Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => Street Showcase => Topic started by: OnlyNorth on May 08, 2021, 03:49:30 pm
-
(Done with the phone)
-
Looks like a submerged junkyard; very nice!
-
I think Russ would say that you need to get that phone fixed.
But I'll say that I find it a fascinating image.
-
What Russ would say is this:
It's patently obvious that nobody on LuLa has even the remotest idea what street photography is all about. It would make all sorts of sense for LuLa to drop the category "Street Showcase." It's nothing of the sort. Street photography is a genre defined by some of history's most competent and influential photographers, people like Andre Kertesz, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Robert Frank, Garry Winogrand, to name just four of many. The genre has to do with interactions between people and between people and their environment. It hasn't anything to do with the crap I've seen on here since I threw up my hands and dropped off.
The problem with keeping the category on LuLa is that it misleads those who haven't a clue about the genre and aren't willing to do the kind of research they need to do to learn about it. They think that if they're shooting a street, or something on a street, they're doing street photography. There's massive ignorance about the genre out there, and LuLa is contributing to it. :o
-
This is interesting
https://luminous-landscape.com/on-street-photography/
-
This is interesting
https://luminous-landscape.com/on-street-photography/
That was an excellent essay from the "old" LuLa. It's still an excellent essay, but I can't see any complete image on my PC screen unless I reduce the browser screen (ctrl-minus, several times) until the image fits the screen. And at that point the text of the article is too small to be readable.
Terrible web design -- unless the purpose is to treat text and images all as meaningless wallpaper.
-
Somebody messed with the original, Eric. Here's a slightly different version. The text is the same but the pictures are different: http://www.russ-lewis.com/essays/OnStreetPhotography.pdf
-
Simply rename the "Street Showcase" to "On The Street".
Damn it, the problem is we could then get inundated with pics of those of ill repute.
(https://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Bordello.jpg)
You see the problem with categories, definitions and the anal retentive?
;)
-
You're right, Keith. It would never work.
Eric, I tried Rab's link again and found that if I start to scroll down through it, suddenly an interrupt screen pops up, offering you a chance to subscribe to LuLa or, of you're already a member, to sign in. Sign in. Then dump the interrupt and go back to the original link. Now you'll have the whole thing available. It wold be interesting to know what genius thought up something that stupid, but there you are.
-
Somebody messes with the original, Eric. Here's a slightly different version. The text is the same but the pictures are different: http://www.russ-lewis.com/essays/OnStreetPhotography.pdf
Yes, Russ, I've read and admired that essay as it appeared on the old LuLa, before the present team "improved" the web interface. It's good that it is available on your website, readably, and with good illustrations.
-Eric
P.S. Keith's suggestion, "On the Street," might be a suitable catch-all fix for the current misleading LuLa topic heading.
-
...P.S. Keith's suggestion, "On the Street," might be a suitable catch-all fix for the current misleading LuLa topic heading.
Eric, I'd encourage more contributors to post more images and worry less about meeting categorisations.
At the moment there is a 'Landscape Showcase' and a contested and controversial 'Street Showcase' and no natural home for all the rest. IMO images should be the lifeblood of a photography forum.
-
Being in a heavy traffic,in a heavy rainy day,this little devil drawn on my windshield by raindrops told me that in Random House of the English Language "showcase" is 1.a glass case for the display and protection of articles in shops,museums,etc; 2.the setting,place,or vehicle displaying something in a trial basis;vt.3.to exhibit or display., in Webster's Dictionary "showcase" is 1.a glass close case for the displaying and protection of articles in shops,museums,etc; 2.an exhibit or display usually of an ideal or representative model of something; 3. the setting, place or vehicle for displayng something on a trial basis; vt.3. to exhibit or display. ,in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English "showcase" is a glass box containing objects for people to look at in a shop or an event or situation that is designed to show the good qualities of a person,organisation,product,etc.
So "street showcase" is no more than the name says.Your discussion was about a part of street showcase which is called "street photography".These discussions are not new and I am sure they will continue.
Thank You for these extensive comments
-
North, I believe contributors should feel free to choose whatever category they feel appropriate when posting images. Tight briefs rub me up the wrong way!
I like both of your images.
-
Interesting, Keith. Then you wouldn't have a problem with Only's latest going on Landscape Showcase? (Actually it probably would be more appropriate there than here.)
-
North, I believe contributors should feel free to choose whatever category they feel appropriate when posting images. Tight briefs rub me up the wrong way!
I like both of your images.
I agree, "What's in a name?" but I believe that there has to be at least some order. Even museums don't mix mummies with Rembrandts.
I wouldn't like to click on Landscapes and land in the Bear Pit
Or the other way around, find Bearpitchy comments under Landscapes ::)
Just MHO
I like both images too, BTW
-
I like both images too, Rab, but it's clear they both belong in Landscape Showcase.
-
Under User Critiques there is a thread for "Show us some Abstracts."
I might start a new thread over there called "Unclassified images."
-
I really like both of these images. They are semi-abstract, of course. Or if you like, non-representational images. Lovely!
JR
-
I am afraid, by entering into this discussion,I moved away from my goal which is to take photos not to talk on photography.
However entire discussion was an interesting and usefull one,especially since the arguments, used for supporting the opinions, revealed a side of the character of the participants.
Of course,You know now, I consider, that in a"showcase" of the street,every topic has its place and all togather represent the street show and maybe opinions show.
Thank You.
-
That’s very virtuous, Only: wanting to “take photos, not to talk on photography.” Only problem is that this isn’t “a ‘showcase’ of the street.” It’s a “Street Showcase,” a category that supposedly was intended to be a showcase for street photography, which is very different from photographs of streets.
Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the intention from the start was to display pictures of streets. That’s essentially what it’s turned out to do. Unfortunately, it contributes to a gross misunderstanding of photography’s most significant genre.
-
It would be rude if I did not answer RSL.He did me a special honor leaning over my photos.He spent a lot of energy trying to convinced me that some photos do not belong to the ''street photography",although, I did not support this.In the same time, I feel guilty for not answering everyone but it would be a grueling English exercise.
So,about ''that's very virtuous...'' ,it can be easily be proven that in ten years,I have been here,the vast majority are made up of my shots and not discussions about photography.
As for the assumption that ''street showcase'' is not the same thing with ''showcase of a street'',I do not know the subtleties of this language,but, I think that my teacher would have sanctioned me if I had said that these two expressions are not equivalent.That does not mean I want to share the misunderstanding of the language with my teacher,it is only my fault.In fact I do not bother anyone with my photos,but,looking at Yours I am not sure You are following H-C Bresson,which does not upset me at all,I am really glad.
Thank You very much.
-
To learn the "subtleties," Only, Study the work of Henri Cartier-Bresson, Andre Kertesz, David Seymour (Chim), Robert Doisneau, Willy Ronis, Brassai, Walker Evans, Elliott Erwitt, Mark Riboud, Garry Winogrand, Helen Levitt and Robert Frank, to name a few of the people who defined street photography. If you pay close attention you'll learn what the badly named genre "street photography" really is about. It isn't what you think it is, and you'll learn the difference between a "Street Showcase," and a "showcase of a street."
-
Study the work of Henri Cartier-Bresson, Andre Kertesz, David Seymour (Chim), Robert Doisneau, Willy Ronis, Brassai, Walker Evans, Elliott Erwitt, Mark Riboud, Garry Winogrand, Helen Levitt and Robert Frank, to name a few of the people who defined street photography. If you pay close attention you'll learn what the badly named genre "street photography" really is about.
It's a very unfortunately deceptive name in that the genre really isn't about "streets" at all, but rather about a particular approach to making images, whatever the locale. I tried my hand at offering a narrative definition (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=124883.msg1045220#msg1045220) in this forum a while back.
I think of street photographs as images of people (and perhaps animals or artifacts) interacting with their environment (regardless of the locale) in a way that evokes a narrative (which may vary with different viewers) rather than a literal statement of fact (i.e., "this is exactly and only what happened to be in front of the lens when the shutter was snapped").
In law, and in some other fields, there is the concept of a term of art: a word or phrase that has a non-literal meaning that is specific to the expertise of the practitioners. "Street photography" doesn't need to depict subjects in a street, or even in an urban setting (although it typically involves some sort of public venue); the term refers to the characteristics of the activity captured by the photographer and the reaction the image provokes in the viewer.
-
Exactly, Chris. "Term of art" pretty accurately describes how "street photography" is specific to the expertise of its practitioners. As you and I both have pointed out, it has absolutely nothing to do with streets. It has to do with interrelationships between people and between people and their environment. I've long suspected that the name arose from the fact that when Oskar Barnack's Leica first came out and made unposed pictures of people possible both film and lenses were slow enough that you almost had to be on the street to pull it off. It's easy for people to become confused about the photographic genre "street photography" because you actually have to study the work of the people who defined the genre in order to understand what it is, and that takes work.
My beef with the term "Street Showcase" on LuLa is the extent to which it adds to the confusion. I keep coming back to this picture because it illustrates exactly what street photography is about. There's nothing there except the expressions on the principals' faces and the language of their bodies. The result is a kind of ambiguity that forces you, the viewer, to decide what the picture "means." That's what makes street photography powerful.
-
I keep coming back to this picture because it illustrates exactly what street photography is about. There's nothing there except the expressions on the principals' faces and the language of their bodies. The result is a kind of ambiguity that forces you, the viewer, to decide what the picture "means." That's what makes street photography powerful.
Yes, I think ambiguity is often the key to "street" photography. A picture of people interacting with each other or their environment can be visually compelling, but if it's obvious exactly what is happening, it might more appropriately be called documentary photography. For me, the best street photographs make you wonder, "what exactly is going on here?" They draw the viewer in to try to solve the puzzle of what precisely the image is intended to depict. Of course, what prompted the photographer to snap the shutter and the viewer's concept of the narrative don't need to match. Actually, it's often better if they don't.
In my experience, serendipity is almost always involved in making a street photograph; that's what makes the genre so challenging. By chance, you wind up in the right place at the right time and recognize that it's the right place and the right time so you can position the camera and capture what you are seeing in the instant while it lasts. I don't know what drew my eye to the mirrors in the scene below, but without them it would be a documentary photograph of an artisan looking at his cellphone.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50204394947_dac2084113_c_d.jpg)
-
Right, Chris. But I'll go further and say that serendipity is ALWAYS primary in street photography. The expressions, the situation, usually last for a couple seconds at most. If your camera isn't in your hand and at your face when the "decisive moment" occurs, you're out of luck. That's why HCB made his famous comment about "looking is everything." By the way, the picture you posted is the first real street shot I've seen on here in a long time. The ambiguity is priceless.
-
+1.
-
I continue to post here what I think fits into my concept of "Street Showcase",..' until the administrators of this site will tell that the meaning is "street photography".
-
I continue to post here what I think fits into my concept of "Street Showcase",..' until the administrators of this site will tell that the meaning is "street photography".
Of course. The more the merrier.
I enjoy the discussions of the origins and meaning of the genre (and its inapposite name), but an interesting image is still an interesting image, whether I or anyone else considers it to be genuine "street photography."
-
I agree, Chris. Let's see the photographs. Unfortunately I fail to see the difference between the titles "Street Showcase" and "Street Photography," considering that this is a photography site. But what the hell? My main concern is that with the genre's misleading name more and more people will become confused about what street photography is. You can't really come up with a written definition of "street photography" any more than you can come up with a written definition of "landscape photography." You have to look at the work of the people who defined the genre, and most people with a camera or a cell phone don't bother to do that. They think that if it's on the street, it's street photography. There's even at least one book that makes that mistake: The World Atlas of Street Photography.
-
Maybe we should throw out all the old genre labels and start fresh with two new ones. I propose "Other Photography" and "Not Other Photography." 8)
-
I propose "Other Photography" and "Not Other Photography."
That's an inspired taxonomy.
-
Thank you Chris.
Or perhaps: "Genre #1" and "Not Genre #1."
Or even simply "Genre" and "Not Genre."
-
“to be or not to be. That is the question….”
-
Throughtout of his life,any Great Inquisitor thought he was a specialist in taxonomy. And that is not bad at all for his psyche.
-
The street photography genre isn't defined by similarity, Only. Anything but.