The Best Photographer You've Never Heard Of...

bdcolen

...was named William Gedney - He did street photography and documentary photography in NYC, San Francisco in the 60's, India, and in various other places. He taught for years at Pratt, in New York, and died of AIDS in the late 80s. The Duke University Libraries have his complete archives of photos and writings on line. You can look at contact sheets -


And individual images - Spend a few minutes, a few hours, a few weeks with his work - you won't regret it.:clap :clap :clap








Yes, that is Tom Wolfe taking notes in a park in San Francisco during the "Summer of Love."

sara505

The one with the mannequins is pure genius.

Looking at this stuff sparks the on-going questions that rattle around in my brain: How to capture ordinary moments and make them extraordinary; what's the difference between an ordinary moment that can be made into an extraordinary image, and an ordinary moment that is just "so what?" How to have far-reaching vision - how to see beyond the moment, beyond the stuff we see every day and are almost too close to to see properly, and predict what will be enduring, classic, and iconic? Or do we only know this later?

JimW

Not that I know, but one of the possible answers may be "disorientation." If interested, see this post.

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=146689

Sorry it's blue, don't know how to change it (too disoriented).

If the link doesn't work, it's on page 3 of The Big Picture section and it's called disorientation.

Jim

sara505

JimW wrote:

Not that I know, but one of the possible answers may be "disorientation." If interested, see this post.

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=146689

Sorry it's blue, don't know how to change it (too disoriented).

If the link doesn't work, it's on page 3 of The Big Picture section and it's called disorientation.

Jim

Interesting article. A little like thinking outside the box, and what the current brain guys are saying about keeping our brains healthy and functioning well: shake things up a bit, do new things, do things differently, it keeps the neurons firing...or something like that.

Anyway, my questions are largely rhetorical and pretty much ongoing.

michswiss

Hey B. D., could you resize the images in your post. They are too wide for my already wide monitor. It's making it near impossible to view and appreciate.

bdcolen

michswiss wrote:

Hey B. D., could you resize the images in your post. They are too wide for my already wide monitor. It's making it near impossible to view and appreciate.

Sorry, Jen - but I really don't have the time - I'd have to do back to the Duke site, find each of these images, and repost in a different size. Why don't you just Google William Gedney photography archives, and explore what you find there? It's an incredible place.

bdcolen

sara505 wrote:

Interesting article. A little like thinking outside the box, and what the current brain guys are saying about keeping our brains healthy and functioning well: shake things up a bit, do new things, do things differently, it keeps the neurons firing...or something like that.

Anyway, my questions are largely rhetorical and pretty much ongoing.

Well, I don't think the quality of Gedney's images has anything to do with disorientation - I think it has to do with being 'in the moment,' paying close attention to surroundings, and truly "seeing" what's in front of you.

Sara, you asked about making ordinary moments extraordinary. I believe that the answer to that question lies in seeing them in the first place, and then in thinking about framing, exposure, and the other components of any good photograph. We usually fail to see - and certainly fail to photograph - ordinary moments precisely because they are so ordinary that they fail to register with us; I refer to them as "scenes yet unseen."

sara505

bdcolen wrote:

We usually fail to see - and certainly fail to photograph - ordinary moments precisely because they are so ordinary that they fail to register with us; I refer to them as "scenes yet unseen."

Yes - that's what I think about, a lot. You're right about this. I also think there are different ways of seeing - i.e. "from the gut." iow, sometimes what we are "seeing" comes from a deep place, and we don't even know what we're seeing until later. Hard to put into words!

bdcolen

sara505 wrote:

Yes - that's what I think about, a lot. You're right about this. I also think there are different ways of seeing - i.e. "from the gut." iow, sometimes what we are "seeing" comes from a deep place, and we don't even know what we're seeing until later. Hard to put into words!

It is indeed. But this remind me of something in an earlier post, in which a writer posited that we find things in images we didn't know we were shooting. I'd challenge that assertion. I've thought about this a great deal, because I often look at an image and see an element that really makes the image and wonder, 'did I see that?' I believe that if that happens once in the proverbial blue moon, then it probably is accidental. But if it happens with any real consistency, then I'd suggest that what is happening is you are seeing those elements and they are registering at least subconsciously. You 'know' what you're shooting, even if it doesn't kick you in the head when you trip the shutter. Were that not the case, there's no way to explain why those 'special' elements turn up with so much consistency in the work of good photographers, and rarely if ever turn up in the work of average photographers.

sara505

bdcolen wrote:

It is indeed. But this remind me of something in an earlier post, in which a writer posited that we find things in images we didn't know we were shooting. I'd challenge that assertion. I've thought about this a great deal, because I often look at an image and see an element that really makes the image and wonder, 'did I see that?' I believe that if that happens once in the proverbial blue moon, then it probably is accidental. But if it happens with any real consistency, then I'd suggest that what is happening is you are seeing those elements and they are registering at least subconsciously. You 'know' what you're shooting, even if it doesn't kick you in the head when you trip the shutter. Were that not the case, there's no way to explain why those 'special' elements turn up with so much consistency in the work of good photographers, and rarely if ever turn up in the work of average photographers.

Yep, the subconscious is indeed very powerful. I agree, that we do know what we're shooting, even if we don't understand it or see it or know it immediately.

rteest42

Great photos, I will have to go look for more of his work!
I was up in the city last month, and took three different photos...two I was VERY aware of.... the third? blew me away when I saw it on my screen...

saw it



saw it


totally missed this!




What do you think??

trish

sara505 wrote:

Yep, the subconscious is indeed very powerful. I agree, that we do know what we're shooting, even if we don't understand it or see it or know it immediately.

bdcolen

rteest42 wrote:

Great photos, I will have to go look for more of his work!
I was up in the city last month, and took three different photos...two I was VERY aware of.... the third? blew me away when I saw it on my screen...

saw it


totally missed this!


(not sure HOW to link, but they are in People Watching on my site....)

What do you think??

trish

Nice images - particular one and two. I'm not sure what you think you didn't see in no. 3.

Also, it would be a whole lot easier to look at these without the watermark.

rteest42

thanks! And, Sorry, I've never posted images here before... I'm gonna try this way...
and hopefully in the large image you will note the lady inside, in green, staring at the backside of the man leaving the building!




Trish
Guess I know how now! (but not without the watermark...whats the trick there?)

bdcolen wrote:

Nice images - particular one and two. I'm not sure what you think you didn't see in no. 3.

Also, it would be a whole lot easier to look at these without the watermark.

bdcolen

rteest42 wrote:

thanks! And, Sorry, I've never posted images here before... I'm gonna try this way...
and hopefully in the large image you will note the lady inside, in green, staring at the backside of the man leaving the building!




Trish
Guess I know how now! (but not without the watermark...whats the trick there?)

Well, the trick with the watermark is to not put watermarks on your images....

As to the young woman with the green glasses - now I see her, but I don't know if she's looking at the guy going out the door, the couple at the counter, or one member of the couple at the counter. Sorry, but I still think the other two are much stronger.

rteest42

Maybe its the story-teller in me... (but here is a crop of the area with her looking... its HIM she's checking out...or maybe its him she's looking at, thinking, arrogant jerk, I TOLD you I was married, stop hitting on me!! )

Thanks, Trish

bdcolen wrote:

Well, the trick with the watermark is to not put watermarks on your images....

As to the young woman with the green glasses - now I see her, but I don't know if she's looking at the guy going out the door, the couple at the counter, or one member of the couple at the counter. Sorry, but I still think the other two are much stronger.

bdcolen

rteest42 wrote:

Maybe its the story-teller in me... (but here is a crop of the area with her looking... its HIM she's checking out...or maybe its him she's looking at, thinking, arrogant jerk, I TOLD you I was married, stop hitting on me!! )

Thanks, Trish

Sorry, Trish - I know it's in your head, but it is not in your pixels.