How this was shot

RSL

This isn't the kind of shot I'd normally post here, but I see Ben do this kind of thing often, without explaining how he made the shot. Many times you get something really worthwhile this way, and Ben often does. It's worthwhile pointing out again that, as Cartier-Bresson said, "It's always luck."

I sat across from this guy in the bookstore, crossed my legs loosely, and then poked the E-P1's Summilux through the aperture under my knee, auto-focussed, and shot. It's far from a great picture, but my point is that you usually don't connect with luck unless you take the chance.

michswiss

The best thing is to not explain it.

It's really nice.

RSL

Generally I'd agree with you, Jennifer, but there are people trying to learn to do street who don't realize the gyrations you sometimes have to go through to get something worthwhile.

michswiss

Anyone that's trying to learn the "gyrations" in this forum should heed get close and edit the hell out of the set. It's gotta be personal. My next mantra.

RSL

I'd agree. I'd also add, "cull, cull, cull,cull," which is what I think you mean by "edit." Nobody ever made a name as a photographer by showing his failures.

michswiss

I'm writing to you as if you're a contemporary. We have three decades between us. If I didn't have five behind me, it would be that much more bullshit.

The shot is good. It's really good. It isn't a metaphysical discussion. I think it's an acknowledgement that you were ready and took a shot that took a viewer away from a picture to one where they were in the spot where you took the shot. You didn't take the shot. I don't give a fuck how you did it.

Get the point?

Deconstruction is a pain.

Despite the text. Good shot.

lensmole

Nice one Russ! I like the moment you caught here .

I was thinking about this topic last night. H.C. B. also said that you have to be receptive and having the ability to see. He was apparently very fast with the camera and nervous when he shot but not anxious to shoot. Of course you already know that he was attracted to moving objects and the above mentioned .

I sometimes have ideas and preconceived notions about the kind of shot I would like and sometimes I do work the seen a bit. but I find that the ones I like most are combination of both luck,receptiveness and being their at F8. and of course this activity is best done in ones spare time.

M38A1

I like the shot. As Jennifer said, it takes you away from where you currently are.

As for the 'how to', I find these discussions informational, much like the pull-back thread in People. Yet knowing how they are done is different than actually doing them. I still have a fear of getting hammered by the person for doing this. I just don't think I'm hardwired for this.


.

torags

Nice one Russ

& there is an audience for "how did you get that"

RSL

michswiss wrote: »

I'm writing to you as if you're a contemporary. We have three decades between us. If I didn't have five behind me, it would be that much more bullshit.

The shot is good. It's really good. It isn't a metaphysical discussion. I think it's an acknowledgement that you were ready and took a shot that took a viewer away from a picture to one where they were in the spot where you took the shot. You didn't take the shot. I don't give a fuck how you did it.

Get the point?

Deconstruction is a pain.

Despite the text. Good shot.

Okay, Jen, I stand properly lectured. But did you see the following comments? I agree that it doesn't matter how you got a shot. Any art object has to stand on its own, and it's something I've lectured about -- usually with regard to poetry and painting, but sometimes about photography. The object is what it is.

But Mole, Scott, and Rags made my point. Thanks, guys. I know more than one person who wouldn't even attempt something like this shot. And HCB has a lot of 'splainin to do when it comes to his fanaticism about black borders on his shots to show that he framed on camera. He convinced a lot of people that you have to be looking through that viewfinder and framing when you release the shutter. At the same time, he was willing to show "Behind the Gare Saint-Lazare," a shot in which he admits he couldn't see what the camera saw, including the guy jumping off the board. Also, if you've ever worked much with rangefinders, including the Leica, you know that rangefinder frames aren't all that accurate. For the most part I'm with HCB about on-camera framing, but I also know that you have to take what you can get, and sometimes it's worth pointing that out if there are people around who haven't considered it.

bdcolen

Yup, under-the-knee-and-over-the-cushion photos definitely depend on luck. However 99.9 percent of good, meaningful photos depend on a combination of the photographer's vision, eye, and technical skill, no matter what "Henri" disingenuously said. ;-)

seastack

Nice photo. I got thrown out of a Bangkok bar for doing that, though. )

torags

michswiss wrote: »

I'm writing to you as if you're a contemporary. We have three decades between us. If I didn't have five behind me, it would be that much more bullshit.

The shot is good. It's really good. It isn't a metaphysical discussion. I think it's an acknowledgement that you were ready and took a shot that took a viewer away from a picture to one where they were in the spot where you took the shot. You didn't take the shot. I don't give a fuck how you did it.

Get the point?

Deconstruction is a pain.

Despite the text. Good shot.

How you got the shot is important in other photographic disciplines as well.

In motor sports there is a rise & curve at Laguna Seca where you can get a unique shot of racing cars & motorcycles

In landscapes "the how" may mean, one has to hike out some miles than may require some life safety info like water , time of year, etc... when shooting on some edges, reconstruction has value

RSL

seastack wrote: »

Nice photo. I got thrown out of a Bangkok bar for doing that, though. )

All I can say, Stack, is that times change. I spent a lot of time in Bangkok bars in the early seventies, and in those days nothing... nothing! would have gotten you thrown out of a Bangkok bar -- other than dissing the king or the queen.

Richard

torags wrote: »

How you got the shot is important in other photographic disciplines as well.

It's certainly may be of interest to other photographers, but it's mostly unimportant to the typical viewer. Everything that matters is in the image, IMO.

RSL

bdcolen wrote: »

Yup, under-the-knee-and-over-the-cushion photos definitely depend on luck. However 99.9 percent of good, meaningful photos depend on a combination of the photographer's vision, eye, and technical skill, no matter what "Henri" disingenuously said. ;-)

I'd agree with all of that, BD, but I suspect we disagree about when Henri was being disingenuous. I suspect that was when he insisted on the black borders. I'd be the last to suggest banging away and then hoping to find a picture in post-processing. But I'd also recommend always trying, even if you don't think it's going to work out.

RSL

Richard wrote: »

It's certainly may be of interest to other photographers, but it's mostly unimportant to the typical viewer. Everything that matters is in the image, IMO.

Well, seems to me that's exactly what I said farther up this thread. But is Street & PJ for "typical" viewers, or is it mostly for the photographers who post here?

bdcolen

Richard wrote: »

It's certainly may be of interest to other photographers, but it's mostly unimportant to the typical viewer. Everything that matters is in the image, IMO.

Meaningless, except to other photographers - and, in the majority of cases, meaningless there too.

RSL

So what are you saying, BD? Never shoot and tell? You're a teacher. How does that square with teaching? I've always found interviews with people like HCB and Elliott Erwitt not only interesting, but sometimes instructive.

Richard

RSL wrote: »

Well, seems to me that's exactly what I said farther up this thread. But is Street & PJ for "typical" viewers, or is it mostly for the photographers who post here?

Easy, Russ, I wasn't disagreeing with anything you said. I also didn't mean to imply that the subject was without interest here. Once in a while I see a pic that leaves me wondering how the hell it was done, but generally those cases involve lighting or PP. And while I'm a little curious whether Erwitt's shot in the Prado with the two Goya Majas was a set-up, in the end it doesn't matter to me and I have never bothered to find out. All I need to know is in the image.

bdcolen

RSL wrote: »

So what are you saying, BD? Never shoot and tell? You're a teacher. How does that square with teaching? I've always found interviews with people like HCB and Elliott Erwitt not only interesting, but sometimes instructive.

Yes, interviews with outstanding photographers can be interesting.

RSL

I didn't think you were disagreeing, Richard. Quite the contrary. Like you, I don't care whether or not Erwitt set up that shot, any more than I care that Doisneau set up Le baiser de l'hôtel de ville. But my bottom line question is whether or not dgrin is partly for teaching. If it is, then it seems to me it might be interesting to hear from people about their approach when what they're posting is other than the usual "stand-up, point, and shoot" kind of thing. I couldn't care less about shutter speeds, apertures, ISOs, etc.: the kind of thing Pop Photography and Shutterbug seem to feel is so important, but I'm always interested to hear about how people approach their subjects -- especially if it's out of the ordinary. From the responses so far, sounds to me as if I'm not the only one.

bdcolen

So let me understand this - first off, it matters not whether the photographer who said ""The marvels of daily life are so exciting; no movie director can arrange the unexpected that you find in the street," posed his best known "street photot?" And further, explaining that one took a nicely exposed and focused but otherwise mundane photo of an older gentleman by using the famous under-the-leg-over-the-cushion technique qualifies as "teaching?"

bfjr

RSL wrote: »

So what are you saying, BD? Never shoot and tell? You're a teacher. How does that square with teaching? I've always found interviews with people like HCB and Elliott Erwitt not only interesting, but sometimes instructive.

Depends on the setting Russ.
When B.D. Teaches a class he, well Teaches.
Here it's all about showing/sharing and and if someone wants a how to, then they need
only ask in a comment. That's how I conduct business here

Now on to something else:

This isn't the kind of shot I'd normally post here, but I see Ben do this kind of thing often, without explaining how he made the shot. Many times you get something really worthwhile this way, and Ben often does. It's worthwhile pointing out again that, as Cartier-Bresson said, "It's always luck."

I really don't do as much "Hip" shooting as that paragraph suggests.
100% sure I've never done a thru the leg, under the knee thingy

Having just watched an 1hr long interview by Charlie Rose with Bresson, in which it went
something like this:

Charlie, "When do know you have a good image"
Bresson, "I see it (makes frame Lines, I smell it (touches his nose), I feel It (touches his chest)"
Charlie, "So thats all, there is more?"
Bresson, "Qui" "You have to know how move your little finger (moves finger as if rolling shutter), the rest is just Luck"

Luck here I believe is being used to encompass all those things that can not be
controlled, light, place, subject, etc. etc. (in the genre of "Street" of course)

A few minutes later,

Charlie, "What do you think makes your images so compelling?"
Bresson, "Geometry"
Charlie, "Geometry?"
Bresson, "Qui, Geometry, Qui of course!"

To me this clearly is a tad more complicated then just plain old Luck!

RSL

Doisneau never claimed that shot wasn't set up, BD. Yes, it was staged. Doisneau set up a lot of his shots. So what's your problem with it? There are a bunch of Erwitt shots I'm not too sure about, but they're still great shots.

What would "qualify" as teaching, BD? A dog with a bag over its head?

Richard

bdcolen wrote: »

So let me understand this - first off, it matters not whether the photographer who said ""The marvels of daily life are so exciting; no movie director can arrange the unexpected that you find in the street," posed his best known "street photot?"

I suppose it could matter if you are making judgments about the photographer, but I don't believe it matters when evaluating the image. I suppose it would also matter to a curator or scholar trying to fit the shot into whatever arbitrary taxonomy was in fashion. Dunno, I think it's a wonderful image and I couldn't care less whether it was staged or he shot it standing on his head and holding the camera with his toes. (Don't try that at home ). The image speaks for itself, right?

seastack

Sometimes reading this forum is like watching this dog.

RSL

Yes, I've seen that clip, Ben, and it would be a mistake to take literally all of what Cartier-Bresson says in those clips. I think what Henri meant about luck was that you can't make it happen -- unless, of course, you set it up. But both "Behind the Gare Saint-Lazare" and "Cardinal Pacelli in Montmarte" fly in the face of the idea that Cartier-Bresson always arranged the geometry carefully. Yes, he did in most cases, and his geometry is one of the marvelous things about most of his pictures. But he didn't avoid shooting when he had little -- sometimes almost no -- chance of a successful shot. And you're right. What he's talking about is more than just a "tad" more complicated than, well, let's call it "dumb luck," because that better describes what it isn't.

But where was your camera when you shot "Stop Requested?" I'll venture a guess it was in your lap, though I'll confess in advance I could be wrong. I'm pretty sure you didn't frame the shot with the camera at your eye.

RSL

Richard wrote: »

I suppose it could matter if you are making judgments about the photographer, but I don't believe it matters when evaluating the image. I suppose it would also matter to a curator or scholar trying to fit the shot into whatever arbitrary taxonomy was in fashion. Dunno, I think it's a wonderful image and I couldn't care less whether it was staged or he shot it standing on his head and holding the camera with his toes. (Don't try that at home ). The image speaks for itself, right?

Right on, Richard. That's an art object that stands on its own feet however it was made. What really pisses me off is that I keep seeing it in shops with no attribution.

bdcolen

Well, Richard, yes and no. It is indeed a gorgeous image, and probably sells just as many poster's for adolescent girls' college dorm rooms now as it did when it was believed to be a candid street shot. However, and this is where I think this is important, staging an image, with actors, where you control the circumstances, the pose, etc., is a far cry from seeing an affectionate couple on the street, waiting for the right moment, and getting a shot like the one we're discussing where you do not control anything except exposure and composition. One is an advertising shot without the copy over it; the other is candid photography at its best.

As to "geometry," Ben - that's what Cartier-Bresson's images are all about. He was not really a photo journalist, though he did some photo journalism. And in some ways, he was not a photographer of people, although people are in most of his photos. What he cared about was composition, bringing elements together in a kind of perfect geometry. His work is gorgeous, but much of it is devoid of emotion. As I've said here before, Cartier-Bresson's work smacks you between the eyes, while Eugene Smith's hits you in the heart or gut. I'm a Smith guy myself, though I certainly admire Cartier-Bresson's work. and consider it matchless.

RyanS

Russ. I am glad at the very least your posts are being looked at and discussed. I've got plenty of posts that received less than 3 responses, despite having been viewed hundreds of times. Any attention, even a negative reaction, seems better to me than silence. That is the ultimate insult..

I find understanding the story behind an image helps draw me in more. Music appreciation classes did the same for me regarding music. I find I enjoy a piece of music a great deal more if I learn about the technical aspects, musicians, their life, and how the song came in to existence. i find the same is true for most art. I think each person is different in this regard. To each his/her own.