Originally Posted by rutt That quotation has been on my mind since I dug it up in February. His point, I think, is that if the composition and message are strong enough, sharpness won't make or break an image. ... A modern Magnum photographer who has made the very same sort of choice is Alex Majoli who opts for point and shoot cameras and takes amazing pictures. If you don't know his work, check it out. What, me ramble?

We agree completely on the HCB comment. As a friend of mine put it a few years ago - "exposure and focus are greatly overrated." As an example...

There is a wonderful photo book called Early Dylan, with photos of Bob Dylan from, DOH!, early in his career by several photographers. My favorite is this one, which is a Daniel Kramer photo...




Why do I love the photo so? It perfectly captures a moment in a career, two lives, a moment in time. And it wouldn't be nearly as evocative if it were technically perfect.

Originally Posted by ian408 Cameras are tools. In the right hands, a carpenter can create beautifully detailed work with nothing more than a good set of hand tools. However, modern CNC tools for building precision stairs will not make me a better carpenter.

BINGO!!

Yes, if the carpenter - cabinet maker? - who specializes in making stunning chairs wants to mass produce front doors, he can probably do it more easily with modern power tools. But those tools won't make him a "better" carpenter or cabinet maker.

And, yes, I do believe that what makes me a passably good photographer is my eye, my brain, and perhaps my heart, and that I can turn out good photographs with whatever tools I have at hand.

I believe that to a certain extent, Neil, you misunderstand what I am saying. I am not against improvements in technology. I don't believe that they hinder us. I simply don't believe that technologically advanced cameras turn mediocre photographers in good photographers, or good ones into great photographers. All they do is allow the mediocre photographer to improve the technical aspects of his photographs. But technical mediocrity does not a mediocre photograph make.

I'll be perfectly frank here - there are countless mediocre photographers who can technically blow me out of the water. But that technical proficiency doesn't make them better photographers.

If tomorrow the cosmic clock was turned back and we were all left with nothing but the cameras and film available in, oh, say 1965 - hell, say 1935 (well before even I was born, those with real eyes would still be producing photographs worth looking at; those who appear to be technically proficient but glassy-eyed, would be turning out crap.

End of rant.

Originally Posted by Marc Muench B.D. Colen Welcome to dgrin fellow AIR I am thrilled to meet you through this thread and hope we can swap stories and photos as time goes on. The best part of this can be surprising, although you have probably heard it all by now There are so many wonderful and creative folks here and even more discovering each day. Your shooting exercise is brilliant as are your images, and I agree what is most important is what is going on in the photographers head

Thanks, Marc! We should meet 'off-line' one of these days...

Originally Posted by NeilL Sure. So, I would rephrase B.D.'s challenge - not "how many ways can you frame your subject without moving your feet", but rather "how many ways does your camera make it possible for you to see, even "create", your subject without moving your feet". Can you feel the difference?

I sure can see the difference - and one has nothing to do with the other. One is an exercise intended to help people appreciate the photographic frame, to help them SEE more creatively. The other is an exercise designed to teach them how to use the bells and whistles on their particular piece of gear. One is an "artistic" assignment; the other is a technological assignment. There is a reason I insist on a single focal length.

BUT - all this - and that - said, I appreciate technology, and what people can do with it. (Here comes my neck...) I am one of maybe three photographers on the planet - hell, three people on the planet - who doesn't think Ansel Adams was a photo god. I find his work boring and insipid. However I believe he was a god of photo technology for his development of the Zone System, and for his wizardry in the darkroom. I also believe that if he were alive today he wouldn't think of stepping inside a wet darkroom anymore, but would have been an early adopted of digital technology, and would be the Photoshop, digital printing guru. But none of that would make him a great photographer.

Okay, heading for the bomb shelter now.

Originally Posted by bdcolen Okay, heading for the bomb shelter now.

Don't be so quick to hole up

If there are pieces of his work that I like, it's because of my emotional attachment to the place. I think he did more to introduce people to the backcountry and to popularize photography as an art form.

I do agree (and have said as much) that if he were alive today, he would be equally at home with the technology of photography.

Thanks for the discussion. y'all.

Nice getting to know you B.D. Look forward to following your trail here, but I'll have my gear, just to make sure I'm relevant ;)

As a little closing treat, here is an enigmatic quote from that great photographer, Oscar Wilde. It seems to me to have some bearing on our discussion, but what exactly, eludes me:

"The typewriting machine, when played with expression, is no more annoying than the piano when played by a sister or near relation."

I think someone gets it

1st off- it's great that we have a streety-PJish, whatever you want to call it artist in residence. These are my favorite sort of shots, and I still get more images worth keeping due to luck rather than mad skillz- I read a little bit of BD's posting in another area, and have already found it useful.

Not that lovely birds, stunning landscapes.. sorry, I was yawning for a moment.. and the like aren't great. But I like red meat. So bravo to dgrin for reaching out to folks who shoot a different style. Then again, that's just what I would expect this board to do- it's a lot of things, but it ain't stale.

As for the equipment debate. I love to cook. I can cook your socks off. I was making a crawfish etoufee just this week, and I usually like to cut my onions paper thin-literally translucent. But my favorite knife got lost in the move; I'm cutting with the second stringer, which isn't sharp enough to safely cut things with this much precision.

Was the etoufee good? Damn straight it was. But it could have been better. Even if nobody else noticed the thickness of the onions, I did (like with photos, I am my harshest critic).

The point? You need to learn how to cook, but you also need a sharp knife. Or you'll eventually lose a thumb. And how can you hold your SLR with no thumb?

Great thread - thanks for all the interesting comments. I am a big fan of the naturalist style of photography - capturing an untouched, sometimes unpredictable moment. For me the technology of photography is secondary to capturing an unplanned observation.

I enjoy the small everyday experiences - sometime its tricky to remain discreet - people are naturally cautious or suspicious. Any tips for remaining in the background with street photography?

Cheers
Paul

Originally Posted by My_View Great thread - thanks for all the interesting comments. I am a big fan of the naturalist style of photography - capturing an untouched, sometimes unpredictable moment. For me the technology of photography is secondary to capturing an unplanned observation. I enjoy the small everyday experiences - sometime its tricky to remain discreet - people are naturally cautious or suspicious. Any tips for remaining in the background with street photography? Cheers Paul

Hi, Paul - I suspect that remaining unobtrusive has more to do with personality - and photo style - than anything else. But there are a few things one can do to reduce one's "footprint:"
1. When you're going to be shooting, keep your camera at chest level or higher, assuming you're using a DSLR or rangefinder camera. If possible, I'd hold the camera right below your chin or at eye level. What this accomplishes is that it greatly reduces your movement each time you shoot, and thus you draw less attention to yourself than you would if you had the camera hanging off your shoulder, or hanging in your hand down along your upper thigh. I am convinced that what draws people's attention to photographers is not their cameras - cameras and other electronic devices are ubiquitous in our society, but rather their movement;
2. Pre-focus whenever possible, to reduce the time you need to shoot;
3.Develop your 'sideways vision,' and shooting, so that you can seem to be looking or shooting in one direction, while you're actually watching and shooting in another;
4.Work close with a wide angle, rather than with a longer lens - the bigger the lens, the more obvious you are.
5. Relax. Act as though you belong where you are - because you do. Act as though you have every right in the world to be shooting - because you do. Try to avoid looking furtive and sneaky - because if you look that way, you will draw the very attention you want to avoid.

6. Contact me off-list - there's still time to sign up for my workshop the week of August 17
http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/2577816

So nice to meet you.

Originally Posted by Justiceiro As for the equipment debate. I love to cook. I can cook your socks off. I was making a crawfish etoufee just this week, and I usually like to cut my onions paper thin-literally translucent. But my favorite knife got lost in the move; I'm cutting with the second stringer, which isn't sharp enough to safely cut things with this much precision. Was the etoufee good? Damn straight it was. But it could have been better. Even if nobody else noticed the thickness of the onions, I did (like with photos, I am my harshest critic). The point? You need to learn how to cook, but you also need a sharp knife. Or you'll eventually lose a thumb. And how can you hold your SLR with no thumb?

I am a cook too, and I agree with you on both points!

Originally Posted by bdcolen 6. Contact me off-list - there's still time to sign up for my workshop the week of August 17 http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/2577816

If I do not live in the States, I am assuming that I can't do that Workshop thing?

Hey B.D. Looks like you might have a new forum on DGrin to watch over. It'll be interesting to see how it develops.

Originally Posted by bdcolen I am convinced that what draws people's attention to photographers is not their cameras - cameras and other electronic devices are ubiquitous in our society, but rather their movement; 2. Pre-focus whenever possible, to reduce the time you need to shoot; 3.Develop your 'sideways vision,' and shooting, so that you can seem to be looking or shooting in one direction, while you're actually watching and shooting in another; 4.Work close with a wide angle, rather than with a longer lens - the bigger the lens, the more obvious you are. 5. Relax. Act as though you belong where you are - because you do. Act as though you have every right in the world to be shooting - because you do. Try to avoid looking furtive and sneaky - because if you look that way, you will draw the very attention you want to avoid.

Add me to the list of folks ecstatic to have B.D. here and the addition of this forum. With B.D.'s comments above, his critique in this thread, and rutt's questions on strategy, this will be a great place to post. I'll refrain from commenting on specific points made about tools/creativity, but what I like about street/PJ, is the ability to shoot and not worry about gear, sharpness, and having a little latitude re: lapses in technical shooting.

That doesn't mean that any shot taken on asphalt where you truly 'point and shoot' is good. I have to shoot many more in those circumstance to get one keeper than at other times. But extenuating circumstances sometimes do trump the rule of thirds in composition, or some other 'technical' flaw. My wife constantly hounds me that I am too picky, that some of my shots are very good "as is".

My favorite setup for my urban shooting adventures is my 5D with the 35 f/1.4. Autofocus in low light is a little weak, but stopped down to f/2, it is great to hit the street at night. Fairly unobsotrusive and wide enough you can shoot from the chest or a quick up and down to the eye. During the day, I try and go for f/11, sometimes f/16.

Unfortunately, since I got back from the shootout last year my job has taken a very large amount fo my time (maybe that should be fortunately in this economy and with a wife who became involuntarily self-employed 9 months ago ). I have been unable to even visit the boards much , and while I can grab my camera and go, it has been too rare.

So B.D.'s comments about PS work is very comforting - because I still think I need to tweak my stuff too much, even if it is just a little bit in LR. So I need to challenge myself to just shoot and post, as if I am a PJ with a deadline. While I'm at it, I challenge you to do the same

Welcome B.D. Colen, and thank you for coming to us :)

Welcome Mr. Colen to dgrin.. i look forward to hearing what you have to share.. as a history teacher full time i often find it hard to get people that have knowledge of subject or life experience to open up and share.. i really appreciate you coming to join and share what you know and have learned..

Wonderful wonderful thread. I just read all 4 pages of it.

I eagerly look forward to absorbing more of Mr. Colen's thoughts on just about any subject photographic.

I have a question to pose to him and all the dgrinners here interested in street photography.

First off, I am fairly new to photography (6 years) . My 1st real camera was a Canon 20D DSLR and I still love and use it a lot. I guess maybe the same way photographers with deeper roots love that old Leica rangefinder or such.

My point is that all I know is digital photography and so all the debates about film vs. digital and such just go right over my poor head.

But I do love street photography and all kinds of candid people photography and so this is my question or thought for this thread.

In the mid 80's as a young man I spent a year tending bar in a run-down hotel in the heart of the East End in Vancouver. To this day the East End is still known as North America's worst area for open drug use and crime.

It was a crazy year and thankfully since then my life and work has taken me to much saner and healthier places.

But my time there left a deep impression on me and I find myself returning to photograph the people in the East End and all the misery and despair there on a regular basis.

I am not sure why I am drawn to the area and sometimes feel a little guilty or voyeuristic (right word?) when I edit my images later.

Some of my fellow Photography Club members dislike the images and have questioned my motives for going there and taking them.

I don't even put many of these images up on my website. they're just too personal.

Its hard to even explain what my fascination is. But the images strike a very deep chord in me. Maybe its a little of the "there but for the grace of God go I" syndrome.

Anyways I would like to hear others thoughts on this subject. Maybe even Mr. Colens if he had time.

Originally Posted by bradpowellphoto Wonderful wonderful thread. I just read all 4 pages of it. I eagerly look forward to absorbing more of Mr. Colen's thoughts on just about any subject photographic. I have a question to pose to him and all the dgrinners here interested in street photography. First off, I am fairly new to photography (6 years) . My 1st real camera was a Canon 20D DSLR and I still love and use it a lot. I guess maybe the same way photographers with deeper roots love that old Leica rangefinder or such. My point is that all I know is digital photography and so all the debates about film vs. digital and such just go right over my poor head. But I do love street photography and all kinds of candid people photography and so this is my question or thought for this thread. In the mid 80's as a young man I spent a year tending bar in a run-down hotel in the heart of the East End in Vancouver. To this day the East End is still known as North America's worst area for open drug use and crime. It was a crazy year and thankfully since then my life and work has taken me to much saner and healthier places. But my time there left a deep impression on me and I find myself returning to photograph the people in the East End and all the misery and despair there on a regular basis. I am not sure why I am drawn to the area and sometimes feel a little guilty or voyeuristic (right word?) when I edit my images later. Some of my fellow Photography Club members dislike the images and have questioned my motives for going there and taking them. I don't even put many of these images up on my website. they're just too personal. Its hard to even explain what my fascination is. But the images strike a very deep chord in me. Maybe its a little of the "there but for the grace of God go I" syndrome. Anyways I would like to hear others thoughts on this subject. Maybe even Mr. Colens if he had time.

Hi, Brad - This is an excellent question, and topic. And while I certainly don't have all the answers, I do have some fairly strong opinions on this - opinions with which many photographers will disagree.

I have to say that it doesn't at all surprise me that members of a Photography Club don't get what you are doing, and find it yucky - for want of a better term. Photography Clubs tend to be peopled by folks who like to shoot flowers, birds, babies, exotic foreigners in exotic foreign lands, and naked women anywhere. And to be vaguely fair, I don't think that the majority of people - including the majority of people who photograph,
'get' either street or documentary photography.

I'm not quite sure whether you are talking about shooting homeless people, or simply people living differently. I have what I call the "no bums rule" in my documentary photo classes; I tell students that I do not want to see any photos of homeless people unless either they have real human interaction with the people they shoot - they get to know them, perhaps they are doing a project on them, and so they are telling their subject's story. Or, the person in the photo is part of an image, and their presence in the image completes the story. For example, think of a photo of a street person lying on the pavement outside a high-end clothing store, being utterly ignored by a fabulously dressed woman walking by. But "bum" lying in doorway? No way. First off, it's a lazy photo - anyone can see it and shoot it. And more important, it's taking advantage of the subject as most folks living on the street are there as a result of having addictions of one sort of another, or other series mental problems.

That said, I don't see anything wrong with documenting the life of a neighborhood, or a group of people, who may live lives less fortunate than our own. I subscribe to the theory that we only owe our subjects one thing - honesty. We are under no obligation to make them look better than they appear, to protect them, or to otherwise skew what appears to be the reality of their lives. But we are obligated to not make them look worse than they appear, to figure out a way to make them conform to our preconceived notion of what they should look like. We are also obligated, if we engage with them, to be absolutely honest about why we're photographing, and what we plan to do with the photographs.

From what you hint at about your own back story, I'd guess that you are approaching this project in an honest, meaningful way, and will produce photos that accurately reflect the reality of life as you find it.

So keep shooting - and show some flower shots at the photo club.

Originally Posted by bdcolen We agree completely on the HCB comment. As a friend of mine put it a few years ago - "exposure and focus are greatly overrated." As an example... There is a wonderful photo book called Early Dylan, with photos of Bob Dylan from, DOH!, early in his career by several photographers. My favorite is this one, which is a Daniel Kramer photo... Why do I love the photo so? It perfectly captures a moment in a career, two lives, a moment in time. And it wouldn't be nearly as evocative if it were technically perfect.

I thought the following accidental image might be some food for thought.

http://firehousesofohio.smugmug.com/...67681640_zj3rH

I wasn't able to get it to drop into the thread.