Foreign Land

richardman

Per usual, more images on my blog: http://www.richardmanphoto.com/blog/?p=3115

I am starting to work on a photo essay called “Foreign Land.” It will probably take me all of 2012 to do. Here’s a sample of some early photos. I do not expect many of these or may be even any of these to make it into the final cut, but this should give some ideas. The only reason I am blogging this effort is that I expect things will evolve and it might be instructive to keep a record that I can look back on later.

black mamba

You know, I've got to admit to being confused. I don't see anything in any of these pictures that would qualify them as " street " work any more than , say, Jennifer's B&W shot of the guy sitting on a wall. Someone commented that her shot had no story...inferring that it could not be considered true street work.

In these pictures here, I fail to see any story either. I see a girl sitting in an entry way, some merchandise in a window for sale, some folks getting something to eat, some food in a buffet line, etc.,etc. They're decent enough snap shots....and interesting enough to someone who doesn't see pig heads for sale very often....but I don't see a "story" in any of them.

This forum was initiated as a showing ground for those folks who enjoy a particular genre of photography. For want of a better term, it was called " Street / PJ ". Everybody understood that it was a fairly loose definition but that was OK because no one got too wound-up in the semantics and they appreciated the opportunity to share their passion with people of a like interest.

Along the way, some folks show up that want to impose their viewpoint....or the viewpoint of often-quoted " masters " ....as to what street photography really is and they say that the prevailing bulk of what our members post is largely junk and should be culled.

These folks have missed the point of this forum entirely. The members here don't want to worry that their pictures may not " tell a story ". They don't want to worry that their work doesn't conform to someone's interpretation of what it should be. Everyone would, I suppose, like to be proud of their work and to feel that they are growing as photographers....but I doubt many want to participate in an overly strict environment.

Sadly, I've seen the participation in this forum fall off considerably, for that reason, by the very folks who made it what it was. Those folks that are intent on a regimented interpretation of street photography may find that they would be a lot happier somewhere else.

As I said initially, I don't feel these shots here are any better at telling a story than many that have been criticized. That doesn't mean, however, that I don't like them....I do. I find them interesting. But I can accept them on that basis without subjecting them to a level of scrutiny that is unnecessary or unwanted.

Tom

RSL

I'm certainly not going to claim that Richard's photographs in this series are street work as you seem to assume they're intended to be. There's a difference between street and PJ. I'd call these shots the peripherals in a PJ series. They can't even begin to come together until Richard comes up with his central photos, which, if they're good enough to stand on their own, may well qualify as street shots.

"For want of a better term?" Come on, Tom. There's a better term: "snapshot." "Street & PJ" implies street photography and photojournalism. It's not a question of semantics; it's a question of quality.

I think you're right that criticism drives away people who aren't serious about their work, and you're suggesting that Street & PJ should be a receptacle for unserious work? That's okay if that's what Street & PJ is for. Is it? If that's the consensus I'll go away, and the organizers should change the name.

Harryb

RSL wrote: »

I'm certainly not going to claim that Richard's photographs in this series are street work as you seem to assume they're intended to be. There's a difference between street and PJ. I'd call these shots the peripherals in a PJ series. They can't even begin to come together until Richard comes up with his central photos, which, if they're good enough to stand on their own, may well qualify as street shots.

"For want of a better term?" Come on, Tom. There's a better term: "snapshot." "Street & PJ" implies street photography and photojournalism. It's not a question of semantics; it's a question of quality.

I think you're right that criticism drives away people who aren't serious about their work, and you're suggesting that Street & PJ should be a receptacle for unserious work? That's okay if that's what Street & PJ is for. Is it? If that's the consensus I'll go away, and the organizers should change the name.

Dgrin is intended for folks at all levels of photography. We try to make it place where anyone can comfortably post their work.

We welcome critique of any work posted. We do hope that the critique is constructive. Just because someone's work does not meet someone else's standards does not mean it can be dismissed or demeaned.

I have rarely seen folk driven away by constructive criticism of their work. I have seen folks discouraged by pedantic & non-constructive responses.

The Street and PJ is the proper place for pictures anyone feels is a Street or PJ picture. There is no level or degree of seriousness required.

Critiques are also welcome and encouraged. Anyone posting a picture should understand that it may not result in positive responses. However we do expect that any critique given should constructive. There is no need to debate "is this Street or PJ" everytime a picture is posted. There is a current ongoing thread on that subject which is a fine place for such musings.

bfjr

"Every Picture Tells A Story, don't it" - Thanks Rod Stewart, dig that Album

Of these I like the last three.

Really like the, Bed/Bath/Beyond , Ambcrombie Fitch bags, the tourists ( I think) trying to decipher the menu, just feels odd/funny to me.

the last one with the strange food (which tastes real good :food by the way) and the reflection of the person superimposed with the Pigs Face.
Do which there was more of that reflection.

M38A1

As stated, an 'essay' of sorts is in the works, so for me I find evaluating images somewhat difficult as there's no context associated with them and I don't know what the end product will be. That said, I personally like the variety presented as I've not seen that part of the world in a daily grind as has been presented here. So they are all interesting and entertaining for me as well as what I think are technically well executed.

I'd agree, the last three would be my strongest favorites too.

And I can't quite put my finger on it, but something tells me these weren't taken in Santa Fe.


.

richardman

Correct, there is no story... yet. As I said, these are some of the "feeler" images of a long term project I am working on, probably for the good part of 2012.

As for the central theme or the premise, the Chinese calls them "Chinese Streets," but in English, it is called "China Town." It's both aliens living on our soils and diaspora surrounded by foreigners and their artifacts. It's a Foreign Land on both sides of the wall. The fourth picture, it's in an alley of a few hundred feet full of hair salons. Do Chinese cut their hair so often to warrant a "hair cut alley?" Of course not, they are front for something else... What other secrets are there written in Chinese? Everyone can recognize a pig's head, but what are those odd thing in #2?

****
I grew up in Hong Kong and lived in NYC Chinatown from 1975 to 1980 until I went to college. If I feel slightly like a fish out of water in the place where I spent my formative years, what do other people feel? Who are the "tourists?" People visiting Chinatown or the Chinese?


****
As for discussion and critiques, I do not mind them as long as they are genuine. Critique that there is no story here is correct.

Thanks folks.

DonRicklin

M38A1 wrote: »

As stated, an 'essay' of sorts is in the works, so for me I find evaluating images somewhat difficult as there's no context associated with them and I don't know what the end product will be. That said, I personally like the variety presented as I've not seen that part of the world in a daily grind as has been presented here. So they are all interesting and entertaining for me as well as what I think are technically well executed.

I'd agree, the last three would be my strongest favorites too.

And I can't quite put my finger on it, but something tells me these weren't taken in Santa Fe.


.

Though it is unlikely to be Santa Fe, it does appears these are likely in San Francisco! It is a Foreign Land on US soil! both ways...

Nice series!

Don

richardman

Don, this is actually New York City Chinatown. I got the idea of the project 2 days before I left so I though I would take some test shots there. The project will take me to SF, Oakland, LA, NYC, Boston, Chicago, and Philly for sure...

And if anyone whos how I can remove "Santa Fe" from my metadata preset in LR, I'd appreciate it :-)

DonRicklin

See screen shot, Click Edit Presets...

And you are good!

Don

bfjr

richardman wrote: »

Don, this is actually New York City Chinatown. I got the idea of the project 2 days before I left so I though I would take some test shots there. The project will take me to SF, Oakland, LA, NYC, Boston, Chicago, and Philly for sure...

And if anyone whos how I can remove "Santa Fe" from my metadata preset in LR, I'd appreciate it :-)

Please let me know when your in LA would love to hook up and shoot away :tumb

RSL

Harryb wrote: »

The Street and PJ is the proper place for pictures anyone feels is a Street or PJ picture. There is no level or degree of seriousness required.

That's pretty obvious, Harry. But how about intent? Seems to me that a forum with a title that gives the impression it's about street photography ought at least try to get people to understand what street photography is. It's not a matter of semantics, as several people have suggested, because it has nothing to do with words and their definitions. If somebody started playing hip-hop at a Chopin festival would anyone suggest the difference in style and quality is semantics? To understand what street photography is you have to become familiar with the work of the people who created and defined street photography. Richard has a pretty good list of some of those people at the top of this forum, but nobody seems to think that should have anything to do with the content of the forum.

Critiques are also welcome and encouraged. Anyone posting a picture should understand that it may not result in positive responses. However we do expect that any critique given should constructive. There is no need to debate "is this Street or PJ" everytime a picture is posted. There is a current ongoing thread on that subject which is a fine place for such musings.

In other words, as long as a critique says something like "I like #3" we have "constructive" criticism, but if the same critic says, "#2 doesn't make the grade as a street photograph because it's confusing, there's no story there, and the composition is too loose," that's not "constructive?"

Harryb

RSL wrote: »

That's pretty obvious, Harry. But how about intent? Seems to me that a forum with a title that gives the impression it's about street photography ought at least try to get people to understand what street photography is. It's not a matter of semantics, as several people have suggested, because it has nothing to do with words and their definitions. If somebody started playing hip-hop at a Chopin festival would anyone suggest the difference in style and quality is semantics? To understand what street photography is you have to become familiar with the work of the people who created and defined street photography. Richard has a pretty good list of some of those people at the top of this forum, but nobody seems to think that should have anything to do with the content of the forum.

If somebody started playing hip-hop at a Chopin festival it may not fit in but it still would be music. I have seen street photography described differetly by various sources. The last time I looked no one had been elected as the final arbiter to say what is and what is not street photography and/or PJ.

In other words, as long as a critique says something like "I like #3" we have "constructive" criticism, but if the same critic says, "#2 doesn't make the grade as a street photograph because it's confusing, there's no story there, and the composition is too loose," that's not "constructive?"

Those other words may be yours but they definitely are not what I posted.

Anyhow this is not the place to discuss it. Richardman I apologize for the hijack of your thread.

richardman

Harryb wrote: »

...

Anyhow this is not the place to discuss it. Richardman I apologize for the hijack of your thread.

I actually don't mind :-) I am not a stickler for that sort of stuff.

DonRicklin

Richard, did you get your Metadata Preset squared away?

Don

richardman

DonRicklin wrote: »

Richard, did you get your Metadata Preset squared away?

Don

I thought I did the Edit Preset thing earlier and it didn't seem to have an effect. I just tried it again and now it seems to work. Thanks!

Angelo

Richard

In this series I think you crop far too tightly for there to be anything in the compositions that are interesting.

In #1 - had you panned right and pulled back you would have better framed the girl in her own doorway with merchandise and Chinese signs to the right. That contrasted against her mac on her lap might have been a more interesting photo.

#2 & 3 - too tight and nothing to judge

#4 - great exposure, color but a great 200 year old street full of fluorescent lights and vinyl awnings but it needs a central subject. the woman on the cell phone is a great possibility but not at the angle and distance.

#5 - oh if only the "grand opening" sign was an old torn chinese sign... that juxtaposed against the modern A&F and BB&B shopping bags would be precious

#6 - the lost shot here is the pig's head lost in the reflection of the striped shirt. the head staring out at the reflection of her face would be gold

richardman

Angelo, thanks for the comments.

RSL

Harryb wrote: »

I have seen street photography described differetly by various sources. The last time I looked no one had been elected as the final arbiter to say what is and what is not street photography...

Street photography was defined by Andre Kertesz, Henri Cartier-Bresson, David Seymour, Robert Doisneau, Willy Ronis, Brassai, Walker Evans, Elliott Erwitt, Marc Riboud, Robert Frank, Garry Winogrand, and Lee Friedlander to name just a few of the people who invented and defined it. But it isn't defined in words. It's defined in images. So when you use the word "say," you're missing the point.

Harryb

RSL wrote: »

Street photography was defined by Andre Kertesz, Henri Cartier-Bresson, David Seymour, Robert Doisneau, Willy Ronis, Brassai, Walker Evans, Elliott Erwitt, Marc Riboud, Robert Frank, Garry Winogrand, and Lee Friedlander to name just a few of the people who invented and defined it. But it isn't defined in words. It's defined in images. So when you use the word "say," you're missing the point.

They might have defined it but current shooters will redefine with their own work.

Not at all. I'd rather see your pics than having you endlessly ,in every other post by a memberg, go on about what you feel is street photography.