Color street photography

Indirectly, yes. I took the photo using the Hipstamatic app on my iPhone. It's similar to Instagram, which it predates, in that it uses presets, but the presets consist of combinations of a "Lens", a "Film", and a "Flash". This preset, that I use for a lot of colour shots, consists of the Jane Lens, the Love 81 Film, and no Flash. I call it the Jane Love preset.

And yes, this preset saturates the colours and increases the contrast, and adds a vignette and a frame.

garryknight wrote in post #19557037
Indirectly, yes. I took the photo using the Hipstamatic app on my iPhone. It's similar to Instagram, which it predates, in that it uses presets, but the presets consist of combinations of a "Lens", a "Film", and a "Flash". This preset, that I use for a lot of colour shots, consists of the Jane Lens, the Love 81 Film, and no Flash. I call it the Jane Love preset.

And yes, this preset saturates the colours and increases the contrast, and adds a vignette and a frame.

So she wasn't really quite so gaudy, just conspicuously tasteless. Thanks.

Back to the pickleball courts today for more practice with moving subjects. Stayed 23 minutes, took about 45 shots, discarded most.

By the sea in a late UK heatwave. This was taken in Scotland with the September temperature pushing. 30deg, which is highly unusual. Global warming, no doubt.

Image hosted by forum (1225100) © Terrycanon THIS IS A LOW QUALITY PREVIEW. Please log in to see the good quality stuff.

Terrycanon wrote in post #19555990

Hosted photo: posted by Terrycanon in
./showthread.php?p=195​55990&i=i209358625
forum: Urban Life & Travel

I’m not sure what the subject is here.

OhLook wrote in post #19557357
Back to the pickleball courts today for more practice with moving subjects. Stayed 23 minutes, took about 45 shots, discarded most.

Hosted photo: posted by OhLook in
./showthread.php?p=195​57357&i=i199954539
forum: Urban Life & Travel

Hosted photo: posted by OhLook in
./showthread.php?p=195​57357&i=i23348873
forum: Urban Life & Travel

These should probably be posted in the Sports forum.

mcluckie wrote in post #19557573
I’m not sure what the subject is here.

Looks like a colourful street to me.

I thought it was the vaping girl.

mcluckie wrote in post #19557574
These should probably be posted in the Sports forum.

I agree. However, if I posted them there, I'd have to unfilter that forum and leave it visible to receive Likes and comments. Then I'd be troubled by a lot of sports threads to scroll past in New Posts and RTAT. Sports is a popular forum with many posts. The limit on filtering already requires sorting through an annoying number of notices of new posts on subjects I'd rather not give time to.

mcluckie wrote in post #19557579
I thought it was the vaping girl.

Ok, a colourful street and a girl vaping. Whatever, it’s colour and in the street.

OhLook wrote in post #19557584
I agree. However, if I posted them there, I'd have to unfilter that forum and leave it visible to receive Likes and comments. Then I'd be troubled by a lot of sports threads to scroll past in New Posts and RTAT. Sports is a popular forum with many posts. The limit on filtering already requires sorting through an annoying number of notices of new posts on subjects I'd rather not give time to.

As thread starter, I’m just trying to keep it vaguely on track. There’s all sorts of stuff posted here that doesn’t belong in this thread. It started as street photography (photography on, not of, the street), with the addition of color (since b&w is the common street photo mode).

I was trying to find a good definition of what I strove to establish 14 years ago. Per dostreetphotography.co​m/blog:

Street photography must be candid and unstaged (street portraits are portraits)
Street photography must include life, or evidence of life (as we know it... or not)
Street photography must be interesting in some way (otherwise it's just a crap snap. Go home!)

mcluckie wrote in post #19557592
As thread starter, I’m just trying to keep it vaguely on track. There’s all sorts of stuff posted here that doesn’t belong in this thread. It started as street photography (photography on, not of, the street), with the addition of color (since b&w is the common street photo mode).

I was trying to find a good definition of what I strove to establish 14 years ago. Per dostreetphotography.co​m/blog:

Street photography must be candid and unstaged (street portraits are portraits)
Street photography must include life, or evidence of life (as we know it... or not)
Street photography must be interesting in some way (otherwise it's just a crap snap. Go home!)

Fine, let's talk about what does belong in this thread. The blog you cite is new to me, as are the three components of the definition it prescribes. For posting on POTN, I'm guided by what's already here, which establishes a consensus. Many images in the thread show shopfronts and other façades, with or without people, with nary a square inch of street in sight. The photographer may have been on the street, or perhaps across the street and zooming; we can't tell. For pickleball shots, I stood on the shoulder of a narrow, paved street within a city park. To me, this seems equivalent.

About that blog's third criterion: What's interesting, of course, varies with the viewer. Finding adults playing an active sport next to a street gave me a chance to shoot people doing something purposeful (to them), including poses that show effort and tension and sometimes interaction with one another. (Children play on and near streets too, but you can become suspect if you photograph them.) I could also practice extracting compositions from scenes containing multiple human figures.

Whether any such shot will interest someone else, I can't say. I can imagine reactions like "Look at those silly people pretending they're athletes" or "Wow, pickleball looks like fun, even for people who are old and out of shape" or "She did a lousy job of extracting a composition from that scene containing multiple human figures." Don't worry, I won't spam the thread with an overdose of p-ball, I just don't know where else these shots could go. It already occurred to me that I'd better stop before the subject lost its novelty.

There’s a lot of definitions out there and most are at least partially valid. You’ll get a lot of Google results, a lot of disposable rules, but posed people on vacation and sporting events aren’t ever included. And I think we should steer clear of cityscapes and architecture. A lot of genre definitions include descriptors like “slice of life” and “candid”.

No one ever said it needs to show a street, and I don’t think having people is necessarily required— the definition I found even noted “evidence of” humanity in lieu of actual bodies. Personally, I think of fleeting-moment stuff, images that won’t be there tomorrow.

It’s a tough-to-define category, unlike sports, or glamour or weddings— the expected images are in the name. I think keeping in mind SOME criteria would go a long way to keep this thread on track.