No, there aren't "rules" here - but this is a "Documentary" forum - and there is nothing "documentary" about photo illustration - it is taking what was, and turning into something that never was and never will be. It is NOT documentary. Period.
I agree that it is not documentary, but neither is a photograph of a knapsack
caught up in a bush unless you are establishing that it is possible for a knapsack
to be caught up in a bush. This is not the "Found Objects Forum".
This is not a Pet Photograph forum, either, but dog photos - and I'm not talking
about a dog in a "street" shot - have appeared without negative comments.
It's not the "People" forum where photographers of models and weddings
strut their chops.
It's a bit out-of-place in this forum, but that camel has been fully in the
tent before. I see it as David just flexing his PS skills on an image that
wouldn't garner much attention if presented as-shot. Nice job. I would
have liked to have a click-to-enlarge, though, since the size used doesn't
do much for it.
I agree that it is not documentary, but neither is a photograph of a knapsack
caught up in a bush unless you are establishing that it is possible for a knapsack
to be caught up in a bush. This is not the "Found Objects Forum".
This is not a Pet Photograph forum, either, but dog photos - and I'm not talking
about a dog in a "street" shot - have appeared without negative comments.
It's not the "People" forum where photographers of models and weddings
strut their chops.
It's a bit out-of-place in this forum, but that camel has been fully in the
tent before. I see it as David just flexing his PS skills on an image that
wouldn't garner much attention if presented as-shot. Nice job. I would
have liked to have a click-to-enlarge, though, since the size used doesn't
do much for it.
Actually I was wondering how to achieve the click to enlarge??
BD is an accomplished, knowledgeable, professional photographer. I am disappointed that there are so many people here who think that by buying a dslr they are more knowledgeable than he is. Instead of attacking him, why not listen; instead of quoting him and attempting to use his quotes against him, why not think about what he is saying. To say that black and white photography is an aesthetic and nothing more shows deep ignorance of the medium. Photographers dodge and burn photographs that are already inspirational and unique. They do not take what is otherwise a nothing shot and attempt to give it texture or whatever and then get offended when others don't like it. "My shot is great because I took it with this brand new camera that I can't really use properly because I usually only keep my cameras for 5 months. I upgrade thinking that the next camera will transform my mundane shots into sublime shots!" Pathetic. BD's dog shots are a series based on a particular moment in his life that has inspired him in a certain way. The shots build upon his knowledge and are a reflection of his experience. To see them as pet shots clearly misses the point.
BD is an accomplished, knowledgeable, professional photographer. I am disappointed that there are so many people here who think that by buying a dslr they are more knowledgeable than he is. Instead of attacking him, why not listen; instead of quoting him and attempting to use his quotes against him, why not think about what he is saying. To say that black and white photography is an aesthetic and nothing more shows deep ignorance of the medium. Photographers dodge and burn photographs that are already inspirational and unique. They do not take what is otherwise a nothing shot and attempt to give it texture or whatever and then get offended when others don't like it. "My shot is great because I took it with this brand new camera that I can't really use properly because I usually only keep my cameras for 5 months. I upgrade thinking that the next camera will transform my mundane shots into sublime shots!" Pathetic. BD's dog shots are a series based on a particular moment in his life that has inspired him in a certain way. The shots build upon his knowledge and are a reflection of his experience. To see them as pet shots clearly misses the point.
1. Nobody's attacking BD. There is such a thing as a free exchange of ideas. The Roman fora were, in addition to marketplaces, places were ideas were hashed out and argued. Our modern forums perform an analogous function.
2. Your other argument is a straw-man argument. The OP has not, AFAIK, been "offended when others don't like it." The OP took his shot with a K10D (I believe!). Certainly not a "brand new camera that I can't really use properly because I usually only keep my cameras for 5 months."
3. No one has attacked BD or his credentials, which are impressive. Which is why I listen carefully to what he has to say. But I can still disagree when something doesn't sit right with me. See point #1.
4. I (and others in this thread!) would love to hear your ideas about where the line is drawn for post processing. I think it's an important topic! More on topic, I'm sure the OP would love some constructive criticism about what you think worked or didn't work in this photo.
1. Nobody's attacking BD. There is such a thing as a free exchange of ideas. The Roman fora were, in addition to marketplaces, places were ideas were hashed out and argued. Our modern forums perform an analogous function.
2. Your other argument is a straw-man argument. The OP has not, AFAIK, been "offended when others don't like it." The OP took his shot with a K10D (I believe!). Certainly not a "brand new camera that I can't really use properly because I usually only keep my cameras for 5 months."
3. No one has attacked BD or his credentials, which are impressive. Which is why I listen carefully to what he has to say. But I can still disagree when something doesn't sit right with me. See point #1.
4. I (and others in this thread!) would love to hear your ideas about where the line is drawn for post processing. I think it's an important topic! More on topic, I'm sure the OP would love some constructive criticism about what you think worked or didn't work in this photo.
How about modern spelling? I think you mean where, not were. Also, fora is already plural. Forum is singular.
How about modern spelling? I think you mean where, not were. Also, fora is already plural. Forum is singular.
Thank you for your corrections. In re: fora/forums I was riffing on the fact that fora is plural, but the modern, colloquial plural is forums. And I apologize in advance if there are any misspellings in this post.
We humans do love to categorize everything, then argue like hell about whether or not a particular example belongs in this category or that. A documentary photograph should be an accurate representation of a subject only to the same extent a news story should only inform. Since news is inherently biased and serves an entertainment function as well as an informative function, I guess there is no good reason why a documentary photograph shouldn't do the same. If B&W is more entertaining (e.g. by virtue of being more aesthetically pleasing), then fine--let's call it photojournalism.
What I do find interesting in this discussion are arguments that include or exclude certain techniques as valid in photojournalism based on tradition and legacy. For example, dodging and burning are acceptable, but HDR is not (for some, at least). If one is trying to capture the most accurate representation of the actual subject, then HDR will often get around the single biggest functional distinction between the camera and the human eye: dynamic range (or more precisely, preserving intensity gradients).
To clear up a few things. This particular shot was shot and edited on the iPhone. I find that with the iPhone I am able to be quicker and stealthy. My landscapes/portraits I use my k10d but for the street I really love the iPhone.
As far as BD goes, nobody has attacked him. An attack would be calling his photos or opinion crap which is certainly not the case. There is nothing wrong with healthy debate and just because he is the resident expert doesn't mean one can't question him.
First, I very much appreciate Damon's comments, though I don't feel attacked, and even if I am being attacked, I can take it.;-) But I will respond to something Damon has said, Tony's non-attack, and a few other things.
First things first - while this forum is called Documentary, and was previously called "Street and PJ," there are very, very few people on it doing true documentary work, real street photography, and, God know, photo journalism. So I have long argued that it should be called something like "Reality," or "The Real World," because documentary, street photography, and photo journalism are all forms of photography that capture - or attempt to capture, reality. Tony writes quite disparagingly of wedding photography, suggesting that wedding photos should be posted in the Weddings forum. I would argue that someone who shoots a wedding as they see it, as the events occur, is doing documentary photography in its purest form - they are documenting the melding of two families into a third family. I'm not talking about the kind of wedding photography one finds on the Wedding forum - most of which makes me gag, and I would rather live under a bridge than shoot. But I am talking about the kind of work that Liz posted, or much of the wedding work you can find in the Weddings section of my website. Before I shoot a wedding I tell the bride and groom that I am not going to create a fantasy of their wedding, I am not going to pose them, I am not going to have them link arms, holding champagne glasses, with lights in their eyes. Instead, I will document their wedding day. I will shoot it from 'dawn to dark,' and give them a document they can later look at to remember what happened. That is documentary photography.
As to a photo of a knapsack on a bush - I assume that here Tony was mocking and objecting to my posting photos of found objects - thus far I believe I have posted a shot of a little girl's pink purse hanging in a hedge, a photo of three soccer balls in a gutter, a baby's pacifier hanging on a wrought iron fence, several shots of a child's Mary Jane shoe on and next to a fence post, a rubber boot in a bulldozer scoop, and a yellow rain coat hanging on a street cone. Tony, if that isn't documenting life, I don't know what is. You may not like it - that's your right. But how are those photos of found objects, of odd juxtapositions observed, any less documentary than Walker Evans photos of objects in a share cropper's cabin? (NO, I am not comparing myself to Walker Evans! :-) ) The answer is - they aren't any different. They also are street photos.
Dogs? Okay, I like dogs. I am besotted with mine. But again, most dog photos I've posted have also had humans in them - there have been several from the dog park, a place where humans congregate with their dogs, share their lives, talk over their days, discuss the qualities of dog poop.
One of the problems here is that there are those on this list who believe that every mediocre snap shot of a 'funny looking' person in a public place, no matter how haphazardly framed, or contextually vacant, is interesting, and a street photo. Very often those photos are neither. A well composed photo with a dog or dogs, a photo with dogs that tells us something about people, however, may well be - both interesting and a street photo.
I would never suggest that everything I post here is great, or even good. I post some things simply because I like them, and probably hope they are better than they are. But I will go so far as to say that most of what I post is at least interestingly composed, and many people here can learn something from thinking about the composition - or, from thinking about WHY you don't like a particular photo. For example, the latest photo I posted which had both dogs and people. Someone commented that they thought it really should have been a photo of the two people on the right, talking - I hope I am describing this 'critique' correctly. But actually, if one steps back and looks at the photo, one will see that the conversation appears to include all three people in the foreground, and it also appears to include two dogs engaged in 'conversation.' Further, look at the composition, note curve created by the standing dog and the people, the lines of the field, and light. Truth be told, there are elements of that photo that a number of people could learn from.
End of lecture, or response, or counter-attack, or whatever. ;-)
First of all, it wasn't an "attack". It was a pointed commentary about images in this forum
that are not the type of image we normally expect to see in this forum. It was in response
to the "...but this is a 'Documentary' forum - and there is nothing 'documentary' about photo
illustration...". I agree that the image in question falls short of "documentary" because of
the processing, but disagree that it is somehow inappropriate here because of this. It's not
the first, nor will it be the last, of images that are questionably not within the generally
accepted boundaries of "documentary" as defined by what we normally see and expect
here.
On dog shots...An image that contains a dog in the scene can certainly be "street" or
"documentary", but an image of a dog is a pet shot.
On found objects...Photographs of found objects can be very, very good. Museum quality,
even. Bringing them into "Documentary" because they document life, though, is a weak
argument as far as I'm concerned. If we starting including all of the scenes we see daily
in real life, we become "Other Cool Shots" with endless images of rusty objects.
Palmetto bugs (the euphemism for "cockroaches" in Florida) and golfers (I live on a golf
course) are a daily scene to me, but I don't choose to document them here.
Not that there's anything wrong with posting a found objects shot here, but let's not try to
legitimize it by saying we're emulating some famous guy who shot a series of photographs
depicting life in the South during the Depression. Each of his photographs was part of a
mosaic that led to the next photo and back the one before it.
On funny looking people...Is there a whiff of double-standard here? If we see, and
photograph, funny looking people are they not just as much a part of life as unfunny people?
Sometimes they can provide a more interesting photograph and tell us something about
the person. Although I suspect this is a bit of mocking reference to my recent Pirate, it
seems that I come across funny looking people often enough in "life", but that may be
because they draw my eye more than not-so-funny-looking people.
On wedding shots...Sure, they document real life. Point the camera randomly and push
the button and you've documented something about real life. The trick is to document
something that has some interest to the people in this group if you are going to show
them in this group. And, preferably, something the presents a different view than what
we could see in other forums if we chose to go to them.
I suspect that the reason we see photographs that are not the usual style for this
forum in this forum is that the posters consider "Documentary" to be their home base
in DGrin. Nothing wrong with that.
I don't know about you, Tony, but I have never made a single image because I think it would be of interest to people in this group, or of interest to any one else. I create images of what interests me, and hope that the resulting image may interest someone else.
And to clarify - I quite specifically did NOT compare myself or my work to Walker Evans; I quite specifically said I did NOT feel attacked.
Finally, I never suggest that one should not shoot "funny looking" people. I do, however, feel that there should be a reason for shooting anyone. If someone is ugly, or funny looking, or down and out, and you can create a meaningful image of them, or including them, go for it. If all one is doing, however, is shooting the "funny looking guy," I have no use for it.
As to Walker Evans, weddings, and found objects - sorry, but you're wrong on all three. Think about weddings - why should a photo of two people sitting in a coffee shop talking be meaningful, or interesting to anyone who doesn't know them, but a photograph of two people sitting at a disheveled table talking, in the midst of a wedding, isn't because we don't know the people? Why should a photo of a couple having a private moment in a library be worth photographing, but compositionally interesting image of a bride and groom having a private moment is not? Sorry, but you simply don't like wedding photos; that's your privilege; but your argument makes no sense.
Found objects - you don't want to shoot them, don't. Don't like them? Then don't look at them, don't comment on them. But yes, they can be considered documentary photos, depending upon what they are of, and the statement they may be seen to make. If you don't think that images of what we cast off, or lose, and where we cast it off, tell us something about who we are and how we live, you're not really thinking very hard.
Walker Evans - He shot all kinds of things, some of which we documents about things that showed how people lived. Argue all you want, but a pink plush purse, with the words "My First Purse" on it, tells us something about how we raise children, about consumerism, and about how we live. If you don't get that, you don't get it.
I don't know about you, Tony, but I have never made a single image because I think it would be of interest to people in this group, or of interest to any one else. I create images of what interests me, and hope that the resulting image may interest someone else.
Just as I had decided to discontinue participation in this thread,
you had to go and write this disingenuity. I made no mention of
what anyone chooses to photograph. It's what one chooses to post in this group.
Just as I had decided to discontinue participation in this thread,
you had to go and write this disingenuity. I made no mention of
what anyone chooses to photograph. It's what one chooses to post in this group.
I am really trying to understand this Tony , am I to understand that if someone photographs a back yard dog playing with a ball shouldn't post it in this forum, and that's O/K with you? but if that same person photographs a back alley dog eating scraps out of garbage can, and chooses to post it, is that O/K with you ?
Just as I had decided to discontinue participation in this thread,
you had to go and write this disingenuity. I made no mention of
what anyone chooses to photograph. It's what one chooses to post in this group.
Well, given that I never said the image in question shouldn't be posted here, which you have suggested. What I have said is that it is not documentary and is, in fact, no longer a photograph.
I am really trying to understand this Tony , am I to understand that if someone photographs a back yard dog playing with a ball shouldn't post it in this forum, and that's O/K with you? but if that same person photographs a back alley dog eating scraps out of garbage can, and chooses to post it, is that O/K with you ?
Anything's OK with me. There are no "shouldn't post" images. There
should be some discretion involved in choosing what to post, though.
There are various forums in DGrin and there are other venues in which
to post images. The whole idea of a forum dedicated to "Documentary"
is that it should suggest to the poster to use this forum for photographs
that fit that description.
I also recognize - as I stated in another post - that this is "home base"
to some posters, so some submissions will be from the posters who
appear here regularly who want to share something (like a heavily
processed photo illustration) that they've done. Nothing wrong with
this.
The recently posted dog shot is a good example of what fits here.
It's a dog, but a dog in a very interesting contextual setting peering
through a window. Not really "street", but a good shot, good post.
A photograph of that same dog without that context might better be
posted in a pet forum if there was one. That's why I said that my
photo of my son's Catahoula was a pet shot. I wouldn't post it
here.
Well, given that I never said the image in question shouldn't be posted here, which you have suggested. What I have said is that it is not documentary and is, in fact, no longer a photograph.
Imagine that instead of seeing the image on a computer screen, you had in your hand a physical print of the exact scene, one that had been processed normally but was printed sixty years ago and is physically distressed--faded colors, actual texture of the paper from wear and abuse. Many people might value it today more because it looked so old than because of its photographic merits. It might, in fact, look exactly like the image posted here. Surely it would still be a photo.
I liked this image mainly because it reminded me of old photos, even if it isn't one. Works for me.
This thread/forum reminds me of the immortal dialog from the movie Stripes (1981) and the timeless wisdom of Sergeant Hulka:
Psycho: The name's Francis Soyer, but everybody calls me Psycho. Any of you guys call me Francis, and I'll kill you. Leon: Ooooooh. Psycho: You just made the list, buddy. And I don't like nobody touching my stuff. So just keep your meat-hooks off. If I catch any of you guys in my stuff, I'll kill you. Also, I don't like nobody touching me. Now, any of you h*m*s touch me, and I'll kill you. Sergeant Hulka: Lighten up, Francis.
The virtue of the camera is not the power it has to transform the photographer into an artist, but the impulse it gives him to keep on looking. - Brook Atkinson- 1951
Anything's OK with me. There are no "shouldn't post" images. There
should be some discretion involved in choosing what to post, though.
There are various forums in DGrin and there are other venues in which
to post images. The whole idea of a forum dedicated to "Documentary"
is that it should suggest to the poster to use this forum for photographs
that fit that description.
I also recognize - as I stated in another post - that this is "home base"
to some posters, so some submissions will be from the posters who
appear here regularly who want to share something (like a heavily
processed photo illustration) that they've done. Nothing wrong with
this.
The recently posted dog shot is a good example of what fits here.
It's a dog, but a dog in a very interesting contextual setting peering
through a window. Not really "street", but a good shot, good post.
A photograph of that same dog without that context might better be
posted in a pet forum if there was one. That's why I said that my
photo of my son's Catahoula was a pet shot. I wouldn't post it
here.
Yes I agree photographers should use discretion when posting,but some may be new to the forum and it has been said before we are our own worst editors we need feedback from others . I have been unsure of a lot of my posts some more than others ,about the kind of response one might get from the community. I don't really have a problem with what people post,but I do feel strongly about this being a forum about photography, life straight up ,and not computer art ,yes illustrations composites should be posted in other forums. I have nothing against this type of art ,but it is not photography . BTW thanks !
Yes I agree photographers should use discretion when posting,but some may be new to the forum and it has been said before we are our own worst editors we need feedback from others . I have been unsure of a lot of my posts some more than others ,about the kind of response one might get from the community. I don't really have a problem with what people post,but I do feel strongly about this being a forum about photography, life straight up ,and not computer art ,yes illustrations composites should be posted in other forums. I have nothing against this type of art ,but it is not photography . BTW thanks !
Perhaps what is needed is a sort of, I don't know, Salon des Refuses for such work.
Comments
I agree that it is not documentary, but neither is a photograph of a knapsack
caught up in a bush unless you are establishing that it is possible for a knapsack
to be caught up in a bush. This is not the "Found Objects Forum".
This is not a Pet Photograph forum, either, but dog photos - and I'm not talking
about a dog in a "street" shot - have appeared without negative comments.
It's not the "People" forum where photographers of models and weddings
strut their chops.
It's a bit out-of-place in this forum, but that camel has been fully in the
tent before. I see it as David just flexing his PS skills on an image that
wouldn't garner much attention if presented as-shot. Nice job. I would
have liked to have a click-to-enlarge, though, since the size used doesn't
do much for it.
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/
Actually I was wondering how to achieve the click to enlarge??
My Website
Facebook | Twitter | | VSCOgrid | Instagram |
1. Nobody's attacking BD. There is such a thing as a free exchange of ideas. The Roman fora were, in addition to marketplaces, places were ideas were hashed out and argued. Our modern forums perform an analogous function.
2. Your other argument is a straw-man argument. The OP has not, AFAIK, been "offended when others don't like it." The OP took his shot with a K10D (I believe!). Certainly not a "brand new camera that I can't really use properly because I usually only keep my cameras for 5 months."
3. No one has attacked BD or his credentials, which are impressive. Which is why I listen carefully to what he has to say. But I can still disagree when something doesn't sit right with me. See point #1.
4. I (and others in this thread!) would love to hear your ideas about where the line is drawn for post processing. I think it's an important topic! More on topic, I'm sure the OP would love some constructive criticism about what you think worked or didn't work in this photo.
How about modern spelling? I think you mean where, not were. Also, fora is already plural. Forum is singular.
Thank you for your corrections. In re: fora/forums I was riffing on the fact that fora is plural, but the modern, colloquial plural is forums. And I apologize in advance if there are any misspellings in this post.
What I do find interesting in this discussion are arguments that include or exclude certain techniques as valid in photojournalism based on tradition and legacy. For example, dodging and burning are acceptable, but HDR is not (for some, at least). If one is trying to capture the most accurate representation of the actual subject, then HDR will often get around the single biggest functional distinction between the camera and the human eye: dynamic range (or more precisely, preserving intensity gradients).
As far as BD goes, nobody has attacked him. An attack would be calling his photos or opinion crap which is certainly not the case. There is nothing wrong with healthy debate and just because he is the resident expert doesn't mean one can't question him.
My Website
Facebook | Twitter | | VSCOgrid | Instagram |
I feel left out... fugg, I just take pictures...
First, I very much appreciate Damon's comments, though I don't feel attacked, and even if I am being attacked, I can take it.;-) But I will respond to something Damon has said, Tony's non-attack, and a few other things.
First things first - while this forum is called Documentary, and was previously called "Street and PJ," there are very, very few people on it doing true documentary work, real street photography, and, God know, photo journalism. So I have long argued that it should be called something like "Reality," or "The Real World," because documentary, street photography, and photo journalism are all forms of photography that capture - or attempt to capture, reality. Tony writes quite disparagingly of wedding photography, suggesting that wedding photos should be posted in the Weddings forum. I would argue that someone who shoots a wedding as they see it, as the events occur, is doing documentary photography in its purest form - they are documenting the melding of two families into a third family. I'm not talking about the kind of wedding photography one finds on the Wedding forum - most of which makes me gag, and I would rather live under a bridge than shoot. But I am talking about the kind of work that Liz posted, or much of the wedding work you can find in the Weddings section of my website. Before I shoot a wedding I tell the bride and groom that I am not going to create a fantasy of their wedding, I am not going to pose them, I am not going to have them link arms, holding champagne glasses, with lights in their eyes. Instead, I will document their wedding day. I will shoot it from 'dawn to dark,' and give them a document they can later look at to remember what happened. That is documentary photography.
As to a photo of a knapsack on a bush - I assume that here Tony was mocking and objecting to my posting photos of found objects - thus far I believe I have posted a shot of a little girl's pink purse hanging in a hedge, a photo of three soccer balls in a gutter, a baby's pacifier hanging on a wrought iron fence, several shots of a child's Mary Jane shoe on and next to a fence post, a rubber boot in a bulldozer scoop, and a yellow rain coat hanging on a street cone. Tony, if that isn't documenting life, I don't know what is. You may not like it - that's your right. But how are those photos of found objects, of odd juxtapositions observed, any less documentary than Walker Evans photos of objects in a share cropper's cabin? (NO, I am not comparing myself to Walker Evans! :-) ) The answer is - they aren't any different. They also are street photos.
Dogs? Okay, I like dogs. I am besotted with mine. But again, most dog photos I've posted have also had humans in them - there have been several from the dog park, a place where humans congregate with their dogs, share their lives, talk over their days, discuss the qualities of dog poop.
One of the problems here is that there are those on this list who believe that every mediocre snap shot of a 'funny looking' person in a public place, no matter how haphazardly framed, or contextually vacant, is interesting, and a street photo. Very often those photos are neither. A well composed photo with a dog or dogs, a photo with dogs that tells us something about people, however, may well be - both interesting and a street photo.
I would never suggest that everything I post here is great, or even good. I post some things simply because I like them, and probably hope they are better than they are. But I will go so far as to say that most of what I post is at least interestingly composed, and many people here can learn something from thinking about the composition - or, from thinking about WHY you don't like a particular photo. For example, the latest photo I posted which had both dogs and people. Someone commented that they thought it really should have been a photo of the two people on the right, talking - I hope I am describing this 'critique' correctly. But actually, if one steps back and looks at the photo, one will see that the conversation appears to include all three people in the foreground, and it also appears to include two dogs engaged in 'conversation.' Further, look at the composition, note curve created by the standing dog and the people, the lines of the field, and light. Truth be told, there are elements of that photo that a number of people could learn from.
End of lecture, or response, or counter-attack, or whatever. ;-)
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
that are not the type of image we normally expect to see in this forum. It was in response
to the "...but this is a 'Documentary' forum - and there is nothing 'documentary' about photo
illustration...". I agree that the image in question falls short of "documentary" because of
the processing, but disagree that it is somehow inappropriate here because of this. It's not
the first, nor will it be the last, of images that are questionably not within the generally
accepted boundaries of "documentary" as defined by what we normally see and expect
here.
On dog shots...An image that contains a dog in the scene can certainly be "street" or
"documentary", but an image of a dog is a pet shot.
As far as I'm concerned, this is a Pet Shot of my son's Louisiana Catahoula Leopard
Dog pup: https://www.dropbox.com/s/i02ojibtiy1tx8f/2012-05-06-102.jpg
and this is a shot that I feel qualifies as "Street": https://www.dropbox.com/s/rfzd3ecde9aljjh/2010-01-30-11.jpg
On found objects...Photographs of found objects can be very, very good. Museum quality,
even. Bringing them into "Documentary" because they document life, though, is a weak
argument as far as I'm concerned. If we starting including all of the scenes we see daily
in real life, we become "Other Cool Shots" with endless images of rusty objects.
Palmetto bugs (the euphemism for "cockroaches" in Florida) and golfers (I live on a golf
course) are a daily scene to me, but I don't choose to document them here.
Not that there's anything wrong with posting a found objects shot here, but let's not try to
legitimize it by saying we're emulating some famous guy who shot a series of photographs
depicting life in the South during the Depression. Each of his photographs was part of a
mosaic that led to the next photo and back the one before it.
On funny looking people...Is there a whiff of double-standard here? If we see, and
photograph, funny looking people are they not just as much a part of life as unfunny people?
Sometimes they can provide a more interesting photograph and tell us something about
the person. Although I suspect this is a bit of mocking reference to my recent Pirate, it
seems that I come across funny looking people often enough in "life", but that may be
because they draw my eye more than not-so-funny-looking people.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/388ay311yc3aecg/2012-01-21-17.jpg
On wedding shots...Sure, they document real life. Point the camera randomly and push
the button and you've documented something about real life. The trick is to document
something that has some interest to the people in this group if you are going to show
them in this group. And, preferably, something the presents a different view than what
we could see in other forums if we chose to go to them.
I suspect that the reason we see photographs that are not the usual style for this
forum in this forum is that the posters consider "Documentary" to be their home base
in DGrin. Nothing wrong with that.
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/
their weapons of choice are high sat , over sharpened/contrasted and they have no remorse nor do they take prisoners
that said, they're a lot more fun than this forum; you folks are too serious...
And to clarify - I quite specifically did NOT compare myself or my work to Walker Evans; I quite specifically said I did NOT feel attacked.
Finally, I never suggest that one should not shoot "funny looking" people. I do, however, feel that there should be a reason for shooting anyone. If someone is ugly, or funny looking, or down and out, and you can create a meaningful image of them, or including them, go for it. If all one is doing, however, is shooting the "funny looking guy," I have no use for it.
As to Walker Evans, weddings, and found objects - sorry, but you're wrong on all three. Think about weddings - why should a photo of two people sitting in a coffee shop talking be meaningful, or interesting to anyone who doesn't know them, but a photograph of two people sitting at a disheveled table talking, in the midst of a wedding, isn't because we don't know the people? Why should a photo of a couple having a private moment in a library be worth photographing, but compositionally interesting image of a bride and groom having a private moment is not? Sorry, but you simply don't like wedding photos; that's your privilege; but your argument makes no sense.
Found objects - you don't want to shoot them, don't. Don't like them? Then don't look at them, don't comment on them. But yes, they can be considered documentary photos, depending upon what they are of, and the statement they may be seen to make. If you don't think that images of what we cast off, or lose, and where we cast it off, tell us something about who we are and how we live, you're not really thinking very hard.
Walker Evans - He shot all kinds of things, some of which we documents about things that showed how people lived. Argue all you want, but a pink plush purse, with the words "My First Purse" on it, tells us something about how we raise children, about consumerism, and about how we live. If you don't get that, you don't get it.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
Just as I had decided to discontinue participation in this thread,
you had to go and write this disingenuity. I made no mention of
what anyone chooses to photograph. It's what one chooses to
post in this group.
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/
I am really trying to understand this Tony , am I to understand that if someone photographs a back yard dog playing with a ball shouldn't post it in this forum, and that's O/K with you? but if that same person photographs a back alley dog eating scraps out of garbage can, and chooses to post it, is that O/K with you ?
Lensmole
http://www.lensmolephotography.com/
Well, given that I never said the image in question shouldn't be posted here, which you have suggested. What I have said is that it is not documentary and is, in fact, no longer a photograph.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
Anything's OK with me. There are no "shouldn't post" images. There
should be some discretion involved in choosing what to post, though.
There are various forums in DGrin and there are other venues in which
to post images. The whole idea of a forum dedicated to "Documentary"
is that it should suggest to the poster to use this forum for photographs
that fit that description.
I also recognize - as I stated in another post - that this is "home base"
to some posters, so some submissions will be from the posters who
appear here regularly who want to share something (like a heavily
processed photo illustration) that they've done. Nothing wrong with
this.
The recently posted dog shot is a good example of what fits here.
It's a dog, but a dog in a very interesting contextual setting peering
through a window. Not really "street", but a good shot, good post.
A photograph of that same dog without that context might better be
posted in a pet forum if there was one. That's why I said that my
photo of my son's Catahoula was a pet shot. I wouldn't post it
here.
http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/
I liked this image mainly because it reminded me of old photos, even if it isn't one. Works for me.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
Psycho: The name's Francis Soyer, but everybody calls me Psycho. Any of you guys call me Francis, and I'll kill you.
Leon: Ooooooh.
Psycho: You just made the list, buddy. And I don't like nobody touching my stuff. So just keep your meat-hooks off. If I catch any of you guys in my stuff, I'll kill you. Also, I don't like nobody touching me. Now, any of you h*m*s touch me, and I'll kill you.
Sergeant Hulka: Lighten up, Francis.
The virtue of the camera is not the power it has to transform the photographer into an artist, but the impulse it gives him to keep on looking. - Brook Atkinson- 1951
Yes I agree photographers should use discretion when posting,but some may be new to the forum and it has been said before we are our own worst editors we need feedback from others . I have been unsure of a lot of my posts some more than others ,about the kind of response one might get from the community. I don't really have a problem with what people post,but I do feel strongly about this being a forum about photography, life straight up ,and not computer art ,yes illustrations composites should be posted in other forums. I have nothing against this type of art ,but it is not photography . BTW thanks !
Lensmole
http://www.lensmolephotography.com/
Perhaps what is needed is a sort of, I don't know, Salon des Refuses for such work.