Crit requested

2

Comments

  • bdcolenbdcolen CaptureReality Posts: 3,804Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 28, 2012
    NeilL wrote: »
    Yes, I agree that it would be absurd to post eg ducks on a pond here, etc. Absurd but not kind of sinful, like you suggest dirtying someone's white carpet with muddy shoes would be. Other people's possessions should be treated with respect, obviously. But nobody "owns" S&PJ!

    For me, what S&PJ is, is straightforward - it's the revelation of people as artists in living their lives in their particular circumstances. The art of their lives is like your white carpet, and should be respected, but the revelation of that art by the photographer is the photographer's art. I don't think there's a white carpet here, the medium or style that is used is integral to the success of the revealing that the photographer is doing. So long as, in the case of this forum, only photographs are used.

    I use only photographs I have taken. My image here is really a digital double exposure, one exposure of people and one of a part of their physical environment taken adjacent to where the people were. The result is that the information is expanded beyond what could be captured in one shot, but the extra information is directly related to that shot. You could also think of it as like shooting reflections in a window, so getting two images in one. Would you object to double exposures and reflections shots in S&PJ?

    I think we have left the idea that some styles are *experimental*, and should be quarantined to protect against contaminating white carpets, behind. The medium is part of the message, as was said last century by Marshall McLuhan.

    The experimentation that I talked about in my own image was about the *effectiveness* of my medium and style, not about their legitimacy.

    Neil

    "For me, what S&PJ is, is straightforward - it's the revelation of people as artists in living their lives in their particular circumstances. The art of their lives is like your white carpet, and should be respected, but the revelation of that art by the photographer is the photographer's art."

    Am I the only one who thinks this is complete and utter gibberish? And is this really the Forum to which I've belonged and contributed these past several years?ne_nau.gif
    bd@bdcolenphoto.com
    "He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan

    "The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
  • NeilLNeilL B+R=M,B+G=C,R+G=Y Posts: 4,201Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 28, 2012
    Richard wrote: »
    OK, so about a month ago, there was a general strike in Madrid--marches, banners, police in riot gear, raised fists--all the usual subjects. I went out with the intention of covering the event (whatever that means for someone who doesn't publish) but after about an hour I was so bored by it all I went home with only about thirty frames. There were a number of perfectly acceptable PJ shots in the set, but I still couldn't work up much enthusiasm about them. The "been there done that feeling" was simply overwhelming. Then, mgeron--a new member of Dgrin--posted a striking composite of downtown LA on the Other Cool Shots forum and I got the idea that a single, well-constructed composite might convey the reality of the event more effectively than yet another series of protest pics. It's a work in progress and I'll post it if and when I think it succeeds--anyone who thinks that composites are taking the easy way out hasn't tried doing them.

    I don't think this forum has anything to gain by excluding experimental or unconventional approaches to rendering life on the street. Hyperbole aside, nobody's retina is going to be damaged by viewing an oversaturated HDR or a composite once in a while. It's not conventional photography or traditional street photography, to be sure, but so what? Why be dogmatic about it? It takes all of two seconds to hit the Back button and move on if you don't like an image and you're under no obligation to take the time to comment. Keep in mind that someone else might be inspired by what you dismiss.

    I see little threat that Street & PJ is going to somehow morph into deviantart.com. If we were to see a tremendous upsurge in experimental urban work, then it might make sense to creating a new forum for it, but until then I'm going to continue to take an inclusive approach here.

    Very fine, R!

    Look forward to seeing your work in progress completed.

    Yes, there are so many more ways to render photographs now, way beyond the two or three chemicals and some paper of old (though I am not dissing that way either!). And how could it be otherwise, in an age when we can do so many more things technologically? Photography is at heart a technology.

    As you say, more technological ways of rendering photographs doesn't necessarily equate to easier work! And like you, I feel that my photographs don't always want to speak the language of levels and curves, black and white and the rule of thirds, etc. Ideas sometimes need an expanded vocabulary, such as new technology makes possible.

    As far as S&PJ and all that goes, maybe sometimes it's a bit of arrogance on the part of some to insist on fitting a moment of someone's life into tight traditional prefabricated boxes! People go outside the frame, but the camera has a one frame eye!

    Neil
    "Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"

    http://www.behance.net/brosepix
  • seastackseastack Major grins Posts: 716Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 28, 2012
    Ha, ha. I'm sure at least some of you know how utterly absurd this all looks. Of course that illustration didn't belong here, I'm sure NeilL knew this. Stirring the pot with a bit 'o chum there Neil? And Russ, you gotta be a little more subtle when you tease that line. And BD, dude, what are you doing here?
  • bdcolenbdcolen CaptureReality Posts: 3,804Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 28, 2012
    seastack wrote: »
    Ha, ha. I'm sure at least some of you know how utterly absurd this all looks. Of course that illustration didn't belong here, I'm sure NeilL knew this. Stirring the pot with a bit 'o chum there Neil? And Russ, you gotta be a little more subtle when you tease that line. And BD, dude, what are you doing here?

    The answer to that question is something I am wrestling with, Seastack. I hope to answer it in the next few days.headscratch.gif
    bd@bdcolenphoto.com
    "He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan

    "The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
  • lensmolelensmole Major grins Posts: 1,548Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 28, 2012
    bdcolen wrote: »
    "For me, what S&PJ is, is straightforward - it's the revelation of people as artists in living their lives in their particular circumstances. The art of their lives is like your white carpet, and should be respected, but the revelation of that art by the photographer is the photographer's art."

    Am I the only one who thinks this is complete and utter gibberish? And is this really the Forum to which I've belonged and contributed these past several years?ne_nau.gif

    No . Its just plain bullshit!
  • seastackseastack Major grins Posts: 716Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 28, 2012
    That's standard SOP to be followed by cryptic condescending posts on your work in other threads. I don't know what it is but no one has the ability to push my buttons like NeilL. This goes back many years now. It becomes a monumental waste of time. It's all yours now Neil. Honestly, this (almost) always happens in open forums, a modern tragedy of the common I suppose.
  • NeilLNeilL B+R=M,B+G=C,R+G=Y Posts: 4,201Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 29, 2012
    Javier wrote: »
    Neil,
    I do not recall referencing HCB in any of my post here. I would usually mention Winogrand, but that does not matter as both HCB and Winogrand would not call your art street photography. I do not have an eye for art, so I will not comment on it any further.
    But for a simple exercise, i googled street photography
    https://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=street+photography&oq=street&aq=0p&aqi=p-p1g3&aql=&gs_nf=1&gs_l=hp.1.0.35i39j0l3.1152.2019.0.3704.6.6.0.0.0.0.67.377.6.6.0.ymrb2fljyNg&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=160a46efcf63646c&biw=1600&bih=787
    and nothing close to your art came up that I can see.

    Apologies, I thought I had seen mention of HCB in some threads where you posted.

    Neil
    "Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"

    http://www.behance.net/brosepix
  • RichardRichard Mildly bemused Madrid, SpainPosts: 17,514Administrators, Vanilla Admin moderator
    edited April 29, 2012
    Dunno, guys. If photomontage is not photography, I guess I missed the memo. It hardly began with Photoshop. I have a poster of Doisneau's Les Locataires on the wall in front of me as I type--I can identify 14 images combined. I saw a couple of variants on the facade theme at the Eugene Smith Jazz show. Are you really willing to say that Jerry Uelsmann is not a photographer? Photoshop has certainly made it easier than it was in the darkroom, not to mention literal cut and paste, but if there's a fundamental difference here, I'm missing it. It may not be to your taste, but that doesn't make it illegitimate.

    Lighten up.
  • bdcolenbdcolen CaptureReality Posts: 3,804Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 29, 2012
    Richard wrote: »
    Dunno, guys. If photomontage is not photography, I guess I missed the memo. It hardly began with Photoshop. I have a poster of Doisneau's Les Locataires on the wall in front of me as I type--I can identify 14 images combined. I saw a couple of variants on the facade theme at the Eugene Smith Jazz show. Are you really willing to say that Jerry Uelsmann is not a photographer? Photoshop has certainly made it easier than it was in the darkroom, not to mention literal cut and paste, but if there's a fundamental difference here, I'm missing it. It may not be to your taste, but that doesn't make it illegitimate.

    Lighten up.

    Sorry Richard. We can spend weeks debating whether photo montages are photography, or an art form based on photography. But they certainly are NOT any form that fits the definitions of street photography, photo journalism, or documentary photography - and that was what this forum was for, and what drew people to this forum. If the Neils of the world want to spend time on Photoshop finger painting, more power to them, but let them do it somewhere else; it does not, by definition, belong in this forum, any more than wedding photos belong in a sports photography forum. (And why, by the way, am I becoming more convinced by the moment that the only reason Neil is posting this crap is to destroy the comity that generally has existed here?)
    bd@bdcolenphoto.com
    "He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan

    "The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
  • lensmolelensmole Major grins Posts: 1,548Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 29, 2012
    bdcolen wrote: »
    Sorry Richard. We can spend weeks debating whether photo montages are photography, or an art form based on photography. But they certainly are NOT any form that fits the definitions of street photography, photo journalism, or documentary photography - and that was what this forum was for, and what drew people to this forum. If the Neils of the world want to spend time on Photoshop finger painting, more power to them, but let them do it somewhere else; it does not, by definition, belong in this forum, any more than wedding photos belong in a sports photography forum. (And why, by the way, am I becoming more convinced by the moment that the only reason Neil is posting this crap is to destroy the comity that generally has existed here?)

    Photography is not about tricks and gimmicks, but rather about SEEING something and figuring out how best to capture it.( Quote B.D. Colen)

    Literally a documentary photograph is a police report on a dead body or an automobile accident or something like that. I fail to see to the art, or the artists of life, in these circumstances.

    Am I missing something, or am I not making any sense at all ? I think the boundaries, are distinct and very clear and that we need them .
  • bdcolenbdcolen CaptureReality Posts: 3,804Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 29, 2012
    lensmole wrote: »
    Photography is not about tricks and gimmicks, but rather about SEEING something and figuring out how best to capture it.( Quote B.D. Colen)

    Literally a documentary photograph is a police report on a dead body or an automobile accident or something like that. I fail to see to the art, or the artists of life, in these circumstances.

    Am I missing something, or am I not making any sense at all ? I think the boundaries, are distinct and very clear and that we need them .

    You are not missing a thing. One can do artistic documentary work - think of Walker Evans, Eugene Smith, or Sabastio Salgado. But there are boundaries and expectations that documentary work is truthful, that it reflects what the photographer saw. It requires honesty, and it requires fairness. As I tell my students, if they are shooting an ugly subject, they not only do not owe it to that subject to make them look beautiful, they owe it to the subject to not do that. However, they also owe it to the subject to not try to make them look worse than they are. A much revered photographer who did just that was Amy Arbus. Because of her own serious psychological issues - keep in mind she killed herself - she specialized in shooting 'freaks,' and I believe she was abusive toward her subjects in that she made them look as 'freakish' as she possibly could, capturing not their reality, but her own.

    But it's becoming clearer by the minute that this kind of discussion is a waste on this, the Photoshop Finger Painting Forum. mwink.gif
    bd@bdcolenphoto.com
    "He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan

    "The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
  • lensmolelensmole Major grins Posts: 1,548Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 29, 2012
    NeilL wrote: »
    I am exploring some ideas for a uni folio - 20 images. I'd like to do something based on people "found" around places where people are found.:D I think it's easy to see the direction I am heading off in with this very raw trial image, but would like to know what your gut reactions are. This particular example is static, and I think is considerably weakened by that, so I am going to hunt for shots with stronger gesture and movement. I would be very grateful for any comments you might have. Thanks.


    i-7d9LFfR-X2.jpg









    Neil

    I think they use similar techniques in commercial car photography so I guess it has a purpose somewhere.This particular image looks like some type of cartoon to me,probably just another fad that will fall by the weigh side like so many others. ne_nau.gif
  • seastackseastack Major grins Posts: 716Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 29, 2012
    And I hope you don't mind if I add that there is so, so much great photography being made right now that blurs the lines between documentary and fine art and editorial and even humor - from Alec Soth and his 8x10 camera working in the tradition of Sternfeld and Shore, yet bridging beyond into editorial work, to Martin Parr with his dry British wit working in a snapshot aesthetic to document modern society. Both of those photographers you can find at Magnum Photos, and both were very controversial inductees at the time. I could go on and on with a huge list that includes emerging talent as well - like advocacy documentarian Aaron Huey whose years of work on the Pine Ridge Reservation is incredibly powerful. It's a golden age right now with people taking what came before and rewriting in their own unique ways of seeing.

    And yet, there is a common thread through these disparate approaches. I think BD hit on it pretty well when he said "documentary work is truthful, that it reflects what the photographer saw." And all of these owe at least some of their grounding to the Walker Evans and Eugene Smiths that came before.
  • toragstorags Major grins Posts: 3,973Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 29, 2012
    Richard wrote: »
    There goes the neighborhood, eh? It's beyond me why you think that one thread can diminish another.

    Well try posting a darling portrait photo of your grand daughter on a motorsport forum.

    Specialized interests seem to have developed on the internet in photography with their own set of conventions , disciplines and expectations.

    Welcome to the wild side Richard, but it might not be a good idea to limit your composites to urban scenes. The neat thing is you can build an image rather than just capture it; then put extreme photogs bias in. It is real art since you are originating the image.

    It really doesn't belong here and I don't think I'm the only one who believes so. What I don't get is; if there is a furor going on, why the resistance to putting this work on OCS.

    Furthermore, during the furor Neil posts another composite... so WTF is that about, whats the motive there.

    Richard, you're a good street photog and have a lot to give; but as a mod if you are a contributing factor causing a forum revolt - perhaps you should change your mind or move on

    My vote is you should remain and keep it a documentary forum and ask Baldy to create an art forum; where those interested (including me) could learn from the experiments of others.
    Rags
  • JavierJavier Major grins Posts: 152Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 29, 2012
    bdcolen wrote: »
    Sorry Richard. We can spend weeks debating whether photo montages are photography, or an art form based on photography. But they certainly are NOT any form that fits the definitions of street photography, photo journalism, or documentary photography - and that was what this forum was for, and what drew people to this forum. If the Neils of the world want to spend time on Photoshop finger painting, more power to them, but let them do it somewhere else; it does not, by definition, belong in this forum, any more than wedding photos belong in a sports photography forum. (And why, by the way, am I becoming more convinced by the moment that the only reason Neil is posting this crap is to destroy the comity that generally has existed here?)

    I would have to say that I agree with most of this. How a mod of this forum can call this SP or PJ is beyond me. This is just madness.
  • JavierJavier Major grins Posts: 152Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 29, 2012
    NeilL wrote: »
    Apologies, I thought I had seen mention of HCB in some threads where you posted.

    Neil

    I have been back here for one week or so and have been accused of purposely naming an image in such a way as to offend by making it sexual innuendo, cutting and pasting a street shot together and now you bearing false witness against me. So having said that, I do accept your apology.
  • black mambablack mamba Major grins Jacksonville, FLPosts: 5,979Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 29, 2012
    I find it amazing, and sad, that this thread has degenerated into its current state. If all of you regular participants will admit it, a great deal of stuff posted here now....and for some time....would not pass muster under anyone's watch as being true street photography. Some of you folks hollering the loudest have been some of the greatest offenders in that regard.

    Now you've got a guy...Neil...who comes along with some innovative approaches to the genre and he gets crucified because what he's doing doesn't conform to your opinions. At least he's working in the spirit of street scenes which some of you have eschewed regularly. If you people want to forge such a strong crucible in determining what's appropriate for this forum, than there should be an immediate fall-off in submissions here because a lot of it fails to comply also. Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house.

    Tom
    If God wanted me to touch my toes, he would have put them on my knees.
  • bdcolenbdcolen CaptureReality Posts: 3,804Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 29, 2012
    Sorry, Tom, but you're way off base on this one. Indeed there is stuff posted here that is not "street photography" by any stretch - and I've posted some of it. Also, there are people here who think that any photo, no matter how cluttered, poorly framed, of what is essentially nothing, is a "street photo." But there is a difference between those photos and what Neil has been posting - they are photographs, single images, of a moment in time, taken in public, in an attempt to capture a moment of the human condition. They are straightforward, and honest. What Neil is doing is taking multiple images, or parts there of, mashing them up, and then applying God knows what filters or Photoshop techniques to turn them into multicolored mishmashes - sorry, but they are not some original new medium, nor do I, for that, matter, think they a very good - but that's irrelevant at this point. But what ever they are, in no way are they 'real;' in no way do they reflect the reality of the street. And in no way do they belong on this forum. It's not just a question of having them in their own thread, because people here go from thread to thread, and they have every reason to believe that they can learn something about street photography, or photo journalism, or documentary photography from any of those threads. They cannot learn about any of those things from looking at this.

    Again, I am not some old fart who believes that if my grandfather didn't do it, it has no validity. Tools change, techniques change, and they change radically. But there are some standards, and if anything, they have become stricter in the past decade-and-half as people have realized how easy it is to 'make things up' using Photoshop. Today, newspaper photographers are being fired, are having awards rescinded, for doing things that might have been acceptable - or at least ignored - in the days of giants such as Gene Smith ( I suspect the reason they were ignored back then is because they were so damn hard to do, that they were quite rare and not a threat to standard and belief in the 'reality' of images. But today, photojournalists who combine images get fired.

    So if enough people are excited by photo mashing and painting, ask Dgrin to set up a forum for it and go have fun. But keep this forum as a place for people who want to make real images of the real world.
    bd@bdcolenphoto.com
    "He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan

    "The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
  • RyanSRyanS Always Learning Posts: 507Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 29, 2012
    I find it amazing, and sad, that this thread has degenerated into its current state.

    I'd like to propose that heated and vigorous debate is a sign of a strong creative community. We need to be careful not to use ad hominem to make our points. Such approaches only stir the pot with no beneficial gain. It also could be interpreted as violating the forum rules. Reading the thread, I honestly think the conversation has come full circle on this one. Many thought provoking points have been raised. My suggestion is that we end it.
    Please feel free to post any reworks you do of my images. Crop, skew, munge, edit, share.
    Website | Galleries | Utah PJs
  • RSLRSL Streeter Posts: 839Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 29, 2012
    Let's get rid of the idea that what Neil's doing is "dishonest." He never claimed these are street photographs, and considering the other far-out stuff that gets posted here, the idea that simply by the act of posting his pictures on Street & PJ he was claiming they're street photographs is risible.

    I've always thought Street & PJ ought to try to confine its posts to street photographs and photojournalism. I shouted that from the time I came on until I was about to get tossed off. Now, all of a sudden, S&PJ ought to be policed so that pictures that aren't S or PJ get moved somewhere else? Who's going to be the judge, BD?

    First, let's set aside the PJ part. PJ is a loose enough definition that if somebody comes on with any sequence of pictures that concentrates on a single event or idea, it's going to be awfully hard to claim it's not PJ, though with your background you might be able to make a case.

    So any disagreement is going to focus on street photographs. And if someone points out that a post isn't real street there's going to be an outcry claiming the critic is dissing the poster. You've seen it and I've seen it. All of a sudden you'll hear the old saw that criticism is okay as long as it's "constructive" criticism. What crap! If I'm looking at a street photograph badly done I can explain what's wrong and suggest a way to fix it. But there's no way to "constructively" say that what I'm looking at simply isn't a street photograph. It either is or it isn't. Opinions vary, arguments ensue, and Street & PJ seems to be almost rabidly averse to any kind of argument. If you doubt that, look back at some of the earlier posts on this thread.

    So in the end, you'll have to continue to rely on Richard, who has an unenviable job. He's loose, but you can see why.

    But I'm sorry you can't see the beauty and originality in what Neil's doing, BD. Sure, it's not photography, but so what? Neither was the stuff that Monet and Renoir did at la grenouillère. All photography is art, but not all art is photography.
  • black mambablack mamba Major grins Jacksonville, FLPosts: 5,979Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 29, 2012
    bdcolen wrote: »
    Sorry, Tom, but you're way off base on this one. Indeed there is stuff posted here that is not "street photography" by any stretch - and I've posted some of it. Also, there are people here who think that any photo, no matter how cluttered, poorly framed, of what is essentially nothing, is a "street photo." But there is a difference between those photos and what Neil has been posting - they are photographs, single images, of a moment in time, taken in public, in an attempt to capture a moment of the human condition. They are straightforward, and honest. What Neil is doing is taking multiple images, or parts there of, mashing them up, and then applying God knows what filters or Photoshop techniques to turn them into multicolored mishmashes - sorry, but they are not some original new medium, nor do I, for that, matter, think they a very good - but that's irrelevant at this point. But what ever they are, in no way are they 'real;' in no way do they reflect the reality of the street. And in no way do they belong on this forum. It's not just a question of having them in their own thread, because people here go from thread to thread, and they have every reason to believe that they can learn something about street photography, or photo journalism, or documentary photography from any of those threads. They cannot learn about any of those things from looking at this.

    Again, I am not some old fart who believes that if my grandfather didn't do it, it has no validity. Tools change, techniques change, and they change radically. But there are some standards, and if anything, they have become stricter in the past decade-and-half as people have realized how easy it is to 'make things up' using Photoshop. Today, newspaper photographers are being fired, are having awards rescinded, for doing things that might have been acceptable - or at least ignored - in the days of giants such as Gene Smith ( I suspect the reason they were ignored back then is because they were so damn hard to do, that they were quite rare and not a threat to standard and belief in the 'reality' of images. But today, photojournalists who combine images get fired.

    So if enough people are excited by photo mashing and painting, ask Dgrin to set up a forum for it and go have fun. But keep this forum as a place for people who want to make real images of the real world.

    I hear what you're saying BD. However, I don't think you get my point entirely. If you're going to turn the condemnation dogs loose, you've got to give them license to bite all offenders. Your philosophy falls apart when the dogs start selective munching.

    You should have been equally vociferous.... and self-policing, I might add....in going after those folks who blatantly submitted photos that had no place ( by your own definitions ) in a Street/PJ forum. You are, by your own admission, guilty of these moves.

    I don't care what the particular situation is....a photo montage or pictures that obviously don't belong on a Street/PJ forum, etc., etc....., you've got to be universal in your approach that seeks to preserve the integrity of the forum. So have all the other folks that share your position.

    Maybe Neil's work in this case should go somewhere else. But so should a whole host of other works that show up on this forum under the guise of being Street/ PJ stuff. When you can control your own indiscretions in that regard, and when you can openly condemn others who violate the perceived sanctities that you hold dear, I'll give your words more respect than I'm inclined to at present.

    You want Neil's stuff moved. You should also, then, adamantly champion moving all the other works that have no place here.
    If God wanted me to touch my toes, he would have put them on my knees.
  • JavierJavier Major grins Posts: 152Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 29, 2012
    I am curious as to why my street thread got moved?
    http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=219650
  • bdcolenbdcolen CaptureReality Posts: 3,804Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 29, 2012
    lensmole wrote: »
    Not sure I understand your question and probability couldn't answer the question anyway. I am simply saying that some photographers that do street photography aren't necessarily inspired by art nor is it their motivation .
    I hear what you're saying BD. However, I don't think you get my point entirely. If you're going to turn the condemnation dogs loose, you've got to give them license to bite all offenders. Your philosophy falls apart when the dogs start selective munching.

    You should have been equally vociferous.... and self-policing, I might add....in going after those folks who blatantly submitted photos that had no place ( by your own definitions ) in a Street/PJ forum. You are, by your own admission, guilty of these moves.

    I don't care what the particular situation is....a photo montage or pictures that obviously don't belong on a Street/PJ forum, etc., etc....., you've got to be universal in your approach that seeks to preserve the integrity of the forum. So have all the other folks that share your position.

    Maybe Neil's work in this case should go somewhere else. But so should a whole host of other works that show up on this forum under the guise of being Street/ PJ stuff. When you can control your own indiscretions in that regard, and when you can openly condemn others who violate the perceived sanctities that you hold dear, I'll give your words more respect than I'm inclined to at present.

    You want Neil's stuff moved. You should also, then, adamantly champion moving all the other works that have no place here.

    The reality, Tom, is I have pushed very hard these couple years to have the forum called "The Real World," to loosen the strictures a bit. But frankly, the stuff I cop to, and you point to, reflects the street ethos, even if it technically is not street - much of it, by the way, would qualify as documentary. But Neil's stuff in fact , flies in the face of everything street, pj, and documentary are about. It is "fake." It is made up. It in no way reflects any kind of truth, or attempt at truth. Not that that's bad - much the same could be said about all kinds of art. But not here.
    bd@bdcolenphoto.com
    "He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan

    "The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
  • NeilLNeilL B+R=M,B+G=C,R+G=Y Posts: 4,201Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 29, 2012
    Thanks to all who contributed to this thread!thumb.gif

    I did not expect quite the level of some of the discussion that has appeared here. Any of us who post on Dgrin could be targeted for just being what they are. We are all different, and difference alone is trigger enough for some to attack.

    Needless to say, I am aware that the image I have posted here, and another in another thread, have the potential to be controversial in this forum. Controversy can be a positive and constructive thing, but controversy was not uppermost in my mind. If someone wants to be glibly controversial it can be done with far less seriousness and effort than I have put into these images, and into this discussion. I could have posted some clip art of a cabbage, and said blahblahblah! Some of you need to do a rain check on reality!

    That you all have taken these images so seriously and emotionally indicates to me that you recognise them as having some bona fides. That is very encouraging for me! Special thanks in particular to those of you who didn't pick up an axe, and were genuinely interested in the images and the issues around them, and genuinely willing to allow me the space I needed.

    I have already said in other comments of mine that I am not interested in going into battle over style in isolation, as a thing in itself. The facts of these images that are basic and most relevant are that they were taken of real people in a real street with a real camera and lens by the real me making real photographic decisions. To that - very great - extent they are street. Style is integral with the act of shooting - what to include in the frame, how to compose that, how to expose the frame, POV, the effects of blur and DOF, etc - all these things are contributed to the capture by the photographer, not by the subject or the scene. In that sense they are not part of the reality being photographed, they are artificially added, they are part of the art and craft, the artifice of photography. Now, those cross-legged virgins who claim that they take photographs without being violated, and without violating "reality", by any thought of or reference to the art, craft and artifice of photography are surely testing our credulity, aren't they! You'd think their images jumped out of the street on them and ripped their clothes off and inserted things in them, rather than that they went looking for it, and had intentions of their own. "We didn't do anything!" these purity maidens protest, while their images scream out how they are 99% forced representations of the "victims'" agendas!

    Style doesn't stop there! Back in the darkroom/computer, the *photographer* decides B&W or colour, crop, what, where and how to make emphases, and so on. In the best case scenario the editing is done in service of the subject chosen by the photographer. And therein lies the crux, as far as I'm concerned! The pedigree of my images is unarguably street, my style is how I communicate the truth of "my street". Labelling my style "artistic", whatever that might mean, says nothing sensible about my images' validity as street.

    The whole notion of a separate category of "experimental" is just so last century! Get with it, those of you who want to gatekeep for the world, or be torn apart by your internal tensions! Don't project your hangups on me!mwink.gif

    There is no way to separate the street I was in from my perception of the street. Do these images of mine put you in contact with what *I* found and experienced in the street, and how deeply and meaningfully? Could you suggest a more *effective* way to communicate *my* vision of the street I was in? This was my topic in this thread.

    Neil
    "Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"

    http://www.behance.net/brosepix
  • NeilLNeilL B+R=M,B+G=C,R+G=Y Posts: 4,201Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 30, 2012
    seastack wrote: »
    And I hope you don't mind if I add that there is so, so much great photography being made right now that blurs the lines between documentary and fine art and editorial and even humor - from Alec Soth and his 8x10 camera working in the tradition of Sternfeld and Shore, yet bridging beyond into editorial work, to Martin Parr with his dry British wit working in a snapshot aesthetic to document modern society. Both of those photographers you can find at Magnum Photos, and both were very controversial inductees at the time. I could go on and on with a huge list that includes emerging talent as well - like advocacy documentarian Aaron Huey whose years of work on the Pine Ridge Reservation is incredibly powerful. It's a golden age right now with people taking what came before and rewriting in their own unique ways of seeing.

    And yet, there is a common thread through these disparate approaches. I think BD hit on it pretty well when he said "documentary work is truthful, that it reflects what the photographer saw." And all of these owe at least some of their grounding to the Walker Evans and Eugene Smiths that came before.

    Thanks for the name dropping, some new to me. Will look them up.

    Neil
    "Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"

    http://www.behance.net/brosepix
  • RichardRichard Mildly bemused Madrid, SpainPosts: 17,514Administrators, Vanilla Admin moderator
    edited April 30, 2012
    Javier wrote: »
    I am curious as to why my street thread got moved?
    http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=219650
    You know perfectly well why. We've seen this movie before, Javier. :deadhorse
  • NeilLNeilL B+R=M,B+G=C,R+G=Y Posts: 4,201Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 30, 2012
    lensmole wrote: »
    I think they use similar techniques in commercial car photography so I guess it has a purpose somewhere.This particular image looks like some type of cartoon to me,probably just another fad that will fall by the weigh side like so many others. ne_nau.gif

    Perspicacious comment, though you might not have realised how.

    The majority of cartoons, I think, are enacted on the street!

    And do you see signs that cartoons are a fad falling by the wayside, after how long? four centuries?

    Historically cartoons were the way to expose and explore the topical, to caricature public life, to hold up a mirror to society, especially its excesses and failings. The illustrations to Dickens are cartoons.

    Should ring a bell? mwink.gif

    Neil
    "Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"

    http://www.behance.net/brosepix
  • seastackseastack Major grins Posts: 716Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 30, 2012
    NeilL wrote: »
    Thanks for the name dropping, some new to me. Will look them up.

    Neil

    Name dropping? Well, I haven't met any of those photographers who are some of the best known photographers working today in the genres covered by this forum. I was certainly not trying to impress, as you imply, merely attempting to have an intelligent discussion here using well known contemporary photographers as a common point of reference to make a point. But if there is no common point of reference ....? My bad.
  • michswissmichswiss Stuffed Animal Posts: 2,235Super Moderators Major grins
    edited April 30, 2012
    seastack wrote: »
    Name dropping? Well, I haven't met any of those photographers who are some of the best known photographers working today in the genres covered by this forum. I was certainly not trying to impress, as you imply, merely attempting to have an intelligent discussion here using well known contemporary photographers as a common point of reference to make a point. But if there is no common point of reference ....? My bad.

    These guys don't generally know the current influencers beyond the blogging or flickr communities. Exploration is cool and it can deliver surprising results. I think Neil is really early in his process. Based on earlier stuff I've noted, he likes to virtualise things. It's nowhere close to there yet, though.

    My opinion is that there's a need to work on the chops of basic people shots and storytelling before branching too far abroad. Doesn't mean you need to share it with everyone. But one of the basic problems with the original image is that the content isn't there and the processing does nothing to escape from it nor add to it.
  • bdcolenbdcolen CaptureReality Posts: 3,804Registered Users Major grins
    edited April 30, 2012
    The phrase "lipstick on a pig" seems oddly relevant.
    bd@bdcolenphoto.com
    "He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan

    "The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
2
Sign In or Register to comment.