What do you think?

<p> I found Gary, from Philadelphia, an aspiring street photographer, on flickr. He shot all this on an iphone. <br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/backseatstreet/ </p>

<p>talent isn't sold with gear a fact that a lot of people seem to neglect.</p>

<p>Well Ton that's what I thought when I saw this. I thought he shot it all with a holga or diana. Apparently he doesn't own a camera at all yet. Technical aspects aside, I think he has an amazing feel for composition and subject matter. Can't wait until he gets a camera.</p>

<p>We should not forget that talent is not made by lack of gear neither.</p>

 

Holy Negativity ...

 

"We should *not* forget that talent is *not* made by *lack* of gear *neither*" -- Andres H

 

Could somebody explain the above sentence to me please?

<p>Lol Parv, I think it means, all that expensive camera gear doesn't amount to a hill of beans if you don't have any vision lol n'est pas?</p>

<p>When I was learning to shoot pool, I befriended a former pro player who was kind enough to take time to teach me how to think before shooting. He shot with a black walnut cue wrapped with pink linen thread. He said it was because he loved the looks on the faces of the people he beat when they had to tell their friends they were 'beat by the guy with the pink cue.' He constantly reminded me - "It's the indian, not the arrow."</p>

<p>With no reference to the posted link, it does seem to me that a lack of gear (using old, cheap, or toy gear which creates more abstract shots) can occasionally be mistaken for talent. I think this was Anders's point.</p>

<p>"We should *not* forget that talent is *not* made by *lack* of gear *neither*" -- Andres H<br>

Could somebody explain the above sentence to me please?</p>

<p>It means talent finds its own way.</p>

<p> Gear is just a tool to help you to a place... like a river, talent will always find its own way to the sea.</p>

<p>Does that help?</p>

 

<p>I might add...</p>

<p>Talent is not dependant on good or bad gear...it is just there.</p>

<p>I agree with Allen and D. - that was what I meant, also. <br>

I find it interesting to observe that because quality, in technical terms, has become accessible for almost anyone by investing in "gear", technical quality of photos seem to have become dubious as mode of expression - or am I wrong ?<br>

This being said without any intention of giving the message that technical quality alone makes good photography.</p>

 

<p>He is an interesting street photographer. Earnest. I wish he would graduate from a cell phone to a real camera. If you look closely, the resolution is mucky in his shots. These days even a cheap digital camera will deliver acceptable resolution. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Blown highlights, blocked shadows, does not really do any justice to the photos.</p>

<p>"These days even a cheap digital camera will deliver acceptable resolution*</p>

<p>It's about having some respect for your photography.</p>

<p>My point is, he has interesting subject matter and framing, and a sensitivity that lacks in many street shots. Some people spend thousands of dollars on camera gear, photoshop etc.. but they still can't capture the essence, moods and emotions of everyday life that I see in his images. Of course the gear heads will turn noses up at his collection. I too am waiting until he gets a camera but I think he has great vision already.</p>

<p> "The best camera is the one you happen to have on you" People will banter that one as it suits the situation. Respect for photography??? I think he had enough respect for photography that he needed to document what he saw with whatever means he happened to have. I shall run out today and buy a 25000 dollar hasselblad then, to prove my respect .. :)</p>

<p>Mmm...very good, a lot of strong images. Shot all on an iphone is quite impressive, have they been post processed? I noticed that some of them have like these 'burnt' edges and then a little border as if they were printed straight off a neg or something. Is that an effect that has been added? If thats the case better without those additions, and also there was some vignetting I was a little suspicious of. However I liked them and was interested by the opportunities an unobtrusive camera phone creates rather than the lumbering hulks we all carry around nowadays.</p>

<p>I did see a book at the library just now: "iPhone Photography for Dummies". No, really!</p>

<p>Outrageous posts earlier. I didn't know great photography depended on the tonal range of a photo. My book of Cartier-Bresson work has blown highlights and black blacks. They are still amazing works.</p>

<p>I think there are a few OK photos in the link. i don't think it's great work but it sounds like early days for them and that they might take some really goods ones in time, it's a good start indeed.</p>

<p>CW</p>

<p>"I think he had enough respect for photography that he needed to document what he saw with whatever means he happened to have. I shall run out today and buy a 25000 dollar hasselblad then, to prove my respect .. :)"</p>

<p>Excuse me but nobody,including me, said anything about to be a good photographer you need expensive tools Indeed, if you actually read what has been written it is the exact opposite.</p>

<p>Obviously you have a problem with the word respect. So, I will say instead that most photographers try to present their work in the best possible way. This usually means they try to avoid excessive noise, blown highlights etc. They can detract from an image, unless of course they are wanted as part of the photograph, which is a different story.</p>

<p>"Outrageous posts earlier. I didn't know great photography depended on the tonal range of a photo. My book of Cartier-Bresson work has blown highlights and black blacks. They are still amazing works"</p>

<p>The only outrageous post is yours. Who said, other than you, that great photography depends on tonal range or anything else. Great photography is about content it, alway has and always will. However, to present your work to best of your technical ability is a positive.<br /> <br />Henri Cartier Bresson used the most cutting edge technology of his era. He also used the best possible printer, and often was involved himself in the process .He wanted the best post- processing, editing, to present his work in the best possible way. Nonetheless , a good photograph can stand alone regardless of technical merit, tools used etc.</p>

<p>Once up a time there used to be a very nice elderley Gentleman who belonged to a camera club. As the years passed by his eye sight began to fail. It was noticed by the members his photographs become more and more out of focus . He still had a keen eye, and his photos were superbly composed.<br>

<br /> For years nobody mentioned anything about the photos being out of focus they did not want to hurt his feelings. Then one day a new member did. There was a great hush in the club fearful of the old gentleman having hurt feelings.<br>

<br /> He bought an auto focus camera and thanked the new member.</p>

<p>Allen, you must of missed the part at the beginning where I said, technical aspects aside.... Of course its done with an iphone and all the vignetting etc..is a gimmicky part of the iphone experience. I was just pointing out that he has an eye for a shot, regardless, yes it could be done better with a 'real' camera. I was poking fun at the word 'respect' My bad. I think he was, however, presenting his shots to the best of his limited means and ability and to his limited photographic knowledge, he was 'respecting' his craft as much he could? There, better said?</p>

<p>"Allen, you must of missed the part at the beginning where I said, technical aspects aside"</p>

<p>I did, my bad. Still, it was worth the chat. It will be really interesting to see how he progresses in the future.</p>

<p>Some excellent work. Thanks for posting this.</p>

<p>Adrian, I think so too. It caught me after having a first look and stayed on my mind for a long time.</p>

<p>Gee guys is it just me or does anyone else think the pictures were just a bit "old men on park benches" cliche'? And from Philly too! A wonderful <em>street</em> town. If you use a degraded image or grunge look to re-state an old (like paleo-street) standard it should at least have some original spark of interest, or depth, sub-text, or whatever. And the titles were simpy photo club. </p>