Ansel Adams a street photographer?

[markdeneen]

<p>Kudos to John Walsh for not submitting to all this outrageous security machinery. Stand your ground or that machinery will trample you. John Walsh is that one in a thousand who isn't a dull meek half dead already sheep ready to give all on demand, any place, any time, and anywhere to any one claiming authority. We could do with a lot more John Walsh's in this world.</p>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>I, too, am a creep.<br>

<img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1229/5126667922_7993789294_b.jpg" alt="" /><br>

This morning, on the Boulevard of Broken Dreams.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Candid, but not creepy.. <img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4063/5119826842_2374c0f645_o.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[jgredline]

<p>Here we go.<br>

<a href="http://s404.photobucket.com/albums/pp128/jgredline/Snap%20shots%202/?action=view&current=STRANGEDUDE1.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i404.photobucket.com/albums/pp128/jgredline/Snap%20shots%202/STRANGEDUDE1.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket" /></a></p>

[steve_ql]

<p>"2) (much more important point to me). Last week a very good friend of mine....."You better not be photographing me!". It took me completely off guard, but then she explained to me that days earlier someone in her office had done just that, photographed her with a phone without her knowledge, and then showed her the pictures!"</p>

<p>Actually, that has nothing to do with street photography. It's a totally unrelated issue and doesn't even take place in a public area.<br>

That's really a work place harassment issue. Many companies require all employees go through harassment prevention training upon employment and every two years after. She should report that issue to HR if she first asked the colleague to not do it again, but he/she persists. And that's about all there is to it. It has nothing to do with street photography. </p>

[michael_dimarzio]

<p>I like the sentence from the Metropolitan Police Mr. Walsh quoted (italics mine):</p>

<p>The current authority expires at 23.59 hours tonight (Thursday 8 July) and Metropolitan Police officers will not use the power after this time <em>until further notice.</em></p><div></div>

[shawngibson]

<p>>><br>

"2) (much more important point to me). Last week a very good friend of mine....."You better not be photographing me!". It took me completely off guard, but then she explained to me that days earlier someone in her office had done just that, photographed her with a phone without her knowledge, and then showed her the pictures!"<br>

Actually, that has nothing to do with street photography. It's a totally unrelated issue and doesn't even take place in a public area.<br />That's really a work place harassment issue. Many companies require all employees go through harassment prevention training upon employment and every two years after. She should report that issue to HR if she first asked the colleague to not do it again, but he/she persists. And that's about all there is to it. It has nothing to do with street photography.</p>

<p>Thank you. That's why I got so upset in the first place. I worked in compliance for years (and prob'ly will again), she (my friend) was very upset and even for a moment hated me because of it. </p>

<p>I only 'tried' to make three points in my postings on this thread: some photographers are creeps; people die when they are running from photographers (drunk drivers aside); and MOST IMPORTANTLY, those who do those things give us all a bad name:(</p>

[markdeneen]

<blockquote>

<p>people die when they are running from photographers (drunk drivers aside).</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Do they? I only know of one, and since a drunk driver was intimately involved, you could hardly put that aside. Have a lot of people been killed running from street photographers? I Googled it and couldn't come up with any beyond the princess.<br>

I think that statement conflates "paparazzi" with street photographers, doesn't it? It sounds like a real stretch. I've only been following the street photography genre for 40 or so years, but I've never seen it confused with paparazzi before. By far the vast majority of paparazzi are professional photographers, and the majority of street shooters are amateurs. On that basis maybe the <em>profession</em> needs a code of ethics? I think the amateurs are doing just fine.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>Adams has a lot in common with that Shakespeare play, "Much Ado About Nothing".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not an Ansel Adams fan Fi, was for a while in school, but, to say that he's "Much Ado About Nothing" is, well, photographically not that founded and "much ado about nothing"...<br>

Just like the arguments on either side, regarding street photography, which by itself is a much ado about nothing, but more a label that some seem in need to wear as some boy-scout war medallion and for others as something to ridiculously crusade against.</p>

[shawngibson]

<p>My last model's MOTHER (!!!) wanted me to shoot her like a paprazzi shot she'd seen? She was FIFTEEN! They are professional photographers? Show me an "I can hang out while you pick up your garbage" beautiful photograph...</p>

<p>Diana's driver was of course drunk but he only went beyond his means because he was being chased. He probably brought her home drunk many times, not to say it's OK. My point is photography killed Princess Di.</p>

[bms]

<blockquote>

<p>Diana's driver was of course drunk but he only went beyond his means because he was being chased....My point is photography killed Princess Di.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Do you really believe that? Not that I am defending the paparazzi but being drunk was probably a major factors in going on a high speed chase in the first place.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>AA was good at more that just landscapes....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To get back to the original topic - while I like AA's landscapes, his "street photography" as references by the above links is pretty average IMO. Wonder what he used to shoot it with? My interest is however tickled and maybe we'll see more from that collection....</p>

<p> </p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>The thing that came to my mind when connecting Adams and "street" photography is an old film bit with Woody Allen trying to play a cello in a marching band.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Come on, Shawn. Even if you believe Princess Di was killed by photography (it is a stretch to categorize paparazzi with street photography), so what? Many people do dumb things with their camera just like many motorcyclists do stupid things with their pocket rocket or HD or whatever...</p>

<p>You can substitute cameras with motorcycles or with just about anything...stupid people do stupid things. I would further infer that the photographer chasing Di ultimately was after <em><strong>MONEY</strong></em> (for photographs of Di) rather than, say, for street aesthetics. </p>

 

[fi_rondo1]

<p>Phylo.... I was referring to the supposed "street" pictures, not Adams in general (the context of this thread should have made that more than evident). He did what he did with more than a bit of mastery, but the "street" stuff is very average. The only interest in them is that they were shot by Ansel Adams.</p>

 

[Uhooru]

<p>Street photo = paparazzi? How so? </p>

[exposed1]

<p>All your response's are fun to read and what I can see is "street photography people have a different view of what it is". What I think about is, AA did something he was not involved in very much at that time of his career. He stepped out of his comfort zone and did some real nice work.</p>

<p>Give that a try, move out of your zone and try doing something you do not shoot often, then get paid more for it than you asked. There are times I think do we not like a person's work because we are not at that persons level, and may never be. I think AA was the best at what he did, not only for his photos, but for what he has done for the photo world. I often think, "where we would be without his work other than photography". He did so many other things than just photography.</p>

<p>R-</p>

[john_elder1]

<p>I think the quantity of street photography being created has vastly increased with the revolution of digital photography. Now almost every phone has the capabilty to take photographs and it seems to me that everywhere i look (when on the street) numerous people are shooting their phone and looking at the results. Maybe off topic, but the issue of security and photography has been raised. I learned in a sociology course while in college(along time ago) that the greater the number of eyes on the street (people in the community outside looking around, socializing for any reason) the safer the community. There were stats to back it up. Similarly, it make sense that the more people taking pictures on the street, the safer the comminty will be. Most criminals like as much privacy as possible. So, the law enforcement community should encourage photography and not discourage it. After all, every episode of CSI that I have watched that involed a public crime, resulted in all the potential witness's cell phones being confiscated because they might have "evidence" of the crime recorded.</p>

[saltwater638]

<p>by law i think [outside] is public property and u can shoot what u want....how else can the real world be documented????????????</p>