What is the point....?

<p>Why should you? Sounds like it's beneath you or something. If it is, why come here at all?</p>

<p>Just came back to this. David's statements raise interesting points. Right on for this forum. I don't take it as a troll at all. Sometimes these kind of remarks can sting a little because of a perceived perjorative tone to the statements..but even if some sort of judgementalism is the intent of the OP or others, the remarks still serve a good purpose. Answering those kinds of qustions for ourselves is really a good thing to do on a somewhat regular basis. Asking the questions even more so. That's not to discourage anyone from posting anytime. All of us post crap from time to time, but in the all and all, by looking, learning and questioning yourself, you will see that every one improves to some point over time. Admittidly, I'll say I see a lot of not very good photos here, including mine, but I will say that everyone I've seen here that has stayed with it has improved. Many greatly. As to the idea of editing, maybe it's a good idea, at least in moderation.</p>

<p>

 

<p>John, I live in California and have commitments and family here. If it had been possible, I would certainly have gone to see your show. But I couldn't just drop everything and go while it was still up. Sorry. I'm there next week as planned several months ago.</p>

<p> </p>

 

</p>

<p>One of the reasons I don't post is that I shoot film, I print in a wet darkroom, I spend my photography time shooting and printing. In other words, I don't do digital. There are other reasons why I don't do digital, but that is enough. Perhaps Ray you should reread my threads here from the beginning. I have been trying to help David Bell and others like him.</p>

<p>Sanford, In line.com has some nice work by fairly well known photographers, but looking at so much of anything can even get boring:). For documentary work from "emerging photographers" try the on line "Burn Magazine". Check out Pannos' ongoing series on Venice Beach Calif. Not the touristy stuff most of us get, but from the inside out. This mag is David Alan Havey's baby.</p>

<p>David makes it clear that he not only fails to 'get' the majority of images in this category - he also lives in London, in London yet, and he cannot unlock the key to taking meaningful pictures. He admits this, and expresses the desire that it be otherwise...</p>

<p>I suggest shooting in black & white - whether film or digital - and learn how to exploit the exposure range. A full range of tones gives a photo depth.<br />Then study the geometry of your scene - is there a separation of elements? do you control the lines and borders? Figures and shapes influence emotion.<br />Are you trying to take good photographs? Stop that right now. Instead, take pictures that say something about what you're taking pictures of. Or say something about you. Do a good job, but stop trying to take great photos.<br />Edit your shots like a stranger. Anything personally appealing must be discarded in evaluating your choices. In a good photograph, the drama must exist even if you do not.<br />Try that for a year. Shoot a couple rolls a week. Get back to us.</p>

<p>I find this one of the most interesting threads I have read for a while on the whole of photo.net - someone openly wondering what a branch of photography is all about and having the bottle to express it. I find the range of opinions interesting as much as the content itself and I have to say that I sympathise with David's comments and feel the same way a lot of the time.<br>

What struck me first of all was the idea that David has to post pictures to somehow qualify as a valid critic of the genre. Absolute hogwash! From the OP it seems to me that he has tried so maybe the reason he hasn't posted is because he hasn't produced a picture that he thinks is worth presenting to other people. Other people may well be posting pictures that they <em>know</em> are not top quality but they like to be actively involved in a different way or want suggestions on how to improve. Both views are perfectly valid in my opinion.</p>

<p>One thing I am relieved (!) to read is the low 'hit rate' others have - I have tried to capture street scenes but have the same problem David seems to express. It so rarely works. And part of that is timing - HCB had a particular skill in anticipating what was about to happen so while I would be still raising my camera to my eye, HCB would have been pressing the shutter button. He gets the shot, I miss the split second. My frustration is aggravated by my personal view on what a picture that <em>I make</em> should do - if I need a title acting like a neon sign saying 'this is what the picture is about' then the picture for me has failed. And yet, I enjoy many pictures that are enhanced by having a title doing just that. Go figure. </p>

<p>In many cases I think that most street photographs capture an image that reminds the <em>photographer</em> of what was happening at that time and once the picture is abstracted to a website all context of that moment is lost leaving the photograph and the photograph alone to carry the 'message' (how I hate that word, but I can't think of another one right now). Its like someone telling a fall-flat anecdote and finishing with the words 'you had to be there'.</p>

<p>Thomas Hardy posted a link to the lady wearing a burka and buying cosmetics. In itself the photograph <em>with the title</em> is a great picture. But from the picture <em>by itself</em> I would not have recognised that as being a cosmetics counter and the humour would have been lost. So no, I wouldn't have got it. And even with the title, how many would have 'got it' without John's description of the 'visual oxymoron'? I think John's picture is great but it does encapsulate the problem inherent in street photography - without the 'title' or the preamble, it so often misses the context and it makes it all the harder to find a photo that stands on its own merit.</p>

<p>Do I 'get' street photography? Sometimes. Do I appreciate how damned hard it is? Yes. Do I find it dispiriting? Absolutely. It is so much easier to find a good landscape photograph that makes me (and others) go 'nice' or even 'wow' and give you that warm fuzzy feeling of a job well done. Street photography isn't like that. I fully applaud people with the tenacity to keep at it and the confidence to post the photos they do.</p>

<p>And vive la difference!</p>

<p>Great thread! :o)</p>

<p>I agree with the 'essence' of the originals poster's observations and have often felt the same thing.<br>

What I see is missing from many of the modern attempts at street photography, particularly of the recent post of street photos he referred to, is the sense of composition COMBINED with a compelling moment, a story, captured in a frame. It is composition that frames the moment of the great photographers who rivit our attention and imagination with a single evocative, haunting image.<br /> Even that shot above of the two armed guards lacks all context, subcontext and drama.<br>

I think many of today's 'street' photogs would do well to spend a little more time learning classic composition to which they can apply their photography.<br>

Thanks, Bob</p>

<p>Mike Hitchen,</p>

<p>Your post is balanced and makes a lot sense...except the HCB description. From what I've read and seen in video of the guy, he was <i>constantly</i> shooting, to the point of annoying those he was with. </p>

<p>David, I agree with your observations. <em>Good </em> street photography is <strong>very</strong> difficult. This is why it is so rare. I don't think there is anything that can be done about it except that you should shoot subject matter which is very meaningful to you and try to make the best out of it. Creating something meaningful out of the mundane (people on the streets) is really hard so don't stress too much about the results. I think one way of getting to it would be to get to know people and becoming familiar and "part of the scenery". I know this sort of conflicts with the candidness of the approach but ultimately a more poignant image may result from a situation where you're familiar with the subjects and they're familiar with you, in general. I think the risk of a poorly composed snapshot is great when the subjects don't trust you. And this is what often is displayed as street photography.</p>

<p>One of the reasons why I don't "get" street photography is because I'm almost never on a street like in the photos. That makes it difficult to relate to. Do all of you live within larger cities? Everyone I know lives in the suburbs because we enjoy the space, the lack of noise, etc. Even if there is a downtown we rarely go there.</p>

<p>Walt,</p>

<p>I think you've nailed it. Many thanks!</p>

<p>Good Morning David, <br />WOW, I dont' think I have ever seen such response to a question so quickly...I also have asked that question to myself...I found this link I hope it will at least inspire and help answer in some way your question. Or maybe I am off the ? totally....good luck just the same...It does come from within. Carolyn<br>

<a href="http://www.focusyourvisionfilm.com/">http://www.focusyourvisionfilm.com/</a><br>

PS: I am not promoting this I just think it is a good preview.</p>

<p>I wrote this last fall but never posted it. This, IMO, is a good place to put it as it reflects my somewhat schizoid thinking on the subjet----------------<br>

So after several years of my own photo business I have been an amateur for a while. I got bored the other day and went to the local boardwalk on a sunny day and took a hundred pictures with my wide angle slung around my neck shooting from the waist. I worked for a newspaper for about seven years. I crawled on rooftops, did portraits of perp murderers, did car wrecks, and uncomplimentary pictures of local politicians without qualms(they deserve it). However, after taking my sneaky photos near the beach I felt like a thief in the night. It kind of made my skin crawl. I got a couple of pretty good pictures of unsuspecting women. At least they were technically competent with good exposure, sharpness, no burned out highlights nor blocked up shadows. They were pictures of people who looked unposed and quite comfortable in the own attractive skins. I could not and would not post these or other pictures of unsuspecting people without a release even though one is not required. This is the reason I don't post people that I have photographed for a fee on my PN gallery. However, I have great respect for some of you who do good street work and have seen some very interesting photos on this site like those of Spirer. Photographing public events like SF road races is, in my mind, an entirely different matter. These people are on public display and are aware of that fact. However, personally, I just do not feel comfortable in what I view as an intrusion on the privacy of others who are unaware they are being photographed. No law covers this and I would defend and have defended others right to take these pictures. Individual rights is an important issue with me as we continue to lose personal freedoms. I have deleted all the boardwalk pictures and won't do it again. My personal revulsion at doing this is visceral it is not based upon some self-righteous set of moral convictions. I felt ok with my sneaky newspaper work, however. It would take a psychiatrist to figure that out. I did not know I would feel this way until I went out and tried it again after doing so years ago in foreign countries . So it is not for me. I reiterate I respect anyones right to do it. I will continue to view and respect the good work of others although I see what I consider to be a lot of less than competent photography done for this purpose and posted on this site. To each his own. I guess I am a bit of a hypocrite because I enjoy the work of those who are truly adept at it. IMHO those are not in the majority. Also, IMHO, part of the reason for what perhaps is a decline in the popularity of street photography is the constant pressure placed upon public photography by uninformed, over zealous law enforcers who have seemed to have increased harrassment of photographers since 9/11. Another reason, I think, is the ubiquity of instant cable news which draws so many viewers. When I grew up, before TV, people turned to photography for their news and views of society. Not so anymore with the varied sources of instant visual media available to them. The depression photographers like Walker Evans made a major impact because there was not other game in town that could reach so many people. I think Life magazine in the late thirties started my own fascination with photography. I still believe that photographs in daily newspapers have a unique way of freezing action and telling a story. So do good street photographers of today. It appears it is becoming more and more difficult to accomplish. <br>

I certainly agree that the OP posted a valid set of personal conflicts and I appreciat his honesty. </p>

<p>I applaud you, David. I hope I see your street photographs soon.<br>

I applaud you too and congratulate you, John Elder. I remember reading about your show in this forum.<br>

I think the Community Standards clause is a superb guideline; we should take it seriously and weed out uninteresting work before clicking the "Submit" and "Confirm" buttons.<br>

"Community Standards: ... Then ask yourself if, when someone stumbles upon this exchange four years from now via a Google search, they are going to say 'that was worth my time to read'."</p>

<p>I'm in part agreement with the OP. I lurk on this forum and saw the W/NW -Street Photography thread. As usual there were plenty of the shots referred to by David but there were also 2 or 3 very good shots posted IMO. I don't think there is anything unusual about his statement. He says at the end that there are some very good shots in there also. The ones he doesn't get are the ones that he thinks are not very good. I would agree and I suspect we are talking about the same shots.<br>

Now I think David has already seen the 'great' street photographs and thinks he 'knows' what a street photo should look like and when he sees these shots they disappoint. This isn't just somebody who stumbled upon the Street forum.<br>

He states [London] teems with street photography opportunities that he cannot take advantage of. Now I have (limply) tried street photography and know how difficult it is to realise a shot.<br>

What happens with me is that I see fantastic shots happening all the time whenever I am on the street. Of course I never have a camera with me at these times. If I did I wouldn't see the shots. So I've yet to combine the ability to spot and take the shot at the same time. If I do have my camera with me I end up with pictures of old ladies, fat blokes on bikes (from behind of course) and I once got a picture of a lady in the butchers with a neutral expression. Maybe this is where David is coming from? Maybe he sees there are fantastic shots to be had all around him when he's in London yet all he sees here are 'snapshots'?<br>

Last time I was in London it was the same. I failed miserably when out with my camera but when walking round with the wife I saw shots all over the place.<br>

Maybe I'll try Glasgow next week when I'm there.</p>

 

 

<p >Jeff Spirer <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Moderator" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/mod.gif" alt="" title="Moderator" /> <img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" title="Subscriber" /> <img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Apr 15, 2009; 01:10 a.m.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I simply do not have any respect for someone who comes in to critique street shooters when he himself has nothing..</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why would someone want street shooters to be the primary critiquers of street shooters? This strikes me as the ultimate kool aid event, no reality applied.<br>

My mentor for a number of years was a landscape photographer, NG book etc etc. It didn't matter that we didn't shoot anything similar to each other, he could look and tell me what worked and didn't. He was a human being. That's what it takes to critique photos.</p>

 

 

 

<p >Mike Dixon <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Moderator" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/mod.gif" alt="" title="Moderator" /> <img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" title="Subscriber" /> <img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> <img title="Current POW Recipient" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/trophy.gif" alt="" title="Current POW Recipient" /> </a> , Apr 15, 2009; 01:13 a.m.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I simply do not have any respect for someone who comes in to critique street shooters when he himself has nothing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of the people who view my photography, only a very small percentage actually do street photography themselves. I won't be asking for their advice on how to do street photography, but I think their views on whether my work is effective are quite valid. I've never made a movie, but I can explain why a movie is good or not.<br>

[i see that Jeff posted a similar response while I was writing this one.]</p>

 

 

<p >Javier Gutierrez <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub2.gif" alt="" title="Subscriber" /> <img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Apr 15, 2009; 01:29 a.m.</p>

 

<p>I see that my statement hit a sore spot. <strong>Well, I will have to ponder my words a little. If I am wrong, I am wrong. </strong> For now I will stick with what I said.</p>

<p>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>

<strong><br /> </strong><br>

<strong>Ok, going back to what I said last night. After pondering my words and yours as well, It was hypocritical of me to say what I said...Let me explain...Though I have never shot a single wedding photo, I do have a few friends who are constantly asking me to look at their work, which I do and I offer critique...I have also been asked a few times to shoot weddings, but I have refused and even paid for a pro as a gift to someone who asked me to do it. Why? Because I am no wedding photographer and that is a skill all its own...So as I said, when I am wrong, I am wrong and I was wrong...</strong></p>

<strong>Now I need to get to work. I have bills to pay :)</strong>

<p>This is a very interesting thread. Despite the few opponents of open and frank discussion, it is wonderful that the discussion here is so civil and on point.</p>

<p>I am fascinated by street photography, simply because it is ultimately about human life. I try to practice and learn street photography when I can, but I also love to view street photographs whenever I can. I am only very rarely successful in getting images that are compelling even to myself. I do live in suburbia, therefore most of my chances at street photography come mostly when I travel, and I don't have a daily set of images to post. But, I say all this to agree with the point that successful street images are extremely difficult to get. Which brings me to my question to the forum here.</p>

<p>Should photographic bars of composition, emotion, etc. be lowered just because the domain is so difficult? In other words, even though it is difficult to do, it should mean that there are fewer successful (however we define "successful") images. If the image doesn't have the best technical qualities, composition, balance, emotion, a story to tell etc., then as photographers we should chalk that up to another lost opportunity to the difficulty of the domain. I sometimes feel that there is a large volume of pictures that are merely snapshots of people on the street, and the only possible justification for presentation in a public forum would be because street photography is difficult, the streets are mean and we should be glad that even that particular image could be captured. Sure you could then call it just plain documentary photography that records daily life, but then every snapshot ever taken fits that definition. In a way this is no different from a poorly done landscape photograph where the terrain was difficult to get to under inclement weather and hampered by choice of lighter equipment to carry, versus Galen Rowell's images where he is able to overcome all adversity and still come up with a compelling photograph. Again, not that I can personally get to that point, but I don't think that makes the goal any less valid.</p>

<p>Someone willing to admit they may be wrong is a rarity Javier... Doesn't happen too often amongst those of who are always right! ;)</p>

<p>I'm just walking out the door right now so I don't have time to read the entire thread so I'll just address David Bell for now. So David, you don't "get" a lot of street photography? Join the club! I don't get a lot of it either including some of my own work! By that I mean some of my shots that I thought would be a winner when I made the exposure didn't turn out that way while I sometimes find hidden gems in my rolls I thought nothing of as I took the picture.</p>

<p>Maybe a better question to ask is what motivates someone to keep going out and take pictures of strangers. The answere to this will vary greatly as you can imagine. I recently gave two interviews on my work. One was for an art major at CSUN who wanted to show some of my work and discuss my views to her class. The other was for a local newsletter for a organization whose recent photography contest I won. In both cases I described myself as simply a photographer who chooses to photograph people and objects related to our culture. I went on to say that my work is not intended to express something about myself nor is any of it intended to express any kind of abstract "truth" about humanity. They are simply pictures of a given moment in a chosen place. I even told the student not to refer to me as an artist or my work as art since I much rather try to live my life as free from labels and definitions as possible. I find it too confining.</p>

<p>So David, when you look at a photograph that you consider to be "street" and you don't get it, it doesn't mean anything other then you don't get that particular photograph. Keep looking; you will eventually find some that speak to you.</p>

<p>it seems to me that this is getting a bit out of control. What started with a good and valid question has in the end led to a lot of different and highly individual and not always coherent opinions and people have seemingly started counting and qualifying and although in itself there is nothing wrong with that reading some of those comments one could come under the impression that the overall quality of photography here is at an all time low.</p>

<p>So I'll add another opinion. I think it's fair to say that in the last months I've become a regular here so I've seen a lot of work. John stated earlier on that at the moment in his opinion there is only one photographer who regularly and consistently uploads very good street photography. Fair enough, although I hold a different opinion. I think there are at least a few other photographers here who I think are highly talented and upload very good work. But I won't go into names because photography isn't about competition. Yes there is a difference in quality. I've also seen results of poor technique and seemingly random shots that didn't appeal to me but which I think is perfectly normal. No one should forget that all kind of people upload photo's here, talented photographers as well as people who are just starting. Overall I also see work of people who upload regularly here that clearly know what they want and have found a way to express that. In short, in the last few months I've seen quite a lot of photo's that I think were very good. It would be a strange thing if that appealed to all.</p>

<p>And why keep repeating the obvious? Yes, street photography is exceedingly difficult but for some that's the charm of it. I think it's great that a lot of the regulars here are prepared to be vulnerable in uploading their work which admittedly isn't always great photography but from which all of us can learn. Isn't that the purpose of the site in general and the forum in particular?</p>

<p>As I said before, David asked a very good question and it's the good ones amongst us who keep asking themselves that same question, constantly. But in the end it's a question one could post in virtually every forum.<br /> At the very least it could be argued that most of the regulars here have a sense of purpose that exceeds the average on this site.</p>

<p>signed,<br /> Ton Mestrom</p>

<p>david bell,<br /> <br /> By the language you used to describe your emotions with regards to -W/NW street photography -, you imply that you feel at fault for not 'getting it'. Frustration permeates since you should not have to force yourself or manipulate your feelings to 'switch the light inside your head'. Simultaneously you are struggling with your own documentary photography, and naturally you feel that both problems are related. I have to admit that I face this feeling as well, but i also think that this is a very reasonable state for anyone to be in, and of course there is no real answer to your conundrum. <br /> <br /> No one can tell you how to articulate your vision so as to unlock the visual 'key' for your life. However we can talk about your main underlying question; Is photography about strict documentation (a survey) of reality or an illusory representation of reality that can be distorted at will?<br /> <br /> Can i say for you that a strict documentation of reality is 'boring', without visual interest? (me too) If authors "lie to tell the truth", I (and many others) feel that good photographs distort to accentuate one's vision of reality over other representations. However, executing an elegant distortion is difficult because photography, by its nature, is a machine that spits out a really damn good version of reality that we can all say "I can see that". So it is a struggle...I do not want a strict representation of reality, but I am using a medium that is engineered to render the reality agreed by consensus. <br /> <br /> Personally, a strict documentary that is like a geographical-topo survey is very boring (I simply cannot control how I feel). But, it is ok that I do not 'get it' because this type of documentary serves a different purpose that is simply not aligned to what i feel what a documentary should be. <br /> <br /> I am going to rewrite your last line to reflect how I approach my own photography:<br /> <br /> "Maybe I am not interested in [the particular photography that a handful of people on an internet forum seem to graviate towards], and I should stick to a vision of [photography] that tingles me"<br /> <br /> <br /></p>

<p>Jeff if you think this thread is useful discussion then I'm on the wrong website. Art is art and if others disagree since when is it okay to bash it while hidding behind a smoke screen of "i don't understand the point of it" bullshit. It's rude, plain and simple and I see through what the poster is doing by claiming not to "understand".<br>

And to Micheal, you're statement is just as useless as this thread.</p>

 

<p>Sure, art is art, but the question is whether there is good art and bad art. If there is good art and bad art, on what criteria do we judge the difference? That seems to me to be a valid question, one worthy of discussion.</p>

<p>Well Kate, I wish you luck. If you didn't find anything of interest, you really are on the wrong site. You've joined PN a few days ago, make two forum posts where you insult everyone of the board.</p>

<p>Like I said, good luck and don't let the door slam on you when you leave.</p>

<p> </p>