Dogmatic about Street Photography - at least for myself

[lewis_lorton1]

<blockquote>

<p>Which is totally fine, but is very inconsistent with your position of objecting to post processing making photos look more important or genuine.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, as I said before (see quote below) , I have no problem with the amount of the editing or the intent but only that the PPing be consistent and spring from the content rather than be essentially arbitrary.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am not against processing of any sort that supports the meaning but I have seen too many photos that are truly unexceptional and meaningless just beaten to death with post-processing and presented as 'street photos.'</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That you thought my pictures overworked is a matter of taste but my choice of 'work', of editing, springs from the content. <br>

Again, I can't imagine that this issue has more to be chewed over than has been done already. </p>

<p> </p>

[Brad_]

Lewis, you missed my point (not surprised). I don't see it coming from the content, rather it feels tacked on to give power artificially.

 

>>> I didn't see anyone actually looking at my work on the link provided and verify that I practice how I talk.

 

Again, how do you know this?

[lewis_lorton1]

 

<blockquote>

<p>Lewis, you missed my point (not surprised). I don't see it coming from the content, rather it feels tacked on to give power artificially.<br>

>>> I didn't see anyone actually looking at my work on the link provided and verify that I practice how I talk.<br>

Again, how do you know this?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Not surprised also that you would root around to find something to criticize. <br>

Since your photography isn't bad, I had hoped you were better than that but if this is the kind of antagonism that typifies the way you and the others treat people who don't agree with you, it is not surprising that most of the critiques are you guys giving back rubs to each other.</p>

<p> </p>

 

[Brad_]

>>> Not surprised also that you would root around to find something to criticize.

 

Huh? Where's the criticism? Just up above you made a point of no one looking at your site in

the context of verifying that you actually practice what you preach. I'm just genuinely *curious* how you determined

that. So please, if you will, let us know. I believe most here have looked at your site.

 

>>> Since your photography isn't bad, I had hoped you were better than that but if this is the kind of

antagonism that typifies the way you and the others treat people who don't agree with you, it is not

surprising that most of the critiques are you guys giving back rubs to each other.

 

You seem very sensitive and become easily upset if people express views not in alignment with

yours. Why? Again, genuinely curious.

[cyanatic]

<blockquote>this issue has more to be chewed over than has been done already.</blockquote>

<p>It is not uncommon here to have a discussion generate a number of side discussions -- some of which may go on for many more pages than the original topic.</p>

<p>I did look at your website (most of us here will do that), I just didn't mention it yet. As a general summation, I'd say it's good work overall and I think you definitely have an eye and a feel for street photography. It can take a lot of time to really digest any one photographer's body of work in order to do it justice so a general summation is all I can offer right now. (Not that you asked for, or need, my opinion.) </p>

<p>Do you "walk the talk"? Well, I'm the guy who said that I don't give a rat's ass (in general, not your talk in particular), and that I just look at the work. And I'm not even sure that I know what the "talk" is anymore. That PP should only be used if it serves the work? What I think that means may be totally different from what you think it means. The majority of your work fits that statement, a few minor exceptions do not (the selectively colored tent pitched in the off-ramp barrier comes to mind -- too great an effort to call attention to it in my opinion, my preference would be to leave it alone and let the viewer discover it for themselves -- a risk, because that requires a viewer who has the patience and desire to discern such subtleties). So now look what I've done -- I've only called attention to one of many images in a critical way. Balance it with this: <a href="http://lewlortonphoto.com/p242688167/h253afc52#h5045b9a0">http://lewlortonphoto.com/p242688167/h253afc52#h5045b9a0</a> which I find a very good use of color, ambiguity (I prefer the nuance of that word to "mystery"), light and shadow, in a street photograph. And, as I said, more good stuff than stuff I could be picky about. </p>

<p>I'll continue one of the "side discussions" in a separate post.</p>

<p> </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Lest it be lost sight of, the forum here on P.net is "Street <strong>& Documentary</strong>".</p>

<p>You can take whatever kind of picture YOU want.</p>

<p>Just don't try to tell me what I can do.</p><div></div>

[Spearhead]

<p>This is in the Philosophy of Photography forum.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Lew, it's not clear from the overall content of your posts here what exactly you're wanting from this discussion. You appear to have rejected every attempt anyone has made to interpret your intent, or to engage in an open ended discussion. For instance, this is the philosophy forum, aka the bloviation forum. That's what participants do here. Had you posted to the street, casual, beginner or other forum, the replies might have been nuanced a bit differently.</p>

<p>The only consistent, readily identifiable, actionable theme in your comments is about critiques. Did you want a critique of your portfolio? It seems as if that's what you were wanting, but you rather ungraciously rejected Brad's effort - which was direct but not personal - by responding with ad hominems and impugning the motivations and character of people here whom you haven't even taken the effort to get to know better.</p>

<p>I'll just conclude by saying that some of your photos are very good, but your portfolio is too large and diverse to offer any other feedback. And your own photo editing choices contradict your written assertions. Just from looking at your website's auto-slideshow a few times, it's a hodgepodge of:</p>

<ul>

<li>Neutral b&w and color processing (the b&w of the older couple embracing is wonderful);</li>

<li>some more dramatic interpretive b&w editing (the single figure walking along a shining trail is very good and while the processing is obvious it serves the photo);</li>

<li>some rather tacky tonemapped or pseudo-HDR color stuff;</li>

<li>and at least one trite example of spot tone of a red or orange tent in a b&w urban highway scene. You should trust the viewer - spot color is like shouting GET IT? SEE? Yeah, we get it. It's a good photo that takes a moment to appreciate. Trust the viewer.</li>

</ul>

<p>Your homepage slideshow should probably be more coherent in look, theme, and be consistent with your own assertions about editing serving the image.</p>

<p>More importantly, you're not ready for a peer review critique. You probably won't enjoy photo.net because it's a peer discussion site. It's mainly a good fit for folks of diverse backgrounds and experience levels who are tolerant of differences of opinion, differences in skill level, capable of mutual respect, and enjoy open ended discussions. And, yeah, we can seem a bit cliquish, but that's common to any mature community - keep in mind that photo.net is the oldest photography site on the web, and some of us have been here a long time. It's not right for everyone. It appears you'll only accept feedback and advice from someone you consider to be your superior. You'll have to look elsewhere because you've already dismissed us.</p>

<p>Best wishes. You have some excellent individual photos and some potential. You should sign up for a workshop and critique with an internationally acclaimed photographer whose work and/or critique style you respect.</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>This is in the Philosophy of Photography forum.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, <em>so</em>?<br>

Nonetheless, the forum <em>on street photography</em> here at P.net is still for <strong>documentary</strong> as well as street photography. I said what I meant and meant what I said.</p>

 

[Brad_]

JDM, I was looking at your photo up above and was wondering what makes it "documentary." Can you elaborate?

[JDMvW]

<p>No, it's not documentary-- it's the kind of 'street photography' that some disbarred (a picture of a street).<br>

It is, however, another entry in my Carbondale Polyspheroid Water Tower series...<br>

I guess I am being too subtle or too obscure. Either way, forget about it.</p>

[cyanatic]

<blockquote>Lex Jenkins -- "<em>mature community</em>"</blockquote>

<p>I want to lodge a formal complaint that I resent the implication of this term. </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I knew that would be a mistake. Okay, we're an old community of immature curmudgeons. Senior netizens. Annoying Aggregate of Recalcitrant Photographers. If we were birds we'd be a Bluster of Bloviators.</p>

[cyanatic]

<p>Much better. ;-) "Immature Curmudgeons" -- That will be the title of a book, written some years hence, by some 20-something hipster whippersnapper about a loose collective of senior netizens who hung out at various internet locations together, bloviating, snarking, and sharing photographs. A sort of Cyber Photo League of the early 21st Century. Nurse? Nurse? What do you mean what am I writing about? I'm passing wisdom...or was that just gas? </p>

 

[Allen Herbert]

<p>. Okay, we're an old community of immature curmudgeons. Senior netizens. Annoying Aggregate of Recalcitrant Photographers. If we were birds we'd be a Bluster of Bloviators.</p>

<p>No, we are a mixed community of thoughtful folk who like to share their thoughts and photos. Nice folk.</p>

<p>The problem with the community is some folk like everyone to agree with them otherwise they will burst into tears. They do not like a challenge to their thoughts! Indeed, the challenge is where the creativity of thought and Art comes from. The creativity in Art has always been about challenging ideas and thought.</p>

<p>Fred G, if you do not agree with any of my post please do not do the "nm thing". Just say what you think or say a load of BS...no offence will be taken. Otherwise I will rip your privates off and spoil your love life, So there...with a smile. Because, you are challenged, and some folk disagree, no need to cry. We are all nice folk, and like most folk we have our ups and downs. And on occasion we like to throw custard pies at each other. Sort of a fun thing to do.</p>

<p> </p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>To answerer the question is simple.</p>

<p>Do your own thing....</p>

<p>But keep an open mind to others and try to understand what they are trying to communicate. A closed mind, and a dogmatic approach is insular and few truly creative folk have that approach.</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Lewis, after rereading the private messages we have exchanged and reading the last 2 or 3 pages on this thread, I have concluded that your expectations of how communication is supposed to work - especially in honest dialogue - are quite unrealistic. No one who has posted anything to this thread has attacked you, insulted you, or used an argument ad hominem to try refuting any arguments you have advanced. Pardon some trite metaphors, but it seems to me that you have rather narrow shoulders and thin skin. But it's ok with me if you want to take your ball and go home because you don't like how the games is played.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Lewis starts a thread on:</p>

<h1>"Dogmatic about Street Photography - at least for myself"</h1>

<p>...and tells everybody, who care to read it, a few personal viewpoint on what <strong>HE</strong> considers "good street photography": I hold; I believe, I cant help - and off it goes ! ! ! <br /> I'm highly dogmatic on street photograph too, like Lewis, although my dogmatism is different, but after having read the tirades above, I don't think this is the place to elaborate. A pity, it could have been interesting to discuss.</p>

<p>By the way what has this to do with philosophy ?</p>

[golem_bngolem]

<p>` <br>

<br>

Was just now reading the whole thread and<br>

was struck by *The Three Ms* aka Meaning<br>

Mood and Mystery. <br>

<br>

There is/was a "Fourth M", who is/was rather<br>

reknown for proclaiming that "2 outa 3 ain't <br>

bad", and I got to wondering if this held true<br>

even for the 3 Ms of Street Photography. <br>

<br>

` </p>

[golem_bngolem]

<p>` <br /> <br /> Substance, Situation, Spontaneity <br /> <br /> Context, Content, Cohesivity<br /> <br /> Honesty, Humanity, History <br /> <br /> Reality, Reaction, Revelation<br /> <br /> Insight, Imagination, Instant<br>

<br>

Thematic, Dogmatic, Catmatic <br /> <br /> <br /> Hey all !!! Seems like almost<br /> anyone can be dogmatic and<br /> spin these triplets out by the<br /> alliterative dozens.</p>

<p> </p>

[golem_bngolem]

<p>` <br>

<br>

Truth, Tension, Transformation </p>

<p>Action, Anticipation, Aesthetic <br>

<br>

<br>

Soooomebody help me, I just<br>

can't help myself. Is there a<br>

12 Stepper Program for this ? <br>

<em>"Hello my name is Golem and </em><br>

<em>I'm an alliteraholic .... " </em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em>` </em></p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>http://www.citysnaps.net/blog/</p>

<p>To help with some street stuff before we are all lost in the world of weird and wonderful...</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>A Christmas present from me.</p>

[Brad_]

Merry Christmas, Allen.