Brad_

>>> I'm not about to yield to your attempts to turn this into the Old Street Boy's Network, others need not apply.<P> Nice try, who suggested that? Go out and make some street photos. Any camera and pair of comfortable shoes will do. It's a big city.<P> <center> .<P> <img src= "http://www.citysnaps.net/2014%20Photos/Mission%20couple.jpg"><BR> <i> San Francisco • ©Brad Evans 2014 </i> <P> .<P> </center>

Sorry Fred, I don't know what you are going on about. OK, you're right, arm-chair internet experiences are just as good, just like what Barry expressed.<P> <center> .<P> <img src= "http://www.citysnaps.net/2014%20Photos/WhiteWire.jpg"><BR> <i> San Francisco • ©Brad Evans 2014 </i> <P> .<P> </center>

Excellent summary of what shooting on the street can be like, Barry. No doubt that will still confound those that demand qualified intention be asserted in order to make street photos. While having zero shooting experience to draw upon and (as a result) not understanding what it's really about. <P> <center> .<P> <img src= "http://www.citysnaps.net/2014%20Photos/Wake.jpg"><BR> <i> San Francisco • ©Brad Evans 2014 </i> <P> .<P> </center>

>>> Fred: (Like, Jeff, I didn't see anything particularly sexual. I was addressing Steve's comment and Brad's "Steve nailed it.”)<P> Again, you conveniently ignore the I’ve cleared up that aspect in Steve’s post and continue to reference it. At best that comes off as disingenuous.<P> >>> One of the reasons I moved onto other things after shooting on the street for several years early on was because I didn't find it enough to scout out interesting locations and wait for the right person to walk into them. <P> What you seem to be saying here is that street photography is only about that. I would guess most is making spur of the moment photographs as things unfold on the street. But it is not limited to that. The Look Deeper photo I made in 2003 and have done little hanging around for a photo since, unless it was for a posed portrait. I honestly can’t remember the last time I hung around in an area waiting for a scene to unfold. It may have been 9-10 years ago.<P> >>> I would like to get back to street shooting at some point and it will be to explore something else. One thought I have is to explore moments that are already happening, to find excitement as it is lived.<P> That’s a large part of my photography, the other being street portraiture and listening to and putting together stories of people I meet on the street. The lying in wait aspect was simply a suggestion as to how HCB made the shot mentioned by Arthur. Indeed, the Pedro Meyer piece that Jeff pointed to reinforces that possibility as that’s how he seemed to work on many occasions. I don’t find that particularly shocking. OTOH, I really don’t care for HCBs work that much - which was reinforced seeing his retrospective at SFMOMA a couple years ago.<P> >>> Brad has a lot of photos in a rather varied portfolio that I relate to better and that I get more out of.<P> I’d rather characterize that as having many different portfolios, developed over many years, covering my interests at a particular time.<P> >>> Charles, who lives outside the city, landscape photographers who've never shot on the street, and people who weren't there alongside the photographer could have some significant insights to share, without needing to be invited to spend a year or two shooting on the street.<P> As I appreciate all points of view, he could very well have some insight, but so far, he seems too invested in mischaracterizations, intentional misquotes, and gotchas to the point where any such insight would be extremely suspect. This is something he has demonstrated other times, on other threads - usually when I take exception to a point you have made. Which does seem strange, by the way. <P> No, the people I seek for advice and insight are individuals who have no ulterior agenda, shoot straight (no photographic pun intended), are credible, have my best interests at heart, and have earned my respect. So far, Charles fails badly on all counts. <P> >>> Charles: And that is why I would prefer that his work not be shown as art.<P> I have never shown my work as art (or attempted to). As I’ve explained several times in this thread, I do not shoot for others and therefore would give no weight to your preference whatever that might be. I have never claimed my work is art (it isn’t), or refer to myself as an artist (I'm not). Indeed, when others refer to me as such at a talk or reception, I gently correct them and say something like “photographer works fine.”<P> But, by suggesting that I should not be showing my work as art (when that claim was never made), does construct an straw man that you can then beat down, as if you were saying something very profound - when in fact it comes off weak, weird and disingenuous (at best).<P> >>> There is an irony that Brad would sit for more than an hour looking at advice from text on a building that was also advice he sooo needed to hear, at least from my view of him.<P> There you go again, making stuff up again to bolster an argument you’re attempting to make. Nowhere did I say I sat at a building for more than an hour. When you make stuff up like that and in other places, and create straw man arguments, your credibility suffers and anything that you do say that might have some truth or merit gets substantially discounted. Why would I soo need to hear advice from such a person? That's makes no sense. The real irony is that such a person is passing themselves off as someone with advice that is soo needed to be heard.<P> <center> .<P> <img src= "http://www.citysnaps.net/2014%20Photos/One%20NYC.jpg"><BR> <i> NYC • ©Brad Evans 2014 </i> <P> .<P> </center>

>>> I think Steve probably nailed it, *too*. But there's more, IMO. When you say you lie in wait, when you set up a shot which includes a street camera and spotlight and wait for an attractive woman, I suspect but can't be sure many women would understand how (and that) the woman in the photo is being used. How effective is it really to wait for "an attractive woman" or the right attractive woman in order to supposedly show something revealing about sexual innuendos toward women? Could a man find a way not to reduce women to "an attractive woman?" Could the woman in the photo somehow be made to be seen as a person rather than someone (something) a photographer lies in wait for who will fit the bill. I have a feeling many women would decline this kind of photographic offering. Nice try, Fred. As I said above, I don't agree with that particular aspect Steve mentioned. From what you are saying it appears that you truly don't understand that many women in society today are objectified based on their appearance. I can't help you with that, seeing your goal seems to really be about obfuscation. The message is simply Look Deeper, even though it seems to not make a lot of sense to you. Perhaps a "homeless" person or an attractive man could have been used as well, seeing how they have been objectified, especially in photographs I've seen here - with the same message, "Look Deeper." But then there would no doubt be the same pushback from you. .

>>> Right? No. That's not it at all. It's about elements coming together in a pleasing manner within the scene. It's an almost instantaneous decision, perhaps subconsciously recognized. Lex described the process very well in his 7/30 4:24pm post up above about being in the zone and the benefit of practice.<P> I expressed my intent up above in my 7/31 10:16pm post. No need to repeat that again as I'm not able to add any additional information.<P> I'm beginning to appreciate even better the stance Winogrand took with some interviewers, attempting to shoehorn their views and perspectives (without benefit of experience) onto how he went about his shooting on the street, and his views about photography.<P> <center> .<P> <img src= "http://www.citysnaps.net/2014%20Photos/Bear.jpg"><BR> <i> Vancouver • ©Brad Evans 2014 </i> <P> .<P> </center>

No, I simply said: The elements in the frame came together in a pleasing manner and I made a photograph.

Charles, I didn't intend for it to whoosh over your head. I have no idea what you are talking about - I've never watched beevis and butted and have no idea what mocking with respect to a locker room would be about. I actually missed the reference that Steve made. Reading a lot of paragraph-less text way too fast... If you still don't get it and have little imagination that's fine. As you mentioned up above, all you see is a woman. Period. You missed the security camera and the light, and how that interplays with a person (an attractive woman) who might be objectified on the street (in this case under a spotlight and camera) or in society in general. The message is Look Deeper. I suspect you will not get or understand that, as well. >>> And still you don't offer a explanation of your intention? You gotta be me kidding me? I explained my intention when I shoot and that I don't try to convey any intention to viewers when I'm out shooting as they are not who I shoot for. Apparently you don't understand that concept. That's OK. >>> Crass definition: lacking sensitivity, refinement, or intelligence. So as to your latest contribution. There's nothing in it that to me suggests sensitivity, refinement, or intelligence. Coming from a person who has had "limited experience of city life," or making photographs on the street, well, there you go... >>> How could there be, your methodology was to just point the camera and shoot? Those are your words, not mine. That is not my methodology. The elements in the frame came together in a pleasing manner and I made a photograph. I don't expect that to mean anything as you don't shoot on the street. You seem very impulsive trying to find the worst in anything I say, usually when I take exception to something Fred asserts. A strong pattern is developing over multiple threads. Are you his spokesman, after he bows out?

>>> Would it be unfair of me to ask either or both of you to discuss not how you got a shot, but about a particular shot: what you intended to convey to the viewers of your picture?<P> When I’m out making photographs I don’t think about conveying any intention to viewers. I shoot for myself, even though my photos may subsequently be viewed by others down the road. I try to find, isolate, and amplify the unusual within the usual, something others walking down the street may not see and/or take for granted. Just *being* on the street jazzes me, soaking in its rhythm, energy, and dynamics, and trying to capture a bit of that with my camera.<P> With respect to that particular photo, Steve Gubin (and others who have seen it and commented previously) nailed it. When I was out shooting I saw the message, security camera, and spotlight up above, and waited for the right subject - thinking an attractive woman would be ideal, positioned directly below the spotlight with security camera pointing towards her. I took a bunch of shots with others walking by previously to see how it might look. The photo was made with a point-n-shoot from across a very busy SF street. I’m really a little astonished Charles only saw a person.<P> <a href= "https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=37.785911,-122.270279&spn=0.354355,0.643387&cbll=37.785877,-122.401548&layer=c&panoid=AsCh6hKTbFPO423O7-u6Yw&cbp=12,233.66,,0,10.8&t=m&z=11”>This is a google street view of the area and bg.</a><P> Here’s another candid photo, made very differently - it all happened in around a second or so as I was walking down the street. Does this peg your Crassometer as well?<P> <center> .<P> <img src= "http://www.citysnaps.net/2014%20Photos/Woman%20purple%20dress.jpg"><BR> <i> NYC • ©Brad Evans 2014 </i> <P> .<P> </center>

Before too much time passes… Major props and hat-tip to Fred and Charles for wrenching this thread into a real discussion about street photography. With street photographs no less. Rare as a bear in this neighborhood. Charles: Try looking at the photo without being predisposed to the notion the photo is crass and the subject might be an unredeemed lost or damaged soul.

I rest my case.

>>> Lex: I can understand Charles' reaction. While I don't agree, I can see how some folks would find street photography crass, especially out of context - not being physically present when the photo was taken.<P> I can understand his reaction as well, especially where in a recent thread he talked about his lack of response to my street photos was because of his own limited experience of city life, and seeing a collection of unredeemed lost or damaged souls portrayed.<P> I think one with limited access to city life, and especially someone who might view other human beings as "unredeemed lost or damaged souls” may not understand street photography very well, and as Lex said, it may feel very out of context - I think even surreal in that situation. That said, in my years of shooting I have encountered and talked to many people on the street in not well and in very disadvantaged situations, but I (as with other people I know who shoot on the street) would never characterize another human as lost or damaged. That is not in my or my friends' vocabulary - at least in SF. I chalk that up to geography and having different life experiences. <P> An aspect that may be lost on some is that shooting on the street brings you close to people, where after getting to know people respect flows in both directions. For me that’s a wonderful feeling. I feel sorry that Charles that has not been able to directly experience life in a city like San Francisco with its diversity.<P> With respect to being crass, I know some artists have endured that label. de Kooning and Warhol quickly come to mind. No doubt rolled of their back as well.<P> >>> Charles: It is a public that receives your art, and we are what we are.<P> So far I’ve been pleased on how my work has been received, having raised a decent amount of money through photojournal sales with proceeds going to a local youth services organization that cares for kids living on the street. That will continue with all SF projects going forward. How is the public receiving your work?<P> Hoping this photograph is Charles-safe, he has crushed me so hard already: <center> .<P> <img src= "http://www.citysnaps.net/2014%20Photos/BrownTwins.jpg"><BR> <i> Marian and Vivian Brown • San Francisco • ©Brad Evans 2014 </i> <P> .<P> </center>

Crassy! Though it's likely the hand of Satan was involved up above.

>>> So my comment in re-reading: describing street photography as involving 'lying in wait' is an emotionally charged way to describe a street photographer's behavior towards a subject. To me it sounds crass, to describe street photography methodology as involving 'lying in wait.'<P> There are many ways it can be described. I'm sorry you feel offended. Do you happen to engage in street shooting? I suspect if I had described it in a different manner you would still be offended.<P> >>> You post your photographs in this thread about intention. I think your street photography looks crass, that's how I react to it as a viewer of your art. It looks crass. All of it is offensive.<P> Thank you for your feedback, Charles. I appreciate all points of view. <P> <center> .<P> <img src= "http://www.citysnaps.net/2014%20Photos/ChinaownGirl.jpg"><BR> <i> San Francisco • ©Brad Evans 2014 </i> <P> .<P> </center>

I’m having trouble understudying your post, Fred. Help me out...<P> >>> Having no intentions may simply sound cool. At worst, it could be a genuine sign of shallowness. Did someone suggest they or someone else shot without intention? And that it is somehow cool? Smells like straw.<P> >>> I'm a firm believer in avoiding all or nothing thinking <P> As I am as well. But you conveniently took what I said (starting with "Perhaps...") offering one of many explanations about how a *particular* photograph may have been made (the one Arthur referenced), and project that all or nothing belief aspect onto me, even though there is nothing to support that. With respect to "intention," I don't know any photographer who has developed a coherent body of work where that was not embraced. I think many would put that into the it goes without saying category. <P> >>> Bresson's work shows a visual consistency because he was in touch with what he was doing and because he most certainly did not just shoot whatever came before him that he thought looked cool in the moment. <P> Most certainly? Sounds pretty rigid, absolute, and all or nothing to me. Perhaps you have some inside information about the man, his approach, and his methods. (see below)<P> >>> He did not, I sense, <B>just</b> hang out waiting, even if hanging out and waiting was part of the act. A lot more went into it than that. <P> Just? That's *your* qualifier, not mine,while suggesting I was claiming that’s all he did, though I simply offered *a* possible explanation which is very consistent with how Bresson and many others shot/shoot. You might want to re-read what I said starting with "Perhaps…” Did someone suggest that’s all HCB did - or was there another purpose for suggesting that?<P> Since you seem to be very interested in "street photography," I honestly think you would gain a lot of insight into what it's about by taking some time, perhaps 1-2 years, of actually shooting on the street, exploring neighborhoods, seeing what it's really like, soaking in some experiences and developing a body of work. I believe you would then come away with a better understanding how intention and focus work hand in hand with serendipity, along with other aspects in making street photographs. <P> I think you might also learn that a photographer who shoots on the street can have many different approaches to making photographs that vary with time, depending on circumstances, objectives, how one feels (happy, sad, tired, depressed, energized, etc) at the time, if one is working towards a project, seeking discovery, etc. Or even if one just wants to relax and wander aimlessly without direction for the sheer joy of being on the street soaking in the energy and contemplating new directions. There are many, many different possibilities. It doesn’t have to be about a one approach rigidity as you seem to suggest later in your post.<P> <center> .<P> <img src= "http://www.citysnaps.net/2014%20Photos/Lovers.jpg"><BR> <i> San Francisco • ©Brad Evans 2014 </i> <P> .<P> </center>

>>> Other than infra-red, I have not seen many pictures on this web site, or anywhere else for that matter with any of those features since the Digital revolution. Are these things out of style ?<P> No, not out of style. Sadly, photonet does not serve the main demographic of picture makers who are into pushing beyond "straight" photography, and who could give a flip about photographic pedigree and rarity. It is alive and well, though.<P> Two years ago I put down my dSLR and made a commitment to only shoot with my camera phone for year. During that time I developed a body of work using the Hipstamatic application using a "style" in conjunction with the kind of post-processing I'm into that complimented my view of street life in certain areas of San Francisco. It was an experience I enjoyed a lot and I still come back to and enjoy the photos I made during that period.<P> <center> .<P> <img src= "http://citysnaps.net/2011%20photos/ExcelsiorCouple.jpg"><BR> <i> Young Couple • Excelsior District, San Francisco • ©Brad Evans 2014 </i> <P> .<P> </center>

>>> When Bresson captures two black dressed women walking beneath twin sculptures on the upper walls of a building behind them, is his intention related to just that chance disposition, humour, and momentary intention, or is it part of his overall approach and intention in photographing humans, and perhaps their environment?<P> Perhaps it's lying in wait in an area recognizing the possibilities were a pair of appropriate subjects to walk by. Then hanging around making multiple photographs over a period of time from different subject sets, and later on choosing the best image from contact sheets. Many street shooters do that.<P> Or it could "simply" be serendipity - which so much street shooting is about.<P> It all works...<P> <center> .<P> <img src= "http://www.citysnaps.net/2014%20Photos/Look%20Deeper.jpg"><BR> <i> San Francisco • ©Brad Evans 2014 </i> <P> .<P> </center>

>>> Do some critics give more credit to intention in such circumstances than is actually warranted? Absolutely. With respect to VM, there's a ton of conjecture floating around, based solely on the narrative created and controlled by a single individual, along with prints edited, selected, and editioned for exhibition and sale. A large part of that is image creation/building, helping to foster interest and to make and drive markets. Even with Winogrand and all of his interviews and films of him making photographs on the street, it's astonishing how many people try and ascribe all sorts of things to his photography in particular and "street photography" in general. Might be why he seemed to enjoy toying with interviewers so much.

Yesterday I was out and about and had forgotten to bring my "regular" camera. Ended up traveling through Oakland on BART and made some photographs through the train window with my phone instead. No worries, no big deal. It's just a tool and it simply worked as expected, even though I haven't used my phone as a camera in months... <P> <center> .<P> <img src= "http://www.citysnaps.net/2014%20Photos/TruckTrailers.jpg"><BR> <i> Oakland, California • ©Brad Evans 2014 </i> <P> .<P> </center>

iPhone snap, shot through BART train window while passing by.... <center> .<P> <img src= "http://www.citysnaps.net/2014%20Photos/TruckTrailers.jpg"><BR> <i> Oakland, California • ©Brad Evans 2014 </i> <P> .<P> </center>

>>> Some people, photographers or not, simply take themselves way too seriously.<P> It's more than being able to make a photograph that's amusing. For inspiration, I look to Lex and Allen who consistently makes good on both fronts, i.e. photography and attitude.<P> <center> .<P> <img src= "http://www.citysnaps.net/2014%20Photos/Chuckie.jpg"><BR> <i> San Francisco • ©Brad Evans 2014 </i> <P> .<P> </center>

No, it's just a tool. My life experiences, people I connect with and talk to on the street, close photographer friends, attitude, ethical/empathic concerns, ability to recognize light and context, ability to see and feel, imagination, etc solely drive the photographs I make - whether the tool is a camera phone, point-n-shoot, dSLR, or view camera.

>>> Brad's remark, honestly, seemed to then very much undermine all the positive energy I was feeling. Fred, I am very sorry my comment offended and saddened you. I was taking issue with the notion that some members, being photographers, are not good with words, and offered an explanation as to why many chose not to participate - as did Lex. Simple as that.

>>> Some members aren't so good with words, being photographers that is forgivable. I don't think it's that. Many members who have a lot to say about photographs and photography simply choose to not participate due to the oblique backhanded putdowns (from people with heavily invested ideas taking issue with those who disagree), that Lex addressed above.

Obviously not on the market, John Reuter's <a href= "http://www.polaroidland.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Screen-shot-2012-01-23-at-10.35.41-PM.png">20 x 24 Polaroid</a> would be my choice.