Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: This  (Read 4673 times)

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8265
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: This
« Reply #20 on: November 18, 2012, 10:31:23 AM »

I'd be interested on your definition of street. (I've seen your screed and not surprised it's failed to get published.  You're angry, I get that.) I have never claimed that I follow a particular style.  You're definition of street would leave it more than several decades behind.  And irrelevant.

Hi Jenn, I'm not going to comment on your feelings or emotions about what you think is my "anger," but I do need to point out that definitions of art genres don't change over time. Street photography is a quite specific variety of fine art, "fine art" being defined as art created for esthetic purposes. I know that the "Documentary" web, for which you're currently moderator, thinks street photography falls within it's catch-all title. But it doesn't. Street photography was invented by people like Andre Kertesz and Henri Cartier-Bresson early last century, and it most emphatically wasn't and isn't documentary. Henri was the one who really defined it, and Henri was a Surrealist. A documentary photograph tells a story, and, to be good, tells it unambiguously. A real street photograph includes a story but poses a question and doesn't answer the question. A street photograph submitted alone as documentation for a story would be rejected out-of-hand by any sane editor. Documentary photography is supposed to answer a question, not raise a question.

From what you've said lately about street photography and photography in general I'd suggest you could profit from a study of art history and some serious reading on the history of photography. Seems to me I posted a link to my annotated bibliography on "Documentary." I think it's somewhere on LuLa too. You might want to look it up. If you can't find it I'll be happy to post it again for you.

Oh, and regarding those "screeds," (yes there are two of them on street photography and probably more to come), they'll never be published unless I send them out. In the sixties I used to write non-fiction and poetry and get quite a bit of it published, but I don't need the never-ending hassle involved in sending stuff out. Nowadays I post my screeds on the web and let it go at that. It's more fun that way.

Richard Man

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 87
    • Richard Man Photography
Re: This
« Reply #21 on: November 21, 2012, 11:26:13 PM »

Ha ha. I like this.

Russ, it has plenty of ambiguity. Yes, they may be "common" street people, which generally make for easy subject for Street photography, but they are doing some odd things, and the composition with the left looking woman and right looking man make that picture to me.

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8265
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: This
« Reply #22 on: November 24, 2012, 04:53:58 PM »

It's all over the place, Richard. Here's a crop that at least approximates street photography.

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9367
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: This
« Reply #23 on: November 24, 2012, 05:16:52 PM »

... Here's a crop...

Fantastic idea and one more reason (if we ever needed more) why we all should switch to Nikon D800: shoot once, in the approximate direction where something might be happening, and crop later to your heart's content. Create two 18 mpx shots, or three 12 mpx, or even four nine megapixel ones. Heck, with a good lens, one can achieve even five to 10 usable files. Imagine such a sales potential: press the shutter once, sell ten different images!

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11097
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: This
« Reply #24 on: November 24, 2012, 05:40:34 PM »

Not enough for me, SB. I want a camera with a wide enough view (and adequate resolution) so I can take ONE big shot and spend the rest of my days cropping my entire life's work out of that one shot.    :D
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my photo website. New images each season. Also visit my new website: http://ericneedsakidney.org

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9367
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: This
« Reply #25 on: November 24, 2012, 07:29:51 PM »

You know what, Eric, I think Bernard is already living that dream of yours: stitching with D800 ;D

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11097
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: This
« Reply #26 on: November 24, 2012, 08:13:40 PM »

Come to think of it, I guess you're right (about Bernard).
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my photo website. New images each season. Also visit my new website: http://ericneedsakidney.org

Ed B

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 178
    • Light Conspiracy
Re: This
« Reply #27 on: November 25, 2012, 12:30:21 AM »

I think I'm starting to understand the golden rule of street photography, only two people allowed per image.
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8265
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: This
« Reply #28 on: November 26, 2012, 09:45:35 AM »

Not at all, Ed. But people in a street shot should contribute to the story.
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up