spanky

<p>I was once walking down the street in downtown LA when I came across a man lying on on his side on the sidewalk. As I approached I noticed he suddenly unzipped his pants and began to urinate while still lying on his side. I noticed he was wearing a baseball cap with LA embroidered on the front. I had my camera with me and I could have taken a picture and for a split second I considered it (the baseball cap really drew me in) but I chose not to. Why? I can't say for sure. Hell, I can't explain why I take the pictures I do. However, if I was in New York in the days following 9-11 I would be out every day photographing as much of it as I could. This I'm sure of. I don't know what I would do with the results of my efforts but I'm often inclined to donate my work to worthy causes so I'm sure I would have put together a portfolio to give to an organization that would be grateful to have it. This thread reminds me of a story I read about from a year or two about a young woman who caused some controversy when she posted on social media a bunch of smiling selfies in and around a Nazi death camp that she was visiting.</p>

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

<p>You're probably right Ray, I may not notice other photographers because I guess they don't interest me as a subject for the most part, who knows? I will say however that I'm a bit amazed at how often I get recognized by other photographers. I'll show up to a protest of one sort or another or just be on the street shooting and another photographer will approach me and mention how often they see me and we'll trade cards if I happen to have any of mine on hand. Kind of odd in a way.</p>

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

<p>I don't know either and quite honestly I don't care. I've said many times here before that I'm just having fun. Works for me. One young lady who looked through a a stack of my pictures many years ago said I was living vicariously through the people in the photographs. Maybe, maybe not. Like I said I don't care and I don't think anyone else does either.</p>

<p>Must be. I just saw an exhibit at the Rose Gallery of a photographer whose name escapes me but yeah, that describes it pretty well. Some looked soloarized as well. Oh and they were very large prints as well so that's still the trend apparently.</p>

<p>Thanks Barry. We seem to have changed directions into a toilet thread. OK, I'm up for that too!</p><div></div>

<p>I have a number of pictures of dumpsters (I took one this weekend in fact) but for some reason when I'm in the darkroom I never seem keen on printing any. Maybe some day....</p><div></div>

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

<p>I'm using two Nikon F3 bodies for 35mm shooting. I used to use the F2 and I actually prefer them to the F3 but I had to give up on the F2 for the frustrating experience I had getting them repaired and maintained. The F3's being slightly newer cameras are serving me very well.</p>

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

<p>Mom always said "If you want something done right, do it yourself." This is why I do my own processing and printing. Of course I'm no McCurry but you get my point. I have no clue as to how this got passed him and into the public realm. I often hear other photographers say "I'll take of it later in photoshop." It makes me wonder how much of a crutch photoshop is for some photographers and if one can look to that as a reason for their lazy approach which at times can be manifest in their pictures. I mean why not make the picture the best it can be right there in the moment? Whatever the case, altered photographs are now the norm and we will be seeing more of it from Magnum which seems to be re-inventing itself these days as more of a fine art agency. </p>

<p>One from long ago.</p><div></div>

<p>In some ways giving up photography may have been the smartest move career wise for Frank and HCB. They will always be known for the high caliber of their work. Winogrand meanwhile continued shooting up to his untimely death and many people feel his work took a drop in quality in his later years. </p>

<p>Well Fred, Robert frank pretty much did that after "The Americans." Other then some smaller projects like the pictures he took on the Coney Island beach on a 4th of July and his bus series he abandoned photography for film making. He said to continue would just be him repeating himself. I have read that he's gotten back into photography and he's entering contests using a different name but until I hear something from him directly it's just an unsubstantiated rumor to me.<br> For me it's just that I've been photographing in LA for so long that at times I wonder how I can get anything unique and original. I end up at the same places often because I know I can get there with minimal stress of sitting in God awful traffic and I know I will get at least something I'm happy with. I wish I had the means and time to travel. This is why I like to shoot in San Francisco whenever I get the chance. It's a whole new city to explore.<br> </p>

<p>The spirit of a place? Good lord, could they be any more vague? Just another reason why I chose several years ago to no longer participate in exhibitions. Anyway, onto the main subject. It's like this: Every picture we take makes a statement about us. This statement is always the same for all photographers. It says "I believe this is worth recording." It really is as simple as that. When we step out into the world to make photographs the results not only tells what we saw but how we reacted to what we saw. Now others who view anothers' work may feel differently but who are they to say what another photographer should record and how and why? I photograph gay pride parades and protests in favor of marriage equality however I'm not gay myself. Should this be a concern to anyone? I've also photographed political rallies for candidates I didn't agree with and didn't vote for. Big deal. I photograph things that define our culture and time in the here and now. All art springs fourth from this source, it's not separate from life.</p> <p>Last month I gave a talk to a group of photographers in which I emphasized the importance of embracing spontaneity in photography. I described how much of what I shoot may be considered street photography but I don't describe myself as a street photographer because when I open my front door to head out to shoot, I feel that literally the whole world outside is mine for the picture taking, there's just no way to know where the day will take me. The work I choose to print and present to the outside world just happens to fall into the street photography genera.</p> <p>So my advice to Arthur and anyone else reading this is to forget all the pointless navel gazing that some photographers seem to like to indulge in. What a waste of time. Just get out and shoot. You'll know before long if you are being true to yourself or not.</p>

<p>Sometimes I think of hanging up the cameras for awhile. No particular reason why, but I think it may just be whenever I'm not pleased with whatever my recent work is like. Likewise I often think about continuing to shoot and not uploading any pictures online anymore. It just seems like such a chore sometimes.</p>

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

<p>A couple of nice images but for the most part my first impressions are that they don't offer anything I haven't seen before in cityscapes such as these. The pretentious, artsy gobbledygook in the second link doesn't help any either. Nice lighting though.</p>

<p>Thanks Damon. I wish it wasn't slightly lopsided; maybe someday I'll actually learn what those lines on my focusing screen are for!</p>

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

<p>So two different photographers with radically different backgrounds and upbringings in two very different cultures shoot in the same country and produce two different bodies of work. Well duh. As for "messy" photographs well why not? There's a time and a place for everything. I personally wish I could take messy photographs but I just don't think I have it in me. Or maybe I do to some small degree but I wouldn't know. I don't make contact sheets since my darkroom time is so limited so I simply hold up strips of film to the light and look at each frame through a loupe to decide what to enlarge. There's no rhyme or reason to my choices so maybe a few here and there are messy in a good way. That's key by the way. I see some photographers who attempt to make messy photographs but they fail because their pictures lack coherent visual syntax. Like the article above states a messy photograph works because everything is in it's place. Hard to do but very effective when it works. Look back on the initial reactions to Robert Franks' "The Americans." People were ruthless in describing Franks very personal methods but time has proved otherwise. In capable hands messiness can work wonders but it's a precarious path to be on.</p>

<p>My advice to those who want to photograph their local homeless population has always been the same: If you truly care about the homeless then put down the camera and volunteer at your local shelter and food bank. On your way home from work one evening stop at the store and pick up a pack of socks and drop them off at your local shelter. Socks are one of the most needed items at shelters but they are the least donated. This will go a lot further to help the homeless then being yet another one of the legions of "concerned" photographers taking mediocre and exploitative pictures of destitute people under the misguided mindset that their pictures are somehow going to help these people. It's because believe it or not people who live in large cities are well aware of the homeless among them. We see them every day. So unless a photographer is under contract for some publication doing a story on the homeless then there is really no reason to be out taking their pictures. </p>

<p>I'm sure artists are no different then anyone else in that given the opportunity they love to talk about themselves and the fact they get to talk about their art is a bonus since for many their identity as an artist is probably strongly linked to their identity as a whole person. So I don't think you will run into too many issues if you simply take the direct approach and send them first an email or letter stating who you are, your objectives, and who if anyone referred you to them. There's a wonderful book called "Faces of Photography. Encounters with 50 Master Photographers of the 20th Century." Photographs and interviews by Tina Ruisinger. Ms Ruisinger documents the sometimes extraordinary efforts she made to gain access to these titans of photography. She didn't gain access to all those she approached but that doesn't change the fact that it's a fantastic book which may be inspirational to you on your quest. Good luck!</p>

<p>Anders, try to obtain a copy of this book if you can. It was published by The Midnight Mission so it may only be available through them. This was published in 2005 so there may not be any copies available or perhaps there have been reprints over the years; you'll have to contact them to find out. This is the gold standard in my opinion on what a book of homeless documentary photography should be. </p><div></div>