looking at their work, its clear how important it was for them to be able to see near and far all at once.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[Sean_Reid]

Here some extra photographs from yesterday. Today we had overcast and some rain.

Hi Wouter,

If you'd like, tell me how well you think each of the three pictures works, across the frame - all elements considered. Which passages, in each picture, do you feel are specifically and clearly expressed? Do any of the passages strike a false note, so to speak?

Cheers,

Sean

 

[wbrandsma]

Thank you Sean. In a way the pictures 1 and 3 work for me is mainly the feel of perspective. There is a sort of sense of direction to it. Picture 2 is intriguing me, because there is this feeling of disconnect between the two subjects.

Picture 1 is more documentary, because of the framing and the show of work he is doing (and even has done). Looking over and over again at this picture I might have framed it differently. Maybe placing the man more to the right to give the feeling there is still a lot of work for him to be done. Or at least give the viewer the presumption of it.

In picture 2 I think the background doesn't work for me. It is a bit distracting, partly because of the DoF. Though that is also hard to avoid for me using a small sensor camera.

In picture 3 I eventually have the feeling I could have done more with the shadows of the cyclists.

Any thoughts are very helpful and very much appreciated.

 

[Sean_Reid]

Ok, will do later today when I have some more time. If you're interested, what I'll talk to you about are the pictures in visual terms, as each passage works (as itself and in relation to others). I don't critique pictures on the web very often because a good critique takes a lot of time and attention. Have you had a chance to read all eleven of those Lifson articles?

Cheers,

Sean

 

[wbrandsma]

As said Sean, it is very much appreciated and you may also send me a PM if you prefer that. I hope I will not take too much time from you. Your general thoughts in the recent posts have been very helpful for me (and I think other to) and I am trying to learn a lot from it.

Many thanks,

 

[smokysun]

before we get lost in technical discussions, i think it's important to stress that a photographer we recognize expresses a view of the world.

i'd suggest as part of your study sitting down with fat books by bill brandt (german photographing in england), henri cartier-bresson (travelled the world), and robert doisneau (mostly paris), putting them side by side. each had a distinct attitude toward life and being alive. this is what is missing from most photos taken in public.

and there is more than one way to skin a cat. if you like, look at the last two galleries i've posted, both taken with the fuji f31, one in black and white and one in color. do you see a similarity in their view of the world? that would be very interesting for me to know.

www.pbase.com/wwp/eco

www.pbase.com/wwp/puppets2

thanks for starting this thread.
wayne

ps. none of them were cropped.

 

[Sean_Reid]

Hi Wayne,

Which technical discussions were those? In this thread? BTW, a belated welcome to the forum.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[wbrandsma]

Welcome Wayne. So far I think this is an interesting thread and certainly not technical. When reading the Lifson articles, and considering Mitch drawing proposal, I looked for picture 1 and made a drawing of it.

Thank you Nigel for the link to in-public.com

 

[helenhill]

Wouter
How Great is that :clap:
I'm actually doing something similar
I am taking my digital photos
having them transferred professionally to canvas in B&W
and then painting various layers of thin down artists oil (glazes)
thereby CREATING subtle layers of Tones & Atmosphere
to the background Sketch
Then I will do some Collage work on top
The possibilities are endless
Cheers ! helen

 

[wbrandsma]

You should make some pictures of your work and show it to us. Thanks!

 

[Sean_Reid]

Welcome Wayne. So far I think this is an interesting thread and certainly not technical. When reading the Lifson articles, and considering Mitch drawing proposal, I looked for picture 1 and made a drawing of it.

Thank you Nigel for the link to in-public.com

And that sketch shows us that the figure is pretty good. Now sketch the rest and watch what happens. Also, I haven't forgotten to respond to these pics, I just need some time when my head is clear.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[pb61]

Hello Wouter,
It does take a bit of courage to get in close and snap away but that is the way to make things happen in the frame.Your second set is better simply through your proximity.If you are holding the camera in your hand and yet looking elsewhere people are usually unaware.It seems odd to leave the composition to chance but it can get you some very lucky and interesting shots. Almost like in 3D pictures, something right in front of the lens giving you depth can help. Small digital cameras that have no shutter sound and can have their focus set before a shot are the definite winners in this area.Just hope for a sunny day and give it a high f stop and fingers crossed.....
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2084/2404633715_5c65129678_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2024/2188322629_4023cea87f_b.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/88/251030173_2050bd9831_b.jpg

 

[wbrandsma]

Hi pb61,
I love the first picture. Look at faces and hands! The first one is "full' of it. Excellent picture and thank you for sharing. Also thanks for your comments and welcome here!

Cheers,

 

[Imar]

Hey Wouter,

First of all, nice to see someone trying street photography in Ede. I've lived in Lunteren for quite some time.
What I noticed is, that I find doing street photography abroad is much easier. I'm not that familiar with that culture and somehow that does help me. Just returned from a short trip to China and for the first time I think I had the guts to do street photography.
Here is one example where I was right in the middle, but I haven't yet done this in Arnhem. I don't know why though.

PB61 is right indeed, a small camera with pre focus helps. I use a GR-D since recently and I really like it.

I will follow your progress on Flickr, you show a lot of improvements already!

 

[wbrandsma]

Dank je Imar, Welkom hier! I should try Lunteren as well. It is only 8 km from where I live. Ede, and Lunteren (like most smaller places all over the world) are more socially controled. People will notice you faster. A big city could be better. Arnhem Central Station or the main bus station could be great places. So could Korenmarkt, or the Ketelstraat. Try the market on Saturday.
That is a great picture Imar and I will look through your Flickr photostream!

Groeten,