je ne regrette rien

Thanks for your interesting, important and challenging questions. On question #1: Upfront I would say that we cannot disregard the specific neurophysiological reaction triggered when viewing the picture of a nude. That makes the difference between watching Tina Modotti on the sandy beach and the pepper, which may be equally pleasing from the strictly visual point of view but not from the overall perceptive point of view. And then comes the narrative around it: William Eggleston’s picture of the red room, which is complemented by the nude portrait of T.C. Boring, the murdered dentist, in the same room, and portraits of the same in other rooms. They show different sides of the same relationship between the photographer and his subject as a representation of life without any hint of erotism. And there’s more to come on this first question.

I was aware of your work, and other work of yours in this line: it has reason to exist because it portrays reality. It makes sense because there is an non-contrived, non clichéd self-expression of your subjects and you co-operate in creating their visual message. I miss that in what is presented by 90% of photographers, or models for that matter. The latter have also a major responsibility for proposing the same clichés again and again. But maybe I should give up on this.

Not at all! It happens with all kinds of pictures! I got hold of a 1977 copy of Weston’s nudes and was looking at some of Leiter’s pictures from “in my room” and this spurred some reflections.

Good input, Sam. I guess this relates to my somehow idealistic stance that every photographer should honestly assess their own pictures before throwing them into the relentless flow of images produced for whatever reason. But that’s too much of an expectation I would say. It’s the “normative power of the factual” and not much can be done about this. But for me there is one precious takeaway from what you say: “the uninteresting, forced, dishonest, and shallow” from which to stay away. And the “exploitive, abusive, or worse”, from which to stay away even more. I have to face the fact that the world is what it is, little I can do to change it, but to waste as little time and energy as possible.

Sam, Your quote from Marcel Proust initially rebuffed me. But then I thought about it: can we agree that it is the responsibility of the viewer to go beyond an epidermal perception of what they see, but to go deeper? Let us not forget my beloved quote "the viewer sees what they know" (B. Munari, designer). And isn’t it the responsibility of the author to look for meaningful ways to portray reality, without proposing worn-out clichés?

I first need to apologise to Ren Hang for not checking the automatic corrector. I also must be more precise: of course nudes make sense. What I mean is whether the nudes we are shown all the time, the ones that attract so many viewers, need to exist as photographs, adding to the visual description of our world. As the nudes by the photographers I mentioned, and a few others, did and do.

Which ones?

For that matter, we may also want to consider: Helmut Newton Herb Ritts Nobuyoshi Araki Francesca Woodman Lucien Clergue Sally Mann Ralph Gibson Nan Goldin Jan Saudek Ruth Bernhard Willy Ronis Imogen Cunningham Mona Kuhn Sasha Stone Rem Hang and a few others.

And that, again, may be a new thread. A subject discussed by no one less than Roland Barthes! Obviously the photographer is the originator. They hand their work over to the viewer and lose control. They may not even be able to maintain their intent! Your points are complex and articulate: I mean exactly that. A photographer infuses the sense in their work embedding historically, ontologically, realistically and artistically their representation of reality in the wider historical, cultural and if you want global context. Which does not exclude the subjective element, which is as important. Of the author and of the viewer. And let's stick with Barthes and include the subject as well. I'm certain that, even though the machine is instrumental and determinant of the visual result, and certainly a precise choice, it is never the starting point. I'm sorry, I've made a logical mess out of this, I may think about how to disentangle it a bit. All related to the sense of photography, but from different angles.

My dear friend Sam, this is the most complicated feat in photography, I'm struggling with it since a long time and to an extent it has paused my photography. And possibly you and I will take this thread on the "machinery" off the rails! 😉 Photographs are rooted in reality. Per se, the photographic craft and art starts from reality, even ontologically. It can distort, deny reality, but never forsake it. Everyone taking a photograph has the intent to fix reality on some kind of medium to preserve it, to preserve a possibly unique perspective of reality. The easiness of the medium leads to a practically continuous record of reality. My point is that, even though everybody taking a photograph thinks they make a unique record of reality, this is simply a wrong perception. We may think we are the first human being in front of a sunset, a landscape, a kitten, a falling passer-by. But in the largest majority of cases we aren't. What I think, but I'm not original in this, is that "the sense and the reason of being of a picture" is related to its necessity to exist because it enriches our knowledge and perception of reality in respect to the body of work produced so far. And that would be just the starters. We may want to open up a separate thread.

Certainly a “picture of sense” made with a view camera will not look the same as one made with a phone camera (btw, the photo algorithms of the recent smart phones are stunning). The choice of “the machine” is certainly determining the visual outcome, but certainly not the sense and the reason of being of a picture, which goes beyond, and informs, the technical choice. As you know, there are (were) Polaroids for view cameras.

More and more I’m looking for photographs that make sense. And never inquire whether the sense of the photograph is in any relationship with the type of camera used: large format, medium format, a sporty mirrorless or a fancy viewfinder. The sense of a photograph is in the work itself, not in anything else. And therefore depends on the photographer. The practicality of the instrument is purely subjective: a craft mastered by those who can, and a phone camera makes no exception.

Feb. 15, 2023 - A few, can't remember.

I see a main focus on functions and therefore the user experience (UX). There may be another thing to consider: how to design a photo platform in 2023. What do photo enthusiasts desire? what do they want to discuss? Does somebody still need to know whether horizons need to be straight or not? Is somebody still interested whether "rules" are the way to make good photographs? Or whether rules make sense or not at all? I don't know. The crossroads photo.net is at may be related to the overall lifecycle of photoforums as a whole and of forums in general. I appreciate the smart conversations here and there; very powerful threads as well. The gallery may not be exactly what it could be in terms of quality of pictures.

The gallery sports continuously ads (not the site-relevant ads, which are something different) from brand new accounts registered since a few hours. Probably there is a rule about what kind of content can be shared and whether the images can be of products or services, as there are. I don't want to be in Sandy's shoes having to deal with this. Nevertheless this "spam-ads" by PN members are very annoying in the gallery and sometimes quite inappropriate. It depends on the policy and on some kind of filtering technology deployed.

Do whatever supports your visual message. If you need to crop, crop. If you start from a rectangular format and you need a square, do it. Your image is important, not the mainstream idea of how an image should be made.

As a matter of fact HCB's attitude towards post-processing has a different origin from where I stand: he changed the way photographers related to the news world. Before his time, papers and magazines acquired total rights over the pictures and did with them whatever they deemed useful. If the needed a portrait format, the turned a landscape into one. That's what HCB objected to. The black frame was the seal of his choice not to be altered by others than himself. In fact, "Derrière la gare Saint-Lazare", one of the most iconic of his pictures, a miracle capture of the decisive moment, was cropped. If I remember well a significant vertical portion on the left hand side was eliminated. Not "fully baked", simply the reaffirmation of the author's choice. His choice.

The photographer's being flows in the pictures they take, what they are and what they aren't. The fills and the voids. The fulfilled and the unfulfilled. It's not calcified how I see it, it is totally fluid. It becomes, ebbs and flows, changes as we change.

If I understand well, we seem to reach similar conclusions. The point here is not to analyse HCB. Where he comes from helps understanding his photographs. What his subconscious was nobody can really know. Again I say: I'll move on, then.

My post is not meant to praise or judge. I recognise it’s very long, possibly too long for a screen or some online readers. There are quite a few references to other sources and authors and the intention was to inform myself. And maybe make this available to fellow humans, being aware that they may be interested or not. Because HCB is certainly a very important photographer of the 20th century. My personal views: Is he the most important photographer of all times? Not in my opinion. Was he an interesting character? Certainly yes. Do I see contradictions and conflicts? Certainly yes. Did he produce quite a few interesting/attractive/aesthetically compelling photos? Certainly yes. Are his photos the most interesting possible ever made? Absolutely not. Can I, and others, learn from HCB in photographic terms? Yes, if we wish so or are inclined to do so. Does he give me insights into some decades of the 20th century? Sure, like several other photographers. Are there other photographers to consider? Yes, absolutely. That said, I was interested in knowing and understanding this photographer, but there are other hundreds I like to look at. And I think I should look forward, at those authors who conceive new ways to portray and show the modern humanity. Which is what I’m interested in. Well over ten years ago I was trying hard to find out what makes a good photo or a good set of photos. Now I do know.

My point is that street photography is both a concept with blurred borders and also some kind of “comfortable place” where all kinds of photographic styles are fitted. A definition of photography which accommodates everything in fact defines nothing. In my experience, to feel comfortable we need to label and categorise, and often it doesn’t help if these labels are not defined.

Some. Some are certainly not. The diagonal.

Not that straightforward, also considering that Fan Ho staged and analogically manipulated some of his photos. This one certainly is. I find his style quite different from the one of Cartier-Bresson.

I don't think that was me. Nor do I think that I was judgmental. In fact I think Fernando Scianna nails it when he says: On street photography: there was a time I was irritated by the concept. Now I have adjusted my attitude. We may have the chance to discuss it in the future.