fi_rondo1

<p>Anders I think I misunderstood you correctly.<br>

This reminds me of a poem my friend wrote... he wrote it about a poet we know, but it can easily apply to photographers:</p>

<p> The English Professor, retired and tenured,<br>

Has talent, but where does he hide it?<br>

He knows everything about poetry<br>

Except, of course, how to write it.</p>

<p>Clive, you're right about atmosphere... It's photography's incidental music.</p>

<p>And, adding Marc and Anders' music metaphor: you don't need to understand music theory in order to understand or appreciate Mozart's Requiem (although it might enhance your understanding of 12-tone)</p>

<p>Ton, you're completely wrong about quotes and quotas. I like having people do my thinking for me and insightful quotes are a great shortcut to wisdom.</p>

<p>Anders, you said something that has been left out until now... it's the emotional impact of a photograph that registers... It's like what Hemingway said about the "iceberg" in that if you only see what's on the surface your boat's going down.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Ton, In regard to Winogrand... if you follow your Brad's link you'll hear him in his own words. I've watched his interviews a bunch of times and he's pretty clear on what he means (from around 1:25 through 2:50). I like his interviews because he's very frank about photography and doesn't have any patience with what he considers pretentious cant.</p>

<p>I just noticed that the link Brad posted was deleted (What's the photo.net policy on using links?) If you want, go to YouTube and search for Garry Winogrand - Part 1</p>

<p>Another quote:<br>

"As far as I can tell, a photograph can describe a situation but only in the context of the picture itself. Everything else depends on your own associations, prejudices, and your astrological rising sign. "</p>

<p>I used the word cinematic</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I said "almost"...</p>

<p>Open question: Winogrand claimed that there is no narrative in still photography. He pointed at his picture of a guy putting a ten gallon hat on a little kid. <em>Is he taking it off her head? Putting it on her head? Where are they? What are the circumstances? </em>He also reduced photography to "light on surface..." I wouldn't go that far, but I'm inclined to agree with him when it comes to narrative. Oftentimes you'll hear photographers (and more often critics) speak of narrative. What do you (they) really mean by narrative?</p>

<div></div>

<p>Personally, Leslie, I don't think your text can stand alone without a picture.</p>

<p>Thanks to an assist by Phylo:</p><div></div>

<p>Leslie, just the fact that we can't drum up a real fractious debate on this means that we probably agree more than disagree. I think, ultimately, a photograph should stand alone. But sometimes the use of a photograph has nothing to do with photography and more to do with the circumstances that surround the picture itself. That's why a seemingly static image can transform into something else over the course of time.</p>

<p>First off, glad you guys understood what I was trying to get at... (thanks)</p>

<p>Second: Leslie, the point of the post wasn't about that photograph in particular, but the nature of photography itself... Mainly how an "average shot" can be transformed into <em>something symbolic or commemorative over time.</em> Before Billy died, the photograph was one thing; after he died, it became something else altogether. A reminder, a bit of nostalgia, something I think his family wouldn't mind having.</p>

<p>Of course, the picture is more relevant to those who knew him. But since this was an Obituary, the text, as Ton said, puts the photograph in context. The picture may still be <em>average</em> but the viewer's associations with the guy's condition strengthens the photo, causes the viewer to reflect on his own life and the people he's known who are in similar straits.</p>

<p>The picture may be a cliche--but, Leslie, you unwittingly turned that photograph into something else again...</p>

<p>A poem by Leslie Cheung</p>

<p><strong>SOME RANDOM GUY </strong><br>

Shot from a distance<br>

Shot from the back<br>

Alone in the snow<br>

Walking</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I've been thinking that the power of the photograph (on the viewer) may have more to do with his associations than with the actual aesthetics of the photograph itself. The guy in the picture below, Billy Ruane, was a Boston staple around the rock and club scene for over 30 years and he died recently. A troubled guy; diagnosed as bi-polar, often drank, smoked like a fiend, and every time I saw him he was disheveled, sometimes no socks, shirt always untucked... a man at odds. After going through countless CDs I found the picture below and it struck me as fitting for the kind of life he led.</p>

<p>Interesting how a chance encounter can turn into something symbolic or commemorative over the course of time. And does it matter if the picture is good or not? Taken: January 14, 2005.</p><div></div>

<p>Phylo.... I was referring to the supposed "street" pictures, not Adams in general (the context of this thread should have made that more than evident). He did what he did with more than a bit of mastery, but the "street" stuff is very average. The only interest in them is that they were shot by Ansel Adams.</p>

 

<p>This deviation from Ansel Adams' photos made coming to this thread worthwhile. Adams has a lot in common with that Shakespeare play, "Much Ado About Nothing".</p>

<p>As for street photography and photographers... I think we actually do the cities and towns we work in a service. Not enough happens in people's lives and if they take offense we've at least given them something to talk about at home, at the office, and on the streets themselves. If someone asks me what I'm doing, I sometimes show them some photos. Once I laid down a spiel on the theory of Platonic images or Goethe's color theory (probably not accurate, but it pacified and amused my listeners)...<br /> I agree with Shadforth: <em>to catch a natural, unposed moment in time</em><br /> Anyhow, if we are to deal with the idea of catching life as it is being lived, it's almost necessary that the act of photographing go undetected. If you click three frames of a subject you sometimes get the progression from 1) unaware 2) becoming aware 3) fully aware. And the change in demeanor, body language, etc., is more than evident. If you ask them to pose they often <em>prepare a face to meet the faces</em> that will be viewing their picture in the future. (I said <em>often</em>, not never.) Personal anecdote: I remember when I was 9 or 10. I came into the house, my brother didn't notice me and he was laying on the floor with his coloring book. The serenity and concentration he exhibited was unlike anything I'd ever noticed about him before. It's that essence of that incident that makes this kind of picture make sense.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Javier... bloody good shot, m' boy...</p><div></div>

<p>With A Carving Knife</p><div></div>

<p>SUC (big time)</p><div></div>

<p>Hey john (John Crosley) good to see you're getting your point across in very concise terms... Very much like Tolstoy (I read and enjoy you in installments)...<br>

You hit the nail on the head with your comment about the bystanders being the most obnoxious and threatening. It does always seem to be the people you are not photographing who cause the most trouble... you know, the do-gooders who l call the cops because I'm "violating" someone else's rights. When you get down to it, it's the do-gooders of this world who'll make street photography impossible.</p>

 

<p>If you cut and paste the link below it will lead to a Robert Frank doc on YouTube. About 7 or 8 minutes in he talks about a photograph taken at a similar shooting gallery... he said it turned him on to photography...<br>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAMrrrFmayY&feature=related</p>

 

<p><em>Every time she hits the target, it triggers the shutter of a camera and a portrait of the girl in firing pose is taken and given as a prize.</em></p>

<p>An interesting commentary on photography itself. It's a compelling sequence and it's effect has less to do with the quality of pictures and more to do with the passage of time... and our associations regarding time passing.</p>

<p>And all of it done by triggering the shutter of a camera with a well-placed pellet. <em><br /></em></p>

<p>Philip... Clive... A big Yes...</p><div></div>

<p>Good suggestion, Malcolm...</p>

<p>Just gave it a shot, unfortunately, same result as before...</p>

<p>Been having trouble with this scanner lately. Worked fine for 3 months and then developed glitches. I downloaded VueScan which seemed to fix the problem but now, 3 weeks later, am having trouble downloading from that. I might get an image scanned and then the next one doesn't work at all. I get a white screen and a perpetual hourglass icon.<br>

Has anyone had similar problems? Is it the software? The scanner itself? Any solutions?</p>

<p>Thanks a lot...</p>

<p>Fi</p>

<p>A few things you can do. One, if you have access to a car, you park near the monument, stand on the boot (you're in London, right?) and shoot away. The other, and you had it to begin with, is to bring a ladder, a step ladder would do. Maybe something that's about 6 ft. in height. A friend of mine wanted to shoot a construction site, set up a ladder, and shot over the fence. Nobody kicked the ladder and only a few people commented. There's no law against doing ridiculous things like this in public. Anyhow, what can a cop say? Just whisper to them that you're 'an artist' or that you've been "commissioned by the Queen..." Screw the consequences... regarding safety (your own and that of others)... If you're a reasonably intelligent guy you won't have to worry. Have a little adventure, be absurd, and I'm sure your pictures will reflect the spirit in which they're taken.</p>

<p>I live near Boston and, although cops don't like being photographed, they're not exempt by any means. Know the law... I've been questioned by the police on numerous occasions but always at the behest of some idiot (who, more often than not, wasn't even the subject I was going after). The police have to respond to all calls...</p>

<p>Anyhow, my standard line is, "I'm well within my rights..." They know the law but you have to let them know that you know the law, too. So bring it up first so they know they're not dealing with a twit. Most of the police I've dealt with are, eventually, decent enough guys. When I got my Street Photographer's Membership kit there was a whole paragraph on how to deal with police, the public, and street vendors...</p>

<p>Basically Dylan summed up the attitude of the average policeman: <em>The cops don't need you and, man, they expect the same...</em></p>

<p>Scott, I'm not so sure about the complicity business... plenty of photographers have slipped into the underworld and presented their works to the public. What about writers and photographers who document the seamy side of life and get involved with pimps, prostitutes, drug addicts and crooks major and crooks minor?... I don't think there's going to be legal repercussions in anybody's future for taking pictures; especially retroactively.</p>

<p>You might look into getting a good flash and experiment with bouncing it to avoid blowing out the faces as you did in the linked pictures.</p>

<p>I've heard of Jim Carey, Phylo, but this is the first time I ever heard of Number 23. Totally out of the loop when it comes to most of pop culture, I'm afraid...</p>