Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => Street Showcase => Topic started by: Rob C on February 20, 2020, 03:42:17 pm
-
From the venerable D200 when she (the Nikon) was young.
-
Very nice, Rob. And you didn't need to blur her face.
-
Beautiful forms.
Is that a Rolex she is wearing?
-
Very nice, Rob. And you didn't need to blur her face.
+1
-
Ahhhhhhhhh
Who was “young” 🤔😉 ?
-
Beautiful forms.
Is that a Rolex she is wearing?
No idea if she was wearing anything as old-fashioned as a watch!
My interest, you will understand, was focussed wholly on the wonderful architecture of the globes.
;-)
-
Lovely - the phrase 'peeping Tom' comes to mind..... :)
-
My interest, you will understand, was focussed wholly on the wonderful architecture of the globes.
;-)
Of course, it's the globes, orbs or whatever one likes...; )
Peter
-
Of course, it's the globes, orbs or whatever one likes...; )
Peter
Let's leave it to Vince:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eysNoUF3kdM
-
Lovely - the phrase 'peeping Tom' comes to mind..... :)
No, she was out on the street, so according to many, fair game... ?
Now this one was grabbed indoors one day via iPad whilst having lunch in a not-very-nice alternative place, so yeah, definitiely a touch of the peepings, or let's be kind and call it human interest:
-
Good shooting, Rob, but you keep me ROTFL with the obstructions Europe has come up with to prevent something as deadly and horrible as the work of people like that nasty Henri Cartier-Bresson. Then I thank the Lord that the United States (so far) has remained relatively sane. Here's a summary of that sanity: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
-
Good shooting, Rob, but you keep me ROTFL with the obstructions Europe has come up with to prevent something as deadly and horrible as the work of people like that nasty Henri Cartier-Bresson. Then I thank the Lord that the United States (so far) has remained relatively sane. Here's a summary of that sanity: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
Well, the US is another country with a different culture.
For example they like Baseball and American Football, something most Europeans would find extremely boring, I'd bet.
It's just like that, different people. Different concept of what mutual respect is, IMHO
And, again with all respect, by all that freedom to hunt anyone who ventures out of his home, the US has not produced many HCB's, as far as I'm aware of.
Cum grano salis ;)
-
Rab, try Robert Capa,Walker Evans, Dorothea Lange, Gene Smith, Robert Frank (an import), Garry Winogrand, Lee Friedlander, Berenice Abbott, Helen Levitt, Elliott Erwitt, just to name a few off the top of my head. I guess I could come up with a more complete list if I had time to do it, but you get the idea.
-
Well, the US is another country with a different culture.
For example they like Baseball and American Football, something most Europeans would find extremely boring, I'd bet.
It's just like that, different people. Different concept of what mutual respect is, IMHO
And, again with all respect, by all that freedom to hunt anyone who ventures out of his home, the US has not produced many HCB's, as far as I'm aware of.
Cum grano salis ;)
Amazing take...
Peter
-
Rab, try Robert Capa,Walker Evans, Dorothea Lange, Gene Smith, Robert Frank (an import), Garry Winogrand, Lee Friedlander, Berenice Abbott, Helen Levitt, Elliott Erwitt, just to name a few off the top of my head. I guess I could come up with a more complete list if I had time to do it, but you get the idea.
I expected that :) And you're right
But many of these I regard as "concerned photographers", even if they did "street".
But you also produce Gildens and other paparazzi and legally you cannot do anything about that. Or so I'm told.
You are always risking appearing in FB or Instagram with your finger in your nose or worse.
A different way of life I guess.
-
I expected that :) And you're right
But many of these I regard as "concerned photographers", even if they did "street".
But you also produce Gildens and other
paparazzi and legally you cannot do anything about that. Or so I'm told.
You are always risking appearing in FB or Instagram with your finger in your nose or worse.
A different way of life I guess.
Paparazzi is an American word, right?
Peter
-
But many of these I regard as "concerned photographers", even if they did "street".
Eh? You lost me there, Rab. Street pretty much seems to me the definition of what genuinely "concerned photographers" do. And I'm not talking about those who advertise themselves as "concerned." Real street concerns itself with the interplay between people and between people and their environment. You can't do that if you can't shoot people.
-
Paparazzi is an American word, right?
Peter
I expect you to know, of course. Paparazzo was the name of a sensationalist photographer in La Dolce Vita.
It's now a synonym of those notorious photographers.
He's not a likeable character.
;)
-
I expect you to know, of course. Paparazzo was the name of a sensationalist photographer in La Dolce Vita.
It's now a synonym of those notorious photographers.
He's not a likeable character.
;)
Exactly...and that's an Italian film. Shows a behavior that his. A European.
Peter
-
Eh? You lost me there, Rab. Street pretty much seems to me the definition of what genuinely "concerned photographers" do. And I'm not talking about those who advertise themselves as "concerned." Real street concerns itself with the interplay between people and between people and their environment. You can't do that if you can't shoot people.
I'm entering quiscksand here.
Eugene Smith, Gordon Parks, Ernst Haas are concerned photographers IMHO.
There is some quality in their photography, compassion, humanity, that one does not find in the photography of most street journalists, who are either indifferent or plainly abusive, like in my example before.
-
Exactly...and that's an Italian film. Show a behavior that his. A European.
Peter
Sorry, I don't get the meaning of what you're saying here.
-
Okay, Rab, but I think it depends on your definition of words like “compassion,” and “humanity.”
What do you think about Frank’s book, The Americans? There was some really rough stuff in there. The book certainly showed humanity and compassion, though not in a soft, feely way. The reason it showed compassion and humanity is that up to that time, some of our favorite humanitarians, including Norman Rockwell and Alfred Eisenstadt had been showing America as all sweetness and light, and were ignoring the downsides of what really was going on around them. For a while in the mid-fifties, roughly the period when Frank was shooting for the book, I was at Air University in Montgomery, Alabama. Every night when I’d come out there’d be KKK literature under my windshield wipers. The local “separate but equal” schools taught black boys how to do field work, and taught black girls how to do housework. Frank’s book showed the truth about what was happening, and it was shocking, even to outfits like Popular Photography, which in those days was about photography rather than equipment, and which panned the book.
Now, one question that comes to mind when I think about The Americans and its period is this: was The Americans street photography or photojournalism? Well, really good photojournalism always contains an element of street photography, and the best street photography is a chunk of photojournalism turned into fine art. What confuses the question is that a lot of photography called street isn’t street at all. But in the end, what I conclude is this: Frank was shooting street. Every one of the pictures in The Americans can stand alone as street photography, but Frank put them together and made a strikingly powerful photojournalistic statement. I think that what he did was more loaded with compassion and humanity than anything I’ve ever seen by Gordon Parks or Ernst Haas, though I like the work of both.
-
Sorry, I don't get the meaning of what you're saying here.
Paparazzo is a European in the film. Correct? He's not a likeable character. Correct? So, he must have the American sense of R E S E P E C T...
Peter
-
Paparazzo is a European in the film. Correct? He's not a likeable character. Correct?
Peter
Well, "European" is a wide concept. Some are likeable, some not. Most are neutral.
Actually Paparazzo is a Calabrian name. Many north-italians do not identify with south italians, they call them "terroni".
And if you put together an Italian (N or S) with a Swede, you'll usually recognize differences.
So the word "European" for Paparazzo is not accurate IMHO.
"Paparazzo" in wider sense can be used for Europeans, Russians, US Americans and Antarcticians, if they are doing paparazzi-things
The word "paparazzo" is what is called an "eponym". Can be applied to anyone, Italian or else.
-
Okay, Rab, but I think it depends on your definition of words like “compassion,” and “humanity.”
What do you think about Frank’s book, The Americans? There was some really rough stuff in there. The book certainly showed humanity and compassion, though not in a soft, feely way. The reason it showed compassion and humanity is that up to that time, some of our favorite humanitarians, including Norman Rockwell and Alfred Eisenstadt had been showing America as all sweetness and light, and were ignoring the downsides of what really was going on around them. For a while in the mid-fifties, roughly the period when Frank was shooting for the book, I was at Air University in Montgomery, Alabama. Every night when I’d come out there’d be KKK literature under my windshield wipers. The local “separate but equal” schools taught black boys how to do field work, and taught black girls how to do housework. Frank’s book showed the truth about what was happening, and it was shocking, even to outfits like Popular Photography, which in those days was about photography rather than equipment, and which panned the book.
Now, one question that comes to mind when I think about The Americans and its period is this: was The Americans street photography or photojournalism? Well, really good photojournalism always contains an element of street photography, and the best street photography is a chunk of photojournalism turned into fine art. What confuses the question is that a lot of photography called street isn’t street at all. But in the end, what I conclude is this: Frank was shooting street. Every one of the pictures in The Americans can stand alone as street photography, but Frank put them together and made a strikingly powerful photojournalistic statement. I think that what he did was more loaded with compassion and humanity than anything I’ve ever seen by Gordon Parks or Ernst Haas, though I like the work of both.
I cannot disagree with any of this, Russ.
But different societies have different customs and they regard them as "right"
I was arrested once in Hurghada, Egypt, for taking street photographs.
Not a funny situation. The people who had complained felt genuinely used and were hurt.
And I believe they were right.
After interrogatory they decided I was just an inoffensive fool and let me go.
No hard feelings from my part either. :)
But I'm more careful of the rights of the others now
-
Well, it's something I don't have to worry about any longer, Rab. At 90 I'm not leaving the United States any longer. And when I was shooting in Asia there always was a war going on.
But I do have a hard time understanding why a part of the world that once celebrated people like Kertesz, HCB, Chim, Rodger, Ronis, Lartigue, Brassai, Koudelka, Brandt, Doisneau, Burri, Franck, Riboud, etc., etc., suddenly ran inside and are frightened of somebody peeking at their humanity. I'm soooooo glad I'm an American where people aren't afraid of things like that. The introduction of catastrophic navel-gazing in Europe breaks my heart.
-
Well, "European" is a wide concept. Some are likeable, some not. Most are neutral.
Actually Paparazzo is a Calabrian name. Many north-italians do not identify with south italians, they call them "terroni".
And if you put together an Italian (N or S) with a Swede, you'll usually recognize differences.
So the word "European" for Paparazzo is not accurate IMHO.
"Paparazzo" in wider sense can be used for Europeans, Russians, US Americans and Antarcticians, if they are doing paparazzi-things
The word "paparazzo" is what is called an "eponym". Can be applied to anyone, Italian or else.
I didn't think Paparazzo was an unpleasant character at all; he was just a gossip column snapper following the people who made up that kind of material. As a young guy, I found him quite interesting and envied him his access and excitement. Perhaps the only unpleasant moment was when the mob of photographers meet the bus carrying the wife of the guy who just took out his family. That felt kinda wrong, but all the "scandal" stuff seemed perfectly fair play, including the too long chapter on the apparition of the Virgin as reported by the horrid pair of small kids who played up the fervent crowd for all it was worth.
All of that aside, there is a vague justification for paps that does not, IMO, cross over into amateur life. Sure, I have been as guilty as anyone else of sneaking snaps once or twice, but not, as far as I remember, ever to damage people. I have even pixelated faces ...
-
Russ and Rob, you just don't die.
There is still a lot to learn from you ;D
-
Sure, I have been as guilty as anyone else of sneaking snaps once or twice, but not, as far as I remember, ever to damage people. I have even pixelated faces ...
But why pixelate a face when you're not damaging the person with the face, Rob? Do you look at HCB's "The Locks at Bougival" and feel that the two women are damaged by the fact that they're recognizable? How about the face of the woman in his "Cardinal Pacelli in Montmartre?" I look at that face and my heart says: "God will grant that woman's wish." Both these pictures show something about humanity worth showing and saving. And Europe has decided that that's wrong? What a travesty.
-
But why pixelate a face when you're not damaging the person with the face, Rob? Do you look at HCB's "The Locks at Bougival" and feel that the two women are damaged by the fact that they're recognizable? How about the face of the woman in his "Cardinal Pacelli in Montmartre?" I look at that face and my heart says: "God will grant that woman's wish." Both these pictures show something about humanity worth showing and saving. And Europe has decided that that's wrong? What a travesty.
If you make that great picture, ask for permission for publishing it and the woman grants it, then it's OK
But if the woman wish was "Please no more wars" or "Please Your Most Reverend Eminence intercede for the Jewish people" and now she's feeling stupid because the God in which she believed didn't listen nor did Pacelli the later Pope intercede, then maybe the whole symbology is a travesty.
Just MHO
-
Russ and Rob, you just don't die.
There is still a lot to learn from you ;D
Maybe, but most of it's redundant now; the world moved along whilst I was tying my shoe strings, my head bent down to make sure both strings belonged to the same shoe. Shit can happen if you're not careful.
:-)
-
If you make that great picture, ask for permission for publishing it and the woman grants it, then it's OK
But if the woman wish was "Please no more wars" or "Please Your Most Reverend Eminence intercede for the Jewish people" and now she's feeling stupid because the God in which she believed didn't listen nor did Pacelli the later Pope intercede, then maybe the whole symbology is a travesty.
Just MHO
Rab, the woman's wishes about publication have nothing to do with the fact that the picture is a powerful depiction of human emotion, and deserves to be shown. It's a work of art. Suppose it were a realistic painting. How would you feel about it then?
-
Rab, the woman's wishes about publication have nothing to do with the fact that the picture is a powerful depiction of human emotion, and deserves to be shown. It's a work of art. Suppose it were a realistic painting. How would you feel about it then?
Of course the picture is great.
But I would not like MY FACE being used for it without my consent.
If the law backed me, I would forbid its diffussion.
Let alone it's storing into a CIA, MSS, BND or whatever data base :-)
A lost battle, I know :-(
Paraphrasing the Blackstone ratio. "Better a lost work of art than the general loss of the right to privacy" ;)
-
Paraphrasing the Blackstone ratio. "Better a lost work of art than the general loss of the right to privacy" ;)
A lot of great art would me missing from the world...much of it would seminal works.
Peter
-
A lot of great art would me missing from the world...much of it would seminal works.
Peter
Well, I would say "some".
Don't forget Rubens, Velazquez, Rembrandt, de la Tour, Michelangelo, Raffael, Vermeer...
Some of them made "street" ;)
Photography was not invented that much ago.
But of course I understand your point.
Depends on what is important to oneself.
-
Paraphrasing the Blackstone ratio. "Better a lost work of art than the general loss of the right to privacy" ;)
The problem with that, Rab, is that when you're out in public you have no right to privacy. It wold be like saying, "Here I am in this crowd, but you folks aren't allowed to look at me." The whole thing is ridiculous. If you want privacy, stay home.
And, as Peter says, were the world to adopt this idiocy, a lot of the world's great art would disappear. That's too high a price for the right to hide your head in the sand.
-
Well, I would say "some".
Don't forget Rubens, Velazquez, Rembrandt, de la Tour, Michelangelo, Raffael, Vermeer...
Some of them made "street" ;)
Photography was not invented that much ago.
But of course I understand your point.
Depends on what is important to oneself.
When I say art, I'm including photography. Photography is an art. For sure there are tons of photographs the would not exist.
Peter
-
The problem with that, Rab, is that when you're out in public you have no right to privacy. It wold be like saying, "Here I am in this crowd, but you folks aren't allowed to look at me." The whole thing is ridiculous. If you want privacy, stay home.
And, as Peter says, were the world to adopt this idiocy, a lot of the world's great art would disappear. That's too high a price for the right to hide your head in the sand.
No Russ, that's you being a little disingenuous: a world of difference between "look at me" and "photograph me".
Privacy wears many coats and some are capable of existing within the public space and some not, just as I believe the rights of other people are variable too, and being photographed without one's permission is one of the ones best not violated. That does not preclude honest city views etc. and I think the distinction between having someone appear in your cityscape by chance is not the same as someone being set up or tracked. Having done both, I understand it comes with a thrill of sorts, but then so might somebody else's wife, and we know where that would probably lead.
:-)
-
Sorry, Rob, but I don’t really see the difference. If you’re talking about someone, like a little kid, saying to a single person, “You can’t look at me,” that’d be one thing, but to say to a crowd of people “You can’t look at me,” essentially is saying “Even though I’m out here mingling with you, I have an expectation of privacy, which you’re not to abjure by looking at me.”
Here’s an example. As far as I’m concerned, this photograph by Winogrand is an extremely powerful work of art. Are you telling me we should hide it because the girls and a bystander are recognizable? How about HCB’s “Locks at Bougival?” Another work of art that would disappear.
I can’t see any reason why humanity should be stripped of images that reflect our humanity. Do you? Really?
-
When I say art, I'm including photography. Photography is an art. For sure there are tons of photographs the would not exist.
Peter
It looks like I couldn't explain myself.
As always, let's blame my poor English.
You wrote
"A lot of great art would me missing from the world..."
And I expressed my opinion that it is not "a lot" but only "some"
Counting the Great Painters that made "Street", the number of good photographs that would be lost is infinitesimal.
I'm not arguing here whether photography is "Art" or not. That's only a word, probably invented by the Art Critics, Curators or Vendors
That's a different subject.
But I wouldn't sit Rembrandt at the same table with any photographer.
No offence intended, guys. Just my humble opinion.
-
The problem with that, Rab, is that when you're out in public you have no right to privacy. It wold be like saying, "Here I am in this crowd, but you folks aren't allowed to look at me." The whole thing is ridiculous. If you want privacy, stay home.
I do not agree with that.
That other civilizations, other societies, other costums are "ridiculous" is IMHO going a little too far.
Is different maybe from the US American laws. That doesn't make them less valuable, just different.
Looks a little like "cultural colonialism", "we know what is right" etc.
Other people think differently.
And "so called art" is not the measure of all things. We should be a little more humble, maybe ;)
-
It looks like I couldn't explain myself.
As always, let's blame my poor English.
You wrote
"A lot of great art would me missing from the world...
But I wouldn't sit Rembrandt at the same table with any photographer.
No offence intended, guys. Just my humble opinion.
Artists , Painters and sculptors past and present, don't even enter this conversation. All worked from models. Almost all artists I know that use the figure, are working with models. The models are huge part of the process and are paid.
Peter
-
Artists , Painters and sculptors past and present, don't even enter this conversation.
Peter
Of course, Peter. The subject of this conversation is roughly whether you have the right to your privacy only at home or also outside.
It looks like in the US is greatly different from other countries and that the US Citizens are happy with their rules and that others are happy with theirs.
Different idiosincracies.
The rest is DISGRESSION. I can disgress to a point, why not, this is a chat among friends.
All this talk of art, losses to humanity, imagine a world without the works of Robert Capa etc is OK with me.
But the point here is whether one has the right to use another person as "model" without pay or permission as if he/she were a flower, a building or an animal regardless of if he/she agrees or not and all this for the sake of some superior goal, in this case "art", whatever that may be :(
-
Rab, Henri Cartier-Bresson pretty much is accepted as the father of street photography. If you disagree, we can argue that point separately. But do you feel that HCB was violating some sort of general agreement among Europeans? Of course, he wasn't the only one "taking advantage" of the people around him. There even was Brassaï, who worked in French brothels. Whether or not you accept their work as fine art, all these guys together give us a kind of history lesson that would have been impossible without going out on the street and into the restaurants, etc. You simply can't do this with models and poses. It has to be caught in the raw, and in the long run Europe is going to be poorer without it.
The law in the United States simply says that when you're out in public you have no expectation of privacy. Seems like common sense to me.
-
Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
-
Sorry, Rob, but I don’t really see the difference. If you’re talking about someone, like a little kid, saying to a single person, “You can’t look at me,” that’d be one thing, but to say to a crowd of people “You can’t look at me,” essentially is saying “Even though I’m out here mingling with you, I have an expectation of privacy, which you’re not to abjure by looking at me.”
Here’s an example. As far as I’m concerned, this photograph by Winogrand is an extremely powerful work of art. Are you telling me we should hide it because the girls and a bystander are recognizable? How about HCB’s “Locks at Bougival?” Another work of art that would disappear.
I can’t see any reason why humanity should be stripped of images that reflect our humanity. Do you? Really?
Russ, reread the post: the difference lies in "looking at me" and "photographing me"; they are not the same thing.
And no, I am not suggesting hiding anything. What's already out there is out there, and that's basically the point: one may not want to be forever out there in somebody's photograph. Nobody has the right to do that to you. It's what model releases were invented for: to grant permission to the snapper to "put them out there". That they do it for the money, and signing a release confirms the point in two ways: they are accepting the fact that they will be "out there", and confirming, too, that they do not object to being out there.
The law is accepting their right not to be exploited by cameras, for otherwise, no such law protecting them would ever have been drafted: all you'd require would be a slip from the model agency saying you'd paid in full. And even with a release, you are often confined to specific uses of the models' images. For example, if you shoot nudes for a calendar or a beauty product you are often prohibited from submitting them to any "men's magazine" publishers. And rightly so. And though I have used nudes as an example, restrictions on usage apply in all kinds of model photography, fully clad or otherwise.
The entire idea is the protection of the model from exploitation, whether commercial, of character, or anything else via the use of photography. The business accepts that people need freedom and protection from possible abuses through photography.
Models are no more favoured under this notion and convention than is anyone else. Why do you think extras in movies get paid? No act of kindness, but to protect the producers in any future claim against them for unlawful use of image. Rights to privacy are understood, just not desired to be understood by wannabe paparazzi. Trying to split it into subsections of commerce or otherwise is a game played by lawyers. The basic morality of photographing somebody without their permission remains the same.
If folks get their jollies by shooting strangers, then they admit the pleasure of walking that tightrope and should not be surprised if they get a bloody nose, or an equally embarrassing public dressing-down. Serves 'em right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yqf10CmdiD0
" you can look as much
but if you much as touch
you gonna have yourself a case
I'm gonna break your face"
It's all in humanity and human reactions and behaviour.
;-)
-
Rab, Henri Cartier-Bresson pretty much is accepted as the father of street photography. If you disagree, we can argue that point separately.
When I was introduced to HCB many years ago he became the Photographer to Emulate to me. Magnum and Co was the way to look
Those are times long gone.
I remember loading Ilford cartridges with Plus X and TriX from movie rolls.(you had to destroy PlusX cartridges to open them, Ilford let you open and close again) And the M4 was the Holy (unreachable) Graal :-)
People perceived photography and being photographed differently. This has changed.
In my humble experience and depending on where you are some people now don't care, some ask you for money, some beg you to photograph them and not the others and vice versa and a lot just DON'T LIKE IT.
My perception of the work of HCB hasn't changed.
I've known other people I respected photographically but unveiled themselves in different degrees of clownship or arrogance. Probably a consequence of times as they go nowadays.
Still, I am glad that their work does exist.
The law in the United States simply says that when you're out in public you have no expectation of privacy. Seems like common sense to me.
Nevertheless, I believe that everybody has the right to his own privacy. The pertinent rules for different countries can be found in Internet and are sound for the society that has to follow them.
In the US there is still the death penalty, something actually unthinkable in Europe and many other countries. Spain has still bullfights, that wouldn't go in Sweden or Germany.
Different societies, different "common sense"
Sorry I made it too long :(
-
Rab, Your response wasn't too long, and I respect your point of view even though I don't agree with it. I even have friends who agree with you. (Including Rob, I think)
What do you think about news cameras? Should they be banned? We could go back to engravings, or the kind of sketches they do in courtrooms.
-
I find it a interesting that the societies most concerned with privacy now are western democracies and they are home to the most users of social media and the wholesale pillaging of personal data.
Facebook can determine with a high degree of accuracy when a female user of the platform is ovulating and will shamelessly sell that data on to advertisers who will then target her with appropriately weaponized advertising campaigns yet a photographer can get into trouble for taking her photo as she walks around a public space. Sounds fair.
-
I find it a interesting that the societies most concerned with privacy now are western democracies and they are home to the most users of social media and the wholesale pillaging of personal data.
Facebook can determine with a high degree of accuracy when a female user of the platform is ovulating and will shamelessly sell that data on to advertisers who will then target her with appropriately weaponized advertising campaigns yet a photographer can get into trouble for taking her photo as she walks around a public space. Sounds fair.
The entire world knows you, all of us, more and more everyday. It's freighting how we feel so falsely secure.
Peter
-
... Paraphrasing the Blackstone ratio. "Better a lost work of art than the general loss of the right to privacy" ;)
🤢🤮
-
Seems like a lot of Neanderthals still exist in Europe. Or maybe too many Sharia followers in Europe influence this newly-found puritanism? Someone stealing your soul by taking a photograph? Sheesh.
-
Russ, reread the post: the difference lies in "looking at me" and "photographing me"; they are not the same thing.
And no, I am not suggesting hiding anything. What's already out there is out there, and that's basically the point: one may not want to be forever out there in somebody's photograph. Nobody has the right to do that to you. It's what model releases were invented for: to grant permission to the snapper to "put them out there". That they do it for the money, and signing a release confirms the point in two ways: they are accepting the fact that they will be "out there", and confirming, too, that they do not object to being out there.
The law is accepting their right not to be exploited by cameras, for otherwise, no such law protecting them would ever have been drafted: all you'd require would be a slip from the model agency saying you'd paid in full. And even with a release, you are often confined to specific uses of the models' images. For example, if you shoot nudes for a calendar or a beauty product you are often prohibited from submitting them to any "men's magazine" publishers. And rightly so. And though I have used nudes as an example, restrictions on usage apply in all kinds of model photography, fully clad or otherwise.
The entire idea is the protection of the model from exploitation, whether commercial, of character, or anything else via the use of photography. The business accepts that people need freedom and protection from possible abuses through photography.
Models are no more favoured under this notion and convention than is anyone else. Why do you think extras in movies get paid? No act of kindness, but to protect the producers in any future claim against them for unlawful use of image. Rights to privacy are understood, just not desired to be understood by wannabe paparazzi. Trying to split it into subsections of commerce or otherwise is a game played by lawyers. The basic morality of photographing somebody without their permission remains the same.
If folks get their jollies by shooting strangers, then they admit the pleasure of walking that tightrope and should not be surprised if they get a bloody nose, or an equally embarrassing public dressing-down. Serves 'em right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yqf10CmdiD0
" you can look as much
but if you much as touch
you gonna have yourself a case
I'm gonna break your face"
It's all in humanity and human reactions and behaviour.
;-)
Rob, yes, I have a stack of model releases, and the situation with model releases in the US is pretty much as you describe it. But I think “looking at me” is very much the same as “photographing me.” When I’m out in a crowd everyone around me is able to look at me. When I’m in a photograph anyone who sees the photograph is able to look at me. Looking at me is not the same thing as exploiting me. When I’m in an advertisement I’m being exploited, probably not adversely but still exploited. That’s why we pay our models. In fact, in Colorado there must be “compensation” in order for a model release to be valid. Not true in Florida, though Florida does require explicit acceptance.
Then there’s the argument that even though we don’t believe people should be “exploited” by street photography, we do believe street photographs that already exist should continue to exist. It would be hard to come up with an argument more internally inconsistent than that one. If it’s wrong now then it always was wrong, and works of art like “The Locks at Bougival” should be banned, and if possible, destroyed.
The other internally inconsistent thing is the difference between street photography and photojournalism. If I’m a TV reporter I can photograph just about any damned thing, and everybody rushes to the tube to see what this criminal or that celebrity is doing. There may be as many as thousands of innocent bystanders in my photographs or films whose privacy has been violated. Not only that, but those poor folks may be remembered as having been somehow connected with the criminal who’s the center of attraction. But this is NEWS! So it’s inviolate.
When it comes to exploiting people, I agree that it’s wrong. I don’t shoot pictures of hoboes, for instance, unless they ask me to do so. When I used to go out at night in the sixties I’d sometimes see prostitutes. I’d avoid shooting them. I think that if you look at genuine street photography you find that most of it is on the gentle side. If it’s good street photography it’s also on the human side. It doesn’t exploit its subjects.
I could go on and on and on, but this already is too long. We may just have to disagree and let it go at that. But please don’t go around destroying HCB’s pictures. It would be wonderful to see a new HCB pop up to record the early part of the two-thousands. But it ain’t gonna happen in Europe.
-
Rob, yes, I have a stack of model releases, and the situation with model releases in the US is pretty much as you describe it. 1. But I think “looking at me” is very much the same as “photographing me.” When I’m out in a crowd everyone around me is able to look at me. When I’m in a photograph anyone who sees the photograph is able to look at me. Looking at me is not the same thing as exploiting me. When I’m in an advertisement I’m being exploited, probably not adversely but still exploited. That’s why we pay our models. In fact, in Colorado there must be “compensation” in order for a model release to be valid. Not true in Florida, though Florida does require explicit acceptance.
2. Then there’s the argument that even though we don’t believe people should be “exploited” by street photography, we do believe street photographs that already exist should continue to exist. It would be hard to come up with an argument more internally inconsistent than that one. If it’s wrong now then it always was wrong, and works of art like “The Locks at Bougival” should be banned, and if possible, destroyed.
3. The other internally inconsistent thing is the difference between street photography and photojournalism. If I’m a TV reporter I can photograph just about any damned thing, and everybody rushes to the tube to see what this criminal or that celebrity is doing. There may be as many as thousands of innocent bystanders in my photographs or films whose privacy has been violated. Not only that, but those poor folks may be remembered as having been somehow connected with the criminal who’s the center of attraction. But this is NEWS! So it’s inviolate.
When it comes to exploiting people, I agree that it’s wrong. I don’t shoot pictures of hoboes, for instance, unless they ask me to do so. When I used to go out at night in the sixties I’d sometimes see prostitutes. I’d avoid shooting them. 4. I think that if you look at genuine street photography you find that most of it is on the gentle side. If it’s good street photography it’s also on the human side. It doesn’t exploit its subjects.
I could go on and on and on, but this already is too long. We may just have to disagree and let it go at that. But please don’t go around destroying HCB’s pictures. It would be wonderful to see a new HCB pop up to record the early part of the two-thousands. But it ain’t gonna happen in Europe.
1. That is where we differ very strongly.
2. No, what was done then is now history: I do not believe in rewriting it. I'm told homosexuality is to be "celebrated" today; a few decades ago it could get you a prison sentence or worse - in some places it still can. The same thing is often both right and wrong. I would never advocate destroying art anymore than do I agree with renaming city squares and streets that were originally named after tobacco traders and things associated with slavery; pulling down centuries-old statues of people once considered heroes is daft: a country deserves to know its own history, for better or for worse.
3. Photojournalism is a public service, whereas street photography is a private indugence. Street photos are usually about one person or group; collateral damage is mostly far enough away not to count as subject of the picture. Klein and others tell one that they often use a very wide angle lens and get close because people think the photographer is actually shooting past them, and they sometimes turn around to look for what they think is going down behind them. It's often said one must avoid eye contact with the target, because that way, they won't suspect it's they who are the subjects. Something like not looking at lions if you happen to walk past them. ;-)
4. Absolutely! And that's why HC-B is also above reproach.
Rob
-
Seems like a lot of Neanderthals still exist in Europe. Or maybe too many Sharia followers in Europe influence this newly-found puritanism? Someone stealing your soul by taking a photograph? Sheesh.
Maybe you are right.
Not long ago one "Greater Nation" near Europe tried to remedy that situation through the so called "ethnical cleansing" in their region and around but were bombed back into humanity by other Neanderthals and subhumans.
Backward peoples, not ready to see the Light...
-
... It's often said one must avoid eye contact with the target, because that way, they won't suspect it's they who are the subjects...
No, that is not the reason. The purpose of avoiding eye contact is to preserve the candid nature of the shot, that is, to avoid the impression that the subject is posing.
-
Maybe you are right.
Not long ago one "Greater Nation" near Europe tried to remedy that situation through the so called "ethnical cleansing" in their region and around but were bombed back into humanity by other Neanderthals and subhumans.
Backward peoples, not ready to see the Light...
Your personal attack duly noted.
-
Your personal attack duly noted.
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
Neanderthals usually just throw the stones back.
-
What do you think about news cameras? Should they be banned? We could go back to engravings, or the kind of sketches they do in courtrooms.
It's something like guns, I think.
It depends on what you do with them.
As Dan Matthews used to say:
"It isn't the car that kills, it's the driver!" ;)
-
No, that is not the reason. The purpose of avoiding eye contact is to preserve the candid nature of the shot, that is, to avoid the impression that the subject is posing.
Tosh!
-
Maybe you are right.
Not long ago one "Greater Nation" near Europe tried to remedy that situation through the so called "ethnical cleansing" in their region and around but were bombed back into humanity by other Neanderthals and subhumans.
Backward peoples, not ready to see the Light...
That is both offensive and irrelevant. Consider yourself warned.
Jeremy
-
1. That is where we differ very strongly.
2. No, what was done then is now history: I do not believe in rewriting it. I'm told homosexuality is to be "celebrated" today; a few decades ago it could get you a prison sentence or worse - in some places it still can. The same thing is often both right and wrong. I would never advocate destroying art anymore than do I agree with renaming city squares and streets that were originally named after tobacco traders and things associated with slavery; pulling down centuries-old statues of people once considered heroes is daft: a country deserves to know its own history, for better or for worse.
3. Photojournalism is a public service, whereas street photography is a private indugence. Street photos are usually about one person or group; collateral damage is mostly far enough away not to count as subject of the picture. Klein and others tell one that they often use a very wide angle lens and get close because people think the photographer is actually shooting past them, and they sometimes turn around to look for what they think is going down behind them. It's often said one must avoid eye contact with the target, because that way, they won't suspect it's they who are the subjects. Something like not looking at lions if you happen to walk past them. ;-)
4. Absolutely! And that's why HC-B is also above reproach.
Rob
Rob, it looks as if we’re just going to have to disagree. So I’ll offer a friendly hand and agree to disagree. The point’s moot anyway because you’re in an environment where what I do would be illegal.
But it seems you’re saying that beyond the legal issue there’s a moral issue; that it was all right when HCB did it, but not all right nowadays. I guess my question is: what’s changed to make it morally incorrect nowadays when it wasn’t in HCB’s day?
Beyond that, why is photojournalism a public service but street photograph a personal indulgence? We just decided HCB’s stuff could survive. Was what he was doing a personal indulgence? If so, why should it survive? I don’t know much about current photojournalism in Europe, but I can assure you that here in the States when, say, MSNBC does “photojournalism” it’s just as much a personal indulgence as biased street photography – probably a good deal more so in an election year. What makes photography on the street legitimate for the press, but not for private individuals? You certainly don’t think the press is unbiased.
Finally, you find that because HCB’s street work was gentle and on the human side, it’s above reproach. How about Elliott Erwitt’s street photography? How about Chim’s street photography? His was some of the tenderest ever done. How about Helen Levitt’s street photography? How about Robert Frank’s street photography? Remember, Frank showed the truth about America at a time when Norman Rockwell’s painting and Alfred Eisenstadt’s photography were showing nothing but sweetness and light.
(By the way, seems to me this is the kind of discussion we ought to be having over in the Coffee Corner instead of the political crap being pumped out over there.)
-
Maybe you are right.
Not long ago one "Greater Nation" near Europe tried to remedy that situation through the so called "ethnical cleansing" in their region and around but were bombed back into humanity by other Neanderthals and subhumans.
Backward peoples, not ready to see the Light...
Easy does it, Rab. I'd hate to see you banned from this debate.
-
Easy does it, Rab. I'd hate to see you banned from this debate.
Thanks Russ. I also don't like being compared with "Neanderthals" or "Sharia Follower" in a pejorative way.
The moderator should have reacted in time.
If he doesn't, it's up to oneself to set the limits.
-
... I also don't like being compared with "Neanderthals" or "Sharia Follower" in a pejorative way...
You?
Where did I mention you?
-
(By the way, seems to me this is the kind of discussion we ought to be having over in the Coffee Corner instead of the political crap being pumped out over there.)
Hear! :)
-
Thanks Russ. I also don't like being compared with "Neanderthals" or "Sharia Follower" in a pejorative way.
The moderator should have reacted in time.
If he doesn't, it's up to oneself to set the limits.
Odd as it may seem, I don't sit at a computer monitoring every post on the forums; I have better (far, far better) things to do with my time. I look in fairly frequently and act when I consider it appropriate.
It is indeed up to members to set limits. You overstepped them once. Don't do it again.
Jeremy
-
Odd as it may seem, I don't sit at a computer monitoring every post on the forums; I have better (far, far better) things to do with my time.
Absolutely. That's why sometimes one has to put things in its place without bothering the moderator constantly.
There was no personal offence intended. But we were having (or better I was attending to) an interesting, respectful and serious debate on personal rights and photography until then.
For the other kind of debate one can go to the Coffee Corner and analyse Trump, Brexit, the Weather, the Sussexes vs the Queen or whatever.
Just MHO.
Sorry for the annoyance. It's not likely to happen again
-
I consider Rob’s suggestion that people should be punched in the nose, their faces blooded or worse, just because someone took a picture of their wife or daughter in public, simply Neanderthal.
-
I consider Rob’s suggestion that people should be punched in the nose, their faces blooded or worse, just because someone took a picture of their wife or daughter in public, simply Neanderthal.
If protective of family, Neanderthal let it be.
More power to the punch. (Trouble is, it's difficult to move that fast in your 80s...)
;-)
-
If protective of family, Neanderthal let it be...
What exactly is there to protect!? You sound like a medieval-mindset Muslim, protecting their property from even looks in public.
My daughter, like gazillion other women, dresses to impress when in public, and definitely wants to be seen and noticed. If someone takes a photo of her in public, so what? She, as gazillion other girls, has much more revealing photos on her social media pages.
-
If protective of family, Neanderthal let it be.
More power to the punch. (Trouble is, it's difficult to move that fast in your 80s...)
;-)
Rob, I don't want to beat it to death, but how about in HCB's day? We both were around in that day. Did you feel the same then?
-
Rob, I don't want to beat it to death, but how about in HCB's day? We both were around in that day. Did you feel the same then?
HCB said once that a photographer is “somewhere between pickpocket and tightrope walker”, because taking a photo “takes something that belongs to the subject: their image, their culture”.
I believe that he didn't like being photographed himself either. But this is maybe an urban legend
-
It’s no urban legend, Rab. but he still got photographed often – later on, after he’d become famous. The other thing you have to remember about HCB is that what he really wanted was to be a painter.
Pictures belong to their subjects and to their culture. But what does belonging to a culture mean? I think that if you depend on images in the “media,” in the old days meaning drawings from life, and later photographs, to define a culture, you’re depending on a biased view. I’m not necessarily talking about political bias, though that may be there too. But there’s always a bias toward selling things – the media themselves above all. Which is why Rockwell and Eisenstadt were so popular in their day. They were selling a self-image to a nation. Robert Frank went a long way toward supplementing that image, which wasn’t wrong, just incomplete, with the rest of the truth: things like “sanitation approved” motels and blacks in the back of the bus. To top off my disagreement with Rob’s view, I think photography has to be a personal indulgence to be honest. The minute commerce comes into it, it becomes a sales pitch at least to some degree.
-
It’s no urban legend, Rab. but he still got photographed often – later on, after he’d become famous. The other thing you have to remember about HCB is that what he really wanted was to be a painter.
Pictures belong to their subjects and to their culture. But what does belonging to a culture mean? I think that if you depend on images in the “media,” in the old days meaning drawings from life, and later photographs, to define a culture, you’re depending on a biased view. I’m not necessarily talking about political bias, though that may be there too. But there’s always a bias toward selling things – the media themselves above all. Which is why Rockwell and Eisenstadt were so popular in their day. They were selling a self-image to a nation. Robert Frank went a long way toward supplementing that image, which wasn’t wrong, just incomplete, with the rest of the truth: things like “sanitation approved” motels and blacks in the back of the bus. To top off my disagreement with Rob’s view, I think photography has to be a personal indulgence to be honest. The minute commerce comes into it, it becomes a sales pitch at least to some degree.
Well put, Russ.
-
Rob, I don't want to beat it to death, but how about in HCB's day? We both were around in that day. Did you feel the same then?
It's something that's grown into me as I age: I no longer see everybody in the world as somehow there for my personal pleasure, to do with as I will if I can get away with it.
That said, to revert to the topic of those old photographers like HC-B, Ronis et al., and before jumping to the conclusion that professionalism inevitably leads to sin, you must bear in mind that they were not working for themselves either: they were all selling to, and shooting for, mainly far-left publications, which accounts for the plethora of "charming" photographs of lower-working-class people; it's striking how the published images strive to represent a Paris and country of peasants; it's as if they were almost the entire population. That was the point: make the population appear somehow oppressed; it's how you stoke revolution. More than one such photographer flirted with communism, so don't allow pretty pictures to blind you to the other sides of the personalities you see today in those coffee table editions.
None of those guys, French or recent émigrés, was doing photography just for the hell of it, quite unlike most of those who revere them today.
-
What exactly is there to protect!? You sound like a medieval-mindset Muslim, protecting their property from even looks in public.
My daughter, like gazillion other women, dresses to impress when in public, and definitely wants to be seen and noticed. If someone takes a photo of her in public, so what? She, as gazillion other girls, has much more revealing photos on her social media pages.
That is her privilege to do and yours to approve. I have no interest in how she and her friends choose to behave; nothing to do with me or my family at all, and nothing to do with religious zealots either.
Rob
-
It's something that's grown into me as I age: I no longer see everybody in the world as somehow there for my personal pleasure, to do with as I will if I can get away with it.
That said, to revert to the topic of those old photographers like HC-B, Ronis et al., and before jumping to the conclusion that professionalism inevitably leads to sin, you must bear in mind that they were not working for themselves either: they were all selling to, and shooting for, mainly far-left publications, which accounts for the plethora of "charming" photographs of lower-working-class people; it's striking how the published images strive to represent a Paris and country of peasants; it's as if they were almost the entire population. That was the point: make the population appear somehow oppressed; it's how you stoke revolution. More than one such photographer flirted with communism, so don't allow pretty pictures to blind you to the other sides of the personalities you see today in those coffee table editions.
None of those guys, French or recent émigrés, was doing photography just for the hell of it, quite unlike most of those who revere them today.
Hi Rob, Of course professionalism doesn’t lead to sin. But it does lead to the slant desired by the person or outfit paying the tab. Let’s face it; if it doesn’t you’re out of a job next time around.
Some of the professionals, after doing their professional work, reverted to personal indulgence in their off hours. To me the classic example was Elliott Erwitt who, after putting away his boxcar-sized collection of professional gear, would get out his battered-looking Leica and start doing the fun stuff, which sort of is why we have that beautiful picture of Nixon poking his finger at Khrushchev. Erwitt has long been one of my all-time favorites because of his sense of humor.
And if you really believe what you’re saying about peasants, please give me at least a short list of examples. I don’t remember HCB doing a bunch of peasants. Quite the contrary – unless you’re thinking about the boat people in “Locks at Bougival.” But these folks weren’t peasants. They were hard-working boat folks with a grandma and a baby. He did do some Russian peasants because communism had pretty much reduced the country to rulers and the peasants.
I don’t have any coffee-table editions, though I do have a copy of HCB’s The Decisive Moment, whose title wasn’t an accurate translation of the original title: Images à la Sauvette, the translation of which, if my research is correct (my year of French won’t do it) includes the implication of a touch of sin.
In any case, I’m not the least bit worried about carrying on the traditions of street photography. Fifty years from now we’ll have a pretty good resumé of life and attitudes in the United States during the early two-thousand twenties. Europe’s resumé, produced by European media, will tell us all about politics.
-
What exactly is there to protect!? You sound like a medieval-mindset Muslim, protecting their property from even looks in public.
My daughter, like gazillion other women, dresses to impress when in public, and definitely wants to be seen and noticed. If someone takes a photo of her in public, so what? She, as gazillion other girls, has much more revealing photos on her social media pages.
If I'm out for a nice quiet dinner with my wife and some Yahoo photographer comes along the street and tries to take our photo...he'll end up with a broken camera...if not a nose.
There are times when taking a candid photo in the street is great...and there are times when it's best to put the camera down or at the very least as permission.
I was in Morocco when photographing people is not looked upon kindly...it's amazing how some sweet talk gets you the image you want.
Like I said before...just because you can doesn't mean you should.
-
If I'm out for a nice quiet dinner with my wife and some Yahoo photographer comes along the street and tries to take our photo...he'll end up with a broken camera...if not a nose...
And you’ll end up in jail.
Plus you’ll get my personal award: The Neanderthal of the Year.
-
And you’ll end up in jail.
Plus you’ll get my personal award: The Neanderthal of the Year.
Jail, maybe. Being able to finish dinner out with my wife without some asshole with a camera in my face...priceless.
-
Jail, maybe. Being able to finish dinner out with my wife without some asshole with a camera in my face...priceless.
You could really enjoy and finish your dinner after such an event? I could't.
Peter
-
The following is based on a reply I submitted elsewhere.
I guess we’ve all seen ’em, idiots sticking their cameras in people’s faces without so much as a thought on how that affects other’s sensibilities. Now that virtually everyone has some form of device at hand for capturing images it has become the norm. Hell, I’ve probably done it myself at times, but have never felt comfortable doing so: I know, I admit it, I am at times a hypocrite. If someone was to do the same to me they’d get a bunch of verbals, at least.
These days I’ll typically ask permission or at least be bloody sure that the subject/subjects are aware but uncaring. And yes, I know, permission alters the game, but rather that than cause offence.
Sometimes, we togs are our own worst enemies.
-
The world’s full of assholes with cameras, but that doesn’t mean we have to join the crowd. There’s a big difference between the guy who shoves a noisy DSLR with a giant lens in front of your face and bangs away and the guy who blends into the background and quietly, unobtrusively, even politely smiles and makes a shot with a small, black, quiet camera. The assumption in this thread seems to be migrating toward the idea that everyone doing street is a jerk. If you have any hope at all of doing successful street photography you’ve got to learn to blend in and be part of the background, not the howling foreground. That’s gonna mean missing a lot of shots, but that’s the price of doing it the right way.
-
The following is based on a reply I submitted elsewhere.
I guess we’ve all seen ’em, idiots sticking their cameras in people’s faces without so much as a thought on how that affects other’s sensibilities. Now that virtually everyone has some form of device at hand for capturing images it has become the norm. Hell, I’ve probably done it myself at times, but have never felt comfortable doing so: I know, I admit it, I am at times a hypocrite. If someone was to do the same to me they’d get a bunch of verbals, at least.
These days I’ll typically ask permission or at least be bloody sure that the subject/subjects are aware but uncaring. And yes, I know, permission alters the game, but rather that than cause offence.
Sometimes, we togs are our own worst enemies.
Actually, permission does not alter the game. I find sitting down and getting to know your subject, getting comfortable with the subject and the subject comfortable with you leads to many more in depth photos than just a run and gun ( sneaky ) approach.
-
Actually, permission does not alter the game. I find sitting down and getting to know your subject, getting comfortable with the subject and the subject comfortable with you leads to many more in depth photos than just a run and gun ( sneaky ) approach.
Couldn't agree more.
My wife is the most gregarious travelling and shooting companion I could possibly wish for, constantly engaging with those she meets, opening doors that no doubt would be closed to this rather reserved Englishman. She rescued this young boy from an open sewer, befriending the entire family.
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Mowgli.jpg)
My rock.
-
Actually, permission does not alter the game. I find sitting down and getting to know your subject, getting comfortable with the subject and the subject comfortable with you leads to many more in depth photos than just a run and gun ( sneaky ) approach.
That's a very different type of photography. Street is grabbing life as it happens. Hopefully poignant and universal moments. Most times it doesn't work. Your talking about casual and formal portraiture.
Peter
-
Actually, permission does not alter the game. I find sitting down and getting to know your subject, getting comfortable with the subject and the subject comfortable with you leads to many more in depth photos than just a run and gun ( sneaky ) approach.
This is also my experience.
But some of us make a difference between "Street" and "Informal Portraiture"
What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet
We make too Much Adoe about Names and Clasifications ;)
I think...
-
That's a very different type of photography. Street is grabbing life as it happens. Hopefully poignant and universal moments. Most times it doesn't work. Your talking about casual and formal portraiture.
Peter
It's not strictly portraits though...but most of the time humans are the subject. I'd call it documentary photography. I strive for poignant and impact photos as well...just a different means of getting there.
-
It's not strictly portraits though...but most of the time humans are the subject. I'd call it documentary photography. I strive for poignant and impact photos as well...just a different means of getting there.
I know, what I have seen, I like very much...
Peter
-
I know, what I have seen, I like very much...
Peter
Not only do I feel I get more intimate images by getting to know the subject before taking any images, but I also get to know them as a person rather than some stranger on the street. Many times getting to know the subject, both getting comfortable with one another does not involve conversation, but just body language, eye contact etc...
-
Not only do I feel I get more intimate images by getting to know the subject before taking any images, but I also get to know them as a person rather than some stranger on the street. Many times getting to know the subject, both getting comfortable with one another does not involve conversation, but just body language, eye contact etc...
All fine... just a different type/genre of photography than street.
-
All fine... just a different type/genre of photography than street.
But what box do you define "street photography" in? Many of my images are taken out on the streets of everyday people. Is that not street photography?
-
But what box do you define "street photography" in? Many of my images are taken out on the streets of everyday people. Is that not street photography?
In a broader sense, yes. And I am in favor of the broader sense. But some here would fiercely argue that is not true street.
-
That's a very different type of photography. Street is grabbing life as it happens. Hopefully poignant and universal moments. Most times it doesn't work. Your talking about casual and formal portraiture.
Peter
Exactly, Peter. The big problem is that street photography was badly named from the start, but if you study the work of the people -- HCB for instance -- who first worked with a hand camera and created the genre, you understand that it has to do with life as it happens. That usually means that the subjects(s) aren't aware you're recording what they're doing, and if they are aware, that they don't care and are going about their business and ignoring you.
Which is not to knock the other kind of photography, which I think most of us call informal portraiture, even though it doesn't involve portraiture in the formal sense. It's great to get on a familiar basis with someone who's going to be your subject. If you do it right you'll get some fine photographs. Keith does wonderful work in this genre.
As far as the argument that genre descriptions don't matter, I think that in this case at least, they do. My fondest wish about the whole argument is that there were a better name for what we now call street photography -- a record of life as it's being lived.
As Peter says, it's an undertaking where there'll be more misses than hits, but that's the price you have to pay to do it -- frequent disappointment.
-
The joy my wife and I get from sharing our images with those we photograph is often reciprocated by the joy expressed by those same subjects. Something that digital capture has facilitated and a narrow definition of Street would tend to preclude.
Whatever, genres - like tight briefs - make me uncomfortable.
-
The joy my wife and I get from sharing our images with those we photograph is often reciprocated by the joy expressed by those same subjects. Something that digital capture has facilitated and a narrow definition of Street would tend to preclude.
Whatever, genres - like tight briefs - make me uncomfortable.
Keith, Keith!
You haven't taken secretly to wearing your wife's pants have you?
;-)
-
I am now in two minds about chez' shots: on the one hand, stolen or given, they are wonderful images; on the other hand, they fall down the scale a little bit if I believe them to have been manufactured. If they have, then they rate no more highly on my personal scale than any other good, commercially produced shot. Theft and rapid reaction are of the essence in street; theft but not violent theft.
;-)
-
Keith, Keith!
You haven't taken secretly to wearing your wife's pants have you?
;-)
Busted, as are her pants, now!
;-)
-
The ultimate in photographic reciprocation.
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Photographing_the_photographer.jpg)
;-)
-
Busted, as are her pants, now!
;-)
;D ;D ;D
-
I am now in two minds about chez' shots: on the one hand, stolen or given, they are wonderful images; on the other hand, they fall down the scale a little bit if I believe them to have been manufactured. If they have, then they rate no more highly on my personal scale than any other good, commercially produced shot. Theft and rapid reaction are of the essence in street; theft but not violent theft.
;-)
I agree with this take...
Peter
-
I've been away for a few days in the snowy, sunny, dark, wet, windy Peak District (middle of England for you foreign types). And yes those conditions do all happen on the same day....
The length of this thread seems to have been triggered by Russ's view's on strict privacy laws in Europe.
Firstly, Europe is a big place, and certainly in the UK anyone in a public place is 'fair game' to be photographed. So saying, I agree with Rob in general on this subject. Just because the law does not proscribe photographing anyone in public, I do think that people have a right to their privacy. This is distinct from their legal 'Rights'. I do enjoy photographing candidly when out and about and if it can be done discretely then I try not to be noticed. If I am noticed, a friendly smile is usually all that is needed. Or, having got my shot, but then being noticed, I'm happy to go up to the subject and explain what I'm doing.
I don't know all the rules in other European countries, but I believe France do have privacy rules about public photography. Where this thread seems to have entered a heated debate is whether this has an effect on your typical photographer doing Street photography. I often do 'Street' photography in France. I've never encountered a problem. Hell, if you wanted to do 'Street' without ever being noticed, just use a phone camera. Everyone is walking around with them now - you would not get a second glance.
My understanding is that France enacted the privacy law to protect public figures from being hounded when trying to lead their private lives. Which I have some sympathy for. I honestly doubt it impacts on the typical street photographer. What are most of you doing with your pictures - selling them to magazines? No, I thought not. They are mainly for your own fun and satisfaction. In which case there is unlikely to be a problem anywhere in Europe.
Jim
-
I am now in two minds about chez' shots: on the one hand, stolen or given, they are wonderful images; on the other hand, they fall down the scale a little bit if I believe them to have been manufactured. If they have, then they rate no more highly on my personal scale than any other good, commercially produced shot. Theft and rapid reaction are of the essence in street; theft but not violent theft.
;-)
Nothing manufactured, nothing posed...everything natural. If one feels you need to sneak around with a camera peaking out from behind your trench coat to take "real street" images that are not "manufactured"...then so be it. I tend to view things not from the two extremes, but somewhere between.
-
I am now in two minds about chez' shots: on the one hand, stolen or given, they are wonderful images; on the other hand, they fall down the scale a little bit if I believe them to have been manufactured. If they have, then they rate no more highly on my personal scale than any other good, commercially produced shot. Theft and rapid reaction are of the essence in street; theft but not violent theft.
;-)
I agree with this take...
Peter
Manufactured? I've not seen anything in this thread that could be considered to be manufactured. Given, well perhaps.
People, please note Rob's wink.
;-)
-
Manufactured? I've not seen anything in this thread that could be considered to be manufactured. Given, well perhaps.
People, please note Rob's wink.
;-)
Keith - I was not sure why you had copied my reply into your post - I did not refer to 'manufactured'.
Jim
-
It you talk to your subjects and get them to pose, it is manufactured.
-
It you talk to your subjects and get them to pose, it is manufactured.
Yes, if one poses their subjects...but where do you see that? Talking or making eye contact and taking time to get the right shot with your subject as they go about their daily business is not posing in any way.
I do not believe talking with the subject to gain both our confidence is in no way manufacturing an image. Instead it's showing respect to the subject and with that respect gained, you get much more natural images...not ones where you swoop in, real off 20 images just to get one that shows the subject in a compromising view.
Yeh, we've all see the overweight lady standing by the diet sign hanging in the window...run and gun without respect.
-
... Yeh, we've all see the overweight lady standing by the diet sign hanging in the window...run and gun without respect.
What respect? For the fat cow or the sign?
-
I've been away for a few days in the snowy, sunny, dark, wet, windy Peak District (middle of England for you foreign types). And yes those conditions do all happen on the same day....
The length of this thread seems to have been triggered by Russ's view's on strict privacy laws in Europe.
Firstly, Europe is a big place, and certainly in the UK anyone in a public place is 'fair game' to be photographed. So saying, I agree with Rob in general on this subject. Just because the law does not proscribe photographing anyone in public, I do think that people have a right to their privacy. This is distinct from their legal 'Rights'. I do enjoy photographing candidly when out and about and if it can be done discretely then I try not to be noticed. If I am noticed, a friendly smile is usually all that is needed. Or, having got my shot, but then being noticed, I'm happy to go up to the subject and explain what I'm doing.
I don't know all the rules in other European countries, but I believe France do have privacy rules about public photography. Where this thread seems to have entered a heated debate is whether this has an effect on your typical photographer doing Street photography. I often do 'Street' photography in France. I've never encountered a problem. Hell, if you wanted to do 'Street' without ever being noticed, just use a phone camera. Everyone is walking around with them now - you would not get a second glance.
My understanding is that France enacted the privacy law to protect public figures from being hounded when trying to lead their private lives. Which I have some sympathy for. I honestly doubt it impacts on the typical street photographer. What are most of you doing with your pictures - selling them to magazines? No, I thought not. They are mainly for your own fun and satisfaction. In which case there is unlikely to be a problem anywhere in Europe.
Jim
Hi, Jim,
I’m glad to hear that European privacy laws aren’t as strict as they’ve been made to sound. But the words “public” and “private” have pretty specific meanings, and the idea of having privacy in public seems an oxymoron. But as you say, it’s a personal feeling. When I’m doing street photography, like you I smile a lot, and make myself as invisible as possible without making it obvious that I’m trying to be invisible – which is what I sometimes see photographers do. If I get caught making a shot – or fairly often even if I don’t and if I think the picture is pretty good -- I show the subject the picture on the LCD, offer to get his (or her’s or their) email address and email a copy. (Thank Heaven for digital. Right Rob?)
I certainly agree with France’s concern for public figures, and interestingly enough there’s a similar law in most states in the U.S., but the law has to do exclusively with public figures. If you ain’t a public guy you ain’t covered.
What I’ve been doing with my pictures is putting them on my web. I also built a program in C# to analyze the daily logs from the site. The program tells me what people are looking at and where the lookers are from. What I’ve found is interesting. I was shooting pictures in Korea during and immediately after that war, and again in Vietnam during that war. I wasn’t shooting war pictures. I was mostly shooting people pictures. That was before I knew anything at all about street photography. I’ve gotten an ever growing response from South Koreans for the Korean stuff – I suspect they want to see what their country and people were doing sixty-five years ago. You certainly can find out all about the war by digging up the news coverage from that period, but it seems interest goes beyond the kind of war pictures that have been done over and over and over war after war after war by the media. The response to the Vietnamese pictures is growing too, but it’s harder to analyze that kind of thing from a communist society.
Bottom line, beside the personal pleasure I get from finding a good street photograph, I think street photography is a public service. So there!
-
Keith - I was not sure why you had copied my reply into your post - I did not refer to 'manufactured'.
Jim
Jim, neither am I.
Apologies, it was an error. Now removed.
-
What respect? For the fat cow or the sign?
Oh yes...he who speaks about Neanderthals shows his colours.
-
It you talk to your subjects and get them to pose, it is manufactured.
Again, I don't see anything in this thread that is posed or manufactured.
-
Again, I don't see anything in this thread that is posed or manufactured.
This thread is intertwined with several others, and Rob was making a reference to chez' other shots and to his remarks about "getting to know the subject."
-
If you are doing "street" in your own environment, you probably interpret things correctly.
But for all people not acquainted with that environment you could be doing "street" in Mars. An alien world.
You are speaking Chinese.
Of course with some exceptions, like the real good street photographers.
If you are doing "street" in a foreign environment, the odds are that you are photographing your own prejudices or projections using the "street" just as background.
If you instead make contact with the subjects and they are aware of what you are doing, at least you are taking pictures of "people being photographed", which IMHO is more honest and satisfying.
-
This thread is intertwined with several others, and Rob was making a reference to chez' other shots and to his remarks about "getting to know the subject."
I'm sure that much that Rob holds dear to his heart is posed, manufactured and is all the better for it.
-
I'm sure that much that Rob holds dear to his heart is posed, manufactured and is all the better for it.
Thank you, but that was first fashion and then tit 'n' ass dressed up as fashion; I couldn't help myself. I don't think I ever managed to make a rude photograph, though I concede that that's a matter of opinion.
Yep, posed, and with tiny variations spread over thirty-six clicks!
;-)