Some Street Stuff

branphlake · 05-31-2009, 10:28 PM

#1

Name: 20081116-0176.jpg
Views: 271
Size: 146.3 KB

#2

Name: 20081116-0208.jpg
Views: 256
Size: 17.7 KB

#3

Name: 20081116-0123.jpg
Views: 259
Size: 128.1 KB

#4

Name: 20081116-0143.jpg
Views: 259
Size: 27.2 KB

These are just a few of my street photos from a day on Pearl Street in Boulder, CO. All criticism welcomed!

Thanks

kevinschoenmakers · 06-01-2009, 01:44 AM

These are great! They all tell a story (except maybe the last one), which is - I believe - one of the best things a picture can achieve.

MRRiley · 06-01-2009, 09:36 AM

I particularly like the first one. Might sound funny, but have you tried it in B&W? or perhaps desaturating everything except the boy and his balloon???

Mike

branphlake · 06-01-2009, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by MRRiley

I particularly like the first one. Might sound funny, but have you tried it in B&W? or perhaps desaturating everything except the boy and his balloon???

Mike

I don't think I could bring myself to do that - I, personally, don't advocate for much photoshop use at all (I like to be as close to "film" as possible and I think that a lot of vignetting and desaturation, for example, look too fake). I think the colour works really well in this situation, because he is basically the only blue thing in the photo.

Thanks for the advice!

Last edited by branphlake; 06-03-2009 at 08:01 AM.

Damn Brit · 06-01-2009, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by branphlake

I don't think I could bring myself to do that - I, personally, don't advocate for much photoshop use at all (I like to be as close to "film" as possible and I think that a lot of vignetting and desaturation, for example, look to fake). I think the colour works really well in this situation, because he is basically the only blue thing in the photo.

Thanks for the advice!

You know, without PP, your pictures are the equivalent of P&S film taken to the local drugstore and run through the machine on standardised settings.
If you were a film user and developing and printing your own film, you would be pushing and pulling, dodging and burning etc. That's the analogue equivalent of PP. I agree with you that selective colouring is clichéd but don't discount other subtle PP work.

MRRiley · 06-01-2009, 11:31 AM

I DID say I liked the first one.

My suggestions were just ideas for potential alternate versions.

As Gary says, without postprocessing you might as well just take your memory card to Walmart and churn out prints on their kiosk. In the film days there were 3 distinct portions of making a photograph... shooting it, developing the film and printing it. You could manipulate the image at each phase and it was still "real". In the digital age you still have the same 3 portions, taking the photo, developing the image on your computer, and printing it (either at home or at a lab). The photos are just as real as when you used film.

Throw away the control you have in any phase and you have just let the engineers make all of the decisions for you. Why do that?

Mike

p.s. And yes, its true that selective color can be cliched, but it does work well in certain cases and I think this would be one of them. Oh, and by the way, without "desaturation" you cannot do B&W with any modern digital camera.

Damn Brit · 06-01-2009, 11:40 AM

I guess we told him Mike.

K-9 · 06-02-2009, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by MRRiley

...

As Gary says, without postprocessing you might as well just take your memory card to Walmart and churn out prints on their kiosk. ...

.

If your photos are well composed, framed, sharp, and exposed correctly, there's no reason any place can't print them out on their automatic kiosk or printing machine. However, a digital camera often fools you and slightly changes a scene from what you saw, whether it's the slight framing issue that you didn't notice in the viewfinder, or the auto white balance that turned your colorful shot dull. I've never seen so much difference in my viewed image to what is output in the file afterward. I never had this much discrepancy when I shot film, no matter where I took it to be processed and printed. It's the one thing I hate about digital: you often have to work hard in PP just to get the photo back to what you thought you saw in the viewfinder. Film never gave me so much trouble (even slides), and I believe this trouble is what branphlake probably doesn't like either. Technology should go forward, not back. We can get further into the whole argument, but this isn't the post for it. Postprocessing, IMO, sucks.

BTW, nice street shots. All well composed.

Damn Brit · 06-03-2009, 12:02 AM

An awful lot depends on what software you use as well. I use Iphoto (an old version) and Elements 6, and the difference between the two when uploading pics is enormous.

branphlake · 06-03-2009, 08:11 AM

I'm going to be brave and just speak my mind about the whole selective color "thing" - I think, in most cases, it's taking an "immature photo" and trying to give it life - I can equate this to playing oboe and making my own reeds; try to take a reed that has no life in it and fix it so it works, but it will never sound the same as a brand new reed (Oboe/music too often plays into my metaphors, sorry). Anyway, I haven't ever seen a selective color photo I've enjoyed and I don't understand the purpose? Is it to draw the eye to those colors? I mean, take an interesting photograph and then my eye will be drawn to anything you want to show me. For example, let's say someone color selects a red flower on a groom's tux, yes? I would rather see someone use some technical competence and use a shallow DOF to make the flower pop out, especially if that's what they want me to look at.

Furthermore, I do use Lightroom to bring the colors from "real life" back into my photos, but I don't go around photoshopping out every tiny thing that I don't want people to see - I should've just shot the photo better. That there is my point. Use your photoshop and aperture programs, but don't shoot a photo and in the next sentence say to yoruself, "oh, dang, that didn't turn out how I wanted - I'll just rescue it in photoshop."

I've just seen too many photographers blow out their skies, lay contrast all over the photo and use tons of Kubota actions to "be artistic." Sure there is a place for this, but is it in every single photo? Again, my opinion and I appreciate the "controversy" this has stirred... keep writing!

RBellavance · 06-03-2009, 08:25 AM

They are all nice, but I especially like the 1st one. The framing of the balloon vs. the boy, and the two blue areas they create on opposite side really make it work to my eyes. The way the balloon floats horizontally also gives it a whimsical feeling.

Cosmo · 06-03-2009, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by MRRiley

I particularly like the first one. Might sound funny, but have you tried it in B&W? or perhaps desaturating everything except the boy and his balloon???

Mike

DO NOT DO THIS.

It always look crap and tacky.

MRRiley · 06-03-2009, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by Cosmo

DO NOT DO THIS.

It always look crap and tacky.

True if you do it to every image, but used carefully and selectively, it can work.

Must be nice to be so absolutely sure of something... Be careful stepping down off of that high horse. Its a long drop.

Mike

MRRiley · 06-03-2009, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by branphlake

I'm going to be brave and just speak my mind about the whole selective color "thing" - I think, in most cases, it's taking an "immature photo" and trying to give it life - I can equate this to playing oboe and making my own reeds; try to take a reed that has no life in it and fix it so it works, but it will never sound the same as a brand new reed (Oboe/music too often plays into my metaphors, sorry). Anyway, I haven't ever seen a selective color photo I've enjoyed and I don't understand the purpose? Is it to draw the eye to those colors? I mean, take an interesting photograph and then my eye will be drawn to anything you want to show me. For example, let's say someone color selects a red flower on a groom's tux, yes? I would rather see someone use some technical competence and use a shallow DOF to make the flower pop out, especially if that's what they want me to look at.

Furthermore, I do use Lightroom to bring the colors from "real life" back into my photos, but I don't go around photoshopping out every tiny thing that I don't want people to see - I should've just shot the photo better. That there is my point. Use your photoshop and aperture programs, but don't shoot a photo and in the next sentence say to yoruself, "oh, dang, that didn't turn out how I wanted - I'll just rescue it in photoshop."

I've just seen too many photographers blow out their skies, lay contrast all over the photo and use tons of Kubota actions to "be artistic." Sure there is a place for this, but is it in every single photo? Again, my opinion and I appreciate the "controversy" this has stirred... keep writing!

Your original reply to my suggestions (which you did solicit by posting in the "critique" section) made it sound like you had a near total aversion to postprocessing, thus our replies supporting some post processing as an often necessary component of the digital workflow. Now you admit that you use Lightroom (an image editing program right?) to adjust your colors to be more "real life" Sounds like post processing to me. Neither Gary or I advocated pell mell image alteration or manipulation. In fact, I agree with you that many photographers go way overboard and use certain processes to death. However, any technique is valid if it's use supports the image being processed or helps to realize the vision of the artist.

As for the selective desaturation effect being applied to "immature photos" I could make the same claim about using Lightroom to "bring the colors from "real life" back." Neither is a valid argument.

Mike

Cosmo · 06-04-2009, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by MRRiley

True if you do it to every image, but used carefully and selectively, it can work.

Must be nice to be so absolutely sure of something... Be careful stepping down off of that high horse. Its a long drop.

Mike

I've seen lots, and always thought the same thing.

Okay it can work if instead of completely desaturating, you reduce saturation by about 10-15 on the saturation slider.

06-03-2009, 04:33 PM	#13
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275	Originally posted by Cosmo DO NOT DO THIS. It always look crap and tacky. True if you do it to every image, but used carefully and selectively, it can work. Must be nice to be so absolutely sure of something... Be careful stepping down off of that high horse. Its a long drop. Mike Last edited by MRRiley; 06-03-2009 at 05:11 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Stuff	wildman	Post Your Photos!	7	05-24-2009 10:23 AM
Street Photography-Photographing the street photographer?	Reportage	Photographic Technique	10	03-23-2009 07:41 AM
Some "street" stuff -- an attempt	pingflood	Post Your Photos!	14	02-28-2009 09:25 PM
Some Stuff	mfc	Post Your Photos!	13	04-24-2008 06:24 PM
Some old stuff	-=JoN=-	Post Your Photos!	5	11-18-2006 09:23 PM

05-31-2009, 10:28 PM	#1
branphlake Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 84	Some Street Stuff ISO: --- #1 #2 #3 #4 These are just a few of my street photos from a day on Pearl Street in Boulder, CO. All criticism welcomed! Thanks

06-01-2009, 01:44 AM	#2
kevinschoenmakers Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Shanghai Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,509	These are great! They all tell a story (except maybe the last one), which is - I believe - one of the best things a picture can achieve.

06-01-2009, 09:36 AM	#3
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275	I particularly like the first one. Might sound funny, but have you tried it in B&W? or perhaps desaturating everything except the boy and his balloon??? Mike

06-01-2009, 10:17 AM	#4
branphlake Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 84 Original Poster	Originally posted by MRRiley I particularly like the first one. Might sound funny, but have you tried it in B&W? or perhaps desaturating everything except the boy and his balloon??? Mike I don't think I could bring myself to do that - I, personally, don't advocate for much photoshop use at all (I like to be as close to "film" as possible and I think that a lot of vignetting and desaturation, for example, look too fake). I think the colour works really well in this situation, because he is basically the only blue thing in the photo. Thanks for the advice! Last edited by branphlake; 06-03-2009 at 08:01 AM.

06-01-2009, 11:12 AM	#5
Damn Brit Guest	Originally posted by branphlake I don't think I could bring myself to do that - I, personally, don't advocate for much photoshop use at all (I like to be as close to "film" as possible and I think that a lot of vignetting and desaturation, for example, look to fake). I think the colour works really well in this situation, because he is basically the only blue thing in the photo. Thanks for the advice! You know, without PP, your pictures are the equivalent of P&S film taken to the local drugstore and run through the machine on standardised settings. If you were a film user and developing and printing your own film, you would be pushing and pulling, dodging and burning etc. That's the analogue equivalent of PP. I agree with you that selective colouring is clichéd but don't discount other subtle PP work.

06-01-2009, 11:31 AM	#6
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275	I DID say I liked the first one. My suggestions were just ideas for potential alternate versions. As Gary says, without postprocessing you might as well just take your memory card to Walmart and churn out prints on their kiosk. In the film days there were 3 distinct portions of making a photograph... shooting it, developing the film and printing it. You could manipulate the image at each phase and it was still "real". In the digital age you still have the same 3 portions, taking the photo, developing the image on your computer, and printing it (either at home or at a lab). The photos are just as real as when you used film. Throw away the control you have in any phase and you have just let the engineers make all of the decisions for you. Why do that? Mike p.s. And yes, its true that selective color can be cliched, but it does work well in certain cases and I think this would be one of them. Oh, and by the way, without "desaturation" you cannot do B&W with any modern digital camera.

06-01-2009, 11:40 AM	#7
Damn Brit Guest	I guess we told him Mike.

06-02-2009, 05:04 PM	#8
K-9 Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: USA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,971	Originally posted by MRRiley ... As Gary says, without postprocessing you might as well just take your memory card to Walmart and churn out prints on their kiosk. ... . If your photos are well composed, framed, sharp, and exposed correctly, there's no reason any place can't print them out on their automatic kiosk or printing machine. However, a digital camera often fools you and slightly changes a scene from what you saw, whether it's the slight framing issue that you didn't notice in the viewfinder, or the auto white balance that turned your colorful shot dull. I've never seen so much difference in my viewed image to what is output in the file afterward. I never had this much discrepancy when I shot film, no matter where I took it to be processed and printed. It's the one thing I hate about digital: you often have to work hard in PP just to get the photo back to what you thought you saw in the viewfinder. Film never gave me so much trouble (even slides), and I believe this trouble is what branphlake probably doesn't like either. Technology should go forward, not back. We can get further into the whole argument, but this isn't the post for it. Postprocessing, IMO, sucks. BTW, nice street shots. All well composed.

06-03-2009, 12:02 AM	#9
Damn Brit Guest	An awful lot depends on what software you use as well. I use Iphoto (an old version) and Elements 6, and the difference between the two when uploading pics is enormous.

06-03-2009, 08:11 AM	#10
branphlake Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 84 Original Poster	I'm going to be brave and just speak my mind about the whole selective color "thing" - I think, in most cases, it's taking an "immature photo" and trying to give it life - I can equate this to playing oboe and making my own reeds; try to take a reed that has no life in it and fix it so it works, but it will never sound the same as a brand new reed (Oboe/music too often plays into my metaphors, sorry). Anyway, I haven't ever seen a selective color photo I've enjoyed and I don't understand the purpose? Is it to draw the eye to those colors? I mean, take an interesting photograph and then my eye will be drawn to anything you want to show me. For example, let's say someone color selects a red flower on a groom's tux, yes? I would rather see someone use some technical competence and use a shallow DOF to make the flower pop out, especially if that's what they want me to look at. Furthermore, I do use Lightroom to bring the colors from "real life" back into my photos, but I don't go around photoshopping out every tiny thing that I don't want people to see - I should've just shot the photo better. That there is my point. Use your photoshop and aperture programs, but don't shoot a photo and in the next sentence say to yoruself, "oh, dang, that didn't turn out how I wanted - I'll just rescue it in photoshop." I've just seen too many photographers blow out their skies, lay contrast all over the photo and use tons of Kubota actions to "be artistic." Sure there is a place for this, but is it in every single photo? Again, my opinion and I appreciate the "controversy" this has stirred... keep writing!

06-03-2009, 08:25 AM	#11
RBellavance Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Near Montréal, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,716	They are all nice, but I especially like the 1st one. The framing of the balloon vs. the boy, and the two blue areas they create on opposite side really make it work to my eyes. The way the balloon floats horizontally also gives it a whimsical feeling.

06-03-2009, 08:34 AM	#12
Cosmo Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 488	Originally posted by MRRiley I particularly like the first one. Might sound funny, but have you tried it in B&W? or perhaps desaturating everything except the boy and his balloon??? Mike DO NOT DO THIS. It always look crap and tacky.

06-03-2009, 05:10 PM	#14
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275	Originally posted by branphlake I'm going to be brave and just speak my mind about the whole selective color "thing" - I think, in most cases, it's taking an "immature photo" and trying to give it life - I can equate this to playing oboe and making my own reeds; try to take a reed that has no life in it and fix it so it works, but it will never sound the same as a brand new reed (Oboe/music too often plays into my metaphors, sorry). Anyway, I haven't ever seen a selective color photo I've enjoyed and I don't understand the purpose? Is it to draw the eye to those colors? I mean, take an interesting photograph and then my eye will be drawn to anything you want to show me. For example, let's say someone color selects a red flower on a groom's tux, yes? I would rather see someone use some technical competence and use a shallow DOF to make the flower pop out, especially if that's what they want me to look at. Furthermore, I do use Lightroom to bring the colors from "real life" back into my photos, but I don't go around photoshopping out every tiny thing that I don't want people to see - I should've just shot the photo better. That there is my point. Use your photoshop and aperture programs, but don't shoot a photo and in the next sentence say to yoruself, "oh, dang, that didn't turn out how I wanted - I'll just rescue it in photoshop." I've just seen too many photographers blow out their skies, lay contrast all over the photo and use tons of Kubota actions to "be artistic." Sure there is a place for this, but is it in every single photo? Again, my opinion and I appreciate the "controversy" this has stirred... keep writing! Your original reply to my suggestions (which you did solicit by posting in the "critique" section) made it sound like you had a near total aversion to postprocessing, thus our replies supporting some post processing as an often necessary component of the digital workflow. Now you admit that you use Lightroom (an image editing program right?) to adjust your colors to be more "real life" Sounds like post processing to me. Neither Gary or I advocated pell mell image alteration or manipulation. In fact, I agree with you that many photographers go way overboard and use certain processes to death. However, any technique is valid if it's use supports the image being processed or helps to realize the vision of the artist. As for the selective desaturation effect being applied to "immature photos" I could make the same claim about using Lightroom to "bring the colors from "real life" back." Neither is a valid argument. Mike

06-04-2009, 09:59 AM	#15
Cosmo Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 488	Originally posted by MRRiley True if you do it to every image, but used carefully and selectively, it can work. Must be nice to be so absolutely sure of something... Be careful stepping down off of that high horse. Its a long drop. Mike I've seen lots, and always thought the same thing. Okay it can work if instead of completely desaturating, you reduce saturation by about 10-15 on the saturation slider.