lewis_lorton1

<blockquote>

<p>Lewis, you missed my point (not surprised). I don't see it coming from the content, rather it feels tacked on to give power artificially.<br>

>>> I didn't see anyone actually looking at my work on the link provided and verify that I practice how I talk.<br>

Again, how do you know this?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not surprised also that you would root around to find something to criticize. <br>

Since your photography isn't bad, I had hoped you were better than that but if this is the kind of antagonism that typifies the way you and the others treat people who don't agree with you, it is not surprising that most of the critiques are you guys giving back rubs to each other.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Which is totally fine, but is very inconsistent with your position of objecting to post processing making photos look more important or genuine.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, as I said before (see quote below) , I have no problem with the amount of the editing or the intent but only that the PPing be consistent and spring from the content rather than be essentially arbitrary.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am not against processing of any sort that supports the meaning but I have seen too many photos that are truly unexceptional and meaningless just beaten to death with post-processing and presented as 'street photos.'</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That you thought my pictures overworked is a matter of taste but my choice of 'work', of editing, springs from the content. <br>

Again, I can't imagine that this issue has more to be chewed over than has been done already. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>It seems that people write a lot more willingly than they read.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />"What I get from this is it seems Lewis is fine with sharing his beliefs, but is not very interested in hearing what others have to say about their views and approach to street shooting. To the point where it looks like he again feels insulted and needs to bail as a result. Too bad, because from checking out his website he has some really good photos - I was hoping he'd stick around.<br /><br />I'm sure I've missed some nuance, but for me my take-away is a shrug and a big oh well..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wasn't insulted, I quickly realized that this wasn't a discussion so much as a chance for others to wax generously - and off topic - about themselves and it was a waste of time for me because I didn't hear anything that made me think my philosophy should be changed. (I did appreciate the link to Moriyama's work.)<br>

I stated the way I worked and then it became a discussion where people wanted to make me back off those points - or took offense because I didn't choose either to work or like the way they chose for themselves. I said exactly what I think about my own work and the attitude I take to others.<br>

Also I said exactly why I wouldn't engage with Lex. He bloviates, takes every position, insults indirectly and actually doesn't respond but just waits for a space so he can start talking again. That's a waste of time for me; he wants attention and space and he can take all he wants without my cooperation. <br>

.<br>

I stopped engaging with the thread because. altho this is the 'philosophy of photography' forum, when I stated mine, people were insulted that I didn't take care of them by using acceptable words and somehow be polite, cordial and accepting of the entire world. I am unused to being falsely congratulatory and I would rather be known as honest than easy to be around.<br>

.<br>

But I do want to correct a clear misreading of what I said.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>like Lewis said here, he really wants and likes a light post processing touch and a "naturalistic" look and his photo looked really far from natural and very over-processed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I did not say I liked a natural approach; my attitude towards post-processing is always that it should spring from the content rather than just be tacked on to make the picture somehow look more important or more genuine.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>I believe that the processing should support the meaning not stand instead of it.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>These Instagram-like pictures may seem attractive at first in the 'oh cool, it looks so old and like film' kind of way, but then looking at the pictures one realizes they are incoherent, there is no connection between the content and the way they are edited. They then become for me, irritating rather than engaging, like seeing breakfast cereal that touts its goodness but is really empty calories.<br>

.<br>

I did notice that, although a couple of people made the point that it was somehow important that a photographer should walk the walk rather than only talk the talk, I didn't see anyone actually looking at my work on the link provided and verify that I practice how I talk.<em><br /></em><br>

.<br>

On a more general topic, I find this site rather confusing; the interface really is terrible. Critiquing seems to be at a minimum and the limitations on image size means that beginners, who could use a hard look at the details of their work, can't get it.</p>

<p>I am usually happy to discuss substance and opinions but the tone and manner of these comments are more antagonistic than educational and leads me into an attitude I don't want to take.<br>

So you can go on without me as a contributor.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You told us what you think qualifies as "good street photography." Of course nobody goes out to do "bad street photography" but rather than tell us what types of street photos you <em>prefer</em>, you choose to dictate what is "<em>good</em>."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So you have decided that because I said 'I think' rather than 'I prefer', that I am 'dictating' what others should think and do? Perhaps you could create a style book on how people can couch their views here in an acceptable, non-threatening, non-upsetting style. <br>

Well, I think about my choices and use my decisions to form how I work. I also try to be honest and straightforward and say exactly what I think, rather than use weasel words.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If someone wants or needs to limit how they go about their street shooting photography, either to tighten their vision/focus or to accommodate personal comfort limitations, that's fine and does not bother me at all. <strong>But, like Lex, I take exception when people go further and proclaim their manner of street shooting is somehow better or more pure, especially when it is couched under the guise of trying to protect the genre</strong> (as if it is under attack).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Since this quote above is in the thread I started, I assume that 'people' above refers to me.<br>

This below is the entirety of what I wrote about what I thought and hold to in street photography. Perhaps you can point out where I said that others should do any different than what they do currently?</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>I hold very strongly to the belief that good street photography actually shows something or some moment that the photographer sees and wants to capture. I believe in the 3 Ms - Meaning, Mood and Mystery. I can't help being almost repelled by images that rely only beating up mundane nothing-is-happening images with processing to make them 'street'. </em><br /><em> (I came across someone selling LR presets to make any image look 'street.)</em><br /><em> I believe that the processing should support the meaning not stand instead of it.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can say that my beliefs inform how I respond to other photographers' images. On photo.net, although there seems to be a fairly high quality of images, when there are 'critiques' they are usually of the attaboy genre and rather than be the obnoxious new guy, I have chosen most of the time just to ignore pictures where I would say anything negative, unless it is of a strictly technical nature.<em><br /></em></p>

<blockquote>

<p><em> </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Totally agree, Michael.<br>

Too often I see pictures where the processing totally overshadows the content.<br>

That makes my skin crawl.</p>

<p>@brad,</p>

<p>Sorry, I must be too sleepy or dense this AM.<br>

What chix?</p>

<p>Jochen:<br>

Whatever other people define for themselves is ok; for me it is what an Internet friend of mine said:<br>

"Street shooting is perhaps the hardest niche of all in photography both to explain and to do successfully. The photographer haunts his chosen environment where, perhaps, nothing is happening - people may be just quietly going about their business - and yet he/she to select tiny moments when an image can be snatched which is more than the sum of its parts - where some fleeting coincidence of expression, gesture, positioning, and movement come together to create an instant which holds some undefinable meaning."<br>

I've always liked that and take it as my mantra.</p>

<p>@Lex Jenkins<br>

I think I won't engage in this discussion with you. You've attempted to foreclose any discussion - and win - by taking a position implying deep experience, proclaiming deep cynicism, being insulting to any other opinion or position in advance by calling them cliches, being faux-humble and then declaring your intent to be snarky.<br>

There is no room in there for me to say anything, any opinion I might have having been dismissed already as a cliche, so I won't, except that your allusion to Heisenberg doesn't wash at all.</p>

<p>Lew</p>

<p>Will do, thanks.<br>

Let me clear up something. I don't think of myself as a great street photographer, just as one who is committed to that part of the art.</p>

<p>I'm not quite facile with the interface here so forgive me if my reply looks ragged.<br /> I tried Daido Moriyama's site and only the home page showed any photos, the rest just had whirling arrows.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Huh? how would a LR street tweak alter the average image? And whats the difference if your are loading BW film? - Is it about exagurated contrast?<br /> Sorry for my lack of understanding. - Unfortunately I can't try the real thing (understood as "standing like a rock in pedestrian traffic and snapping away with a 35mm") around here due to legal limitations.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To be honest, I'm not at all certain what you mean here, Jochem, although I am certain there are street photographers in Germany.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>When we pare away the B.S.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm fairly certain you aren't accusing me of B.S. (let me know if I'm incorrect), my preferences are based on personal experiences. I am not against processing of any sort that supports the meaning but I have seen too many photos that are truly unexceptional and meaningless just beaten to death with post-processing and presented as 'street photos.' I refer you to <a href="http://www.theinspiredeye.net/street-photography-presets/">http://www.theinspiredeye.net/street-photography-presets/</a> for good examples. Actually 95% of pictures posted on Flcikr as street photos are good examples of that.<br /> One can be full of crap with film also. I know two photographers who broadcast their love for their Leicas, short focal lengths and film - and then show meaningless crap but up close and in B&W, so their photos must be 'street photos.'<br /> I don't think that the photographer should be part of the scene; I try to take what I see without affecting it thus I don't take candids of people who pose for the camera and rarely ask to take a photo. I don't take pictures of street people unless there is something to say beyond 'here's a gritty, poor bastard, aren't you lucky you're not him.'<br /> I think, at least for myself, that good street photography is damn hard work. My failures outnumber my successes 1000 to 1 (at least). A good street photo makes me feel something, tells me something more than what I just see in the frame.<br /> I have a good amount of photos at my web site (Isn't there a rule against self promotion? but in any case the url to my site should be in my profile).<br>

It seems that I don't have a profile with a link so here is my web site http://www.lewlortonphoto.com</p>

<p>I would certainly backup up the catalog to another disk and then run some sort of disk check process, starting with checkdisk and any other utility you have.<br>

Your preview cache is generally co-located with your catalog and, since there are problems with both catalog and preview cache, the integrity of the disk sectors are in question.<br>

If you have the space, I would duplicate the folder with your catalog et als to a new folder, then use the new version until you have a chance to do some disk inspection.<br>

I suggest you rename BUT NOT DELETE the faulty folder; don't give up those sectors to be used again until you know what is going on.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I hold very strongly to the belief that good street photography actually shows something or some moment that the photographer sees and wants to capture. I believe in the 3 Ms - Meaning, Mood and Mystery. I can't help being almost repelled by images that rely only beating up mundane nothing-is-happening images with processing to make them 'street'. <br>

(I came across someone selling LR presets to make any image look 'street.)<br>

I believe that the processing should support the meaning not stand instead of it.</p>

<p>"I do wonder if it just makes me a no-talent hack who is a disgrace to the photography world"</p>

<p>You might be, but it's not my place to say. I am with you. I know generally what I'm after but sometimes/often my original path doesn't get me there and I try another.<br>

What counts is what's at the end not how you get there.</p>

<p>Thanks all,<br>

Small cameras are the future for me.<br>

I was an Nikon user for 7 years but the weight of them on trips just got tooooo much.<br>

Off to Laos in February with 2 bodies, 4 lenses that weigh in total less than a body and 24-70 in Nikon stuff.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm a fairly experienced photographer who has recently migrated from Nikon FF to Oly M4/3. I do some travel stuff when I can and street photography most of the time.<br>

I am totally disinterested in wildlife, landscapes, macros and such. (Perhaps I am a one trick pony.)<br>

My website is <a href="http://lewlortonphoto.com/">lewlortonphoto.com</a> and <a href="http://lewlortonphoto.com/blog">my blog</a> about travel and photography is linked on the main page. I have been a mod and/or active on other sites but I'm looking for a more adult environment.<br>

Lew</p>

<p>Coming late to this discussion, I may not have absorbed all the points made.<br>

There seems to be a line between pure documentation, whose meaning and content is known by any viewer, and work that is so personal that only the maker has any insight.<br>

In my experience many photos fall too close to that personal end where the hints of meanings and emotions of the maker are so faint that the viewer asked to provide so much of the connection that every viewer has a completely different interpretation. IMO, these images are too often within the confidence interval of nothing.<br>

I prefer my own pictures to be overt enough that the viewer understands what I am seeing and presenting to them.</p>

<p>I am a street shooter and one of the fabulous benefits of a small camera is exactly the 'insignificance' factor. People who would pose for a big camera just ignore me - and that is just fine.<br>

This is a demonstration against mass surveillance and the irony factor of all the cameras is really high. (the cap in the man holding the poster shows he's from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a prime mover in the privacy world; irony x 10)<br>

<img src="http://lewlortonphoto.com/img/s10/v115/p248829652-5.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Lewis, have you considered why that may be the case and does it matter to you? Have you been able to articulate, for yourself, why your work is or isn't meaningful/good/important/etc. and if it isn't or isn't enough, what could make it more so, if you'd want to?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I didn't mean to imply that I don't think my own work is 'meaningful/good/important/etc.' I am my own second favorite photographer (behind Garry Winogrand) but I am very chary of talking about any specific picture because that bell cannot be unrung. Once I say <em>what</em> and <em>why</em>, the listener is influenced by my emotions and feelings, having heard them. I will go so far as setting the scene but rarely, if ever, say why I took the shot. That should be evident.<br>

For approximately that reason, I don't participate in shows because I don't want to consider audience reaction and let that influence what I choose to enter. I made this decision forever when a gallery committee chose what they thought the audience would like. <br>

I like it when people like my pictures but don't care if they don't. At this point, the only disappointment in photography that I feel strongly is when I'm not as good as I want and I don't need approval from others to support my own feeling of self worth. (All of that may be anticipatory self-defense against rejection.)</p>

<p>I read as many of the responses as my eyes would manage, got lost quite a few times but here is my feeling about photography and criticism, essentially unaffected by what has been said before.<br>

Any photograph has two possible components - content and meaning (or idea). Too often, 'critics' have addressed the idea only, perhaps just because the 'idea' can be well expressed in words and words are their tools and thus the 'idea' portion has become inflated in importance.<br>

So I see photographs/shows where there is purportedly some grand unifying idea and concept and yet there is nothing new or original or fine within the frame that justifies the excitement. I saw a two-person show in Baltimore where this concept was demonstrated in both extremes. The first photographer made very lovely, even beautiful landscapes all with and within her phone - and that was the extent of the art. It was lovely but no more. The other artist constructed a series of still life images, all reflected off of some surface; the idea was interesting, but the images not very skillfully executed.<br>

The discussions of these two artists were extensive and full of high flown ideas and emotions that weren't represented in the frame. Words and ideas are essentially no cost additives to pictures. Art is hard and using words and injected ideas to make any specific attempt at art more important is easy and critics like it because it makes the critics part of the creative process rather than being on the sidelines.<br>

There is a balance between totally pre-digested art, like Hummel figurines, where everything is solved and there is no effort required from the viewer to understand and relate and what I see too often in galleries where the art doesn't carry any meaning or idea and that all must be supplied by words added on afterwards.<br>

For me, I hope my work is a communication between me and the viewer. I am showing them something I think is important or interesting and I expect only a certain minimum amount of shared knowledge for what I am showing to be understandable. <br />If I have to explain anything then the art has failed.<br>

Yes, I accept that this is an almost primitive attitude but my gut feeling is that is the only way I know that what I am doing is real and successful. A comedian does not want canned laughter, I don't want extra words telling anyone why my work is meaningful/good/important/etc.<br>

[<em>to be clear and honest, no one has ever yet said that my work is 'meaningful/good/important/etc' so my last hope is that I will be recognized as a great photographer after I'm dead but I am putting off the inevitable fame as long as possible. <em>:)</em> ]</em></p>