Brad_

If you need a zoom, it's tough to beat the versatility of the 24-105 f/4 zoom. IS is icing on the cake. And it's half the price of the 24-70 f/2.8 II.

<center> .<P> <img src= "http://www.citysnaps.net/2014%20Photos/Ocean%20Foam.jpg"><BR> <i> Pacifica, California • ©Brad Evans 2014 </i> <P> .<P> </center>

>>> I'd grapple with whether a case can be made that Winogrand's and Vivian Maier's not choosing among so many of their own photos actually is evidence of a shortsightedness or at least an inability to focus and create a coherent expressive body of work. For many who regularly shoot on the street, including myself, usually that's not very important. It's the "being out there" soaking in the energy/rhythm/dynamics of the street, and seeing and then snagging a great moment that is the thrill. Photographic gems are rare, most are broken glass - though a second or third look years later might yield something decent. Yes, there are times when working on a project or a series where there is a much more directed effort and long-term goal, but that is not most of the time. Having thousands of unprinted frames is not unusual or surprising at all. I do think GW would chuckle having his shooting characterized as a performance, though. I wouldn't get too hung up on quotes from Winogrand trying to hold him accountable to what he said. Many of his quotes are flip responses, possibly trying to get a rise out of people interviewing him.

I would even consider a 1TB SSD. They're around $450 now.

What Dan said. I don't understand why it's surprising to some that many of the above photographers have made photography their business and are making a decent living, after starting from scratch with a lot of hard work and determination. Some I suspect are making a very good living. Seems like there's a lot of restating of what should be obvious. It's a job...

>>> Just thought I'd offer a different experience and different take on the matter. Agree, that was the one element that didn't strike me as bizarre at all. I was speaking to the totality of the response to my 4:21pm post.

>>> In all honesty, Eric Kim is the only name I'm familiar with and that's probably only because he's a bit of a controversial figure in Street Photography i.e. he really knows how to market himself as an instructor.<P> I don't know what "socially influential" means. But Eric Kim has been very influential in introducing beginners to street photography through his blog and workshops. A good thing, IMO... <center> .<P> <img src= "http://citysnaps.net/2011%20photos/Eric.jpg"><BR> <i> Eric Kim • Tenderloin, San Francisco • ©Brad Evans 2012 </i> <P> .<P> </center>

Interesting... In my post directly above, simply as an afterthought aside I mention that I enjoy hanging out with my photographer buds over a beer - many who I've known for a long time, talking about ongoing projects, stories, books, experiences on the street, upcoming exhibitions, subjects, etc - a wide variety of photographic stuff. In what way is this weird? Seems like a nerve was touched, eliciting a bizarre response. Go figure!

>>> I always thought Winograd was far more interesting than his photography, most of which (of that I've seen) I do consider art. Not unlike many photographers, some of Winnogrand’s photographs do not move me that much. There are a lot that do, though. GW was a master of capturing standout human gesture in his compositions; something I find greatly lacking in a lot of other street photos where instead there is little going on. For me, not surprisingly, that ability nicely dovetails with his gregarious/animated persona he projects in his filmed interviews, and his shooting style seen in his on-the street videos of him at work. What comes through loud and clear is he’s a photographer who has a kid-like sense of humor and doesn’t take himself too seriously, not giving a flip about what others think and especially not elevating himself up as an artist. He's more into the joy of being out there soaking in life on the street solving his picture-making problems while having a good time (Avedon had similar endearing traits in a much different context). It’s that unpretentious keeping it real attitude I admire a lot with that joy coming through strongly in many of his photographs. As an aside, and as one who enjoys the camaraderie of fellow urban shooters, there are a lot of other photographers who I would not like having a beer with because they have no sense of humor, are stiff/pretentious, and, take themselves so seriously, more so than their photography. GW is the polar opposite and would have been one where I would not want to have missed such an opportunity at the local bar.

For me, photography opens doors to meeting and talking to interesting people on the street.<P> <center> .<P> <img src= "http://citysnaps.net/2013%20photos/Hung.jpg"><BR> <i> Hung • Tenderloin, San Francisco • ©Brad Evans 2014 </i> <P> .<P> </center>

>>> Is the monthly fee a contract sort of thing, where the months must be consecutive for a span of time, or is it like netflix where you can skip a month then join up again, or put a hold on your account while you're not using it? For the best price, it's a yearly contract that auto-renews - possibly with a new price. There's an early termination fee if you decide to cancel before your contract is up. The amount is 50% of your remaining contract. Similar to banks, telecom, and cable companies. For some, Adobe have now joined those ranks with their business model. Also... Having been caught up in Adobe's massive credit card breach last year due to their lax security and affecting 38 million users, there's no way in heck I would ever allow them to have my credit card number on file to make monthly charges.

>>> What is the greatest need of a young photographer who is just starting out? A really good mentor.

Smaller? For pants pocket smaller the RX-100 does a decent job for a sub-APS-C sensor camera. <P> There are <a href= "http://citysnaps.net/2011%20photos/RX100%20sample%20gallery/">a few portraits in this set from my RX-100</a>.

Another view... I know it's outside of your price range. But if you think you might want to try other lenses in the future, this is a killer deal and camera (with larger APS-C sensor) for the price of $299, and can be used as a point-n-shoot in auto mode:<P> <a href= "http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/753766- REG/Canon_5757B002_EOS_Rebel_T3_Digital.html/? m=Y&gclid=CMXR8uuItL8CFUlqfgodiGEANQ">Canon EOS Rebel T3 DSLR Camera and 18- 55mm IS II</a>

The GW photos that move me the most are those where strong or expressive main subject gesture was captured. GW had a knack for snagging that. For me, that's what separates him from many other street shooters.

I suspect there will be liability issues coming up in the future as drones crash and cause damage and/or casualties, either from simple device malfunction or due to unskilled operators. I wonder if operators at least carry adequate liability insurance that specifically covers their actions that end up harming property or people? Have a feeling that's a no, with possibly the exception of business-based drone operators. No problem here seeing thoughtful regulations put in place. A major accident caused by a malfunctioning drone will likely speed that up.

>>> Or until you get a camera not supported by an abandoned application. RAW conversion is provided by and intrinsic to OS X.

Up until about 5-6 years ago I used iView Media Pro extensively - that was pre-Microsoft. It was an excellent program that I could depend on for organizing my photos and then letting me edit in PS via a single click. I would love to see PhaseOne step up and create a LR-like program that would handle all aspects of the processing chain, from import to organization to non-destructive editing to rendering for output. That will be a big chunk of work, handling all of the RAW formats and lens corrections most rely on. They're probably best suited to that task though. Having one player in that game is not good.

>>> And they're right, unless we get so hung up on the word "essence" that we miss their actual point. I don't think "we" are missing the actual point. It ("Is it possible to capture a subject's essence in a photograph?") was an excellent question that was worth posing and then sussing out in the discussion. Some may have reflexively assumed yes, that it was possible, but were likely thinking of some portraits having power/energy/intensity/the power to reveal/connection/etc. >>> The interesting question, for me, is not what a photo or all these other things can't possibly do but what a photo can do and if there's something special or unique a photo might do in portraying a subject that other means are not as good at. And that's what making portraits and good portraiture are about - speaking for myself. I suspect that's true with many others as well.

>>> By the way, lest we get too serious (is it too late for that?!), ...<P> We? Do you have a small mouse in your pocket? <P> Sorry, a bit of forum humor, not wanting to be too serious... :)<P> Whimsy? <center> .<P> <img src= "http://citysnaps.net/2011%20photos/Bride.jpg"><BR> <i> San Francisco • ©Brad Evans 2014 </i> <P> .<P> </center>

Fred, there have been many discussions about Avedon's work here in the past, so rather than talk about his photos, which I also hold in high admiration for many reasons, I thought it more interesting to speak to a few aspects that allowed for their creation.

>>> I think it took Avedon a lot of subtlety and attention to what else is written on those faces and even to what their clothes give them in personality in order to make those portraits work the way they do.<P> For me, as one who holds Avedon in highest regard for his broad range of accomplishments over his career starting with working for Alexey Brodovitch at Harpers in the 1940s where he transformed fashion photography, a lot of that comes from his love of people and his child-like playfulness/inquisitiveness that allowed him to easily connect with subjects. There's a lot to observe and learn from his past.<P> <center> .<P> <img src= "http://citysnaps.net/2011%20photos/Avedon1.jpg"><BR> <P> .<P> </center>

>>> At the same time, I think—and hope—that my belief that a portrait can do more than show what people look like is also reflected in my work. I don't know any portrait photographer who does not believe the portraits he/she makes reveals something about the subjects they photograph. Can you imagine if that were not the case? The question posed though, is: "Is it possible to capture a subject's essence in a photograph?" That's a much much taller order. Especially, if that essence needs to be sussed out by a viewer independent of any previous knowledge about the subject. Essence is the distillation of aspects/attributes, a concentrated shorthand notation of sorts that speaks to who a person is. I would very much like to see a portrait of someone I don't know or know anything about and then asked if I can determine their essence - without any supporting information or facts. Of course I can guess and make anything up, much like a fortune teller does with safe/obvious assumptions, but then the question becomes moot if in the end there is no interest in actually determining if my conjured essence is at least somewhat accurate. Getting back to Gerald, I would not know where to begin.

>>> Another thought has to do with whose narrative goes into making the photograph? This gets back to the debate about "photos telling stories," Garry Winogrand, etc. So... backing up a bit, I think most people understand that photos do not actually *tell* stories. Rather than go down that path (which has become kind of tedious over the years) many times I will say that good photos have the ability or power to release narrative in the viewer's mind, stimulating their imagination. Yes, there are many different narrative possibilities, including those with different perspectives, and to a viewer one that resonates with them may likely be different than one that resonates with me when I clicked the shutter - or afterwards when I'm processing the photo at home. That's OK - I like making photos that have ambiguous aspects. That's why up above I qualified "narrative" as (some kind of) narrative.

>>> I think guessing can be a very significant aspect of photos, especially photos of subjects unfamiliar to us. Go ahead, guess. My response was not to suggest that shouldn't be done. After all, thats what people do when contemplating a narrative while viewing a photo - I assumed most would understand that. Rather, my post was to answer the very specific question posed: "Is it possible to capture a subject's essence in a photograph?"