I posted this on a different forum and the only critique I got that was even remotely relevant was a vague comment about it lacking coherent composition (the other "critiques" merely described the photo [as if I hadn't noticed her arm was distorted and slightly out of focus]). Which got me to thinking: what is the standard by which you judge "street photography?" I have my own ideas, but I'm wondering how others approach the matter.

Any input is appreciated.

-- Mike Dixon (burmashave@compuserve.com), May 18, 2000

Answers

The distortion is interesting but the lighting is flat, or not lighting what it should be, and its difficult to get interested in people (especially culturally familiar ones) when they aren't looking into the camera. I look at a negative like this one as an indicator of what the camera can do, then go out and try to do it again right.... whats the lens by the way?

-- Chris Yeager (cyeager@ix.netcom.com), May 18, 2000.

Respnse to Girls from the suburbs

Cohesive composition, Yes, the subject is poorly framed in relation to both the second figure and the street. There is no sense of movement, the main figure is looking out of the frame towards??? what is holding her attention? The lack of movement within the street, no moving vehicle, no blurred action, attention is drawn to the main figure but she is static, nothing to relate to as to why she is standing, lethargic, ? indignant from he hand of hip but ???? from the technical side the point of focus leaves much to be desired, the fingers and the distant parked vehicle appear sharper than the head and shoulders, the question arises as to the area of attention...???

Loss of interest as no focal point of attention, No cohesion between subjects and surroundings.

Regards

Jack.

-- Jack McVicker (jack.m@virgin.net), May 18, 2000.

I always judge street photography by the quality of the street - what else? This is a nice, unpretentious street, not too wide, probably not too long. Looks pretty quiet too. Altogether a nice, but not outstanding street.

[As I keep repeating, the problem with many posts is that there's no context. Few pictures can stand entirely on their own. The ones that do tend to rely on formalism (e.g., composition) - or obvious subject matter - dogs with hats for example. With no context, there is little else to talk about.]

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), May 18, 2000.

Actually I have to disagree with John Kantor about context: if you have to explain a picture, what's the use? One rule I use to show portraits is "if I didnt know who this was, or where, would it still be interesting?" "dont tell me, show me..."

Some pretty "streety" or at least non-studio portraits here- www.chrisyeager.com

-- Chris Yeager (cyeager@ix.netcom.com), May 18, 2000.

I don't necessarily mean "explanation" (or explication) when I say context. If nothing else, being part of a series provides a great deal of necessary context for sociological work. (And if this stands on its own - why the subtitle?)

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), May 18, 2000.

Thanks to everyone so far for your comments. To answer your questions and address some of your comments:

The lens is a 35mm/f3.5 (at about f5.6) on a Pentax 645. I usually don't crop, but I thought the square worked better on this one (I cut off part of the RHS).

I consider the real subject to be the girl on the right; the girl in front is there to provide some offbeat framing (pretentious, I know, but I gotta have some fun) and emotional contrast.

I rather like the lighting: it's quite flat on the girl in front (with the flat affect) but clearly defines the features of the subject.

I'm not trying to argue with any of you or invalidate your opinions; I genuinely do appreciate your feedback. It helps me to understand how others perceive (or don't perceive) what I'm trying to convey. I'm just presenting my perspective (in words).

-- Mike Dixon (burmashave@compuserve.com), May 18, 2000.

My spontaneous reaction is this: the photo would look better if you stepped slightly to the right (so the two women don't "overlap") and filled the left-hand side with more of the girl looking down. (You don't need to show the car immediately behind the two women.) In fact, you could even crop out a fair amount of her body (or at least arm), all the while filling more of the frame. That is, you'd have to get a little closer. And I think you could use less DOF to greater effect. The distortion doesn't bother me so much, although I think that if you were even closer (perhaps resulting in MORE distortion) it would have more 'meaning'.

-- Stuart Hamby (stuhamby@uswest.net), May 19, 2000.

Merde. I meant to append a cropped version of that photo, but I don't see the HTML options. Well, basically what I did was crop from the satellite dish to just below the bottom edge of the woman's shorts on the right. Makes a rectangular image that clears up a lot of the clutter on the street.

-- Stuart Hamby (stuhamby@uswest.net), May 19, 2000.