Critiques of Intention in Street Photography

lex_jenkins · July 30, 2014

I can understand Charles' reaction. While I don't agree, I can see how some folks would find street photography crass, especially out of context - not being physically present when the photo was taken.

Occasionally when I'm reviewing my own photos I'll experience an out-of-self moment in which I suddenly see my photos with fresh eyes as others might, rather than as familiar tokens of my own personal experiences. At those moments I'll think "Wow, this is weird. Why would someone take a photo like this?"

But those epiphanies aren't limited to unposed photos of strangers in public places - I may inexplicably feel the same reaction to any of my photos. I suspect it's because my frame of mind when taking photos is different from my resting frame of mind.

For the experienced photographer, when you're in the zone in public the sense of intent and application of technique are sublimated to the level of instinct and intuition. You already know all that stuff. The rest is reaction. It may appear to be random, haphazard or aimless to the inexperienced. But it isn't. A deliberate intent doesn't require ponderous deliberation, any more than a skilled boxer needs to consciously think about counter-punching when he or she anticipates an opportunity. All of the deliberation takes place in training, in the gym, so that in real world application it's instinctive, intuitive and instantaneous.

You may not consciously think "frayed hem" or "stained lapel on an otherwise immaculate tuxedo". But you react to a perception and concentrate on timing - or, rather, let the thing happen, because you don't need to consciously think about timing when you're in the zone.

And, of course, by "you" I mean the royal "we".

<hr />

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/15777733-lg.jpg" alt="Bass Hall Angel" width="1500" height="1128" border="0" /> I saw a white figure step out of the shadow and into the light reflected in the brass and glass doors. I barely noticed the fellow at right, an usher checking the time or texting. But it was planned, intended. I'd walked around the block several times, looking for opportunities because late afternoon light outside the Bass Performance Hall's West Portal is glorious. I called her the Bass Hall Angel (which makes sense if you're familiar with the structure). By the way, her name is Samantha. She worked at the cupcake shop across the street. A week or so later I gave her a print of this photo. She was tickled. Her dad is a photographer too.

<hr />

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17509601-lg.jpg" alt="The card sharp" width="800" height="600" border="0" /> My timing was off. I intended to photograph the card sharp trying to show a magic trick to his friends, but awkwardly scrambling to pick up the cards after he dropped them. After he stood up again, I saw this look of rapture on the girl's face. She didn't care that his trick had gone awry. She thought he was wonderful. It was better than the photo I'd intended to take.

charleswood · July 30, 2014

Bass Hall Angel, we've got one at our neighborhood convenience store/gas station; her name is Maria and it fits her.

Spearhead · July 30, 2014

Well if Brad's photos are crass (funny that the San Francisco Chronicle didn't say anything remotely like that when reviewing one of his shows,) mine must be revolting. Not that I mind them being categorized that way.

Brad_ · July 30, 2014

Crassy! Though it's likely the hand of Satan was involved up above.

charleswood · July 30, 2014

Jeff I prefer this one to the others of yours: <a href="/photo/14573260">http://www.photo.net/photo/14573260</a>

Brad_ · July 30, 2014

>>> Lex: I can understand Charles' reaction. While I don't agree, I can see how some folks would find street photography crass, especially out of context - not being physically present when the photo was taken.

I can understand his reaction as well, especially where in a recent thread he talked about his lack of response to my street photos was because of his own limited experience of city life, and seeing a collection of unredeemed lost or damaged souls portrayed.

I think one with limited access to city life, and especially someone who might view other human beings as "unredeemed lost or damaged souls” may not understand street photography very well, and as Lex said, it may feel very out of context - I think even surreal in that situation. That said, in my years of shooting I have encountered and talked to many people on the street in not well and in very disadvantaged situations, but I (as with other people I know who shoot on the street) would never characterize another human as lost or damaged. That is not in my or my friends' vocabulary - at least in SF. I chalk that up to geography and having different life experiences.

An aspect that may be lost on some is that shooting on the street brings you close to people, where after getting to know people respect flows in both directions. For me that’s a wonderful feeling. I feel sorry that Charles that has not been able to directly experience life in a city like San Francisco with its diversity.

With respect to being crass, I know some artists have endured that label. de Kooning and Warhol quickly come to mind. No doubt rolled of their back as well.

>>> Charles: It is a public that receives your art, and we are what we are.

So far I’ve been pleased on how my work has been received, having raised a decent amount of money through photojournal sales with proceeds going to a local youth services organization that cares for kids living on the street. That will continue with all SF projects going forward. How is the public receiving your work?

Hoping this photograph is Charles-safe, he has crushed me so hard already:

.

Marian and Vivian Brown • San Francisco • ©Brad Evans 2014

.

</center>

Spearhead · July 30, 2014

Jeff I prefer this one to the others of yours: <a href="/photo/14573260" rel="nofollow">http://www.photo.net/photo/14573260</a>

</blockquote>

That has absolutely nothing to do with street photography. It's a portrait of a friend in an outfit for a rock opera.

Brad_ · July 30, 2014

I rest my case.

charleswood · July 30, 2014

This thread has little to do with street photography and more to do with gauging photographer intent from a particular photograph.

My starting point in circumscribing photographer intent is to note what the photographer portrayed in the photo. For example the one Brad included with his Jul 29, 2014; 11:34 a.m. post above, not titled, of a woman and that includes the text "Look Deeper". Fine. Look more deeply at what? The woman who is the subject of the photo? Certainly. But what is there in the photo, other than the text, that would direct me to look more deeply at a stranger? Why would I want to connect more deeply to someone just passing by, lots of people pass by that I can't pay any attention to. Where is the clue to the viewer that it's worth looking deeper, I fail to see any such clue. Why should I care about this woman, why take a picture of this one. Just because she was walking under some text written in the imperative case? That's a telling, the text is, and other than that telling there isn't anything showing that a viewer could care about. That's probably because there wasn't anything to show about this particular woman that the photographer was aware of. Who should look deeper then?

In contrast the Maier photo Steve introduced to us in the OP includes something in the photograph that allows us a deeper view into her subject: a restitched ribbon. Ah ha. Meaning. Intent.

Brad_ · July 30, 2014

Before too much time passes…

Major props and hat-tip to Fred and Charles for wrenching this thread into a real discussion about street

photography. With street photographs no less. Rare as a bear in this neighborhood.

Charles: Try looking at the photo without being predisposed to the notion the photo is crass and the subject might be an unredeemed lost or damaged soul.

Spearhead · July 30, 2014

This thread has little to do with street photography

</blockquote>

The title of this thread would indicate that, if this is the case, it has gone off the rails. At least the photos are street photos.

cyanatic · July 31, 2014

Man, you guys have been busy. Where to start? A lot of interesting comments here. I didn't intend this to be about SP per se, but I'm not complaining. Threads on PN do have a way of wandering off in odd directions. I'm just glad we didn't start talking about film and digital.

Allan Herbert -- "A thousand words can be informative. Nice....helps to formulate an idea/vision ; a picture in words. And then someone spoils it all with the magic of a photograph. Lost in the world of words...the magic of the photograph....." I'm not sure if this is a commentary on the Brehmer quote, photography critics, or this thread in general. I'm fine with whatever it is, but your cryptic epigrams often throw me for a loop when it comes to understanding what you're really trying to say.

Julie -- Point taken regarding eye witnesses and the ability of a many women to notice fashion details!

Fred -- "That's why many photographers can use their own photos to discover things about themselves. What do you notice about your own photos that could tell you or someone else something about you, that could enlighten you about yourself, that you didn't have an intention of doing or showing? Those are interesting things to look for and consider."

I won't go into details, but yes, after a number of years I have noticed patterns in my own work that were not necessarily intended. Personal signifiers that have indeed taught me some things. Good point.

Charles -- I like the fact that in your first post, you express a different take on Brehmer's quote than me, Brad, Arthur, Wouter, Julie, Fred, et al. I'm inclined toward thinking that Maier did not take all of those details into account, but it is not implausible to think that she did. Regarding your later comments street photography in general ... what can I say? Not liking or not "getting" street photography is certainly not a failing. I don't want to go off on a tangent on what grabs me about street photography (a thread I have actually thought of starting in the SP forum), but it's a matter of taste and temperament. I was drawn to it long before I knew what it was, and long before I became a photographer. I think Brad already covered how it can be many things, and how even an individual photographer can have different approaches and different moods. Some photos truly do have something to "get", some are visual puns, some are about the light, some are about the mood and atmosphere and some are along the lines of what Lex said, ""Wow, this is weird. Why would someone take a photo like this?" I'm fond of frozen moments of the weird and the surreal as it appears in real life, whether captured on a street or on a rural farm.

I don't want to go on too much about this, but I'll make a fool of myself by giving you a take I might have on Brad's photo of the woman and the Look Deeper sign. I rarely take SP in a strict literal sense. If it's crystal clear and pointed, then I tend not to like it very much. In a very literal way, we could take Brad's photo as a bit of a visual pun. The woman walking past the words "Look Deeper" while caught in mid-stroll precisely beneath a light fixture while a video camera is pointed at her. Those elements exist, but I think the image goes beyond that. There's the sheer oddity of it. There's something oppressive and sinister about the huge letters over her head, the camera pointed at her, and the fact that she's a woman. It creates a tension and an unease. But there's also a sort of dark, self-referencing, humor in this as well, because it's also mocking the interpretation that it's about some kind of sleazy sexual innuendo (picture two cretins, Beavis and Butthead, if you will, elbowing each other and snickering "Look deeper...get it! Hehheheheh!"). It offers that interpretation, but it's actually mocking that interpretation when its says, "No, you're miles off, pal!". So, prior to analyzing any of this, I first get a sensation of the photograph's oddity, the juxtaposition of the woman at that precise moment, mod-stride with the words and the camera, then I sense a sort of humor, but I also feel a bit uneasy. Then I try to desconstruct it to figure out what the elements are that are making me sense all of this. Brad probably thinks I'm out of my mind, but that's my take on it. If there's anything crass, it's that first level joke, but I don't think that's what it's really about and that's one of the reasons it works.

I've gone on long enough here, but I did want to talk about something else Fred had written. You (meaning Fred) mentioned Winogrand and others "toying with interviewers". Whether you meant it that way or not, it kind of turned this whole thread upside down by pondering the opposite case of a lack of intention. In the panel discussion on Maier that I mentioned, the moderator (Richard Kahan), in response to an audience members question, talked about Winogrand in relation to Maier. Whether he was correct or not, he spoke of Winogrand whirling around through the street, snapping away at things that struck him. This, in comparison to how he thought Maier worked, much more deliberately, more carefully making use of the 12 exposures in her Rolleiflex.

I don't know whether every (well-regarded) photographer has an overriding vision. Unless that vision can be something as broad as "capturing the life of the city". William Klein comes to mind. I'm not familiar with all his work, but in the case of "Life is Good and Good for You in New York"*, I don't think his overriding vision went much beyond capturing as many "interesting" shots of New York as he could. Even in Maier's case, I don't think she intentionally set out each day with an overriding vision to show "the channel between what people hope to be and the pockmarked wear that the world has imposed". I think she was drawn to what she was drawn to and the theme or vision revealed itself of its own accord in the body of her work. Similar to what you said earlier about one's body of work revealing oneself without intending to. Or am I mixing things up here? It's late and I'll leave this for someone to chew on. (*IIRC, all of the photos in the book were taken within the span of a few months)

Uhooru · July 31, 2014

Charles, maybe you didn't like "laying in wait", but its just another way of describing patience. Its just one of the things that happens on the street sometimes. You see something that would be a nice conjunction with something else so you might wait to see if a photograph happens.

</blockquote>

charleswood · July 31, 2014

Barry I'm saying that laying in wait wasn't the best choice of words.

Steve - "I think she was drawn to what she was drawn to and the theme or vision revealed itself of its own accord in the body of her work."

Interesting point and that makes me think it can be a bit of both at the same time, or one more than the other at different times.

Jeff, Brad, both of you offered examples from your portfolios of street photography and indeed street photography is in the OP title. So is the word intention. Would it be unfair of me to ask either or both of you to discuss not how you got a shot, but about a particular shot: what you intended to convey to the viewers of your picture?

Wouter Willemse · July 31, 2014

Maybe, if I can, just taking one step back away from street photography; what Charles described, and what Lex possibly described better with "Why would someone take a photo like this?" isn't unique to street photography. On all counts I am a pretty lousy street photographer, as I tend to shy away from the people. So instead just "scenes found": why would one photograph <a href="/photo/17819002">this</a>, <a href="/photo/17803074">this </a>or <a href="/photo/17796377">this</a>? (oh, what a shameless plug for myself - sorry about that one). Does that change much in the context of the OP? Not much I'd say. A lot of what Steve said in his OP isn't about street photography, and even if street photography may strike a lot of people as a bit useless ("nothing particular happening, why record it?"), in the end that's more a matter of preference, sensibility and taste. I think for many people Vivian Maier's photo also act as a unique "window" on the normal life of times gone by - street photography in a documentary role, so to speak. In time, the photos in this thread might fill a similar role - not that useless at all. Just like family snaps and birthday party photos, in a way. Which may very well not be the intent of Brad, Steve, Jeff. Which may very well not have been the intent of Vivian Maier or Cartier-Bresson. Intent doesn't always align with the perception (for what it's worth, I read Brad's photo of 'Look Deeper' much as Steve described it - now there is an opening to discuss intent). Intent does not have to mean significance either; not every photo needs to be profound to have an intent.

But why wouldn't we discuss this for the photos of Ansel Adams? Is recording the majesty of nature and a grand vista by definition an acceptable intent, and recording the every day life in the city one we'd need to scrutinize? Does photojournalism or consigned documentary work make automatically frame a photo in a right context, even when it manages to look just like a street photo? Shouldn't we discuss each of those intents as equals - questioning in how much an artist statement is in line with what we perceive, questioning how we perceive the probable intent ourselves, and so on? I do not see this as something specific to street photos at all. Can you actually see the real underlying intent of an artist by one work, or does it need the context of the body of work, a series, a background story? Well, I'm being overly verbose and all I try to say is to not limit this to street photography. Can great photos be made without any intent? Or is a photo without intent in the end too shallow to reach greatness?

Julie H · July 31, 2014

"Coleridge, Keats argued, could not get himself out of the way: he lacked what he called 'negative capability' -- the ability 'to be in uncertainties, Mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason.' 'Coleridge,' he said, 'would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery' because he was 'incapable of remaining content with half knowledge.' " — Raymond Tallis

[Steve, who has studied these poets, knows all about the Penetralium of mystery.]

lex_jenkins · July 31, 2014

Coincidentally, for the past week I'd been pondering initiating a discussion about artistic intent, but the theme or thesis hadn't quite gelled in my mind.

Many years ago, when I was active as a director in local community theater, I tried to help an actress get comfortable with a scene in Crimes of the Heart where Meg was alone onstage, with no dialog. After a pause Meg blurts "Well I feel like hell!" But the actress was uncomfortable and kept rushing the moment. I kept urging her to wait until she was nearly ready to burst. She asked how long that was in seconds. I told her it can't be measured in units of time, but rather in units of intention. She grokked. She filled that seemingly interminable pause with wonderfully nuanced facial expressions and flittering hand gestures, and just as the audience was about to burst she blurted the line. Huge laughs and applause every night.

I have no idea where that concept of measuring a pause in units of intention came from. I want to say I swiped it from The Complete Idiot's Guide to Directing Community Theater. It could have been utter rubbish and some actors would have said so. But damned if she didn't make it work.

A couple of months ago I encountered an artist whose work includes impromptu temporary installations in public spaces. But at first I wasn't sure what I was seeing. I was across the street from the Bass Performance Hall (obviously one of my favorite lurk spots for photography) waiting for an opera to begin at the smaller McDavid space.

I noticed a fellow carefully arranging some items on the sidewalk. I walked over to take a few photos and chat with him. As I did I was entranced by his careful, deliberate gestures accompanying the arrangement, which included sprinkling dried green herbs across the arrangement. Alas, I missed the peak moment of the airborne herbs, and I'm not sure they'd have been apparent in a photo anyway. But I did photograph a similar gesture as he chose where to place a coin on the nearly complete installation: <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17761445-lg.jpg" alt="Artist Jeff Martin assembling impromptu installation" width="700" height="467" border="0" />

We chatted for a few minutes and he described something of his process, including themes and inspirations that happened to be echoed in the show posters on the outside walls. I couldn't do justice to summarizing his description here but I felt I understood some of the abstract concepts he was conveying in these installations that he said are intended to evoke memories. <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17761446-lg.jpg" alt="Jeff Martin's impromptu sidewalk art installation" width="700" height="467" border="0" /> And after a few minutes we parted company. Being a Sunday evening, with no performance scheduled at the main Bass Performance Hall, and very little foot or vehicle traffic - especially since the largest nearby business, Border's books, had closed a few months earlier, it was likely that the only people to see this installation would be me and the maintenance employee the next morning who would probably remove and dispose of the items without knowing anything of the artist's intent.

But there was intent.

And perhaps I'm wrong about the fate of this piece. Perhaps it's now in the collection of an art aficionado who happens to pay the bills by cleaning up around the Bass.

I'd like to believe that some material evidence, artifact or remnant exists to support the artist's intent. And there are these photographs. But I don't think it was essential to the artist himself. The intent, the gesture, was sufficient.

charleswood · July 31, 2014

Lex - "I'd like to believe that some material evidence, artifact or remnant exists to support the artist's intent."

Your artist's activity reminds me of a sandbox projective techniques where with supplied miniature familiar objects, paraphrased: the subject is told to construct whatever he would like uisng a large table top, the floor, or a sandbox as a base. So in an interview with your artist I would survey his like and dislike of each object, his like and dislike of each object in comparison to the other objects, and then the likes and dislikes each object has about the other objects. In those relations is drama where like and dislike statements bring out qualities that are involoved in the drama. A sample interview question: "How does the shiny sphere feel about the plate with the coins on it?" Meaning is present because the objects in your artist's assembly are also subjects, that is, stand for something within your artist, have personal meanings to your artist. Each artifact is 'material evidence' with which to assess your artist's inner state.

One component of your artist's inner state is the intent of your artist. Moreover, that inner state also contains many intents, each of those intents represented by the material elements included in the composition. With children the meanings and dramas can readily become transparent in an interview. In theory anyway. With theory applied, the biases of the interviewer can readily contaminate the 'test'. Since adults are more gaurded and sophisticated than children, getting an adult to participate I guess involves asking an adult to suspend disbelief and play along. Sample interview question addressed to an adult "I believe you when you say that you had no reason to put such an such an object in that particular place. However my question is why would that object have wanted you to place it there?" There are answers to those questions, I'm certain of little else. The Penetralium of mystery has meaning and we may want to be content with half knowlege. "But," as Jung remarked to Yousuf Karsh, "unfortunately, your mind is not discreet enough to leave you alone.” So the question about photographic intent becomes: is our mind at least discreet enough to not be present in the photographs we take? Or is there always an artifact present of mind's presence? Since there are so many intents existing in the photographer it's hard to imagine that no material evidence of them, internal friends and foes alike, is to be found in a photograph.

charleswood · July 31, 2014

A couple comments from Wouter:

Is recording the majesty of nature and a grand vista by definition an acceptable intent, and recording the every day life in the city one we'd need to scrutinize? Can you actually see the real underlying intent of an artist by one work, or does it need the context of the body of work, a series, a background story?

</blockquote>

As to the first question, my thoughts. I think that nature is out there, it's there for me to see and record into my memory, we all can go see it, leave it and remember. Everyday life in the city is the same, it's out there, we see it, remember it. Why photograph it, there isn't necessarily anything going on. We'll ask ourselves of both nature and life in the city pictures: why would anyone take a picture like this, as Lex put it. We can all record surface events and have it clear that that is what we are doing. So I could take a picture of head banging or vulgarity just because it exists. When I then frame it and put it in a gallery my viewers have a right to ask "So what?" If instead the public says "Cool", then there is no "So what?" because public taste is perhaps unrefined, the experiential cultivated and nothing more. What's documented is a decline in culture and art.

My thought on the second question is it depends on the picture and on how much one wants to know about it. And how much one wants to know about all the other pictures by other artists that bring in even more contexts. Another way I think about photography now is artifact, artifice, art. First a picture is an artifact. It can have artifice in some degree or another, of some kind, maybe. It tried. Did it succeed? And after that, is it art? That last standard, art, seems to have something to do with how creativity is defined: the ability to transcend traditional ideas, rules, patterns, relationships, or the like, and to create meaningful new ideas, forms, methods, interpretations.

As to whether recording the mentally ill represents recording diversity. That's rubbish. As to whether schizophrenics are unredeemed, whatever that means, or lost: we may be flying, or choose not to fly and suffer for our choice. But with untreated schizophrenia: they are falling and not by choice. It's pretty awful to confront this condition in a loved one.

Brad_ · July 31, 2014

>>> Would it be unfair of me to ask either or both of you to discuss not how you got a shot, but about a particular shot: what you intended to convey to the viewers of your picture?

When I’m out making photographs I don’t think about conveying any intention to viewers. I shoot for myself, even though my photos may subsequently be viewed by others down the road. I try to find, isolate, and amplify the unusual within the usual, something others walking down the street may not see and/or take for granted. Just

*being* on the street jazzes me, soaking in its rhythm, energy, and dynamics, and trying to capture a bit of that with my camera.

With respect to that particular photo, Steve Gubin (and others who have seen it and commented previously) nailed it. When I was out shooting I saw the message, security camera, and spotlight up above, and waited for the right subject - thinking an attractive woman would be ideal, positioned directly below the spotlight with security camera pointing towards her. I took a bunch of shots with others walking by previously to see how it might look. The photo was made with a point-n-shoot from across a very busy SF street. I’m really a little astonished Charles only saw a person.

<a href= "https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=37.785911,-122.270279&spn=0.354355,0.643387&cbll=37.785877,-122.401548&layer=c&panoid=AsCh6hKTbFPO423O7-u6Yw&cbp=12,233.66,,0,10.8&t=m&z=11”>This is a google street view of the area and bg.</a>

Here’s another candid photo, made very differently - it all happened in around a second or so as I was walking down the street. Does this peg your Crassometer as well?

.

.

</center>

Spearhead · July 31, 2014

Charles W: Jeff I prefer this one to the others of yours: <a href="/photo/14573260" rel="nofollow">http://www.photo.net/photo/14573260</a>

</blockquote>

The intent behind this photo was to produce something that worked well in a photo.net product review. Interesting that it was singled out over photos that had a lot more pro-active engagement with scenes on the street.

charleswood · July 31, 2014

Brad, can you explain to me what Steve said, I mean, it's mocking a beevis and butthead type locker room joke of some kind, if that is what Steve said? You mean you thought you would wait for an attractive woman to walk by so you could snap a mockery of a beevis and butthead locker room joke? Why not a man captured in the same position as a joke about how women do look deeper and don't need to be told? Note you had posted that photo as an example of serendipity. Now you say it was planned?

Crass definition: lacking sensitivity, refinement, or intelligence. So as to your latest contribution. There's nothing in it that to me suggests sensitivity, refinement, or intelligence. How could there be, your methodology was to just point the camera and shoot the whole thing taking less than a second? And still you don't offer a explanation of your intention? You gotta be me kidding me?

Thanks Jeff, but you're free to discuss any of the photos your posted in this thread, or any other example of a street photograph of yours, not limited to just the one I picked as one of yours I like that as you said isn't an example of street photography.

charleswood · July 31, 2014

Steve, can you point me to the visual element in what were referring to as Brad's Look Deeper shot, can you point me to the visual element in that picture that suggests it isn't just a beevis and butthead joke? Where's the visual clue that the photo lampoons a type of beevis and butthead joke?

Brad_ · July 31, 2014

Charles, I didn't intend for it to whoosh over your head.

I have no idea what you are talking about - I've never watched beevis and butted and have no idea what mocking with respect to a locker room

would be about. I actually missed the reference that Steve made. Reading a lot of paragraph-less text way too fast...

If you still don't get it and have little imagination that's fine. As you mentioned up above, all you see is a woman. Period. You missed the security camera and the light, and how

that interplays with a person (an attractive woman) who might be objectified on the street (in this case under a spotlight and camera) or in society in general. The message is Look Deeper. I suspect you will not get or understand that, as well.

>>> And still you don't offer a explanation of your intention? You gotta be me kidding me?

I explained my intention when I shoot and that I don't try to convey any intention to viewers when I'm out shooting as they are not who I

shoot for. Apparently you don't understand that concept. That's OK.

>>> Crass definition: lacking sensitivity, refinement, or intelligence. So as to your latest contribution. There's nothing in it that to me suggests

sensitivity, refinement, or intelligence.

Coming from a person who has had "limited experience of city life," or making photographs on the street, well, there you go...

>>> How could there be, your methodology was to just point the camera and shoot?

Those are your words, not mine. That is not my methodology. The elements in the frame came together in a pleasing manner and I made a

photograph. I don't expect that to mean anything as you don't shoot on the street.

You seem very impulsive trying to find the worst in anything I say, usually when I take exception to something Fred asserts. A strong pattern is

developing over multiple threads. Are you his spokesman, after he bows out?

charleswood · August 1, 2014

Brad thanks for clearing that up. You are correct, I didn't consider the security camera and the light. Now that you point it out I see the picture works without anyone really having to explain it.

You wrote: " The elements in the frame came together in a pleasing manner and I made a photograph."

OK by me. Your intent, if I understand you correctly, was to make a pleasing photograph. I think you did make a pleasing photograph.

Sign In

Critiques of Intention in Street Photography

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in