I took another stroll around Chicago with the intent of taking photographs that were meant to be framed and cropped in a wide aspect ratio. I used a longer lens this time around (Nikon 135mm f/2.8 Series E) so that I could take pictures of people from further away and not be as noticeable.
All of the photos are cropped to a 2.35/2.39:1 aspect ratio. They were also all intentionally under-exposed by 1 stop or so in order to make dark areas black.
C&C is always welcome. The links lead to my website with more info on each image.
i really enjoy these but i tend to enjoy pictures slightly underexposed in general. these have a great look to them and i like the aspect ratio. i really like #1 and #3. there's a nice balance in #1 between the man and the beam while #3 kind of tells a little story in the image itself.
#1-2-3 all seem to be random shots on the street with not much going on and no real subject. I dunno if the wide aspect ratio was a good choice or not. #4 has something more going on, all seem gloomy but if that's what you were going for it succeeded. There are other ways to darken the blacks than simply underexposure.
ValerieUSA wrote:
I think it's a cheap shot to photograph unsuspecting people in public and post their pics without their knowledge. Hire models, or ask friends.
street photography has been pretty common place since the beginning of cameras. you can't really duplicate street photography with models and friends.
ValerieUSA wrote:
I think it's a cheap shot to photograph unsuspecting people in public and post their pics without their knowledge. Hire models, or ask friends.
I think you are uneducated as to what street photography is.
The images themselves lack any real character - there's nothing really going on in them, and I don't get much storytelling from what is presented here.
ValerieUSA wrote:
I think it's a cheap shot to photograph unsuspecting people in public and post their pics without their knowledge. Hire models, or ask friends.
That is a very strange comment, I must say
as per last poster, street photography comes from a long and honorable tradition, you should give it a try
john
I love the style of these. I myself am a HUGE fan of the slightly underexposed look and I enjoy your take on it, as well as the wide aspect ratio.
I would agree however that if you included this style with a better grasp on the storytelling, you'd have some amazing images.
I like the last one most out of the series.
#1 is my second favorite as it reminds me a little of the movie "What About Bob" Baby steps down the street. Baby steps to the crosswalk... =)
The other two don't really do much for me. The emergency people would have been better if there was some form of emergency they may have been attending to. The 3rd, I just don't find myself feeling anything for the people in the picture. No emotion is really stirred from looking.
I know what street photography is ... it is best when the people are an involved crowd, or there's a newsworthy event, or just unidentifiable as individuals - it is voyeuristic when permission is not granted to use the images by very identifiable subjects. There is no journalistic value here.
I would not want images of me used this way without my knowledge.
It's a personal ethic and preference.
i guess #3 tells a story to me as homeless people are everywhere here where i live. they're pretty much impossible to ignore and if you go downtown you will end up having a conversation with at least one. to see the man not really trying while everyone else around him minds their own business is a stark contrast from my norm.
then again, i may have it all wrong as the guy may not even be a homeless man.
ValerieUSA wrote:
I know what street photography is ... it is best when the people are an involved crowd, or there's a newsworthy event, or just unidentifiable as individuals - it is voyeuristic when permission is not granted to use the images by very identifiable subjects. There is no journalistic value here.
I would not want images of me used this way without my knowledge.
It's a personal ethic and preference.
What a delightful argument at odds with the laws of your country and entirely inappropriate for this thread. You'd get along swimmingly with UK police, though.
Actually related to the thread: 1 has a somewhat interesting subject, but the wide frame doesn't really add anything. I'm a fan of cinematic crops, but only when the added space does something. This appears like a still from a movie…right before something exciting happens. The rest of the frames just lack anything interesting. Unique subject, light, juxtaposition, etc. - you need at least one to make the photograph worth a long look. Technically well done (the underexposure works well) but I'd hold out for more interesting people next time.
Edited due to gross overuse of the word "interesting".
I did not say anything about laws - just ethics.
I see no journalsitic value here to justify the use of strangers' identifiable images.
With that standard in mind, street photographers would produce much better images than these.
I think what these lack is any involvement with the the street. The 'old masters' like Garry Winogrand would shoot with a wider lens and be "in" the scene, not half a block away. As Robert Capa famously said, "If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough." It's a choice of the photographer to get close or shoot from a distance but I think getting closer works better in most situations.
Micky Bill wrote:
I think what these lack is any involvement with the the street. The 'old masters' like Garry Winogrand would shoot with a wider lens and be "in" the scene, not half a block away. As Robert Capa famously said, "If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough." It's a choice of the photographer to get close or shoot from a distance but I think getting closer works better in most situations.
They have no history... for example, for the one with the two men shot on their back, it would have be nice to see in the background what they are looking for. There, you would have got a beginning of a story.. Better try next time !
Andre Goli wrote:
They have no history... for example, for the one with the two men shot on their back, it would have be nice to see in the background what they are looking for. There, you would have got a beginning of a story.. Better try next time !
The unfortunate thing about downtown Chicago right now is that it's cold around here. The people out are out for only one purpose: To go somewhere else. As such, the interesting goings-on of warm days were at a minimum (candid fodder was low). I had to make do with what was out there, which was a whole lot of walking. (though, being from Canada, I'm sure you understand )
I'll try finding more interesting subjects when it gets warmer.
Micky Bill:
I think what these lack is any involvement with the the street. The 'old masters' like Garry Winogrand would shoot with a wider lens and be "in" the scene, not half a block away. As Robert Capa famously said, "If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough." It's a choice of the photographer to get close or shoot from a distance but I think getting closer works better in most situations.
Most people I encounter, be it friends, co-workers, fellow volunteers, etc are very camera shy or completely hostile to the camera. The cat shelter I volunteer at frequently asks me to photograph their fund raising events and even when I identify myself as the shelter photographer (as opposed to a random photographer), people shy away from the camera. A lot of candid photo ops are missed. The same goes for strangers. Then again, I don't blame them. Few people want a camera in their face.
ValerieUSA:
I see no journalsitic value here to justify the use of strangers' identifiable images.
There's no pretense of journalistic value. Bear in mind that street photography is not always about the engagement of the subject and photographer. When you engage a person, it suddenly becomes far less candid. The camera makes them far more guarded, frequently looking at the photographer if not outright covering their face. The point of these photographs is that they're meant to be candid (the word of the day).
However, you've made it apparent that you're hostile to this type of photography, so discussing this further with you is moot.
ValerieUSA wrote:
I did not say anything about laws - just ethics.
I see no journalsitic value here to justify the use of strangers' identifiable images.
With that standard in mind, street photographers would produce much better images than these.
You present that the OP needs to, "...justify the use of strangers' ...images." What is it exactly that one would reaonably find offensive such that the OP would need to rationalize his actions? Why would anyone get their panties in a knot because someone randomly took their picture and put it on the internet for commenting on everything EXCEPT anything particular to that particular person??
kakomu wrote:
Most people I encounter, be it friends, co-workers, fellow volunteers, etc are very camera shy or completely hostile to the camera. The cat shelter I volunteer at frequently asks me to photograph their fund raising events and even when I identify myself as the shelter photographer (as opposed to a random photographer), people shy away from the camera. A lot of candid photo ops are missed. The same goes for strangers. Then again, I don't blame them. Few people want a camera in their face.
.
That's why well done street photography (like most any other kind of photography) is rare. it ain't as easy as it looks. Especially with the level of paranoia these days
#4 is my favorite. I think it has the elements of a story. "It's a cold world with no human interaction!" Everyone sees things differently.
As for the comments about the genre. Street photography is not photo journalism. It is also not unethical. I enjoy viewing it. The guy that shoots in Charlotte is fantastic. Most of them see him and look at the camera as well.
