More Streeters

Here’s a quote by street photographer Garry Winogrand ...

A photograph is not what was photographed, it’s something else.

Generally speaking, I understand his words and gain insight into photography from them. Royall, in your case, I sense it does not apply. Your street photos, at least what you’ve shown lately, seem to be exactly what was photographed and nothing else but exactly what you were focused on. I do offer kudos for your ability to very successfully emulate the perspective of a normal, healthy, horny Junior High School boy.

Here’s a quote by street photographer Garry Winogrand ...

 

Generally speaking, I understand his words and gain insight into photography from them. Royall, in your case, I sense it does not apply. Your street photos, at least what you’ve shown lately, seem to be exactly what was photographed and nothing else but exactly what you were focused on. I do offer kudos for your ability to very successfully emulate the perspective of a normal, healthy, horny Junior High School boy.

:rolleyes: You are becoming entirely predictable.

own it

Rear ends and other things

Somehow all this reminds me of my belovéd watertower

Love it JDMvW, the Bechers don't stand a chance!

Here's a family portrait I hope is relevant. . .

and. . .

Somehow all this reminds me of my belovéd watertower

[ATTACH=full]1372748[/ATTACH]

LOL! So perfect.

I'm not old fashioned, and people can certainly do as they please IF they're not hurting anyone.

For the life of me, however, so-called "street" photos which are merely voyeuristic shots of girls' asses don't impart any sort of message, or hold any sort of social import that I can see/read/comprehend/understand.

If you fail to see the subtext in three and four, the humor in two, and the same in the earlier shots, I can't help you. So adios; I will seek condescension elsewhere.

In the above set of photos from our OP, which I am looking at pretty closely (am I obviously missing something here?)

I definitely see the humor in the woman fondling the Wall Street bull's testicles although it's not a perfect photo of the scene.

The photo of the kid leaning on the shopping cart thing is adorable and true to street photography.

(but maybe only to my own perhaps misguided, limited, or uneducated sense of what street photography is or should be) It's a lovely photo.

The shot of all the kids lined up against the wall seems about as typical a shot of kids of that age could maybe be. Maybe there's some socially significant thing here that you've presented, or period-specific documentational qualities to the photo?

Honestly, tho, a surreptitious, shot-from-the-hip phone pic of a chick's ass in an elevator says nothing. Except possibly, "wow love that ass"? The shot of a group of girls hanging out, comes off as only that and for the life of me, I cannot see anything much beyond just a pic of some girls.

SO, @royall_berndt instead of huffing off into a corner to "seek condescension elsewhere"... how about enlightening those of us who "don't get it" as to what exactly, your intentional subtext is, please? To further engage one who criticizes, IMO, better serves to bolster your position, but taking a dismissive stance feels more like a cop out.

Also, Not being a big proponent of "street" photography, I subsequently don't hang out in this forum group a lot, other than occasionally posting some documentational pics here & there. You'll of course forgive my not being familiar with your "earlier shots"- the allusion to which I assume indicates your intention to putting everything neatly into context??

I'm coming in 100% cold, man. Splain it all to me. Sell me on these shots.

LOL! So perfect.

 

I'm not old fashioned, and people can certainly do as they please IF they're not hurting anyone.

For the life of me, however, so-called "street" photos which are merely voyeuristic shots of girls' asses don't impart any sort of message, or hold any sort of social import that I can see/read/comprehend/understand.

 

 

 

 

In the above set of photos from our OP, which I am looking at pretty closely (am I obviously missing something here?)

 

I definitely see the humor in the woman fondling the Wall Street bull's testicles although it's not a perfect photo of the scene.

 

The photo of the kid leaning on the shopping cart thing is adorable and true to street photography.

(but maybe only to my own perhaps misguided, limited, or uneducated sense of what street photography is or should be) It's a lovely photo.

 

The shot of all the kids lined up against the wall seems about as typical a shot of kids of that age could maybe be. Maybe there's some socially significant thing here that you've presented, or period-specific documentational qualities to the photo?

 

Honestly, tho, a surreptitious, shot-from-the-hip phone pic of a chick's ass in an elevator says nothing. Except possibly, "wow love that ass"? The shot of a group of girls hanging out, comes off as only that and for the life of me, I cannot see anything much beyond just a pic of some girls.

 

SO, @royall_berndt instead of huffing off into a corner to "seek condescension elsewhere"... how about enlightening those of us who "don't get it" as to what exactly, your intentional subtext is, please? To further engage one who criticizes, IMO, better serves to bolster your position, but taking a dismissive stance feels more like a cop out.

 

Also, Not being a big proponent of "street" photography, I subsequently don't hang out in this forum group a lot, other than occasionally posting some documentational pics here & there. You'll of course forgive my not being familiar with your "earlier shots"- the allusion to which I assume indicates your intention to putting everything neatly into context??

 

I'm coming in 100% cold, man. Splain it all to me. Sell me on these shots.

Okay, look at the group of girls. They are not enjoying each other's company. They are, every one of them, doing something else. The title "Communicating" is ironic.

Okay, look at the group of girls. They are not enjoying each other's company.

Yes, and anyone with half a pair of eyes who’s seen a bit of your body (pun intended) of work, can tell that the motivation was the hot pants, not the “communication.” It’s the stealth of photographic horniness that’s the predominant feature, that stealth simply laid even more bare (pun, again, intended) by claims of a rich “subtext” defense. There’s always an excuse ...

Okay, look at the group of girls. They are not enjoying each other's company. They are, every one of them, doing something else. The title "Communicating" is ironic.

They simply seem like a group of kids waiting... for what I do not pretend to know. One is smiling into her phone, so she's engaged in something funny or enjoyable, the rest just seem bored. The one girl looking at you seems to be caught in mid sentence, but you are clearly partially obscured from their direct view, hence the 1/3 of a body between you & the group. You can try all you want to interject some social significance into this pic but it stands only as a shot you've clearly snuck, of a group of young girls in short shorts.

Say what you will, but I've seen, over and over again from you, pix of asses, girls in shorts, and/or women you've shot from behind or surreptitiously from some other angle. You can put any name on it you like, and you can use whatever words you will to pretty it up but IMO it's a lousy and questionable way to entertain oneself.

Moreover, this is also your very own internet legacy,

your forever fingerprint for all the world to witness:

voyeuristic & prurient use of your phone and camera.

have a lovely day.

Tom

Say what you will, but I've seen, over and over again from you, pix of asses, girls in shorts, and/or women you've shot from behind or surreptitiously from some other angle. You can put any name on it you like, and you can use whatever words you will to pretty it up but IMO it's a lousy and questionable way to entertain oneself.

Yes and, as you point out, it's not only masturbation, it's masturbation in public.

This is coming from someone who is far from a prude, as my own portfolio telegraphs as well as my appreciation for folks like Mapplethorpe, Hujar, and others. It's the surreptitiousness coupled with the insipid rationalizations that are so noteworthy and elicit scorn. Surreptitiousness per se doesn't have to be offensive, especially when coupled with some kind of ability or at least attempt at self awareness of the voyeurism or embrace of it. There could be interesting territory to explore here, but it would require honesty and authenticity.

In the meantime, on a lighter and related note ...

(almost) midnight in Pasadena, Nikon FM, Ektachrome and Vivitar 283 flash

LOL! So perfect.

 

I'm not old fashioned, and people can certainly do as they please IF they're not hurting anyone.

For the life of me, however, so-called "street" photos which are merely voyeuristic shots of girls' asses don't impart any sort of message, or hold any sort of social import that I can see/read/comprehend/understand.

 

 

 

 

In the above set of photos from our OP, which I am looking at pretty closely (am I obviously missing something here?)

 

I definitely see the humor in the woman fondling the Wall Street bull's testicles although it's not a perfect photo of the scene.

 

The photo of the kid leaning on the shopping cart thing is adorable and true to street photography.

(but maybe only to my own perhaps misguided, limited, or uneducated sense of what street photography is or should be) It's a lovely photo.

 

The shot of all the kids lined up against the wall seems about as typical a shot of kids of that age could maybe be. Maybe there's some socially significant thing here that you've presented, or period-specific documentational qualities to the photo?

 

Honestly, tho, a surreptitious, shot-from-the-hip phone pic of a chick's ass in an elevator says nothing. Except possibly, "wow love that ass"? The shot of a group of girls hanging out, comes off as only that and for the life of me, I cannot see anything much beyond just a pic of some girls.

 

SO, @royall_berndt instead of huffing off into a corner to "seek condescension elsewhere"... how about enlightening those of us who "don't get it" as to what exactly, your intentional subtext is, please? To further engage one who criticizes, IMO, better serves to bolster your position, but taking a dismissive stance feels more like a cop out.

 

Also, Not being a big proponent of "street" photography, I subsequently don't hang out in this forum group a lot, other than occasionally posting some documentational pics here & there. You'll of course forgive my not being familiar with your "earlier shots"- the allusion to which I assume indicates your intention to putting everything neatly into context??

 

I'm coming in 100% cold, man. Splain it all to me. Sell me on these shots.