Brad_

http://citysnaps.net/2015%20Photos/Alcatraz-320.jpg San Francisco • ©Brad Evans 2018

iPhone. Around 30mm (equiv), I think. http://citysnaps.net/2015%20Photos/Ocean%20Beach%20surf.jpg Ocean Beach, San Francisco • ©Brad Evans 2018

iPhone. http://citysnaps.net/2015%20Photos/Ocean%20Beach%20Two%20Surfers.jpg Ocean Beach, San Francisco • ©Brad Evans 2018

http://citysnaps.net/2015%20Photos/Street-182.jpg San Jose, California • ©Brad Evans 2018

http://citysnaps.net/2015%20Photos/The%20moma%20light%206-8-16.jpg San Francisco • ©Brad Evans 2018

iPhone. http://citysnaps.net/2015%20Photos/Ocean%20Beach%20Sutro.jpg Ocean Beach • San Francisco, California • ©Brad Evans 2018

Ooops. Off topic.

Exactly. Which is why, from time to time, I shoot with a phone for long periods of time.

That is correct. However, it's interesting that is rarely discussed here. But there's always loads of conversation about gear. And that's ok. I was merely taking issue with what was said above and offering my view of what drives the strength of a photograph (should anybody be interested in that aspect of photography), which it seems, many people lose sight of believing it is about gear. From just looking at many photography forums. I do understand that people have different goals with their photography. And that's ok, as well.

My initial post was about what drives the power of a photograph. From shooting with cameras ranging from an Arca-Swiss 4x5 large format camera to an iPhone, I've yet to find any tangible "thing" that significantly contributes much to a photograph's power or strength. Again, noting there are better tools used in some situations to make a technically better and successful photograph, and tools used to drive aesthetics - both of which not driving a photograph's power to a significant extent. That, speaking to the usual special situations/exceptions that apparently still need to be mentioned in discussion forums. Similarly, as a woodworker I have a wide range of tools that cut wood; ranging from a 450 pound 3 horsepower Unisaw cabinet saw to a $20 Japanese Dozuki hand pull-saw. They both cut wood and are used for different purposes. I can't say the power of what I create is driven much by either of them.

See my above response to Fred.

Sure. There certainly are edge cases. But I think most people are aware of that. Obvious situations include photographing professional sports, such as NFL and NBA games for those organizations. BIF (birds in flight) are not likely going to produce salable prints from a camera phone. Ditto with professional wildlife photography. Pinhole camera photography is another, where the capture device drives a large aspect of the overall aesthetic. And no doubt there are at least a few dozen more. But we all know that, from having many years of experience, right?

The power of a photograph is rarely driven by a particular camera. Rather, that's a result of the photographer's curiosity, imagination, life experiences, drive, ability to compose and read light, and on and on.

http://citysnaps.net/2015%20Photos/Sidewalk%20bike%20x.jpg

ACDSee? Not without Bon and Malcom...

That is so sad, always feeling an attack is imminent while making photos.

Me as well, though I've been posting far less, anyway.

Be careful. And stipulate in your will/trust who shall be the recipient of your image copyrights. Otherwise, someone might take those files/negatives and claim copyright ownership. They would rightfully own the files/negatives, but not the right to make and sell prints.

Yes… I think most here understand the objectives of museum retrospectives. The context of my point, though, was in relation to Maier’s wide range of material now available to the public without the benefit of her editing or input. And then to illustrate, as an example, the difference in perception of a retrospective exhibition sampling most works of a photographer, curated by the museum, 33 years after the he died, vs an exhibition of seminal work that was essentially self-curated 60 years ago when it was edited by the photographer.

Winogrand's work is a great example. Five years ago San Francisco MOMA hosted a GW retrospective showcasing 25 years of his photography, with many photos not previously exhibited. Much of it, IMO, was not very interesting. One visit for me was enough, and I do like GW's work in general. Needless to say SF MOMA's Robert Frank "The Americans" exhibition, held three years earlier, with his photos sequenced and displayed as they are in the book (essentially Frank's tight curation), along with other Frank related material such his editing wall, brought me back many times.

Did you mean the owner of the negatives?

Yes. Specifically, without the owner of the negatives asserting copyright, in order to make and sell prints, no one would have seen the images. A real shame a museum or university was not engaged to take the collection and handle processing, curation, and public display (physically and online).

That still doesn't register to me as being "bold." It's more about being comfortable with and around people. I've found most people on the street very approachable. Seems many have a story to tell if you're willing to listen.

Same here. I found the surrounding Maloof story fascinating (but her created story not so much). From him acquiring VM's negatives, to asserting copyright to make and sell prints, to making the Vivian Maier documentary, and with that, a narrative people could get behind. And, ultimately creating a market for prints and books. The drama that has surrounded the journey over the years has been interesting as well.

Whether Maier was bold (or not) making photographs of people, well, that's conjecture. And, in the end, without other more definite information, likely says something more about the person making that assessment. Speaking only for myself... When making photographs of strangers on the street, whether candid or not, for me it's more about being open, friendly, and honest in the manner in which I engage subjects. It's not about being bold at all. At the other end of the spectrum, people on the street are very perceptive, especially in spotting odd behavior. Being sneaky, using deceptive methods to get a photo (looking in one direction while shooting in another, pretending to fiddle with your camera while sneaking a shot, making hip shots, etc) is often detected and creates awkward situations. My *guess* is VM was comfortable and easy-going around people with her camera and that came across to others as non-threatening and not a big deal.