Blend in, be anonymous...

<p>Richard, Vivien Meier owned and used an RF Leica, which she used for her 35mm color work. Somewhere there's a picture of her camera kit.<br>

_________________________________________</p>

<p>What's the point of editing the Wiki SP entry? It's been excellent many times before this. The SP Talibans will just come back and change it again. Why bother?</p>

>>> As if candid and staged are mutually exclusive. What narrow thinking!

 

Precisely why I was wondering why you strongly categorized Alan's thumbs-up photo with respect to candidness, as a

"no-no," without any additional information. However, in other cases where a photographer stakes out a location to

capture a subject unaware and unengaged, if you would to make a declaration that it is non-candid, you certainly may.

Might as well extend that to seeing a spontaneous scene unfolding a half block ahead, and running towards it to stage

yourself in the most favorable position for a snap. Plenty of photographers who shoot on the street would disagree

with you on both situations, though.

 

>>> To a degree, I owe a debt of gratitude (which I will never repay) to the guys drawing the lines and telling others to

"Think Like Me" or "rise to the level they're at. You make things much clearer and easier for a few of us. I mean, we're

aware of 99% of it, but you are strong reminders of where the conventional lies.

 

I'm glad you are within sight of your goal, just a tad shy of 100%, Luis. Though using "we're" on behalf of everyone

else here to add legitimacy might be a stretch. Like many, the older I get, the more I understand there is so much to

learn - I hit the 100% level when I was 20. And it's been downhill ever since.

 

Rather than theorize about all this, with

thinly veiled put-down attempts because you disagree with my views, why not post some of your street photos for

discussion, this being a photography forum?

<blockquote>

<p>Brad's (and Travis') style of interactive "street portraiture" style definitely fits into the definition of street photography for me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree. I've seen Brad's work hanging in the neighborhood in which it was taken. If it doesn't fit the category of street photography, then the category is a silly one.</p>

<p>I sense some photographers placing great emphasis on method. Not just street photographers. Landscape photographers will make a big deal about the lengths they go to or the dangers they face in making their pictures. Street photographers will make a big deal over their quickness, anonymity, and spontaneity. And yet the most diligent and daring of landscape photographers can produce crap work, work that simply looks bad (and photographs have as much if not more to do with looks than with methodology). And the most spontaneously-taken photograph can look staged. Each of us can determine what's important to us as photographers and viewers and how important are the methods we apply and how important is the look of the photograph.</p>

<p>_________________________</p>

<p>Re: Wikipedia. Democracy doesn't work that well in all things. In many aspects of life, some amount of expertise has to be considered, especially when learning.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What do you use instead?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When I want to know more about street photography, I read<a href="http://www.joelmeyerowitz.com/photography/book_6.asp"> this book</a> and I look at a lot of photographs. The book is written by people who know and understand street photography, not random strangers. While I don't agree with everything in it, the authors clearly know more, and put more effort in, when compared to random strangers on the internet.</p>

<p> </p>

>>> I agree. I've seen Brad's work hanging in the neighborhood in which it was taken. If it doesn't fit the

category of street photography, then the category is a silly one.

 

Fred, I don't have a copy in front of me, but my recollection is that it's around 20% street

photography. And 80% street portraiture, which for this particular project, I sometimes (because I'm on the fence about it) call it documentary.

<p>In my mind, street portraiture is a subset of street photography. I consider all your work to be street work. And, though I consider one a subset of the other, I often can't or won't categorize a particular photo as either. Too many pictures of people on the street are in that nebulous region where they are not clearly portraits, especially in certain contexts of being shown. Yet those same photos could easily be considered portraits in other contexts. The context in which I saw your work (which includes not only the influence of the gallery setting but also the influence of some of the photos on the others photos and the work as a whole) heavily influenced how I viewed the photos, much more so than any label you or I might put on them.</p>

<p>Brad, as I've told you before, I will not post photos on PN.</p>

<p><strong>Brad - "</strong>Though using "we're" on behalf of everyone else here to add legitimacy might be a stretch."</p>

<p>It would be a stretch if I hadn't prefaced it with: "You make things much clearer and easier <em>for a few of us</em>."</p>

<p>Which clearly means I was not speaking, as you claim "on behalf of everyone else here", therefore also not attempting to "add legitimacy", 'strecthing' or for that matter, "hand wringing". None of the above.</p>

<p>No put downs, I mean it overtly and clearly, and certainly not just about Brad. I respect genre or narrowly defined types of photography. Nothing wrong with that, it's just not for everyone. A few of us are on a different, not better or worse, path. That is all.</p>

>>> No put downs, I mean it overtly and clearly, and certainly not just about Brad.

 

Luis, I'm genuinely confused now. So this is speaking overtly and clearly?:

 

"To a degree, I owe a debt of

gratitude (which I will never repay) to the guys drawing the lines and telling others to "Think Like Me" or

"rise to the level they're at. You make things much clearer and easier for a few of us. I mean, we're aware

of 99% of it, but you are strong reminders of where the conventional lies."

<p>Here's how I relate to Luis's comment. I think categories serve a useful function. They are often supplied and discussed by art critics and historians, who play an important role in the evolution of art, especially in terms of what gets into the public consciousness. Artists and photographers in general may be more or less concerned with these categories, and what categories their work falls in. Many artists and photographers actually work with these categories in mind specifically to comment on them, even to flee from them or undermine them, certainly to show new potentials in them, often to break away from what SOME perceive as their restrictiveness. The minute some artists and photographers are told "You can't do that" either as an overall guiding concept to art or to remain or be accepted in a particular category, those same artists will "do that" with abandon. Duchamp, ManRay, Stieglitz, Pollock.</p>

<p>It's one thing when academicians and historians categorize. There's a usefulness there. Even though we may recognize that the categories have blurry edges and overlaps, they can be a helpful organizing mechanism. If nothing else, they can help artists comment on history in their work and break down the genres and categories, as I mentioned just above. In some instances, art is a dialogue among artists and art critics and historians. But, these categories can also be used in an exclusionary manner, to keep people and work out of a certain club or clique. I find that extremely objectionable, and to be very clear it's why I found your statement, Brad, about work "not rising to the level" of street work so off the mark.</p>

Luis: "How is that difference manifested in the resulting image? What exactly is that difference? Not only philosophically, but visually."

 

I think is a response to my: "The difference is me "staging" someone, and them "staging" themselves."

 

Luis, when I look at a photograph I ask myself why did the photographer take this? Setting aside the obvious reasons evident in most photos (from it's in the contract to expressing an esthetic to "nice ass"), "staging" messes with the raw presentation of the scene that inspired the photographer to release the shutter. I don't want to know what the photographer wanted to see, or thought should be there -- some alteration that would be more photogenic, communicative, or expressive; doing things to "make it a better photograph". I want to see as little of the photographer as possible in a photo. I am less interested in the feelings the photographer felt, than I am in what instantiated them.

<p>I should, of course, also add that some photographers simply ignore categories. They don't comment on them, don't care to work within them or undermine them. They just make photographs.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"staging" messes with the raw presentation of the scene that inspired the photographer to release the shutter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Staging is often the inspiration itself. Many photographers are not inspired to release a shutter by the raw presentation before them. They are inspired by their vision of the raw presentation and/or the vision they have for the photograph.</p>

>>> The minute some artists and photographers are told "You can't do that" either as an overall guiding concept to

art or to remain or be accepted in a particular category, those same artists will "do that" with abandon. .... I find

that extremely objectionable, and to be very clear it's why I found your statement, Brad, about work "not rising to the

level" of street work so off the mark.

 

 

Not sure about all the talk re "You can't do that..." I simply speak for myself and develop my own views, and

have found they are usually in concert with the many other sources (books, writings, lectures, workshops, talks, etc).

Not that it's important to others, but growing up in a very art-centric home/environment, and still do my wife being a

painter, and myself studying art in school long ago, I really do get what you're saying. The first time,

in fact.

 

As one who actively shoots on the street I have no problem with my approach and views. They're in alignment with

many others who do the same and produce work I respect. I understand that some who don't shoot much or at all on the street, will take

exception, on grounds of principle, or simply to argue a synthetic point. If my separating street photography from street

portraiture really bothers you that much, or similarly, the notion of having work that rises to a level, then please, just call it all

street. That really is OK with me.

<p>Maybe it should be: "blend in, be anonymous, & get the last word in".</p>

<p>Sanford, you began a conversation and then dropped out. Why call people out for continuing an interesting conversation? No one is trying to get the last word in. We are trying to air our differences. Each entry adds a little texture. Conversation/dialogue is a back and forth. Why project onto that, especially when you haven't shown any willingness to participate yourself? It's too easy for one to sit back in judgment of others, especially when they don't take the risk of asserting their own views.</p>

<p>OK, sorry, forgot the: ";=)". I don't participate because it has drifted way off subject, not that I don't enjoy reading the posts & the direction it has taken. I photograph a lot of events and often find myself completely disengaged from the event itself because I need to put all my concentration into operating this complex little device and making sure the F stop, shutter speed, and composition are all correct. The boring person I'm referring to is me!</p>

<p>Fred is on point. At one level, I tend to see work contextually. The context of Brad's strict & narrow definition of SP, which I see as a genre-type definition, is very conventional/old-school/classic, looks like it aspires to the condition of late '60's SP. This is what a few of us think of as conventional. It helps to know the lay of the landscape, so to speak, and that is what I am grateful for: The reminder of where the lines are drawn.</p>

<p>___________________________________________</p>

<p>Don E., what a pleasant surprise to see you re-emerge after all this time. Welcome back.</p>

<p>Correct me if I am wrong, but I am reading what you wrote in two ways. One, the minimizing of the photographer, though I would submit that he is ever-present as making a lot of decisions beyond the initial one(s) that begin the process (and you understand that causal chain could have a very large amount of links). The other is that input from the photographer (staging, composition, choosing lighting, POV, timing, etc) distorts, or messes with this raw, as you call it, chain. Would you consider that an analog to History?</p>

<p>I find find it very difficult to divorce the photographer's feelings from what triggered them into initiating the photographic process of a particular scene/subject.</p>

<p>This is a basically anti-creative view as far as I can tell, though I am very interested in your take here, and know that you come from a heavy documentary angle, if I remember. I am sure you are aware that many of the original documentaries included set-up shots. Purity wasn't as big an issue at the beginning.</p>

 

I lack the ability to blend in. I'm extremely conspicuous. I have to interact with my subjects, because I have no hope

of sneaking up on them. They can see me coming a mile away. :-)

Fred: "Staging is often the inspiration itself. Many photographers are not inspired to release a shutter by the raw presentation before them. They are inspired by their vision of the raw presentation and/or the vision they have for the photograph."

 

Yes. My comment is mine personally, and not in any way meant to characterize all photography or photographers. That I prefer viewing Winogrand's rather than Sherman's photos has little to do with their 'goodness' as photographs (or photographers). It is just what I like more, is all. That 'liking' is a reflection of my photography and philosophy.

 

Luis, I am no more interested in a photographer's message or creativity on display in an art photo, than I am in the attitude of a nature photographer that their photo should be admired because it took them three days to climb the mountains in snow storms to take it, or the street photographer minting cred because he or she lurks in "dangerous" urban neighborhoods on Saturdays. In that sense, I will minimize the photographer.

 

Documentary photography's requirement isn't purity, or truth, or objectivity. It is accuracy, because the vast majority of the audience who will view it are not yet born. It's domain is history, not art or commerce. Other kinds of photography document themselves (and perhaps, the photographer), but documentary documents the time and place of its taking. For me, a fair amount of street photography isn't quite documentary; it is more like art -- street portraits, for example, because they sometimes lack context (it could be anyone on any street in any neighborhood, in any city over several decades).

<p>If a photographer who blends in is boring, a photographer who orders people around is obnoxious.</p>

<center>

<img src= "http://citysnaps.net/2011%20photos/Praise.tiff">

</center><P>

 

>>> The context of Brad's strict & narrow definition of SP, which I see as a genre-type definition, is very

conventional/old-school/classic, looks like it aspires to the condition of late '60's SP. <P>

 

Now that's amusing, your attempt at slotting my photography into a 60's time frame based on what you perceive as a

"definition," rather than photographs. Not that it's important, but there's a bit of irony since I shoot with an iPhone. Your remark being

just out of the blue, for no apparent reason is certainly odd. Some people yada yada on synthetics with little weight, some shoot. Whatever...<P>

<p>Brad, I read Luis's comment very differently. In all he has said and in the quote from Luis you yourself provide, he says that the context of your <em>definition</em> looks like it aspires to the condition of the late 60s SP. Luis is NOT referring to your photos.</p>

Fred, that's my point. Not referring to my photos. But rather what he perceives as "my definition." The

notion is bogus. Though no doubt he'll soon argue being expert on sp, and at classing its "definitions" with time periods. Should be amusing...

<p>Brad, I always meant to ask you, does the iPhone shoot in the square format? Is the B&W a P.S. conversion or does the phone have a B&W mode.? They look very natural. I have seen some people shooting with an iPad lately.</p>

<center>

<img src= "http://citysnaps.net/2011%20photos/Zebra.jpg">

</center>

<P>

Sanford, no, the native aspect ratio is rectangular, though I don't remember what the ratio is. The app that

I shoot from produces square images.