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.
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.
That's unfair, Russ.
You know I am suffering from a recent blow to the Psyche!
Well on the mend here but ...............
Oh come on, Ben. Telling where your camera was when you shot "Stop Requested" should be a balm to your injured psyche. But good luck with the in-your-face stuff. Watch for cops.
BD, I'm not sure what you're saying. I gather you're saying that if the picture wasn't shot on the sly, it's not really legitimate. Am I right?
So let's talk about why, when you're doing street photography, you don't walk up to a subject and ask if it's all right to shoot. I'd submit that it isn't because you want to be "genuine" by sneaking a shot. It's because you see a situation that you'll change if you don't capture it before the subjects know you're shooting. It's not because setting it up would be illegitimate. It's because if the subjects realize you're shooting they always start posing. There's no way around it. If people realize they're being photographed, they always pose -- maybe not consciously, but we all do it. I do it and you do it.
Doisneau's shot was set up, but the actors were good at what they did -- so good that they went to court much later on and tried to extract some more of what Doisneau made on the shot than he'd agreed to pay and paid.
What would be your reaction to the shot if you didn't know it was a setup? More to the point, what was your reaction before you knew that. Or did you always know that?
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.
Thanks, Ryan. I'm not too concerned about the number of responses I get to my posts. I've posted better stuff than this with a lot less response, and I'm afraid most of the response in this case has to do with the fact that I shot and told. And as far a negative reactions are concerned, I get a whole lot of those.
But I'm glad to see you agree with me about the telling. Most of the time it doesn't matter, but sometimes I think it can be interesting, even instructive.
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.
I agree that they are different, but I think where you and I part company is that you seem to attribute greater inherent value to the candid and I don't. An image is an image. It moves you or it doesn't. It can be staged and still convey truth and it can be candid and be utterly misleading. It can also be obviously untrue but still striking and memorable--a lot of good advertising photography falls into this category and I respect the skill of people who do it.
But I'm glad to see you agree with me about the telling. Most of the time it doesn't matter, but sometimes I think it can be interesting, even instructive.
Like BD's recent example of that dog with a dunkin' donuts bag on its head. By itself I would not have appreciated the image at all. After I read his story of what was going on, I found I enjoyed the image quite a lot. Is that the point everyone has been trying to make with that image? Same for the shots of the shoe on a post? Without the explanation, I don't get it. With the story it adds a new dimension I find interesting.
I'm sorry if I'm coming in to the conversation a bit late. Trying to get caught up.
Please feel free to post any reworks you do of my images. Crop, skew, munge, edit, share. Website | Galleries | Utah PJs
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.
True, but not exactly.
But the title of this forum is Street & PJ. Would BDs bag shot fall under PJ or RSLs acquisition pose (which I would to see a vid of) description, I would say yes - on a photogs forum; I recognize they may be a page 11 shot.
Both these chaps contribute learning opportunities, in spite of their constant annoying references to ancient history
But the title of this forum is Street & PJ. Would BDs bag shot fall under PJ or RSLs acquisition pose (which I would to see a vid of) description, I would say yes - on a photogs forum; I recognize they may be a page 11 shot.
Both these chaps contribute learning opportunities, in spite of their constant annoying references to ancient history
:hide
::chuckling:: Personally, I think there are really only two ways to be a better photographer - practice and visual literacy. The only way to become visually literate is to study the work of others starting with great painters (and many photgraphers reference Goya) and work your way up to the present. I know some people disagree with this but very few contemporary masters of photography do. And I know several "rising stars" who have referenced their grounding in both the arts outside photography and the study of those photographers who made a mark before them. But if your goal is to make the same photographs as everyone else, or just to take picture for the fun of it (and there is certainly nothing wrong with that) then I suppose history doesn't matter.
Take Bruce Gilden's latest controversial fashion shoot. If you don't know who Weegee was then you think Gilden is one sick puppy. And even if you do know Weegee, you may well still think that but at least you'll know where Gilden's coming from.
Russ, after my first set of responses and a subsequent post, I fell asleep. apologies.
I value and appreciate your addition to this group. Arguments and knowledgable history is worth the angst. Still, there is a lot of hidden history to "street" work that won't make the headlines for any forum. My evolving view is that much of what we consider classic street work was collaborative. A photographer with an interloper or two with a concept in mind. It does nothing to detract from the genre, in fact elevates it. It's an art form. Performance art in a pure form.
Individual street work is basically an accident that had an observer with a camera and an eye standing by. It doesn't really matter how the image was taken. An artist needs to find their own way to get the basic capture. Iconic images are forming and dissolving around us constantly.
Russ, after my first set of responses and a subsequent post, I fell asleep. apologies.
I value and appreciate your addition to this group. Arguments and knowledgable history is worth the angst. Still, there is a lot of hidden history to "street" work that won't make the headlines for any forum. My evolving view is that much of what we consider classic street work was collaborative. A photographer with an interloper or two with a concept in mind. It does nothing to detract from the genre, in fact elevates it. It's an art form. Performance art in a pure form.
Individual street work is basically an accident that had an observer with a camera and an eye standing by. It doesn't really matter how the image was taken. An artist needs to find their own way to get the basic capture. Iconic images are forming and dissolving around us constantly.
Thanks, Jennifer. I don't think practitioners in any art form can afford to turn their backs on its genesis or its history, and looking at your own work I can see that in spite of your angst you don't turn your back on them. Which is not to suggest anyone become locked in the past. The fisheye work Liz has been doing is a case in point. It's very different, and it captures a different feeling for the same old stuff. How long has OWS been in place now? And yet Liz's shots give a new look and feel to a nowadays boring and vastly over-photographed subject.
Yes, I think a lot more street work was collaborative than most of its practitioners were willing to admit. Certainly Brassaï's photographs were collaborative, yet they make their points just as well as if they'd been stolen on the sly. How do you avoid collaboration if you're photographing in a Paris brothel?
And the sentence I emphasized in the quote is another way of putting HCB's famous dictum: "Photographing is nothing. Looking is everything."
::chuckling:: Personally, I think there are really only two ways to be a better photographer - practice and visual literacy. The only way to become visually literate is to study the work of others starting with great painters (and many photgraphers reference Goya) and work your way up to the present. I know some people disagree with this but very few contemporary masters of photography do. And I know several "rising stars" who have referenced their grounding in both the arts outside photography and the study of those photographers who made a mark before them. But if your goal is to make the same photographs as everyone else, or just to take picture for the fun of it (and there is certainly nothing wrong with that) then I suppose history doesn't matter.
Take Bruce Gilden's latest controversial fashion shoot. If you don't know who Weegee was then you think Gilden is one sick puppy. And even if you do know Weegee, you may well still think that but at least you'll know where Gilden's coming from.
Gilden is the ultimate sick puppy, a twisted bully with a camera, who one day will end up under the wheels of a passing cab or bus, and if he is not killed instantly, will honestly wonder why an entire crowd of people pushed him in front of the cab or bus. I show my classes videos of Gilden working as examples of what one absolutely should never do.
Individual street work is basically an accident that had an observer with a camera and an eye standing by. It doesn't really matter how the image was taken. An artist needs to find their own way to get the basic capture. Iconic images are forming and dissolving around us constantly.
and when knowing this, to increase your chances; put yourself in an opportunity rich environment
Gilden is the ultimate sick puppy, a twisted bully with a camera, who one day will end up under the wheels of a passing cab or bus, and if he is not killed instantly, will honestly wonder why an entire crowd of people pushed him in front of the cab or bus. I show my classes videos of Gilden working as examples of what one absolutely should never do.
This is a place where we agree completely, BD. Gilden going down the street, saying "I'm a street photographer," pushing his flashgun in his subjects' faces and blinding them isn't doing much for the reputation of street photography. I don't understand how the man has managed to get as old as he is.
This is a place where we agree completely, BD. Gilden going down the street, saying "I'm a street photographer," pushing his flashgun in his subjects' faces and blinding them isn't doing much for the reputation of street photography. I don't understand how the man has managed to get as old as he is.
BUT RUSS HE IS SO EDGY WITH HIS EDGINESS.
I should aspire to be like him, being a young man with an open mind.
I wonder what his peers (the people who know him) think. I don't know Gilden. I do know that he has published several books, works for Magnum, and produces compelling imagery. I've heard him say "I have no ethics." Still, I don't actually know Gilden as a person, so I have no way to really understand him. Based on what he writes on his blog and has said in interviews, I want to believe that he cares a great deal about his subjects. He explains his in your face style as a sort of desperate need to document the world around him before it is gone. As far as he avoids being killed, this is what he said in an interview:
http://www.americansuburbx.com/2010/10/interview-interview-with-bruce-gilden.html
Some are taken unawares, some are surprised. Some didn’t know what hit them. And I think most people like to be photographed. But since I work in a spontaneous way, I have to be a little bit sneaky because I don’t want them to know that I’m going to take a picture of them. When I use an electronic flash, some people do realize the action of me jumping at them like this with the flash and they might be taken aback, but most don’t [react]. Sometimes I work so close with a 28mm lens that they don’t realize that I’m taking their picture. Sometimes they think that I’m taking something behind them. And I think I have a very good bedside manner, so to speak, because I’ve been doing it doing it many years. I’m very comfortable, and that minimizes the possibility of having problems. I’m very intuitive and I’m able to select the people that I think wouldn’t mind or at least not show that they’re minding. I don’t presume that everything I do is fine. But, I am showing a slice of life in New York City that in several years won’t be there any longer.
...
Please feel free to post any reworks you do of my images. Crop, skew, munge, edit, share. Website | Galleries | Utah PJs
I wonder what his peers (the people who know him) think. I don't know Gilden. I do know that he has published several books, works for Magnum, and produces compelling imagery. I've heard him say "I have no ethics." Still, I don't actually know Gilden as a person, so I have no way to really understand him. Based on what he writes on his blog and has said in interviews, I want to believe that he cares a great deal about his subjects. He explains his in your face style as a sort of desperate need to document the world around him before it is gone. As far as he avoids being killed, this is what he said in an interview:
He is so full of shit, even his written word stinks. Watch the videos of Gilden working; look at his street photos. Then, first ask yourself how you'd feel if he popped his flash in your grandfather or grandmother's face, or your Mom or Dad's. Then, ask yourself how popping a flash in someone's face reveals anything about them other than how incredibly annoying - even frightening - that can be to someone who does not expect it. Ask yourself how deliberately turning normal people ugly and frightened tells us anything.
Finally, ask yourself if this isn't just, as I said before, a bully with a camera whose gimmick appeals to some people.
As to his having books that have been published - there are thousands of truly crappy photo books out there. As to his being a Magum member: A. There are a fair number of Magnum members today whose membership is puzzling; And B. Probably what got him in was some pretty old-school work on the Coney Island beach, and in Haiti.
Finally, you don't want to be standing too close to him when that bus finally comes by.
We've been there before with William Klein, but at least Klein didn't walk the streets popping his flash in people's faces. Furthermore, Klein's work was different from what had gone before. Gilden's isn't.
Just to add, look up Frank Habicht. Street is a generational and pop culture thing. Join and get personal.
Finally got some time to go there, Jennifer. He certainly does some interesting stuff, though he's made his web unnecessarily hard to navigate. Maybe that's generational too.
Comments
Just like any other advertising photo.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
That's unfair, Russ.
You know I am suffering from a recent blow to the Psyche!
Well on the mend here but ...............
Think I'll go out and try some in your face stuff
My Galleries
Flicker
G+
www.FineArtSnaps.com
BD, I'm not sure what you're saying. I gather you're saying that if the picture wasn't shot on the sly, it's not really legitimate. Am I right?
So let's talk about why, when you're doing street photography, you don't walk up to a subject and ask if it's all right to shoot. I'd submit that it isn't because you want to be "genuine" by sneaking a shot. It's because you see a situation that you'll change if you don't capture it before the subjects know you're shooting. It's not because setting it up would be illegitimate. It's because if the subjects realize you're shooting they always start posing. There's no way around it. If people realize they're being photographed, they always pose -- maybe not consciously, but we all do it. I do it and you do it.
Doisneau's shot was set up, but the actors were good at what they did -- so good that they went to court much later on and tried to extract some more of what Doisneau made on the shot than he'd agreed to pay and paid.
What would be your reaction to the shot if you didn't know it was a setup? More to the point, what was your reaction before you knew that. Or did you always know that?
www.FineArtSnaps.com
Don't forget to take off your lens cap.
Lensmole
http://www.lensmolephotography.com/
Thanks, Ryan. I'm not too concerned about the number of responses I get to my posts. I've posted better stuff than this with a lot less response, and I'm afraid most of the response in this case has to do with the fact that I shot and told. And as far a negative reactions are concerned, I get a whole lot of those.
But I'm glad to see you agree with me about the telling. Most of the time it doesn't matter, but sometimes I think it can be interesting, even instructive.
www.FineArtSnaps.com
I agree...In addition:
Sometimes reading this forum is like :deadhorse and :soapbox and :argue and :duel
But hey, what do I know? I'm just a "typical viewer" - not one of the forum Illuminati.
P.S. Don't get me wrong - I love it - it's like the Jerry Springer show without the flying chairs!
Like BD's recent example of that dog with a dunkin' donuts bag on its head. By itself I would not have appreciated the image at all. After I read his story of what was going on, I found I enjoyed the image quite a lot. Is that the point everyone has been trying to make with that image? Same for the shots of the shoe on a post? Without the explanation, I don't get it. With the story it adds a new dimension I find interesting.
I'm sorry if I'm coming in to the conversation a bit late. Trying to get caught up.
Website | Galleries | Utah PJs
Yes there is.
... I'm still peeling potatoes.
patti hinton photography
True, but not exactly.
But the title of this forum is Street & PJ. Would BDs bag shot fall under PJ or RSLs acquisition pose (which I would to see a vid of) description, I would say yes - on a photogs forum; I recognize they may be a page 11 shot.
Both these chaps contribute learning opportunities, in spite of their constant annoying references to ancient history
:hide
::chuckling:: Personally, I think there are really only two ways to be a better photographer - practice and visual literacy. The only way to become visually literate is to study the work of others starting with great painters (and many photgraphers reference Goya) and work your way up to the present. I know some people disagree with this but very few contemporary masters of photography do. And I know several "rising stars" who have referenced their grounding in both the arts outside photography and the study of those photographers who made a mark before them. But if your goal is to make the same photographs as everyone else, or just to take picture for the fun of it (and there is certainly nothing wrong with that) then I suppose history doesn't matter.
Take Bruce Gilden's latest controversial fashion shoot. If you don't know who Weegee was then you think Gilden is one sick puppy. And even if you do know Weegee, you may well still think that but at least you'll know where Gilden's coming from.
I value and appreciate your addition to this group. Arguments and knowledgable history is worth the angst. Still, there is a lot of hidden history to "street" work that won't make the headlines for any forum. My evolving view is that much of what we consider classic street work was collaborative. A photographer with an interloper or two with a concept in mind. It does nothing to detract from the genre, in fact elevates it. It's an art form. Performance art in a pure form.
Individual street work is basically an accident that had an observer with a camera and an eye standing by. It doesn't really matter how the image was taken. An artist needs to find their own way to get the basic capture. Iconic images are forming and dissolving around us constantly.
Thanks, Jennifer. I don't think practitioners in any art form can afford to turn their backs on its genesis or its history, and looking at your own work I can see that in spite of your angst you don't turn your back on them. Which is not to suggest anyone become locked in the past. The fisheye work Liz has been doing is a case in point. It's very different, and it captures a different feeling for the same old stuff. How long has OWS been in place now? And yet Liz's shots give a new look and feel to a nowadays boring and vastly over-photographed subject.
Yes, I think a lot more street work was collaborative than most of its practitioners were willing to admit. Certainly Brassaï's photographs were collaborative, yet they make their points just as well as if they'd been stolen on the sly. How do you avoid collaboration if you're photographing in a Paris brothel?
And the sentence I emphasized in the quote is another way of putting HCB's famous dictum: "Photographing is nothing. Looking is everything."
www.FineArtSnaps.com
Gilden is the ultimate sick puppy, a twisted bully with a camera, who one day will end up under the wheels of a passing cab or bus, and if he is not killed instantly, will honestly wonder why an entire crowd of people pushed him in front of the cab or bus.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
Of all the things said in this thread, and others like it, this is most
meaningful and true sentence.
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/
and when knowing this, to increase your chances; put yourself in an opportunity rich environment
This is a place where we agree completely, BD. Gilden going down the street, saying "I'm a street photographer," pushing his flashgun in his subjects' faces and blinding them isn't doing much for the reputation of street photography. I don't understand how the man has managed to get as old as he is.
www.FineArtSnaps.com
BUT RUSS HE IS SO EDGY WITH HIS EDGINESS.
I should aspire to be like him, being a young man with an open mind.
I wonder what his peers (the people who know him) think. I don't know Gilden. I do know that he has published several books, works for Magnum, and produces compelling imagery. I've heard him say "I have no ethics." Still, I don't actually know Gilden as a person, so I have no way to really understand him. Based on what he writes on his blog and has said in interviews, I want to believe that he cares a great deal about his subjects. He explains his in your face style as a sort of desperate need to document the world around him before it is gone. As far as he avoids being killed, this is what he said in an interview:
Website | Galleries | Utah PJs
He is so full of shit, even his written word stinks
Finally, ask yourself if this isn't just, as I said before, a bully with a camera whose gimmick appeals to some people.
As to his having books that have been published - there are thousands of truly crappy photo books out there. As to his being a Magum member: A. There are a fair number of Magnum members today whose membership is puzzling; And B. Probably what got him in was some pretty old-school work on the Coney Island beach, and in Haiti.
Finally, you don't want to be standing too close to him when that bus finally comes by.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
www.FineArtSnaps.com
Finally got some time to go there, Jennifer. He certainly does some interesting stuff, though he's made his web unnecessarily hard to navigate. Maybe that's generational too.
www.FineArtSnaps.com