Dogmatic about Street Photography - at least for myself

[Brad_]

>>> Since this quote above is in the thread I started, I assume that 'people' above refers to me.

 

No, it does not refer to you. The thread has turned into a discussion about "street photography"

where people offered their views and beliefs. I offered mine.

[Spearhead]

<p>And just for the heck of it, here's one on Haight Street, mother and daughter I think. Lots of post.</p>

<center><img src="http://spirer.com/images/hsf2014n3.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="525" /></center>

[lewis_lorton1]

<blockquote>

<p>You told us what you think qualifies as "good street photography." Of course nobody goes out to do "bad street photography" but rather than tell us what types of street photos you <em>prefer</em>, you choose to dictate what is "<em>good</em>."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So you have decided that because I said 'I think' rather than 'I prefer', that I am 'dictating' what others should think and do? Perhaps you could create a style book on how people can couch their views here in an acceptable, non-threatening, non-upsetting style. <br>

Well, I think about my choices and use my decisions to form how I work. I also try to be honest and straightforward and say exactly what I think, rather than use weasel words.</p>

[lewis_lorton1]

<p>I am usually happy to discuss substance and opinions but the tone and manner of these comments are more antagonistic than educational and leads me into an attitude I don't want to take.<br>

So you can go on without me as a contributor.</p>

 

[michaellinder]

<p>Fred, I simply am trying to ask Lewis to clarify his position. I've seen previous comments on other forum threads to the effect that an image has to be spot on in all respects when it comes out of the camera. Even though this may be a bit exaggerated, I wonder whether it's Lewis' position. </p>

<p>As for my work, I think you've seen ample evidence that I'm not trying to win any popularity contests. I'm just as passionate about what I do as anyone else.</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Lewis, it's really a shame that you haven't critiqued any photographs or posted any photographs for critique. Merely stating that you don't want to be the "obnoxious new guy" is a copout. I probably am not the only one who feels like he's flying blind without seeing your work.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Michael, <a href="http://lewlortonphoto.com">HERE'S</a> a link to Lewis's web site, which he posted above.</p>

<p>.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Fred, I simply am trying to ask Lewis to clarify his position.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Michael, when I read this from you . . . <em>"</em><em>I guess you harbor disdain for them."</em> . . . it felt to me like you were guessing at clarifying his position for him. Sorry if I misinterpreted you.<br>

<br>

.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As for my work, I think you've seen ample evidence that I'm not trying to win any popularity contests. I'm just as passionate about what I do as anyone else.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Michael, yes, I hope I didn't come off as questioning your passion. Like Brad, I was talking about <em>people</em> in the post in question, about photographers at large and not about you specifically. Sorry if that was unclear. Boy, there sure is room for miscommunication in these threads!</p>

[cyanatic]

<p>Figures. I get ready to join the party and everyone is leaving. I hope you come back, Lewis.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>I hold very strongly to the belief that good street photography actually shows something or some moment that the photographer sees and wants to capture. I believe in the 3 Ms - Meaning, Mood and Mystery. I can't help being almost repelled by images that rely only beating up mundane nothing-is-happening images with processing to make them 'street'. </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't see anything that restrictive or dogmatic in the 3 M's that Lewis Lorton mentions above. But it always comes down to a subjective call, doesn't it? One person's significant M's are another person's "there's nothing there!". I've looked through monographs, galleries, and exhibition catalogues of a number of the so-called greats and near-greats of street photography and I always come across some photographs that have me scratching my head and saying, "Why?", or "What am I missing?", or "How did they get away with <em>this</em>?".</p>

<p>I'm not sure whether Lewis meant that "good" street photography must have all 3 of those M's, or if only 1 or 2 will suffice. It would be interesting to know for the sake of discussion, but beyond that I don't know that it matters. We all have our own ways of digesting photographs. My personal aesthetics for street photography allows that mood and mystery <em>can</em> be the meaning. Again, it all becomes terribly subjective and can lead to endless and convoluted digressions and qualifications as we each try to clearly define what we mean. (As an example, I would say that extreme banality and/or not knowing what's going on does not normally qualify as "mystery". On the other hand, mystery does not always equate to darkness and menace either.)</p>

<p>Personally, I don't get repelled by heavily processed street photographs. I will either look at them, or I won't. I am very fond of Igor Posner's work and, like Moriyama but in a different way, he does a lot of post processing in terms of dodging and burning. Subjectivity raises its head once more.</p>

<p>And no offense to either Fred or Lewis, but I don't really care whether a photographer has very strong opinions, or whether they are very dogmatic in their statements or approach. Their artistic opinions will show in their work. Opinions and dogmatism expressed outside of that work might make for an interesting bull session, but it's not what matters to me. Nor do I care whether or not someone's spoken opinions are in accordance with their work. There isn't a cosmic scoreboard somewhere that awards points on the basis of consistency. Who gives a rat's derriere?</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Who gives a rat's derriere?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I do. So there! :-) But you knew that since you referred to my statement. [LOL, smiley face, etc.] I tend to take what a photographer says a little more seriously, <em>especially about their own work or genre</em>, when I see it evidenced in their photos. That doesn't mean I discount everything said if it's not consistent with their work. It's kind of like the difference between talking the talk and walking the walk. Sometimes ideas are very important, aside from photos. And for me, it can be about more than consistency. It can be about substance. I do like when I sense someone is committed to an opinion, theory, or point of view as opposed to trying to be everything to everybody, at which point a lot of ideas can get watered down or start feeling generic.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Steve, the problem is that people make statements that are intended to determine what something is or isn't for everyone. Then an attempt is made to claim otherwise by use of the phrase "I think." The problem is that nothing is changed by that statement, why would someone write it if they didn't think it? If I say "I think the earth is flat" and everyone jumps on me, should I be able to say that they can't jump on me because I used "I think?"</p>

<p>That's very different from a statement of preference. "I prefer street photos that ..." carries no implications for what other people prefer. </p>

<p>It comes down to whether one accepts that there are a variety of valid "likes" and "dislikes" or one chooses to make absolute statements about "good" and "bad." That statement is made with or without the preface "I think."</p>

<p>My own statement on this is that people should be able to do and enjoy whatever they want. However, if someone wants to show me ("show"=pictures) why they prefer something some way, that's a useful and valid exercise, I could learn something new. Being told what is good, regardless of the source, is not useful.</p>

[cyanatic]

<blockquote>

<p>It can be about substance.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True. But doesn't the substance exist, or not exist, in the work? Regardless of what statements are made by the photographer? If they say, "I believe in X and my work is about X!", yet it clearly appears that is about Y, or G...what then? That's what I mean about that poor rat's hind parts...it doesn't matter to me what they say, or whether or not they are consistent. I mean, yes, it can have an impact on what I think of them, but ultimately the work is the work is the work.</p>

 

[cyanatic]

<blockquote> However, if someone wants to show me ("show"=pictures) why they prefer something some way, that's a useful and valid exercise, I could learn something new. Being told what is good, regardless of the source, is not useful.</blockquote>

<p>Jeff, absolutely. I don't want to speak for Lewis, but I suspect he was expressing a <em>preference </em>(albeit a strong one)rather than proposing an absolute. But generalist statements about what any type of photograph should or should not include, or be like, is subject to a potentially heated discussion. It's hard to reduce the irreducible without providing examples -- which again gets back to what you said about "show me". </p>

<p>I have sometimes thought about starting a thread on this Philosophy board about prejudices in photography. What we like, what we don't like. But a bit more deeper and thoughtful than just creating a list of pet peeves or creating an "Academy of the Overrated". How our prejudices affect the way we view the work of others and how it impacts our own work. Are we embarrassed by certain of our prejudices and do we struggle to overcome them? If I had more time and energy I'd post it right now. </p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Thanks for clarifying, Fred. Just in a sensitive mood, I guess.</p>

[Brad_]

I dunno. Here's my take-away...

 

Lewis starts a thread to express certain views of his about sp which he himself characterizes as dogmatic. That's fine.

 

Others weigh in, some sharing *their* thoughts where rules/limitations are not a part of their street shooting. Lewis feel insulted and

attacked by Lex, and probably by myself because we express views that aren't aligned with his. There may be others as well, but

there's only so much I can read and process.

 

What I get from this is it seems Lewis is fine with sharing his beliefs, but is not very interested in hearing what others have to say

about their views and approach to street shooting. To the point where it looks like he again feels insulted and needs to bail as a result.

Too bad, because from checking out his website he has some really good photos - I was hoping he'd stick around.

 

I'm sure I've missed some nuance, but for me my take-away is a shrug and a big oh well...

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Steve G:</strong> But doesn't the substance exist, or not exist, in the work? Regardless of what statements are made by the photographer? If they say, "I believe in X and my work is about X!", yet it clearly appears that is about Y, or G...what then? That's what I mean about that poor rat's hind parts...it doesn't matter to me what they say, or whether or not they are consistent. I mean, yes, it can have an impact on what I think of them, but ultimately the work is the work is the work.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Steve, all good points and I agree on one level but disagree on another. Here's the thing. PN is a place I come, in part, to learn and grow as a photographer. Others have said they use it that way as well. So, there are times when what I say and what others say has been very important. Though it's probably ultimately about the work, work, work (that's work cubed, right?), it can very much be about what I and what others say. I've said things about what I'm trying to show and, in fact, some people have told me over the years that the work doesn't really show that. Talking that through has allowed me to see more clearly that in fact my work wasn't showing what I thought it was and has helped me to better home in on what I wanted. A recent example with another photographer. He had said in response to someone's critique that, much like Lewis said here, he really wants and likes a light post processing touch and a "naturalistic" look and his photo looked really far from natural and very over-processed. If we had all just let the work speak, there would have been no way of knowing that he had missed his mark by so much. He really was not seeing what was there. And I've experienced that, too, especially when I look back at some of my earlier work. That's one of the reasons I asked Lewis to see his work. To make sure he wasn't deceiving himself as I have deceived myself sometimes. He wasn't. His work bore out what he'd said. Anyway, the photographer in question was a little taken aback but by the end of the discussion seemed to be seeing what some of us were seeing. By speaking clearly, articulately, and sometimes even dogmatically, I can put myself and my work on the line. Yes, it's taking a risk. But I'm willing to take that risk in order to be very clear and sometimes dogmatic about what I think will work for me and what my goal is. Maybe once a photographer or artist has "arrived" and has developed a voice and the ability to really <em>see</em> and see well, what he says could be less important (though I'm still interested and think thoughts accompanying work can always be of value). But I'd venture to say a lot of the folks I've run into on PN have not quite yet "arrived" and do benefit by verbalizing stuff and getting some feedback on their work in terms of their goals or what they think it's doing. I know I have.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>but I suspect he was expressing a <em>preference </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em> </em><br>

His last post would indicate otherwise.</p>

[cyanatic]

<p>This thread is going in multiple directions now...Lewis' comments, Jeff, me, and others talking about Lewis' comments, and Fred and I talking about work.</p>

<p>Getting back to Lewis talking about an LR preset giving a street look to so-so photographs (or any photograph). I am not an LR expert, but I have been using it since close to its introduction and am particularly familiar with the Develop module. I think anyone who has similar experience, and who has created and used LR presets, knows that no preset (unless it's extremely simple, as in a slight boost of clarity or exposure) will work the same on all photos. I have many presets that I really fine tuned for certain photos and certain situations and on some photos they may look good and on others they look like total crap. The point being that, like almost everything, there is no "one size fits all" solution. (Just as there is no such thing -- and here I <em>am </em>being dogmatic -- as only one way to approach street photography.) So for anyone to bill a preset as giving any photograph a "street look" is just plain silly.</p>

<p>Jeff -- I think I missed the last post you're talking about. Yes, it's probably a little stronger than a preference but I'd rather Lewis came back and wrote for himself. Like Brad, I would have liked to have heard more from him.</p>

<p>Fred -- I see what you mean. I was thinking more in terms of established photographers talking about their work than photographers in a learning situation we might find on PN or elsewhere. I understand how someone who thinks their post processing is light and natural-looking could learn from others who see that it does not truly appear that way. But I was thinking in terms of less easily discerned aesthetic or philosophical nuances: certain critics decrying Frank's "The Americans" for being an intentionally "ugly" and bleak portrayal of American culture, with Frank maintaining that he just documented that which he found, with no preconceived agenda playing a role in the editing process. While I am interested in what a given photographer says about their own work (and it might even initially influence me), I will eventually come to my own conclusions based upon how I interpret the work and how it affects me. I care about helping another photographer in a learning situation if I can, and I appreciate constructive criticism of my own work, but I see that as being distinctly different from, say, an artistic statement made by an artist for their gallery opening. In the latter situation I will rely on the work -- cubed or otherwise ;-) -- to make a determination. <br>

</p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Yes, Steve, understood. Since we were reacting to Lewis's comments about his working style, and we're on PN, the PN environment seemed like the situation I would concentrate on in this context. In a gallery setting, if there's an artistic statement, I will often be interested to read that as part of the experience. It may or may not influence me and sometimes I save it for reading after I've viewed the work and then go back and look at the work again. Many times, looking at the work after reading the statement adds a whole new dimension for me. Sometimes, reading the statement does nothing for me at all. I can't generalize on the subject, for myself.</p>

[cyanatic]

<p>I'll tell you another thing I'm dogmatic about. My intense dislike for the one stupid photo of mine that pops up in the threads in which I post. ;-)</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>It's likely the only one you ever submitted for ratings. Put some more up for ratings (if you can bear it . . . you don't even have to look at the ratings), and you'll see more of a variety down there.</p>

<p>On artist statements, I've seen so many good ones. A good one, to me, is not necessarily one that tells me how to interpret the work or even how the artist interprets her own work. It's one that may talk about the personal life of the artist, the motivations of the artist, the artist's history and process, even the artist's own influences. For me, art is a sharing. And it's an important form of human expression. As a kindred spirit, I'm interested to understand and feel more about how the lived experience and the humanity of the maker gets expressed in the work. So knowing things about the maker, especially from his own intimate and inside view, can really broaden how I experience that relationship between maker and what's made. The work itself is of great importance to me and there is a level at which I take it for what it is and what it presents to me. But, at another very important level it comes from someone and tying together things about that someone to the work can really open up worlds for me and actually helps quite a bit with my own ability to express myself and to allow my own life experiences to find a voice that can be heard in my work.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"PN is a place I come, in part, to learn and grow as a photographer. Others have said they use it that way as well."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's why I've been here so long as well. There wouldn't be any other reason to stick around if I didn't experience some personal growth.</p>

<p>Part of that growth has resulted from reconsidering my opinions after others have challenged my assertions. While I don't believe that growth always needs to be a consequence of debate, confrontation or dispute, those types of situations do offer unique opportunities. We can choose to be put off by a bit of friction or choose to consider it another opportunity for learning and growing.</p>

<p>I grew up near NYC in the 1960s in a horrible little burb a short train ride to the north that was such a hell hole the city seemed like a safe refuge in comparison. That's where I started in photography, although as a kid I had no concept of "street photography". I just wandered around taking awful, timid, poorly composed and exposed snapshots of whatever caught my attention, generally annoying the Central Park horse drawn carriage drivers and people on the subways. It was a great experience. Everything I learned about street photography came later, and most of it turned out to be wrong, mostly urban myths and tales distorted in the retelling.</p>

<p>More than 10 years ago (yikes, over a decade - has it been that long?) I recall a debate with Jeff over my rather dogmatic assertions about what was and wasn't "real" street photography. At the time I was stuck in that puritanical mindset that real street photography was of the "don't affect/disturb/disrupt the scene" variety.</p>

<p>I didn't feel alienated, discouraged or unwelcomed by challenges to my beliefs. I took some time to re-examine those beliefs and opinions, to study more contemporary street and documentary photographers, and to reconsider the process behind the classic examples of street photography I'd grown up admiring.</p>

<p>I discovered that many of those classic photos were as much the work of master printers like <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=master+printers+like+Luis+of+Magnum+Photo&rlz=1C1LENN_enUS490US490&oq=master+printers+like+Luis+of+Magnum+Photo&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#newwindow=1&safe=off&q=pablo+inirio+Magnum+Photo">Pablo Inirio of Magnum Photos</a>, as they were the art of the photographer. As my own b&w darkroom techniques improved I began to recognize the telltale signs of manipulation in prints by other photographers and their printers. Some museum prints I saw of photos by Robert Frank and Garry Winogrand showed remarkable indifference to technique - the same prints, had I made them in class, would have been marked up with notes to reprint. Yet their photos retained an impact because of their content, intent and intangibles, where mine seemed like academic exercises.</p>

<p>And I discovered that while Robert Doisneau is often quoted for saying "If you take photographs, don’t speak, don’t write, don’t analyse yourself, and don’t answer any questions," he was also a contradictory character, very outspoken about photography, and that some of his most notable street photos were actually posed or staged, not unposed candids.</p>

<p>Watching documentary videos of photographers doing their thing - Winogrand, Meyerowitz, Klein and others - they're not invisible, "not affecting the scene". They're right out in the open, right in front of people. They may not be right up in people's faces with direct flash like Gilden, but they're not flies on the wall or surveillance cameras either.</p>

<p>These were liberating experiences. It was a relief to be freed from unnecessary constraints, artificial rules imposed by misguided notions of purity that mostly evolved from misapprehensions about how the "masters" actually worked.</p>

<p>And I learned to adapt from that liberation. I read voraciously, studied other people's photos and anything they wrote about how they took those photos, how they approached people or handled chance encounters, friendly or confrontational. I begged, borrowed and stole ideas and inspirations from folks in this forum - Jeff, Brad, Fred, pretty much all of the regulars. Ditto TOP columnists, folks on Flickr, Facebook, photographers profiled on the NYT Lens blog - everywhere and everybody. Personal documentary photographers like Jim Mortram, Zun Lee, Angelo Merendino. I get only one or two opportunities a month to do this so my approach is continually evolving and, hopefully, growing and improving. I'm more likely now to chatter with folks and snap folks as we talk than I might have done 10 or 20 years ago. And I like my photos more now, if only because the experiences and memories associated with them feel closer to where I want to go.</p>

<p>Fort Worth, Texas, isn't NYC. Even with the ubiquity of cell phone cameras around the touristy areas, and a prominent local lifestyle photographer celebrating the upscale downtown lifestyle with society page type posed snaps, there aren't many "street photographers" here. People on the bus aren't going to be indifferent to the guy snapping photos of them without introduction or explanation. But people in my hometown are a gregarious bunch, open to conversation and almost always willing to let me snap photos with only a cursory explanation about what I'm doing and why. Often folks will see my camera and actually ask me to photograph them, without any expectation of ever seeing a copy (I do try to email copies and carry prints in case I see them again).</p>

<p>And I still get a kick out of the unposed, spontaneous and ambush type street snaps by folks like Marc Brown in NYC and many others. There's so much going on now, so much to see and learn from, shared experiences that weren't available years ago, or were garbled and misrepresented because the stories didn't come directly from the photographers themselves. It's a great time to do this thing.</p>

[Brad_]

Lex, a little stunned, all I can say is "Awesome!" Great reading your post and knowing someone else gets

"it"* and is living, enjoying and soaking in all that shooting on the street has to offer. Some people never get

beyond the "going out to take proper street photography photographs" and in the end miss a much richer

experience that's right in front of them. Tip-o-my-hat for an excellent writeup on what street shooting can

be about, along with how you came to where you are now. Not surprising that Jeff has influenced me as

well, meeting every other week or so for lunch for the last 13 years...

 

* For those in the room squirming in their chairs: Yes, there can be many "its," and everyone is allowed to have their personal it.

[lewis_lorton1]

<p>It seems that people write a lot more willingly than they read.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />"What I get from this is it seems Lewis is fine with sharing his beliefs, but is not very interested in hearing what others have to say about their views and approach to street shooting. To the point where it looks like he again feels insulted and needs to bail as a result. Too bad, because from checking out his website he has some really good photos - I was hoping he'd stick around.<br /><br />I'm sure I've missed some nuance, but for me my take-away is a shrug and a big oh well..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wasn't insulted, I quickly realized that this wasn't a discussion so much as a chance for others to wax generously - and off topic - about themselves and it was a waste of time for me because I didn't hear anything that made me think my philosophy should be changed. (I did appreciate the link to Moriyama's work.)<br>

I stated the way I worked and then it became a discussion where people wanted to make me back off those points - or took offense because I didn't choose either to work or like the way they chose for themselves. I said exactly what I think about my own work and the attitude I take to others.<br>

Also I said exactly why I wouldn't engage with Lex. He bloviates, takes every position, insults indirectly and actually doesn't respond but just waits for a space so he can start talking again. That's a waste of time for me; he wants attention and space and he can take all he wants without my cooperation. <br>

.<br>

I stopped engaging with the thread because. altho this is the 'philosophy of photography' forum, when I stated mine, people were insulted that I didn't take care of them by using acceptable words and somehow be polite, cordial and accepting of the entire world. I am unused to being falsely congratulatory and I would rather be known as honest than easy to be around.<br>

.<br>

But I do want to correct a clear misreading of what I said.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>like Lewis said here, he really wants and likes a light post processing touch and a "naturalistic" look and his photo looked really far from natural and very over-processed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I did not say I liked a natural approach; my attitude towards post-processing is always that it should spring from the content rather than just be tacked on to make the picture somehow look more important or more genuine.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>I believe that the processing should support the meaning not stand instead of it.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>These Instagram-like pictures may seem attractive at first in the 'oh cool, it looks so old and like film' kind of way, but then looking at the pictures one realizes they are incoherent, there is no connection between the content and the way they are edited. They then become for me, irritating rather than engaging, like seeing breakfast cereal that touts its goodness but is really empty calories.<br>

.<br>

I did notice that, although a couple of people made the point that it was somehow important that a photographer should walk the walk rather than only talk the talk, I didn't see anyone actually looking at my work on the link provided and verify that I practice how I talk.<em><br /></em><br>

.<br>

On a more general topic, I find this site rather confusing; the interface really is terrible. Critiquing seems to be at a minimum and the limitations on image size means that beginners, who could use a hard look at the details of their work, can't get it.</p>

 

[spanky]

<p>I know where Lewis is coming from, I too see a lot street photography which looks over-processed and/or relies on visual puns, gimmicks or bright snappy colors and I also think as I look at these pictures that they must be as Jeff mentioned the content itself. Such pictures don't stay with me for any longer then my eyes are on it but really, who cares? It's a big world, plenty of room for everyone to add their contribution, like eating a loaded pizza I simply pick off what I don't like and leave the rest on my slice to eat. I think that human nature being what it is, many people feel they have to have their beliefs validated by others. Eventually I think people also reach a point where they realize that there are many more problems in the world then what kind of street photography is "legit" and they grow more confident because of this. I'm lucky in a way I guess because I never reached this point because I never considered myself to be an expert or my photographs to be anything more then photographs. I mean, my photographs aren't going to change anything about the world we live in so why not just enjoy the ride while it lasts?</p>

<p>On a side note since Moriyama was brought up: I have several of his books, I go to see his pictures whenever some show up locally here in LA (there are a handful right now in the Getty Center as part of a group show of Japanese photographers) and there are a couple of pictures of his I'm fond of but really overall I just find his work to be lacking in content once you get past his high contrast approach. Yes, they are nice to look at, but there's just no substance beyond it for me anyway. Moriyama gave a talk at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art a few years back. I attended it and was very excited to because I thought that he might offer an epiphany of some kind that will make me see what I might be missing in his work. After all, he has a huge following which I knew even before that day as I sat in the bookstore that was packed so much (with no air conditioning mind you) that people who arrived late simple had to stand outside the door and stretch their necks to see anything. Anyway, for about an hour Moriyama spoke about his background, his influences, and so fourth. Basically, he gave the same statements that he's given in so many interviews over the years; it was nothing I hadn't already heard about him. After the talk was complete and he hung around to sign books, I left thinking that I would have learned more by doing my own shooting instead. I do respect Moriyama in the sense that he developed a very personal style unlike anyone else's at the time but his work just doesn't get to me like the work of some others.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> I did notice that, although a couple of people made the point that it was somehow important that a photographer should

walk the walk rather than only talk the talk, I didn't see anyone actually looking at my work on the link provided and verify

that I practice how I talk.

 

How do you know that? Several people referenced your website. I suspect most here visited it.

 

>>> I did not say I liked a natural approach; my attitude towards post-processing is always that it should spring from the

content rather than just be tacked on to make the picture somehow look more important or more genuine.

 

Looking at some of your B&W images, to me, the post processing feels overbaked and heavy-handed, to the point where it appears

the photo's power comes more from the B&W post processing, rather than the underlying image. Which is totally fine, but is very

inconsistent with your position of objecting to post processing making photos look more important or genuine.