Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Chairman Bill on August 13, 2015, 08:40:52 am
-
Simple question. So do these qualify? Are they any good from a 'street' perspective?
-
They are photographs taken in a street so yes they do qualify :)
I like the first one best because the guy's gaze leads you to the 'punchline' of the dog in the buggy. The third one I sort of like with the one face with features amongst the 'blank' others - it could maybe improved by pulling back and having a passerby being 'looked at' (maybe too cliché?). For the second one there is nothing to grab my interest.
Basically street is no different to any other genre when it comes to grabbing interest - work out what the point of interest is and/or what 'story' (Jeez, I hate that word!) is the picture telling.
-
Qualify? That's a odd word to use.
"Are they any good from a 'street' perspective?' Goodness is entirely subjective.
Do you think it "qualifies"? Then it does.
Do you think they are good? Then they are.
-
I like photographs of urban scenes when they make me laugh or chuckle (which can be for a wide variety of reasons).
#1 and especially #3 do that, that scared gaze of the mannequin is just priceless, I imagine the person who did this (the decorator/designer/whoever) having a laugh too everytime he or she passes his/her 'work'.
Must say you framed #3 well, obscuring yourself from the reflection kind of, I'm guessing the image would've worked much less had you been clearly visible.
Cheers, Sander
PS, to answer your question "Yes" but there is no 'Street Thing' really I think, just good and bad pictures ;D
-
They are photographs taken in a street so yes they do qualify :)
I like the first one best because the guy's gaze leads you to the 'punchline' of the dog in the buggy. The third one I sort of like with the one face with features amongst the 'blank' others - it could maybe improved by pulling back and having a passerby being 'looked at' (maybe too cliché?). For the second one there is nothing to grab my interest.
Basically street is no different to any other genre when it comes to grabbing interest - work out what the point of interest is and/or what 'story' (Jeez, I hate that word!) is the picture telling.
+1.
I came to the same conclusions before I read Spidermike's post. The first one succeeds for me. The two heads turned in opposite directions helps, and at first glance I thought the guy was wondering "where did my baby go?" since the stroller looked empty. Then I saw the pooch, which cemented the "story" (Sorry, Mike.)
The second and third are weaker ("story-wise") but the third has potential, as Mike pointed out.
-
Simple question. So do these qualify? Are they any good from a 'street' perspective?
To answer your simple question, Bill: "No." Don't misunderstand what I'm saying. You're moving in the right direction, but the ambiguity essential to good street simply isn't there. Street photography isn't the same thing as simple reportage.
Rather than beat the point to death, here's a reference to an article I wrote on the subject several years ago. It says what I'm trying to say, but in more detail: http://www.russ-lewis.com/essays/OnStreetPhotography.html
Then, there's a further elaboration I did a bit later on: http://www.russ-lewis.com/essays/WhyDoStreetPhotography.html
-
Thanks for that Russ. The two papers are worth the read, and I had thought that I'd maybe got something of the ambiguity/containing a story thing in those photos.
The watcher at the window for instance: Are the couple with their backs to us, looking at the window, or across the street? Is there really someone at the window, or is it the light, or are those white spots the eyes of some spectral apparition (they're not, 'cos spectres don't exist, but ...). I thought that was ambiguity.
The sleeping dog: Whose dog is it? Should it be there? Did it just find a nice, cosy spot? Is the young man looking at it, thinking 'Aw, cute', or is he about to tell it to get out? Yeah, a bit weak I suppose. It was really just about the man looking at the dog - that interaction.
The shop window: Well, no people, but amid the symmetry of the mainly faceless/headless, partially dismembered mannequins, there's the little girl. She's also a mannequin, but looks more alive, because she's got eyes, and because of her juxtapositioning amongst the clearly not-alive figures. There's a slightly nightmarishness about it, hence the title. I'm sure there's a story there somewhere, but maybe it needs Stephen King to tell it.
-
I missed the dog in the first one. Yes. I'd call it good street.
I sometimes tend to become too doctrinaire when I'm talking about street, which is my favorite thing (which, with our moving preparations, etc., I haven't been able to practice for some time now). And there's certainly an element of street in all three of these pictures -- meaning it's obvious you were after something more than simple reportage, the kind of stuff I call tourist photography. It always gives me a lift to see a photographer move toward street photography. It's difficult stuff, but truly satisfying.
-
The first photo is great. I like the way it comes together--technique, setting, peeps and pooch. The second two don't seem to catch my eye, whereas the first one is fun to look at again and again.
-
The first one is good street - the other two are more reportage/documentary. Overall, I'd say you're moving in the right direction. 'Street' is a very difficult genre to master - believe me, I've been trying for years! Keep it up anyway - when it works, it's a real rush. The problem is you'll be the last one to know whether it works or not!
-
Hey Bill, Russ has such a narrow view of what is street photography that two of the greatest street photographers would not be included. I prefer the In-Public (http://www.in-public.com) definition of street photography.
In-Public was set up in 2000 to provide a home for Street Photographers.
Our aim is to promote Street Photography and to continue to explore its possibilities, we are a non commercial collective. All the photographers featured here have been invited to show their work because they have the ability to see the unusual in the everyday and to capture the moment. The pictures remind us that, if we let it, over-familiarity can make us blind to what’s really going on in the world around us.
Elliot Erwitt was all about the "the ability to see the unusual".
Henri Cartier-Bresson was all about "the captured moment".
Two great street photographers, according to Russ' definition not so.
Cheers,
-
Elliot Erwitt was all about the "the ability to see the unusual".
Henri Cartier-Bresson was all about "the captured moment".
Two great street photographers, according to Russ's definition not so.
Cheers,
Hi Tom, You lost me somewhere down the line. Are you saying that HCB and Erwitt aren't great photographers? If so, that's a rather remarkable statement.
-
Hi Tom, You lost me somewhere down the line. Are you saying that HCB and Erwitt aren't great photographers? If so, that's a rather remarkable statement.
Russ, you keep harping on about ambiguity, Erwitt and Henri Cartier-Bresson are great street photographers but I wouldn't say that ambiguity features in any way in their photography.
Cheers,
-
Russ, you keep harping on about ambiguity, Erwitt an Henri Cartier-Bresson are great street photographers but I wouldn't say that ambiguity features in any way in their photography.
Cheers,
That's a really remarkable statement. Maybe you need to look at more of their photography. What's your take on "Behind the Gare St. Lazare?"
Let's try something else. Is there any ambiguity in this picture?
Well, heck. I was going to comment on Slobodan's comment, but I guess he realized he was off base.
-
Russ, show me the predominate ambiguity in Elliot's or Henri's photographs. I see "they have the ability to see the unusual in the everyday and to capture the moment".
Please don't harp on about ambiguity or you will ignore all the great street photographers.
Cheers,
-
You didn't answer my question.
"Capturing the moment" isn't what street is all about. Capturing the moment is what photojournalism is all about.
-
"In-Public was set up in 2000 to provide a home for Street Photographers.
Our aim is to promote Street Photography and to continue to explore its possibilities, we are a non commercial collective. All the photographers featured here have been invited to show their work because they have the ability to see the unusual in the everyday and to capture the moment. The pictures remind us that, if we let it, over-familiarity can make us blind to what’s really going on in the world around us."
This isn't my statement, it is a quote from the in-Public (http://www.in-public.com/) home page. Obviously most of our leading street photographers are idiots.
Cheers,
-
You didn't answer my question.
"Capturing the moment" isn't what street is all about. Capturing the moment is what photojournalism is all about.
So I'm guessing HCB is not a great street photographer given that he titled his book 'The Decisive Moment'.
Or am I missing something?
-
Bill, Russ gave you some good advice. I am still trying to figure out what is "good street" :)
-
Bill, Russ gave you some good advice. I am still trying to figure out what is "good street" :)
I think Russ' article is a good guide for one element that makes a good street photo - whether you should use that to define what street photography is is a different matter.
-
I think Russ' article is a good guide for one element that makes a good street photo - whether you should use that to define what street photography is is a different matter.
I think that is the cogent point. There are more elements in Street Photography to be considered.
Trying to finitely define street photography is like trying to define art -- you can't and you shouldn't. ;)
-
So I'm guessing HCB is not a great street photographer given that he titled his book 'The Decisive Moment'.
Or am I missing something?
What you and most other people who read that title are missing is the fact that to HCB the decisive moment had to do with the photographer, not the scene.
-
I think that is the cogent point. There are more elements in Street Photography to be considered.
Trying to finitely define street photography is like trying to define art -- you can't and you shouldn't. ;)
Right, Otto. Those articles don't really try to define it. They do have some things to say about what street isn't. I said, "Often there's an element of mystery in the story, and unless the picture makes you think, it's not much of a street photograph." I stand by that statement.
-
"In-Public was set up in 2000 to provide a home for Street Photographers.
Our aim is to promote Street Photography and to continue to explore its possibilities, we are a non commercial collective. All the photographers featured here have been invited to show their work because they have the ability to see the unusual in the everyday and to capture the moment. The pictures remind us that, if we let it, over-familiarity can make us blind to what’s really going on in the world around us."
This isn't my statement, it is a quote from the in-Public (http://www.in-public.com/) home page. Obviously most of our leading street photographers are idiots.
Cheers,
If you do successful street photography you'll realize that street photographers don't need a "home." There's nothing more independent than a street photographer. There are several "homes" for street photographers out there, and most of them wouldn't recognize a street photographer if he walked through the door (which he wouldn't).
You still didn't answer my question about the picture I posted, or about the "Gare."
-
unless the picture makes you think, it's not much of a street photograph." I stand by that statement.
I agree completely. I find that a good street photo gives me a flavour of what life is like in the context of a scene and to get the most of that you have to be an 'active viewer' and engage with the picture.
-
"You still didn't answer my question about the picture I posted".
Russ, you have posted this picture before and if you think that it represents good street photography then… It's indoors, it's a boring image and ambiguity, what has pointing got to do with ambiguity? This image is a good a good example of what "capturing the moment is what photojournalism is all about".
"If you do successful street photography you'll realize that street photographers don't need a home."
Obviously some of the best contemporary street photographers disagree with you!
Cheers,
-
"It's indoors. . .
If the picture doesn't involve a street it's not street photography? Wow!
Obviously some of the best contemporary street photographers disagree with you!
"Best" by whose standards? Name some of these "best" contemporary street photographers.
And Tom, you still haven't answered my question about "Behind the Gare St. Lazare." Do you think this is good street? If so, why? If not, why?
-
Qué , behind the Gare St. Lazare is a great image, by your definition it is not a street photograph but it is photojournalism. HCB was a great photojournalist and a great street photographer, it is hard to to split the two.
Looking on your website around 50% of your street photographs are taken indoors, I much prefer In-Public's images and definition of street photography than your narrow definition of it.
Cheers,
-
Hi Tom,
What, in my definition of street excludes "Gare?" I can't wait to hear your answer.
Regarding the difference between street and journalism: sometimes it's hard to split the two, but as far as I'm concerned the difference is closure. A really good photojournalistic shot gives you answers -- closure. Answers at least pretend to be the objectives of journalism (whether or not the answers are correct, which often they aren't). But a really good street shot leaves you with unanswered questions. That's where ambiguity comes into the picture (to coin a phrase). That's also why the grab shot in a photojournalistic spread often can qualify as street. The objective is to get your attention and make you ask enough questions to read the article and look at the supporting, qualifying pictures.
From what you're saying I gather that according to In-Public's definition of street photography, as long as the picture includes a street and doesn't include Half Dome it's a street shot.
-
Hey Bill, Russ has such a narrow view of what is street photography that two of the greatest street photographers would not be included. I prefer the In-Public (http://www.in-public.com) definition of street photography.
Although it is helpful to be reminded that - It ain't what Russ call's Street Photography - has no significance beyond the LuLa User Critiques forum, please remember that Russ is right because Russ says he's right - reason is futile.
"Hardening of the categories leads to Art disease." Harry Holtzman
-
Hi Isaac,
Considering that you've never posted a street shot it probably will be hard for people reading this thread to believe you have the background to make a valid analysis. Shouts from the bleachers aren't really as effective as the deliberations of the players.
-
Here's another one for Tom. Is this a street shot, Tom? There's a street back there.
-
What you and most other people who read that title are missing is the fact that to HCB the decisive moment had to do with the photographer, not the scene.
When did Cartier-Bresson tell you?
-
I think It was about 1948. I was eighteen. He came up to me at an exhibition and told me that.
BS aside, Isaac, I know you've done a lot of reading about HCB but I suspect you've missed Henri Cartier-Bresson and the Artless Art by Jean-Pierre Montier. I think that was where he made the point clear. You gotta remember that the book didn't start out as The Decisive Moment. It was Images a la Sauvette, which translates roughly as "images on the run." What Henri meant by the decisive moment was the moment when the photographer made his decision -- when he was ready.
-
… but I suspect you've missed Henri Cartier-Bresson and the Artless Art by Jean-Pierre Montier. I think that was where he made the point clear.
Unfortunately you don't seem to actually know why you believe - "What Henri meant by the decisive moment was the moment when the photographer made his decision".
Maybe you saw something in Montier's book which gave you that impression, maybe it was something else, maybe you're just wrong.
You suspect I missed Henri Cartier-Bresson and the Artless Art and you're just wrong.
-
Oh, golly.
-
An interesting read.
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/technique/interviews/challenging-the-rules-of-street-photography-58163
-
From Garry Winogrand to Saul Leiter...the art of street photography is highly diverse...as diverse and varied as the people it depicts. As a result it is almost impossible to give a strict street photography definition. Instead the common elements we all recognise help define it. Street photography is about showing us in two ways. It shows us as human in a collective. It shows us as individual, unique. The tension between these is the interest. Lastly, they are drawn together by the environment, the man-made context.
-
So, number one is a street (of sorts), but isn't street
Number two is a street, and a gay street at that, but not really street
Numbers three & four might count as street, but might be just photojournalism or tourist
-
Bill, I like the first three. Don't think much of #4. If the two guys camera left were interacting with the vendor, camera right, it might be something. As it is there's not enough of the building to make it interesting, like #3, and it's just some people on a street. A tourist shot.
#3, is a damn good street shot. The woman's presence is mysterious (ambiguity!). The massive cathedral behind her overwhelms her, and the way her legs are splayed makes her seem vulnerable; even pathetic. You can't look at this picture without questions popping up in your mind. Why is she there? Why is she hunkered down in front of the cathedral? What's she doing with her hands? Is she okay? . . .
#2 is interesting architectural stuff, but the people on the street are swallowed up and insignificant. Another tourist shot, but a good one because of the architecture.
#1 needs a hobo and a cat to become a street shot. If you're familiar with Cartier-Bresson's work you'll understand my reference. I'm sure Isaac will pick up on it right away.
You're taking an interesting approach. Most street shooters move in close. It's hard to do until you get used to it, but it can pay off big time. I'm sure Seamus would agree. You're doing some interesting stuff. It's a lot more scary than flowers or birds or landscape or still life, but it's what the small camera really is for.
I don't think most people starting to do street realize how few of their shots are going to be worth keeping. There's no way around it. Even with the camera in your hand, zone-focussed for the area you know you're going to work in, far too often when you raise the camera, the scene in front of you dissolves before you can trip the shutter. Then there are just plain bloopers where you thought you had something but it turns out to be crap. People look at the work of a street shooter and think that the guy just walks down the street shooting one keeper after another. If there's one exposure in a thousand you'd be willing to hang your reputation on, you're doing really well.
Keep shooting.
-
Number four was taken for a particular reason the juxtapositioning of the Big Issue seller (homeless bloke, selling a magazine designed to give homeless people a job), outside a bank, that was bailed out by the tax-payer when it went belly-up in the financial crash. Those people walking by, contributed to the bailing out of the bank, and paying bonuses to bankers, whilst the homeless guy has to hope they buy a magazine, so he can keep some of the money raised by doing so. So not a tourist shot, more a political statement shot.
-
"From what you're saying I gather that according to In-Public's definition of street photography, as long as the picture includes a street and doesn't include Half Dome it's a street shot."
Russ, have you visited the site, it has some great street photography.
In-Public (http://www.in-public.com/).
http://www.in-public.com/photographers (http://www.in-public.com/photographers) Check out Trent Parke if you want to see some great contemporary street photography.
Cheers,
-
Yes, I've been there and there's some very good stuff there. There's also some pretty bad stuff there. I didn't think In-Public was saying that. I thought you were saying that.
Yes, In-Public has some very good work.
-
"Yes, I've been there and there's some very good stuff there. There's also some pretty bad stuff there."
The sad fact of life is the older you get, the harder it is to find things that excite you.
The other thing that I have really noticed is the role of the curator. Who picks the photos you see is just as important as what the photographer took. I saw an exhibition of August Sander's photography at the ACP in the 70's and I found it very boring.
Twenty something years later I picked up a book of his photography. Seeing a much broader range of his images made me really respect him as a photographer.
Cheers,
-
Thinking about the role of the curator brought to mind how similar the role of the photographer is.
Several years ago I went to a Primary School to do a photo shoot of children reproducing Andy Goldsworthy (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=andy+goldsworthy+photographer&espv=2&biw=1093&bih=467&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMIx8K1ivWsxwIVIS2mCh13ogqp) style artworks. I got some great photos and the project was a success. However, at the end of the project the children destroyed most of the artwork that they had made. "Art" is in the eye of the beholder.
Cheers,
-
Number four was taken for a particular reason the juxtapositioning of the Big Issue seller (homeless bloke, selling a magazine designed to give homeless people a job), outside a bank, that was bailed out by the tax-payer when it went belly-up in the financial crash. Those people walking by, contributed to the bailing out of the bank, and paying bonuses to bankers, whilst the homeless guy has to hope they buy a magazine, so he can keep some of the money raised by doing so. So not a tourist shot, more a political statement shot.
I have watched this discussion develop and I will declare now that I don't really care about a definition of street photography although for me it is roughly 'a good well composed photograph that happens to have people in it and is usually is not posed and in a public place'. But I don't really care, it's usually quite obvious if a shot is intended as street or not.
In which case I think #4 the big issue seller fails as the composition - for me anyway - isn't strong enough. If you replace the people with bags of sand does it still work? And I fear if you have to explain it then it hasn't worked - and I definitely needed that explanation!
I have no idea what all this guff about ambiguity is about :)
Mike
-
Quote Russ Reply #39
I don't think most people starting to do street realize how few of their shots are going to be worth keeping. There's no way around it. Even with the camera in your hand, zone-focussed for the area you know you're going to work in, far too often when you raise the camera, the scene in front of you dissolves before you can trip the shutter. Then there are just plain bloopers where you thought you had something but it turns out to be crap. People look at the work of a street shooter and think that the guy just walks down the street shooting one keeper after another. If there's one exposure in a thousand you'd be willing to hang your reputation on, you're doing really well.
unquote
My experience exactly.
-
Totally agree. I have seen good photographers just shed their artistic abilities when shooting street resulting in mediocre shots.
-
Number four was taken for a particular reason the juxtapositioning of the Big Issue seller (homeless bloke, selling a magazine designed to give homeless people a job), outside a bank, that was bailed out by the tax-payer when it went belly-up in the financial crash. Those people walking by, contributed to the bailing out of the bank, and paying bonuses to bankers, whilst the homeless guy has to hope they buy a magazine, so he can keep some of the money raised by doing so. So not a tourist shot, more a political statement shot.
Unfortunately Bill, your connection is tenuous. Taking images of people in the street is the easiest form of photography imo but taking interesting images is the hardest. I see where Russ is coming from with his ambiguity but I also understand other members disdain for it. There isn't an easy definition.
-
There isn't an easy definition.
Amen!
But if you look at most of the stuff that is posted here by Stamper, Seamus, and Russ (or even Russ's pal HCB, who doesn't poste here very often), and just try to make photos that are as interesting (but not copies), then you are doing OK.
Once every couple of years I try my hand at "street" photography of that sort, and all I've learned so far is that it is EXTREMELY difficult to get the nice interactions that these guys get. That may be one of the reasons that my own "street" photography is usually limited to pavement shots with no people present at all.
-
There isn't an easy definition.
Actually, Stamper (Eric too), I don't think there's any complete definition in words, any more than there's a complete definition in words of "Impressionist' style painting. To understand it you have to be familiar with the history of the genre. With street photography I'd even go way out on a limb and say you have to have tried it to understand it. You certainly have to have tried it to understand how difficult it is.
-
Actually, Stamper (Eric too), I don't think there's any complete definition in words, any more than there's a complete definition in words of "Impressionist' style painting. To understand it you have to be familiar with the history of the genre. With street photography I'd even go way out on a limb and say you have to have tried it to understand it. You certainly have to have tried it to understand how difficult it is.
Absolutely.
-
But if you look at most of the stuff that is posted here by Stamper, Seamus, and Russ (or even Russ's pal HCB, who doesn't poste here very often), and just try to make photos that are as interesting (but not copies), then you are doing OK.
Peter (petermfiore) has posted some very nice street work here as well.
-
Absolutely!
-
Peter (petermfiore) has posted some very nice street work here as well.
Yes, indeed. I'm sorry to have neglected to mention him. There are no doubt others I've forgotten.
My brain has a hard time holding more than about three names in it at any one time. Maybe when I'm as old as Russ, I'll be smarter. ;)
-
Unfortunately you don't seem to actually know why you believe - "What Henri meant by the decisive moment was the moment when the photographer made his decision".
Maybe you saw something in Montier's book which gave you that impression, maybe it was something else, maybe you're just wrong.
You suspect I missed Henri Cartier-Bresson and the Artless Art and you're just wrong.
Isaac, just so you don't go to bed out of sorts, check page 156 in Bystander: A History of Street Photography. I finally remembered one place where I read it:
"A la sauvette is a colloquialism roughly equivalent to 'on the run,' but, . . . there is also an untranslatable future element involved. The instant being described is the one when you are just about to take off, the point at which the shortstop is ready to dash in any direction as he watches the batter step into the ball, or when the pickpocket waits for his victim to be distracted so that he can strike. Images a la sauvette is the right title because it characterizes the photographer's actions as well as his subject's -- it looks both out and in."
There's also this in the previous paragraph: "The Decisive Moment is misleading as a translation, for the moment referred to is that just before a decision is made, the moment of anticipation rather than conclusion."
This isn't the only place I've read the equivalent. As time goes on I may remember one or two of the other places. One of them may even be in Montier, but it's been a long time since I read it, and I haven't time to review it.
Hope you sleep better knowing that.
-
So am I correct to understand you are saying it is not the event as such but the photographer instinctively recognising the event for what it is and having an instinct to take it without thinking. That the two - the event and the photographer 'being ready' - are inseparable.
A similar quote (apparently from the man himself) is in the preface to the book
http://fotografiamagazine.com/decisive-moment-henri-cartier-bresson/
Finally, here is another excerpt, found elsewhere in the preface, which most succinctly summarizes Cartier-Bresson’s idea of decisive moment:
To me, photography is the simultaneous recognition, in a fraction of a second, of the significance of an event as well as of a precise organization of forms which give that event its proper expression.
-
I think you summed it up quite well, Mike, but I'm not the one who said it. HCB said it and Colin Westerbrook commented on it in Bystander. And, yes, I've used that quote by HCB many times. You can find the same quotes in his book, The Mind's Eye, which, as I pointed out in my annotated bibliography is very small, very short, and very inexpensive. It's one of my all-time favorites.
But none of this really matters. Who cares what "the decisive moment" means or what the exact translation of "a la sauvette" is? I guess Isaac does, come to think of it, but I don't. The important thing is to understand the action that Henri's describing:
"Sometimes it happens that you stall, delay, wait for something to happen. Sometimes you have the feeling that here are all the makings of a picture – except for just one thing that seems to be missing. But what one thing? Perhaps someone suddenly walks into your range of view. You follow his progress through the viewfinder. You wait and wait, and then finally you press the button – and you depart with the feeling (though you don’t know why) that you’ve really got something."
You can't really understand street photography unless you've done it for a while. I know that Stamper, Seamus, and Peter understand it because I've seen their work. All three of them understand what street photography is because they demonstrate over and over again that they can do it. To people who haven't done it, it's an abstraction, and I'll go way out on another limb and say that they don't really understand it. It's like flying. You can have all sorts of theories about it but unless you've done it you have no idea what it's like.
-
I remember one sports photographer saying 'if you see it in the viewfinder you have missed it' which comes to just knowing when the moment is right - maybe a lame analogy but I could live with it.
And my absurdity gremlin has just started niggling at me with 'But what about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle...' :o
-
Good point, but Heisenberg was talking about physics. I think that in photography you can take into account position and speed if you're paying attention and the camera's in your hand.
-
I finally remembered one place where I read it…
That isn't Cartier-Bresson telling you, that's Colin Westerbrook telling you his understanding of Cartier-Bresson's writing.
What Henri meant by the decisive moment was the moment when the photographer made his decision -- when he was ready.
So whenever the photographer makes his decision is a Cartier-Bresson "instant décisif" ?
So until the photographer is ready there can be no "instant décisif" ?
In the frame "there is one moment at which the elements in motion are in balance" -- ready or not.
-
Isaac, your arguments are so weak I'm not going to bother to answer them. Bottom line, as I said in another post, what difference does it make? You've never done street photography so you really haven't a clue. You do occasionally find some interesting pictures.
-
Isaac, your arguments are so weak I'm not going to bother to answer them.
That's hilarious.
-
Laughter always helps.
-
You've never done street photography so you really haven't a clue.
Just wondering how you know that Issac has never done street photography?
-
I think he is trying to "provoke" Isaac to produce some "credentials" to back up his undoubted book knowledge. Theory & practise are two different things.
-
If Isaac had done ANY photography he'd have posted it on LuLa by now to make some of his points. He hasn't. He claims to be an expert on several genres, including street, but I know of no case where he's backed up one of his claims with an example. I have to qualify that statement by saying I've only been on LuLa for six and a half years. During that time I've never seen Isaac post a picture. It's possible he posted something before I got here.
But having said that, don't you think it's strange Isaac doesn't want at least to try to back up some of his outlandish claims?
-
He has posted an image that Slobodan managed to find. Ironically it was a fence post. Possibly didn't realise that an image could be posted without a fence post in it. Isaac before you get your knickers in a twist it is a humorous statement that I hope you will respond graciously to? :)
-
If Isaac had done ANY photography he'd have posted it on LuLa by now to make some of his points. He hasn't. He claims to be an expert on several genres, including street, but I know of no case where he's backed up one of his claims with an example. I have to qualify that statement by saying I've only been on LuLa for six and a half years. During that time I've never seen Isaac post a picture. It's possible he posted something before I got here.
But having said that, don't you think it's strange Isaac doesn't want at least to try to back up some of his outlandish claims?
Out of interest, how will him posting an image validate his ideas on what constitutes 'street' photography?
-
You can't be serious, Mike?
-
He has posted an image that Slobodan managed to find. Ironically it was a fence post. Possibly didn't realise that an image could be posted without a fence post in it. Isaac before you get your knickers in a twist it is a humorous statement that I hope you will respond graciously to? :)
Interesting. I didn't check Isaac's history before I said what I said. Turns out he's been on here just a bit more than half the time I've been on here, so I'm surprised I didn't see the fence post. Knowing this, in the future I'll pay close attention to what Isaac has to say about the fence photography genre.
-
If Isaac had done ANY photography he'd have posted it on LuLa by now to make some of his points.
I am confident that a moment's reflection will show how illogical this position is.
Just because someone chooses not to post photographs on a form does not indicate any experience.
I am sure I am not the only one who chooses not to post photographs on this site. I would opine that the majority of the members of this forum don't post photographs here.... including members with considerable experience.
Evaluating an argument on whether someone chooses to post a photograph on this form is sophistry.
-
You can't be serious, Mike?
I am. It is why I asked the question.
If he posted what he called a 'street' photograph how would that validate his ability to define someone else's picture as 'street' photography? If he posts what you say is a great street photograph would that affect your own definition of street photography? If he posts what you think a poor street photograph it would have no bearing on your definition. In other words his output is irrelevant to what is really an academic discussion.
I am not defending Isaac at all, just wanting to understand your reasoning and why seeing an image of his is so important.
-
It's pretty obvious Isaac does extensive reading on photography, and if he wants to discuss, say, the virtues or lack thereof of a particular photograph relative to some other photograph, we may disagree, (and more often than not do) but at least he has a valid basis for his arguments. But when he tries to discuss technique he's way out of his depth unless he can demonstrate he knows something about the technique.
Re Otto, you can choose not to post photographs on a photo forum. It's a free internet (until the UN takes over). But if you discuss technique it reasonably makes other readers question your knowledge of the subject.
-
But when he tries to discuss technique he's way out of his depth unless he can demonstrate he knows something about the technique.
We are not talking about technique. We are talking about categorisation - I could post an image that matches your definition of street photography perfectly but it doesn't mean I agree with your definition, nor you with mine. And you don't strike me as someone whose thoughts are so whimsical that you would change your mind simply because someone has a certain level of knowledge.
If you are talking about technique, I am pretty crap at decorating my house but that does not mean I can't recognise a good job when I have paid someone to do it. However, were I to advise someone on how to get the best paint job then my statement would be supported by me showing I know what I am on about.
-
Credentials. If someone states they know something about a certain thing and criticises someone else's efforts then showing their "credentials" you will respect their opinion. If you go for a job interview then you won't be believed unless you show your CV. To be blunt there are a lot of armchair snipers on the internet who like to snipe and they haven't a clue what they are talking about.
-
You guys can't be serious. It surely makes all the difference in the world if you have experience in the matters you pontificate about. It adds (or detracts) credibility to your words. Who would you rather be operated by: a surgeon with thousands of successful operations or someone who read a lot of textbooks on surgery? As the old adage goes, have you ever seen a monument erected to a critic? This is not to say there is no room for critics, bibliophiles, bookworms, arm-chair philosophers, etc., or that they can't be occasionally correct. Or even most of the time correct - just like a broken watch is infinitely more precise than the most sophisticated working one; it is just a different level, different world.
-
Credentials. If someone states they know something about a certain thing and criticises someone else's efforts then showing their "credentials" you will respect their opinion. If you go for a job interview then you won't be believed unless you show your CV. To be blunt there are a lot of armchair snipers on the internet who like to snipe and they haven't a clue what they are talking about.
The thing with photography is that so much of it is personal opinion. Whether a photograph 'works' is a personal opinion as is a summation of the elements that make it work and the ones that stop it becoming great.
I could if I so chose illustrate my comments with a photo that does work and whether the photo is mine or someone else's would be irrelevant. My POV would stand or fall depending on the quality of the argument including the illustrating image. Now if I was talking about how to take certain studio shot then showing my own work would be far more important.
Similarly with the discussion about 'street'. I take a picture and call it street photograph. You call it documentary. The category we place on it is an opinion and says little to nothing about my technical expertise or the qualities of the photograph.
I don't need to be able to paint to be able to recognise some pieces as being impressionist piece of work. Or to be a potter to recognise some pieces as being art nouveau or art deco. I am pretty sure that many respected film critics have never even taken a home video let alone made a movie but that does not stop there being some highly respected film critics out there (yes I now there are far more film critics who are a waste of space but they don't negate my point).
Suppose I cynically post a crap street photo so what does that prove other than I can take crap photos.
-
We are not talking about technique.
If we're talking about what "A la sauvette" means, we're talking about technique. If you haven't done street photography you really haven't a clue about the feelings, the tradeoffs, the approches involved that are pretty much summed up in the full meaning of that phrase.
To top it off, when Isaac said, "That isn't Cartier-Bresson telling you, that's Colin Westerbrook telling you his understanding of Cartier-Bresson's writing," he was wrong and, since he's an extensive reader, he knew he was wrong. What Colin was doing was describing what a fluent and intelligent Frenchman explained to him about the phrase "A la sauvette." The salient point was that that's what Henri chose to call his book, and when he made that choice he was talking about the mindset of the photographer. If Isaac actually had done some street photography he'd know in his bones that "A la sauvette" was the right title.
-
... I am sure I am not the only one who chooses not to post photographs on this site. I would opine that the majority of the members of this forum don't post photographs here.... including members with considerable experience...
Which is why posts by such members only get a glance, at least by me ;)
-
Interesting. I didn't check Isaac's history before I said what I said. Turns out he's been on here just a bit more than half the time I've been on here, so I'm surprised I didn't see the fence post. Knowing this, in the future I'll pay close attention to what Isaac has to say about the fence photography genre.
Yes, that fence post post was quite memorable, if I remember correctly... ;)
-
Well, next time Isaac talks about the technique of fence post photography I'll pay close attention. ::)
-
If Isaac had done ANY photography he'd have posted it on LuLa by now…
You have said that before and been told photographs have been posted.
He claims to be an expert on several genres…
You have said that before and been told that no such claims have been made.
During that time I've never seen Isaac post a picture.
You have said that before and been told that your comment is there for all to see in a 2012 discussion of photos I had posted.
In February this year, you commented in that same discussion of photos I had posted -- "Come on, Isaac, you're pretty good at fence posts. Let's see more."
Your continued baseless-accusations will persuade people to disregard whatever you have to say, as at-best unreliable.
-
Looks as if you're sort of running out of insults.
How about a link to the fence post picture. Is there just one? just one post? Just one picture?
-
Evaluating an argument on whether someone chooses to post a photograph on this form is sophistry.
My POV would stand or fall depending on the quality of the argument including the illustrating image.
You may be interested in improving your own understanding by discovering the ways your current understanding is just wrong. You may regard argument as a tool for discovering what seems to be true.
Other people may not be interested in discovering that their understanding is just wrong. Other people may regard argument as a tool for defending their current understanding as The Truth.
For them - show me your photos - becomes a way to evade a conclusion they do not wish to accept.
-
It's pretty obvious Isaac does extensive reading on photography.....
Maybe. Or maybe he just gives good Google.
-
No, you can't get some of the stuff we've been talking about from Google. Isaac knows photographs. He just doesn't know photography.
-
Who would you rather be operated by: a surgeon with thousands of successful operations or someone who read a lot of textbooks on surgery?
Lets use an analogy a bit closer to this issue
Who would you rather be operated by: A surgeon who is active on internet forums or a surgeon who is not active on internet forums?
The point being that it is irrelevant to the decision as choosing to post on internet forums is not associated with experience or skill of the surgeon.
Perhaps I am just too old, but I don't see how posting on the Internets Tubes can establish any credibility.. other than the ability to post on the Internets Tubes. ;D
I evaluate a person's opinion based on the strength of their logical argument (or more often the lack of logic), and the facts they cite, not on the number or type of posts they may have on an internet site.
But that's just me. ;)
-
...But that's just me. ;)
Indeed.
-
But that's just me. ;)
Indeed.
Others have commented on LuLa that they judge based on the quality of the argument.
-
Indeed.
I take a picture of 'street' scene and post it on here. Nay, I post hundreds on here.
How do you know whether I have ever experienced "A la sauvette"? I look at a photo and say 'great timing' (just like 'gare') and I have no idea whether the photographer got it with a single shot because they were 'in the moment' or whether they sat there on the other side of the piazza hammering away the shutter like a cricket on heat and choose the best one (OK, not applicable to 'Gare' even though he did take multiple shots with multiple people and choose the best )?
I take a picture where I can say 'this is a moment that I had 'that feeling' and you reply 'Natch. Rubbish shot (PS it isn't even street photography)'. I am not sure what that proves.
-
... to post on the Internets Tubes...
You got it wrong, it is teletubbies:
-
Indeed.
Others have commented on LuLa that they judge based on the quality of the argument.
Isaac you also fail on that basis.
-
Others have commented on LuLa that they judge based on the quality of the argument.
Kool-Aid drinkers are as old as the mankind.
And how do you judge the "quality" of the argument? We are not talking about facts here, but their interpretation. That's where credibility comes into the picture. Having "skin in the game" is another concept as old as the mankind, where those who do command a greater respect than those sitting on the sidelines, sniping, however correct they might be.
-
I take a picture of 'street' scene and post it on here. Nay, I post hundreds on here.
How do you know whether I have ever experienced "A la sauvette"? I look at a photo and say 'great timing' (just like 'gare') and I have no idea whether the photographer got it with a single shot because they were 'in the moment' or whether they sat there on the other side of the piazza hammering away the shutter like a cricket on heat and choose the best one (OK, not applicable to 'Gare' even though he did take multiple shots with multiple people and choose the best )?
I take a picture where I can say 'this is a moment that I had 'that feeling' and you reply 'Natch. Rubbish shot (PS it isn't even street photography)'. I am not sure what that proves.
Huh!?
-
... Who would you rather be operated by: A surgeon who is active on internet forums or a surgeon who is not active on internet forums?...
You are misusing my analogy. You are talking about two (equally good) surgeons, one posting the other not. My original analogy was questioning whether the guy who read a lot of books on surgery (photography) is a surgeon (photographer) at all.
-
Isaac you also fail on that basis.
Please quote the reasoning that you claim fails and show why you think the reasoning fails.
-
And how do you judge the "quality" of the argument? We are not talking about facts here, but their interpretation.
A lot of different facts and different interpretations have been mentioned in these 5 pages of comment. What particular "interpretation" are you talking about?
-
Please quote the reasoning that you claim fails and show why you think the reasoning fails.
Please rephrase that in reasonable English and I will think about it.
-
...What particular "interpretation" are you talking about?
Not in particular, in general. This thread is too odious to get bogged in its particularities.
-
Not in particular, in general. This thread is too odious to get bogged in its particularities.
In general -- it's all talk.
-
...it's all talk.
In your case ;)
-
In general -- it's all talk.
In your case ;)
Generalities, Teletubies, slap-stick repartee, and other evasions are demonstrably your choice.
-
Please quote the reasoning that you claim fails and show why you think the reasoning fails.
Please rephrase that in reasonable English and I will think about it.
Ye dinnae ken whit it means?
-
Isaac, you need to get off LuLa and go shoot a fence post. That would be a constructive use of your time.
-
Isaac, you need to get off LuLa and go shoot a fence post. That would be a constructive use of your time.
That was offencive, Russ! ;)
-
That was offencive, Russ! ;)
He needs to get off Isaac, you need to get off LuLa and go shoot a fence post. That would be a constructive use of your time.
He might take offence at this?
-
Please rephrase that in reasonable English and I will think about it.
Ye dinnae ken whit it means?
Not bad considering you are English
-
Er, kids! Maybe time to go outside to play?
(Signed by mod with itchy lock thread finger)
-
It would be nice if people could stop the personalisations, and just focus on the issue of street photography. If you can't say anything constructive, maybe it's best not to say anything. Just a thought.
-
(Signed by mod with itchy lock thread finger)
I am glad that the moderators are monitoring this thread.
The comments of some of the posters are crossing the line from being merely counter-productive to being insulting to our members.
-
Here we go again...running to hide behind mommy's skirt.