Archive for category Something Extra

The Perceived Center. Where is it?

Soft Solution © Knut Skjærven

Soft Solution © Knut Skjærven

Don’t believe those who say that your school days are over. Every time you reach a corner there is another one in sight. And so it continues it seems.

I think you know about my enthusiasm for Rudolf Arnheim by now. If for no other reasons that he challenged more traditional ways of seeing. Not that he changes what is “out there”, but he names it in new ways. It is like seeing the elephants for the first time. You have always known they are there somewhere, but you really never took the time to take a closer look.

So I picked up another book that turned out to be of a great interest. About 10 days ago and the last copy in the shop.

It is about centers, and carries the title: The Power Of The Center. A Study Of Composition In The Visual Arts. (University Of California Press, 2009).

I have know Arnheim since I was a student back in ancient times because his book on film was obligatory reading. One of the very few that dealt with film at all. And, yes there  was Kracauer with his “redemption of physical reality”. I leave him for another good day. I am sure there is potential for street photography in him too.

A Study Of Composition In The Visual Arts. I has a length I can handle. I can’t stand blockbusters. Not in any form.

Written by Rudolf Arnheim in 1988.

He says in the first sentence: This book has been entirely rewritten. That is the second time I read that in the introduction to one of his books. It is a good thing that Arnheim went to the school of eternal learning too.

This book is going to be very useful. I can sense that, but it is not easy reading. And is has to be adapted to the area of street photography. One piece at the time.

Let’s start with the center. That which is always there in any photograph.

There are, in fact, two centers. Those are a) the geometrical center, and b) the perceptually inferred center. Let’s call the last for The Perceived Center.

If you want to find the geometrical centre you simple measure it out. The geometrical center is in the very middle of a frame. In the picture above/below you have it somewhere right above the shoulder bag on its right hand side. Measure it out if you want to. Somewhere around there.

What about The Perceived Center? Where is that in this photograph? I wonder, as you might too. That is what we have to work with to find out. Not only in this photograph, but in all photographs. It is The Perceived Center that is the visual power point, so to speak. Not the geometrical center. You feel it more than you see it.

It is The Perceived Center that an image balance against. It is the true turning point.

I am not going to give you the answer since I have not got it. I am not sure there is only one. But I can ask questions as a starter. That is what this post is all about: Questions.

Is The Perceived Center one of the photographs hanging on the wall? The one the lady looks at? Or somewhere around there. Or it is somewhere entirely different?

I don’t have the answer, but one thing I am sure of: The Perceived Center is driven by a combination of multiple forces: borders, light and shadows, sizes of objects and people, lines and movement, tones of black and white or colour, and plenty other things in any photograph. It can hardly be measured. Only legitimised by argument or vision or both. It is dynamic and might even move around.

Your turn now. Think about it a least.

© Knut Skjærven. Text and picture.

October 8, 2013


Push And Pull Street Photography

At The Waterfront © Knut Skjærven

At The Waterfront (PULL) © Knut Skjærven

I am sure you know the difference.  Maybe you have an attitude to it as well.

You either push your way or you pull your way. The two terms are normally used in marketing where you talk about a push or a pull strategy.

When you push you push and when you pull you pull. Easy as that. You can push someone out the door or you can pull someone into your house.

We want to use the two expressions in street photography and talk about push street photography and pull street photography. Or for short just PUSH and PULL.

The difference is a question of attitude.  Some say respect as well.

Of course you can do combinations of the two but as attitudes often are integrated on a personal level, you seldom do. You either do one or the other.

What do PUSH and PULL mean in terms of street photography?

When you do pull street photography you wait for a situation to unfold and thereby let the scene come to you.  Pull photography is descriptive street photography. Standing on a corner and with you camera observing people coming and going is pull street photography.

When you do push street photography you push your way around and with your interaction you create the scene you shoot. The situation does not come to you. You make it. Jumping from behind a phone booth or from behind a corner sticking your camera in the face of somebody is push photography. In the worst of cases it is harassment of your fellow men and you could get in serious trouble for it.

Your choice really.

The photo above is an example of pull street photography. No interaction.

Terms to remember: push street photography or simply PUSH, and pull street photography or simply PULL.

August 13, 2013.
© Knut Skjærven. All right reserved.

, , ,


Then Go Strain Yourself

Defactor On The Beach © Knut Skjærven

Defactor On The Beach © Knut Skjærven

One point comes with a special interest. It goes like this:

Gestalt psychology is a descriptive discipline. Hypotheses are backed by clinical tests and backed by simple common sense. It describes the way of the world and gives good explanations of how people perceive visual stimuli.

Yes, an understanding of what gestalt factors are, how and why they work is imperative knowledge for people who deals with visual communication. Like photographers. Like street photographers.

But gestalt factors are tools. No more no less. They are not end results. It is up to the individual photographer to understand and use these tools.

Tools in themselves have no value unless you put them to clever use.  The factor of proximity, the factor of similarity, the other factors point to roads of creativity but are no end destinations.

Learning about gestalt factors in street photography gives extra benefits because once you know how perception works, you are in a position to create visual tension by going against the factors.

Every gestalt factor has its tension mode. The tension mode of proximity is non proximity; the tension mode of similarity is non similarity; the tension mode common fate is non common fate, and so on.

However, you will never know what tension mode is before you understand what the non tension mode is. You need to know the way of the world before you start to stain it (create tension).

Creating itching images is not always best served by plainly following gestalt factors. In some cases you get better off by straining the way of the world. By doing this you defactor.

The expression gestalt vision covers both these approaches. Both the tension mode and its opposite. Both the gestalt factors and the way to strain them by defactoring.

What does a defactored photograph look like then? Translated to the world of street photography? As there are many gestalt factors defactors can have many variants. Let me suggest a few.

In proximity introduce non proximity; in similarity introduce non similarity; in common fate introduce non common fate; in closure introduce non closure. I already suggested this.

All of this is pretty easy because all of us do defactored images all the time. They are often more easily taken than factored images.

This being so why all this fuzz about it?  Why mention it as all? For the same reason I mention gestalt factors. Setting words to things sharpen our senses. You cannot see things that have no meaning. Things that have no names have no meaning. That’s why.

Look at the photo above. It is there to make a point: There are two sets of similarities in the photograph. The first one is the sand. The second one is the chairs. You can strain both by, so to speak, breaking the visual waves, and introducing, as in this case, a human being.

It is not a question of which photo is better: the strained one or the non strained one without the woman (you have to imagine this). The matter of the fact is that the two are different. In stead of one tool you have been given two.

Think about it. Then go strain yourself.

© Knut Skjærven. All rights reserved. Text and photo.

Copenhagen, July 11, 2013.

, , ,

Leave a comment

How To Practise Gestalt Vision

Subdivision © Kniut Skjærven

Factor Scene © Knut Skjærven

One of the pillars of Street Photographer’s Toolbox is gestalt psychology.  Developing gestalt vision is one of the important ambitions.

Why is developing gestalt vision so important? The answer is very simple: Because gestalt vision covers both innate perception and opens up for perceptions based on your private experience and knowledge. It combines the two.

Innate perception is the type of perception that goes on without you knowing it. It is one of the basic ways we as human beings operate in the visual world.. Knowing about gestalt vision is an immense resource for any kind of visual communication. Thus for photography in general and street photography in particular.

Getting intimate with gestalt vision and learning to use it in street photography require two things:

1) You need to know the factors of gestalt vision, and

2) You definitely need to practise  the factors of gestalt vision.

Don’t under estimate any of the two.

If you get it right you will have a resource for photography/street photography for the rest of your life. After a while you will see that the new knowledge and practice hook up in you spine and start to operate as second nature without you having to bother much about it. The factors work for you on their own. You will recognise factor scenes when you are out doing photography. And you will take the shots.

What are the factors you need to know?

Having been mentioned on this site many times already, let me just list the names: 1) Factor of Proximity; 2) Factor of Similarity; 3) Factor of Common Fate; 4) Factor of Direction; 5) Factor of Good Curve; 6) Factor of Closure; and 7) Factor of Past Experience or Habit. These are the 7 you need to know. They all derive from a ground breaking article written by Max Wertheimer published in 1923.

Yes, in (street) photography we are all way behind in this matter.

Knowing names is one thing, learning to use factors is a very different thing. There is only one way to learn to use the factors and that is practise, practise, practise. Without practise  you will think that gestalt vision is just another bright idea. Think that and factors will never do you any good. So do as Karate Kid and start waxing over and over and over. There is no other way to get it and get better at it.

Here are some advice 0n how to practise gestalt vision.

1) Focus on one factor at the time

Take a day off and use that day ONLY to shoot grouping by proximity. Forget all the rest and make sure that you build you groups by proximity. Proximity means close together.

Comment on photo above: This photo is all about showing how proximity gives meaning. Yes, there are also other factor at work but you need to forget them. Proximity dominates.

2) Practise in the sequence indicted above.  Meaning, start with 1 and work you way to 7 

The simple reason for this is that it is much easier to deal with proximity and similarity as starters as the other way around. Proximity first and habit last.

Comment on photo above: Yes, I have taken the medicine and have started with 1) Factor of Proximity  as my first training task.

3) Remember it is all about grouping

Gestalt vision is about how we perceptually shortcut ways of understanding to make it faster and operational. Proximity is not about placing a single object/subject  in each corner of a frame. A group of one is no group at all.

Comment on photo above: When you have more than one you have a potential group. This image contains two groups of people. The one is sitting, the other one is dancing.

4) Simple is super

Get rid of all disturbing messages in your photograph. It should not be necessary to explain what you have done. People should feel the impact of it. In a training session make all as simple as you possibly can. After that, continue with simple.

Comment on photo above: I have tried to get rid of access information as much as possible. The image is relatively clean.

5) Size matter

Yes, size matters. Not all content in a photograph comes with the same strength and value. Size is one of the parameters you need to get the grip on. You need to learn to mentally filter a scene  for what is visually important and what is not.

Comment on photo above: Yes, there is a third couple in this image. They are sitting down and you see their legs in the upper left corner. They don’t have an immediate value in this shot, so in a training session we decide to overlook them.

6) Don’t tell, show

After you have shot a photo take a really good look at it. Does it work, does it not work? You are the first to know. If you have to start explaining what you have done you could be in trouble because people may not agree with you or even understand what you say. Don’t tell. Show.

Comment on photo above: I hope that the two group are visible to most.

7) Two to tango

Remember that you are the artist.

But there is a second artist who is as important. That is your viewer. There are no final truths about visual content and meaning in a photograph. But that is not the same as saying that all photographs are visually as well handled as others. Beauty, if that is what you are after, is not in the eye of the beholder. But the beholder is a main influencer. That is, however,  a major difference.

Comment on photo above: Yes, it takes two to tango.

8) Get itchy

The first step in acquiring gestalt vision is to make concept shots. Dealing with proximity in a training session is first and foremost about shooting concept shots. Concept shots are about getting the concept right. Once you are on top of the concept, and others agree with you, then start to get itchy. Getting itchy means that you within a concept, or combining concepts, move  from the ordinary to the extraordinary.

How you do this is for you to decide. It will normally be pretty recognisable if you succeed or not.

Comment on photo above: Well, this is a training session so this shot will have to do :-).

9) Mediocracy and indifference is not the way

Street photography, as any other type of photography, treated with a serious ambitions will not work if you are not properly dedicated.  Work up a passion or just leave the area for another where you can maybe can work up a passion. If you don’t do your very best somone else will and you will be left in the dark.

Mediocracy and indifference is not the way.

Comment on photo above: Well, we all have to do our best :-). 

That’s all folks. Good luck with it. Now go and get the wax :-). Good day to you all.

© Knut Skjærven. All rights reserved. Text and photo.

Copenhagen, July 10, 2013.

Leave a comment

The Difference Of Difference

The Difference © Knut Skjærven

The Difference © Knut Skjærven

There is always a difference. There has to be.

Not only is it founded in many human beings that they want to make a difference in their lives.

Even in a much more basic way there needs to be a difference.  A black panther with his eyes shut cannot be seen in a black tunnel, nor can a blue butterfly against a similar blue sky.

In photography the difference of light is paramount since it makes things be seen at all. So in street photography. Rudolf Arnheim, has an expression that I quite enjoy. He says: “Similarity is the prerequisite for the noticing of differences”. So very true, and that is why we are going to use it here. In a special way.

Two of the main themes (but not the only ones) in this toolbox is what we call Itching Images and Gestalt Factors. They link together by the fact that a few gestalt factors feed and provide a larger number of Itching Models. So it seems.

What are the gestalt factors? They are proximity, similarity, common fate, direction, good curve, closure, and past experience. These are the ones that we have chosen to deal with.

We can now ask some very simple questions. What is the main difference of each gestalt factor? What is that which makes it stand out and able to be seen at all. Let’s go for a special type of difference: the opposite, the negation, of each factor.

Meaning what?

Meaning this: the opposite of proximity is non proximity; the opposite of similarity is non similarity; the opposite of common fate is non common fate, the opposite of direction is non direction, the opposite of good curve is non good curve; the opposite of past experience is non past experience. The opposite of closure is non closure. Right?

Let’s have these poles as a framework and not decide if the framework if of use for photography/street photography yet.

The reason why I tend to think that it might be helpful is that complying with gestalt factors alone takes you nowhere. It is only the beginning of the road. Gestalt factors is a way to understand how innate groupings take place. How innate perceptions take place. Only building on top of that might render good photography. Such an on top of that might be using the opposite pole of a factor in photography. In a context of similarity you introduce non similarity, you introduce non proximity, etcetera.

Let’s face is: In a photograph where everything is similar you might end up being very bored. Taken to extreme you are looking at a black panther in a black tunnel. Eyes shot. Or a blue butterfly agains a blue sky. You will hardly see it. Introducing a difference might not only be good for creativity but for seeing something at all.

Don’t do anything about it yet. But do think about it.

It might be that the difference of difference is what really will make a difference. In your street photography.

Good luck with it.

© Knut Skjærven. All rights reserved. Text and photo.

Copenhagen, June 6, 2013.

This post is in category Something Extra.



The Weight Of A Songbird

The Chat Room © Knut Skjærven

The Chat Room © Knut Skjærven

Balance is nice, but non balance can be ever better. If non balance is the right word for it.

When you know balance you can start experimenting with non balance. Thereby you strain both the image and the viewer. Strain are for questions and telling stories where the ending is not obvious. Often it will hang in the air for all to speculate about. It creates tension.

I am not saying that non balance is the main road in all matters, but it certainly works in some cases. When I look at this image I don’t have the feeling that the whole thing is going to tip to the rights because of the visual overweigh. Perceptually that seemingly overweight on the right side is compensated, or if you wish counterbalanced, by the tiny songbird in the slim frame on the left side. And the almost empty space beneath it.

Who is to determinate if a photograph is in balance or not? Who is to calculate the weight of a songbird in a visual gage? There is only one to do it. You may know him or her. I am sure of it.

Good luck with experimenting with non balance. If that is the right word for it?

© Knut Skjærven. All rights reserved. Text and photo.

Copenhagen, June 4, 2013.

This post is in category Something Extra.

, , , ,

Leave a comment

What’s In A KISS

The Kiss © Knut Skjærven

The Kiss © Knut Skjærven

What’s in a KISS. Definitely quite a lot. Why would people go on talking about it and always return to it. Seems it has been around for a long time.

KISS is an abbreviation for Keep It Simple Stupid. More politely you phrase it KIS: Keep It Simple. Without the stupidity attached. Both ways will work, I am sure. But KISS gives better recall than KIS.

KISS is one of the basic recommendations for human communication. Being it textual communication, visual communication or any other form.

It works particularly well for photography. Even if each picture, they say, speaks a thousand words, these words are soon forgotten. If they are detected at all. You know how it is with reading: some do, some don’t. Reading visuals is no exception to this.

KISS is at the heart of gestalt psychology in that if you don’t communicate with simplicity, people will simple miss it.  Simple as that. People scan information for what is a sufficient level of understanding. No more is needed. Then on to the next piece of information.

As you never get a second chance to give a first impression, you better be careful. Your fine street work will sooner be forgotten than remembered.

Advertising research and marketing people say the same: Keep It Simple Stupid. In their book: Persuasion in Marketing, Horace S. Schwerin and Henry H. Newell states among their seven fundamentals three that are of particular concern here: One Unified Impression, Dominant Mood, and The Simple Truth.

Not that what are musts in advertising should blindly be applied to street photography. But if communication is at stake there are lessons to be learned. Yet another tool for the toolbox, which means that you use it when it is due. It needs to be there though.

In street photography KISS has to do what with what is in your picture, how well you control background and foreground, economising with content in general, camera setting, and of course how and what you render in your work, and how well you do it.

These are obvious things when you speak them like here, but not so obvious when you try to do them.

Good luck with keeping it simple :-).

© Knut Skjærven. All rights reserved. Text and photo.

Copenhagen, May 26, 2013.

, , , , ,

Leave a comment

Note On Blending, Figure and Ground

Female Smoker © Knut Skjærven

Female Smoker © Knut Skjærven

Looking at this shot I was reminded of that even if there can be a lot of information in a single photograph, not all of it is perceived with the same ease and clarity.

How is it possible to explain that? Let me try:

I was lucky yesterday. I was in just for browsing the shelves in a local bookstore when I fell over a book that I did not know existed. But the title triggered me: Perception and Imaging. Particularly as the subtitle was Photography – A Way of Seeing. Author Richard D. Zakia.

There was even a chapter on gestalt reading of photography, so I adopted the book on the spot. It has some very good points, but in its treatment of gestalt psychology it is not nearly as ambitious as we are here. It only deals with proximity, similarity, continuity and closure. It leaves out the rest of the gestalt factors, and other major points as well. But it holds plenty of good ideas. Some of them I will put to use right here. Right now.

One small chapter deals with camouflage.

One way of camouflaging an object/subject is to blend it with the surroundings; another way is to simply hide the object/subject from direct view; and a third way is to simply deceive the viewer, meaning that you arrange an object so it looks like something that it is not.

Blending is a good term, I thought, and it is relevant for the image above in which blending occurs. It is a blended photo, and that could perceptually get me into trouble. And the viewers too.

Blending occur when two or more visual “ideas” mixes, when it is not really clear what is figure and what is ground.

Figure-ground in another important aspect within visual communication that should be applied to street photography. Figure is that on which you have your attention. The rest is ground. As attention can shift even within a single photograph, so can ground.

Back to the photo above: I was there so I know what I had as figure when I shot it: the female smoker was what I wanted to picture. When your focus is on her, the rest of the picture is ground. Both when you take the picture as a photographer, and when you, or anyone else, views it later.

The photographer’s intention does not necessarily transfer to viewer. In fact is never does. But you can come close. In this shot I tried to make a visual opening, an entrance for the smoking female. Does it work? Maybe people see something else, maybe folks see only blend, maybe some see very little at all. A mess, maybe.

I am not saying blending is always bad. What I am saying, is that if the smoking female was indeed the intended figure of this shot, then blending could be less than good.

So I needed to remind myself of this: the importance of being visually precise; the importance of be cautious with ground when what you really want is figure; the importance of trying to control unwanted blending.

Does this photo work? I will leave it to you to answer that. I already have an opinion :-).

Good luck with it.

© Knut Skjærven. All rights reserved. Text and photo.

Copenhagen, May 24, 2013.

, , ,


Itching Images: Workshop Shortcuts

Riverside © Knut Skjærven

Riverside © Knut Skjærven

Itching Images:

Workshop Shortcuts


Ideas don’t necessarily emerge in a correct sequential order. More often they just arrive and you have to arrange them along the way.  Or afterwards.

Those going to the workshop in Berlin are already deeply involved in dealing with the gestalt factors described elsewhere on Street Photographer’s Toolbox. You’ll find links in the blogroll.

The relatively few gestalt factors like proximity, similarity, closure and others, feed a much larger number of Itching Models in street photography.

It is my suggestion, that gestalt factors have instinctively been used by Henri Cartier-Bresson, Ronis, Frank, Erwitt, and plenty of others that we know from early and contemporary street photography.

That is the hypothesis.

What can executions of gestalt factors in street photography look like if you want to try it out for yourself? I have tried to indicate that in a series of posts called Itching Images.

All posts are accompanied by a concept or demo photograph that hopefully helps explain the itching idea.

It is imperative to remember, by the way, that good street photography does not come from following schemes. But it sometimes helps to know which shoes to wear for which landscapes.

You ALWAYS have to add a portion of talent. And stamina.

This document is simply a shortcut to those posts accompanied by a very brief description, and sometimes explanation, of the names I use for the itching models. Not all names explain themselves.

This post is a Workshop Special, but others are welcome to read along as well. And try the way on their own.

Here comes the list and the shortcuts. Welcome and good luck.

Actor’s Studio

Any scene in which the position of people seems so precise that they could well have been placed there by a film director for a movie.

Actor’s Studio is the name of maybe most famous “drama school” in the world. Located in New York.


Any scene that contains, not only different subjects or objects, but subjects or objects that are poles or in opposition to each other.

In the shot used you have man/woman, younger/older, and living/non-living art objects as the set of poles.

People, in some situations, are of no less artistic value than more traditional pieces of art.

Decisive Moment (Simple)

Any scene that contains a decisive moment.

In this shot, it is the young lady who is captured in such a decisive moment. She is in mid air.

Decisive Moment (Complex)

Any scene that contains several decisive moments individually established.

In this shot there are many: the guy in the foreground, the laying couple, the male face on the boat, the sitting dog. In their own right they are all caught in decisive moments.

Final Cut

Any scene in which you can enhance the message by making a final cut.

In this context, a final cut means a tight crop that stresses the already dynamic content of a photograph.

Good Genes

Any scene in which a simplicity, harmony and symmetry is significant.

In the study of people, such traits are some times associated with beauty and having “good genes”.

Jam Session

Any scene in which you combine a larger number of separate, visual parts that seemingly has nothing to do with each other.

After a while you recognise that it all fits together.


Any scene in which two or more people or objects are placed close together in a contrasting way to make a distinct visual impression.

Close to, or even the same as contraposition. See above.

Lady In Red

Any scene in which one or more colours are used as a creative and distinctive mean in the making of a photograph.

The colour stressed in this photo is, obviously, red.

Little Boxes

Any scene in which the composition basically consist of a pattern of squares and rectangles.

If you look closely at this photograph you will recognise the pattern.

Lost Expectations

Any scene in which there is a substitution of one object/subject for another and very different item often causing a humorous result.

In this shot the contrabass is a substitute for a man.

Love Is In The Air

Any scene that has affection, or romance, portrayed in a somewhat distinctive and different way.

The itching element in this shot is that the young lady has a heart on her blouse.

Odd Man Out

Any scene in which one or few persons or objects breaks a pattern by a different way of acting.

The first guy in the row has clearly spotted this photographer, and he breaks the pattern made by the others.

Plane Integration

Any scene where two or different planes plays together in at somewhat, and sometimes, humorous way.

Planes are defines as different grounds in the image e.g. foreground, middle ground, or background.

Rhythm & Blues

Any scene in which a strong visual rhythm is broken by one or a few visually distinct distractions. Like, for instance, one or more human beings.

The lady is obviously the blues element in this shot of somewhat uniform rhythm.

Saturday Night Fever

Any scene in which there are impressions of life, movement, possible romance. Like in a party Saturday night.

In this shot it is expressed by the movement, interaction and the presence of people.

Soft Solution

Any scene in which items are deliberately blurred or softened to gain a special visual effect.

This example is not available at the moment. Try later.

Strange Encounter

Any scene in which persons engage in a visually distinct encounter. Like, for instance, by having a strange body position.

Reference is to the two persons in the staircase.

Sudden Surprise

Any scene in which one of more people are caught by surprise and that surprise are visually distinct.

Reference is to the two kids at the end of the alley.

Two Of A Kind (Complex)

Any scene in which two or more groups of people or other objects/subjects are distinctive shown. Three Of Kind, Four Of A Kind, are also included here.

This example is not available at the moment. Try later.

What Is Not There

Any scene where something needs to be consciously or unconsciously added by the spectator.

In this shot, the heads and the feet of the two involved are obviously missing.

Writing On The Wall

Any scene in which there, in addition to people, is a readable text and that text reflects on the scene involved.

Here the reference is to the HCB quote on the wall. It reads: “Photografie, das ist nichts. Was mich einzig interessiert, ist das Leben.”

Now we know :-).

Oh, one last thing. This lists may change over time. Some Itching Models may go. Others may come. After all, operating in the real world is a process of constant trial and error.

Thank you for having spent time on this post. Have a good day.

© Knut Skjærven. All rights reserved. Text and photo.

Please, you should not copy, distribute, download, or in any other way use of distribute this post and the content of it unless you have a written permission by the site author to do so. However, you are welcome to SHARE the link.

Copenhagen, May 21, 2013.



Do You Know This Little Guy?

Duck-Rabbit Illusion

Duck-Rabbit Illusion

This Monday morning: Do you know this little fella? Yes or no,  just to be on the safe side click the image and see where it takes you.

Don’t hesitate to discuss it either.  Might be of greater importance to your street photography, than you think.

Good luck with it. Have a very good day.

, ,

Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: