@Ted 

I am addressing your tribunal comment here, because I cannot on the platform. This niche is a "made up" photography term, it isn't a thing. That is why i am saying it is inaccurate.

The very nature of what street photography is, contradicts this description. Your comment seems to be talking about redundancy. Which is not my grounds for appeal. 

Wiki "Portrait photography or portraiture in photography is a photograph of a person or group of people that captures the personality of the subject by using effective lighting, backdrops, and poses."

Wiki "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 and some candid photography being classifiable as street photography. Street photography does not necessitate the presence of a street or even the urban environment. "

IF this person mean't photography more related to Satorialism, such as regular people modeling clothing then this would fall under the photographic term Fashion Photography. NOT "Street-style Portrait Photography".

If this person meant Portraitures that take place outside. Then they are still considered Portraiture. or at the very least OUTDOOR Portraiture. But using the word Street implies an element of candidness, or happenstance events, which posing for a portrait is not.

When it comes to art, and photography falls under that umbrella, the Narrative community, including it's tribunal needs to pay attention to established artistic terms, and the associations placed on the word, especially in an appeal for accuracy, not redundancy.

You are right that it this niche is not redundant, but in photography terms Street-style Portraiture Photography is more than any oxymoron, it is very difficult to moderate or make content for. How do you take a picture where the subject is posing for you, but is unaware that you are photographing them, hence a moment of candidness. Please don't vote to change the definition of Street photography, the word has an established meaning in the photographic art world, and it looks bad on Narrative.

@Brian Lenz @Lori

Original Post

Some visual clarification.

Street photography from a book on the history of street photography. Se how they are not posing for the camera. it is candid. even the guy who sees the camera is caught of guard and not posing for a photo.article-2629449-1DE009A200000578-18_964x981

A Portrait taken outdoors. The subject is aware that his photo is being taken, and has readied herself for the moment. download

Just because this person doesn't have the correct vernacular doesn't mean that narrative doesn't have to either. We can reject the inaccurate and propose Outdoor Portraiture.

Attachments

Photos (2)

Hi @Emily Barnett

Thanks for this in depth foray.

My knowledge of photography is informal so I had to read up on some of the definitions to supplement the understanding I have carried with me through the years.

The question I have, regarding your approach is this: since one of the categories of portraiture is 'candid portraiture', why can't some street photography be street portrait photography?

The candid approach to a portrait favours spontaneity and can indeed take place without the subject being aware of the photo.  But even if they are aware, the encounter can still be a chance encounter, and the picture can be taken very naturally, without much preparation.  It still is considered a portrait, because it captures something of the personality of the subject.

Example: I'm walking through a market in Italy and I notice an elderly woman selling tomatoes.  The light is hitting her beautifully and she seems to quite naturally be emanating personality in the simple actions she is carrying out, perhaps because she has been doing them for years, and they are an integral part of who she is.  This is felt through her spontaneous poses, and maybe could not be faked if you tried for it - so of course I sense the perfect moment for a portrait.

I have two choices: I can take photos from where I stand with a long lens, then ask her permission afterwards, to keep/use them.  Or I can ask her if I can take her photo, and ask her to just keep doing what she is doing and pay no attention to me.

Both choices will result in a portrait photograph.  Even if she is aware a picture is being taken, the setting and circumstances can still be those of a chance encounter and candid capturing of her essence.  

The situation only ceases to be candid if I start asking her to do things she would not naturally be doing, or if she changes her behaviour because of the camera.  Even there, there is some lee-way.  What if the light dramatically improves the portrait when she is 1 foot to the left, and I ask her if she can just take that one step over, and then carry on with her natural activity.  The resulting picture can still be considered candid if the feeling is still uncontrived.  The woman knows I am going to take a picture, but if I wait a short while and allow her to slip back into her natural way of being, I may get an identical result to that which I would get if she was completely unaware of the picture being taken.

I think the bottom line is that portrait photography does not always require preparation or direction from the photographer.  A candid portrait is a thing and that seems to open the door for this niche to make sense, and not be an oxymoron.  

Because of this, I would be inclined to accept this niche.

I disagree with your scenario. A portrait is collaboration between subject and photographer, based on mutual acknowledgement of the camera. Even when this happens with no verbal dialog takes place. Candid doesn't mean a natural pose, it means without knowledge. So in your scenario of the italian woman in the market, it is a candid photograph. It would become a portrait if you asked her permission, and she became aware of the exchange between you.

Only the moment of surprise when a subject learns of the photographer, but has not a second to react to camera, can it still be called candid. I for one don't agree with the term Candid Portraiture. The  preferred name is Candid Photography. my first visual example demonstrates this perfectly. The subject clearly sees the person but he has not had time to pose. Therefore this is not a portrait of him. it is a candid photograph. I would assume the photographer took a picture seconds later, and if the gentleman in the hat decided to smile for the camera, THEN it becomes a Portrait (not candid portrait, just portrait) of him. 

But as for as this actual niche goes, you are failing to look at the description. It mentions candid in the description, it talks about the importance of the environment, referencing the street. Even if we are to accept what you are suggesting @Malkazoid, which i am not in favor of, because I don't think it is accurate, but for arguments sake, then I would state that this description and title still does not clearly describe "POSING for a Portrait IN THE STREET". So I think it should be rejected, and let a more accurate niche come forward.

OUTDOOR PORTRAITURE  is the term you would be looking for, and yes asking permission is a a really big part of what defines the differences between Portraiture and Candid/Street Photography. And there are even laws that separate what is allowed and not allowed based on where you live in the world, because of the lack of knowledge that defines Street Photography vs Portraiture in the Street.

Hi Emily, can we agree that there is such a thing as a candid portrait?

That seems to be the crux of this matter.

Ah, ok just saw you don't agree with the term Candid Portraiture.

So it sounds like it is not a clear cut situation that all photographers agree upon.

 

Emily Barnett posted:

 

But as for as this actual niche goes, you are failing to look at the description. It mentions candid in the description, it talks about the importance of the environment, referencing the street. Even if we are to accept what you are suggesting @Malkazoid, which i am not in favor of, because I don't think it is accurate, but for arguments sake, then I would state that this description and title still does not clearly describe "POSING for a Portrait IN THE STREET". So I think it should be rejected, and let a more accurate niche come forward.

OUTDOOR PORTRAITURE  is the term you would be looking for, and yes asking permission is a a really big part of what defines the differences between Portraiture and Candid/Street Photography. And there are even laws that separate what is allowed and not allowed based on where you live in the world, because of the lack of knowledge that defines Street Photography vs Portraiture in the Street.

So the description of the niche you are downvoting is:

This niche hones in on the photography subset of street-style/candid portraits. While pretty faces are pretty, we care about the setting the subject is in! Please note that this is NOT a general street photography niche.

I did look at it: I promise!  I wouldn't have jumped in with such an involved response without looking at the niche under discussion!
 
I don't see anything in this description that is incompatible with the opinion that candid street portraits are a thing.  I only see a problem with this description if I subscribe to your approach, which says that a street portrait cannot be a candid one.  I don't see a reason to subscribe to your approach, because the photography world seems to have several approaches to this, and yours isn't necessarily more correct... or at least isn't necessarily more accepted.
I think what we need to look at is whether people will understand what belongs in this niche. 
From the description, I would think any photographs would fit that are taken outdoors, in somewhat urban settings (but could be villages too), featuring humans and with a candid vibe to the essence captured.
That feels ok to me... what am I missing?

It is hard for me to agree with that, because it splits a hair in a way that is not genuine. For example, when i owned my art gallery, I would go to my represented artists studio to take photos when they are working. Yes it is a portrait. Yes they are working, rather than sitting in stereotypical pose like  sitting in a chair holding paint brushes, and touching their chin like they are deep in thought. But these more natural looking photos are not candid, the artist (subject) knows what i am doing, they adjust their movements, expressions even ever so slightly, they are conscious of how they appear. That is not really candid. The moment of consciousness of the camera is the change of candid to portrait, because the subject is active. I will give you that they may loose their self for a moment and forget about the camera. but that slips back into candid, in my opinion

Can it be valued as a portrait to the subject certainly. But photography is about what is happening in the decisive moment of taking a picture. Aware or un aware in this instance.

And bringing it back this niche with it's talk of "pretty subjects", and street "backgrounds", and portraits being candid isn't very accurate to the title Street-style , and I suspect is holding up the more accurate Street Style niche in this topic, that came after the fact, from being purchased.

Thanks @Emily Barnett - that last message helps me understand where you are coming from.

I respect your perception of this situation.

I do however think that people won't be confused by the niche.  

Could the description be better - certainly... but I think it still gives a good sense of what kind of photos are intended to live there.

The main issue seems to be with your binary approach to candid vs portrait, with a moment where one becomes the other, and without room for shades of grey between them.  I think many professional photographers, and most non-professional ones will be more flexible and understand the intention of the niche.  

I think it is safe to say that most people don't see a portrait photo as necessarily meaning contrived or posed.  Portrait, for most people, just means a photo that 'portrays' someone...  Even though you have a more strict definition, can you maybe work with the fact that many, and perhaps most people don't?

This Niche isn't called Candid Portraiture, it isn't called Candid Photography and it isn't called Street Photography.

It is unclear what the direction is for the niche.

It is unpurchased, after almost six months with other  people, clearly looking for street photography as an active niche option, given the three other niches in street photography suggested. 

Well I guess we just see what happens, so far nobody has purchased it, and i think it is the description, not the desire for the niche that is at play.

So chatting with Emily, I've come to understand the problem as follows.

Street Photography is a duplicate of the older Street-Style Portrait Photography.  In essence, there is no real uniqueness that properly demarcates the two.

BUT the older niche has an unclear description, and trying to change that description once you buy it may well be rejected because once clearly described, it will be far more apparent that it is essentially the same as the newer, better described Street Photography niche.

@Emily Barnett's partner wants to buy a niche that covers this ground, but which niche should he buy?

If he buys the older niche with the bad description, how will the Tribunal rule on his attempts to improve the description?  If they accept them, then the more recent Street Photography niche becomes redundant and they have to reject that niche.

If @Emily Barnett's partner buys the more recent, well defined Street Photography niche, then he is in danger of it being deemed redundant and killed off, because the more poorly defined Street-Style Portrait Photography has seniority (was approved first).

I see now that this is a real problem, and one that only the @Narrative Network Team can resolve.  What should @Emily Barnett's partner do?

 

Pending a response from the Narrative team, here is my sense of the best way forwards.

We should keep the policy of older niches having priority over newer ones, when considering redundancy, EXCEPT when the newer niche has been purchased, and the older one remains unpurchased.

In this situation, this would allow @Emily Barnett's partner to buy the more recent, better named and more clearly described Street Photography niche, and then immediately lodge an appeal for the older, less well defined and redundant Street-style Portrait Photography, to be declared redundant.  Because nobody will have bought the older niche, but someone will have bought the newer one, this is the only scenario where the network matches an owner with a niche, gets the best niche it can get, and very little harm is done to any other user.  The older niche can be removed before anyone decides to buy it.  There isn't really any need to adjust the reputation of the person who suggested the older niche: we can look at their contribution as being judged a positive one at the time, but that needed to eventually become defunct.

Malkazoid posted:

So chatting with Emily, I've come to understand the problem as follows.

Street Photography is a duplicate of the older Street-Style Portrait Photography.  In essence, there is no real uniqueness that properly demarcates the two.

BUT the older niche has an unclear description, and trying to change that description once you buy it may well be rejected because once clearly described, it will be far more apparent that it is essentially the same as the newer, better described Street Photography niche.

@Emily Barnett's partner wants to buy a niche that covers this ground, but which niche should he buy?

If he buys the older niche with the bad description, how will the Tribunal rule on his attempts to improve the description?  If they accept them, then the more recent Street Photography niche becomes redundant and they have to reject that niche.

If @Emily Barnett's partner buys the more recent, well defined Street Photography niche, then he is in danger of it being deemed redundant and killed off, because the more poorly defined Street-Style Portrait Photography has seniority (was approved first).

I see now that this is a real problem, and one that only the @Narrative Network Team can resolve.  What should @Emily Barnett's partner do?

 

Exactly. 

 

@Emily Barnett and @Malkazoid. Thanks for all this discussion on the topic.  We are discussing this internally to see if we need to tweak the model around if there are two duplicates and one is Active (purchased) - who should the winner be?  We are looking at all the other possible scenarios (e.g., bids occurring at same time but payment first??)  before we get back to you on this so that we can address it all at the same time. 

Fantastic @MOLLY O.  I can see you were able to absorb the essential takeaways from our ramblings - I'm thankful you did.  It took quite a bit of @Emily Barnett and I getting lost in the details of the faulty description of this niche, before we were able to step back and focus on the systemic problem that is the real consideration.  Sometimes the trees really do hide the forest.

 

@MOLLY O @Ted given the rules of Narrative, my only recourse was to try and get rid of the unclear niche, so that the platform can move forward on getting a niche that actually describes this lesser understood, yet very popular form of photography.  I doubt that there will be buyers for either niche with the way it exists right now, under the current rules. This is part of the problem, that we have been trying to talk about in previous threads about the growing amount of parked niche suggestions. There are issues that are coming up, by leaving so many  undesirable, un-purchased niches out there, that cancel out better ones.

In my opinion I see two ways out.

1. Remove un-purchased niches after a six month period of time-- the reputation that was accrued from the suggestion, could be deducted.  

2. Allow for a reason for appealing, to be specifically to demonstrate how two niches are canceling each other out, you could follow with a niche battle that the community can vote on.  There are some inherent problems with this, because some people may intentionally vote a redundant niche in just to get to battle the other. But a caveat could be that battles are only for un-purchased niches, not active ones.

The street-style portrait photography came up when i was not as involved with voting. i don't think i even saw it. Otherwise I would have raised my concerns much earlier. It's funny, @Malkazoid didn't vote on this one either. And here we are with so much debate.

Anyways. Just my two-bits. I really want to see a good, active Street Photography/ Candid Photography niche. 

@Emily Barnett.  This is what the Alpha is for   Self governance is a brand new thing we are tackling…such an interesting social experiment. Keep in mind that as we discuss this issue, we are also thinking about how rules can be automated in the future so Tribunal doesn't have to go back and research the voting history and other things.  

MOLLY O posted:

@Emily Barnett.  This is what the Alpha is for   Self governance is a brand new thing we are tackling…such an interesting social experiment. Keep in mind that as we discuss this issue, we are also thinking about how rules can be automated in the future so Tribunal doesn't have to go back and research the voting history and other things.  

Agreed it is fascinating, and cannot be easy to implement. As community, I think we see the issues coming before we have an actual example because using it is what we are focused on, where you guys are using it, building it, and promoting it simultaneously. I am just glad that such an example now demonstrates the issue that we were alluding to before, and some solution can be resolved in alpha.

Emily Barnett posted:

 

1. Remove un-purchased niches after a six month period of time-- the reputation that was accrued from the suggestion, could be deducted.  

 

I don't think it's even necessary to remove reputation accrued from the suggestion, as there are some well thought-out niches that have remained unpurchased since I joined in the autumn, but they just aren't that popular for people who know they're limited to owning 5 niches. But purging un-purchased niches after 6 months would make it easier to rid the system of the truly awful ones that got approved anyways, and it provides an opportunity for other unpurchased niches to "hit the front page" of auctions. Bowhunting is going to sit there forever, otherwise, and people don't have a lot of patience for browsing page by page.

MOLLY O posted:

@Emily Barnett and @Malkazoid. Thanks for all this discussion on the topic.  We are discussing this internally to see if we need to tweak the model around if there are two duplicates and one is Active (purchased) - who should the winner be?  We are looking at all the other possible scenarios (e.g., bids occurring at same time but payment first??)  before we get back to you on this so that we can address it all at the same time. 

Any resolve on this yet? these niches are still stuck canceling each other out.

Emily Barnett posted:
MOLLY O posted:

@Emily Barnett and @Malkazoid. Thanks for all this discussion on the topic.  We are discussing this internally to see if we need to tweak the model around if there are two duplicates and one is Active (purchased) - who should the winner be?  We are looking at all the other possible scenarios (e.g., bids occurring at same time but payment first??)  before we get back to you on this so that we can address it all at the same time. 

Any resolve on this yet? these niches are still stuck canceling each other out.

Hopefully soon. 

Add Reply

×
×
×
×