I don't 'get' many of the photos posted here.

[tony_cooper5]

<p>I would have called it ...two bags of weiners and a man.</p>

<p>Mr Cooper, your post also made it to the front page of photo thread summaries, was there for a full day till it got bumped off bu what is better jpeg or raw and do I need a UV filter.</p>

[lachaine]

<p>Pierre--<br /> You mentioned many things it is NOT. Can you explain what it IS?<br>

---<br>

No, I can't, because it's not anything specific. It's a style, maybe.</p>

<p>The man walking the dachshund picture may not be "street photography", but it's a heck of a lot more a "street photograph" than 99.9% of the beautiful but photoshop-massaged images posted in photo.net galleries. A person could argue that it is a one. There's an urban street background, there's a person doing something. It just lacks some kind of hook. The dachshund, cute as a dachshund is (I have one myself), isn't doing anything remarkable, isn't dressed in anything remarkable, and isn't in the process of lifting its leg on some item of capitalist detritus. The man isn't remarkable either, except perhaps the hat. There's nobody else in the picture looking at them going by. There isn't any other dog following them. It's just a nice, cute picture.</p>

<p>Now, take the exact same photograph, but add another person, say, a short man walking a tall dog going in the opposite direction, and bingo, you've got a street photograph. That's what I call a "hook". But therein lies the great difficulty. Unless you stage such a scene, unlike just the man who walks the same dog every morning on the same street, it's not something that happens every day. If you happened to know that in your neighbourhood reside both a tall man who walks a dachshund every day, and a short man who walks a great dane, you could position yourself and just wait, day after day, until the right scene presented itself... and this would be a little more easily achieved than waiting for an infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of typewriters to eventually turn out a novel just by pure chance.</p>

[marklcooper]

<p>Marc T - that guy looks like he's really enjoying his music.</p>

<p>David B - I read your thread of last year. I agree with you 100%. One of the posters on your thread mentioned reading about street photography. I'm most of my way through my second read of <em><strong>Bystander: A History of Street Photography</strong></em>. I do appreciate some of the nuances of SP, but many pics are still difficult to figure out.</p>

<p>Tony C - I do appreciate the various kinds of blur. Some motion blur can really 'make' a photo. If by DOF blur you are referring to bokeh, then that is a very powerful composition tool that I often use. Just plain old OOF is something I have a difficult time understanding. I've taken the typical pictures in the fog, but a little goes a long way. I shoot jpeg and raw, and no, it's my understanding that with digital you don't need a UV filter. Just use a high quality clear 'protection' filter.</p>

<p>Here's a work photo with just a touch of motion blur. D300 with 17-55 f/2.8 at 17 mm ISO 400 1/15s f/4.5</p><div></div>

[tony_cooper5]

<p>Great pic too, he is not quite Ava Gardner though.</p>

[marklcooper]

<p>This was taken the day after my D300 arrived. 206th picture. I was aiming for sharp focus. Every time I look at this I wish I had done better. This is another work photo, but with a different client.</p><div></div>

[larry_kincaid2]

<p>I just bought MOMA's newly published collection of Carier-Bresson's photography. It has some photos I've never seen before. Great new overview of his life and work and working style (After finally showing someone his contact sheets, he says something like, "Now you've seen my sins. I sin 36 times on every role of film." Also noted that he numbered every role and every frame that he ever shot, totalling some 600,000 shots in all. Many of which we'll never see. Now the relevance: Whenever I look at a collection of his photos I always say the same thing at some point. Why did he bother with that one and why did anyone publish it with the rest? The rest, of course, need no further comment. They're an inspiration to pick up a camera. But some of them could have been the ones that started this thread. (By the way, with the Border's 30% coupon, that $75 book from MOMA is still expensive but tolerable. </p><div></div>

[markdeneen]

<p>Winberry said: sidewalk photography. distant cousin to street photography?<br>

---------------------------------<br>

I like the sound of "sidewalk snapshots" for <em>my</em> interests. There's a whiff of ultra-haughty contemptuous elitism creeping in about "<em>street photography</em>" as a genre that I find amusingly ironic given the usual appendage of "street" to any movement, artistic or otherwise.<br>

Compared to taking studio portraits, or setup shots of flowers, bugs and mountains, I think the genre (regardless of name) is not at all complicated:<br>

- Capture human subjects in the act of life<br>

- Ingredients of humor, irony, poignancy and drama are regular components<br>

- Compositional elements of abstraction, contrast, distortion, patterning, juxtaposition, and superposition are regular elements<br>

If I attended some class somewhere described as "Street Photography" that's the sort of clarity I'd expect to be declared in the first 2 minutes.</p>

 

[Sunset-Lounge]

<p>I would suggest that a whole body of work - as Cartier-Bresson's - is much stronger than any individual image. a body of work can reflect an era vs a moment, a larger social space vs a place. sort of like seeing a building and not just a brick. a body of work can be made up of "street photos" but all together is more.<br>

of course, none of this will help OP "get" anything</p>

[tony_cooper5]

<p>Apologies Mr Cooper, my posts are being deleted and I dont feel that I can participate any more. I am concerned that it is a personal attack as no explanation is given and I can assure you the content is without reproach.</p>

<p>And I require explanation. </p>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>That's funny, I don't seem to be lacking any posts from you.</p>

[tony_cooper5]

<p>Thanks Damon, you are 'a' good sport. (sincerely)</p>

<p>I hope that translates well as ...'a' good sport, and ...good sport are at opposite ends of the spectrum.</p>

<p>A lot of good sports here ...maybe that was criptic, maybe it wasnt, maybe thats a street pic, maybe its not.</p>

<p> </p>

[tony_cooper5]

<blockquote>

<p>I would suggest that a whole body of work - as Cartier-Bresson's - is much stronger than any individual image. a body of work can reflect an era vs a moment, a larger social space vs a place. sort of like seeing a building and not just a brick. a body of work can be made up of "street photos" but all together is more.</p>

<p>tom winberry</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The photo pic of the week is a portrait with her face partly obscured by a mop of hair, not a dainty description by me but one viewer(not me) didnt find it to their liking until he explored the photogs whole gallery and now views the image differently and with a little more understanding and context.</p>

<p> </p>

[tony_cooper5]

<p>Andrew Stark also has a combination of research paper and social artifact in its own thread, I can highly recommend it although suspect many of you are 'Girly' and not up to the challenge ;)</p>

<p>Escaping Into Life - a psycho study of the contemporary street photographer" by Andrew Stark<br>

Towards the latter part, there is some discourse regarding the 'masters' so if you have no sense of humor, I can suggest you skip most but search out this part.</p>

<p>I have some questions for Andrew and part explores this topic so if anyone else was to be engaged then it might make for an excuse to break out the ginger beer</p>

[vktr]

<p><em>> My small tribute to Cartier-Bresson (one he didn't take!)</em><br>

<br /> That's a bold statement to make :)</p>

[timothy_agee]

I really like this thread. It is sort of educational to me. I am new to SP and loved hearing the story behind the shot.

Learning why it is good and all the details most will never get. I took a class in movie production and learned that there is

so much more meaning in some movies I never realized before. After the class I found so many more details that really

add to the movie. The same hear. I do feel that most art sort of needs an understanding to it. When people know more

about it you learn to see the sudule things that can make a Borig image into a great piece of art. I appreciate learning the

theories behind the photograph. Thanks for the education!

[john_jennings2]

<p>Hopefully, image added.</p>