Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => Street Showcase => Topic started by: RSL on November 25, 2018, 11:12:18 am
-
.
-
Good one.
And it (superficially) reminds me of this one of mine:
-
And it (superficially) reminds me of this one of mine:
I like it very much, Eric.
-
Thanks, Keith.
-
Russ's is nice, although the positioning of the car in the frame makes me uncomfortable. Eric's, I prefer.
Jeremy
-
Russ's is nice, although the positioning of the car in the frame makes me uncomfortable. Eric's, I prefer.
Is the car being there supposed to mean something. Seems like a distraction to me.
-
Russ's is nice, although the positioning of the car in the frame makes me uncomfortable. Eric's, I prefer.
Jeremy
I didn't mean to compete with Russ, but after all, sex sells. :D
Eric
-
Is the car being there supposed to mean something. Seems like a distraction to me.
“When I use a word car,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
;)
-
No friggin' wonder WP exist.
What an invidious display of attitudes; the new reality. Let's see some positive thinking here!
:-)
-
Russ's is nice, although the positioning of the car in the frame makes me uncomfortable. Eric's, I prefer.
Jeremy
The car is supposed to make you uncomfortable, Jeremy. It's the effect of ambiguity.
-
The car is supposed to make you uncomfortable, Jeremy. It's the effect of ambiguity.
It's not its presence that I dislike, Russ, it's the fact that it feels to me to be too far to the left in the frame.
Jeremy
-
It's not its presence that I dislike, Russ, it's the fact that it feels to me to be too far to the left in the frame.
Jeremy
Artistic license to support the narrative. They probably don't have a parkingproblem in front of that building, which might be a very, very efficient selfstorage location, true to its name.
-
Short of breaking into the vehicle and moving it, little the photographer can do about it. I'd prefer to look upon it from the perspective of better having lived and lost than never having loved at all.
Just read a Spanish newspaper report about the death of Bernardo Bertolucci; he's quoted as having proclaimed that anything you do through a lens is voyeurism. I kinda agree with him, which accounts for one's choice of models... I have always countered accusations about this business with the risposte that it is not inevitably about wanting to bed them.
There's a massive difference in concept, and it avoids self-destruction and probable divorce, not to mention the inevitable disappointment after the fact. Why do we need to prove to ourselves, over and over again, that beauty is but skin-deep?
;-)
-
Russ's is nice, although the positioning of the car in the frame makes me uncomfortable. Eric's, I prefer.
Jeremy
Actually, I did it that way to bug you, Jeremy.
One way to solve the problem would be to crop. Heaven forfend!
I like Eric's version very much, mainly because of the texture in that wall.
-
Short of breaking into the vehicle and moving it, little the photographer can do about it. I'd prefer to look upon it from the perspective of better having lived and lost than never having loved at all.
This whole thread brings up two intriguing questions:
1) can puzzle images really be considered exponents of street genre?
2) if a photographer decides to fill a significant portion of a frame with an element, can that element really be dismissed as only vaguely relevant to the expression?
-
Both are fair questions, Oscar.
To #1 I’d have to answer: “Maybe, but not very powerful exponents.” The really great exponents of street are poems that strike your heart with life’s experiences. You can’t just go out for an afternoon and come back with a camera full of good street. As I said in “On Street Photography,” “. . .even when you get good at street photography, you’ll shoot bags and bags of bloopers, a smaller number of not too bad shots, and the rare picture you should be willing to show. Beyond that, there’s the kind of picture upon which you’d be willing to hang your reputation. If you can average one of those a year you’re getting pretty good.”
To #2 I’d say: “Depends on the photographer.” There’s the guy who bangs away, hoping to find something in there he can isolate in Photoshop and pretend was a well-grabbed shot. I see plenty of pictures – even on LuLa -- that clearly express the confusion of the photographer.
-
This whole thread brings up two intriguing questions:
1) can puzzle images really be considered exponents of street genre?
2) if a photographer decides to fill a significant portion of a frame with an element, can that element really be dismissed as only vaguely relevant to the expression?
1. I'm not certain what a "puzzle" picture is, never mind if it's street or otherwise;
2. in my own case, I think so. I use a lot of surround just in order to focus on the spirit of the thing that attracted me in the first place. In essence, it's an attempt, that framing, to contextualise yet, by making said frame less clear, accentuate a part of that whole.
-
". . .even when you get good at street photography, you’ll shoot bags and bags of bloopers, a smaller number of not too bad shots, and the rare picture you should be willing to show. Beyond that, there’s the kind of picture upon which you’d be willing to hang your reputation. If you can average one of those a year you’re getting pretty good.”
So I take it that the "street" photographs you have recently shared are the rare ones that you are willing to show and on which you'll stake your reputation as a "street" photographer?
-
Full disclosure: I did NOT use content-aware fill to remove the car in my photo. :D
-
So I take it that the "street" photographs you have recently shared are the rare ones that you are willing to show and on which you'll stake your reputation as a "street" photographer?
The street photographs I posted were what turned out to be a futile attempt to point Street Showcase back toward the street genre. If you'd like to see a collection of some of the rare ones, check https://luminous-landscape.com/on-street-photography/.
And now, since you're a critic so well-versed in the street genre that you feel qualified to ask that question, let's see some of your street work, Fab.
-
1. I'm not certain what a "puzzle" picture is, never mind if it's street or otherwise;
2. in my own case, I think so. I use a lot of surround just in order to focus on the spirit of the thing that attracted me in the first place. In essence, it's an attempt, that framing, to contextualise yet, by making said frame less clear, accentuate a part of that whole.
1. An example of a puzzle picture would be symbolism. When it's scratching street i suppose one could say the ambiguity is not congruent in puzzle images, generally turning them into puzzling images. The distinguishing factor in images of the masters of the genre, seems to be that they managed to capture congruent storytelling ambiguity.
2. If it is necessary to draw an atmosphere, like "busy city", it's fine to have several tangential non-specific elements: cars driving, people walking, etc... But if you're trying to convey a specific message in an image with few elements, it seems a bit callous to include a dominant element as tangential.
-
So I take it that the "street" photographs you have recently shared are the rare ones that you are willing to show and on which you'll stake your reputation as a "street" photographer?
Hi Fab, I should add that I just flipped through all 196 of your LuLa posts and I saw one quite good picture of a redwood grove and one commercial-style picture of two cameras. That's all. If you decide to become a believable critic of the street genre or any other genre you might want to get out and shoot some pictures. Any pictures.
-
Hi Fab, I should add that I just flipped through all 196 of your LuLa posts and I saw one quite good picture of a redwood grove and one commercial-style picture of two cameras. That's all. If you decide to become a believable critic of the street genre or any other genre you might want to get out and shoot some pictures. Any pictures.
Agreed. It is easy to criticise but not easy to produce the goods. :-\
-
Agreed. It is easy to criticise but not easy to produce the goods. :-\
Reminds me of the case of the single, iconic shot of a part of a fence. A part of LuLa legend, now.
;-)
-
Reminds me of the case of the single, iconic shot of a part of a fence. A part of LuLa legend, now.
;-)
Dearly Departed Isacc.
-
Hi Fab, I should add that I just flipped through all 196 of your LuLa posts and I saw one quite good picture of a redwood grove and one commercial-style picture of two cameras. That's all. If you decide to become a believable critic of the street genre or any other genre you might want to get out and shoot some pictures. Any pictures.
I have a website: www.ambientlightcollection.com. I don't shoot street. Doesn't mean I don't know anything about street, just that I don't practice it. I don't remember taking a commercial style picture of two cameras. I think the only image I have posted is the recent one of the redwood grove. It is one in a series I am working on in platinum/palladium.
-
I have a website: www.ambientlightcollection.com...
Hi Franklin,
I like your presentation style on the website. Highlights a body of work, rather than individual image.
-
Both are fair questions, Oscar.
To #1 I’d have to answer: “Maybe, but not very powerful exponents.” The really great exponents of street are poems that strike your heart with life’s experiences. You can’t just go out for an afternoon and come back with a camera full of good street. As I said in “On Street Photography,” “. . .even when you get good at street photography, you’ll shoot bags and bags of bloopers, a smaller number of not too bad shots, and the rare picture you should be willing to show. Beyond that, there’s the kind of picture upon which you’d be willing to hang your reputation. If you can average one of those a year you’re getting pretty good.”
To #2 I’d say: “Depends on the photographer.” There’s the guy who bangs away, hoping to find something in there he can isolate in Photoshop and pretend was a well-grabbed shot. I see plenty of pictures – even on LuLa -- that clearly express the confusion of the photographer.
Another question:
Did The Masters of the Genre also work in this way, shooting bags and bags of bloppers to get something worthwhile, or is this more an offshoot of modern technology? I simply can't imagine working in this way or even wanting to. I make an exposure if and when I'm as certain as can be there's an image there of which I'd be proud, proud to share and proud to publish. This is much as I did when shooting film and continue to do so to this day.
A genuine question, not any sort of dig.
-
Winogrand is said to have left thousands exposed, but undeveloped frames (or is it rolls?). A prolific shooter, apparently. Similar with Vivian Maier.
-
I like your presentation style on the website. Highlights a body of work, rather than individual image.
Thank you. I work on a project by project basis. I don't find a portfolio of happy accidents very fulfilling.
-
Winogrand is said to have left thousands exposed, but undeveloped frames (or is it rolls?). A prolific shooter, apparently. Similar with Vivian Maier.
If you press that button often enough you're almost bound to get lucky.
;-)
-
If you press that button often enough you're almost bound to get lucky.
;-)
I've seen photographers use highest frames-per-second bursts for every shot they take! No click ... click. It's brrrrp, brrrrp, brrrrp. Even on a landscape. I can't imagine it. The first time I used a DSLR I was so used to film (and expense-averse) that I walked for 4 hours and took only 4, very deliberate frames. :D Now I take a fair number, but only about half of what my photo-friends take.
-
The street photographs I posted were what turned out to be a futile attempt to point Street Showcase back toward the street genre. If you'd like to see a collection of some of the rare ones, check https://luminous-landscape.com/on-street-photography/.
And now, since you're a critic so well-versed in the street genre that you feel qualified to ask that question, let's see some of your street work, Fab.
Some fine images there Russ.
I have a website: www.ambientlightcollection.com. I don't shoot street. Doesn't mean I don't know anything about street, just that I don't practice it. I don't remember taking a commercial style picture of two cameras. I think the only image I have posted is the recent one of the redwood grove. It is one in a series I am working on in platinum/palladium.
Some fine images there Franklin.
It's a draw.
;-)
-
Another question:
Did The Masters of the Genre also work in this way, shooting bags and bags of bloppers to get something worthwhile, or is this more an offshoot of modern technology? I simply can't imagine working in this way or even wanting to. I make an exposure if and when I'm as certain as can be there's an image there of which I'd be proud, proud to share and proud to publish. This is much as I did when shooting film and continue to do so to this day.
A genuine question, not any sort of dig.
And a very relevant question at that.
There have been contact sheets published of HC-B's oeuvre, and I think that he was as unsure as anybody else today. The difference, I think, might be that he wasn't so much doing street as documentary: he had focus and magazine/agency direction for what he hunted a la sauvette. (My iPad refuses to provide accents by holding down the letter: they appear, but vanish the moment I try to touch them!)
Just walking in the street without focus makes anything photographic difficult except for my current amusement, which is simply reaction to what tickles the fancy.
As HC-B's published contacts prove, there were many decisive moments following one closely upon the other; some genuine decisive moments, you might think, which makes me believe that everybody can play with hype if they want to for some reason.
My digital shooting rate is far lower than my working one; it was normal to shoot a 36 exp. cassette for one shot, much of it build-up. Today, it's mostly a click per subject. I'm inclined to be both as unwilling to spend much time splitting hairs in PS as I am to indulge my own second opinions. That's one area where I think Eggleston gets it right. Of course, that's if I don't think I may be dealing with that rare thing, a series. I took the camera along this afternoon for my second wander of the day, and probably shot five frames. No gales or rain today, but I managed to use sunshine - I think.
-
And a very relevant question at that.
. (My iPad refuses to provide accents by holding down the letter: they appear, but vanish the moment I try to touch them!)
Don’t lift your finger but swipe to the accent character and then lift off your finger.
-
I've seen photographers use highest frames-per-second bursts for every shot they take! No click ... click. It's brrrrp, brrrrp, brrrrp. Even on a landscape. I can't imagine it. The first time I used a DSLR I was so used to film (and expense-averse) that I walked for 4 hours and took only 4, very deliberate frames. :D Now I take a fair number, but only about half of what my photo-friends take.
I work like that, even largely on paid gigs. It's odd, I concede, especially for a fine art/landscape and architecture guy, but I'm not "spraying and praying," rather I shoot very loose, so in any series of, say 10, each one will be altered by a degree or three, or have a range of apertures and so forth. I'm looking for blending frames, maybe, or I'm looking to include (or exclude) certain features at the edge o the frame, or working with the object of focus around third-lines (though I'm more apt to work on golden ratio lines a little closer to center) or blah blah blah. You get the idea :)
-
Another question:
Did The Masters of the Genre also work in this way, shooting bags and bags of bloppers to get something worthwhile, or is this more an offshoot of modern technology? I simply can't imagine working in this way or even wanting to. I make an exposure if and when I'm as certain as can be there's an image there of which I'd be proud, proud to share and proud to publish. This is much as I did when shooting film and continue to do so to this day.
A genuine question, not any sort of dig.
Hi Keith, The problem isn't high-speed shooting. The problem is to try to get what everybody thinks HCB meant by "the decisive moment." I know you don't shoot street. What you shoot is what Rob accurately called "travel atmospherics." More often than not you get exactly what you're after. When I'm not shooting street, I get the same level of successful results. But if you're trying to shoot street, you're more often than not going to miss the decisive moment. The point is that you're looking for a revealing expression, or an implied movement of one subject toward another, or something to make the picture telling in a human way. More often that not you miss that, the situation dissolves as you press the shutter button, and though you may have what somebody else might consider a technically fine picture, it's not what you were after because it's not good street. It's not a poem. A lot of people seem to think that a couple guys standing on a street, looking mean, is street photography. It's not, though you may disagree.
This is a genuine statement of what I see as the facts. It's not a dig. I have a very high regard for your technically fabulous, beautifully framed pictures, but it's a different kind of photography than what I (used to, when I could) set out to do.
A good example of what I'm talking about is HCB's "The Lock at Bougival" (http://www.artnet.com/artists/henri-cartier-bresson/lock-at-bougival-france-rIFGWh9Mcj0fXepFl6Z9iA2) Had the grandmother moved, or the dog on the right looked at the photographer, or. . . any number of things gone wrong it wouldn't have been the incredible piece of work it is.
-
Here's another example of why you miss so many pictures when you're shooting street. I was walking down the street in Manitou Springs. This kid was walking toward the corner and the fountain with his dad. Suddenly he stopped, looked up at the fountain and did this. Count to three in thousands: one thousand and one, one thousand and two, one thousand and three. . . That's how long I had to raise my D3 and make this shot. I was incredibly lucky.
Now, had the kid merely been standing there looking up at the fountain it wouldn't have been a bad shot. He's a good looking kid, and it's a sort of interesting situation. But he's little. The whole world is new and exciting, and that's what I caught in this picture. If I'd missed this expression I'd probably have kept the picture, but it wouldn't be one I'd show.
That's why real street shooting gives you so many bloopers.
-
Hi Russ, thanks for your answer.
I have no problem accepting that what you do requires a different way of shooting, a different mindset. It's a process and way of shooting that wouldn't suit but I certainly admire the Masters of the genre.
And don't worry it didn't so much as cross my mind that you were having a dig.
Thanks again.
-
BTW, I've never felt comfortable pigeonholing others or being pigeonholed myself, but if others feel comforted by so doing then WTF, go for it.
;-)
-
I agree, Keith. But I don't think talking about genre is pigeonholing. Take St. Ansel. He's known as one of the all-time prime landscape photographers, but a couple of his people pictures are very, very good. My all-time favorite by Ansel is "Moonrise, Hernandez," which isn't really landscape. It's a picture about a tiny New Mexico town with a graveyard whose crosses flash in the setting sun. So the only pigeonhole I can put Ansel into is the "great photographer" pigeonhole, though he certainly was a "landscape" photographer.
-
I believe this is semantics. I'll leave it to those who care.
;-)
-
I work like that, even largely on paid gigs. It's odd, I concede, especially for a fine art/landscape and architecture guy, but I'm not "spraying and praying," rather I shoot very loose, so in any series of, say 10, each one will be altered by a degree or three, or have a range of apertures and so forth. I'm looking for blending frames, maybe, or I'm looking to include (or exclude) certain features at the edge o the frame, or working with the object of focus around third-lines (though I'm more apt to work on golden ratio lines a little closer to center) or blah blah blah. You get the idea :)
Well, I admit that I bracket in certain circumstances (macro with apertures for best DOF, shutter speed with motion for best blur, etc.). But I don't think I've ever had my camera out of single-shot mode. :)
-
Don’t lift your finger but swipe to the accent character and then lift off your finger.
Thanks for the tip. I shall try that next time I have cause to use an accent!
Rob