Brad_

>>> Many of these names have vanished, and I miss their interaction and participation whether on or off topic. Many have disappeared due to forum nastiness, subtle back-handed put-downs, and bad manners in general. A lot of that was bred from the OT forum and then carried into others.

>>> The POTW needs to be placed prominently on PN's homepage, instead of being buried within 44 forums. Gallery -> Photos of the Week

>>> The obvious burn-out of Lex in his surely ungratifying task of making Off-topic hotspurs behave, should not be taken as the most rational basis for a decision in the field. No, it was an excellent decision, encouraged by many. Tip-o-my-hat to Lex for his hard work and personally going beyond the call of duty trying to salvage a sinking forum of noxious pettiness and selfishness. The handful of people who refused to change their bad behavior after repeated warnings ruined it for others. In the end it became a private playground for those few, and created an environment not conducive for attracting new members. There are plenty of other forums where subjects other than photography can be discussed.

>>> The understanding of a given situation is rarely simple and rarely can be fully told by one person's camera or one person's word. I agree and would also say that if your goal is really about gaining a better understanding, invest some time and go beyond relying on and then posting a short Wikipedia summary verbatim about Adams' book. Rather, scratch a little deeper by reading a variety of available source material on the subject, and, maybe even engage in conversation with people who were affected during that time period, or their children. With respect to gaining insight into Adams' beliefs and goals, instead of relying on the Wikipedia summary and interpretation, I recommend reading Adams' book which the summary was about. I think it provides a more accurate view into Adams’ thinking at the time, when he set his words and photos to print back in 1944.

>>> If propaganda means spreading lies or biased information or images that are designed to manipulate and subvert something or publicize and make wholesome some cause that is inherently negative, then photojournalism especially during the wars is pure propaganda. Yep. And speaking of Dorothea Lange... Compare and contrast her approach to covering the uprooting of Japanese-Americans in the San Francisco Bay Area during the war and her photographs at the Tanforan assembly center (a horse race track) and at Manzanar where many were more permanently "relocated," with Ansel Adams coverage of the same prison camp. Lange's photos spoke volumes about the harsh life there, and as a result got her fired and her photographs impounded by the government. Adams' photographs, made at the request of the prison camp Director and friend, depicted a much different experience where life didn't seem quite so bad.

<a href= " seems to be perfect - have been using it close to ten years.

>>> "So, did you Photoshop it?" From conversations I've had with people over the years about my photos, the discussions have been about what the viewer is feeling, narratives conjured, circumstances of the capture, connection felt with subjects, access, etc. In all, I have never, not once, been asked if any of the photographs I have made have been photoshopped (in the context of elements being removed or added).

>>> What's your point? My point is trying to understand the very specific circumstances Julie had in mind at the top of the thread that would cause a photographer to destroy their photographs; i.e., when another party is interested in their photographs but will not pay, or will not pay the price the photographer is asking.

>>> Julie: Your OP question had to do with our photos, ... And the destruction of said photos was conditioned by: if people who know of them and who want them, if such people either can't or won't pay what you are asking for the photographs.

Agree, Lex. It's an element to ponder with everything else and works well in your photo. I get a big kick from your color shot above, too.

>>> Sometimes when I'm shooting landscape, I tidy up the foreground...<P> It's a personal decision, and for me, depends on the circumstances. Making portraits of people on the street I sometimes remove bits of stuff on the sidewalk when I think it could be a distraction as visual clutter, sometimes I don't if its presence seems a natural part of the stage. And sometimes I'll intentionally leave something obvious in place as an element of the photo.<P> <center> .<P> <img src= "http://citysnaps.net/2013%20photos/Mackenzie.jpg"><BR> <i> MacKenzie • Tenderloin, San Francisco • ©Brad Evans 2014 </i> <P> .<P> </center>

Well, Andrew's last post certainly made it ugly and personal.

>>> I'm definitely going to spring for the Xa1 now and see what's out there by the time I wear it out. That's a good plan, though you may not wear it out. What's nice is that any lenses you might buy for it will work with any Fuji body upgrade you might consider in the future.

>>> Do you think it's okay to destroy your own photographs* if people who know of them and who want them -- whether for historic, scientific, anthropological, ethnographic, or simply sentimental reasons; if such people either can't or won't pay what you are asking for the photographs? Huh? You also have the option of simply not selling or giving *your* photographs to a party who may want them, for money or no money. Being *your* photographs you can also "destroy" them if, desired. I'm assuming you are not speaking about photographs that might be considered evidence of a crime - there may be issues in such situations, especially if subpoenaed. Why do you propose destruction as (apparently) the only option available if you do not want to sell your photographs to a party that has expressed interest?

>>> As a professional photographer, COSTCO is far out of the realm of possibilities. Very far! Costco offers superb printing using Epson professional wide format printers for 16x20 and 20x30 sizes. I use them as well as White House Custom Color. Perhaps you should give them a try rather than pass judgment without the benefit of at least an experiment?

>>> But I don't see the expression as being connected to him as a character or as a more fully-revealed person. But I do. Perhaps it's from shooting on the street and having encountered and met many different people from all walks of life over the years. A different background and perspective, I suspect, than the more structured manner in which you shoot portraits.

To me, intimate is (or can be, among other things) about what Charles said at the top of this thread: "Intimate means, closely acquainted, familiar, close." As a viewer I sense that in the connection Steve had with his subject. And as a result of certain aspects of the photograph I feel a connection with myself, even though I don't know who she is.

>>> Intimate is different from good. Intimate is different from effective. Intimate is different from astonishing. Intimate is different from excellent. Intimate is different from profound. Intimate is different from pensive. Intimate is different from beautiful, from striking, and from colorful. Intimate is different from conveying something of significance. Really. So you're "definition" of intimate is formed by what it isn't? That seems odd to me.

I think it's fine if someone wants to take a very rigid approach to their making and viewing of photographs - after all it's very individual.<P> But for me, I have no use for checklists and strict dictionary definitions, either in making photographs or viewing them. With respect to the making side, I try to rely on getting to know the person I'm photographing even for just a minute (they are strangers I meet on the street) and then doing my best create a photo that captures an aspect about them that I'm feeling at the moment. With respect to viewing photographs, it's generally about reaction and emotional pull, and then contemplating the subject's personality, although with incomplete information <P> Steve's beautiful photograph up above speaks to me being pulled in on initial reaction starting with her striking blue eyes (complimented by blue hairband and shirt), and then thinking about what his subject might be like in person. I love photographing people and looking at the photographs others have made.<P> <center> .<P> <img src= "http://www.citysnaps.net/2014%20Photos/R.jpg"><BR> <i> San Francisco • ©Brad Evans 2014 </i> <P> .<P> </center>

For Macintosh I like OmniGraffle and iDraw. They're both pretty serious tools, but I think a curious 10 year old who likes to draw can soak in the principles - especially with iDraw (it is also much less in price).

>>> Though I can't give a rational, thought out reason for this, it occurred to me that some of this feeling (for me at least) maybe because we project our own stories on to the anonymous. ... I don't know if that makes sense.<P> That makes a lot of sense. For me, interesting photographs pose questions rather than provide answers. If there are people in the frame where a connection seems to be made (though that's not a requirement), then I think it's natural that a viewer's imagination might be stirred to the point where a narrative, any narrative, might be released. That happens to me as a viewer.<P> When I'm out on the street and make photographs of people many times there will be a direct engagement with a stranger with some resulting conversation and ultimately a portrait is made. Sometimes I shoot candidly where a subject may not be aware. And some times there may be a momentary interaction where it is clear I'm making (or made) a picture, but with no further interaction beyond that point - as in the photograph below. <P> <center> .<P> <img src= "http://citysnaps.net/2013%20photos/Couple.jpg"><BR> <i> San Francisco • ©Brad Evans 2014 </i> <P> .<P> </center>

I have been really happy with my 1st gen RX100. Fits in my jeans pocket and it can render excellent photographs.<P> <center> .<P> <img src= "http://citysnaps.net/2013%20photos/Public%20Art.jpg"><BR> <i> San Francisco • ©Brad Evans 2014 </i> <P> .<P> </center>

<center> .<P> <img src= "http://citysnaps.net/2011%20photos/Droids.jpg"><BR> <i> Interstate 80, Nevada • ©Brad Evans 2014 </i> <P> .<P> </center>

<center> .<P> <img src= "http://www.citysnaps.net/2014%20Photos/Legs.jpg"><BR> <i> NYC • ©Brad Evans 2014 </i> <P> .<P> </center>

Thanks Charles, I appreciate that and liked your story and video.<P> >>> When Brad references people who might understand better (I know I'm not quoting exactly, just trying to convey the sense of some of the statements) by experiencing the street more, I can see how that could be interpreted as a "you're not really part of the club, so you don't understand" kind of attitude. I don't think that's what Brad intended, but I can't speak for him.<P> Thanks Steve. I would like to try and clarify what you said above, though.<P> Charles insisted on knowing my intent when out shooting. I explained what it was, but that apparently was not good enough and/or not believed. He asked several more times, along the way trying to put words in my mouth, misquoting, etc. I think he was looking for something like: <P> "While shooting on the street I seek to explore relationships between San Francisco's diverse sub-populations and their environment to help raise awareness about the underserved who are not seen and marginalized by society as a whole, and how class identities, postmodern discourse, and skateboard politics play a major roll”<P> I believe he was confounded that my "intent" is to simply capture moments not seen on the street, and that I get jazzed being out there, talking to people, learning something new about the street, raising money for at-risk kids, etc. Apparently that was still not good enough, and then asserting that he'd prefer my photos not be shown as art. Ha! Rush me to the burn unit on that one!<P> Thus, after expressing my intent (as did others who offered their nuanced views), as far as I know the only way for that to make sense to Charles is to actually get out into an urban environment and see what it's really like first hand with camera in hand. No amount of arm-chair street photography theorizing, internet access to Winogrand quotes, reading/quoting Szarkowski, etc will never convey what I and others experience and especially why a formalized intent is just not very damn important for many.<P> It's hardly a club. As I said to Fred, any camera and decent pair of shoes works fine. I have a ton of respect for people that are actually out on the street, at all levels, seeing what it's about and welcome everyone. It's easy to just walk out your door, maybe needing to get on a bus, and find a place to sample the street.<P> >>> Just another thought.. to call someones photography as "crass" is just plain nasty.<P> Agreed. Charles hides behind an emotionless dictionary definition. I think many people understand the power that lies beyond the word's definition, and Charles' real intent. It's not the first time he's impulsively acted out so strongly towards me - it seems to happen after I challenge one of Fred's assertions, making me think he's acting as Fred's spokesman or proxy.<P> <center> .<P> <img src= "http://citysnaps.net/2014%20Photos/BruiserRikii.jpg"><BR> <i> Bruiser and Rikii • Tenderloin, San Francisco • ©Brad Evans 2014 </i> <BR>.</center> <P>