FILM Photographer of the Year 2018 - Discussion

FishyFish said:
I have 14 shots left on a roll to finish today in order to get it processed and scanned tomorrow. :runaway:
Click to expand...

I've about the same on a roll of black and white, including some shot specifically set up for the challenge, and with plans for more. But time's run away from me, and there's no way I'll get that film finished and processed. Luckily I got a couple of films back from Filmdev, and had some macro/closeup shots from earlier in the year, so I still have something to choose from.
 
Apologies in advance for my confusion, but I'm trying to separate outdoor portrait and street in my own mind. Can I take it that the subject must be involved for a portrait, whereas street probably means little or no involvement? :thinking:
 
Peter B said:
Apologies in advance for my confusion, but I'm trying to separate outdoor portrait and street in my own mind. Can I take it that the subject must be involved for a portrait, whereas street probably means little or no involvement? :thinking:
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that distinction necessarily applies. A portrait (to my mind) is a picture of a person (or animal, I guess) that shows us something about character or situation. I don't think the person has to actively participate, although maybe it's harder if they don't?

But "street"? Well, I suppose a street must be involved somewhere...

As usual, put whatever slant you like and let the voters decide!
 
Peter B said:
Apologies in advance for my confusion, but I'm trying to separate outdoor portrait and street in my own mind. Can I take it that the subject must be involved for a portrait, whereas street probably means little or no involvement? :thinking:
Click to expand...

I think that's how I've viewed it Peter, although I think the line can become a little blurred at times.
 
ChrisR said:
As usual, put whatever slant you like and let the voters decide!
Click to expand...

Personally I feel Chris has got it right - if there is 'a link' to the topic title the people who vote will consider if that link is very tenuous or a good interpretation of the theme?

A candid portrait has little or no involvement but is surely still considered as a portrait?
 
Last edited:
Street photography is a pretty broad church genre and doesn't have to feature people, candid or not.. Wikipedia defines it as follows:

Street photography, also sometimes called candid photography, is photography conducted for art or enquiry that features unmediated chance encounters and random incidents[1] within public places. Although there is a difference between street and candid photography, it is usually subtle with most street photography being candid in nature but not all candid photography being classifiable as street photography. Street photography does not necessitate the presence of a street or even the urban environment. Though people usually feature directly, street photography might be absent of people and can be of an object or environment where the image projects a decidedly human character in facsimile or aesthetic.
Click to expand...

The third sentence in that description is also quite key - "street" shots can be taken pretty much anywhere - on a bus, in a shop, at the beach etc. are all just as valid a location as an actual street.
 
To sum up, street is probably candid, perhaps but not necessarily involve people, and may or may not involve a street, but not all candid photos are street?

I guess it's a case of "I don't know much about street but I'll know it when I see it"...:D

ETA: good definition though Nige, very helpful!
 
Oh bugger...........just seen the quality of the 'natural light portrait' entries.........and a member's upload to Flickr and think I seriously need to re-consider my entry :-(
 
Without giving it much thought, I'd say basically a portrait is posed where as street isn't and is shot in an urban setting.
 
Carl Hall said:
The poll for Septembers theme is going to be a little shorter than usual, due to the Highlands meet. The poll will open the morning of Monday 1st Oct, and will run until around 11.30am on Friday 5th Oct, a couple of hours before we leave to catch our flight up to Glasgow. (y)
Click to expand...

We have got internet up here.

Admittedly I write my message on a bit of paper and give it to Hamish who faxes it to the English guy in Carlisle who actually adds it to the web, its a bit of a work around....
 
steveo_mcg said:
We have got internet up here.

Admittedly I write my message on a bit of paper and give it to Hamish who faxes it to the English guy in Carlisle who actually adds it to the web, its a bit of a work around....
Click to expand...
Have you ever thought of modernising and getting a homing haggis? ;)
 
steveo_mcg said:
We have got internet up here.

Admittedly I write my message on a bit of paper and give it to Hamish who faxes it to the English guy in Carlisle who actually adds it to the web, its a bit of a work around....
Click to expand...

Haha, I am bringing my macbook anyway but I usually do FPOTY stuff on my work laptop as it's too much effort using a spreadsheet on multiple systems. I'll be leaving that at work for the week as it's the RB67 of laptops and it's a bit of a monster to carry around!
 
FishyFish said:
The shot I'd like to use for Natural Light Portraits was shot at an outdoor market without flash, but there were probably fluorescents under the stall awnings. Is it elligible please? Ta.
Click to expand...
I would say yes, it was light that was part of the environment in which you shot and beyond your control.
 
FishyFish said:
The shot I'd like to use for Natural Light Portraits was shot at an outdoor market without flash, but there were probably fluorescents under the stall awnings. Is it elligible please? Ta.
Click to expand...

I say no.....:D

Only joking. ;)
 
It's obviously up to @Carl Hall to judge seeing as he has organised the competition but I disagree with Nick & Andy. Flourescent lights are an additional light source so, in my opinion, it's not natural light. Sorry! I'm only a beginner though so I may be talking utter rubbish.

Over to you Carl....
 
Mrs Snap said:
It's obviously up to @Carl Hall to judge seeing as he has organised the competition but I disagree with Nick & Andy. Flourescent lights are an additional light source so, in my opinion, it's not natural light. Sorry! I'm only a beginner though so I may be talking utter rubbish.

Over to you Carl....
Click to expand...

Not rubbish at all, but in this case I'd agree with Nick. I was thinking of taking one of my sister sewing, but when I saw the room there was lots more artificial light than daylight, and if I'd turned the lights off she wouldn't have been able to sew. But in this case the balance is very much the other way.

IMHO the phrase was really meant to exclude a studio setup with big lights, umbrellas, beauty dishes or whatever it is they use.
 
Personally, I think it depends if you take the meaning of the words literally, or try to understand the actual intention behind them. Literally, I guess it means only sunlight, but I would assume that it was intended to mean only using light that was already present in the given environment, without adding further lighting specifically intended to light the subject for the photo.

That said, that's just my personal opinion. From a FPOTY point of view, I think it's down to each persons interpretation and if they believe their image meets the theme. That's the way it's been all the way through the competition so far, and I think it's worked well so far.
 
Thanks Carl. To be honest, I didn't take the shot specifically for the comp, it was only when I saw the result that I thought it would make a good entry, so I never really considered any other lighting present at the time. It was taken on my Sure Shot Telemax 35mm compact, so I'd have have had a job setting it up with a bunch of slave flashes and the like. :)

This shot from the same roll gives an idea of how much natural light was present when I took my entry. I don't think the fluorescents in the awnings added a lot.

FILM - Market shot.jpg
 
Last edited:
Mrs Snap said:
"I say Old Chap, what on earth is this new-fangled contraption? C..H..R..O..M..A..? That's not even a word. Harrumph!!"

Taken with Mr Snap's Mamiya C330

Contraption2 b and w by Janet, on Flickr

With apologies to @Andysnap for making him look even more ridiculous than normal ;)
Click to expand...

That is just bloody priceless, that needs be the first thing everybody sees when they click on the Film and Conventional section.
 
I may look ridiculous but at least I'm well dressed and ridiculous. :D
 
Andysnap said:
I may look ridiculous but at least I'm well dressed and ridiculous. :D
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t say you look ridiculous Andy, you bring to mind a young Brunel but without the whiskers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top