Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => Street Showcase => Topic started by: Rob C on May 19, 2018, 03:50:02 pm
-
Okay, maybe we can establish another box, a place where we can show shots that need have nothing at all to do with human figures, pretty, grotesque or at all, but do look at the shapes, designs or just random images that the town, village or city can give - if it feels so inclined.
-
Rob,
That's a beauty and I welcome the fresh air as you have defined it. I look forward to contributing to this slot.
Peter
-
Okay, maybe we can establish another box, a place where we can show shots that need have nothing at all to do with human figures, pretty, grotesque or at all, but do look at the shapes, designs or just random images that the town, village or city can give - if it feels so inclined.
I tend to think of this genre as a "cityscape." And of "street photography" having a narrative element, as Russ Lewis has argued—although I'm not inclined to be doctrinaire about it. The narrative aspect may be explicit or implicit, but the picture should prompt the viewer to ask, "what's going on here?"
Cityscapes, like landscapes, at least in my taxonomy, are more about the interplay of color, shape, light, and shadow than of "what's going on here." I shoot a lot of cityscapes (most not worth sharing) because my wife and I have lived in, and tend to travel to, urban environments.
Attached:
(1) Concave Street in Budapest;
(2) Oil Rig Supply Facility in St. John's, Newfoundland;
(3) Calle Zacateros in San Miguel de Allende, México.
-
I knew 'em thirty-odd years ago when big boss man worked for somebody else. I hope they can make it fly for me, too.
-
I knew 'em thirty-odd years ago when big boss man worked for somebody else. I hope they can make it fly for me, too.
If the fates allow...and they will! :~)
Peter
-
Reflections on the mothership.
-
Out the back window - Manhattan.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4247/34060793293_0d91f5fdba.jpg)
(https://flic.kr/p/TTQtbM)View from a Cheap Hotel (https://flic.kr/p/TTQtbM) by Gregg Plummer (https://www.flickr.com/photos/72875222@N00/), on Flickr
-
Out the back window - Manhattan.
Excellent lighting and color.
Might work well cropped 1:1 (i.e., square).
-
Excellent lighting and color.
Might work well cropped 1:1 (i.e., square).
How's this?
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/980/42243270902_34c8839407_z.jpg)
(https://flic.kr/p/27mTNGW)View from a Cheap Hotel (https://flic.kr/p/27mTNGW) by Gregg Plummer (https://www.flickr.com/photos/72875222@N00/), on Flickr
-
How's this?
Better focused, I think. (Pun intended.)
-
So this would qualify under the urban landscape definition as you guys are demonstrating?
5am Ferry, Anacortes, WA
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4752/38725167600_ac73b0b102_c.jpg)
-
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7017/6656958781_03de9d164a_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/b9fDVp)Flatiron Building NYC (https://flic.kr/p/b9fDVp) by Alan Klein (https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/), on Flickr
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3687/10753126304_d402b1431d_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/hodzPo)Dr's. Office (https://flic.kr/p/hodzPo) by Alan Klein (https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/), on Flickr
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2831/10753019386_e1d8837753_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/hod32Y)Brownstone Cafe (https://flic.kr/p/hod32Y) by Alan Klein (https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/), on Flickr
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5207/5344383949_8552b684fd_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/99gn9R)Coo (https://flic.kr/p/99gn9R) by Alan Klein (https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/), on Flickr
-
How about this?
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/748/32494821871_e3800f9c31.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Rvssrv)
Dare to Enter? (https://flic.kr/p/Rvssrv) by Gregg Plummer (https://www.flickr.com/photos/72875222@N00/), on Flickr
It looks a bit like the entrance to a massage parlor, but it's actually a new Chinese restaurant that just moved in.
-
How about this?
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/748/32494821871_e3800f9c31.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Rvssrv)
Dare to Enter? (https://flic.kr/p/Rvssrv) by Gregg Plummer (https://www.flickr.com/photos/72875222@N00/), on Flickr
It looks a bit like the entrance to a massage parlor, but it's actually a new Chinese restaurant that just moved in.
Have you gone beyond the dining area?
;-)
-
anyone recall ..."staircase to heaven..." ?
-
I don't shoot much street or have many chances to. I'll admit I don't get probably 99%+ of street shots I see which don't have anything aesthetically appealing to me or tell an interesting story. Now that other 1% are amazing, but I find it tedious to look through the rest to find them.
But I do shoot some cityscapes when I can. I like that the landscape produces it's own illumination, unlike natural settings that usually require at least a little light to be able to photograph. When I travel for work, night is often my only chance to go out and shoot.
Portland
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/659/21269104960_40cacc8fff_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/yptHUd)IMGP0758-Edit.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/yptHUd) by Matt Burt (https://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbnet/), on Flickr
Cincinnati
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8517/29722147481_d0492e4121_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/MhrLWD)IMGP3800-Edit.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/MhrLWD) by Matt Burt (https://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbnet/), on Flickr
Denver
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4656/24883758347_574207d5c4_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/DUTLqk)IMGP8983-Edit (https://flic.kr/p/DUTLqk) by Matt Burt (https://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbnet/), on Flickr
Boston
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7429/9737287267_106f901fea_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/fQs9ge)IMGP5649-Edit (https://flic.kr/p/fQs9ge) by Matt Burt (https://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbnet/), on Flickr
-
anyone recall ..."staircase to heaven..." ?
On Oahu?
-
Fine cityscapes, Matt. Sorry you don't "get" street, but you're in good company. Neither does Brooks Jensen.
-
I like the idea. I participate
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4426/36847821955_9e0f61d6b1_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Y97HH6)Bike (https://flic.kr/p/Y97HH6) by Ivo Bogaerts (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ivophoto/), on Flickr
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4249/34820493221_e07dc242d3_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/V3Y8vp)Merksem (https://flic.kr/p/V3Y8vp) by Ivo Bogaerts (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ivophoto/), on Flickr
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4300/35681892530_43a3c89d51_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Wn62vC)Pompidou (https://flic.kr/p/Wn62vC) by Ivo Bogaerts (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ivophoto/), on Flickr
-
Fine cityscapes, Matt. Sorry you don't "get" street, but you're in good company. Neither does Brooks Jensen.
Well I feel better about it already. ;)
-
Here's another one that I'd consider as 'Street Art'
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/947/41520913564_78700c7c53.jpg)
(https://flic.kr/p/26g4x35)Agora (https://flic.kr/p/26g4x35) by Gregg Plummer (https://www.flickr.com/photos/72875222@N00/), on Flickr
-
With all due respect, I really think this entire section has lost its way.
As far as I can see, we are simply getting, with a few exceptions, the same old same old, which better fits into the general sections of the critique area. There appears to be hardly any understanding either of street or of street art, the latter being what you, the photographer, can make of the things out there, not just a tourist shot of what the local city fathers thought would be a nice "support a local artist" project, or of some quaint architectural quirk; if you really study the people who did this work very well, such as Leiter, you might undertand that he was able to shoot a traffic light - hardly someone's art project - yet turn it into something else; he could shoot out of a bus widow or right through a taxi and create an interesting image within an image. Some red umbrellas in the city snow. He could photograph a couple of people walking down a wet pavement, through a rain-spattered window, and create an enchanted city. Now those kinds of ideas can be street art.
Perhaps LuLa should return to being a landscape site, something it appears to do quite well.
I feel so disappointed.
-
With all due respect, I really think this entire section has lost its way.
As far as I can see, we are simply getting, with a few exceptions, the same old same old, which better fits into the general sections of the critique area. There appears to be hardly any understanding either of street or of street art, the latter being what you, the photographer, can make of the things out there, not just a tourist shot of what the local city fathers thought would be a nice "support a local artist" project, or of some quaint architectural quirk; if you really study the people who did this work very well, such as Leiter, you might undertand that he was able to shoot a traffic light - hardly someone's art project - yet turn it into something else; he could shoot out of a bus widow or right through a taxi and create an interesting image within an image. Some red umbrellas in the city snow. He could photograph a couple of people walking down a wet pavement, through a rain-spattered window, and create an enchanted city. Now those kinds of ideas can be street art.
Perhaps LuLa should return to being a landscape site, something it appears to do quite well.
I feel so disappointed.
But Rob, who' to blame for your disappointment? What you just wrote is so entirely different from your OP, it's no wonder people make mistakes.
And speaking of mistakes: not everybody has the same background and knowledge level as everyone else, and each has to walk their own path to growth. It would be useful if some of the more knowledgeable people would show a little more leeway for mistakes other people make on their road to enlightment. It could be considered your prerogative if you will, to support people in their understanding. None of us got our understanding for free...
-
Not specifically aimed at you Rob, i'm also looking at Russ. If something doesn't comply with the general consensus, we should be able to explicate the discrepancies, and not just dismiss the effort when we fail at the former.
-
How's this?...
Uhhhm... no.
-
Ok, Rob, how about this? I posted it in a separate thread, with no reaction. Here, I can at least get a negative one, given the current sentiment — “Head in the Clouds”:
-
Not specifically aimed at you Rob, i'm also looking at Russ. If something doesn't comply with the general consensus, we should be able to explicate the discrepancies, and not just dismiss the effort when we fail at the former.
Nothing really to do with falling short in making that type of photograph - everything to do with understandng what it is. Below is what is perhaps the best guide to the genre that I have discoverd so far, street art as different to street. The link refers to the artistic type of street as compared wth the in-your-face kind of work beloved by some younger people with overactive testosterone glands.
http://jongorospe.blogspot.com.es/2013/05/saul-leiter-early-colour.html#!/2013/05/saul-leiter-early-colour.html
Now, the problem could well be that to understand what this is about, you have to have already been an artist of sorts. It may be no coincidence that both Leiter and HC-B were painters first.
Just in case it comes across as some sort of personal glory trip, hold your horses: I have posted very little of my own work in this zone because I do not see myself as a street shooter of the confrontational type, and that thought I loved paint before film, I relised early enough to prevent breaking my own heart that painting was quite a bit beyond my ability to turn it into a way of earning my crust, never mind enough crusts to feed a family and run a home.
That cleared, I do know that I have long loved much of the above sort of photography, and over enough time to realise from whence it cometh.
Now, as already pointed out in other post, this has nothing to do with technique; it has everything to do with the ability both to understand the genre and to work within it.
Insofar as meeting or not meeting the suggested concept in the original post kicking off this thread, I can't understand how that could have encouraged some of what it has.
-
Ok, Rob, how about this? I posted it in a separate thread, with no reaction. Here, I can at least get a negative one, given the current sentiment — “Head in the Clouds”:
Well, Slobodan, that's obviously street! What more can I add?
;-)
-
With all due respect, I really think this entire section has lost its way.
As far as I can see, we are simply getting, with a few exceptions, the same old same old, which better fits into the general sections of the critique area. There appears to be hardly any understanding either of street or of street art, the latter being what you, the photographer, can make of the things out there, not just a tourist shot of what the local city fathers thought would be a nice "support a local artist" project, or of some quaint architectural quirk; if you really study the people who did this work very well, such as Leiter, you might undertand that he was able to shoot a traffic light - hardly someone's art project - yet turn it into something else; he could shoot out of a bus widow or right through a taxi and create an interesting image within an image. Some red umbrellas in the city snow. He could photograph a couple of people walking down a wet pavement, through a rain-spattered window, and create an enchanted city. Now those kinds of ideas can be street art.
Perhaps LuLa should return to being a landscape site, something it appears to do quite well.
I feel so disappointed.
I thought I understood your idea....
-
I thought I understood your idea....
That makes at least two of us!
;-)
-
Well, Slobodan, that's obviously street! What more can I add?
A wise man once said, responding to someone claiming that pictures of graffiti are nothing but a reproduction of someone else’s art (bold mine):
... there's more than a subtle difference between making a copy of an existing piece of art and using it to make something else out of it and the peculiarities of its position or whatever else strikes the photographer as remarkable.
Now is there something more you can add?
-
With all due respect, I really think this entire section has lost its way.
As far as I can see, we are simply getting, with a few exceptions, the same old same old, which better fits into the general sections of the critique area. There appears to be hardly any understanding either of street or of street art, the latter being what you, the photographer, can make of the things out there, not just a tourist shot of what the local city fathers thought would be a nice "support a local artist" project, or of some quaint architectural quirk; if you really study the people who did this work very well, such as Leiter, you might undertand that he was able to shoot a traffic light - hardly someone's art project - yet turn it into something else; he could shoot out of a bus widow or right through a taxi and create an interesting image within an image. Some red umbrellas in the city snow. He could photograph a couple of people walking down a wet pavement, through a rain-spattered window, and create an enchanted city. Now those kinds of ideas can be street art.
Perhaps LuLa should return to being a landscape site, something it appears to do quite well.
I feel so disappointed.
I'm with Rob 100% on this one. I'm also kicking myself, realizing that I pushed for a street photography section. I should have know that very, very few posters on LuLa have even the remotest clue what street photography is all about. I see complaints that nobody is teaching them about street photography, but there have been lists and lists of sources for this information. Of course that means you have to go to the sources and study them; but of course that's too much work. Better to just shoot a picture with a street in it and post it. After all, if there's a street in it, it must be street photography, same way if there's a tree in it it must be landscape.
Oh well. . .
-
Okay, maybe we can establish another box, a place where we can show shots that need have nothing at all to do with human figures, pretty, grotesque or at all, but do look at the shapes, designs or just random images that the town, village or city can give - if it feels so inclined.
Don't know if these qualify or not. "In the street", I just look at what draws my eye. Unlike Russ (and others), it's almost never people. That's not to say that I don't admire such photography – I do.
-
A few more. All taken before we moved out of the city to a small rural town.
-
With all due respect, I really think this entire section has lost its way.
As far as I can see, we are simply getting, with a few exceptions, the same old same old, which better fits into the general sections of the critique area. There appears to be hardly any understanding either of street or of street art, the latter being what you, the photographer, can make of the things out there, not just a tourist shot of what the local city fathers thought would be a nice "support a local artist" project, or of some quaint architectural quirk; if you really study the people who did this work very well, such as Leiter, you might undertand that he was able to shoot a traffic light - hardly someone's art project - yet turn it into something else; he could shoot out of a bus widow or right through a taxi and create an interesting image within an image. Some red umbrellas in the city snow. He could photograph a couple of people walking down a wet pavement, through a rain-spattered window, and create an enchanted city. Now those kinds of ideas can be street art.
Perhaps LuLa should return to being a landscape site, something it appears to do quite well.
I feel so disappointed.
I appreciate your explanation but isn't that like telling an artist that the only valid style of painting is impressionist? If you believe (maybe correctly) that there are specific definitions we need to adhere to, then fine. My posts definitely didn't qualify. I'm new here and based on comments from you and RSL, I'm beginning to feel that maybe I don't belong. Here to learn, that's all, didn't mean to offend.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
-
“Head in the Clouds”:
If the essence of street photography is making pictures of interesting ephemera in public spaces, then I'd say this image—which is both clever and rather striking—qualifies. I might also describe it as a cityscape.
Not that it matters all that much which bucket it fits into as long as it's an interesting photograph.
-
Just a few years ago, when I started taking my photography more seriously (yes, I'm a rookie compared to most of you), I joined a website dedicated to Wisconsin photography. It is mostly landscapes, which I don't do except as a tourist. One of the photographers I met there also does some interesting work which he calls "Photo Impressionism."
https://jayrasmussen.smugmug.com/Central-South-America-For-Sale/PhotoImpressionism/
I like it, so I tried making something similar.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/621/31773969774_ca85c40c49.jpg)
(https://flic.kr/p/QpKUe5)Street Impressions (https://flic.kr/p/QpKUe5) by Gregg Plummer (https://www.flickr.com/photos/72875222@N00/), on Flickr
I think mine looks pretty sloppy and I haven't really done much of this sort of thing since but would still like to learn how.
-
Some more.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3927/15274455188_f30e547937_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/pgKznE)Barcelona (https://flic.kr/p/pgKznE) by Ivo Bogaerts (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ivophoto/), on Flickr
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4267/34141854403_ec9360cf9b_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/U1ZVQ8)Merksem (https://flic.kr/p/U1ZVQ8) by Ivo Bogaerts (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ivophoto/), on Flickr
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4596/39115097841_f45fc67ee6_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/22At6QD)Kasterlee (https://flic.kr/p/22At6QD) by Ivo Bogaerts (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ivophoto/), on Flickr
-
With all due respect, I really think this entire section has lost its way.
As far as I can see, we are simply getting, with a few exceptions, the same old same old, which better fits into the general sections of the critique area. There appears to be hardly any understanding either of street or of street art, the latter being what you, the photographer, can make of the things out there, not just a tourist shot of what the local city fathers thought would be a nice "support a local artist" project, or of some quaint architectural quirk; if you really study the people who did this work very well, such as Leiter, you might undertand that he was able to shoot a traffic light - hardly someone's art project - yet turn it into something else; he could shoot out of a bus widow or right through a taxi and create an interesting image within an image. Some red umbrellas in the city snow. He could photograph a couple of people walking down a wet pavement, through a rain-spattered window, and create an enchanted city. Now those kinds of ideas can be street art.
Perhaps LuLa should return to being a landscape site, something it appears to do quite well.
I feel so disappointed.
And in your own comments, Rob and Russ, for every treatise on "Street Photography," there are six more that don't just contradict a long held study of what constitutes Street, but indeed completely reinvent the wheel. I spent the better part of this week looking at the all time greats starting with HCB and while I think I understand the mindset into what they shot and why, I then go to some of the more modern streeters and they don't seem to see the HCB style an d have developed a "new" street style.
It seems to me there is more a direction toward trending the human condition rather than observing the same. There seems to be a need to exploit the poor, homeless, addicted, etc instead of recording the interaction of humans to one another or humans toward the environment. I don't know but the more I read, the more I become confused.
-
I'm new here and based on comments from you and RSL, I'm beginning to feel that maybe I don't belong. Here to learn, that's all, didn't mean to offend.
I get the feeling I don't either as an outsider to this club, yet I still drop in now and then to see what people here are doing (and arguing about).
I thought cityscapes would fit this thread but now I think I'm hearing they don't.
Oh well, I'm not a street shooter or trying to be one so I'll just return to my landscapes, cityscapes, and adventure stuff. ::)
-
And in your own comments, Rob and Russ, for every treatise on "Street Photography," there are six more that don't just contradict a long held study of what constitutes Street, but indeed completely reinvent the wheel. I spent the better part of this week looking at the all time greats starting with HCB and while I think I understand the mindset into what they shot and why, I then go to some of the more modern streeters and they don't seem to see the HCB style an d have developed a "new" street style.
It seems to me there is more a direction toward trending the human condition rather than observing the same. There seems to be a need to exploit the poor, homeless, addicted, etc instead of recording the interaction of humans to one another or humans toward the environment. I don't know but the more I read, the more I become confused.
I'm a member of several Facebook groups dedicated to street photography. One of the groups defines the genre as-
"Street photography deals with representing the human life in its many nuances and the context in which it consumes its drama, the city with its innumerable roads. The subjects are men, women, children and elderly people interacting with the environment, or frozen in significant moments and situations that express happiness, humor, discomfort, social drama. The image with its emotional content becomes the witness of a fragment of reality that took place in an area of the world and allows everyone to learn about them. The street photographers have this ability to observe everyday life in unusual situations and to capture the decisive moment when he/she is unaware of being the protagonist in sometimes dramatic events." Street photography could be summarized: "photos taken in the street, in an urban context. Trying to steal moments of life. Not staged..."
This is one of the definitions I am trying to follow. The operative word being "trying." It's a lot harder than I thought.
My attempt at "impressionism" isn't acceptable by one of these groups because their rules state: "Image manipulation is not acceptable. Creating mirror images in post processing to imply reflections and multiple exposures are not allowed."
Another definition I like is:
"Street photography captures a fleeting moment of comedy, drama, light, geometry, shades, and textures making an everlasting record of our world. It's a bit like photojournalism, but there really doesn't have to be anything newsworthy. It can be more about ordinary life. The images might include interesting architecture, automobile design, and/or clothing styles, but these details aren't as important as the overall artistic elements. There are many ways to express your artistic vision. Images can be literal representations of a time and place or more impressionistic using combinations of shading, colors, lighting or by blurring an otherwise sharp scene or photographing during a rainstorm or foggy evening."
-
And in your own comments, Rob and Russ, for every treatise on "Street Photography," there are six more that don't just contradict a long held study of what constitutes Street, but indeed completely reinvent the wheel. I spent the better part of this week looking at the all time greats starting with HCB and while I think I understand the mindset into what they shot and why, I then go to some of the more modern streeters and they don't seem to see the HCB style an d have developed a "new" street style.
It seems to me there is more a direction toward trending the human condition rather than observing the same. There seems to be a need to exploit the poor, homeless, addicted, etc instead of recording the interaction of humans to one another or humans toward the environment. I don't know but the more I read, the more I become confused.
It’s not strange to see a big shift in subjects shot in the street.
It’s linked with the social and economic reality.
It is not wandering everywhere, it’s walking hand in hand with time.
-
A few more. All taken before we moved out of the city to a small rural town.
For me, the entire series you posted fits the street art concept very well.
Rob
-
I'm a member of several Facebook groups dedicated to street photography. One of the groups defines the genre as-
"Street photography deals with representing the human life in its many nuances and the context in which it consumes its drama, the city with its innumerable roads. The subjects are men, women, children and elderly people interacting with the environment, or frozen in significant moments and situations that express happiness, humor, discomfort, social drama. The image with its emotional content becomes the witness of a fragment of reality that took place in an area of the world and allows everyone to learn about them. The street photographers have this ability to observe everyday life in unusual situations and to capture the decisive moment when he/she is unaware of being the protagonist in sometimes dramatic events." Street photography could be summarized: "photos taken in the street, in an urban context. Trying to steal moments of life. Not staged..."
This is one of the definitions I am trying to follow. The operative word being "trying." It's a lot harder than I thought.
My attempt at "impressionism" isn't acceptable by one of these groups because their rules state: "Image manipulation is not acceptable. Creating mirror images in post processing to imply reflections and multiple exposures are not allowed."
Another definition I like is:
"Street photography captures a fleeting moment of comedy, drama, light, geometry, shades, and textures making an everlasting record of our world. It's a bit like photojournalism, but there really doesn't have to be anything newsworthy. It can be more about ordinary life. The images might include interesting architecture, automobile design, and/or clothing styles, but these details aren't as important as the overall artistic elements. There are many ways to express your artistic vision. Images can be literal representations of a time and place or more impressionistic using combinations of shading, colors, lighting or by blurring an otherwise sharp scene or photographing during a rainstorm or foggy evening."
Well there you go: those sites you quoted print "rules" or let"s call 'em expectations, that seem to hang well with much of what's been written about the genre by one or two of us here.
Now, as this specific thread is supposed to be about street "art" which, almost by definition, is not simply a form of reporting of the human condition as in flesh and blood, but more of the nature of the impact that man has had in his city environment by virtue of the shapes, colours and graphic design he creates, knowingly or otherwise, I find myself in disagreement with - well, no, not disagreement - but more a sense of impatience with the discouraging of manipulation.
Of the many different things that digital has given us, perhaps the most promising comes exactly with the facility for manipulation.
Personally speaking, I have lost interest in the idea of straight "street art", and have concluded that it offers something else that makes photography for me, more interesting: it allows one to make what seems a promising image and then take it elsewhere, into the realm of personal expression and beyond the obvious one that was the initial draw to the camera.
It's akin, I suppose, to buying sheet music and then playing it your way, if you know how.
-
I like to think in terms of musical genres. To me, street is kind of like jazz and landscape is classical orchestrations. Jazz has lots of sub-genres, as does street. What you describe as "street art" is one of these very interesting sub-genres. Using my music comparison, it's maybe a little like improvisational, avant-garde jazz?
-
Yes, I suppose that it is; there seems to be a frequent link between photography and music, my regret being that insofar as music goes, I can only be a fan!
It's interesting you cite avant-guard jazz along with improvisation: wasn't that what New Orleans was all about before the modern variants sprang up?
;-)
-
If the essence of street photography is making pictures of interesting ephemera in public spaces, then I'd say this image—which is both clever and rather striking—qualifies. I might also describe it as a cityscape.
Not that it matters all that much which bucket it fits into as long as it's an interesting photograph.
Thanks, Chris.
In case it is not obvious, only the lower half is a mural, i.e., someone else’s art. The top half, a cloudy sky is my attempt to elevate it above a simple replica of someone else’s art into something more, a methaphorocal interpretation of the “head in the clouds” saying. I moved left and right, up and down, until I got that one cloud in the perfect position, like the head’s extension. Apparently, my intention fell flat for many.
-
Thanks, Chris.
In case it is not obvious, only the lower half is a mural, i.e., someone else’s art. The top half, a cloudy sky is my attempt to elevate it above a simple replica of someone else’s art into something more, a methaphorocal interpretation of the “head in the clouds” saying. I moved left and right, up and down, until I got that one cloud in the perfect position, like the head’s extension. Apparently, my intention fell flat for many.
Yes, a nice picture. What makes it for me is the handicap parking sign. Gives it both gravitas and goofiness, like our current political atmosphere. :)
-
Thanks, Chris.
In case it is not obvious, only the lower half is a mural, i.e., someone else’s art. The top half, a cloudy sky is my attempt to elevate it above a simple replica of someone else’s art into something more, a methaphorocal interpretation of the “head in the clouds” saying. I moved left and right, up and down, until I got that one cloud in the perfect position, like the head’s extension. Apparently, my intention fell flat for many.
Not at all, Slobodan, I like you’re picture.
Here, the mural is serving your picture and you message, totally not a blunt replica of someone else’s art.
-
In this kind of photography color is a powerful tool to use.
In B&W I look for claire obscure , graphically impressions, etc.
Color adds the whole enchilada of the color world as the old masters used it in there paintings. Color composition is one of them. ‘Ittens color theory’ is a great help to understand basics.
For me it was a eye opener to start looking at the world in therms of color, not in therms of human interaction or whatever.
I explore this in my recent work, and hope one day to be able to combine this insight with the rest of my photography capabilities.
I refer to Saul Leiter, William Eggleston, Harry Gruyaert and other great colorists.
-
Just a few years ago, when I started taking my photography more seriously (yes, I'm a rookie compared to most of you), I joined a website dedicated to Wisconsin photography. It is mostly landscapes, which I don't do except as a tourist. One of the photographers I met there also does some interesting work which he calls "Photo Impressionism."
https://jayrasmussen.smugmug.com/Central-South-America-For-Sale/PhotoImpressionism/
I like it, so I tried making something similar.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/621/31773969774_ca85c40c49.jpg)
(https://flic.kr/p/QpKUe5)Street Impressions (https://flic.kr/p/QpKUe5) by Gregg Plummer (https://www.flickr.com/photos/72875222@N00/), on Flickr
I think mine looks pretty sloppy and I haven't really done much of this sort of thing since but would still like to learn how.
I like the red spot in the scene and the complementary colors.
I’m lucky to be born in Rubens home town, and few times in a year a go to the Cathedral of Antwerp and take a chair in front of the de-crucifixion of Christ. I blur the painting by looking trough my eyelashes and study the color composition of the master.
Red is very important in color composition, ....
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180526/260144c43c1042add49f7bcccbe8f7ce.jpg)
-
(It seems I have a a separate account using Tapatalk..... So, IvoPhoto, it is me: Ivo_B, I will avoid this, sorry)
-
One of the greatest masters for everything painting.
Peter
-
Just a few years ago, when I started taking my photography more seriously (yes, I'm a rookie compared to most of you), I joined a website dedicated to Wisconsin photography. It is mostly landscapes, which I don't do except as a tourist. One of the photographers I met there also does some interesting work which he calls "Photo Impressionism."
https://jayrasmussen.smugmug.com/Central-South-America-For-Sale/PhotoImpressionism/
I like it, so I tried making something similar.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/621/31773969774_ca85c40c49.jpg)
(https://flic.kr/p/QpKUe5)Street Impressions (https://flic.kr/p/QpKUe5) by Gregg Plummer (https://www.flickr.com/photos/72875222@N00/), on Flickr
I think mine looks pretty sloppy and I haven't really done much of this sort of thing since but would still like to learn how.
The more I look at this photo, the more I like it. It is street photography, unencumbered by the myopia of trying to wedge the past into the future. Nicely done.
-
The more I look at this photo, the more I like it. It is street photography, unencumbered by the myopia of trying to wedge the past into the future. Nicely done.
Hey, that's a cool throwaway!
How do you wedge anything into what has not yet arrived? Into the present, yes, I could go with that. But the future? Is anybody actively, really attempting that? It would be fun to see.
;-)
-
The more I look at this photo, the more I like it. It is street photography, unencumbered by the myopia of trying to wedge the past into the future. Nicely done.
And that's exactly the problem. People look at the photography of HCB, Frank, Winogrand and say: "Interesting historical stuff, but it has nothing much to do with today," thereby missing the point entirely. The point of HCB's stuff isn't its historicity. The point is that he captured important points about the relationships between people and between people and their environment. Photographs that fail to do that don't fit the street genre. But if course, if it has a street in it, it must be street photography. Right?
-
And that's exactly the problem. People look at the photography of HCB, Frank, Winogrand and say: "Interesting historical stuff, but it has nothing much to do with today," thereby missing the point entirely. The point of HCB's stuff isn't its historicity. The point is that he captured important points about the relationships between people and between people and their environment. Photographs that fail to do that don't fit the street genre. But if course, if it has a street in it, it must be street photography. Right?
Yes, Russ, that is the problem.
Which is why I thought it a good idea to start this separate thread of "Street Art", as distinct fom the classical sense of street as we understand it.
In this different context, the image fits perfectly, with a tendency to drift towards the kaleidoscopìc.
The essence of the new thread or, rather, its definition, lies in the making of something unique from the raw marterials of the city street (if you are fortunate enough to have a city!).
Rob
-
Tyre-kicking with a Nikon.
-
Hey, that's a cool throwaway!
How do you wedge anything into what has not yet arrived? Into the present, yes, I could go with that. But the future? Is anybody actively, really attempting that? It would be fun to see.
;-)
Hah, seeing and sensing the future, second by second, is a street photographer’s mystic tool. How many photos of people jumping a puddle do we need? Been there, done that. Photographers show the world what it doesn’t know. Yet. 8)
Of course, photography is not the sole province of the future, as Ireland has just shown us.
-
Hah, seeing and sensing the future, second by second, is a street photographer’s mystic tool. How many photos of people jumping a puddle do we need? Been there, done that. Photographers show the world what it doesn’t know. Yet. 8)
Of course, photography is not the sole province of the future, as Ireland has just shown us.
Indeed, but hardly, HC-B's fault!
A new slant might be discerned by jumping over a mirror, but then that would become accused of being post-derivitive almost as soon as it was published.
What it doesn't know yet? Not exactly; rather what it does know but never before thought interesting.
Ireland? I don't know the final outcome yet - I have been unable to stomach either Sky News or the Beeb long enough this morning to find out. Both stations have become so saccharine sickly sweet that my delicate morning system can't tolerate either.
In their efforts to embrace the lowest common denominator of physical looks, they have turned (especially the Beeb) into their own semi-automatic off-switch. I see the mundane, the unglamorous all around me every day; please, let a little sunshine fall onto these dark corners at least second-hand! We know the world is grim, full of crap; why not permit us those few, treasured moments of glamour that tv could provide were it not so politically correct to the point of parody?
Then the voices; heysoos, the bloody voices! No, I don't come from Birmingham and I don't sound like a sweaty sock either!
-
Yes, Russ, that is the problem.
Which is why I thought it a good idea to start this separate thread of "Street Art", as distinct fom the classical sense of street as we understand it.
In this different context, the image fits perfectly, with a tendency to drift towards the kaleidoscopìc.
The essence of the new thread or, rather, its definition, lies in the making of something unique from the raw marterials of the city street (if you are fortunate enough to have a city!).
Rob
Exactly, Rob, and I should have thanked you right up front for starting this thread. I hope it'll divert some of the more unfortunate attempts at street genre and convert them to something more significant.
-
Exactly, Rob, and I should have thanked you right up front for starting this thread. I hope it'll divert some of the more unfortunate attempts at street genre and convert them to something more significant.
I'm sorry Russ,
Do you realize how pedantic this sounds?
Common Russ, there is no need to minimize others work like that. Maybe it would be good if you try to see what photographically happened post 1970.
You can, Russ
;D :-*
-
I'm not "minimizing" anyone's work, Ivo. There's a big difference between saying your work is crap and saying what you think is street or landscape or wabi sabi or formal portraiture is not street or landscape or wabi sabi or formal portraiture. I tried to make the point when I posted a nautilus in the landscape section. I guess it's not a big deal. As Jeremy pointed out, you can call anything anything you want to call it. But one thing painting does is keep its genres straight. I think one reason photography sometimes gets laughed at as fine art is that it's so easy to pick up a camera or a cell phone and start shooting and calling the result art without ever bothering to learn the history of the medium or the lessons taught by the practitioners who made it fine art. I run into people like that all the time, but I hate to see it happening on LuLa.
Oh, and are you convinced that the work I've been posting is pre-1970 stuff? Some of it is. Some of it is from day before yesterday. Can you tell the difference?
-
I'm not "minimizing" anyone's work, Ivo. There's a big difference between saying your work is crap and saying what you think is street or landscape or wabi sabi or formal portraiture is not street or landscape or wabi sabi or formal portraiture. I tried to make the point when I posted a nautilus in the landscape section. I guess it's not a big deal. As Jeremy pointed out, you can call anything anything you want to call it. But one thing painting does is keep its genres straight. I think one reason photography sometimes gets laughed at as fine art is that it's so easy to pick up a camera or a cell phone and start shooting and calling the result art without ever bothering to learn the history of the medium or the lessons taught by the practitioners who made it fine art. I run into people like that all the time, but I hate to see it happening on LuLa.
Oh, and are you convinced that the work I've been posting is pre-1970 stuff? Some of it is. Some of it is from day before yesterday. Can you tell the difference?
No Russ, I don't think your work posted here is pre 1970, I think you vision is.
Don't misunderstand me, I strongly believe in learning from old masters, see my above post about color composition.
And I don't have any problem defining genres.
I do feel that obeying to the definition of a genre should not be the benchmark, I would quote good old star Trek: To Boldly Go Where No Man Has Gone Before...
The benchmark should not be the definition of a genre, it should be the right of the image to exist, Is the picture worth not be trowed away straight away. We should think twice before showing our work publicly. (And I count myself as very guilty on this matter)
I look at a photo and try to appreciate it on its own merits, eventually, I assess to what style or genre it can belong. And the more it doesn't belong to what I know, the more curious I get.
I have the impression some on this subform, not only you, first look to the validness of the picture according to the genre and only if it qualifies willing to take a closer look.
I see very mediocre work appreciated because it is in the lines of what some think it should be and I see splendid work ignored for the opposite reason.
All this results in chitchatting about the rules and not playing the game.
I hope I didn't offended anybody, I react because I would find it a pity if members would not dare to show there nice work (I refer to the good portrait of the boy on the beach) because of the above.
Kind regards
Ivo
-
Well I was told that the boy on the beach was just a snap shot. Rob said that. It’s his opinion. I have no issue with him expressing his opinion. I don’t agree. The image meant a lot to me and I took it as one of my successes. Also I have no issue with Rob. Let me be clear on that.
I also don’t agree on the whole genre thing. Go look at HCB we are told. No issue with that. I am actually very familiar with his work, and his politics. So anyway I look again and get even more confused. I see photos that are photojournalism such as one of Ghandi. Lots of tourist images from Asia. All the images exquisite. But I see he didn’t define himself nearly as narrowly as we are defining this area. So if he defines street where does that leave me?
Anyway I couldn’t be bothered trying to figure out if it’s street if not. Should it be in a city. Can it be in a foreign country or is that touristy. Did the people notice me taking the photo. Is it newsworthy making it photojournalism. I mean I’m sure it’s well intentioned but it’s certainly not very encouraging.
Not having a go at you Rus. You seem like a decent guy. It’s just that narrow restrictive genre definitions are not my thing.
-
Ivo, what are you finding so difficult to understand?
There is no reason on God's Earth why the shot of the person on the beach should not be shown on LuLa; there is every reason why it should not be shown in threads devoted to "street". It has bugger all to do with street.
If the poster cares so little for the efforts of others to create a little bit of order within LuLa, then I think your ire or misunderstanding might be better served going in his direction.
We are not expecting LuLa to be some form of private, anarchic state where anything goes just because it annoys somebody else and, well, it's physically possible to post in the wrong slot.
I repeat: do whatever form of photography gives you your spiritual orgasm, but do try to do it in the right room.
If nothing more, it will show a little degree of respect for those of us who do care about these things enough to create such dedicated slots.
-
No Russ, I don't think your work posted here is pre 1970, I think you vision is.
Don't misunderstand me, I strongly believe in learning from old masters, see my above post about color composition.
And I don't have any problem defining genres.
I do feel that obeying to the definition of a genre should not be the benchmark, I would quote good old star Trek: To Boldly Go Where No Man Has Gone Before...
The benchmark should not be the definition of a genre, it should be the right of the image to exist, Is the picture worth not be trowed away straight away. We should think twice before showing our work publicly. (And I count myself as very guilty on this matter)
I look at a photo and try to appreciate it on its own merits, eventually, I assess to what style or genre it can belong. And the more it doesn't belong to what I know, the more curious I get.
I have the impression some on this subform, not only you, first look to the validness of the picture according to the genre and only if it qualifies willing to take a closer look.
I see very mediocre work appreciated because it is in the lines of what some think it should be and I see splendid work ignored for the opposite reason.
All this results in chitchatting about the rules and not playing the game.
I hope I didn't offended anybody, I react because I would find it a pity if members would not dare to show there nice work (I refer to the good portrait of the boy on the beach) because of the above.
Kind regards
Ivo
I think I agree, Ivo. I'd suggest LuLa get rid of categories altogether and go back simply to User Critiques. There's no reason to have a separate Landscape segment or a Street segment. We can discus styles in User Critiques, in fact that's where any such discussion should take place. Same thing with Is it Art. I think we'd all agree to keep Michael's Phlog. It's not going to change now. And we certainly need a Coffee Corner just for the excitement that goes with it. But beyond that, why specify genres when it's obvious they don't mean anything? I'm really kicking myself for suggesting a Street segment. It was a big mistake.
-
Change the name of the subsection into:
Street, Streat Art, Cityscapes, Urban Exploration
And be done with it. No confusion, no genrefication (or is it genrepontification?).
There will be more photos, less bickering.
-
Street has absolutely nothing to do with cityscapes or urban exploration, Slobodan. From its very beginning "street photography" meant photography that you do outdoors with a camera that's fast enough to catch life in passing. It started with the introduction of the first Leica. Before that you had photographers like Atget posing people in order to get pictures with people in them. Study the work of Kertesz, who probably was the first to take the Leica outside. Then study the work of HCB who was the one who really defined street photography. If you look closely you'll see that there are damned few streets or cityscapes or urban situations in these pictures. Street is photography free of the studio and the film holder and the hood. It's unfortunate that it was named "street." That's what confuses most people who aren't willing to learn about it.
-
Street has absolutely nothing to do with cityscapes or urban exploration, Slobodan. From its very beginning "street photography" meant photography that you do outdoors with a camera that's fast enough to catch life in passing. It started with the introduction of the first Leica. Before that you had photographers like Atget posing people in order to get pictures with people in them. Study the work of Kertesz, who probably was the first to take the Leica outside. Then study the work of HCB who was the one who really defined street photography. If you look closely you'll see that there are damned few streets or cityscapes or urban situations in these pictures. Street is photography free of the studio and the film holder and the hood. It's unfortunate that it was named "street." That's what confuses most people who aren't willing to learn about it.
I would suggest taking a look at Brassaï
-
Change the name of the subsection into:
Street, Streat Art, Cityscapes, Urban Exploration
And be done with it. No confusion, no genrefication (or is it genrepontification?).
There will be more photos, less bickering.
Be careful what you wish for, Slobodan.
Rob
-
I would suggest taking a look at Brassaï
Bad idea; a waste of too many euros, in my case. No wonder it came sealed!
-
Street has absolutely nothing to do with cityscapes or urban exploration, Slobodan...
Hence the suggested all-encompassing title that lists them separately.
Within such a broad subsection, you can then establish a thread, tentatively titled “Only Russ-Approved Street” where members would PM you candidates for posting and you’d post them only with your seal of approval. Deal? ;)
-
Kertesz, HCB, etc are all pioneers of their time. They used new technical possibilities to frame what was not possible before.
Sticking to the style of images they produced in this eta makes a photographer so un-HCB.
-
Hence the suggested all-encompassing title that lists them separately.
Within such a broad subsection, you can then establish a thread, tentatively titled “Only Russ-Approved Street” where members would PM you candidates for posting and you’d post them only with your seal of approval. Deal? ;)
That's not very nice. Slobodan, even with a smiley.
Just because some people don't want to know the difference in genres is no reason that those for whom if matters should be stifled by the less caring.
I have to say, I'm rather surprised.
Rob
-
Sometimes it depends on how we each categorize these things for ourselves. For example, what I admire about HCB is the timeless slice of humanity that he so often captured. In this same category, I also think about Dorthea Lange, Walker Evans, Paul Strand, Helen Levitt, Vivian Maier, Winogrand, Frank, W. Eugene Smith, and even the better photojournalists covering conflict, war, famine, poverty, the human condition. Saul Leiter and Fan Ho straddle humanity, but I'm more drawn to the art – design, impression, mystery – inherent in their photos. That's not to diminish the "art" inherent in the humanity images – in many cases, it's the artistic strengths of the photos that make them stand apart, and greatly enhance the humanity message.
So in my categorization, HCB-style "street" is a narrow subcategory of a more important theme – humanity. But that's just one opinion.
-
Bad idea; a waste of too many euros, in my case. No wonder it came sealed!
Just Google. It will only cost you an illusion.
-
In vainglorious attempt to keep my interest here alive a little bit longer, here's another photograph made on the street and taken into a little adventure of its own.
-
Just Google. It will only cost you an illusion.
Again, you fail to remember what has already been posted; I bought the goddam thing and it sucked.
Wooden, posed and a study in nothing. Granted, he did that exceptionally well.
-
Sometimes it depends on how we each categorize these things for ourselves. For example, what I admire about HCB is the timeless slice of humanity that he so often captured. In this same category, I also think about Dorthea Lange, Walker Evans, Paul Strand, Helen Levitt, Vivian Maier, Winogrand, Frank, W. Eugene Smith, and even the better photojournalists covering conflict, war, famine, poverty, the human condition. Saul Leiter and Fan Ho straddle humanity, but I'm more drawn to the art – design, impression, mystery – inherent in their photos. That's not to diminish the "art" inherent in the humanity images – in many cases, it's the artistic strengths of the photos that make them stand apart, and greatly enhance the humanity message.
So in my categorization, HCB-style "street" is a narrow subcategory of a more important theme – humanity. But that's just one opinion.
No, it's two people's opinion at least!
Why is it that you are able to understand the differences between these photographers, and the broad classifications they represent, yet for others it's Telugu?
If I had the safety of more hair, I'd be scratching my head.
Rob
-
Again, you fail to remember what has already been posted; I bought the goddam thing and it sucked.
Wooden, posed and a study in nothing. Granted, he did that exceptionally well.
Hahaha, You are right, you already posted about your Brassaî trauma, I will make a note not to mention the war again in your presence. :-)
-
I would suggest taking a look at Brassaï
I've not only looked at Brassaï, Ivo, I have a couple books about Brassaï on my photography shelves. If you're suggesting Brassaï caught life on the street with his bellows camera, tripod, film holders, and lengthy exposures then you don't know much about Brassaï. As I pointed out earlier, even in the Paris brothels he had to pose his subjects. It was a hell of a long way from street photography.
-
Ivo, do you have a web site? I'd like to see some of your work.
-
I've not only looked at Brassaï, Ivo, I have a couple books about Brassaï on my photography shelves. If you're suggesting Brassaï caught life on the street with his bellows camera, tripod, film holders, and lengthy exposures then you don't know much about Brassaï. As I pointed out earlier, even in the Paris brothels he had to pose his subjects. It was a hell of a long way from street photography.
(Please Russ, don't think to easy you are talking to photographic dummies, ok?)
....
I don't state any of this.
Kertesz made the street photography he was able to within the limits of his gear. And he was a master of doing so. Not recognizing this and classify it as 'it sucks' is ignoring its intrinsic quality. It sound to me as saying 'Pantzerkreuzer Potemkin' sucks because there are no arial shots of the stairs scene.
Take a not preoccupied look at Brassaï 's work and see where it differs from HCB's work, not in terms of technical modernism of the time, but esthetically, HCB's new approach came at a cost.
And yes, HCB with his 35mm was able to do what Brassaï couldn't and yes nowadays we are able to do what HCB couldn't, that is the reason why the whole street photography changes. Suddenly it is possible to introduce the nightly Brassaï claire obscure by using small very light sensitive cameras and no need for a tripod (something what was even unthinkable 10 years ago)
Times are changing, technology is changing, and for the same reason HCB was able to turn photography on his head, it happened again and again after HCB. Ignoring this, is ignoring 50 years of photographic evolution.
There is a world outside HCB, also in the street photography segment.
Ivo
-
Ivo, do you have a web site? I'd like to see some of your work.
I will regularly post some work, Russ. I already posted some of my portraiture on 8x10" and some street shots (remember the Paris Moulin rouge scenery?) I cannot share commissioned work, (I do real estate and architecture)
I have a totally other photographic view on the world as you (surprise :-) )
Feel free to find me on Flickr and Instagram
You should be able to find me as IvoPhoto_Belgium on Flickr
And as ivophoto_votw on instagram.
Have a look, you're welcome
Ivo
-
No Russ, I don't think your work posted here is pre 1970, I think you vision is.
Don't misunderstand me, I strongly believe in learning from old masters, see my above post about color composition.
And I don't have any problem defining genres.
I do feel that obeying to the definition of a genre should not be the benchmark, I would quote good old star Trek: To Boldly Go Where No Man Has Gone Before...
The benchmark should not be the definition of a genre, it should be the right of the image to exist, Is the picture worth not be trowed away straight away. We should think twice before showing our work publicly. (And I count myself as very guilty on this matter)
I look at a photo and try to appreciate it on its own merits, eventually, I assess to what style or genre it can belong. And the more it doesn't belong to what I know, the more curious I get.
I have the impression some on this subform, not only you, first look to the validness of the picture according to the genre and only if it qualifies willing to take a closer look.
I see very mediocre work appreciated because it is in the lines of what some think it should be and I see splendid work ignored for the opposite reason.
All this results in chitchatting about the rules and not playing the game.
I hope I didn't offended anybody, I react because I would find it a pity if members would not dare to show there nice work (I refer to the good portrait of the boy on the beach) because of the above.
Kind regards
Ivo
Gotta come back to this. Ivo, have you ever looked at either of my web sites? Maybe you ought to do that in order to understand what I do. I do practically everything that's done in photography. About the only thing I haven't done is combat photography -- pictures of people shooting and getting shot up. I've had opportunities to do that, but it's been done and done and done, and it long ago reached the point where it's just plain boring. I've done weddings, though I hated that kind of work and stopped after a few. I did photojournalism for a Colorado Springs commercial partnership and sort of enjoyed that. The only thing I haven't done is the kind of work Rob made his living at. Had I had an opportunity I'd probably have tried that too.
Obviously nobody is going to go out and say "I'm gonna do street photography today. If I get some landscape or wabi sabi I'll throw that away because it won't fit what I'm out to do." But you seem to believe that happens. You even seem to believe that that's what I do. It's not a question of "benchmarks," it's a question of categorizing what you have after you take it out of the camera. And if you aren't familiar with the existing genres you may have a hard time doing that effectively. If you have something from where no man has gone before you can do what HCB did and start a new genre.
By the say, "To boldly go where no man has gone before" is the worst kind of BS. Man has gone everywhere he has the capability to go, so it's impossible to go, boldly or even timidly, where no man has gone before.
I think you should continue, as you say, to "look at a photo and try to appreciate it on its own merits." That's commendable. But trying to cram crap that doesn't fit into a particular genre isn't commendable. It simply doesn't make sense, and makes the person who tries it look less than knowledgable. I won't say "stupid" because that's a value judgment, and I'd have to know the person better to be able to make that judgment.
May I suggest that before you try to discuss street further you study the people who defined it and try to learn what street is. That doesn't mean you shouldn't shoot the stuff you want to shoot. Be my guest. But to try to cram everything you shoot into the street photography genre simply results in ending up with a reputation for very bad street photography.
-
I will regularly post some work, Russ. I already posted some of my portraiture on 8x10" and some street shots (remember the Paris Moulin rouge scenery?) I cannot share commissioned work, (I do real estate and architecture)
I have a totally other photographic view on the world as you (surprise :-) )
Feel free to find me on Flickr and Instagram
You should be able to find me as IvoPhoto_Belgium on Flickr
And as ivophoto_votw on instagram.
Have a look, you're welcome
Ivo
Too much work. Give me some links. That's why we have the web.
-
Take a not preoccupied look at Brassaï 's work and see where it differs from HCB's work, not in terms of technical modernism of the time, but esthetically, HCB's new approach came at a cost.
And yes, HCB with his 35mm was able to do what Brassaï couldn't and yes nowadays we are able to do what HCB couldn't, that is the reason why the whole street photography changes. Suddenly it is possible to introduce the nightly Brassaï claire obscure by using small very light sensitive cameras and no need for a tripod (something what was even unthinkable 10 years ago)
Now you've got me ROTFL, Ivo. Brassaï's work differs from HCB's work because Brassaï was working with primitive equipment compared with HCB's. That's the whole point of street photography. In street you catch things on the fly. You can't do that with a tripod and film holders.
And you say night photograph was "unthinkable" ten years ago? Here are two night shots from 2001. That's seventeen years ago. I have dozens more. I even can show you night shots from 1967 with the Leica M4 if you'd like to see them.
It's not that, as you say, I think you're a "photographic dummy." I simply think you're confused.
-
Gotta come back to this. Ivo, have you ever looked at either of my web sites? Maybe you ought to do that in order to understand what I do. I do practically everything that's done in photography. About the only thing I haven't done is combat photography -- pictures of people shooting and getting shot up. I've had opportunities to do that, but it's been done and done and done, and it long ago reached the point where it's just plain boring. I've done weddings, though I hated that kind of work and stopped after a few. I did photojournalism for a Colorado Springs commercial partnership and sort of enjoyed that. The only thing I haven't done is the kind of work Rob made his living at. Had I had an opportunity I'd probably have tried that too.
Obviously nobody is going to go out and say "I'm gonna do street photography today. If I get some landscape or wabi sabi I'll throw that away because it won't fit what I'm out to do." But you seem to believe that happens. You even seem to believe that that's what I do. It's not a question of "benchmarks," it's a question of categorizing what you have after you take it out of the camera. And if you aren't familiar with the existing genres you may have a hard time doing that effectively. If you have something from where no man has gone before you can do what HCB did and start a new genre.
By the say, "To boldly go where no man has gone before" is the worst kind of BS. Man has gone everywhere he has the capability to go, so it's impossible to go, boldly or even timidly, where no man has gone before.
I think you should continue, as you say, to "look at a photo and try to appreciate it on its own merits." That's commendable. But trying to cram crap that doesn't fit into a particular genre isn't commendable. It simply doesn't make sense, and makes the person who tries it look less than knowledgable. I won't say "stupid" because that's a value judgment, and I'd have to know the person better to be able to make that judgment.
May I suggest that before you try to discuss street further you study the people who defined it and try to learn what street is. That doesn't mean you shouldn't shoot the stuff you want to shoot. Be my guest. But to try to cram everything you shoot into the street photography genre simply results in ending up with a reputation for very bad street photography.
Russ, what you are talking about, I left behind some time ago. It's not about cramming things into your definition, it is about inviting you too step out and move on.
I don't see there is more to say. We can agree to disagree, can't we?
Cheers
Ivo
-
Russ, what you are talking about, I left behind some time ago. It's not about cramming things into your definition, it is about inviting you too step out and move on.
I don't see there is more to say. We can agree to disagree, can't we?
Cheers
Ivo
It's not a question of agreeing or disagreeing. Please explain with some precision what you mean by "stepping out," and by "moving on." I get this kind of slogan pretty often, but the purveyors of same usually seem not to be able to explain what they mean.
-
Now you've got me ROTFL, Ivo. Brassaï's work differs from HCB's work because Brassaï was working with primitive equipment compared with HCB's. That's the whole point of street photography. In street you catch things on the fly. You can't do that with a tripod and film holders.
And you say night photograph was "unthinkable" ten years ago? Here are two night shots from 2001. That's seventeen years ago. I have dozens more. I even can show you night shots from 1967 with the Leica M4 if you'd like to see them.
It's not that, as you say, I think you're a "photographic dummy." I simply think you're confused.
I'm afraid we are not going to find a common base to build mutual understanding.
I close this discussion from my side. No hard feelings from my side.
Still feel free to comment on my work I will post and take a look on Flickr and Insta. (Going to Flickr and do a search is less work than me trying to get the correct link in this forum, sorry)
But here is one of my more recent snaps.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7099/7275432792_621a168925_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/c5UuGq)Antwerpe,n (https://flic.kr/p/c5UuGq) by Ivo Bogaerts (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ivophoto/), on Flickr
-
Well, it's a "snap" all right. And that's supposed to tell me. . . what?
-
It's not a question of agreeing or disagreeing. Please explain with some precision what you mean by "stepping out," and by "moving on." I get this kind of slogan pretty often, but the purveyors of same usually seem not to be able to explain what they mean.
Well if you got this remark more often, could this point into a certain direction?
I tried to explain this in the number of previous post, Russ. Photography evolved. Other technical revolutions than 35mm changed the game.....
Sad we live on another continent, I guess we would have a very pleasant and interesting evening in a club or bar, talking about out mutual passion: Photography.
-
Well, it's a "snap" all right. And that's supposed to tell me. . . what?
I got you where I wanted, Russ.
You are obviously not in the possibility to understand the situation in this picture and not able to grasp the interaction and sensitivity between the Muslim Girl and the Western Girls, you also fail to see the color game in the image. This is because you look at the picture whit-in the limitation of your references. And that is not wrong, or bad, it just is. When I say, step out and move on, I mean, take the challenge and seek the reason why I took the decision to take this picture. If you consider me as a lost or seeking soul, you wouldn't bother, but if you see me as somebody who potentially seeings things you aren't, you can do the effort and give yourself a change to 'perhaps' learn something.
And I don't have any intention to start a nasty discussion, Russ. If I may recommend (you asked about being more precise) when you look to a picture that doesn't match with your frame of mind, let be the first question: Why did this photographer aim his camera and took this shot?
Kind regards
Ivo
-
Now you've got me ROTFL, Ivo. Brassaï's work differs from HCB's work because Brassaï was working with primitive equipment compared with HCB's. That's the whole point of street photography. In street you catch things on the fly. You can't do that with a tripod and film holders.
And you say night photograph was "unthinkable" ten years ago? Here are two night shots from 2001. That's seventeen years ago. I have dozens more. I even can show you night shots from 1967 with the Leica M4 if you'd like to see them.
It's not that, as you say, I think you're a "photographic dummy." I simply think you're confused.
Moretti is a honey! One of the best you've posted yet!
Rob
-
And that's exactly the problem. People look at the photography of HCB, Frank, Winogrand and say: "Interesting historical stuff, but it has nothing much to do with today," thereby missing the point entirely. The point of HCB's stuff isn't its historicity. The point is that he captured important points about the relationships between people and between people and their environment. Photographs that fail to do that don't fit the street genre. But if course, if it has a street in it, it must be street photography. Right?
Russ, your indefatigable belief in yourself is kinda enviable. You have yet to consider that in fact it might be you who is "...missing the point entirely." :D
-
Okay, Omer, tell me what you think the point is.
-
Okay, Omer, tell me what you think the point is.
I’ll try, but we both know it probably won’t change much.
Your criteria for what makes a “street” photograph legit* is in fact within GreggP’s photo. But it is packaged differently and owes little to the past, perhaps making it difficult to accept (too kaleidoscopic?) Except that today’s photographers are as capable as yesterday’s(please.) It seems too obvious to say but, whoa, guess what, love, loss, defeat, pride, difficulties, are all as relevant in today’s photography as in the beloved 1930s–60s pictures.** Ya just gotta toss that HC-B monkey offf your back.
Remember that The Americans was derided here in the US when it was first published, and as you know Frank had to go to France to publish the book because he met too much resistance here. It was the style that American editors and publishers found objectionable. Think about that.
So there you go. ::)
PS I think the street forum is still a good idea. Just lighten up a bit. That goes for Rob too.
*Emotional connection to the environment, relationships between folks, and you know the rest.
** I really dislike the Family of Man thing that Steichen put on... Just for the record.
-
I got you where I wanted, Russ.
You are obviously not in the possibility to understand the situation in this picture and not able to grasp the interaction and sensitivity between the Muslim Girl and the Western Girls, you also fail to see the color game in the image. This is because you look at the picture whit-in the limitation of your references. And that is not wrong, or bad, it just is. When I say, step out and move on, I mean, take the challenge and seek the reason why I took the decision to take this picture. If you consider me as a lost or seeking soul, you wouldn't bother, but if you see me as somebody who potentially seeings things you aren't, you can do the effort and give yourself a change to 'perhaps' learn something.
And I don't have any intention to start a nasty discussion, Russ. If I may recommend (you asked about being more precise) when you look to a picture that doesn't match with your frame of mind, let be the first question: Why did this photographer aim his camera and took this shot?
Kind regards
Ivo
Okay, Ivo. First explain how I'm supposed to know that that's a Muslim girl? The headscarf? Lots of girls wear headscarfs. The point is that for it to be effective photojournalism a picture has to be complete. This one isn't.
-
Well if you got this remark more often, could this point into a certain direction?
I tried to explain this in the number of previous post, Russ. Photography evolved. Other technical revolutions than 35mm changed the game.....
Sad we live on another continent, I guess we would have a very pleasant and interesting evening in a club or bar, talking about out mutual passion: Photography.
In other words you're not going to answer my questions about what's "stepping out" and what's "moving on." What you're giving me is slogans. That won't cut it. If you're going to toss out slogans like those you'd better be ready to explain what you mean by them because I'm always gonna ask.
-
Remember that The Americans was derided here in the US when it was first published, and as you know Frank had to go to France to publish the book because he met too much resistance here. It was the style that American editors and publishers found objectionable. Think about that.
If you'd read the stuff on my web you'd know that I've not only thought about it, I've lectured on the subject.
-
Moretti is a honey! One of the best you've posted yet!
Rob
Thanks, Rob. That came from just wandering around downtown after dark. I love that picture too.
-
If you'd read the stuff on my web you'd know that I've not only thought about it, I've lectured on the subject.
I know you know, Russ, that’s why I mentioned it. My point is that your outlook of contemporary photography seems to be similar to that of those ‘50s publishers.
-
Okay, Ivo. First explain how I'm supposed to know that that's a Muslim girl? The headscarf? Lots of girls wear headscarfs. The point is that for it to be effective photojournalism a picture has to be complete. This one isn't.
Oh, come on, Russ. Look at how the other two women are dressed - it's mild to warm temperatures, but the woman on the right has both a full head covering and her arms and legs are fully covered, combined with her skin tones (someone will complain about that comment, I guess), my very first though is that she is probably Muslim. Lots of woman do not wear headscarves in 2018 in western countries, and very few during warm or hot weather.
Then you have the classic play between red and blue, and the tie in of those colours and the woman on the right looking across. In the background, between the Muslim woman and the other two is a red pedestrian stop signal - I'm going to say that wasn't deliberately captured, but it sure does add to the scene.
There's lots in this scene - intended or fortunate.
-
Oh, come on, Russ. Look at how the other two women are dressed - it's mild to warm temperatures, but the woman on the right has both a full head covering and her arms and legs are fully covered, combined with her skin tones (someone will complain about that comment, I guess), my very first though is that she is probably Muslim. Lots of woman do not wear headscarves in 2018 in western countries, and very few during warm or hot weather.
Then you have the classic play between red and blue, and the tie in of those colours and the woman on the right looking across. In the background, between the Muslim woman and the other two is a red pedestrian stop signal - I'm going to say that wasn't deliberately captured, but it sure does add to the scene.
There's lots in this scene - intended or fortunate.
Thanks Farmer
I’m so glad somebody can read contemporary picture here.
When I ‘m out with my camera, I shoot approx 1,5 picture a day, you can imagine that I saw why to raise my camera.
I was really hoping to share some insights with Lula’s Statler and Waldorf, but unfortunately.
-
hmmm, I must admit that I'm slowly sympathising with Rob's surprise here.
I realise that language skills in general are degrading quickly, and evidently, visual language skills fare no different, but one would expect that a photography forum would at least show a little more intelligence regarding pictorial analogy, metaphor, repetition, and ambiguity. And for the Street Art subgenre, an excellent eye for mood rendering and composition would be appreciated.
If you operate on the level of Van Gogh or Picasso, you might posit that you can and want to change the interpretation of an entire genre, but for the rest of us mere mortals, that be a bit conceited and narcissistic. (Oh wait... Conceited and narcissistic gets you lots of dough and power, nm)
Sure, new techniques and new technology will change the visual language, but the fact that phones have made the superficial ubiquitous, doesn't mean that contemporary Street Art needs to become flat and superficial by the forces of the common.
(did that sound conceited enough to at least get me some dough? ;-) )
-
I’ll try, but we both know it probably won’t change much.
Your criteria for what makes a “street” photograph legit* is in fact within GreggP’s photo. But it is packaged differently and owes little to the past, perhaps making it difficult to accept (too kaleidoscopic?) Except that today’s photographers are as capable as yesterday’s(please.) It seems too obvious to say but, whoa, guess what, love, loss, defeat, pride, difficulties, are all as relevant in today’s photography as in the beloved 1930s–60s pictures.** Ya just gotta toss that HC-B monkey offf your back.
Remember that The Americans was derided here in the US when it was first published, and as you know Frank had to go to France to publish the book because he met too much resistance here. It was the style that American editors and publishers found objectionable. Think about that.
So there you go. ::)
PS I think the street forum is still a good idea. Just lighten up a bit. That goes for Rob too.
*Emotional connection to the environment, relationships between folks, and you know the rest.
** I really dislike the Family of Man thing that Steichen put on... Just for the record.
I'm kinda confused, now, because I need a reference to which snap we speak about in this context. If we speak of the beach, no it is not street; if of the city shot, yes, it fits street art, but please don't offer that it is new in any way: folks were making sandwich slides almost as soon as transparency film was on the market. Today we do the same old trick in the computer. Ain't nuttin' noo... we just have to try and make the perennial as interesting as we can.
Frank's book wasn't accepted in the States, originally, for the same reasons that Klein's New York had problems: no US publisher wanted to take the financial hit he expected from a country where the folks hang the flag outside their house, a concept so strange, unexpected, unusual and apparently pointless to Europeans: we take our nationalities for granted and feel no need to keep reminding ourselves of who we may be. Only after Europe made the books succesful did the US leap on the bus and look for its rake-off too.
No, Omer, it is not time for Russ or moi to "lighten up" a bit. It is time fo those who want to use this part of the site to abide by the hoped for aims of it: to be a showcase for street photography. To do that we need to contribute street and street art, not reduce it to the spiritual equivalent of holiday snaps at the beach, even if those snaps are the best ever snapped. It's a question of posting within the right location, and nothing more.
But I think you understand that perfectly well, anyhow. I think Ivo does too, hence the need to ignore my post #66.
Truth to tell, I think this is spilling over into troll heaven, rather than being any serious consideration of the topic.
;-)
-
Oh, come on, Russ. Look at how the other two women are dressed - it's mild to warm temperatures, but the woman on the right has both a full head covering and her arms and legs are fully covered, combined with her skin tones (someone will complain about that comment, I guess), my very first though is that she is probably Muslim. Lots of woman do not wear headscarves in 2018 in western countries, and very few during warm or hot weather.
Then you have the classic play between red and blue, and the tie in of those colours and the woman on the right looking across. In the background, between the Muslim woman and the other two is a red pedestrian stop signal - I'm going to say that wasn't deliberately captured, but it sure does add to the scene.
There's lots in this scene - intended or fortunate.
Farmer, have you served an apprenticeship with a curator?
-
Well, it's a "snap" all right. And that's supposed to tell me. . . what?
That where red was once supposed to be the optical key to the main point of interest, we now have a shot which can't decide which point is interesting, so throws in two in hope of dodging the decision-making bullet...
In fairness, I blame the look of computer colour imagery for that.
Maybe de-tuning the colour pain of the thing, also making it smaller, might help. Blown so large, the eye is compelled to wander about looking for - what? Smaller, it sees three figures, one presumably picking a bit of crap from the other, a third just looking on, or out, for traffic. Pictures trying to tell a story have to be concise, physically as emotionally, so that they can be seen and understood in an instant.
As that's all far too complex for me, I find my jollies in taking a shot that possibly has a bit of "something", and then playing around with it until it either accentuates that something, or turns into another thing altogether, which can be unexpected fun. Having said which, I fear that the word fun is as hopeless as the word nice; they mean absolutely nothing.
And some thought pictures were a minefield...
-
Farmer, have you served an apprenticeship with a curator?
Hah - I'll pay that :-)
Different things speak to different people in different ways, Rob.
-
You are obviously not in the possibility to understand the situation in this picture and not able to grasp the interaction and sensitivity between the Muslim Girl and the Western Girls, you also fail to see the color game in the image.
Okay Ivo, Evidently you haven't been around women enough to understand that they sometimes dress irrationally, so you don't understand that a girl wearing a headscarf and long pants isn't necessarily Muslim. But that aside, what's this about the "color game in the image?" Is that the message this picture's supposed to convey? Street isn't about color games, Ivo. It's about interrelationships between people.
-
I know you know, Russ, that’s why I mentioned it. My point is that your outlook of contemporary photography seems to be similar to that of those ‘50s publishers.
Really? In what way Omer? Those fifties publishers were trying to tell us that America actually looks like the stuff painted by Norman Rockwell and photographed by Alfred Eisenstadt. We all knew better. In what way is my stuff like Rockwell's or Eisenstadt's?
I was there when The Americans hit America. I read the slam on it by Popular Photography. Your age is N/A, so I guess you were too young to have actually experienced that. Pop Photograph soon was overrun on that miscalculation.
-
lol No, Omer, it is not time for Russ or moi to "lighten up" a bit. It is time fo those who want to use this part of the site to abide by the hoped for aims of it:...
That sounds awfully close to children who spend their whole life trying to please their never-satisfied father and his idea who they should be, never actually figuring out what that is.
You two are turning into genre police, I am afraid. You are not only mocking whole genres, like landscape, you are now mocking people’s attempts to fit into your own beloved, yet ever-elusive genre definition, which more and more looks like a Procrustean bed.
-
That sounds awfully close to children who spend their whole life trying to please their never-satisfied father and his idea who they should be, never actually figuring out what that is.
You two are turning into genre police, I am afraid. You are not only mocking whole genres, like landscape, you are now mocking people’s attempts to fit into your own beloved, yet ever-elusive genre definition, which more and more looks like a Procrustean bed.
And to think that I always figured you could read very well indeed!
Mocking anything doesn't enter. No "whole genre" has been mocked, but irrelevance to the street zone within LuLa has been pointed out over and over again, because it seems to be a simple, basic yet impossible thing for a lot of folks to grasp: in a street section can you please post street photography pictures, not landscape, cityscape (as in your excellent, award-winning architectural design studies) nor beach? Please? Those are all something other than street. Why is that difficult for people to comprehend?
I don't mock landscape. I can't do it to my own satisfaction and, guess what - neither do most of the people who do try to do it. To put some finer focus on it: you will remember Chuck Kimmerle, who used to post on LuLa. I looked at his website a lot; some very interesting black/white photography, out of Nikon. He thinks of himself as a landscape artist. Now, note this: his present website shows an almost completely different sense of images and direction to his old set, to the more commonly imagined genre of what constitutes landscape. He has certainly moved on from very good to very, very focussed, too.
https://www.chuckkimmerle.com/
I guess you can reasonably draw the conclusion that the more immersed you become, the more you understand and, inevitably, the deeper within yourself you have to dig.
;-)
-
Okay Ivo, Evidently you haven't been around women enough to understand that they sometimes dress irrationally, so you don't understand that a girl wearing a headscarf and long pants isn't necessarily Muslim. But that aside, what's this about the "color game in the image?" Is that the message this picture's supposed to convey? Street isn't about color games, Ivo. It's about interrelationships between people.
Russ,
Serious, are you really saying this to me?
You know, few days ago, I really cared about your idea.
But reading your last posts, I don’t care anymore.
I continue doing what a like second most
Fly fishing
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180527/58d911ac731dc5871d5bc6800fb74cf6.jpg)
Kind regards
Ivo.
-
That sounds awfully close to children who spend their whole life trying to please their never-satisfied father and his idea who they should be, never actually figuring out what that is.
You two are turning into genre police, I am afraid. You are not only mocking whole genres, like landscape, you are now mocking people’s attempts to fit into your own beloved, yet ever-elusive genre definition, which more and more looks like a Procrustean bed.
Slobodan, if you sit down and actually study the work of the people who defined street photography you'll see their work is anything but stuff in a Procrustean bed.
This morning I picked up Walker Evans's American Photographs and started re-reading the comments on it by Lincoln Kirstein (if you don't know who Lincoln is you probably ought to find out).
"A superficial ease of operation has rendered the camera the dilettante's delight. It is both simpler and cleaner to make bad photographs than it is to make bad paintings." and further: "Sighting ... through a little window and clicking a small key are obviously child's play, and the ensuing childish results offer the vastest possibilities for innocent amusement. . ."
This, of course, was long before digital point-and-shoots and the cellphone swelled this kind of activity to a torrent of ho- hum garbage and selfies.
The problem we see in Street Showcase is not people trying to cram stuff into a definition. It's a problem of gross ignorance of the definition. There's a bunch of stuff here in Street Showcase that would go just fine in User Critiques. That includes your girl with head in the clouds. It's an interesting picture but it's a long way from street photography.
Which is why I'd recommend strongly getting rid of Landscape Showcase and Street Showcase. I see plenty of stuff in Landscape Showcase that obviously isn't landscape. A picture, for instance, of tree bark is a hell of a long way from landscape, though it'd go just fine in User Critiques, which, you might have noticed studiously avoids categories. Ivo's "color exercise" picture of women is street, but it's exceedingly bad street. It would go better in User Critiques where it wouldn't be trying to fit a genre Ivo obviously knows nothing about.
I keep hearing about how out of date my idea of street photography -- actually of photography in general -- is. But I have yet to see anybody post a picture that purports to be a convincing and worthwhile advancement from the kind of work Atget, HCB, Frank, Walker Evans or Ansel Adams, did. Yes, we have better color nowadays. (Big f...ing deal.) In general we have better equipment, so in many cases we can beat these guys in important things like "sharpness." (Another big f...ing deal.) What makes a great photograph or a great painting or a great poem or a great musical composition isn't sharpness or color. It's what I'll call the soul that went into it. In most cases, if you're struck by something with the soul that shines out of Ansel's "Moonlight over Hernandez" you don't say to yourself: "Wow! That's really sharp." or "Wow! What great color." You don't say anything. You Just accept the gift.
-
I'm kinda confused, now, because I need a reference to which snap we speak about in this context. If we speak of the beach, no it is not street; if of the city shot, yes, it fits street art, but please don't offer that it is new in any way: folks were making sandwich slides almost as soon as transparency film was on the market. Today we do the same old trick in the computer. Ain't nuttin' noo... we just have to try and make the perennial as interesting as we can.
Frank's book wasn't accepted in the States, originally, for the same reasons that Klein's New York had problems: no US publisher wanted to take the financial hit he expected from a country where the folks hang the flag outside their house, a concept so strange, unexpected, unusual and apparently pointless to Europeans: we take our nationalities for granted and feel no need to keep reminding ourselves of who we may be. Only after Europe made the books succesful did the US leap on the bus and look for its rake-off too.
No, Omer, it is not time for Russ or moi to "lighten up" a bit. It is time fo those who want to use this part of the site to abide by the hoped for aims of it: to be a showcase for street photography. To do that we need to contribute street and street art, not reduce it to the spiritual equivalent of holiday snaps at the beach, even if those snaps are the best ever snapped. It's a question of posting within the right location, and nothing more.
But I think you understand that perfectly well, anyhow. I think Ivo does too, hence the need to ignore my post #66.
Truth to tell, I think this is spilling over into troll heaven, rather than being any serious consideration of the topic.
;-)
Seriously?
You and Russ are being pedantic in what is in effect a social setting, a hangout for mostly amateurs.
But you’re right, we’re trolling each other. So I’m done.
Good weather.
-
Russ,
You know, few days ago, I really cared about your idea.
But reading your last posts, I don’t care anymore.
Ivo.
Oh dear, Ivo, I'm crushed.
-
... a simple, basic yet impossible thing for a lot of folks to grasp: in a street section can you please post street photography pictures, not landscape, cityscape (as in your excellent, award-winning architectural design studies) nor beach? Please? Those are all something other than street. Why is that difficult for people to comprehend?...
Perhaps because it was Russ who argued that “street” doesn’t have to be on the street, but could be, among other things, on the beach just as well?
In another post of yours, you divided, quite cleverly, genres with the word “street” in them, into:
Street
Street Art
Streetscapes (cityscapes)
Perhaps if you clarified that in your OP for this thread, people at least wouldn’t post streetscapes or cityscapes in your Street Art thread?
Never mind that the term (sub-genre?) “street art” doesn’t seem to exist, other than under the category of what most people think it is, i.e., murals, graffiti, or even street performers. Now, don’t get me wrong, even if it doesn’t exist and you invented it and defined it, I think you would be right to do so, as I could see a merit for its existence. It is just that not being universally understood, it could lead to people posting all kind of similarly sounding stuff.
-
... That includes your girl with head in the clouds. It's an interesting picture but it's a long way from street photography...
You keep saying that, Russ, but, as before, I am puzzled by that comment. Did I post it as “street”? I never did, nor interned to. I posted it in Rob’s subsection “Street Art” as I believed it fits his own definition of it. Perhaps it doesn’t, but I am still waiting for Rob to elaborate why not.
-
There's a bunch of stuff here in Street Showcase that would go just fine in User Critiques. That includes your girl with head in the clouds. It's an interesting picture but it's a long way from street photography.
As an echo of Lee Friedlander's 'Knoxville, Tennessee, 1971' it seems pretty close. Or is Friedlander persona non grata, along with Atget and Brassai?
https://www.artsy.net/artwork/lee-friedlander-knoxville-tennessee
-
Well that’s the end of that. I see no one is posting anything much anymore. But seems only people to qualify to be able to post here are all dead. The rest of us don’t meet the standards or understand the genre. So be it. No big deal. Lots of things vying for my time so pointless to waste it here.
As far as the Muslim woman image. A man with a white cane will see she is Muslim. Only way to make it any clearer would be to hang a sign around her neck or use one of those endless tired juxtapositions and find a street sign pointing to a mosque and position her in front of it.
It’s sad really. For a while there was signs of life here.
-
Really, the day I worry my head over genres, labels and pigeonholes will be the day I forsake a lifetime's career in image making and embark on an exciting new path in taxonomy. Hence in future I'll be posting images elsewhere and in so doing managing to avoid the dog's dinner, bitching and bickering that are the Streety Showcase, Streety and Streety Arty thingies.
-
This is my folder called Street in Flickr. I consider all of them some form of Street shots but I'm not a pro and maybe don't understand the genre. Would any of them be considered good street shots, and why? Maybe I can "up" my game.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157625796644064
-
Well that’s the end of that. I see no one is posting anything much anymore. But seems only people to qualify to be able to post here are all dead. The rest of us don’t meet the standards or understand the genre. So be it. No big deal. Lots of things vying for my time so pointless to waste it here.
As far as the Muslim woman image. A man with a white cane will see she is Muslim. Only way to make it any clearer would be to hang a sign around her neck or use one of those endless tired juxtapositions and find a street sign pointing to a mosque and position her in front of it.
It’s sad really. For a while there was signs of life here.
Don’t worry, Martin.
The only thing that became obvious is Statler and Waldorf’s irrelevance.
I will keep posting some of my contemporary work, and I hope to see yours.
I will drop in one straight away
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180527/9c70adc212f8a8d2e54b72c0b502536f.jpg)
-
As an echo of Lee Friedlander's 'Knoxville, Tennessee, 1971' it seems pretty close. Or is Friedlander persona non grata, along with Atget and Brassai?
https://www.artsy.net/artwork/lee-friedlander-knoxville-tennessee
Hehe... thanks for that find!
-
As an echo of Lee Friedlander's 'Knoxville, Tennessee, 1971' it seems pretty close. Or is Friedlander persona non grata, along with Atget and Brassai?
https://www.artsy.net/artwork/lee-friedlander-knoxville-tennessee
Why would Lee F be persona non grata? He personifies a part of street as well as the selfie!
https://www.xatakafoto.com/fotografos/lee-friedlander-el-mas-influyente-fotografo-del-paisaje-social
Ignore the Spanish if you don't understand it, just scroll down to the little film which is in English.
Lee is one of those who totally "gets" what street was and still is. It has little to do with my efforts or Russ's efforts to explain it; we just happen to have seen enough of this genre over the years to get a good overall, bird's-eye take on it. If spreading the sense of it by the written word is beyond the ability of either Russ or myself to do effectively, so be it: that does not negate the reality of what is, though it may underline the lack of willingness to comprehend.
My posting of a link to Leiter's Early Color had no success in explaining anything either, so as it obviously can't be the readership, I guess Leiter is a crock of it too.
Rob
-
Leiter walks on water.
-
...https://www.xatakafoto.com/fotografos/lee-friedlander-el-mas-influyente-fotografo-del-paisaje-social
Ignore the Spanish if you don't understand it..l
Hey, I understand it enough to read that it doesn’t classify it as “street” but as “social landscape” instead.
LANDSCAPE!
Eat your hearts out, landscape haters! Turns out, your beloved “street” is just a sub genre of the almighty landscape.
😀
-
Hey, I understand it enough to read that it doesn’t classify it as “street” but as “social landscape” instead.
LANDACAPE!
Eat your hearts out, landscape haters! Turns out, your beloved “street” is just a sub genre of the almighty landscape.
😀
ROFL
-
Social landscape? What a cool name. I could definitely get into that. What are the rules?
-
Hey, I understand it enough to read that it doesn’t classify it as “street” but as “social landscape” instead.
LANDACAPE!
Eat your hearts out, landscape haters! Turns out, your beloved “street” is just a sub genre of the almighty landscape.
😀
I read it perfectly clearly too, and hoped that in spite of that obvious, oh-so-easy to distort opinion, it was still worth posting in the hope you would see a tiny bit beyond it. Social landscape, in the context, is nothing to do with rocks, trees and lakes: it is a reference to the human landscape, not that of Mother Nature and the National Parklands.
Guess I aimed too high.
-
ROFL
Yet something else you misunderstand! Keep on truckin' - you'll win a prize or even a large fish for dinner!
;-)
-
Yet something else you misunderstand! Keep on truckin' - you'll win a prize or even a large fish for dinner!
;-)
No Waldorf, I don't misunderstand. Yet something else you think you know better:
ROFL (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ROFL)
-
This is my folder called Street in Flickr. I consider all of them some form of Street shots but I'm not a pro and maybe don't understand the genre. Would any of them be considered good street shots, and why? Maybe I can "up" my game.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157625796644064
Tx for sharing, I enjoyed looking at your pictures. I think you are best in your landscaping, Alan. I also enjoyed the family photo's on film, after all, these are the ones that are important, isn't it?
-
No Waldorf, I don't misunderstand. Yet something else you think you know better:
ROFL (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ROFL)
Thank you for confirming!
-
Okay Ivo, Evidently you haven't been around women enough to understand that they sometimes dress irrationally, so you don't understand that a girl wearing a headscarf and long pants isn't necessarily Muslim.
The person isn't necessarily a woman, Russ, if you want to take it to extremes. I think, perhaps, you haven't been out and about in the world recently enough to know that on a summer's day in Europe the woman wearing a headscarf and fully covered arms and legs, is at least 99% likely to be Muslim.
Seriously, you're absolutely clutching at straws here to try to support your point despite it having little to no basis, and once again you rely on "I'm older so I know more and I'm right" as an appeal to "authority" (a logical fallacy).
The photo speaks for itself, fully contained, of a modern interaction in a European city. Like all such shots, it's open to interpretation and we can read things in and out of it as we desire (as with all art).
-
Okay Phil. I surrender. I think it's time to get rid of Street Showcase and simply post stuff like this on User Critiques. That way we steer away completely from any attempt to work within a genre that vanishingly few have taken the trouble to research. It seemed like a good idea in the beginning, but I was wrong once before, back in about 1938 as I recall, so I'm not a virgin.
-
I, too, am never wrong. I thought I was once, but I was mistaken. 😉
-
Okay Phil. I surrender. I think it's time to get rid of Street Showcase and simply post stuff like this on User Critiques. That way we steer away completely from any attempt to work within a genre that vanishingly few have taken the trouble to research. It seemed like a good idea in the beginning, but I was wrong once before, back in about 1938 as I recall, so I'm not a virgin.
But there's still hope, Russ! I'm a virgin again, and it doesn't matter.
Life, stupidity, point-scoring attempts in place of argument, these same pavements have been well-trodden for ages. The important thing is to know what one knows, and try to understand that that which escapes some others more dependent on public opinion than on seeking after information may not, deep, deep down, be misunderstood at all: it's just attitude.
But as you know, who really gives a flying fig! Comes the moment, and it matters not a jot.
:-)
-
Everyone else is happy with the forum, it seems. I didn't realise it was created for your exclusive use or that you were an accepted authority on what is and what isn't?
Leave it. Post your stuff, let others post theirs. Comment, critique, but don't think for a moment you are the sole arbiter of what is and what isn't acceptable.
-
That's okay Phil. You guys just go ahead and post what you want to post. No reason to do any research or to study what "street photography" actually means. Have fun. If I'm here I'll be over on User Critiques.
-
That's okay Phil. You guys just go ahead and post what you want to post. No reason to do any research or to study what "street photography" actually means. Have fun. If I'm here I'll be over on User Critiques.
So if someone disagrees with you, or comes to different conclusions, they don't know what they're talking about?
Whilst I'm utterly useless at it, I've got a pretty reasonable handle on what it is and I think people should be welcome to post. Critique it by all means, but let's not police it and criticise it. Provide information, links, experience, knowledge. Yes, do all that. But just complaining "that's not Street" (according to you) isn't helpful, particularly when other people feel it is a valid piece within the genre, even if you think we're all young idiots.
-
So if someone disagrees with you, or comes to different conclusions, they don't know what they're talking about?
Whilst I'm utterly useless at it, I've got a pretty reasonable handle on what it is and I think people should be welcome to post. Critique it by all means, but let's not police it and criticise it. Provide information, links, experience, knowledge. Yes, do all that. But just complaining "that's not Street" (according to you) isn't helpful, particularly when other people feel it is a valid piece within the genre, even if you think we're all young idiots.
+1
-
Enough, I think.
Jeremy