lewis_lorton1

ditto

<blockquote> <p>Lewis, you missed my point (not surprised). I don't see it coming from the content, rather it feels tacked on to give power artificially.<br> >>> I didn't see anyone actually looking at my work on the link provided and verify that I practice how I talk.<br> Again, how do you know this?</p> </blockquote> <p>Not surprised also that you would root around to find something to criticize. <br> Since your photography isn't bad, I had hoped you were better than that but if this is the kind of antagonism that typifies the way you and the others treat people who don't agree with you, it is not surprising that most of the critiques are you guys giving back rubs to each other.</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>Which is totally fine, but is very inconsistent with your position of objecting to post processing making photos look more important or genuine.</p> </blockquote> <p>Again, as I said before (see quote below) , I have no problem with the amount of the editing or the intent but only that the PPing be consistent and spring from the content rather than be essentially arbitrary.</p> <blockquote> <p>I am not against processing of any sort that supports the meaning but I have seen too many photos that are truly unexceptional and meaningless just beaten to death with post-processing and presented as 'street photos.'</p> </blockquote> <p>That you thought my pictures overworked is a matter of taste but my choice of 'work', of editing, springs from the content. <br> Again, I can't imagine that this issue has more to be chewed over than has been done already. </p> <p> </p>

<p>It seems that people write a lot more willingly than they read.</p> <blockquote> <p><br />"What I get from this is it seems Lewis is fine with sharing his beliefs, but is not very interested in hearing what others have to say about their views and approach to street shooting. To the point where it looks like he again feels insulted and needs to bail as a result. Too bad, because from checking out his website he has some really good photos - I was hoping he'd stick around.<br /><br />I'm sure I've missed some nuance, but for me my take-away is a shrug and a big oh well..."</p> </blockquote> <p>I wasn't insulted, I quickly realized that this wasn't a discussion so much as a chance for others to wax generously - and off topic - about themselves and it was a waste of time for me because I didn't hear anything that made me think my philosophy should be changed. (I did appreciate the link to Moriyama's work.)<br> I stated the way I worked and then it became a discussion where people wanted to make me back off those points - or took offense because I didn't choose either to work or like the way they chose for themselves. I said exactly what I think about my own work and the attitude I take to others.<br> Also I said exactly why I wouldn't engage with Lex. He bloviates, takes every position, insults indirectly and actually doesn't respond but just waits for a space so he can start talking again. That's a waste of time for me; he wants attention and space and he can take all he wants without my cooperation. <br> .<br> I stopped engaging with the thread because. altho this is the 'philosophy of photography' forum, when I stated mine, people were insulted that I didn't take care of them by using acceptable words and somehow be polite, cordial and accepting of the entire world. I am unused to being falsely congratulatory and I would rather be known as honest than easy to be around.<br> .<br> But I do want to correct a clear misreading of what I said.</p> <blockquote> <p>like Lewis said here, he really wants and likes a light post processing touch and a "naturalistic" look and his photo looked really far from natural and very over-processed.</p> </blockquote> <p>I did not say I liked a natural approach; my attitude towards post-processing is always that it should spring from the content rather than just be tacked on to make the picture somehow look more important or more genuine.</p> <blockquote> <p><em>I believe that the processing should support the meaning not stand instead of it.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>These Instagram-like pictures may seem attractive at first in the 'oh cool, it looks so old and like film' kind of way, but then looking at the pictures one realizes they are incoherent, there is no connection between the content and the way they are edited. They then become for me, irritating rather than engaging, like seeing breakfast cereal that touts its goodness but is really empty calories.<br> .<br> I did notice that, although a couple of people made the point that it was somehow important that a photographer should walk the walk rather than only talk the talk, I didn't see anyone actually looking at my work on the link provided and verify that I practice how I talk.<em><br /></em><br> .<br> On a more general topic, I find this site rather confusing; the interface really is terrible. Critiquing seems to be at a minimum and the limitations on image size means that beginners, who could use a hard look at the details of their work, can't get it.</p>

<p>I am usually happy to discuss substance and opinions but the tone and manner of these comments are more antagonistic than educational and leads me into an attitude I don't want to take.<br> So you can go on without me as a contributor.</p>

<blockquote> <p>You told us what you think qualifies as "good street photography." Of course nobody goes out to do "bad street photography" but rather than tell us what types of street photos you <em>prefer</em>, you choose to dictate what is "<em>good</em>."</p> </blockquote> <p>So you have decided that because I said 'I think' rather than 'I prefer', that I am 'dictating' what others should think and do? Perhaps you could create a style book on how people can couch their views here in an acceptable, non-threatening, non-upsetting style. <br> Well, I think about my choices and use my decisions to form how I work. I also try to be honest and straightforward and say exactly what I think, rather than use weasel words.</p>

<blockquote> <p>If someone wants or needs to limit how they go about their street shooting photography, either to tighten their vision/focus or to accommodate personal comfort limitations, that's fine and does not bother me at all. <strong>But, like Lex, I take exception when people go further and proclaim their manner of street shooting is somehow better or more pure, especially when it is couched under the guise of trying to protect the genre</strong> (as if it is under attack).</p> </blockquote> <p>Since this quote above is in the thread I started, I assume that 'people' above refers to me.<br> This below is the entirety of what I wrote about what I thought and hold to in street photography. Perhaps you can point out where I said that others should do any different than what they do currently?</p> <blockquote> <p><em>I hold very strongly to the belief that good street photography actually shows something or some moment that the photographer sees and wants to capture. I believe in the 3 Ms - Meaning, Mood and Mystery. I can't help being almost repelled by images that rely only beating up mundane nothing-is-happening images with processing to make them 'street'. </em><br /><em> (I came across someone selling LR presets to make any image look 'street.)</em><br /><em> I believe that the processing should support the meaning not stand instead of it.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>I can say that my beliefs inform how I respond to other photographers' images. On photo.net, although there seems to be a fairly high quality of images, when there are 'critiques' they are usually of the attaboy genre and rather than be the obnoxious new guy, I have chosen most of the time just to ignore pictures where I would say anything negative, unless it is of a strictly technical nature.<em><br /></em></p> <blockquote> <p><em> </em></p> </blockquote>

<p>Totally agree, Michael.<br> Too often I see pictures where the processing totally overshadows the content.<br> That makes my skin crawl.</p>

<p>@brad,</p> <p>Sorry, I must be too sleepy or dense this AM.<br> What chix?</p>

<p>Jochen:<br> Whatever other people define for themselves is ok; for me it is what an Internet friend of mine said:<br> "Street shooting is perhaps the hardest niche of all in photography both to explain and to do successfully. The photographer haunts his chosen environment where, perhaps, nothing is happening - people may be just quietly going about their business - and yet he/she to select tiny moments when an image can be snatched which is more than the sum of its parts - where some fleeting coincidence of expression, gesture, positioning, and movement come together to create an instant which holds some undefinable meaning."<br> I've always liked that and take it as my mantra.</p> <p>@Lex Jenkins<br> I think I won't engage in this discussion with you. You've attempted to foreclose any discussion - and win - by taking a position implying deep experience, proclaiming deep cynicism, being insulting to any other opinion or position in advance by calling them cliches, being faux-humble and then declaring your intent to be snarky.<br> There is no room in there for me to say anything, any opinion I might have having been dismissed already as a cliche, so I won't, except that your allusion to Heisenberg doesn't wash at all.</p> <p>Lew</p>