Embrace the Absurd-Street Portraits of strangers.

EyeBlinks

Seasoft

I admire this guy's technique. Made me feel a bit braver in approaching street portraiture as opposed to snapping from the shadows.

http://www.learnmyshot.com/How-to-Photograph-Street-Portraits

Hope I'll be as confident in time.

(Hope it's ok to mention the site, as it's free to subscribers.)

mehfesto

In fairness, he is shooting people in carnival attire - at a carnival.
Much easier than doing so on say Moore St.

Still, his banter and attitude were his main points, I guess!

Mensch Maschine

Nice photos EyeBlinks. Some DOF on that one. What lens/camera did you use?

magicbastarder

i suspect the background was blurred in PP.

Mensch Maschine

the_tractor wrote: »

William.

I was taking a few random street shots when William stopped and asked me if I was an American tourist.

When I said I wasn't we got chatting, and he's not a fan of 'Bloody Yanks'.
He resented them during WWII, 'over here taking all the women' while they were off fighting. Originally from England, been living in Belfast for 50+ years I think he said.

An interesting guy, 85, and living independently still.

I'm just glad I wasn't an Yank.


[snippity snip snip!]

William by TBSteve, on Flickr

Great photo. Nice story behind it.

@magic: Oh

pullandbang

zootshooter

the_tractor

Nice shots, but they are not portraits. Put them on the Candid thread.

zootshooter wrote: »

zootshooter

Thanks for the compliment about my pics, but I don't really see how they don't belong here. They are all street shots of people. Shots of people to me are called portraits, whether they are face on, or just a shot of their back, and also if they dominate the frame or do not. Maybe others would disagree?

Kenny Logins

zootshooter wrote: »

Thanks for the compliment about my pics, but I don't really see how they don't belong here. They are all street shots of people. Shots of people to me are called portraits, whether they are face on, or just a shot of their back, and also if they dominate the frame or do not. Maybe others would disagree?

To me a portrait must capture the facial expression of the subject.

pullandbang

zootshooter wrote: »

Shots of people to me are called portraits, whether they are face on, or just a shot of their back, and also if they dominate the frame or do not. Maybe others would disagree?

So a shot like this is a portrait?



Most of them are face on and they certainly dominate the frame. Don't know about you but I would not call that a portrait.
In the same way a photo of the back of someone sitting on a bench is not a portrait.
Nice set of shots you have, but they don't belong in a thread of "Street Portraits"

IamBlip

zootshooter wrote: »

Thanks for the compliment about my pics, but I don't really see how they don't belong here. They are all street shots of people. Shots of people to me are called portraits, whether they are face on, or just a shot of their back, and also if they dominate the frame or do not. Maybe others would disagree?

I think this thread is more for asking a stranger in the street "can you take their photo". They are more candid than contrived.

zootshooter

IamBlip wrote: »

I think this thread is more for asking a stranger in the street "can you take their photo". They are more candid than contrived.

What a foolish comment to make. The definition of candid is:

"relating to or being photography of subjects acting naturally or spontaneously without being posed."

The moment you ask someone to pose for a photo it is no longer a candid shot. Therefore your statement is utterly nonsensical.

What exactly is contrived about shooting somebody from behind? Contrived is definied as:

"having an unnatural or false appearance or quality"

How exactly are my photos contrived simply because I prefer not to shoot somebody face on?

I've heard it said that psychoanalysts don't look at their patients in the face because people use their facial expressions to lie. I'm not sure I agree with this, but there are plenty of worthwhile portraits of people out there that don't include their facial expression.

As for comparing my shots to shots of thousands at a football match, well I think it's pretty obvioius that there is a difference. In my pictures there is one person that is clearly the focus of my shot, unlike the sea of faces that you posted.

I still think that my photos belong here until somebody convinces me otherwise.

jpb1974

The definition of candid is:

"relating to or being photography of subjects acting naturally or spontaneously without being posed."

Greetings zootshooter

Can I just say that in relation to your comment above I'm not sure this is where the problem lies when it comes to the photos you posted.

Can you dig us up the definition of portrait whilst you're at it and if you hear a noise that might be the penny dropping.

Cheers

zootshooter

jpb1974 wrote: »

Greetings zootshooter

Can I just say that in relation to your comment above I'm not sure this is where the problem lies when it comes to the photos you posted.

Can you dig us up the definition of portrait whilst you're at it and if you hear a noise that might be the penny dropping.

Cheers

por·trait/ˈpôrtrət/

Noun:

• A painting, drawing, photograph, or engraving of a person.
• A representation or impression of someone or something in language or on film.

All's still silent on my end.

Kenny Logins

zootshooter wrote: »

por·trait/ˈpôrtrət/

Noun:

• A painting, drawing, photograph, or engraving of a person.
• A representation or impression of someone or something in language or on film.

All's still silent on my end.

Where did that come from?

jpb1974

All's still silent on my end.

I expected as much

zootshooter

Kenny Logins wrote: »

Where did that come from?

Google portrait definition, it's the very first answer you'll get.

zootshooter

jpb1974 wrote: »

I expected as much

I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong, but you really haven't provided much in the way of valuable guidance here.

jpb1974

zootshooter wrote: »

Google portrait definition, it's the very first answer you'll get.

OK..

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/portrait

1. A likeness of a person, especially one showing the face, that is created by a painter or photographer, for example

zootshooter

jpb1974 wrote: »

OK..

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/portrait

1. A likeness of a person, especially one showing the face, that is created by a painter or photographer, for example

note the use of the word ESPECIALLY, not EXCLUSIVELY.

OldGoat

FFS.
Can we have some more photographs before people start posting Facepalms and keyboard warrior cartoons.

jpb1974

note the use of the word ESPECIALLY, not EXCLUSIVELY.

Absolutley...

But if there's one thing we can agree on it's the fact that the definition of portrait really can be stretched.

Wikipedia's version would sit a lot more comfortably with me -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait

A portrait is a painting, photograph, sculpture, or other artistic representation of a person, in which the face and its expression is predominant.

Kenny Logins

zootshooter wrote: »

Google portrait definition, it's the very first answer you'll get.

Should I stop there, or carry on reading?

zootshooter

jpb1974 wrote: »

Absolutley...

But if there's one thing we can agree on it's the fact that the definition of portrait really can be stretched.

Wikipedia's version would sit a lot more comfortably with me -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait

You can cherry pick definitions as much as you like, it still doesn't convince me that my photos don't belong here. Some people seem to believe a portrait must have include the face, others don't. This isn't the most enlightening of arguments really.

zootshooter

Kenny Logins wrote: »

Should I stop there, or carry on reading?

Why should I give a toss what you read?

jpb1974

You can cherry pick definitions as much as you like, it still doesn't convince me that my photos don't belong here. Some people seem to believe a portrait must have include the face, others don't. This isn't the most enlightening of arguments really.

You're a gas man... fight the power!

the_tractor

OldGoat wrote: »

FFS.
Can we have some more photographs before people start posting Facepalms and keyboard warrior cartoons.

:P

zootshooter - I think you are maybe getting a little wound up over this.

There are two threads:
One for Street protraits, this one.
One for Candid street photos, the other one.

All I am saying is that those shots you posted fit better in the candid thread.

Read the 1st post, and comment #79 of this thread, hopefully that will explain what this thread is about.

Also reading comment comment #104, it looks like IamBlip was trying to say that your shots are more candid than contrived, not the other way around as you seem to have taken it.

This thread is more for the 'contrived' shots, when you ask (or not ) to take someones photo, and they are aware that you are taking a photo, and maybe even pose for the photo - i.e. more contrived, not candid.

Hopefully that clears up any confusion, and please don't feel offended as that is not anyones intent.

Kenny Logins

zootshooter wrote: »

You can cherry pick definitions as much as you like, it still doesn't convince me that my photos don't belong here. Some people seem to believe a portrait must have include the face, others don't. This isn't the most enlightening of arguments really.

You seem to be a little confused here, it was you that 'cherry picked' the definition.

zootshooter wrote: »

Why should I give a toss what you read?

Your trolling is just becoming dull now. Shame really, great pics, just in the wrong thread (deliberately?).