Jump to content

Streetphotography (open thread)

Mehrdad

By Mehrdad
in Street Photography

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 885
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Russ
Russ

Fuji X-E2 - 14mm f/11  

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Photolographer
Photolographer

Nepal with the Xpro-1   Look out over Bhaktapur by Manolo, on Flickr

Stockografie
Stockografie

Some street scenes from Marrakesh   A woman in Marrakesh by Stockografie, on Flickr   Relaxing by Stockografie, on Flickr

Posted Images

Fernandohk Contributor

Fernandohk

Posted
Posted

X pro 2  23mm f1.4

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rogleale Rookie

Rogleale

Posted
Posted

Fine morning in Quimper, Brittany, so the SDFs are out on the street.  SDF means 'sans domicile fixe'  =  Homeless.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Fright Hair

 

Better in B&W!

 

With his dogs

Link to post
Share on other sites
cosinaphile Enthusiast

cosinaphile

Posted
Posted

II wouldn't say that. I'd say the title is very unfortunate, not because I am shocked but because I firmly believe a phtograph's interpretation should be up to the viewer, it's not the role of the photographer to tell people how they should interpret it. Something like Street Name - Year would be much better imo. I don't like titles that are oriented because they seem to imply the viewer is not intelligent enough to make a link on his own about what's happening, so he needs the help of the pohotgrapher to explain him what it's about.

 

Now if one discards the title, he can imagine anything. Would it be called "dreaming about fine lingerie" people would react differently. I know a man from poland who would find this woman a bit underweight. It's all a matter of personal perception and interpretation.

 

I would argue that it's really a shame that some people think one should not photograph fat people because it's disrepectful, or children because it's creepy.

 

If the viewer has issues in his head and thinks immediatly about sex when seing children, or about morbidity when seing overweight people it is entirely HIS problem, not the photographer's and certainly not mine. I don't mind my children being photographed because they are part of an interresting scene or just because they are beautiful.

 

Why could only beautiful slim women, flowers, sunsets and men in suits be photographed? How is that any more sane and democratic than photographing everyone, the homeless included?

 

How is photographing the ass of a beautiful woman next to the rear of a race car and call it "nice bottoms" less exploitative than to photograph a not-so-slim one next to a scrawny mannequin and call it "slender dreams"? It is not. It's all about perception and street photography is often about juxtapositions of things that work in the picture without necessarily having anything to do in real life (here we can't even be sure that the woman is looking at the mannequin due to the angle, that made the picture work in the first place)

 

The title is unfortunate but the picture does not discredit street photography which is exploiting life to make interresting pictures imo. Somehow nobody has risen a concern about the '"out of sync" picture capturing a woman that one could depict as being probably anorexic.

i couldn't add a thing    well said

Link to post
Share on other sites
chudlyfudly Contributor

chudlyfudly

Posted
Posted

It's an interesting topic, and although we're reviving an issue from quite a while back I think it deserves attention and I'd certainly agree with citral. I especially agree with the notion that ideally titles would just be Location - Year. I think it's best to let the viewer come up with their own interpretation. Sometimes (not all the time, and not necessarily in the case of this 'Slender Dreams' shot) I feel that overly descriptive titles are an attempt to rescue an image by drawing the viewer's eye to one particular element or story within the shot. Were the 'Slender Dreams' shot to be, for example 'London, 2015', you would be left with your own story of what's going on in that picture, and should that story fit alongside that implied by 'Slender Dreams' then I believe it would also lead you to question your own perspective on how you view this particular walk of life. 

 

The whole debate brings up an interesting quote in my mind from Larry Fink's book 'On Composition and Improvisation', as recommended to me about a week ago:

 

'"Don't ever judge that woman, that older woman with the limp or the gait, because you are she. You will be she. You are of her, as she is of you." I still retain that advice today. For me, there is the underlying force of perception and perspective, and certainly, judgment can be a part of that, but it should not be the dominant force.'

 

I guess at the core of it, we're not necessarily discussing 'judgement' right now, but more the concept of forcing your own interpretation on the viewer. Larry Fink goes on to discuss finding empathy with your subject and finding elements of yourself within the photograph. I feel that perhaps as photographers it's our job to present elements (and undoubtedly a part of that will be influenced by our own thoughts, but arguably that gives the image a personal flair) and let the viewer build up what they think it means from there. Even if you're intentionally hinting at a story in a frame, I think to then state it in the title removes the possibility that someone might see something different. 

 

Ramble over, and hopefully not a complete waste of your time to read this! It's all just one man's opinion, and I guess that's what makes photography an art not a science.

 

On a side note, if an image has got someone's hackles up then I think it's done well to spark an emotional response, but again, that's just my opinion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
jsnsndr Rookie

jsnsndr

Posted
Posted (edited)

Few pix from Paris with my xt1 and the following f2 lenses: 35mm, 18mm, 90mm.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited by jsnsndr
Link to post
Share on other sites
cocoplexplex Newbie

cocoplexplex

Posted
Posted

Jerusalem, X100

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites
mcf Rookie

mcf

Posted
Posted

2 x street shots from Liverpool a month or two ago. (X-T1 & 27mm).

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • thelostkiwi
      Looking for Full Frame lenses to adapt to GFX

      By thelostkiwi · Posted

      I also use a Nikon to GFX Fringer and it works very well.  24mm f/1.8 vignettes so best used on 35mm mode.  50mm f/1.8 covers the entire frame very well with no issues and is a superb little lens. 105mm Sigma vignettes slightly but is perfectly usable. 300 f/4 likewise the 105.  I have a 70-200 f/20+.8 incoming to test so will report back but I'm expecting a little vignetting.  Even in 35mm mode the image is still 60MP and if you're prepared to manually crop and correct you can get 80-90 MP images.  I also have a C/Y to GFX adapter.  The 24mm Sigma Superwide vignettes strongly. Ditto 28-80 Zeiss Sonnar. 80-200 f/4 Sonnar is perfectly usable. All work fine as 35mm mode lenses.  I also have an M42 adapter which I tried with the Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm f/3.5 with good results. 
    • Trevor R
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By Trevor R · Posted

      Thank you. I will research it.
    • jerryy
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By jerryy · Posted

      Ahh, the infamous brick wall photos… 😀 According to internet lore, if the dng converter does not properly apply the corrections, you can have it apply custom profiles that should work for you. How to do that is waaaaaay outside of this comment’s scope, but there are plenty of sites listed in the search engines that step you through the processes. Best wishes.
    • Trevor R
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By Trevor R · Posted

      Jerry Thank you very much. That is extremely helpful. It seems that the camera and the lens have the latest firmware update, so it appears that the corrections should be applied automatically. The lens arrived this afternoon and I took some quick test shots, in which the correct lens information appeared in the EXIF files, so that sounds good. I used Adobe DNG converter to convert the Raw (RAF) files, and then opened the DNG files and saved them in PSD format. However, with a beautiful, clear, cloudless blue sky, there were no lines near the edges to check if distortion had been corrected. Another day I plan to photograph a brick wall. Thank you for your help.
    • jerryy
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By jerryy · Posted

      Typically you need to make sure the lens is compatible with the camera, i.e. check the lens compatibility charts for your camera, then make sure the respective firmwares are updated so older issues are resolved. After that, each lens has a manufacturer’s profile which will be embedded into the raw file meta data for the images captured using that lens. From there, it is up to the raw conversion software to apply the lens correction to the image. Different converters do that differently, some automatically, some only if a setting is turned on. For in-camera jpegs, the on-board converter does the corrections automatically, assuming the camera recognizes the lens, it applies a generic profile otherwise. I do not know if that can be turned off or not.
×
×
  • Create New...