Post by: stamper on January 10, 2019, 06:38:05 am
Post by: francois on January 10, 2019, 07:54:22 am
Bravo!
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on January 10, 2019, 08:27:53 am
The lonely people in your photos are always expressive, never just "stick" figures.
Post by: RSL on January 10, 2019, 08:43:50 am
Post by: Ivophoto on January 10, 2019, 11:32:57 am
But, please explain why this is ‘fine real’ street and this isn’t:
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190110/b527543801588958ddf68880696362c1.jpg)
Photo by Adam Krawesky
Post by: RSL on January 10, 2019, 12:08:33 pm
Post by: stamper on January 10, 2019, 12:18:07 pm
Post by: EricV on January 10, 2019, 12:58:36 pm
Post by: RSL on January 10, 2019, 01:45:11 pm
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on January 10, 2019, 03:05:35 pm
Post by: faberryman on January 10, 2019, 03:10:22 pm
I'm afraid the man in Ivo's photo is, to me, a "stick" figure. He's just standing there reading a note on a door, without (as far as I can see) expressing any emotional response at all.It seems to me the guy in the first photo is just looking at his phone.
Post by: 32BT on January 10, 2019, 03:22:21 pm
Post by: 32BT on January 10, 2019, 03:28:15 pm
I'm afraid the man in Ivo's photo is, to me, a "stick" figure. He's just standing there reading a note on a door, without (as far as I can see) expressing any emotional response at all.
In an image that is about "squares" and triangles, the pose of the "stick" figure seems quite appropriate.
Post by: Ivophoto on January 10, 2019, 05:38:05 pm
Honestly guys. ....
Post by: drmike on January 11, 2019, 03:23:06 am
Stamper's image is undemanding, conventional converging lines and oh look there's a person there. The closer figure gives scale and breaks the lines. As I say no offence but it's an easy shot. Easy to see and take, surely we all have shots like that? It's also easy to view - perhaps I'm dense but I can't see anything to provoke thought or indeed to reward me for viewing. Well done though in its own way.
I can't say that I feel the figure in Adam's shot adds much to the image (although it probably needs something there) which seems to me to be more geometric than human so in that sense I could understand it doesn't fit everyone's view of street. It's also the least good of his shots that I have seen. They are great, they were not easy to see or capture and they offer reward both visually and at a human level.
I may have missed why this shot was chosen and I'm sure I'm being crossed off Christmas card lists :)
Oh and as ever I don't give a fig for labels and genre.
Mike
Post by: john beardsworth on January 11, 2019, 04:21:47 am
But, please explain why this is ‘fine real’ street and this isn’t:
Nowadays some established UK practitioners, guys who re-popularised "street photography" in this country, are referring to it as "candid public photography". I find that pretty convincing, as it distinguishes it from photography that merely shows something in a street. (See here (http://candidpublicphotography.com/why-a-definition-matters/) for street photographer Nick Turpin (https://nickturpin.com/)'s thoughts)
But I would also define the "street photography" style as including an element of irony or humour or something that provokes questioning. After all, a photojournalist would also do candid public photography. What makes a picture "street" is some sort of amusing meaning and relationship between the elements of the frame.
So to get to your question, it's that second aspect that makes Stamper's photo more "real street" for me, and that's principally because the man's head is slightly inclined, making the viewer ask "what's he saying?" or noticing the contrast. I think it could do more of this, for example if the man was twisting his body and apparently/unwittingly countering the rigid lines, but I think there is less irony for the viewer to chew on in your image (no offence intended).
John
Post by: faberryman on January 11, 2019, 04:38:41 am
So to get to your question, it's that second aspect that makes Stamper's photo more "real street" for me, and that's principally because the man's head is slightly inclined, making the viewer ask "what's he saying?" or noticing the contrast. I think it could do more of this, for example if the man was twisting his body and apparently/unwittingly countering the rigid lines, but I think there is less irony for the viewer to chew on in your image (no offence intended).He's just looking at his phone. Nothing more prosaic than that.
Post by: 32BT on January 11, 2019, 05:49:46 am
He's just looking at his phone. Nothing more prosaic than that.
+1
And even if he isn't, and instead lighting a cigarette or something, ambiguity is not the same thing as confusion. The fact that we don't know something, doesn't elevate something to art where everything is open to question but void of learning.
There could have been a shot there perhaps if the figure at the end ("in the dark") was more visible and for example a mirror of the person "before the dark". You know, alluding to the doubt prior to diving into the unknown. That would give us something to chew on that would appeal to our empathy (for this particular individual) and to life in general (the anonymous individual being representative for all of us).
Post by: john beardsworth on January 11, 2019, 05:54:11 am
He's just looking at his phone. Nothing more prosaic than that.
That's what you think.
There could have been a shot there perhaps if the figure at the end ("in the dark") was more visible and for example a mirror of the person "before the dark". You know, alluding to the doubt prior to diving into the unknown. That would give us something to chew on that would appeal to our empathy (for this particular individual) and to life in general (the anonymous individual being representative for all of us).
Agreed.
Post by: RSL on January 11, 2019, 07:19:51 am
Nowadays some established UK practitioners, guys who re-popularised "street photography" in this country, are referring to it as "candid public photography". I find that pretty convincing, as it distinguishes it from photography that merely shows something in a street. (See here (http://candidpublicphotography.com/why-a-definition-matters/) for street photographer Nick Turpin (https://nickturpin.com/)'s thoughts)
But I would also define the "street photography" style as including an element of irony or humour or something that provokes questioning. After all, a photojournalist would also do candid public photography. What makes a picture "street" is some sort of amusing meaning and relationship between the elements of the frame.
So to get to your question, it's that second aspect that makes Stamper's photo more "real street" for me, and that's principally because the man's head is slightly inclined, making the viewer ask "what's he saying?" or noticing the contrast. I think it could do more of this, for example if the man was twisting his body and apparently/unwittingly countering the rigid lines, but I think there is less irony for the viewer to chew on in your image (no offence intended).
John
Well said, John. You hit the nail on the head.
Post by: john beardsworth on January 11, 2019, 08:21:31 am
Post by: RSL on January 11, 2019, 09:34:52 am
The shot at the top of this thread isn’t one of Robert (Stamper)’s very best street shots. But it’s street, and Robert obviously understands what makes the difference. Ivo’s post is static and obviously staged. It’s not that there aren’t visual elements in Ivo’s post that could come together in passing to make a street shot, but the picture wasn’t made in passing, and it just doesn’t come off that way. You could jaw or write all day and never really be able to explain the difference. Yet the difference is there. Some grasp it; some don’t, and that’s just the way the world works.
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on January 11, 2019, 09:44:06 am
Post by: Ivophoto on January 11, 2019, 09:46:34 am
Only, I can not match it with the statements about ‘street’ being the highest form of photography.
As said, the picture of Stamper is a decent one. Not more not less.
But it is inferior to the shot of Krawesky on so many points. Staged or not. (Sorry Stamper, no personal reason)
Post by: Ivophoto on January 11, 2019, 09:58:00 am
But I would also define the "street photography" style as including an element of irony or humour or something that provokes questioning. After all, a photojournalist would also do candid public photography. What makes a picture "street" is some sort of amusing meaning and relationship between the elements of the frame.
John
Thanks for taking the time to reply, John.
I agree the above. It is one aspect of interesting photography.
And it is for the same argument I find the Krawesky picture far superior on the other.
Saying it is not existing in the second picture is so unbelievable (since I have no six million dollar man eye or so)I suspect willfulness or at minimum lack on effort to see it.
Post by: RSL on January 11, 2019, 10:07:09 am
Post by: Ivophoto on January 11, 2019, 10:19:39 am
Girl in bikini:
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190111/3762fe6a6e2d16e16d4daffda28e7846.jpg)
Photo by I don’t know who
Girl in bikini
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190111/38247b42055d62be665a198c31b0e76e.jpg)
Photo by Rineke Dijkstra
The first seems spontaneous
The second is sooo staged........ but so spot on and the staging brings up what’s worth looking at.
Post by: RSL on January 11, 2019, 11:27:07 am
Post by: Ivophoto on January 11, 2019, 11:30:54 am
It's no use, Ivo. Don't worry about it.
I’m not talking to you Russ, I know it’s useless.