spanky

<p>To each their own as the old saying goes Anders. I'm just stating what I thought from looking at her book for 20 minutes in a book store. Purely subjective. If you find her book to have artistic/social merit then that's great for you.</p>

<p>I see your points Anders. At least she did address the ethical aspects of photographing the homeless but at the end of the day she's still doing it to make money and further her career. The very personal dignity you speak of was violated throughout her book. As pointed out above some of these pictures appear to have been taken from a car. The fact that she convinced herself in her mind that she's doing it for some useful purpose (like many homeless photographers do) doesn't change the fact that it's one of the worst ways to use photography in an exploitative way.</p>

<p>I'm really not sure who else has photographed LA's Skid Row Anders. I'm sure others have. 11 years ago when I started shooting on the streets on a regular basis I used to be the only photographer around downtown. These days I can't turn a corner without seeing a handful of street photographers (with the Leica to prove it.) I'm sure there are some who had the brainstorm of photographing Skid Row out of some sort of misplaced and sudden concern for social inequality. It's been discussed here a number of times over the years and I see plenty of homeless photography in other street photo forums and they usually are the work of beginners who are deluding themselves. Now I didn't buy Ms. van Hoek's book but I did spend 15 or 20 minutes looking at it and skimming through her afterword. So I could be wrong but nowhere in her book does she provide any stats, personal case histories, any resources such as the Midnight Mission ( http://www.midnightmission.org/) where people can get more info or volunteer and so on. She would have redeemed the book a little by doing so. Therefore to me her book amounts to nothing more then poverty porn and it's a poorly produced one at that. The fact that people are buying it does nothing other then prove to me there's (sadly) a market for this and that a certain segment of society has pretty low standards when it comes to recognizing good photography.</p>

<p>I saw this in a bookstore several months ago. It seems the homeless will always be a favorite subject of photographers regardless of how many other photo books on the homeless there already are. I have several myself. She also at least addressed the the moral question of photographing the homeless for profit. Someone close to her suggested that since everyone on Skid Row is hustling for money, she should look at her project the same way. A pretty weak excuse to me, but I guess when a photographer has his/her heart set on producing a particular body of work, any way around the moral and ethical questions raised is as good as any other.</p> <p>What really amazed me about her book however was the pictures themselves. Overall, I didn't think they were any good. I couldn't believe she spent six years on this and these were the best pictures she produced. I spent one morning on Skid Row and shot a handful of 120 rolls years ago and came out with better pictures in my opinion. Maybe this was because I wasn't there to make a book and therefore my mind was in a different place? Who knows? </p>

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

<p> Great one Damon!</p><div></div>

<p>I had a paper route. I lasted exactly one day. Getting up that early and folding the papers and such in cold Bay Area weather; no thanks. I washed cars and mowed lawns for the neighbors, I also did some babysitting and house sitting too. Everyone knows in China and and other parts of the world there is rampant child labor abuse. Does anyone think of this when they buy their new iPhone or Nike athletic shoes? I doubt it. I'm sure there's some in America too although not as common. Then again, what do we make of a family owned business? Many of these rely on children too. If a Chinese American family owns a restaurant and they expect their 13 year old son to wash dishes for 10 hours on Sat and Sun, who's going to know?</p><div></div>

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

<p>What Fred said above. I was at the Getty Center a year or so ago where they had a number of Ansel Adams prints on exhibit. On one wall there were two side by side prints of his famous Moonrise, Hernandez New Mexico each printed many years apart. It was to show the change in how Adams would print a negative as time passed. The earlier print was much softer in contrast whereas he printed the later version with harder contrast. Which one was more effective? That's for the individual to decide. Likewise what Fred mentioned about music. Anyone who listens to classical music knows how different a opus can sound like when played by different orchestras and different conductors. Listen to a common recording like Vivaldis Four Seasons and you will hear very different interpretations.</p>

<p>Last year I gave a brief talk to a local high school photography class. Since it was a work day for me I had to leave before showing the class a portfolio of some of my work. So the teacher said she would show it to the class and I could pick it up the next day. When I did she said the students commented that nobody is smiling in my pictures. Perhaps, but hey I found this long ago pic, probably the most jubilant expression of anyone in any of my pictures thus far. </p><div></div>

<p>Excellent points guys, thanks. I'm the first to admit that I am quite computer illiterate and generally have to rely on the kindness of friends to help me out with any computer issues that come my way. </p>

<p>I hope nobody minds if I shift gears here slightly. I'm curious to find out what people think about ink jet prints vs. silver gelatin prints. By this I mean in the marketplace such as art fairs, galleries, online sales forums and so on. Should a ink jet print sell for the same, more, or less then a darkroom silver print? I ask because I recently visited a gallery where a group show was being shown. All the photographs were black and white ink jet prints. Setting aside the strength of the pictures content, and just considering ink jet vs. silver print I thought a significant number of these were over-priced, some considerably so. I mean to make a darkroom print requires a degree of skill that sitting at a computer and using photoshop or lightroom cannot match. I also question any ink jet print that states "archival ink jet print." Really? Says who? Are there examples that are 100 years old that prove this? I don't mean to be a film snob, but in my humble opinion a darkroom print should always sell for more then a ink jet print. In fact, with ink jet prints now being the norm, I have yet to see any I would consider spending more then maybe $50 on. Any thoughts? </p>

<p>People usually have a stronger visceral response to work seen in person then on a screen or a book. The only exception might be the Mona Lisa which several people I know have seen and said they were disappointed in it. I guess they were expecting more; when one gets into their car and drives to a place to look at art they are making an effort so there is a level of expectation. When sitting in front of a screen in ones bathrobe eating toast while looking at any number of the millions of photographs uploaded the night before, maybe no so much. As a film shooter I value prints in a big way. I would much rather people see my work in person in print form and many do. However, I still scan and upload prints because it's fun and some photographers are able to take something away from them and that's a good thing.</p>

<p>I was thinking more about this thread just now while in the shower and decided to post a picture of my own. The picture below is a selfie I took in my darkroom years ago. I don't know what brought this on, but it's evolved into a body of work and it's basically a ritual for me to take one every time I go in to print. Now, all of my friends and co-workers are unanimously together in describing these photographs as "awful" "horrible" "freaky" and "scary." These are how they respond to them emotionally. So then, where do these emotions come from? Is it from a narrow view on their part of what a photograph should look like? It's a selfie remember, and selfies have become part of the cultural fabric. They have a source from narcissism so what you see on social media are selfies that some thought went into to make the photographer look good. Mine are the opposite so does that account for their disgust in them? How much are people reacting to how they know I look and their history with me as they view these pictures through that prisim? And does it really matter?</p><div></div>

<p>As Lannie mentioned, the emotional impact of a photograph has a lot to do with whatever knowledge of the content we bring to it. This we all know. The Napalm Girl picture by Nick Ut resonates strongly with Lannie because of the backstory behind it. The photo itself doesn't tell the viewer that the girls clothing was burned off. If I recall correctly in an interview even Ut himself described the picture as him simply being in the right place at the right time. So much of photojournalism and street photography is dependent on chance and serendipity.</p>

<p>I certainly hope so Sanford. I want to start printing fiber paper again!</p>

<p>Well, Fred I see the choices that are made by curators who have economic considerations to make. That is one aspect, I'm sure there are others but museums have to get people to visit and donate so they have to show work by recognizable names. This work has stood the test of time. I was looking at Cubist works by Picasso and Braque this weekend and these works are now 100 years old but they still retain their significance.</p> <p>Galleries are a bit different. Works in galleries are chosen based on whether the owner thinks it will sell or not. I recently visited a gallery during LA Art Walk that exhibited the work of a handful of LA street photographers. Out of the 40 or so photographs on display there was one I liked and one other that I thought would have been good if the photographer had gotten closer. The rest of the work I thought lacked content and many were also flawed by over handed post processing which I think some photographers fall back on to make up for the lack of content. However, knowing that work for sale in galleries is supposed to appeal to folks who want a pretty picture to hang in their office or living room I wasn't expecting anything different. These are the kinds of pictures that are popular online and in social media so I wasn't surprised to see them.</p>

<p>I don't pay any attention to arbiters of art either. Somehow it's just not important to me. I'd rather visit museums and galleries and make up my own mind about what I'm looking at. Having said that, I've mentioned before that there's a lot of big names in photography whose work just leaves me wondering about what they were setting out to do. I find it odd to think that I love getting out and shooting street photography but I really don't care for street photography as a genera. I just don't seem to like much of it. Sure there are some pictures of Winogrands and others I like but taken as a whole much of their work just goes over my head. Maybe I'm just not sophisticated/intelligent enough to understand it. Again, be this as it may, I don't care. I'm too busy trying to make sense out of my own work.</p>

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

<p>Kentmere is a bit of a mystery. I've been shooting a lot of of the 100 speed for the past couple years and it's a nice film, no need to be concerned about QC issues. However, there is lots of speculation about other films such as the Rollei RPX films and the Agfa "New Emulsion" films as being from Kentmere. Now I'm not sure if that means these emulsions are same that come in the Kentmere box of if the coating facility they are using are making entirely new emulsions. As stated above Ilford said they will not re-brand any of their emulsions. However, there is a website in French that details a comparison of one of the new Agfa films to a Kentmere roll of the same speed. They looked at the emulsions under a microscope and according to their findings the films looked identical. Whatever the case is, don't let the inexpensive price of Kentmere film concern you, it's an Ilford product after all. </p> <p>As for Ultrafine, I never tried their film. In the past I seem to recall some people had lots of issues with the backing paper of the 120 rolls leaving markings on the emulsion that would show up on the prints. This was from a number of years ago though when I believe they were just re-branded Lucky film from China. Maybe if they have a new distributor coating their film I'll give them a try. </p>

<p>Thanks Lannie. You're right on the money when you describe how you feel about a photograph as having to do with what you bring to it. I alluded this in my original post and this is why I think it's not something that many photographers should spend too much time concerned about. I mean the history of photography is filled with talented men and women whose work inspired needed social change. Sure they had an agenda to push with their pictures, this was a necessity due to their vocation but I'm sure they also felt strongly about what they were photographing and surely they wanted to evoke similar emotions in the people who would look at their pictures.</p> <p>I remember reading about W. Eugene Smiths photo essay "Nurse Midwife" in Life magazine and how after that story ran, a huge amount of donations poured in for Maude Callen to build a modern medical clinic for her to work in. Obviously Life's readers were very moved and inspired by the story and photographs.</p> <p>However, I'm not W. Eugene Smith (nor Walker Evens, Lewis Hine, or Margaret Bourke-White) I'm just a simple guy with a 40 hour day job who enjoys photography in my free time. So my concerns are not what theirs were. Maybe if I got started in photography when I was much younger I would tried to pursue it as a career but I'm content with just the simple act of taking pictures and trying new things. If any of my photos stir an emotion in someone or cause them to think about something in a new way then that's wonderful, it's the icing on the cake.</p> <p>One of the best compliments I've ever received about my pictures came from a friend of my sisters who saw a portfolio I brought with me to a family visit. Unbeknownst to me my sister grabbed the portfolio and showed it to this lady. A week after this lady looked at the photos she told my sister she was still thinking about them. What an amazing thing to say and of course it made me feel good to hear it. However, what I'm trying to say is that even if this wasn't the case, I wouldn't change a thing. I would still get out there like I'm going to do later today and take the kinds of pictures that draw me in and I can't do this if I'm concerned about about whether they will invoke an emotion in whomever might see them in the future.</p>

<p>Very well put Fred. Man, those pictures I have here on P.net sure bring back memories. These were the first efforts I made after learning to develop and print film and after I went from 35mm to medium format. I've been meaning to do a whole revamp of my galleries here but these days I'm content with just uploading to facebook and a little here and there on flickr. The picture you linked above like all of my subway shots are underexposed hence the over all darkness of them. They were shot on Delta 3200 which is barely fast enough for those trains, Delta 3200 works best at iso 1000-1600 but with the slow lenses common to medium format I have to shoot wide open just to expose at 3200. These days I'm shooting more 35mm in the subways due to the much faster lenses such as my 50mm f1.4. Like all of my pictures, it's printed full frame. I have nothing against cropping at the printing stage, it's just I never seemed to go that route when I was learning to print. </p>

<p>Well, according to Freds' perspective, I'm a poor photographer since I stand by my view on this topic. Good thing I don't take myself too seriously huh?</p> <p>Look, for me personally I don't try to manipulate peoples emotions through the photographs I take and choose to present to the world either online or in exhibitions. This is because I don't have an agenda to push which is goes hand in hand with manipulating emotions. Sure, I take pictures at events like gay pride parades and immigration marches which can be hot topic issues for many people all of whom have feelings one way or the other about them. I'm simply recording what I see, I'm not on some sort of social justice crusade, this is how I spend my free time. To those photographers who are interested in manipulating peoples emotions through their photography the only advice I can come up with is to watch closely how the mainstream news media uses images to push their agendas and follow their path. Know who your audience is and toss morals and ethics aside for the sake of sensationalism by any means possible including but not limited to Photoshopping images to the point where they only have a trace of what was captured at the time of exposure. </p>

<p> This is something that we as photographers have no control over. People will react to a photograph based on a variety of different factors. Remember, a photograph simply describes something so we can say this landscape looks dreary or that person looks happy/sad/sexy/bored etc but it's just a description and how we arrive at our interpretation has a lot to do with our background, our life experiences, our culture and so on. </p>

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