BenBirchall:

Cheers Joe,

I appreciate the advice too. That's what this great site (and mag too!) is for after all. However, professionally I can't do that and frankly I wouldn't want to. I agree, that bird and the person on the right are annoying, but if I cloned out every minor offence in all my shots then I'd have nothing to aim for on the next shoot. I'd not push myself to capture the perfect image in-camera and become stale.

10 minutes in the digital darkroom with the clone tool can take 10 years off your photography learning curve. Anyway, I thought this was a 'Street Life' thread? Surely that means presenting the scenes we see before us using our cunning composition and exposure tricks in the field rather than on the computer? Discuss?

Cheers

Ben

As someone who is passionately interested in Street Photography in all its forms I find your remarks very interesting.

Are you saying that Street Life photography is only valid if what's presented as a final image has received no post processing?

If a picture editor asked you to remove something that intrudes from an image, do you maintain that professionally you couldn't do that?

In the image of the lady with the seagull, the seagull is an integral part of the picture otherwise her expression would be somewhat meaningless, but are you saying there has been no cropping of the in-camera image?

---

FACES,STREET,PROTEST & CANDID
A BLOG
My Flickr

joebuxton:

Absolutely awesome shot. Can't stop laughing at the expression and posture you captured. Can't believe I'm going to give you some advice after everything your magazine has taught me. Anyway I think you should clone out the bird just above her head, its distracting and would take all of 10 seconds to remove with that lovely blue sky as the backdrop. Love the shot

www.joebuxton.com

 

I know what you mean, but blotting out the offending gull takes away the busy feeling, that the birds are circling around the subject and that reduces the action, imho.

---

My DCM Gallery

ABERS:

BenBirchall:

Cheers Joe,

I appreciate the advice too. That's what this great site (and mag too!) is for after all. However, professionally I can't do that and frankly I wouldn't want to. I agree, that bird and the person on the right are annoying, but if I cloned out every minor offence in all my shots then I'd have nothing to aim for on the next shoot. I'd not push myself to capture the perfect image in-camera and become stale.

10 minutes in the digital darkroom with the clone tool can take 10 years off your photography learning curve. Anyway, I thought this was a 'Street Life' thread? Surely that means presenting the scenes we see before us using our cunning composition and exposure tricks in the field rather than on the computer? Discuss?

Cheers

Ben

As someone who is passionately interested in Street Photography in all its forms I find your remarks very interesting.

Are you saying that Street Life photography is only valid if what's presented as a final image has received no post processing?

If a picture editor asked you to remove something that intrudes from an image, do you maintain that professionally you couldn't do that?

In the image of the lady with the seagull, the seagull is an integral part of the picture otherwise her expression would be somewhat meaningless, but are you saying there has been no cropping of the in-camera image?

Hi Abers.

Without going into a debate for and against digital mainpulation and the moral maze that surrounds it I'm saying that street photography in my eyes should reflect a real situation. The art should come from the moment, action, juxtaposition or whatever you want to label it, not a creation or manipulation after the event - leave that to the fine art buffs. The soul of street photography is first and foremost documentary based, every serious manipualtion in the darkroom chips away at the integrity of this dicipline.

If I was to define 'manipulation' I'm talking about moving, erasing or adding objects to heighten the composition or action using cloning or composite style techniques. Not traditional printing methods that involve dodging, burning, colour work or crops. I understand it's a grey area and one that many will have opposing opinions, but I think the validity of this 'Street Life' thread lies, not with the photographer, but ultimately the viewer of the images.

You must remember that 'artistic quality' is a secondary requirement for news and news/sport agency picture editors. First and foremost an image has to fit a story, regardless of it appearing in a tabloid newspaper or glossy magazine. A picture editor would never ever ask a photographer to remove something from an image. If they wanted it so badly to rid an image of a distraction then they would do it themselves by cropping or sending the tog back out to reshoot. Cloning is just not done in the industry as the reputation of the publication or business depends on truth. I know it happens in other areas of the media, but when it comes to news the consequences result in employment termination and serious harm to business.

As far as my image is concerned I cropped the image slightly to remove some empty space to the left, which brought the top dead space in too. Maybe if I took that shot as part of a personal project or web gallery type-thing, sure I could have cloned out the distractions (Joe was talking about the out-of-focus seagull in the background, not the main seagull of the image) and show the world what a perfect photograph it was. However, I'd never be able to get it published as a 'moment in time' without being bogus. And I sure as heck would never have posted it in this thread.

Good to be discussing this. Cheers

Ben

---

The pen was mightier than the sword. Now the image kicks the pen's ass. www.benbirchall.com

BenBirchall:

Hi Abers.

Without going into a debate for and against digital mainpulation and the moral maze that surrounds it I'm saying that street photography in my eyes should reflect a real situation. The art should come from the moment, action, juxtaposition or whatever you want to label it, not a creation or manipulation after the event - leave that to the fine art buffs. The soul of street photography is first and foremost documentary based, every serious manipualtion in the darkroom chips away at the integrity of this dicipline.

If I was to define 'manipulation' I'm talking about moving, erasing or adding objects to heighten the composition or action using cloning or composite style techniques. Not traditional printing methods that involve dodging, burning, colour work or crops. I understand it's a grey area and one that many will have opposing opinions, but I think the validity of this 'Street Life' thread lies, not with the photographer, but ultimately the viewer of the images.

You must remember that 'artistic quality' is a secondary requirement for news and news/sport agency picture editors. First and foremost an image has to fit a story, regardless of it appearing in a tabloid newspaper or glossy magazine. A picture editor would never ever ask a photographer to remove something from an image. If they wanted it so badly to rid an image of a distraction then they would do it themselves by cropping or sending the tog back out to reshoot. Cloning is just not done in the industry as the reputation of the publication or business depends on truth. I know it happens in other areas of the media, but when it comes to news the consequences result in employment termination and serious harm to business.

As far as my image is concerned I cropped the image slightly to remove some empty space to the left, which brought the top dead space in too. Maybe if I took that shot as part of a personal project or web gallery type-thing, sure I could have cloned out the distractions (Joe was talking about the out-of-focus seagull in the background, not the main seagull of the image) and show the world what a perfect photograph it was. However, I'd never be able to get it published as a 'moment in time' without being bogus. And I sure as heck would never have posted it in this thread.

Good to be discussing this. Cheers

Ben

Ben,

I was under the misaprehension that you inferred that no post work should be carried out. I totally agree with what you say should be allowed but nothing more.

This was the first thread that caught my eye when I started looking at the Forum, and the first thread that I posted any images on. I still maintain that it's title is somewhat misleading and a more general title of "Street" would have fitted the bill better.

Street Life to me implies that any image should have some "life" within it whether human or animal, without that it becomes a Street picture or an urban landscape.

Refering back to your picture, I thought the out of focus seagull was in fact a chip someone had thrown up to attract the seagull!

Cheers...Alan

---

FACES,STREET,PROTEST & CANDID
A BLOG
My Flickr

Lot of chatter on this thread now - but interesting reading.

Finally made it into an urban area with the camera and had my first real go of some street photography on the way to a meeting.



Comments and advice welcome...

H.

---

My Gallery.

flickr gallery

hevans:

Not much good at comments and crit but hey:

 

Nice shot Hugh

Nicely timed so that the woman in purple matches the building, although she prob blends in abit but its timed enough to look as though the thing by the window is aiming.

Nice shot again.

---

ABERS:

BenBirchall:

Hi Abers.

Without going into a debate for and against digital mainpulation and the moral maze that surrounds it I'm saying that street photography in my eyes should reflect a real situation. The art should come from the moment, action, juxtaposition or whatever you want to label it, not a creation or manipulation after the event - leave that to the fine art buffs. The soul of street photography is first and foremost documentary based, every serious manipualtion in the darkroom chips away at the integrity of this dicipline.

If I was to define 'manipulation' I'm talking about moving, erasing or adding objects to heighten the composition or action using cloning or composite style techniques. Not traditional printing methods that involve dodging, burning, colour work or crops. I understand it's a grey area and one that many will have opposing opinions, but I think the validity of this 'Street Life' thread lies, not with the photographer, but ultimately the viewer of the images.

You must remember that 'artistic quality' is a secondary requirement for news and news/sport agency picture editors. First and foremost an image has to fit a story, regardless of it appearing in a tabloid newspaper or glossy magazine. A picture editor would never ever ask a photographer to remove something from an image. If they wanted it so badly to rid an image of a distraction then they would do it themselves by cropping or sending the tog back out to reshoot. Cloning is just not done in the industry as the reputation of the publication or business depends on truth. I know it happens in other areas of the media, but when it comes to news the consequences result in employment termination and serious harm to business.

As far as my image is concerned I cropped the image slightly to remove some empty space to the left, which brought the top dead space in too. Maybe if I took that shot as part of a personal project or web gallery type-thing, sure I could have cloned out the distractions (Joe was talking about the out-of-focus seagull in the background, not the main seagull of the image) and show the world what a perfect photograph it was. However, I'd never be able to get it published as a 'moment in time' without being bogus. And I sure as heck would never have posted it in this thread.

Good to be discussing this. Cheers

Ben

Ben,

I was under the misaprehension that you inferred that no post work should be carried out. I totally agree with what you say should be allowed but nothing more.

This was the first thread that caught my eye when I started looking at the Forum, and the first thread that I posted any images on. I still maintain that it's title is somewhat misleading and a more general title of "Street" would have fitted the bill better.

Street Life to me implies that any image should have some "life" within it whether human or animal, without that it becomes a Street picture or an urban landscape.

Refering back to your picture, I thought the out of focus seagull was in fact a chip someone had thrown up to attract the seagull!

Cheers...Alan

I've been following this conversation with interest. I think that regardless of the subject matter, Ben follows the NUJ's code of conduct: No journalist shall knowingly cause or allow the publication or broadcast of a photograph that has been manipulated unless that photograph is clearly labelled as such. Manipulation does not include normal dodging, burning, colour balancing, spotting, contrast adjustment, cropping and obvious masking for legal or safety reasons.

I like this because it reminds us of the importance of getting it right in-camera. All hail the purists!

Jason.

---

EyeWest Photography

Well that sure started off a heated debate.

So firstly I would just like to say that I don't clone stuff out of my street photographs and believe that street photography should capture the real life in that millisecond the camera's shutter fires. I do post production work but mostly just to make images back and white, add contrast and some vignetting but this is all to add my personal 'style' and hopefully make my images recognisable to some extent.

I guess by my own admission then I shouldn't have suggested you clone out the distraction but to be honest I was just thinking in terms of what might have been mentioned if it had been sent in for critique to the magazine. My bad.

So then I read all the comments on dodging and burning and have decided that perhaps a compromise is in order. Instead of cloning it out perhaps you could do some burning to tone down the pure bright white part to a less distracting light grey. This would leave the picture as it stands but still remove the distraction (to some extent anyway). Is this considered acceptable or still a step too far?

Let round 2 begin!

P.s. Here is my latest offering - Summer At The Park. All comments about distracting white blobs welcome!

www.joebuxton.com

 

Me and you are on the same wavelength Alan (all this time I never knew your name was Alan!), people are what gives street photography soul.

Spot-on Jason. I grew up with film, traditional printing techniques and the Code of Conduct. It's in me now and I don't mess about with shots when it comes to news. Photography mag editorial and techniques are fine, however I still hate cloning and don't do it.

Joe, I hope I didn't come across as suggesting you're a cloning culprit. I just wanted to make clear where I'm from. Toning down a highlight by burning is perfectly feasible, just as burning in edges to make vignettes is okay. Lets face it, you can only tone it down so much until it becomes more of a distraction! Best to leave it and move on, BTW - nice light in your picture. It's the first thing that struck me. I just wish I could see the womans face, it would have holded it a little longer. Nice atmosphere though.

Cheers

Ben

---

The pen was mightier than the sword. Now the image kicks the pen's ass. www.benbirchall.com

BenBirchall:

You must remember that 'artistic quality' is a secondary requirement for news and news/sport agency picture editors. First and foremost an image has to fit a story, regardless of it appearing in a tabloid newspaper or glossy magazine. A picture editor would never ever ask a photographer to remove something from an image. If they wanted it so badly to rid an image of a distraction then they would do it themselves by cropping or sending the tog back out to reshoot. Cloning is just not done in the industry as the reputation of the publication or business depends on truth. I know it happens in other areas of the media, but when it comes to news the consequences result in employment termination and serious harm to business.

Ben

I agree with the sentiment of what you've said. Especially when talking about news publication but I did chuckle when you added at the end the bit about truth....that might be pushing it. We've seen plenty of manipulation in news photography. Extra rockets added recently from rocket launchers etc though quite a lot of these get found out. Just for truthful discussion how do you feel about manipulation before the shot is taken? Like placing a teddy in rubble from a ruined building....Never go on a shoot without a doll and a womans shoe in your camera bag. Come to think of it you could have ask that lady to pull that expression after feeding the seagulls chips for ten minutes.

 

---

BPITW won 7 times.

My Flickr gallery

I still dont have the guts do go and jam a lens in someones face!

 

From today, the light was really harsh and the sun getting lower so the exposure was a tricky one, i decided to try and save some highlight, but even then it was too much!

 

---

TBPITW 13-14th Sept 08

---

TBPITW 13-14th Sept 08

I think it's agreed that to be accepted as such, Street Life must have some animate object within the image. However that alone surely does not make it Street Life. A picture of someone in a public area just standing or sitting there is just that. There must be some reaction to the environment that the person is in, or inter-reaction between people within the scene.   

---

FACES,STREET,PROTEST & CANDID
A BLOG
My Flickr

Soft Solent Light.

I nearly called this The Warmington-on-Sea Brigade.

---

FACES,STREET,PROTEST & CANDID
A BLOG
My Flickr

A bit of Leeds Street Life ...

 

---

Cheers - Nick

My Gallery