abufletcher

I've noticed this at Disneyland and other theme parks. There is very little glee

on peoples faces. In fact, in most cases it looks like people on a death march

from one attraction to another.

 

I'm not sure this really means they aren't having fun though. It might just be

the public face that we have learned to display at such places. Compare this

with the childlike glee epxressed by Japanese teens at Tokyo Disneyland.

Are Paris and Bankok somehow stops on the same trip?

Linke, I don't see how this has anything whatsoever to do with whether the

subject feels it's kosher or not. As Jeff says this is an issue of how a photo is

presented to the end user (or editors along the way). If the claim is to be

made that the photo represents something that actually happened -- then it

darn well had better have happened -- exactly as depicted in the photo.

 

In Martin's initial post he mentions wanted to redo a shot to get a better angle.

I'd say that's a definite no-no. Learning to know where to be standing when

the action happens is as vital a photographic skill as working the camera.

Maybe the saying "f8 and be there" should be amended to "f8 and be just in

the right place"

First, I think I have to agree with Jeff about the distinciton between being "give

the opportunity/access" to shoot and being "given photos." A key part of a

successful PJ's life is gaining access. Getting the photos once you've gained

access is what you're paid for.

 

I think in an age where (really good) photo manipulation has become so easy

thanks ot Photoshop, photojournalists are being held to a higher ethical

standard than ever. As someone just starting out Martin should work to

establish an absolutely squeeky clean reputation in this respect. In think

Boris is right that what worked for Eugene Smith would today probably get

him fired his first day on the job.

 

And coming back to the idea of a photo "capturing a moment" -- well I knew

when I typed my prior comment that the issue of long and even multiple

exposures would come up. Jeff mentioned the use of the "flash and burn"

technique but somehow that is to me still "one moment" , albeit an "expanded"

one, and a hugely different thing than for example a double exposure (or a

slide sandwich) which I take it would never make the grade in

photojournalism.

 

Years ago I attended a photographic seminar at Anderson Ranch taught be

NG's Annie Griffiths Belt and I made the mistake of including in a mini-portfolio

a slide sandwich of some mosques in Turkey and a deep red sky. She was

positively offended by this!

Jeff, I guess I'd stay that one of the foundations of photojournalistic ethics is

the presupposition on the part of viewers that what they are looking at is

"real." And in this respect a re-enactment isn't real any more than that now

infamous photo taken by a photojournalist for the LA Times in Iraq that

combined the best aspects of two photos. It wasn't that the combined photo

was somehow untrue in terms of content but it no longer represented a single

moment in time -- which is one of the core properties of still photography.

The guys who do video journalism regularly ask people to redo things since

they have to tell a story with an obvious time sequence and they often just

can't be in the right place at the right time to get everything. Once while I was

on assignment in Kamchatka, a videographer from Reuters asked the

helicopter we were traveling in to take off and land again so he could shoot

the landing from the ground -- which the pilot proceeded to do. He then had

me redo my exit from the helicopter because the first time around I got out

before he did.

 

In terms of still photography, personally, I'm not comfortable "re-enacting"

anything. I figure if I missed it I missed it. I can't help feeling that the re-

enactment would also somehow me deader than the REAL THING. Life is

just too finely organized for all but the Robert DeNiro's of the world to be able

to fake it.

Hey buddy! Welcome! Strange to see a "neighbor" out here in cyberspace!

Andrew's a best bud from the next town over from "boring" Zentsuji.

Anyone seen the movie Pecker? To me the word "art" stinks to high heaven.

I'd also like to add that I almost never think in terms of photographing "the

street." I couldn't care less about the street. You really have to be totally into

watching people.

 

In fact maybe that's a good place to begin. Leave the camera behind and just

watch people until you find you just can't stand not photographing them doing

what you've been watching them doing.

BTW, I wouldn't have though of any of these photos as "street photos" -- and I

honestly don't get what is so special about "that" kind of photography. I like

photographing people I don't know (and hate taking photos of friends and

family). That some of the people I photograph are also on the street is just a

coincidnece.

 

Don't try to make yourself be someone else. There's no reason you have to

shoot like Frank or Winogrand (or Grant or Edmo) to make compelling

photographs. That's THEIR style of street photography. What's yours?

Get close. Get personal. Like Capa says: Show people you like them -- that

you're honestly interested in their lives.<div></div>

.,.,.,<div></div>

Nancy, first there really is no mystery. Just don't start in the deep end! There's

no reason you need to make "street photography" an IN YOUR FACE sort of

agressive act. Ease into it. Start with photos of "strangers" you have asked

to photograph -- really feel like you are brightening up their day by doing it!

 

Then move on to photographing (up close -- and in "inside" the scene --

events that are made to be photographed. Really join in and become one

with the crowd. That's what wide angles are for.

 

After a while this will just seem second nature and then you can start

approaching people you might otherwise not have approached.

 

I've always told myself that if you're not close enough to talk to your subject

your WAY too far back!

 

 

 

And whatever you do STAY away from telephotos! If you want to use a

telephoto go on safari.<div></div>

Nothng fancy on the lighting. I just waited until the light got nice around

6:30pm (summer) and had my two boys hold the model up against the sky!

 

Alex, and the pilot is just a G.I. Joe type figure.

Nice photo Alex! I agree that many of the photos people (including me) in Japan make could be almost anywhere in the country. I guess I've tired of these sorts of photos (festival photos) and am working on trying to capture more of the daily life -- which here in Zentsuji can be pretty mundane. What makes this doubly hard to commit to is that even the most mediocre photo of a guy in a Hapi coat or a woman in kimono will impress "the folks back home" much more than any insightful photo I might make of the real Japan (well ONE of the real Japans).

Alex, I can't claim the F-100 as my own. It was build by Joe Grice and took top prizes at the national scale competition called Top Gun. I thought I'd post it in this discussion of Demand's "false realism" since many her may never have seen this caliber of scale modeling.

 

As I said above what sets Demands work apart is the "not quite right" realism as well as the mundane scenes he chooses to model so closely. BTW, I'd again argue that if we as the viewers of his art need to be told which real life scenes these photo mockups are meant to portray (like who:s bathroom) in order to appreciate them as art this there's something wrong here.

Ah. HTML code. I've decided that HTML and me are not compatible. I had

enough of text tagging back when the leading word processor was WordStar!

I'll stick to Dreamweaver for my web needs or do without. Thanks anyway! : )

Liu, you have some very nice images there! Forgive my ignorance but how

do you do it so that there are threads listed under your name? I'm pretty PN

illiterate.

Zorfo, Estonia?

Just had another look at Demand's stuff. They actually do have an odd

fascination that the model aircraft above don't have. The models are almost

TOO perfect -- while Demand's crafted realities are purposefully off. And I

suppose in the long run that's what makes them art my my model just a model.

And one more a little closer...Is it art? Or just hobby craft?<div></div>

Mine again at a larger size. Printing these scenes of "replicated reality" extra

bit is, I suppose, another part of the art.<div></div>

And for something really mind-blowing...<div></div>

As a scale modeller myself I'm impressed with the neatness of his work. Can't

say this approach does anything for me as a photographer, though. I

suppose the "art" of it is that he chooses such absolutely banal scenes to

model in such pristine detail.

 

Here's one of mine.<div></div>

Erin, couldn't agree more!