Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => Street Showcase => Topic started by: RSL on July 10, 2018, 04:02:07 pm
-
Why does "Street Showcase" have the subtitle "-not landscape. . ." when that should be blindingly obvious to all but the severely mentally handicapped? "Landscape Showcase" has the subtitle: "To showcase & discuss Landscape images." Why can't Street Showcase have a similar subtitle: "To showcase & discuss Street Photography." ???
Just asking. But you knew that, right?
-
I'm with you 100% on this, Russ.
How about it, Chris?
-
Begs the question, why have something as vague as a street category ( whatever that means ) while other widely accepted genres of photography are excluded? Or lumped into a minor sub- category as if these ‘ other ‘ genres don’t exist or are of any less significance.
I can understand Landscape being a specific category in LuLa.
As to the OP’s query...maybe the intention was to have the street category to include everything else but Landscape.
-
Rayyan, apparently you're not familiar with Cartier-Bresson and his followers and on through people like Walker Evans, Robert Frank, etc., etc. Street photography is huge in comparison with landscape. It's probably the largest photographic genre of all. Unfortunately it's not a practice followed by most amateurs (people who make photographs because they love it, as opposed to those who make photographs for a living). The reason for that is that it can be scary. Landscapes just sit there while you photograph them. People can chase you.
In any case, street deserves a proper segment in any site that displays photographs.
-
As does Fashion photography, don't you think?
As does PhotoJournalism. One genre, in which one can and does get killed; not only just being chased.
To name some names...but you must know them already.
Russ, yes I am quite familiar with the names you mentioned. Although we do live in a desert and love our camels :)
-
You know what you should do? Go out and make damn good pictures and show them instead of endless weeping about whatever category.
-
Sorry, guys, I'm still convinced that only a moron would think street photography is landscape. Please. . . tell me you don't think that.
-
Hi Russ.
I do, however, agree that the extra wording under ‘ street showcase ‘ is redundant and serves no purpose.
Sorry, guys, I'm still convinced that only a moron would think street photography is landscape. Please. . . tell me you don't think that.
-
Russ, I was young once - or so I have been told - so trying to see the responses from that earlier perspective, the problem appears to be one of imaginary rebellion, a dislike (stated, but perhaps just bravado) for organised order.
My personal reason for wishing there were defined categories is simple: there are only so many genres of photography on which I am willing to spend my ever-shortening time. I have no desire to wade through ARATs again; I do not think it brilliant planning to feel forced to wade through endless cats 'n' pooches, through all manner of stuff that holds no personal appeal for me.
Someone asked, as a form of attack, why not a section for, along with other things, fashion. Simply put, apart from about three of us who did that professionally, from whence the snaps? You can reduce that princely total even further: I have but two such pix left from all those years of earning my crust with it. There is no such thing as amateur fashion photography. There are only bad jokes. Period.
Even street is not some massive, homogenous whole; there are famed names who don't do much for me as there are others I almost worship. For instance, I see Leiter as an exponent of street art, quite unlike either Meyerowitz or Winogrand who are, to me, raw street. I would look at (and do) Leiter's oeuvre almost every day, but not the others. Why would I consider a better-organised LuLa a disadvantage?
It's all about not wasting available time on uninteresting subject matter. (A personal call, which - as somebody else here with a penchant for quoting such things says - is my right to make.)
The better organised, the better all round.
-
The not landscape, should go, but it won't make an iota of difference to the content posted to the Street Showcase.
-
...
The better organised, the better all round.
This coming from the person who started the WP streamofconscious thread...
;-p
-
Keith, you were right about the mafia.
But some like to hear their own voice too much, too!
Regards.
The not landscape, should go, but it won't make an iota of difference to the content posted to the Street Showcase.
-
The not landscape, should go, but it won't make an iota of difference to the content posted to the Street Showcase.
That, Keith, is the truth.
And neither will it keep Street out of the Critique section which, apart from WP is the depository for all the rest of the snaps that seek praise, condemnation or whatever motivates the posting.
I think it boils down to laziness.
-
Keith, you were right about the mafia.
But some like to hear their own voice too much, too!
Regards.
Careful Rayyan, I could be a member.
;-)
-
I would look at (and do) Leiter's oeuvre almost every day, but not the others. Why would I consider a better-organised LuLa a disadvantage?
Rob,
Leiter is the artist among street! Alawys will stand aside, away from the others. That's why I revere him.
Peter
-
Careful Rayyan, I could be a member.
;-)
Do you cary a knife...?
Peter
-
This coming from the person who started the WP streamofconscious thread...
;-p
WP was started, not for stylistic reasons, but to provide a forum where people could post images free from unwanted second-guesses and suggestions of how the shot could be improved.
The intention and assumption behind the concept being that there are those who know what they want from the camera, know how to use one to get that result, and simply enjoy the idea of a place where they can display the pix without having to put up with "advice" they didn't want or need. Those who desire such helpful input have the rest of the Critique space in which to play.
Anyway, isn't stream of consciousness more, well, on the road than on the street?
;-)
-
You know what you should do? Go out and make damn good pictures and show them instead of endless weeping about whatever category.
https://luminous-landscape.com/on-street-photography/
-
WP
Anyway, isn't stream of consciousness more, well, on the road than on the street?
;-)
JK would agree...!
Peter
-
Rob,
Leiter is the artist among street! Alawys will stand aside, away from the others. That's why I revere him.
Peter
And his books never disappoint. I also like Louis Faurer, his contemporary, but I think Faurer's fashion was better than his street. Oddly, Faurer and Frank thought that their highly-paid fashion work was less than worthy... on the contrary, I think Faurer was far better at fashion than his own preference for Times Square and Philly imagery! They wrote about "selling out" whatever that really means...
But that is not an unusual attitude. I remember some of my own contemporaries saying similar stuff: their personal work was better than their paid work. My paid work was my personal work: the paying clients allowed me to legitimise and create the work that I could never have put together otherwise! I thank God every day for granting me my two biggest and earliest photographic desires: to get work in Vogue and to get to do calendars. The rest is an anticlimax. But it also keeps me sane. Sort of. I think.
;-)
-
JK would agree...!
Peter
;-) !
-
https://luminous-landscape.com/on-street-photography/
Q.E.D. Part 2.
;-)
-
Do you cary a knife...?
Peter
No, just the scars...
-
The not landscape, should go, but it won't make an iota of difference to the content posted to the Street Showcase.
You're absolutely right, Keith, and therein lies the tragedy.
-
You're absolutely right, Keith, and therein lies the tragedy.
Russ, with respect, and I mean that, I think there are only a very few contributors here who would describe that as a tragedy.
I know, I know, you'd consider that in itself a tragedy.
;-)
-
Thanks, Keith, and the respect certainly is mutual. But... Exactly!
-
Well, actually, we also have to admit that this section has resulted in a plethora of great non-landscape images some of which i wouldn't have wanted to miss either. So perhaps retitle this "non-landscape showcase" (subtitle optional) and be done with the whole discussion.
-
+1
Shall Open it for the plebes, and for ‘ vogue ‘ photographers too.
Well, actually, we also have to admit that this section has resulted in a plethora of great non-landscape images some of which i wouldn't have wanted to miss either. So perhaps retitle this "non-landscape showcase" (subtitle optional) and be done with the whole discussion.
-
No, just the scars...
Being an American of Sicilian decent, Father born in Sicily, I understand...
Peter
-
Thanks, Keith, and the respect certainly is mutual. But... Exactly!
+ 1
:-)
-
Well, actually, we also have to admit that this section has resulted in a plethora of great non-landscape images some of which i wouldn't have wanted to miss either. So perhaps retitle this "non-landscape showcase" (subtitle optional) and be done with the whole discussion.
I think you are quite right when you say there have been some good non-landscape photos in this section.
In itself, that's hardly a valid reason to see more easy selection of type within a non-landscape world as somehow pointless.
Like I explained earlier, I love seeing street art but am pretty ambivalent on the other sorts of street. In other words, pix that demonstrate clever use of available colour/spaces/windows-and-contents etc. (even clever juxtaposition can be fun or just brilliant wit) interest me. Looking at snaps of sundry unknowns doing nothing very much tend not to be high on my list of desired viewings.
Heysoos, it's a similar experience to wandering the endless bays of a supermarket, looking at salt, pasta, veggies when all you want is some toothpaste. Those stores with good, visible information make shopping a lot less arduous.
The same with here.
-
Why does "Street Showcase" have the subtitle "-not landscape. . ." when that should be blindingly obvious to all but the severely mentally handicapped? "Landscape Showcase" has the subtitle: "To showcase & discuss Landscape images." Why can't Street Showcase have a similar subtitle: "To showcase & discuss Street Photography." ???
Just asking. But you knew that, right?
I have removed the offending sub-title. Less is more. Play on.
-
... Heysoos, it's a similar experience to wandering the endless bays of a supermarket, looking at salt, pasta, veggies when all you want is some toothpaste. Those stores with good, visible information make shopping a lot less arduous...
Rob, your calls for a proper genre classification, and in particular this analogy with shopping is so... misogynistic ;)
-
Rob, your calls for a proper genre classification, and in particular this analogy with shopping is so... misogynistic ;)
I never knew!
At least it shows that if it was worth making the illustration, it's a common failure within the shopping "experience".
Have you noticed how, today, everything gets described as an "experience"? Once, you just bought something; now, you inadvertently enjoy an added value, which is going to cost you more, but that you can later wax eloquent about as a wonderful experience unlike any other: I would once have thought that I'd just bought some eggs; today, I learn that no, I have had an amazing, life-enhancing experience.
Isn't bullshit a wonderful medium? Your new, flexible friend - if enjoyed young, like that Beaujolais...
Aren't we so lucky these days?
-
https://luminous-landscape.com/on-street-photography/
Yep, that’s the talking, now show the walking.
-
Yep, that’s the talking, now show the walking.
In other words, you didn't see the photographs that go with the article. Maybe you need to go back and try again.
-
In other words, you didn't see the photographs that go with the article. Maybe you need to go back and try again.
I did look at them. Some are ok, few are nice. But not of that level for somebody who preach the one and only truth.
-
I did look at them. Some are ok, few are nice. But not of that level for somebody who preach the one and only truth.
You clearly don't seem able to differentiate between man and message. That's a real shame, and I mean this as sincerely as I have ever stated anything.
On the other hand, this many just represent the decline and fall of a very good site; absolutely nothing is for ever, this one included.
Rob
-
You clearly don't seem able to differentiate between man and message. That's a real shame, and I mean this as sincerely as I have ever stated anything.
Rob
Rob, Russ likes to pull my leg (his words) I pull back.
-
You clearly don't seem able to differentiate between man and message. That's a real shame, and I mean this as sincerely as I have ever stated anything.
On the other hand, this many just represent the decline and fall of a very good site; absolutely nothing is for ever, this one included.
Rob
I'm not going to fight with Ivo, Rob. There's nothing to fight about. I went back to the beginning of our new Street segment and ran through the stuff he's posted. His first one was pretty good; of two women talking over lunch. He caught some interesting expressions, and the light was excellent. From there on, what he's posted as street photography generally has been pictures of people milling around on the street -- no significant connection between them and no interaction with their surroundings. He thinks that's street photography, and I'd be spinning my wheels if I tried to explain that it's not. But then the question of quality comes up. I'm not going to go there, because I'd have to be honest, and I don't want Jeremy to kick me off of LuLa.
-
. . . this analogy with shopping is so... misogynistic ;)
Exhausted Shopper, Washington, D.C., 2015