Daily Inspiration #487 By Brigitte Hauser

Hello Brandon and Steve

Street photography in Paris (Belleville)

By Brigitte Hauser

My Name is Brigitte. I come from Switzerland. Recently I was in Paris in a part of town called Belleville in the northeast of the city . Belleville is a very vivid and busy part of Paris with lots of immigrants. On a walk there I tried to shoot some candid street photos with my Sony RX1, which I love. Hope you enjoy them. You choose what you want. Thanks a lot.


Best regards







Related Post

Share This!

42 thoughts on “Daily Inspiration #487 By Brigitte Hauser

  1. The pp is an acquired taste and comes across ‘cartoonish’ except the black & white shot. This looks intentional and suits Brigitte’s taste. Nothing wrong with that. And yes, to me the priest looks like a walking corpse with a smile ( current state of the catholic church?).

      1. Wow, people take the time to give their criticisms and suggestions and there you are ready to label them as “rude” for doing just that.

        Your advice to “not listen to the naysayers” is about as silly as it gets; of course Brigitte wants to hear the range of cc. How else do we learn if anything and everything wins the prize of uncritical acclamation?

        Very soon such acclamation becomes devalued and utterly meaningless.

        Be grateful a “tough crowd” cares enough to speak out.

        1. Taking the time to give constructive criticism is one thing, being obnoxious and rude is another.No need for narrow minded ignorant criticism.The only thing silly is folks coming in here acting like the only way to photograph or PP is their way or the highway.Maybe some (not all) should show a little more courtesy and compassion towards others in these sites who aren’t quite as superior at the trade.Then again, maybe all these know it alls , are just that.

          1. Right on WC. I guess James took my comments personally. There are some nice critiques on here and several not so pleasant comments that stray outside the lines of constructive.

          2. No, I didn’t take your comments personally, Chad, so your guess is 100% wrong. Why would I, I and the other commenters have not been “rude”.

            Then there is, “their way or the highway”. Oh really? Many’s the time we have seen excellent new and different work here, nothing of “my” way or “their” way, but excellent work.
            What a cheap way to try to wriggle out of your censorious manner.

            WC then magnifies the nonsense into both “obnoxious and rude”. How about that. Soon he’ll run out of cataclysmic descriptors as he misrepresents everyday cc. “Know it alls” is thrown in as a piece of schoolyard cheek, together with some very patronising “courtesy and compassion”.

            That last piece of advice sounds as if the likes of Brigitte must be treated as if their work is of such low standard that “compassion” is needed. Good grief, just who is the arch critic?!

          3. I’m not suggesting we all sing Kum bay yah and pat each other on the backs, I’m simply advocating for some politeness when delivering a critique. Looking over the comments I see little of it. If you want to rail against that simple notion, please go ahead and continue.

          4. To be honest, if you’re brave enough to post on here for all to see then be prepared to face anything and everything and take it on the chin with a stiff upper lip.

          5. Maybe, but that sounds like a thin excuse to accept or even embrace rudeness. Like you Ibraar, I have had several posts here on Steve’s site and yes, I take it on the chin but that doesn’t mean I accept the poor behavior when it is displayed.

            Sorry if I come off as a net nanny but I have a low tolerance for ill will or misplaced superiority, masquerading as critique.

          6. Chad does not seem to have a “low tolerance” for himself inventing “ill will” and “misplaced superiority”, though and then ascribing such qualities to others. Shameful.

            Then we have him proclaiming that others may “rail against politeness”, as if that somehow confirms impoliteness existed and others would actually encourage it.

            See if you can tidy up a bit, no, a lot, Chad, and practise what you “advocate”.

          7. James, you can go on and on all you want. We disagree on one simple point. I (and others) think that a couple of the comments were rude and not constructive – as in to build up, not tear down.

            You seem to have an agenda that supports criticism. I fully agree with you and don’t believe it should be high fives and fist bumps all around. See, we agree on the big issue.

            But for whatever reason, you don’t think any of the posts here are rude, so myself and a couple of other commenters must be completely out of bounds. I apologize for offending your standard.

        2. Easy there James. Take a moment and read through the comments. Some are clearly rude, others constructive.

          I’m not going to speak for Brigitte but in my own work, I create my signature based on my taste, not on the critique of “experts” on this site. So yes, disregard the naysayers if you have the personal confidence in your vision. If you are still experimenting and open to direction from others then critiques should ideally come in the form of polite and constructive ones. Clearly that doesn’t always happen on the web and the negativity is more a sad reflection of the personalities behind the keyboard than an indicator of their expertise.

          Sometimes, no comment is just as powerful as a negative one, and much more kind.

  2. Thanks a lot for all your feedbacks. My aim with PP in LR was to give some glamour to these every day’s heroes of Belleville. Of course PP is a matter of taste and can polarize:-)

    1. Well and graciously expressed!
      Even though I am one of the people here who don’t care for the PP, I sense that you made your production choices consciously, and to please yourself.

      It seems to me that that is all we can do: follow our own esthetic tastes, and see where they lead us over time.

      Brigitte, I hope you keep making images that please yourself. I predict that the more you pursue photography, the more your tastes will evolve and be refined — the same as anyone who applies themselves to something they enjoy.

  3. To me they just don’t look like photographs. They are not pleasant to look at, as I cannot imagine in real life the scenes would have appeared this way. Although it’s my own personal view, PP should be used to take the scene from what the camera saw to what you saw.

  4. Hi Brigitte,

    Lovely photos. Don’t listen to the naysayers on your processing technique. Make it your own.

    If these had been labelled as coming from a film camera the comment section would be filled with bravos.


    1. If it comes from a film camera, seriously have you ever shot with film, portra, superia, tri-x, hp5, delta. This is simply digital images shot on a CMOS sensor camera which have come out lacking (not Brigittes fault) and tried to appeal by adding a HDR filter. Unfortunately it seems to be common on these daily inspirations (again not the photographers fault) but these overrated digital cameras.

      1. umm, yes. And lots of it. My film to digital camera ratio is 5:1

        The RX1 sensor is in no way lacking in latitude with something like 14 stops of dynamic range – comparing favorably to most films. The reason some of these effects seem startling is that we are seeing more range in the images than we traditionally have with digital sensors. The malleability is truly excellent.

        This look is not for everyone but I can tell you that it is likely not a simple one button push “HDR” filter effect like some here have insinuated. If anything, the desaturation is impacting more than the latitude of the files.

    2. I agree Chad, I bet everyone of these perfect critics all have wives that look exactly the same.Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, Brigitte has her style, which isn’t everyones, but its hers and that is all that matters.Constructive criticism is always excepted, but narrow minded comments are not necessary.Keep up the good work Brigitte, photography should be fun, not so stereotyped.

  5. I agree with the rest, but at the same time I understand the urge to push the clarity slider all the way to the right. It is a nice effect, but it rarely works for people photos. I did the same when I first began processing.

  6. I’m not sure who’s been inspired, but the in-your-face PP is distracting and counts me out.

    (I note others have hinted at this; therein lies a problem, to accept anything in order to be “nice” with the inevitable “thanks for sharing” mantra, or risk being attacked for daring to express a less than favourable opinion and point out shortcomings.

    Otherwise, all shots are glorious, of equal merit, and it’s impossible to take a rotten one.

    No doubt some contributors do appreciate receiving honest, in good faith, opinions and don’t necessarily expect unstinting praise. Good on them. Brigitte may be one of them.)

  7. Love the subjects, but as others pointed out not too keen on the particular type of post processing applied to photos.

  8. I must be totally honest with my response and opinion and trust me I am very critical of my own work and that is probably why I never submit my images. As far as this recent post of images, I just don’t get it, they are being posted………why? Not only random snaps with no real viewer interest but way overdone with post processing. Steve please be a bit more selective on what you publish on your site, these are boring.

  9. Very good composition, however to much of post-processing applied on the output. There’s really no need for that, keep the photos ‘normal’ and natural, they will have a much more impact these days.

    PP filters, de-saturation techniques etc all add impact, but are so last year now and considered more of a hindrance than a benefit.

    Keep up the good work!

  10. Very daring PP. Would be a brutal effort to compile a matching picturesque set of this processing. Your images are more subtle in character.

  11. I also like the photos, but I have to agree with pbass wil: some look a tad too much hdrized.. Grüessli us de Schwiiz ,-)

  12. Seem like very nice shots, but honestly, I’m not crazy about the processing.

    Of course you have to please yourself, and it’s fun to explore the filters that are available today.
    But in a few years we’re all going to be so tired of these looks. So keep your original out-of-camera files! :^)

    1. Sorry to differ pbass, but you must speak for yourself here, We all are not going to be tired of this look. I personally like it and will always like it. Great work Brigitte, I also have the RX1 and love it to death. Its nice to see how others use it and their prefered style.

    2. I tend to agree with you, while great shots, the post processing is a let down.
      Typical ‘filterised’ photos, slightly overcooked, and overly desaturated.

    3. Have to agree, it seems everyone is trying to emulate the M9, M8 Summilux look it does not work very well in post processing. The CCD sensor renders differently than the CMOS sensor even M240 users over pp trying to get this look.

    4. Agreed with pbass, go easy on the pp and they’ll be more pleasant to look at. A great photo will always be a great photo regardless of leica look, CCD look, noctilux look whatever…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox

Join other followers: