spanky

<p> </p><div></div>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Sigh...yet another homeless photographer. I often wonder just how one can convince themselves that they are serving some greater good by photographing the homeless. For most photographers it seems they are simply trying for sensationalism for the sake of making a name for themselves which is to say they are exploiting these people purely for personal gain which I think is truly sad. Sad, but not surprising as it doesn't seem to be longer then month goes by when another batch of homeless pictures makes the rounds on social media. I couldn't find any mention of this photographers work being part of a paid commission for some publication so I guess it's simply a vanity project intended to impress her followers on social media. Homeless photography is truly the low hanging fruit of documentary/photojournalism (I also don't consider this to be "street photography" in the generally accepted definition of the term.) Her pictures are a notch above the typical drive-by style of homeless photography being that she can interact with her subjects but that still doesn't save these from being unoriginal. She should look for subject matter that is new and hasn't already been done a million times over. I too photographed on LA's skid row five years back one Christmas morning. It was a long story on how I got to be there and I've already gone over it before. </p>

<p>We live in an age where more consumers want cheap rather then quality. Manufactures have listened and are more then happy to supply us with cheaply made goods that will have to be repalced (rather then repaired as in the old days) in less then a year. Whenever I pick up a dslr kit aimed at the consumer market, I'm always surprised at how cheaply made they feel.</p> <p>Now, here's my story. I've always valued quality and am willing to spend the extra money to get it. Take shoes for example. I wear mostly leather lace ups like oxfords, spectators, and some slip ons. I like the Italian made one of course but I wear mostly Allen Edmonds which are made here in the US. They are very well made shoes and at full retail they are approaching about $400 a pair these days. So I wait for sales and sometimes order from their clearance page online. One day a buddy of mine was admiring a pair I was wearing and when he asked me where I got them and for how much I replied they were bought from the website on a markdown for about $275. He looked at me like I was nuts. He couldn't believe anyone would spend so much on a pair of shoes. So I explained to him that these shoes are actually in the long run cheaper then the Nike athletic shoes he was wearing because while my shoes were already about five years old his Nikes might last a year at best and then he'll throw them away. So while he'll spend $100 or more on Nike each year I have Allen Edmonds that are over 20 years old and still look and feel great that I paid only several hundred for. </p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>In Los Angeles it's a strange experience. Samy's Camera has several locations and every time I drop into one of them the place is always crowded. Always. Calumet as we all know has closed and Freestyle rarely has more then a couple of people in it and often times there is nobody in there. Smaller mom&pop stores are still hanging on, Simons, Mel Pierce, Bel Air Camera, and Cam Photo are still in business and sometimes they are busy and sometimes not.</p>

<p>I attended the Orange County fair this summer. I shot quite a bit that day but I may still have rolls to develop and what I have done didn't impress me too much. There are a few frames that looked somewhat promising (this is one) but I really don't have time to go through things and print. Maybe some left over rolls will have better pickings....</p><div></div>

<p>Even though I live in LA, I was a regular customer at K&S. I have family that live in the Bay Area so I'd visit a few times a year and most visits would walk out with something such as film, a Sekonic L-508 meter, maybe a book, some darkroom items (at one time they had a huge dedicated darkroom section) such as those amber glass bottles that I couldn't find in any camera stores here in LA, a Mamiya 7 I rented, and so on. I've gotten to know a number of employees there on a first name basis and one of them became one of my first "fans" of my street photography. So yeah, I'm very disappointed. I spoke with one of the employees yesterday and he agreed, camera sales have been in sharp decline as more and more people simply just use their phone while others buy their DSLR's at big box stores or online and then come to K&S to ask how to use it.</p>

<p>Thanks Javier. Yes, the 2nd pic is the 3rd St. Promenade. After a year or so hiatus I'm starting to shoot there again so more to follow in the near future. The first pic was in Hollywood. I was trying out a 28mm lens I picked up that same day at the Bargain Camera Show which is in Pasadena each month.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>This will be easy. All my lenses are fixed.</p><div></div>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Why not just create your own website? From what I gather it's easy and quite inexpensive these days.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>As a die hard b&w film shooter, I have no idea how to answer this question. I simply like film. I like the look, the process and the fact that I shoot differently with film then I do digital. My digital pictures always lack an element that I readily notice but cannot describe. If film were to completely stop being made I would probably hang up the cameras for good. Film is just the medium that works for me better then digital. Different strokes and all that.</p>

<p>It doesn't matter to me. Whatever people post I look at. There are numerous groups devoted to street photography but I generally avoid them. These days I'm really enjoying the photos of our two illustrious presidential candidates that accompany political comments. </p>

<p>I live in Los Angeles which is the 2nd most populated city in the US. We have many newspapers starting with the biggie which is the LA Times and then we have some local papers. All in all, most of the staff photographers have been laid off years ago. There are still a few around and I see 'em at protests and such. I'm not so sure about the local papers but a neighbor of mine recently gave me an issue of one that had a want ad for staff photographers. I'm not interested however in quitting my day job to pursue this which probably doesn't pay very much. Other then that for all accounts that I've learned there really isn't any jobs anymore for local photojournalists that are on staff. Maybe as a freelancer if you can make contacts with the editors one can submit photos and accompanying text but I cannot say for sure.</p> <p>Anyway, this reminds me of one of the most amusing experiences I had as a photographer. Several years ago I attended the LA County Coroner Unclaimed Body Inter-faith Service and Burial. It's known by its shorter and less politically correct term: The Paupers Funeral. It was my first time attending and I went to take pictures. So did a handful of news outlets as well. While I roamed around taking pictures I began to notice a woman with several large dslr bodies and huge lenses attached to them. She also had several press passes hung around her neck. I noticed her because wherever I roamed she always seemed to be hovering nearby, like 20 feet or so away from me. So I kept a watch on her from the corner of my eye and saw that whenever I took a picture and moved on, she would then stand where I just stood and point one of her cameras at what I just took a picture of and then follow me to wherever I went to next keeping some distance between us and then she would again shoot what I just shot. She was poaching my shots I thought and I was kind of amused and kind of ticked off too. I mean it just couldn't be a coincidence but there was nothing I could do except tell her off and I wasn't about to do that during such a somber event. I just hope if she ran any of these pictures she gave me some kind of credit like 'Thank you to the guy in the black shirt and black pants with the old Nikon F3 for doing my work for me.' Below is one of the only pictures from that day I got around to printing.</p><div></div>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>From what I've been reading online it seems like the majority of people are using their cell phones to take pictures and are quite happy with doing so. This has hurt the sales of dslr's and point and shoot cameras. For most of us here however we will still shoo actual dedicated cameras but we may be a minority now. Hell, I'm in a very small minority since I still shoot film for basically all of my "serious" work. My only digital camera is my phone which I use for fun shots and on-the-go shots. However, I think the writing is on the wall with the majority of people using their phones and the majority is where manufactures look to for sales projections. </p>

<p>While Eggleston may not be considered movie star handsome, he is a very successful living artist and that alone can be very attractive to some women. Generally speaking artists, actors and musicians do not make enough money to make a living but something about being in these fields is attractive to some women and if you are one of the small percentage who achieves success then women will beat down your door.</p> <p>As to the 10 seconds question, sure I do. Most of the pictures I look at these days are in museums so I have time to look and contemplate without distractions. I used to visit a lot of online forums especially those dedicated to street photography but I don't anymore. To be honest I didn't find much of the work in these forums any good. Furthermore, some of these forums tended to be curated by people with a particular taste that isn't my cup of tea and others were so cliquey that the same small number of people where the only ones posting pictures. I made the mistake once of pointing out some obvious flaws in one picture and I caught holy Hell for it not only from the photographer herself but the other clique members who previously gushed over the picture. Oh well, so much for constructive criticism I guess. Some pictures don't need more then ten seconds to figure them out. Some don't even need five. All great works of art reveal themselves slowly. For what it's worth I visit museums on a regular basis. I observe my fellow patrons when I do and for the most part 10 seconds is about the length of time most of them stand in front of a painting or sculpture or photograph. I'm talking about work from some of the biggest names in the history of art. They may add a few extra seconds to take a selfie in front of it as well but very often they rush from one work to the next. I wonder when they leave if they remember any of it. <br> </p>