Spearhead Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 Sorry, Travis, I think those prove my point. It's interesting that being chickenshit is used to justify shooting among tourists. Great street shots don't come from being chickenshit. They come from being on the street, being part of the street, taking the risks. Sometimes, they come from getting to know the people (real people), like Eugene Richards' work. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henricus Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 <p><i>"The ways of approaching street photography are about as numerous as the people practicing it--one person's "good advice" might be completely counterproductive for someone else's approach."<p></i> <p> <p> <p>Mike,<p> <p> However, the basics such as move in closer if you are looking for X type of shot or, what are the most common approaches to street photography? I love to learn from doing, especially when I can talk to someone who has been there, done that.<p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cd thacker Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 <i>It's interesting that being chickenshit is used to justify shooting among tourists. Great street shots don't come from being chickenshit.</i><p> It's not about "chickenshit" - it's about seeing without being seen. Sometimes its about that, anyway. Anything that can help you blend into the background - including being taken for a tourist - is helpful, or can be. (Soldiers don't wear comouflage because they're "chickenshit".)<p> Blending into the background is only one way of proceeding. But it is an important way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_. Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 i think william klein would disagree with that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cd thacker Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 Would disagree with what? That blending into the background is an important way of proceeding? Who asked William Klein, anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_. Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 nobody Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cd thacker Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 Well, anyway, Grant, I see your point: Klein's straight-on technique works well for him (and for you, too). In recent years he seems to have used this almost exclusively. But for the rest of us there are many approaches. And in my view they should all be explored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_. Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 i never disagreed with that... <p> its why experience is the only true teacher... <p> others can only guide.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray . Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 Jeff, are you implying that tourists aren't real people? You've been saying some pretty funny stuff lately!<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_. Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 thats a tourist? <p> nahhhhhh..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray . Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 At Canter's Deli? Yeah, good chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis1 Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 Jeff, why you called me a chickenshit? WHy are you so rude to me? ;) I like being face to face sometimes, but like Doug said, different people have different approaches and they see things differently. Getting face to face doesn't always produce the best piz either. Again, why are you so rude to me? ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 Shooting tourists might be a good way to start in the beginning, and perhaps you might even get something that's interesting occasionally. But in the end, it sure seems shallow. The last thing I want to do is hang around Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco and cop-out shooting tourists. Can't recall any decent published street shots where that was the focus in order to take easy snaps. Try harder and better rewards will be yours.<P> .<P> <center> <img src= "http://pages.sbcglobal.net/b-evans/WebImages/8-30-03NYCWe b/image/ny1.jpg"><BR><I>Probably not a tourist</I> </center> www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 Uhh, Travis, that was about the article, not you. He says people might hit the photographer. Then he talks about shooting tourists as the way to go. Seemed like he was saying it was better to shoot tourists because you wouldn't risk anything. Sorry, but...no risk, not photos... Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis1 Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 oh ok Jeff. SOrry. I agree partly with the article anyway. Not fully. I think one needs to really get in there(streets) and feel it. You don't necessary get the best photos but at least you become part of it. I think that's important. And risks? WHo gives a s*** about risks? ;) Anyway, I think we should tourists a break. Their part of the street people also. Shall we? Are there a lot of WIlliam Klein fans here? Seems so. cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis1 Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 "give tourists a break..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas_sullivan Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 Well, I dont know about all the above............but this link"s overall message<br><br><a href="http://www.in-public.com/about.php">What is Street Photography?</a><br><br>has kinda become my goal to shoot for.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray . Posted October 4, 2003 Share Posted October 4, 2003 Boy, you guys sure got lots of rules. If it's about being a chickenshit, why not take your camera to Iraq? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray . Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 Oh oh.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin m. Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 Which one is Lee? The one with the cat-eye glasses, or the round ones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray . Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 Like a One-eyed cat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cd thacker Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 <i>Shooting tourists might be a good way to start in the beginning, and perhaps you might even get something that's interesting occasionally. But in the end, it sure seems shallow.</i><p> Tell it too <a href="http://www.arte2000.net/FIF/Biennali/1985/4_parr.jpg">Martin Parr</a>. He seems to have made a modest career of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 What I object to in the article is that the author recommends shooting in tourist areas because it's <I>easier</I> - you can blend in, and are less likely to noticed, get hit, etc.<P> But isn't that a compromise on one's vision? Unless of course you have something to say about tourists in tourist locations. If that's a theme you really want to pursue, then that's different - knock yourself out and do a portfolio. I suspect Parr shoots tourists for reasons other than it's easy shooting<P> There's nothing wrong with photographing tourists, and of course there are no rules as someone suggested previously. However, it's a compromise if easy shooting is your motivation. You're exchanging risk for a much narrower range of possibilities. Similarly and slightly OT, it would be much easier for Avedon to do portraits with a 35mm or MF instead of an 8x10 - but I suspect such a compromise would produce far less satisfactory results (which has little to do with negative detail, BTW...). www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travis1 Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 I think Brad finally nails it. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cd thacker Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 <i>You're exchanging risk for a much narrower range of possibilities.</i><p> A much different range of them, anyway. But I concede the point that if you're looking for the easy way out, you've got your priorities screwed on backwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now