I rarely shoot from the hip, and when I do, it’s even rarer that I get a usable shot from it.  

However, there’s a lot that I like about the photo in my most recent post below (from May 23, 2012), which was in fact “shot from the hip”.  I like the contrast in t-shirts, iPod vs. no iPod, the similar ripped jeans, the CK tag catching some sunlight, and then the starkly different choice of footwear.  There’s a lot of interesting details and contrasts, which is one of the things I think makes for a good street photo.

Since this was shot from the hip, and is one of my rare successes (if I do say so myself), I thought it would be interesting to show what the original, straight-from-the-camera shot looked like.  And here it is:

I’m really not a fan of crooked photos and tilted horizons (with apologies to Garry Winogrand), so my first inclination was to rotate to level.  Doing that cropped off a lot of cruft, like that hideous blue bag that drags your eyes away from the people, and really focused the photo on more interesting details.  All it needed at that point was a conversion to B&W, and I was left with, in my opinion, a much clearer and more successful photo.

What do you think?  Anyone like the original better?

1. dayvmattt likes this
2. yorkstreetphotography likes this
3. clokaroundtherock answered: Both tell a different story. In BnW, you put a distance, your own judgment. In colors, the one I prefer, you let us judging.
4. not2subtle answered: Pending that you don’t cut out hands. heads etc. I look at a photo as a painting. Nothing should be in the frame unless intended.
5. nikosnotes answered: the original is a “snapshot” - the b&w is a photo. Would have been nice to be right in front of them to get an even claerer comp. Nice shot!
6. lamlux likes this
7. stephenffaust posted this