Ansel Adams a street photographer?

<p>AA was good at more that just landscapes....</p>

<p>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130838664&sc=emaf</p>

<p>You can find more here on Shorpy:</p>

<p>http://www.shorpy.com/image/tid/144</p>

<p>Best regards,</p>

<p>/Clay</p>

<p>That's beautiful documentary work that has stood the test of time, but it's not street photography.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Warning, rant ahead:</p>

<p>I agree with Luis that it's beautiful documentary photography (and I studied the Trilogy for years, AA is awesome!). But my opinion of "street" photography is very, very low, if the photographer includes an unaware person in the shot as the main subject. I have no issue with street photography that includes people if the people aren't the main focus, but if they are, it's just a pervert/money-maker taking pictures. If a building is on fire, that's different, that's documentary and as a photographer you have the right to take pictures rather than help dying people:)</p>

<p>If street photography includes a person, and the person is unaware, and there is nothing on fire, then you as the photographer are just creepy to me. Princess Diana died because people think they have the right to photograph anyone anywhere. And so have many others...</p>

<p>OK rant over.</p>

>>> If street photography includes a person, and the person is unaware, and there is nothing on fire, then

you as the photographer are just creepy to me.<P>

 

In that case, proud to be a creep...<P>

 

<center>

<img src= "http://pages.sbcglobal.net/b-evans/Images51/QuietTime.jpg">

</center>

<p><a href="http://s404.photobucket.com/albums/pp128/jgredline/Film%204/?action=view&current=CanonAE-1FD28F28ILFORDDELTA1004.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i404.photobucket.com/albums/pp128/jgredline/Film%204/CanonAE-1FD28F28ILFORDDELTA1004.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket" /></a><br>

Canon AE-1, Ilford Delta 100, FD28F/2.0<br>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxpblnsJEWM">I am a creep.</a></p>

<p>OK well that's very cool...nice photo...I guess I'm thinking worst-case-scenario. Great photo, Brad:)</p>

<p>Nice photo Brad!</p>

<p>Javier - what is the point of your photo? You're photographing an unaware person and her boobs are in the middle of the shot LOL. It's not a bad photo but its only point revolves around capturing an unaware person that you probably hoped would look great on film. She's not doing anything worth cataloguing, and you don't have a great composition, so why did you take the photo, what were you expressing?</p>

<p>maybe I don't get street shooting, but I want to see a 'reason' for the photograph. Not that I'm great, I suck...but I don't aim to photograph strangers in chaotic situations either, which might be why I don't get it. What's the point of making a bad photo of a person when the world isn't exploding behind him/her? Especially if the person isn't famous; I can see the money grab for snapshots of Paris Hilton....</p>

<p>Shawn, I find it interesting that you went right for her boobs. So who is the real creep and or pervert here? Just asking. </p>

<p>And to answer your question, that is obviously the first shot in the roll and was merely a throw away shot. Anyway, I am not going to waste my time explaining anything to you. You after all are the ''HERO'' </p>

<p>Shawn: I suggest that you look at the photography of Andre Kertesz. Cartier-Bresson, Willy Ronis, Ray Metzker(City Stills), Helen Leveit, Elliot Erwit, Roy DeCarava, Luis Stettner, Dennis Stock,+ Gianni Berengo Gardin, and after a little self education, return to this post and tell us if you find the above named photographer creeps. If so, I am proud to be a creep.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But my opinion of "street" photography is very, very low, if the photographer includes an unaware person in the shot as the main subject. I have no issue with street photography that includes people if the people aren't the main focus, but if they are, it's just a pervert/money-maker taking pictures....If street photography includes a person, and the person is unaware, and there is nothing on fire, then you as the photographer are just creepy to me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The biggest and one of most influential sp (arguably of all photography) of the 20th century was also a creeper according to your definition, Shawn. Robert Frank was/is surely not a huge "money maker." I mean...which street photographer, famous or not, makes a decent living solely from street photography? Paparazzi is quite different than street photography...<br>

<img src="http://static.zooomr.com/images/9551133_60bcceb174_o.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="465" /><br>

I'm not a creep...<br>

<img src="http://static.zooomr.com/images/9530131_f8ddffe5fc_o.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="467" /><br>

...but I am a creep in this one just because the subject didn't notice me?</p>

Javier, if you're going to post "throwaway" shots, you shouldn't get pissy when someone asks you what the point of the photo is. Brad's image serves as a good rebuttal to Shawn's claims. What was your point in posting a "throwaway" shot? Come to think of it, why would you bother to scan a "throwaway" shot?

<p>Money maker? Pray tell us more...</p>

<p>When this subject was beat into the ground last week, John Elder, in my opinion, answered the question of the ethics of street with this post.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=313114">John Elder</a> , Oct 13, 2010; 11:40 p.m.<br>

I was in Washington Square, NYC, about 3 weeks ago where a painter was painting people without their permission and probably without there knowledge. He was doing the same with painters brush that i was doing with my camera. Street photography is an accepted art form and is exhibited in the best museums in the world and, perhaps , more importantly , very much enjoyed by the public at large. To state that a street photographer is analogous to a con man, a thief, simply is not justified . Both the practitioners of street photographer, the art establishment that shows street photography, and the viewing community have accepted this art form in a most positive manner. Anyone who believes otherwise is entitled to their opinion. I wouldn't be surprised if some people still think the world is flat. You can almost always find some unusual individual who will disagree about something that has been generally accepted by the world community. The original poster asked a question. Close to 100 years of street photography easily provides the answer.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Princess Diana died because people think they have the right to photograph anyone anywhere.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Well, actually they DO have that right (thanks goodness). You might want to consider the many MILLIONS of surveillance cameras taking pictures of people unaware right now.</p>

<p>No purpose or justification is required on the part of the photographer. I do it because I find the streets interesting. Some people I film are aware, some aren't, but they are all in public, and my rights are no less than Bank of America or Wal-Mart, right?</p>

<p>Street photography is an extension of people watching. In the old days, people would sit on their stoop and watch the human parade go by. I think there's no creature on the planet as interesting as people. Some people do it in airports, or at malls, or on the bus. People watching is as old as well, man.</p>

<p>I think the camera allows me to relive the people watching I found most interesting. A street shot happens in 2 seconds, but when seeing the picture years later, I remember that 2-seconds in time. People being people is a limitlessly infinite entertainment to me. It sure beats what's on the television set.</p>

<p>Boy did this go off track. From what I can see its not unusual even today to see famous photographers step outside their field in both commercial and non commercial ventures. Testino would admit to asking a few mothers to stand beside their children and say cheese on occassion.. although he generally tries to make sure the work never sees the light of day.</p>

<p>it's up to you Shawn, it's not my problem if you don't get it.......here's my contribution to the 'I am a creep thread'.....grin</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>I guess I'm thinking worst-case-scenario.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What exactly is that worst case scenario?</p>

<p>I should respond a bit here and say: I think I rather ignorantly have lumped many different genres into 'street photography' and the genre as a whole did not deserve my negativity. However, let me share a couple of recent experiences that might shed some light on my position (with the case of Princess Diana of course always in my head):</p>

<p>1) A couple of weeks ago, I photographed mostly a friend's daughter (and a few of her son) at and around my home. The girl had some ideas in her head and when she googled on my computer, those ideas were of a famous young singer/actor being blitzed by photographers as she was getting out of her car. The subject clearly felt like she was being invaded, if her expressions were telling in the photos. That was what my model for the day wanted? I showed her some legitimate fashion work, portraits etc. and she suddenly agreeed they were much better photographs. My point here is: has that type of shooting become so prevalent that it is what people call photography? And if you are someone who does NOT want to be photographed, then seeing a photographer on the street might well be cause for a mini panic attack lol.</p>

<p>2) (much more important point to me). Last week a very good friend of mine asked me for lunch so she could talk to me about possibly being laid off (merger). While we were sitting outside, I had my phone in my hand, and out of nowhere, very upset, she pointed at my phone and said "You better not be photographing me!". It took me completely off guard, but then she explained to me that days earlier someone in her office had done just that, photographed her with a phone without her knowledge, and then showed her the pictures! To me, that is VERY CREEPY, and is a large part of why I said what I did in the first place. Is that person a 'street photographer'? I don't know. More importantly: if this is how people with cameras often behave now, then I understand why so many people hate cameras nowadays.</p>

<p>I occasionally offer or am asked to do portraits at work, and on those days, since I've not yet bought a bag for my recent camera (an E-P2), I simply carry it on the train around my neck on my way to work. People I take the train with everyday are immediately and noticably a little nervous (though in part it could be my own perception, too - i.e. guilt by mere association of being a photographer in a world where a lot of photographers ruin the art because they DO take pictures of strangers, unawares).</p>

<p>Some of the photographers posted above, thanks for posting; they brought back memories and raised a few images that I truly enjoy back to my consciousness. Clearly I don't think all 'street photography' is "creepy", but I also firmly think that a lot of 'street-derived' photography is photography that has given photography a bad name.</p>

<p>That's all I'm trying to say, and I didn't mean to lump everyone into the same pot - I apologize for that. I've always, as this post proves to me, thought that certain 'street photography' is indeed very legitimate and beautiful - even without a fire behind the unaware subject.</p>

<p>Shawn</p>

 

<p>Street photographers (as represented in this thread, at least) seem to be a defensive lot.</p>

<p>Shawn,</p>

<p>A lot of street photographs may seem pointless (many do to me), but then most of photography is pointless too. After all just what is the point of, say, yet another Fall photo of colorful leaves - we have seen them all before and we will see many of them again (and again)?</p>

<p>I do not fall into the category of person that thinks that everything taken on the street is interesting - a lot of it is mind-numblingly dull, but occasionally something great comes up - a bit like photography in general. Certainly, Javier does no one any favors by putting up a photo that he admits has no particular merit, but your statement is too dogmatic. One way of looking at it is that good street photography is possibly the most difficult genre to make successful, so the number of misses is likely to be very high.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Princess Diana died because people think they have the right to photograph anyone anywhere.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is disingenuous. Princess Diana died at the hands of a drunk driver. Photographers may have been on her tail, but it was the chauffeur's alcohol fueled judgement that made him think he could drive while drunk.</p>

<p>Peter</p>