What is the point....?

<p>Steve Gubin-</p>

<p>Your post was the most cohesive, definitive addition to this post. I have been following it from the beginning, and have just been appalled by people's reactions to David's question.</p>

<p>So many sensitive people, so many defensive mind sets. He asked a simple question so that he would be able to understand a subject that he is obviously confused about, but interested in. In response he get's people like Kate Rocheleau who are completely incorrigible and have nothing to contribute.</p>

<p>There were many great responses, completely objective and explaining that street/documentary is about capturing moments that may other wise just pass by with the years. A catalogue of the times.</p>

<p>Steve, you put into words what many people could not, and you summed it up perfectly. I hope David ignores all the bashing, and just focuses on the quality responses like yours.</p>

<p>On top of that your portfolio, atleast to me, represents what good street photography is. I obviously have very little experience in the subject, but based on what I have seen in this discussion alone, your words carry the most weight, especially after viewing in your work what you feel and speak passionately about.</p>

<p>For me, street photography is about the way that composition tells the story. Without reasoned compostion, the story is flat. I like when shapes and shadows and lines draw my eye to add layers of meaning. I do not believe that this is easy by any means although sometimes we all get lucky. I don't see it in terms of the observer "getting it." I see it more in terms of the image "getting the observer." Let's face it, when you see an image that grabs AND holds you, there are composition principles at play and most likely the photographer constructed an intentioned scene to produce that quality. </p>

<p>'There is only one person consistently and frequently posting very Good Street photos on this site and that are Orville Robertson."</p>

<p>Absolute total codswallop.....<br>

<br>

Could it be that he uses a Leica and film just like you? Jeez, neither of you use a Lecia lens...where is the famous Leica glow in your photo’s? You have even cast aside your good mate poor Ray because he uses a digital Leica.<br>

<br>

Reality is there are many, very talented photographers on this forum, who do not feel the need to be a poor copy of Henri, or , anyone else; trying to copy a style using the same materials and gear. The very photographers you mention are innotive individuals whose photography belongs to themselves...... </p>

<p>Just a few thoughts.</p>

 

<p>Re The leica glow comment: People don't use Leica in street photography for the glow...they do so for the discreet aspect of the camera. Street Photos are not meant to be works of art, but instances of interesting moments....ie unusual scenes. The "point of it" is not framing or anything technical...its about capturing something really interesting. It can be done with any old camera, so long as the subject is not posed. Once someone is aware that their photo is being taken then they stop what they are doing a stare. The moment is lost. Then you are just taking snapshots.<br>

I also don't agree with the big DSLR and massive zoom from a hundred metres away. Thats just being lazy or worse...cowardly. Take a shot from 5 metres with a 35mm on a DX is fine...just have the courage to do it. Succeed in being unnoticed, and you are there.</p>

<p>Re The leica glow comment: People don't use Leica in street photography for the glow...they do so for the discreet aspect of the camera.</p>

<p>Really, then why not use a PS ,smaller and more discreet, and totally silent.. The truth is it's more about technique and blending in ; not about the size of the cam.</p>

<p>The glow thing was a joke, however, Leica lenses have their own special signature and are the major part of the Leica experience.</p>

 

<p><em><strong>"Really, then why not use a PS ,smaller and more discreet, and totally silent.. The truth is it's more about technique and blending in ; not about the size of the cam."</strong> </em><br>

Prove me wrong, but nothing beats a Leica for being small, discrete, excellent image quality, and instant shutter (vs P&S). This makes it the most appropriate type of camera for street shooting, IMHO. Film or digital - doesn't matter. The shutter delay on a P&S makes it totally useless. The moment is gone unless you have remarkable powers of anticipation for that all important moment.</p>

<p><em><strong>"Street Photos are not meant to be works of art, but instances of interesting moments....ie unusual scenes. The "point of it" is not framing or anything technical...its about capturing something really interesting. It can be done with any old camera, so long as the subject is not posed. Once someone is aware that their photo is being taken then they stop what they are doing a stare. The moment is lost. Then you are just taking snapshots."</strong> </em><br>

<br /> Very wise words in the extract above. I would disagree with the framing and technical comment as I think they are very important, but the rest of this piece of commentary is spot on. Something interesting, something unusual (not fat blokes walking past or arbitrary people riding a bicyle down the road, or a vacant person sitting in an eatery). If someone can look back in 10 years and say, wow, that is really interesting by seeing some sort of story or unusual event depicted in the photograph then I think it has been a success.</p>

<p>The problem is capturing these moments. It is like a single flower in a valley of weeds......</p>

<p>As the OP, thanks again to everyone for a very good discussion. I have been extremely busy on other things thus haven't had much time to dig into the suggestions and advice given by many posters above but I surely will given the time.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>On a March 7 Leica and RF thread, David Bell wrote:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Apologies for being harsh. I submit my humble apologoies. There are a few which in my opinion the posters shouldn't have even bothered with, and that is probably why I made my rash comments up above.<br>

I guess I am disillusioned with the whole Leica mystique - or rather lack thereof. I am done with my Leica and have completed my lap, so to speak. Time to sell it and buy another 580EXII, which I actually need as opposed to faffing around with a (very well engineered) film camera. I can't stand film any longer. No way in hell can it compete with digital, for my needs (i.e. earning money from photography, instant feedback, quick turn around, dynamic ISO control from shot to shot, clean images at high ISO, ah yes and autofocus).<br>

One day I may get an M8 once they have sorted out the crappy build quality and filter requirements, and the ability to vaguelly compete with Nikon and Canon at high ISO. Right now the M8 is a big no-go, not with a barge pole.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Clive France - and your point is......?</p>

<p>My extract above stands 100%. What is your problem? I am selling my Leica III this weekend. My previous comments about Leica rangefinders being most suitable for street photography also stands 100%, IMO nothing can touch them for primarily discreteness and very good image quality. Just not the film variety for me, no way. Once day I will purchase an M8.2 or its successor. I guess you need to look at the bigger picture, which you clearly aren't doing. It is clear that you are incapable of putting together a coherent argument that holds water. Explain yourself please.</p>

<p><em><strong>The "point of it" is not framing or anything technical...its about capturing something really interesting. </strong> </em><br>

I'm going to disagree on this point. I'm not very experienced at any photography yet, much less at street shooting, but it does intrigue me. I've viewed many street photos and have tried it a couple of times.<br>

There are many aspects to street photography that can make an image really good. I've seen many images of just a person standing or sitting, nothing interesting in and of itself, but the framing and exposure causes it to stir an emotion in me. <br>

Sometimes a series of just plain images is real nice, even though each image wouldn't stand alone as well. It's almost like sitting on a corner and people watching.<br>

Sometimes it's just the thrill of wondering how a photographer could get so close when you see an image that you can tell is taken with a wide angle lense and the subject is very close, yet obviously unaware of being photographed. How did he accomplish that level of being invisible ? Very impressive.<br>

Some images invoke nostalgia, some invoke wanderlust, even though they are of nothing specifically interesting, but are framed and exposed well !<br>

Some are not anything other than composed so well that they are just enjoyable to look at, without even knowing why.<br>

It does a disservice to the genre by trying to pigeonhole it so tightly.</p>

<p>Respectfully,<br>

floyd</p>