Please, Please, Puhleeeeeze!!

bdcolen

I write this begging Richard's indulgence as I fully understanding that I am not the moderator of this forum:

I understand the impulse that drove Angelo to post his "What is Street Photography" thread, but at the same time I fear it.

Please, please, please - let's not allow this forum to devolve into endless debates and discussions about what is or is not "street photography," "photo journalism," or "documentary photography." In fact, let's not allow this forum to devolve into a debating society. The thing that is so wonderful about the Dgrin forums - what makes them stand out from the swamp of other internet photo sites - is that they are about photos; people shoot, post, and leave - and other people comment on the photos.

What is street photography? You don't need to read Wikipedia (and, by the way, I tell my news writing and feature writing classes that I will give an F to anyone who cites Wikipedia as a source for anything! :rofl ), or Phil Greenspan - all you need to do is spend some time looking at the work of great photographers who did street work:
Weegee, Walker Evans, Gary Winnogrand, Henri-Cartier Bresson, Bruce Davidson, Helen Levitt, Bruce Friedlander, etc. etc.

What is documentary photography? Look at the work of Susan Meiselas, Eugene Richards, Larry Towell, Bruce Davidson, Walker Evans - (notice a trend here?), James Nachtwey, or the work of any number of Magnum photographers from the agency's founding after World War II to day.

What is photo journalism? Look at your daily paper. Visit the New York Times web site every day. Look at the work of James Nachtwey (:wink ). Go to the site of the VII agency. Look at the work on the Magnum site.

If you want to learn photography, study photographs. Allot. Go to your public library and spend time with the photo books there. Your cup of tea will not necessarily be my cup of tea - that's absolutely fine. But figure out what you like, and why you like it. Look at how the greats in each of these genres have selected their subjects, used the frame, dealt with exposure. Look at the elements that make up the photos. Absorb it all.

But please, please, please, do not turn this wonderful forum into a damn debating society. Next thing you know we'll expend immeasurable stores of energy debating the proper equipment to use when engaging in street photography v PJ v documentary photography.

Just go shoot, post, and leave - and then let the rest of us comment on the photos.

Please, please, :bow :bow :bow :dunno

michswiss

Come on B. D., tell me what you're really thinking.

baldmountain

Actually, I found the Non-Photography site intriguing. But I draw the line at getting a Holga...

Wil Davis

bdcolen wrote:

…etc

Debating society?

Camera Club surely…

- Wil

PS: B. D. far be it from me to criticize, but I'm concerned about the verticals in the NM pic you posted…

Angelo

bdcolen wrote:

...I understand the impulse that drove Angelo to post his "What is Street Photography" thread, but at the same time I fear it.

I'm not sure you do understand. It was not an impulse nor is it anything to fear.

What led me to creating that thread was the very thing you speak out against. There has been an ongoing, endless debate about the differences between and what defines Street vs, PJ vs Documentary vs Portrait vs Candid.

So I tackled one aspect of that debate and offered up some stepping stones to learning more about the concept and historically defined parameters of Street phtogrpahers to offset the misguided idea that simply shooting an image, any image, while standing on a public street qualifies as Street Photography.

I posted some 4 or 5 links of which only one was from wikipedia. To single that choice out as being beneath the dignity of a learning environment is unfair.

I also made a specific suggestion about the value of studying the masters, which you seem to ignore in this criticism.

BD you are an accomplished, respected talent and I have enjoyed your contribution and respect your opinion but at the same time you are complex and sometimes contradictory.

When, in one thread I challenged a close-up of a woman as being a portrait worthy of People you disagreed yet in another you argued the exact same point.

So I'm sorry my attempt at helping out has been met with such disapproval. I'll not interfere again.

.

Richard

Angelo wrote:

So I'm sorry my attempt at helping out has been met with such disapproval. I'll not interfere again.

.

Ang,

You are another accomplished and respected talent here and your opinions are always welcome.

rutt

Angelo, B.D. can be gruff, but he means well. Sometimes you need kind of a thick skin. He thinks he is some sort of fire breathing dragon editor in the press room, but really he's a pussy cat.

Richard

rutt wrote:

\ He thinks he is some sort of fire breathing dragon editor in the press room, but really he's a pussy cat.

A black and white one, no doubt. rofl

Tina Manley

MakeMeShutter wrote:

Are you trying to say that you have to be accomplished and respected to voice an opinion in here?

Everybody needs to take a deep breath and go out and make some photos!


Tina
www.tinamanley.com

P.S. I agree with Rutt that B.D. is a big pussycat

Richard

MakeMeShutter wrote:

Are you trying to say that you have to be accomplished and respected to voice an opinion in here?

No.

michswiss

I actually enjoy the debate as long as it stays civil and the flow of images remains frequent. And I have already posted my thanks for the links in the other thread, but thanks again.

To a certain extent, the definition of this forum is a counter to what is currently in People. Spend some time there, I still do although I don't comment. Some great work, but it's not a style I gravitate toward. Also, I'm neither accomplished nor respected but I still post.

More pictures coming...

bdcolen

Angelo wrote:

I'm not sure you do understand. It was not an impulse nor is it anything to fear.

What led me to creating that thread was the very thing you speak out against. There has been an ongoing, endless debate about the differences between and what defines Street vs, PJ vs Documentary vs Portrait vs Candid.

So I tackled one aspect of that debate and offered up some stepping stones to learning more about the concept and historically defined parameters of Street phtogrpahers to offset the misguided idea that simply shooting an image, any image, while standing on a public street qualifies as Street Photography.

I posted some 4 or 5 links of which only one was from wikipedia. To single that choice out as being beneath the dignity of a learning environment is unfair.

I also made a specific suggestion about the value of studying the masters, which you seem to ignore in this criticism.

BD you are an accomplished, respected talent and I have enjoyed your contribution and respect your opinion but at the same time you are complex and sometimes contradictory.

When, in one thread I challenged a close-up of a woman as being a portrait worthy of People you disagreed yet in another you argued the exact same point.

So I'm sorry my attempt at helping out has been met with such disapproval. I'll not interfere again.

.

My most profuse apologies. You approached this issue in a truly serious, thoughtful way, and in return, I dumped all my frustration on you. I really do apologize. (As an aside, the big drawback of this back and forth on the internet is we don't see each other's expressions, hear tones of voice, or see body language. Were we sitting in one of our homes or the neighborhood Starbucks, my guess is I'd be much clearer and less 'mean.'

I posted what I did because I am frustrated by the constant back and forth over what is or isn't one form of photography or another. I love seeing what people shoot - there is some terrific stuff being posted here, and there are any number of people who's work has improved in the short time since the forum started. I just wish we could concentrate on the images, rather than the definitions.

On the other hand, anything you or anyone else does to get people to look at the work of the greats, near greats, and just plain interestings, is a plus! As I said, we learn from studying the works of other photographers, and you are urging people to do that.

Oh, and my crack about Wikipedia has nothing to do with you, or photography - it has to do with Wikipedia, and the fact that a web "encyclopedia" that anyone can post to or alter is seen by so many people as a source of accurate information. What it is is a great place to go to find links to numerous sources about various subjects - a compilation of reference citations - rather than as a source itself.

So, again, to you and anyone else I offended with my response - I really am sorry. I certainly meant what I said about my concerns regarding this forum, but they are general concerns, and I do not want to stiffel your interest - or any one else's - and I was certainly not looking to insult you.

bdcolen

michswiss wrote:

I actually enjoy the debate as long as it stays civil and the flow of images remains frequent. And I have already posted my thanks for the links in the other thread, but thanks again.

To a certain extent, the definition of this forum is a counter to what is currently in People. Spend some time there, I still do although I don't comment. Some great work, but it's not a style I gravitate toward. Also, I'm neither accomplished nor respected but I still post.

More pictures coming...

You are accomplished, and you should be respected.:D

bdcolen

Richard wrote:

No.

AMEN

Richard

bdcolen wrote:

I just wish we could concentrate on the images, rather than the definitions.

Amen. barb

Richard

bdcolen wrote:

AMEN

ROFLMAO. I hadn't seen your post when I posted mine.

We've got to stop meeting like this, BD.

torags

Well said BD. Let's take pictures

Btw I received a few pics of the dustbowl 1930-1935.. Very strong photos. They are not street photography, but shots of the human condition. The condition is suffered by some in more urban environments.

I propose a thread where each of us take one of these shots and shoot a comparable condition today and post them side by side.

Here is one




The rest are here.. http://ragspix.smugmug.com/People/0911-Depression-Era/10163926_Ne2P2#699376113_FGrTx

Any takers?

ChatKat

Can't we just call it what it is....
It's a photograph. Why do we have to debate it's genre? It captures a moment. All photographs tell stories in one way or another. Sometimes a single photograph can cross many genres.

sara505

I think what BD is saying is, more pictures, less words.

Anyway, I met BD for coffee one morning - we live in the same town - first thing I said, was, "Hey, you're not the crusty old B#@%&*^ I thought you were." He's very nice - opinionated, yes - but as Rutt said, a pussycat.

seastack

Damn, love that photo B.D. Place and time?

bdcolen

seastack wrote:

Damn, love that photo B.D. Place and time?

Where are you?

seastack

bdcolen wrote:

Where are you?

Acck, so sorry, I meant where was the photo taken and when? Has a great sense of place, sort of an encroachment of the subdivision on the west perhaps?

bdcolen

seastack wrote:

Acck, so sorry, I meant where was the photo taken and when? Has a great sense of place, sort of an encroachment of the subdivision on the west perhaps?

Ahhh! The Winnogrand!! I believe that was shot in Arizona.