alternative B&W universe

[Spearhead]

John, it's fine to express your opinion, but there's certainly a lot of street photography that isn't of the backs of heads. However, there are way too many backs of heads on the photo.net forums, I'd agree with you there. Only a few heads have interesting backs, mine, for instance.

[jtk]

Carl, your thinking began clearly enough but your syntax lost me...maybe you'd expand further?

 

I disagree that "production" or "choreography" exclude "spontaneity."

 

As well, "spontaneity" isn't the right word for "sneaking snapshots of strangers." Maybe there's a Japanese word that translates more closely than their very similar "upskirt." :-)

 

The "backs-of-heads" school of "street photography" treats cynicism and interpersonal fear as if they were values.

 

The term "capture" has recently invaded that space, distancing photographers from the very act of making their own images. Something's just stolen, just as Amazonian natives have always believed.

 

"Spontaneity" is a high value among dancers, actors, and directors. In what may be the most rigid of forms, the Japanese Noh play, the sweetest aesthetic juice is said to flow from the faintest artistic inflections of the centuries-old forms.

 

Carl, your notions that "editing, framing, and other photographic devices" are not employed in videos, or that "interaction... between the subject and photographer" is absent for most photographers seem peculiar. Maybe I'm misreading. Please clarify.

[aplumpton]

Apples and oranges says it all. Until you've seen a really excellent still B&W

photo with a high degree of contained passion and/or aesthetic value, you

cannot claim cinema beats still. "Cinema is a story in time. The still is time

frozen." (my quote, but probably others have also said effectively that. I hope

so).

[machts gut]

I never found it very appealing to hang a video cassette on the wall and couldn't find a good frame for it either ;-)

 

Stefan

[root]

john,

 

"As well, "spontaneity" isn't the right word for "sneaking snapshots of strangers.""

 

"Spontaneity in this case refers to the attempt to photograph someone reacting to their environment in an interesting way. It isn't meant to describes the photographer's behavior.

 

"The "backs-of-heads" school of "street photography" treats cynicism and interpersonal fear as if they were values."

 

I agree with your implication that many "backs of heads" shots reflect the photographer's fear of possible negative effects of interaction, but you still seem to be missing the point that a face to face shot is much more likely to result in the photographer capturing the subject reacting to him rather than to his environment. That's OK if that's what you want, but the focus, so to speak, is very different.

 

"The term "capture" has recently invaded that space, distancing photographers from the very act of making their own images. Something's just stolen, just as Amazonian natives have always believed."

 

I would suggest that street shooting can place more of an emphasis on camera position and timing. Sometimes you can be slow and deliberate, staking out an interesting place and waiting for something to happen, but other times, it's a matter of going after a shot, recognizing that the moment you anticipate will be fleeting and will only be able to be "captured" under less than ideal conditions.

 

The word "capture" can, of course, used to describe the act of taking all kinds of photographs.

 

"Spontaneity" is a high value among dancers, actors, and directors."

 

Depending on the style, I wouldn't use the word spontaneity to describe what usually happens on a stage. It's also important to distinguish between solo and ensemble work. The role of improvisation is part of the discussion, but even there, I don't see most street shooting as intentional behavior - acting, if you will - for the benefit of an audience, of one, in the case of the photographer.

 

" . . . your notions that "editing, framing, and other photographic devices" are not employed in videos, or that "interaction... between the subject and photographer" is absent for most photographers seem peculiar."

 

I certainly didn't mean to give that impression, since it clearly isn't true.

 

I have an "interaction" shot in my most recent PN series on soccer fans (another one may get uploaded later), but it seems a bit out of place, wouldn't you agree? And I don't think it stands out as being better than the others as a result of that interaction.

 

You are all encouraged to peruse the folder and decide for yourselves. Comments on the photos that interest you are welcome.

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=742817

[jtk]

I will refrain from further comment, other than to observe that there's no situation in which an observer doesn't "interact" with the observed.

 

If he's too fearful to engage, reducing the reality into graphics, that's branded on the interaction that nonetheless inevitably did occur...for all to see if he's careless enough create the evidence (a photograph).

[root]

john, john, john,

 

". . . there's no situation in which an observer doesn't "interact" with the observed."

 

It's the interaction of the observed (subject) towards the observer (photographer) that's the issue here.

 

"If he's too fearful to engage . . ."

 

You seem to be holding on to the notion that fear is the primary reason for avoiding a direct confrontation.

 

" . . . reducing the reality into graphics,"

 

There is no association between eye contact and graphics.

 

" . . . that's branded on the interaction that nonetheless inevitably did occur..."

 

But usually only in one direction, john.

 

" . . . for all to see if he's careless enough create the evidence (a photograph)."

 

Careless? There's a considerable amount of care involved in the whole process, from seeing the potential for a decisive moment to editing and presenting the final image. I suspect a lot of viewers think that the better shots are actually set ups, so sometimes we do the job too well for our own good. You seem to be implying that the viewer can always determine the extent to which the subject is aware of (and affected by) the presence of the camera. You'd be surprised at how often the photographer isn't at all sure at the moment of capture or later during the editing process. (The same is true of people who are aware of the camera and wonder for a brief moment if they are - or were - the intended subject.) If the viewer looking at the photograph thinks he's sure, then he's deluding himself.

[jtk]

Carl, I don't infer "fear," I see it. Fear's stated directly by back-of-heads photography, and commonly spoken of. (I'm not claiming your images show fear: people don't seem of particular interest to you).

 

You've not established sufficient authority with your images to strike this pose seriously: "You'd be surprised at how often the photographer isn't at all sure at the moment of capture or later during the editing process."

 

When a photographer is arrogant enough to be certain that a viewer is "deluding himself," that photographer is avoiding the most meaningful and proper potential in his work. THAT does suggest fear.

 

I'm not "surprised: by much in photography, having been involved as a child, a passionate amateur, professional, and a mere hobbiest for over fifty years. I suspect nobody on this Forum would be surprised :-)

[root]

What a strange discussion this is, john. The opinions I hold are based on direct personal experience and can be fleshed out, if you choose, on any number of images I have uploaded on this site, including my most recent series uploaded in the "soccer fans" folder. You, on the other hand, apparently have an aversion to candid shots of people (very common for someone with experience as a professional photographer, I've found), and one can only assume that you have little or no hands on experience with this style. Yet that doesn't keep you from telling the rest of us about its dynamics.

[al_kaplan1]

A lot of people are too unsure of themselves in public situations to let the subjects notice them. I usually just joke around with them "Camera? What camera? There's no camera here. I'm not taking pictures. Do you see me taking pictures?" all the while smiling and clicking away. Hell, I've made some good friends, acquired a few photography clients, and met a few ladies that way.

[clive1]

John Kelly-

 

Again, interestingly (and I add that we don't have any of your work to go by), you talk

about "fear" as it applies to photography, and you claim that 90% (or whatever) of street

photographers suffer from this condiiton. What you don't elaborate on, of course, is that

outside street photography, "fear" and photography have very little in common. You, as an

ex-pro-photog, must appreciate how little fear is involved in your everyday bread-and-

butter work.

 

Therefore, you are attacking people who actually invite fear, who choose to confront fear,

when they cold easily seek out more photog-friendly work. Am I the only one who sees

ABSOLUTE bullshit in your silliness (spare the Noh, it's horribly boring). Or, dare I say,

fear...?

[clive1]

"...there's no situation in which an observer doesn't "interact" with the observed..."

 

Sorry John, but I just can't let that go. Almost every fave photo on PN top critique page is

taken without any consideration of fear or interaction ("mutually or reciprocally active").

Who "interacts" with or "fears" a sunset? Or a squirrel? Or some eastern European model

with her tits outs? Why should street photographers have to bear the double burden of

being fearful and at the same time interactive, when nobody else seems to give a damn? Is

it because we expect MORE (morally) from the docu and (without sounding pretentious)

street photographer? Why does it irk you so much? Do YOU expect more? If so, why?

Questions...

[jtk]

Clive, is it OK with you if I respond honestly to what I see?

 

I did look at your work and I did notice your aversion to being seen.

[root]

Anybody who visits Clive's portfolio can easily find several up close and personal street shots of strangers making eye contact with the photographer.

[jtk]

"Why does it irk you so much? Do YOU expect more? If so, why? Questions..."

 

OK 3 questions, 3 answers.

 

#1) I'm "irked" because I've always associated photography with craft, with skill, and that's uncommon in street photography. As you noted, I was a commercial photographer. I was also a second-hand student of Minor White. Craft meant respect for photography itself.

 

Respect for photography itself is like respect for the hunt. Some of us bow hunt (wooden bows, wooden arrows). Like Native Americans, we want a relationship with our kill so we use short range weapons rather than high powered rifles. It's an analogy to the photography to which I aspire. That relationship is dodged by much "street photography."

 

#2) As you commented, I do "expect more." My personal struggle with photography is to very occasionally achieve images of some significance. I associate significance with human involvement more than I do with graphic creations, though some nearly-staged, non-personally-involved graphic creations (such as HCB's) are of course very moving (as is some "street photography").

 

#3) "Why" do I expect more? (especially since I rarely achieve it?) It's my value system: I dislike cynicism and un-relatedness in myself and others. I see the destructiveness. It's hard to be cynical when one engages another, even if the engagement is hostile.

[jtk]

Carl, you're right about Clive's portfolio. There ARE some photos in which there's eye contact. And I like your pianos.

 

Everybody should visit Clive's porfolio as well as yours, per your request. I think important things are more clearly stated there than here.

 

My own lack of portfolio does that too. I apologize for that, plan to remedy it. Fair's fair.

[orvillerobertson]

I actively do street photography as well as street video (and Super 8 prior to that). I consider

them to be mutually influential as, I think, most people do who seriously produce bodies of

work in both mediums. For me one does not compete with the other except perhaps for my

time. That being said, the first video to start this thread is nice but hardly profound. I think

this thread is sort of the equivalent of waging a war over an errantly thrown firecracker.

Humans occasionally need a good bloodletting no matter how valid the initial spark.

[Troll]

It's my understanding that the trend in print publishing, is to eliminate still photography entirely, and send out their 'togs with video cameras, then use single-frame capture of whatever image suits their needs. Brrrrrrr!

[jacob_brown]

"I will refrain from further comment"

 

That was what -- 4 posts ago?

[jtk]

Jacob, I responded to a direct question. Do you have something to contribute?

[aplumpton]

"What do you think about B&W video as a step up from B&W still

photography?"

 

John, that was your original question, to which I, and perhaps a few others

responded. All the rest above appears mainly as diversions with little content.

 

Why cannot intelligent persons stick to the question at hand? Are you (the

collective "we") so driven by personal pomp? I suggest that you stick to the

philosophical or artistic aspects and forget the personal prods or

explanations.

[jtk]

Arthur, I knew I was making some edgy assertions. They happen to be

my real views, but I'm certainly not surprised or disappointed at the responses. Still photography is, by its nature, backward-looking IMO.

 

Regarding the inevitable morphing of still to video, one of the most prominent "reviewers" expects still DSLRs to soon be passe'.

 

Another specifically surmised that the current EOS-1D Mark III was about to become a video camera...he'd asked Canon about that and "they neither confirmed nor denied."

[aplumpton]

John, you could be right from one position of view, but tell me how will two

dimensional art like oil paintings (or still art photos) be morphed into moving

pictures? Will sculptures become moving holographs or "living and moving"

sculptures?

 

And why would we want it (them) to be so transformed? Moving pictures are

good for what they are. But only that.

[jtk]

"But only that." Sounds papal to me :-)

 

I only aspire to be right from my own position.

 

Certainly, however, sculptures do move in time like videos. One can walk around them, which involves time, just as does video.

 

Paintings may seem to morph less easily into video until one thinks about how in fact many have morphed paintings into video, with zooms and pans etc...which not incidentally is the way one is taught in "art history" classes to view some paintings. As well, paintings exist in time, thought of in many different ways. I'd say some paintings are at least as "video" as videos.

[Norma Desmond]

"Sculptures do move in time like videos" -- hmmm, I think I see what you're getting at but

I think there is more disanalogy than analogy. My watching a moving art form and my

moving while looking at a still art form seem to me fairly distinct matters. One can walk

back and

forth endlessly in front of a photograph. Does that make it a video? Not to me. I think the

ability to walk around a sculpture has more to do with space than with time (though,

granted, of course time is involved). I would be interested to see an example of a painting

that is "at least as 'video' as videos." Of course, one may take a video of a painting or

sculpture and the end product would be a video. But one could still point to the subject of

the video and say (and more importantly <i>know</i> what it means to say) THAT is a

painting in that video. The distinction would remain.