One of the things that I think hurts us as street photographers

[fi_rondo1]

<p>Well, that beats Woody Allen hands down. Sort of like Don Rickles on steroids.</p>

[ray .]

I have mixed feelings about the Walmart site. Could it be said that most of the subjects probably aren't

the smartest people on the planet? I don't know. They appear mislead and misdirected in some way.

Their weaknesses are certainly visible on the surface.

But who knows what good qualities or talents they might have, or what good things they may have done in their life? Who knows what weaknesses or sicknesses people have who

appear- at least superficially- to be more dignified?

 

Still, the example I gave in the original post was about a subject who was not inviting criticism from her outer appearance, other than that she had a couple of scratches on her nose. The derogatory comments about her are less understandable to me than those about an extremely obese person wearing scanty clothing, or someone advocating masturbation as a philosophy on their T--shirt.

[Alex_Es]

<p>Thanks Alan. </p>

<p>I agree with Ray. Someone wearing a T-shirt advocating masturbation is setting himself up. A person with a scratched nose is not. </p>

<p>I have been to Walmart twice as far as I recall. It was a shock to see so many morbidly obese people. I also found a lot of Spanish speaking people, which came as no surprise as this was in California. I did find that the people there were nice. No pretenses. </p>

<p>Given my positive, albeit limited experiences, I find something like the Walmart site really disgusting. Taking candids with a cell phone is one thing, but making cruel remarks is another. The cruel remarks are not even witty. They are just downright crude and creepy. I wonder what sort of person would have a site like that.</p>

 

[studio460]

<p>Alex said . . .</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Thanks to the Internet everyone is a potential model.<br /> I say it is a good thing because now its is a level playing field. Our subjects are scrutinizing us as closely as we are scrutinizing them. Fair enough.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A salient point, Alex. Earlier in this thread, I mentioned that I was uncomfortable shooting people without their permission (although, of course, I've shot my fair share of unknowing subjects in the past), and would likely stage all of my "street-looking" stuff. While I still plan to stage a few ideas I have in mind (with cooperating models), I can't resist the temptation to go out and capture some authentic street images (especially, since it's one of my most-admired genres). I live in Los Angeles, and as you know, it's a very car-oriented place, with spanning freeways, overpasses, and highways, amid a sprawling mass of urban and suburban streets. We lack the abundance of high-rises, artistically dingy alleys, and the endless "urban-ness" of say, a New York City, but we do still have streets. At times, difficult to isolate, amid the sheer suburban-ness that is L.A., but there are pockets of "city" here and there. So, I'll rescind my previous comments, and give it a go. Armed with two new fast, short lenses, I'm excited to see what I can capture in the coming days and nights.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Alex continued . . .</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This is off the topic but I have got to say something about it. Someone above wrote about Flickr: "I've seen terrible shots with dozens of comments giving the creator praise simply because that person is a social butterfly." So have I. I've also seen it on photo.net and elsewhere. Here is what get the kudos: (1) landscapes (2) pretty women (dressed, half-dressed, nude) and (3) grizzled old men with full beards. Street photography, no matter how sensitive, is generally ignored. I would like to get all the three elements I've mentioned into a street photograph some day and see what happens. Only I don't have time to be a "social butterfly."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I really like the idea you suggested! Though, I'm not sure I correctly understood it. So, combine landscapes, pretty girls, and men with beards, in a street-genre photo? That sounds like a challenging assignment!</p>

[studio460]

<p>Ray said . . .</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have mixed feelings about the Walmart site.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Okay, about that site. I never even knew about it. Whenever someone wants to show me something on YouTube, that's simply "hilarious," I try to leave the room. I don't much like the popular activity of looking at the same "funny" clip that 1.7 million other people think is so goddamned "entertaining." I found the WalMart site sad and depressing. I admit, a sly smirk came over my face when viewing a few of the images, and certainly, I carry around my own personal, politically incorrect, internal dialogue when I notice unusual characters in real life. But the WalMart cell phone imagery on that site isn't "photography." I don't know what to call it.</p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>Thanks Raph.</p>

<p>Actually, I was being factious about that second point. But, okay, combine a landscape with a pretty girl and a grizzled old man with a beard and then turn everything into pictorialist glop in Photoshop. If that doesn't make Photo of the Week nothing will.</p>

<p>Meanwhile, we poor neglected and misunderstood street photographers must just trudge along in search of our decisive moments. While the gloppers will get their virtual trophies and the Walmarters will get their giggles, we street photographers will be chased by policemen and the neighborhood dogs. Life is not fair.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"Life is not fair."</em></p>

<p>Or maybe it is. What if it turns out that we are no better than "them," at least on the whole. Maybe street shooters shouldn't necessarily throw stones at gloppers without the expectation of getting stones thrown back at them. And, hey, what if a lot of street shooters are kind of street gloppers themselves? Glopping doesn't always come in the form of over-saturated landscapes. Sometimes it comes in the form of funny-looking guys smoking in front of a No Smoking sign or guys with hats walking by billboards with sexy ladies on them.</p>

[studio460]

<blockquote>

<p>Meanwhile, we poor neglected and misunderstood street photographers must just trudge along in search of our decisive moments. While the gloppers will get their virtual trophies and the Walmarters will get their giggles, we street photographers will be chased by policemen and the neighborhood dogs. Life is not fair.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're goddamned right it's not fair! <em>I</em> should be the one on that yacht on TV with the ten bikini girls, not that lame real estate infomercial guy!</p>

[studio460]

<blockquote>

<p>Or maybe it is. What if it turns out that we are no better than "them," at least on the whole. Maybe street shooters shouldn't necessarily throw stones at gloppers without the expectation of getting stones thrown back at them. And, hey, what if a lot of street shooters are kind of street gloppers themselves? Glopping doesn't always come in the form of over-saturated landscapes. Sometimes it comes in the form of funny-looking guys smoking in front of a No Smoking sign or guys with hats walking by billboards with sexy ladies on them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh, my god, you're f-----g hilarious, Fred! I kinda tend to agree. To think I'm "better" than the WalMart cell phone photographer is a lesson in itself. What the hell makes <em>me</em> "better?"</p>

[studio460]

<blockquote>

<p>Actually, I was being factious about that second point. But, okay, combine a landscape with a pretty girl and a grizzled old man with a beard and then turn everything into pictorialist glop in Photoshop. If that doesn't make Photo of the Week nothing will.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, Alex, I take that as a personal challenge! I'm going to do it! I hope I win!</p>

[studio460]

<p>This whole WalMart thing is actually kind of interesting. It actually jibes with an idea I've been trying to flesh out for some time now (though, certainly not as mean). Thank you, stupid WalMart site!</p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>As I looked at the Walmart site I thought it would be so much better without the commentary. Let there be just the camera and the pictures speak a lot for themselves. A lot of the people photographed are exhibitionists. They want to be noticed and therefore show a lot of skin or wear weird clothes. Were this site run by mature people it would be valuable are collective portrait of a subculture of some sort.</p>