Jean-François Cléroux | Flâneur & Lens Creative
Different Lens, Different Story!

Tag: Street Photography

Studying and Copying the Masters

Another way to learn from the masters is to study them. When we use the term study, however, many people fail at how to actually study a master. It’s not a simple act of just looking at images. That helps, and, you can learn a lot from observing images. But how do you truly ‘learn’ from them?

Part of that is understanding ‘what’ you can learn from them. Are you wanting to learn that this photographer was born in 1908 and died in 2014 and was responsible for coining the phrase “the decisive moment?” There is more to Henri Cartier-Bresson than the decisive moment.

“Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness.”

– OSCAR WILDE

When we look at the ‘what’ do we want to learn from them, ideally, we want to learn everything. We want to learn the five W’s and the H. The Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How, and we want to learn a bit more than that. The 5 W’s are important, but the ‘How’ and the ‘bit more’ are where you will learn and grow as an artist.

If we look at Saul Leiter for example, the important stuff is that he was an iconoclast and he used various signature framing techniques such as out-of-focus areas and other devices such as reflective surfaces; He used bold Colors (part of his iconoclast philosophy of the time) and somehow managed to create visual poetry. All of this is important. And knowing this is less important than knowing ‘how’ he did this, how he created the poetry, and more importantly, how to re-create these techniques and how to use or incorporate those devices in your work.

The idea is not to copy the works you are studying, although learning how to copy images is always a great learning opportunity, but rather to learn new skills and techniques and choose which of these techniques and devices will enhance your works and will better reflect your voice and vision so you can create your own visual poetry and develop your own style.

This post is not about breaking down Saul Leiter’s images, but rather giving you a guide and pathway on how you can get there yourself, studying any photographers’ images. Interestingly, you can use the same tools to study your own images! More on that later.

“Selfies” – Jean-Francois Cleroux

Part 1 – The Images

The best way to do this is to have a bunch of the photographers’ images on hand. One can do this using a book and then using memory and image-by-image comparisons, but the best way is to print out a bunch of 5×7 images. The more images the better. They do not need to be ultra-high quality, but they should be good enough to see some details and somewhat accurate colors. This is difficult to accomplish if the images are too small. 4” x 5.5” is not too bad if you print them yourself as they are simply 8.5” x 11” sheets cut into quarters or packs of 4” x 6” paper is available.

You need 20 to 40 images for this to work well and to help you spot smaller little devices that may be used less seldom than the 2 or 3 blatant devices that are easy to spot even from memory when browsing a book. You need more than 10 but even small numbers can work well, especially when assessing your own “projects”.

Part 2 – Observing and Studying

Lay all the images out on a surface in a grid and start observing and studying them. Look at EVERYTHING. Look for ANYTHING.

Where are the images sharp and think about why those particular areas are sharp? Do they make sense? Is the main subject in focus or is the focus on a secondary background element that the maker wanted you to look at?

Where are they out of focus and why are those areas out of focus? Are they simply shallow Depth-of-Field from a large aperture or are the out-of-focus caused by compression of areas objects that include objects near the camera? In Saul Leiter’s case, those blurry areas and negative space act as bounding or framing areas and are often blurred on purpose, shallow DOF, or caused by elements near the camera being incorporated into the image.

Is there any blur? Out of focus? Is it intentional? Why was it done? What shutter speed was used from a stationary camera or was the camera manipulated?

Are the majority of the images Black & White or Color? What is the importance or significance of that choice? How does that choice affect the work? Note that the choice of Black & White or Color can greatly change how your images are viewed and what message they will convey.

Are the Black & White images somewhat Flat or are they very High Contrast? Are shadows exaggerated, on purpose, or, are they naturally dark shadowed locations on bright days? Remember to always look at the light and the dark areas.

I like it when one is not certain what one sees. When we do not know why the photographer has taken a picture and when we do not know why we are looking at it, all of a sudden we discover something that we start seeing. I like this confusion.

– SAUL LEITER

Do the Black & White images show any grain? Is it in all the images or just some? Is it constant in texture and size (based on the original source and, how you have printed them, the grain and other details, may or may not be visible.)

Are the B&W Images toned? Or split-toned?

Are the colors muted, pastels, or big and bold like Saul Leiter’s? Are most of the colors all the same? Is it on purpose, based on local, or a natural attraction of the photographers? Do the Color images look natural or are the colors off? Are the colors different because of a choice of film or digital filter or manipulation? If so, what film was used, or what digital technique or digital film simulation was used to change or manipulate the colors? Learn to recognize what colors are off and what colors have they shifted to.

You can see from the above questions just how complex this all can get. We haven’t even touched on Compositional Elements or Techniques or Photographic Devices, technical elements such as choice of lens or format, or even on how (what technique) was used to get the images. Then we need to look at physical components within the images themselves including subject matter and other secondary or supporting objects. What creative elements are being used, if any?

And let’s not forget about the mood or the story. What is the photographer trying to say, if anything?

Even simple little things can show up in images. A solitary rock somewhere off on the side or even on the sidewalk or curb within the image. It may be there or it may have been planted by the photographer on purpose as a ‘trademark’ or device that shows up in ALL their images. The variables are limitless.

What you will find is that most photographers who have a style will have some or many of these elements and devices show up in most of their images.

Part 3 – Identify

The goal is to Identify what all these elements and devices are. This can get tricky based on how long a photographer has photographed as their style may have evolved and changed over the years. It may also change based on a subject matter or even based on the photographer’s projects.

Identify and create (write down) a list of the elements and devices you spot.

Part 4 – Grouping

This is where grouping images can help. It’s sometimes a good idea with a prolific long-time photographer to group images by date. Or with a photographer that shoots different projects to arrange images by project, but before you do, try this.

Based on all the images in front of you, re-arrange the images into groups of images that look similar or work well together. Do they ALL work well as a group of images or do they seem to naturally split up into various groups? Are there any outliers (images that do not fit within the framework of the other groups?)

Part 5 – Identify by Group

Now try identifying the elements and devices by the group. This will usually be easier as you will be working with similar images. What makes them similar?

How is one group different from the other groups?

Are there any elements, devices, or similarities that are in several groups?

If you found some outliers, why are they outliers? Identify why they are different and notice the elements that are missing and not making fit within any of the other groups.

Caught dropping “Snap Its and Poppers” – Jean-Francois Cleroux

Part 6 – Observe the Natural Groups

This often is the fun part. These groups you created often will group themselves by date, or a different phase of a photographer’s development, or often by the different projects the photographer works/worked on.

It’s possible these are not projects but rather the photographer’s affinity or attraction to specific elements, devices or subjects. Some photographers NEVER actively work on projects.

Check to see if these groups have any significance. If the photographer has iconic images, are they mostly from the same group? Are they from a similar period in the photographer’s development or are they scattered in time?

With some photographers, you can get a history of different phases in their life. It’s a bit more work but sometimes the groups or certain types of images will come from certain periods in someone’s life. Pre or post-drug addiction, loss of a spouse or child, a move from photographing one genre to another, you get the point.

Part 7 – Chose a Group

Find a group you like best or that you are attracted to. Once you have identified and written down all the elements and devices used within that group, set out to detail all the elements. What are they, and how are they created? Was a specific lens used? What was the aperture or shutter speed? Distance? Lighting? Composition?

Be specific with all your details. Write them down. This list will become important.

NOTE: A reminder that writing things down is a great way to learn but more importantly a great way to force yourself to learn about your emotions, your art, and how to verbalize what your art and emotions are about. A large part of this is learning what vocabulary to use.

Part 8 – The Blueprint

Search in books or online how a photographer photographed. What equipment did they use? What camera? What lens? How did they specifically shoot? What settings did they use? Fixed focus? From the hip? Find out all you can and then look at the images again. Is what you have read about the photographer’s work reflected within the images in front of you?

If something isn’t clear, i.e. doesn’t make sense, make some guesses and write them down. You can do this photograph by photograph.

Part 9 – Shoot!

Now you are equipped with a roadmap to photograph just like the person you are trying to emulate and learn from. This site is about Street Photography but the same applies to ANY of the genres.

Equip yourself with the camera and lens you think you need to re-create the images (no, you don’t need a Leica). Familiarize yourself with the Exposures (over/under) you will need, the Shutter Speeds and Apertures you will need, and set your camera appropriately.

Head out and shoot using the same skills and techniques and be mindful of the elements and devices you are trying to mimic. Think lightness/darkness, shadows, silhouettes, composition, Color, and whatever elements you had on your written list.

If you are heading out on a different day or on different days, it’s a good idea to re-read the list as a reminder just before you head out to shoot. This will help you with visualizing and spotting the elements subconsciously when you see them.

Jean-Francois Cleroux

Part 10 – Print Your Work

Print some of your better images and put them into the images of the group you used for creating your studied photographer’s blueprint. How well do your images fit in? What works? What doesn’t? What needs to change? How will you change it?

Part 11 – Shoot and Repeat

Shoot again until you get it right. It may be a technique, or it may be composition or any of the elements. Make notes on what’s right and not right. Figure out what you need to change to make it right. Ask fellow photographers for help if you need it. Another eye can be very helpful.

Repeat this process until you master their style. Every step along the way will be a learning experience.

Part 12 – Final Step

Once you have mastered the style and look you are after, you can choose another group of images to emulate, or you can move on to another photographer to mimic.

The idea is to learn all the techniques and shooting styles you can and then incorporate these into your work. You want to shoot with specific elements and devices that will complement your style and will enhance your voice and will help you tell the story you want.

You want to choose elements and devices that speak to you, and you want to photograph the subject matter that speaks to you. By this, I do not mean shooting ‘Street Photography’ but rather small slices or parts of Street Photography that you like and that speak to you. You need to love what you are doing and photographing, and you should shoot for yourself, not please others. This is another post for another time, just remember to be true to yourself and your images will be better.

See you on the streets.

Exploring the Question: What is Street Photography? Part 01 – History of Street Photography

The issue with Street Photography is that it is many things to many people. It has varying degrees of uncertainty in its definitions based on the over abundance of bad definitions you can garner off the web. Part of this confusion comes from the ‘history’ of Street Photography. When was the genre started? Is any image that includes a street, ‘Street Photography?’ Or, does it need to have people? Or, is there more to it than that?

Making matters worse is that many people look at Street Photography, not as a ‘genre’, but rather as a ‘way’, a ‘mindset’ as it were. When you approach Street Photography as a mindset, things change drastically. A part of this mindset group is pushing away from Street Photography as a ‘genre.’ This causes further confusion. So, where do we start?

It would seem logical to start with the history of Street Photography except for the fact that historically, no one knows when Street Photography started? As some would suggest it started with the very first photo ever taken, “View from Window at LeGras” (1827) by Joseph Nicéphore Niépce (1765 – 1833); others would suggest it started with the very first capture of a person on the Streets with the famous “Boulevard du Temple” (1839) by Louis-Jacques-Mande Daguerre (1787 – 1851).

Both, depending on your definition, are incorrect examples. Interestingly, many of those that attribute Street Photography as a ‘mindset’ also attribute either (or both) of these images as the first Street Photography images ever taken. And, again, this is plainly wrong.

Joseph Nicéphore Niépce - View from the Window at Le Gras,

In looking at either of these images we need to look at ‘intent’. The intent of both of these images, and expected results, were not Street Photography, and neither were they photographed with the mindset of Street Photography. In Niépce’s image he had never accomplished getting a successful image. He was not a photographer doing photography, he was a scientist experimenting with capturing anything. He succeeded and created the now oldest image ever made “View from Window at LeGras.” His intent, was to capture something, anything, in the emulsion on his pewter plate. As his large camera was in his research lab, or studio as it was called, he aimed it out the window where the sun was bright. He knew he needed a lot of light. He knew and understood that the image would require an extremely long exposure. No notes have been found on the exact length of time, but it is proposed to be around eight hours. Note also that as a ‘subject’, he photographed rooftops which could be considered Urban Landscapes, but if you consider Street Photography to be a mindset, Niepce’s mindset was not set on Urban Landscape or Street Photography but rather on the Scientific Research and capturing something, ANYTHING.

If it is the Street Photographers purpose to capture ANYTHING, then yes, I suppose we are ALL Street Photographers.

Boulevard du Temple by Daguerre

In Daguerre’s example, he also, was experimenting with his new image capturing process, the Daguerrotype. He also knew that he required long exposures and he assumed he would not capture any people, horses, or carts. And, much like Niepce’s image, it was convenient for him to just point it out the window. He did manage to capture ‘the Street’ but again, his intention was to capture something well. He knew he was going to capture something as he had already done experimental images and he was refining his process. With the second image he took on this particular day he lucked out. A pedestrian gentleman had stopped to get a shoe shine from a street vendor. Because his legs and shoes were stationary for an extended period, his legs were captured, and because of lack of movement they were reasonably sharp and the rest of his body was blurred as the gentleman had moved his upper torso around for the exposure. Again, all for scientific purposes. He had not yet set his mind to ‘art’ or even to Street Photography at this time. Not with exposures of 20 to 30 minutes that it took to properly expose Daguerreotypes in those days.

Anyone that argues that this is Street Photography, including all those that propose it is a mindset, are reducing Street Photography to the simple notion that Street Photography must include a person, on the street. That is all that was accomplished here. Its an ultra long exposure of many people on a street but again the intent, was to capture a scene, so that it could be analyzed afterwards to see how successful the final image was in the way of chemicals used, tonal range, exposure, sharpness and so on. A success no doubt, but NOT street photography by any definition.

So, if these are NOT street photography? Then what images are? What are the first ever ‘intended’ street photographs ever taken? There are several thoughts on this. In Part 02, we’ll examine the works of Charles Nègre and a few others before we move on to other definitions.

See you on the defining streets!

Intro to Street Photography Walk – December 3, 2017

Student

Student

Hello everyone. So after last weeks successful rainy day walk that had 8 people show up, I have setup and organized a 2nd intro to Street Photography walk for this Sunday December 3rd. It is Street Photography specific. For those of you that want to learn Street Photography, I have setup a Free On-Line Street Photography class at Learn Street Photography. It is a multi-part class that you can do on your own time. If you are wanting to do it, now is the time. Head over to the Class Material and read the information for Part-01.

If you are new to street and want some quick guidance to get you started, I have posted a 4 Part quick start guide called “First Time Shooting? Part 1-4”. Part 1 can be found at First Time Shooting? This first intro walk is meant to just have you browsing the streets and to get you introduced to Street Photography. We will be doing more walks that will bring you to busier areas, harsher areas, diverging ethnic areas and even some night photography. We will pick locations that are suitable for the different sections to the Free On-line Class.

There is a handout with some homework if you like for after the walk. It is rain or shine! I will post a blog on Wet Weather Shooting before the walk including on how to keep your camera dry!

Our next walk will be in early January. See you on the streets!

You can book at Meetup.com [here].

Class Notes for Part-01 – Required Reading 2

The article brings up a lot of points for discussion. Many of these points are what I would consider the subject of the Philosophy of Street Photography, or even just the Philosophy of Photography. These are my Class Notes on:

• Part-1.2 – Eric Kim: What is Street Photography?

I have been researching this topic and will write a lengthy explanation on not only my thoughts of what “Street Photography” is, but also on why there is confusion and disagreement on the subject. I think that when you look at the reading material given to us by Eric Kim and specifically some of his points in his article “What is Street Photography?” you can see that his statements just don’t add up. For now, I will not get into too many details, but I will point out what I think are errors or misreading on Eric Kim’s part.

I think his comment about what Street Photography isn’t is off the mark:

“I believe that often the best way to define something is by defining what something isn’t.”

And based on his two examples of it’s not Landscape Photography and it’s not Studio Photography?? He concludes with the statement:

“Therefore, I feel that street photography needs an element of spontaneity and uncertainty rather than the predictable/manipulative nature of studio photography.”

I couldn’t agree more with this statement. How he concludes this based on Landscape and Studio not being Street Photography is beyond me. But yes, Street Photography needs to be spontaneous and uncertain.

Then he goes on to say:

“I personally don’t think that street photography has to be candid.”

Candid photography is spontaneous and uncertain. Photography with permission, or directed, or posed is “predictable” and “manipulative.” I have countless examples, and we all know and have our own examples, that once a subject makes eye contact with a camera, that the expression changes. What you capture in front of the camera is almost never the subject’s true self once they have seen the camera or worse, have interacted with the photographer.

In his example of William Klein’s ‘Kid with Gun’ he states correctly that Klein himself stated the image was ‘directed.’ The kid was asked to ‘look tough.’ Klein’s paraphrased response of:

“although it was he who provoked his subjects to play up a certain reaction or expression– it was his subjects who ultimately reacted the way they did.”

That’s the point isn’t it? It was the subjects who ultimately reacted the way they did to his interactions, to his direction, to his involvement. Without his provocation, the kid would NOT have reacted. What if you faked a robbery and ‘captured’ images of scared bank customers? Is that life as it really is? What if you just followed a woman along closely and scared the bejesus out of her? Is that real life on the street?

Another thing we must look at is the context of the image. There are several points to be made here. Klein was a Vogue Fashion Photographer. He had been commissioned to photograph New York, specifically to document New York post war. NOT commissioned to Photograph as a Street Photographer but to capture the essence of New York. His documentation included still life and buildings. His still life images and urban landscapes are not street photography in this case. They are a part of the documentation of the city, two very different things.

He later moved to Paris partly because of his dislike of New York and went on to say that those New York images showed everything he hated about New York. He went in with a specific ‘mindset’ and photographed to make a point. This is also NOT street photography. Street Photography is supposed to be politically neutral in motive. The reason for the image should be the artistic value of the image. If it happens to capture a ‘political statement’ that is an aside. Shooting to capture a ‘political statement’ is by definition, Documentary Photography.

As a Street Photographer you are there to observe and capture what you see. It’s why Paul Martin, who is considered a pioneer of Street Photography, making candid un-posed photographs of people in London and at the seaside in the late 19th and early 20th century to record life AS-IT-WAS. Martin is the first recorded photographer to do so in London with a disguised camera because he saw the need for, and the importance of the images to be candid. He noticed that people changed, their expressions changed, and that they behaved differently when confronted by a camera. To that point Paul Martin was a Street Photographer. William Klein was NOT a Street Photographer. Although he is highly regarded as such because of the abundance of excellent images that do qualify as Street Photography, however, he was not a Street Photographer. Can a Fashion Photographer on the streets capture candid Street Photography images, of course he can? Does that mean ALL his images are Street Photography? No. Should we not consider ALL his images to be “Fashion Photography?” Of course not.

And more importantly, do you trust his images to be real? How many are posed, or guided? Do his images give you a real view of the hardships, the emotions, the faces? Or, are they fake? Where is the integrity? What of the truth in Street Photography?

Eric Kim goes on to say:

“I care less if a photograph is staged or not– but whether it elicits some sort of reaction in my gut and heart. Who cares if a street photograph is posed or candid– if it doesn’t stir something in my soul?”

Wait what, staged images are OK? So, I could hire a couple as models and have them kiss with fake glycerin tears in their eyes and as long as I shoot on the streets, it’s Street Photography?

I think that capturing images that stir emotions is a great goal, and one that we should all aspire to in Street Photography. But, it should not be at the cost of the Truth.

Eric talks about another Klein image and then a Diane Arbus image. When you look at these images and know the stories behind them you clearly see that they are staged or at the very least guided and that the subjects are willing participants. Again, it is not recording life as it is and would quickly fit into the category of Street Portraiture. And again, by definition, they are not even Street Portraiture when you consider what a ‘portrait’ is.

In both Klein’s and Arbus’ images and attached contact sheets you can clearly see they shot multiple images and poses until they had something they wanted. Life doesn’t work that way.

We can save the indoors/outdoors argument for another time but my general comment here is that in Street Photography images, the street should be implied. It does not need to feature in the image, but it needs to be implied. When Eric claims that his

“belief is that street photography can really be shot anywhere as long as it is open to the public to enter and leave as they please.”

I think he is missing the “street” component of Street Photography. There are countless silly examples of what would clearly NOT be street photography that would fit this description. Is a photo of two climbers atop the Half Dome Summit, Street Photography? Or you walk off the street into a NY Islanders hockey game and shoot the hockey players on the ice. Is that Street Photography? Or would it be called Sports Photography? Enough said.

Lastly, Eric uses Eugene Atget’s image of a building with no people in it to suggest that it’s a street photograph because Atget is a Street Photographer. Again, by trade Atget photographed storefronts for the local papers for advertisements, that was his job. Atget was a commercial photographer. Because of his work on the streets over many years he photographed many candid’s, people in posed portraits, some urban photography and even some still life street photography. He shot it all. But, it’s not all Street Photography. He even photographed some street prostitutes he was intimate with. Are those images “Street Photography?”

The lesson to take from this, as with most photography related materials found on the net, is to not just take everything in as gospel. I have the greatest respect for Eric Kim, his work, and what he has done to further Street Photography. But, read it all, take it all in, analyze it as best you can with your current knowledge, scrutinize what you read or ideas that are passed on to you. Do some historical research. And after giving it some thought, what makes sense to you? Does it fit your definitions, your ideas, your purpose?

And, don’t be stubborn, have an open mind. As you do more street photography, as you grow and develop as a photographer, as you learn the language of Street Photography, know that you can change your definition and, at the very least, don’t just take my word for it.

As I mentioned above, I will write more on this very shortly (After I finish Part-1 of the Free On-Line Street Photography Class). After all, what is a Street Photography website/blog, if it doesn’t define what Street Photography is?

Cold Wet Day of Shooting on Main Street, Vancouver.

So, we had our first Meetup on a cold, windy and very wet day in Vancouver. After expecting no one to show up, a total of 9 brave souls came out to learn and shoot. Almost everyone showed up early for the coffee and doughnuts at 49th Parallel on Main Street. Well done everyone!

Here are a few of the images I captured playing around with the setup on my camera. Testing Auto Focus today with the 23mm f/2.0 and practicing Shooting from the Hip.

Class Notes for Part-01 – Required Reading 1

As I mentioned I would be taking the Free On-Line Street Photography Class along with everyone else and that I would post notes. Here is the first installment.

• Part-1.1 – Howard Becker: Introduction to Visual Sociology

Graffiti

Graffiti

The paper explains the importance and relevance of Sociology and Photography in the early years and how in many ways they are the same, or at least, chasing the same goals. This leads to the importance of ‘candid’ photography or what we call ‘Classic Street Photography’. I feel it’s important to both gaining an understanding of Street Photography but also to explaining or defining What Street Photography is. There is more on this in the Required Reading Part-1.2.

Two important paragraphs and a great lesson stand out for me that should make you think, and hopefully help you change your ways.

“Laymen learn to read photographs the way they do headlines, skipping over them quickly to get the gist of what is being said. Photographers, on the other hand, study them with the care and attention to detail one might give to a difficult scientific paper or a complicated poem. Every part of the photographic image carries some information that contributes to its total statement; the viewer’s responsibility is to see, in the most literal way, everything that is there and respond to it.”

I think that when Becker says “Photographers, on the other hand” he is referring to accomplished or at least somewhat photographically educated photographers. Most new photographers have neither the knowledge, understanding, the eye for, nor the developed photographic language to notice the subtle nuances and statements that can be found within an image. But, don’t let that deter you. This stuff can all be taught, and learned, an Becker even gives the reader a valuable exercise.

“Using a watch with a second hand, look at the photograph intently for two minutes. Don’t stare and thus stop looking; look actively. It will be hard to do, and you’ll find it useful to take up the time by naming everything in the picture to yourself: this is a man, this is his arm, this is the finger on his hand, this is the shadow his hand makes, this is the cloth of his sleeve, and so on. Once you have done this for two minutes, build it up to five, following the naming of things with a period of fantasy, telling yourself a story about the people and things in the picture. The story needn’t be true; it’s just a device for externalizing and making clear to yourself the emotion and mood the picture has evoked, both part of its statement.”

I highly recommend you try the exercise to help train your eye and your mind to better read images and to help develop the language of photography. Judges and Critics do this, not as an exercise but merely from looking at images over and over many times for many years. Unfortunately, many do not learn to really look at them and thus are not better than those that merely read headlines.

“When you have done this exercise many times, a more careful way of looking will become habitual. Two things result. You will realize that ordinarily you have not consciously seen most of what is in an image even though you have been responding to it You will also find that you can now remember the photographs you have studied much as you can remember a book you have taken careful notes on. They become part of a mental collection available for further work.”

It’s that ‘mental collection’ that becomes a valuable tool for your art or photography. Keep learning, looking, and shooting!

Please know that I am always open to discussion, comments, and corrections. I’m not the expert. I work hard at learning as much as I can and at growing as a Street Photographer. Tell me I’m wrong! But please tell me why you think I’m wrong. I encourage you to share your thoughts, ideas, and concerns on this blog.

Want to share relevant images? Please share with us at our Facebook Group “Streets I Have Walked”.

All Class Notes (as I post them) can be found in the respective Free On-Line Street Photography Class pages.

%d bloggers like this: