Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Young Love, Sweet Love  (Read 6241 times)

Chris Calohan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 2763
  • Editing Allowed
Young Love, Sweet Love
« on: October 02, 2016, 07:53:03 PM »

And aren't you glad she isn't your daughter?
Logged
What! Me Worry?

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16253
Re: Young Love, Sweet Love
« Reply #1 on: October 03, 2016, 03:12:36 PM »

Look on the bright side: they might be on honeymoon.

;-)

Rob

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12915
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: Young Love, Sweet Love
« Reply #2 on: October 03, 2016, 08:56:23 PM »

Look on the bright side: they might be on honeymoon.

;-)

Rob
Or maybe they just met, and . . .    ;)
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes    (A sampler of my new book is on my website.)
http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my photo website. New images each season. Also visit my new website: http://ericneedsakidney.org

Chris Calohan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 2763
  • Editing Allowed
Re: Young Love, Sweet Love
« Reply #3 on: October 03, 2016, 10:12:58 PM »

I liked the clothing strewn about with little care, an aftermath of what might have taken place earlier.
Logged
What! Me Worry?

GrahamBy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1449
    • 500px
Re: Young Love, Sweet Love
« Reply #4 on: October 04, 2016, 10:28:10 AM »

I don't have a daughter, but if I did I might be happy for her to be enjoying her life.

Then I might have some concerns about the level of invasion of privacy involved in this photo: yes, most street photography is voyeuristic, but this one is starting to make me uncomfortable.
Logged

graeme

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1006
Re: Young Love, Sweet Love
« Reply #5 on: October 04, 2016, 10:29:21 AM »

I don't have a daughter, but if I did I might be happy for her to be enjoying her life.

Then I might have some concerns about the level of invasion of privacy involved in this photo: yes, most street photography is voyeuristic, but this one is starting to make me uncomfortable.

+1
Logged

Chris Calohan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 2763
  • Editing Allowed
Re: Young Love, Sweet Love
« Reply #6 on: October 04, 2016, 10:52:32 AM »

+1

They are laying on a public beach in full sight of the whole world. If they didn't want their actions scrutinized by anyone, they should have gotten a motel room. Is it any different than a couple kissing at an outside cafe or strolling down the avenue?

I wonder if your daughter were 15 and this was her, would you have those same emotions?
Logged
What! Me Worry?

GrahamBy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1449
    • 500px
Re: Young Love, Sweet Love
« Reply #7 on: October 04, 2016, 12:07:46 PM »

The celebrated photos of kissing couples by eg Doisneau were staged, using student actors. Teenagers are in a vulnerable position since they typically can't afford to "get a motel room". Teenage girls, and women in general, are subject to "slut shaming" by their peers and by supposed guardians of moral values: putting a photo like that into the public domain risks creating repercussions for the subjects.

Of course that's not the case for the famous victory day parade photo... but we now know that was a sexual assault: fortunately the woman was not easily identifiable.

Returning to Doineau, he noted that "any couple kissing like that are unlikely to be married... to each other."

I have a very close friend with 16 yo daughters and she'd be far more concerned about them being photographed in the arms of a boy than about them being in the arms of a boy... right or wrong.
Logged

Otto Phocus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 681
Re: Young Love, Sweet Love
« Reply #8 on: October 04, 2016, 12:44:17 PM »

Normally, I find that shadows add a lot to a photograph.  However, in this instance, I find the shadows distracting.  But, when using natural light, you have to use what you have.   ;D
Logged
I shoot with a Camera Obscura with an optical device attached that refracts and transmits light.

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16253
Re: Young Love, Sweet Love
« Reply #9 on: October 04, 2016, 04:13:48 PM »

The celebrated photos of kissing couples by eg Doisneau were staged, using student actors. Teenagers are in a vulnerable position since they typically can't afford to "get a motel room". Teenage girls, and women in general, are subject to "slut shaming" by their peers and by supposed guardians of moral values: putting a photo like that into the public domain risks creating repercussions for the subjects.

Of course that's not the case for the famous victory day parade photo... but we now know that was a sexual assault: fortunately the woman was not easily identifiable.

Returning to Doineau, he noted that "any couple kissing like that are unlikely to be married... to each other."

I have a very close friend with 16 yo daughters and she'd be far more concerned about them being photographed in the arms of a boy than about them being in the arms of a boy... right or wrong.


Changing mores, but Eisie was fast, nonetheless!

GrahamBy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1449
    • 500px
Re: Young Love, Sweet Love
« Reply #10 on: October 06, 2016, 10:51:52 AM »


Changing mores, but Eisie was fast, nonetheless!

Indeed. There was one WW2 photo, of a soldier kissing a nurse, where the photographer knew that one or both were married elsewhere: he embargoed the photo until after the likely death of the participants (and their spouses). I can't remember if it was one of Eisenstadt's penn Station series, or from somewhere else entirely. Can anyone help me out?
Logged

Paulo Bizarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4030
    • http://www.paulobizarro.com
Re: Young Love, Sweet Love
« Reply #11 on: October 06, 2016, 12:03:55 PM »

A few thoughts:

1. I live near a beach, and I see a few young people in such poses when I go out shooting early in the morning. Clearly, they spent the night in the beach. As long as they are consenting adults, and have the required protection, it's all good.

2. For some reason or other, I never take a photo of them, I would be intruding. Also, I see no interest, other than as a potential documentary series of some sort. The fact that they are in a public place, does not mean that necessarily one has to take a photo.

3. The OP photo may tell a story, and is open to interpretation. That is good, a photo with people on it should tell a story.

4. I would think hard before publishing the photo publicly, as the folks in it may get into trouble. At the minimum, try to identify them and tell about your intentions. People can easily get labelled these days... even the OP was almost called "voyeur" for taking the shot, which has a negative connotation.

5. I have a 16y old daughter, I would have no trouble with such a behaviour from her, she is entitled to enjoy life. She is a healthy and balanced young adult. I would have trouble of a similar photo depicting her being published, I would contact the photographer and ask for a bit more detail about potential harmful uses of the photo.

Chris Calohan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 2763
  • Editing Allowed
Re: Young Love, Sweet Love
« Reply #12 on: October 06, 2016, 12:35:09 PM »

It's always a judgement call for such a shot. Had I of titled it something more toward the voyeuristic side, possibly some social gaffing toward me. Public spaces are open to pretty much anything. My thoughts are if you don't want the public prying into your actions, then get a room. The shot of the lady and her naked child is also a judgement call. She was on a public beach and I was exceptionally careful not to show anything close to a frontal view. For that shot, it was all about the careful allowance of freedom for the baby. This shot was because it seemed almost like a cut from a movie scene where there is a frenzied disrobing to get down to the nitty gritty. They were pretty much fully clothed, best I could tell, but the haphazard placement of clothes spoke to the movie shot; so I took it. That's the filmmaker in me.

Almost any street shot is invasive and to a large degree holds to the sense of voyeurism. It is that which makes the shot interesting. True, there are scenes where there is a more juxtaposed scenario of man and object but still, making shot invades that person's persona and personal space.

That one might hold me in some sort of accountability for making the shot, I go back to the first tenet of being in the public eye: don't do anything you don't want others to see....especially in the time of digital cameras, phones, etc.

I should note that I find Europeans have a much less concerned view on the behavior of their young people. I agree with it but I still try to stay within a reasonable band of American mores in how I approach these kinds of shots. I would have my daughter's hide for such a public demonstration. Fortunately, she is now 43 and not my worry in that realm any more.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2016, 12:38:32 PM by Chris Calohan »
Logged
What! Me Worry?

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16253
Re: Young Love, Sweet Love
« Reply #13 on: October 06, 2016, 04:26:16 PM »

Chris, I think you're reading slightly more into the comments here than is meant (or I'm going the other way!). Any concerns I have are that it can get you slightly tarred, even though there appears no clear reason to do that. The problem is that children are children and vulnerable, and young people are in a kind of limbo state where they are neither one thing nor the other, so best leave 'em alone and avoid the mines. This ain't the 40s nor the 50s. New rules; less open today, even in Europe.

Voyeurism is absolutely at the heart of street; it has to be, or why would anyone want to do it? It's really just a sort of urban hunting with a little thrill of getting caught, but probably not of being eaten or trampled to death. That's the single most obvious reason why people feel so disappointed when they discover some iconic photograph that they wish they'd made turns out to have been staged. She-it! Death of another dream.

The other good reason for doing street is that it sharpens your reflexes. (I bet few Leica M3 stars knew that; never mind, it wasn't that good.)

Personally, I'm a bit too chicken for it, and living in a tourist zone, don't find many visually interesting people to photograph. They mostly look alike, dress boringly badly, are lumpy, almost never beautiful and not what I want to sit in front of a monitor to play with. Were I in Rome, Milan, Paris, London, Cannes, New York, who knows. At least there would be hope! Even a plain woman but with bags of style is hugely interesting material. Men, I never find interesting. Artists and musos are excluded, though, as they have something else that can make them worthy of the trouble: possibly if they are already well-known, their aura rubs off onto your pics. And an impresive instrument (musical) aways lends glamour.

Rob
« Last Edit: October 06, 2016, 04:35:01 PM by Rob C »
Logged

N80

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 616
Re: Young Love, Sweet Love
« Reply #14 on: October 12, 2016, 03:09:12 PM »

I'm too chicken for street as well. Yes this photo makes me a little uncomfortable from the voyeur standpoint and the content. But that's just me an not a criticism at all. After all, I love Sally Mann's work and it also makes me uncomfortable.

On the other hand, completely agree: public beach, broad daylight, etc etc. Further, this generation is, or should be, utterly at ease with the notion that every aspect of their lives is being recorded digitally. My kids are 22 and 25. I told them both in high school that they need to understand that virtually anywhere they go and anything they do they will be recorded whether they are comfortable with the idea or not. That's just life in the 2010s.
Logged
George

"What is truth?" Pontius  Pilate

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9225
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Young Love, Sweet Love
« Reply #15 on: October 12, 2016, 04:31:52 PM »

Hi George, Hate to say it because I often like Chris's work, but what you're seeing here isn't good street. Good street isn't voyeuristic. That's why pictures of sleeping hoboes simply aren't good street. To be good street there simply has to be something going on. Here there's nothing going on except two kids lying in the sand. It's pure reportage.

Chris Calohan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 2763
  • Editing Allowed
Re: Young Love, Sweet Love
« Reply #16 on: October 12, 2016, 05:03:31 PM »

I will take some umbrage with that, Russ. There is eye contact and they are in an embrace. There is a hint of a hurriedness to get where they are evidenced by the haphazard placement of clothing and shoes. Had I shot them through curtains in the privacy of their home, I would wholeheartedly agree, but these kids were in full open view with obvious lack of care as to who or what was around them. For me, it was a capture of their time in their space. Maybe it is the word, voyeur that has me a bit testy as to me that represents an invasion of privacy; in that context there would be that peeping Tom element which really doesn't exist here - well, in my mind, it doesn't. I am open for further discussion.
Logged
What! Me Worry?

stamper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5142
Re: Young Love, Sweet Love
« Reply #17 on: October 13, 2016, 04:51:54 AM »

Personally speaking I don't regard this as Street. Then again Street is difficult to define. I think there is a voyeuristic element in the image but I am not going to criticize the taking of the image. The members who think they are chicken don't need to practice Street using a prime lens and getting close up to people and possibly annoying them. If every Street photographer done this then all the the images would look similar. Joel Meyerowitz realised this early on in his career and stopped mingling with the crowd and let them pass him by. A small good quality zoom on a mirrorless camera can be used and standing a little way back from the flow of people is possible. However Street purists will argue that you are being furtive. I disagree. At the end of the day it isn't about how you do it. It is the end product that counts.

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16253
Re: Young Love, Sweet Love
« Reply #18 on: October 13, 2016, 08:52:40 AM »

I will take some umbrage with that, Russ. There is eye contact and they are in an embrace. There is a hint of a hurriedness to get where they are evidenced by the haphazard placement of clothing and shoes. Had I shot them through curtains in the privacy of their home, I would wholeheartedly agree, but these kids were in full open view with obvious lack of care as to who or what was around them. For me, it was a capture of their time in their space. Maybe it is the word, voyeur that has me a bit testy as to me that represents an invasion of privacy; in that context there would be that peeping Tom element which really doesn't exist here - well, in my mind, it doesn't. I am open for further discussion.


Yeah, Chris, but the eye contact is between the chick and his shades, not with you.

They are in an embrace, indeed, but that makes it possibly less reason to invade, though of course I understand that ís the prime motivator in going click!

Thing is, this sort of photography is double-edged: it's fun to do but also not really very kind.

That other guys got famous for doing it is not justifiction, either. For one thing, they were doing something then new and had the justification of that, but today...

Rob

N80

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 616
Re: Young Love, Sweet Love
« Reply #19 on: October 13, 2016, 08:56:30 AM »

Chris, I think an image can look voyeuristic even when the intent is not. For me, the voyeuristic feel of this image comes from the perspective. It looks like it was taken from a standing position above two reclining figures. To me that has a voyeuristic feel to it. This does not imply you did anything wrong from a moral perspective.

In fact, I can see her eyes and there is no doubt that she could see you. She does not seem concerned with you.

Russ, I have no real strong opinions regarding street photography since I don't like doing it and am not particularly fond of it anyway, but your criteria seem a little stringent for a style as broad as street photography. On the other hand, to say that this photo is not 'street' is not really a criticism either. So not being 'street' for whatever reason is fine. There is no requirement for a candid outdoor photo to be 'street'. In my mind that classification neither elevates or demeans an image. In this regard, I agree with stamper, its the image that counts, not how we classify it.

I think this is a timely, well executed image, but in the end its only real appeal to me is my own voyeuristic impulse when I look at it.
Logged
George

"What is truth?" Pontius  Pilate
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up