Question about composition, framing and street photography

[ronlane]

This may not be the right spot for this series of questions and photo but it is general.

I realize that this picture is just a snapshot and is nothing special. But I think it could be a good learning tool for myself and possibly others. I took my camera with me for a walk to the bus stop to meet my kid this week and thought I would take a photo of one of the street signs. I liked the tree in the background and even though it was in the afternoon, that the sky showing wasn't really blown out too much. I also like the lines of the sign and that the names of each street was a branch way.

My questions are this, I know that compositionally this may have some issues, but what could be or should be done differently in the future? When shooting street photography, do you use a wider angle lens and crop it or do you fill the frame like I did in this picture?

What are your thoughts as you are about to take street photos? Share with us what went through your mind and then show the picture that resulted.

Thanks


rhu9le by Ron_Lane, on Flickr

 

[DannyLewis]

I would have backed up and got the full name of both street's and tried to get a straighter shot ie: from a higher point such as level with the sign's. Just My Op....

 

[ronlane]

Thanks Danny, I can see that point of view. Move over to the camera left and get higher. Would you typically carry a step or ladder with you on a walk about?

 

[Derrel]

Backing up another 15 feet or so and zooming in with a 28-200, 18-200, 28-300,or 55-250,or 70-300 or other "walkabout" type superzoom or tele-zoom would have probably allowed you to get the Cedar Branch Wy sign in too, but I do like the light on the leaves in the background. As the learning tool you mentioned: yes, this photo has a lesson. The lesson is that exactly WHERE one stands determines the EXACT angle of sight...you are relatively close to these signs, and are looking upward, at an angle. If you were farther away, the angle would be gentler, and the top sign ought to be in view, and so this photo is an illustration on how sometimes being closer allows us to see "less" than if we were shooting from farther away, from a slightly different angle.

In one way, shooting from close makes you and your camera's eye a PART OF the scene...shooting from the other side of the street makes you an OBSERVER OF the scene. Sometimes it is better to be a part of the scene, other times it's better to be an observer, removed from the immediacy of the area. The exact place WHERE YOU SHOOT FROM when taking photos is one of the most crucial aspects of photography; camera location plays a big part in how the pictures turn out.

 

[ronlane]

Great explanation Derrel. I was using my new (used but new to me) 28-135mm ef lens. Would you not consider this a good lens for walkabouts? If not then why?

 

[gsgary]

If the tree is interesting i would have included it, i would have shot much wider and waited for some interesting people to enter the scene

 

[Derrel]

Yeah, 28-135 or 24-135, like the older Tamron 24-135 SP zoom are okay. On a 1.5x body, a guy loses the wide-angle end....that's why the 18-55 and 18-70, 18-105,and 18-135 Nikkor zooms exist. However, if a person does not want or need "wide-angle", a 28-105 or 28-135 or whatever is fine. The old motto is "use what you have"..."make due with what ya' got", and so on. If you walk around with a 70-300, you shoot "one way with THAT lens"...if you have an 18-105 zoom, you can shoot "another way". I myself do not mind not having the wide-angle ability that comes with the 18-XX or 18-XXX lenses, but then, that's ME...

I do not think much in terms of wide-angle lenses on walkabout...I think more in terms of semi-wide, normal, tele, and close-up. Again, it's a matter of approach. For example, in real "street candids"...do you want to be on the same side as the people, shooting from 5 feet to 15 feet away, or from 25-40 feet away?

Do you want to be right there "in the scene", or a more separated "observer OF IT"??????????????

 

[Derrel]

Do you want to be THIS guy?????



Magnum agency member Bruce Gilden, shown roving the sidewalks of NYC, being Bruce Gilden...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=kkIWW6vwrvM

 

[ronlane]

Thanks gsgary. I could have added more of the tree, but I had to be careful not to include the house that was on the corner. As for people, the only ones that could have been included at that time were the munchkins walking home from the bus stop, also, I'm not sure if I could have gotten an angle without a step or a ladder, which I didn't bring with me. I like the idea of it and if I moved camera right with a 6 foot ladder, I could have gotten movement of cars or kids of one of the streets, but not sure if I would have been able to get both street names with that.

 

[MLeeK]

Well, maybe it's because I've been doing this so long or maybe not, but my first thought is never composition. It is telling the story-how to capture the elements to tell the story. Usually that will make your composition work anyway with candid/street photography.

Now for something like a series of street signs I MIGHT be thinking about lines.

Compositionally (is that a word?) yes and no here. The YES part-You have dynamic leading lines that take your eye throughout the image and it is most definitely a pleasing composition.
The NO part-you have a centered item. The centered composition is correct here-the lines cancel that out, so I am not going all "rule of thirds" on you here. But balance wise the foreshortening or distortion as the sign goes away from you throws the balance of this a bit and makes it feel a little funky as a centered composition.
The background I wish were less of a crisp, high frequency blur and more of a softer bokeh. If this is not cropped you are forgetting to leave room for the inevitable crop factor and that IS a very important factor that you need to think about regardless.

 

[ronlane]

Thank you MLeeK. I understand what you are saying there and I agree that it is centered. I think I could have improved that by moving the sign to the bottom third line. The background should have been softer with bokeh, the f stop was at 5.0 and this lens is a 3.5-5.6, my mistake there. I can see how that would have added a lot to this photo.

If I cropped it at all, it wasn't much in post. That could have also been the reason that I missed the ROT on it too.

 

[ronlane]

Thanks for the great feedback on this subject. I can see these suggestions in my mind with an image of how it would change the photo and what I should have been doing. I greatly appreciate the input and I will have to go back out there this evening and try these things.

 

[MLeeK]

Thank you MLeeK. I understand what you are saying there and I agree that it is centered. I think I could have improved that by moving the sign to the bottom third line. The background should have been softer with bokeh, the f stop was at 5.0 and this lens is a 3.5-5.6, my mistake there. I can see how that would have added a lot to this photo.

If I cropped it at all, it wasn't much in post. That could have also been the reason that I missed the ROT on it too.

ROT doesn't apply here at all and doesn't need to. The center is correct and fine, it's the balance that is a bit off. The smaller right hand side of the sign is throwing just a bit off.

 

[ronlane]

Okay. Question, how would you correct this? If I move camera right, I will be more straight on to that side but I will loose the cedar branch lettering. Will getting up higher minimize this effect? (Just getting higher, the sign will still be going away from you but only on one angle instead of two.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I think there are other things to think about aside from composition when shooting something like this. Like MLeeK said. While I am one to shoot close, or narrow FoV, and look mainly for interesting composition, there are times context and narrative are more important.

What you have is an up close, fill the frame, hit you over the head, HERES MY SUBJECT!, and pretty much that's it. It comes off as documentary. In my eyes, at least.

I faced with a similar situation, in that I saw a sign I needed to capture. I could have just zoomed in and filled the frame with the sign. It would have been documetary, and would have captured, and hit the viewer over the head with what's important. I wanted more context. I didn't want to hit the viewer over the head with the reason for the image....

This isn't anything more than a vacation pic, and only people who know me will get it, but that's my last name.
The goal was to have a little more to look at, other than the intended subject, or "just" a picture of a street sign.

Hope my PoV mixed in with everyone elses helps.