fi_rondo1

<p>Fred, you're being far too literal. The manner of protest is the same, not the particular aim. But disurptive dissent is disruptive dissent and it's not contingent upon whether you agree with the cause or not.</p>

<p>You're right, Ray. Those tactics were disruptive and effective.</p>

<p>Not to get off topic: John Kelly, thanks for posting the article.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Fred, I was being facetious about them having their fun. It's not the aim of their protest but the manner of their protest that I was talking about.</p>

<p>Jeff, why is it so hard for you to believe that there is a history of dissent by disruption? I gave you a few examples... if you're that interested do your own research and you'll find plenty of examples of your own. In the meantime, if you want to have a beer summit, I'd be up for it. Peace out...</p>

 

<p>I wasn't talking about town hall meetings in particular. Just in general. Here's a few links, they're examples. Not a definitive "history".</p>

<p>

<p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7naTR5QCxo</p>

<p>Google "dissent" + "disrupted speech"</p>

<p>YouTube: "Disrupted speech"</p>

<p>http://www.worldcantwait.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4038&Itemid=5</p>

<p>Animal rights, AIDS, anti-war activists, etc. have all had their fun, and so have plenty of voices from the right... No definitive history of banging pots and pans but I think it's a South American thing and it's not always indicative of protest:</p>

<p>Google: "banging pots and pans" + "South America"</p>

<p>This is great theater all around. The right is utilizing tactics perfected by the left... the left has a history of banging pots and pans, chanting slogans, forming conga lines, rushing the stage, etc., when someone they consider the enemy is trying to speak. Disruptive or not, they're making politicians feel vulnerable, unsteady, and targetted. Pretty refreshing.</p>

<p>Damon, Tom: Remember, it's not the scanner but what you do with it! Glad you like them.</p>

<p>Phylo, brilliant shot!</p>

<p>Thanks for the smile, Viktor.</p>

<p>Anders, you're right about the privacy business. I have respect for the subjects but if I think the picture requires getting close, I get close. What takes place after the picture is shot is where the psychology comes in and since people react best to honesty (in most cases) I'm usually pretty candid with them, or I'll make a quick comment that disarms them. Also, bringing pictures with me gets me out an occasional jam. But I'm out there to have fun, not terrorize anyone, and given a moment's reflection most people seem to walk away amused (or at least pacified).<br>

Sorry to go on, but Damon asked: When I started shooting in film I bought a busted scanner from a French woman who left the country before I could get my $30 back. The images came out faint and blotched and only through some experiments with photoshop could I clean up the image enough to coax a picture out of it. They remind me of 19th century photography. I like stuff from that era; especially the look of Calotypes, Daguerrotypes, and some of the early attempts at color. A few months ago I borrowed a scanner that actually works. And that's the story.<br>

Again, apologize for being so longwinded.</p>

 

<p>Slouching Tiger</p><div></div>

<p>Actually, Viktor, this <em>is</em> a pyschology forum and I honestly believe that most street photographers would make terrific psychologists. When you do this long enough you'll be able to read the street, know how far to take things, when to draw back, how to play with each situation and just enjoy yourself.</p>

<p>Also, it's good that you feel uncomfortable, just means you're human and that kind of empathy just might work its way into your pictures someday. But, really, most people will forget about you in less than a minute.</p>

<p>Unless you happen to be the woman in the pictures below:</p><div></div>

<p>Thomas, you reminded me of a hip shot Moriyama took in the video mentioned. So let's scratch Moriyama from that list. I was told he also has taken shots while running down the street, camera over his head. But, aside from running in the streets, Moriyama's been at it for 5 decades at least, and he knows exactly what he's doing. His whole technique seems to be one of a professional intent on maintaining the freshness of the skilled amateur.</p>

<p>I've always thought of a "Hip Shot" as anything other than using the viewfinder. </p>

<p>Thomas / Ton, I think we all agree that it's the result that counts, however, I've found it's more fun to see what I can get away with by bringing the camera to my eye, how quick I can sum up a shot, how fast I can react while maintaining control of the composition. When I'm on I'd say I'm more spontaneous than when I shoot from the hip. It's all instinct at that point.</p>

 

<p>I think it's more likely that the subject is the author of his or her own "immorality".</p>

<p>The person with the camera is ultimately responsible for having caught the image. You can do it by hip or by eye... and Ray's right, it's the result that counts. I've seen the videos of Winogrand, Meyerowitz, Moriyama, and others in action and I've never seen any of them shoot without using the view finder.<br>

When I shoot digital I'm more likely to shoot from the hip than with film. If I want the angle I'll dip down and shoot. Either case I'm not thinking too much about anything... rather reacting to what's best called for in each instance.<br>

<br /> There are no rules here, really. But trial and error are great teachers if you get into the habit of celebrating your mistakes.<br>

Ton, the Uzi comparison also had to do with human nature. When we have abundance (whether it's time, money, or Gigs) the inclination is to become less disciplined. I've seen this in myself and seen it in others.</p>

<p>.l</p><div></div>

<p>And I'd like to take mine back</p>

<p>Finger stuttered on "probably". Apopologies - F. R.</p>

<p>O is for Objectivism</p><div></div>

<p>Shooting film is like shooting with a revolver.<br>

Shooting digital is like shooting with an Uzi.<br>

Both have their purposes and the medium <em>can</em> dictate the message if the photographer allows it (and he often is helpless not to).<br>

This isnt' a digital versus film smackdown, but it's interesting to look at this from a psychological point of view. McLuhan was right abut mediums, messages, and how technology is used in relation to what it's used for. How much of street shooting is psychologically based?<br>

Thomas is right about sizing up a shot from the hip. But you have to know your lens really well otherwise you do rely on luck for framing, focusing, and salvaging a shot through some heavy cropping.<br>

That being said, I actually held this one up to my eye.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>People are like lemmings in a way. If you shoot one particular business on one particular block it's only a matter of time before your reputation exceeds you. Ton's got the right idea in that you should present yourself as a person with a past. Have to say, Damon's right... what you're after are not street portraits; that would actually be more of a challenge and possibly more interesting since you'd have people in the act of working rather than posing around forklifts and hot dog stands.</p>

<p>If you actually decide to shoot "street portraits" (as defined here) then you don't need to approach anyone. So, just go and shoot, Joel.</p>

<p>Port Authority, NYC</p><div></div>

<p>Nothing wrong with shots such as the one you posted. It gets the scale of the city in there illustrated what humans have to contend with. Sort of like Chinese landscape paintings where the figures are overwhelmed by mountains... Better example would be Paul Strand's pictuer of Wall Street... Anyhow, if you shoot from that distance the best thing to do is to make sure the figures are not obscured by cars or tucked away in shadows. A clearly lit group of figures (or an individual) that are well timed (I was going to say 'placed' but SPs don't really 'place' out figures anywhere) will add to the shot and serve as subjects (if that's what you're after).</p>

<div></div>

<p>Still all this fuss over art, what's art, what's not art?<br>

Have you ever changed anybody's mind about something they thought was and you thought wasn't?...</p>