Ray Sachs
Legend
- Location
- Not too far from Philly
- Name
- you should be able to figure it out...
Antonio,
I haven't gone through any sort of formal critique since I was in college - it was useful for sure. I haven't since and given my meager goals for my current photography (to enjoy myself making it!), I don't have much desire to again. I'm comfortable with my current set of illusions!
In terms of your excellent shots above, I think it depends on what you're after. To me there's a difference between street portraits and more spontaneous street photography. Both can be done well, both can be done badly. A number of yours, mostly from the first group, strike me as very spontaneous street photography, where you're observing and recording a scene that would be happening with or without your presence. Some of them are still pretty intimate, some less so. The second group, done after the critique almost all strike me as street portraits. Not all of the subjects are looking at the camera - some are, some aren't, but there's an awareness of being photographed and more or less posing for it in almost all of them. I wouldn't presume that you should focus on either approach - I think they're both wonderful types of photography, and it almost goes without saying that your results are incredible using either approach. So, whatever you prefer to do you should do, whether it's one approach, the other, or a combination of both. If your goal is to do either street portraits or a combination of both, the input from the photographer critiquing your work should be really helpful. If your goal is to do more spontaneous street photography, which you were doing more of in the first batch, his advice is something to hear and understand, learn another approach from, but maybe not to follow when you're trying to do a different type of photography than he's espousing.
I think they're different types of "street" photography, both are great, but your goals don't necessarily have to be the same as his. But if they are, you've incorporated his lessons really well!
-Ray
I haven't gone through any sort of formal critique since I was in college - it was useful for sure. I haven't since and given my meager goals for my current photography (to enjoy myself making it!), I don't have much desire to again. I'm comfortable with my current set of illusions!
In terms of your excellent shots above, I think it depends on what you're after. To me there's a difference between street portraits and more spontaneous street photography. Both can be done well, both can be done badly. A number of yours, mostly from the first group, strike me as very spontaneous street photography, where you're observing and recording a scene that would be happening with or without your presence. Some of them are still pretty intimate, some less so. The second group, done after the critique almost all strike me as street portraits. Not all of the subjects are looking at the camera - some are, some aren't, but there's an awareness of being photographed and more or less posing for it in almost all of them. I wouldn't presume that you should focus on either approach - I think they're both wonderful types of photography, and it almost goes without saying that your results are incredible using either approach. So, whatever you prefer to do you should do, whether it's one approach, the other, or a combination of both. If your goal is to do either street portraits or a combination of both, the input from the photographer critiquing your work should be really helpful. If your goal is to do more spontaneous street photography, which you were doing more of in the first batch, his advice is something to hear and understand, learn another approach from, but maybe not to follow when you're trying to do a different type of photography than he's espousing.
I think they're different types of "street" photography, both are great, but your goals don't necessarily have to be the same as his. But if they are, you've incorporated his lessons really well!
-Ray