Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Chairman Bill on August 26, 2013, 03:38:56 pm
-
I think I've posted something that could be considered 'Street', just the once, so thought I might try some more. Bearing in mind something I've picked up from Russ, about the genre needing 'ambiguity' in the images, and maybe some sort of story for people to read into an image, I thought I'd try my hand at a music festival.
Here's the results of my travails, all cropped to a square (I've not yet splashed out on a Hassy). I'm quite happy with some, less so with others, but would be interested in your views, critique & recommendations.
-
.
-
Oddly compelling. I mean that in a good way, but can't tell you why. Part of it is the low POV, perhaps. Trying to think up a smart "crack" for Couple...
-
I like them, but mostly as nicely composed documentary shots (as I understand the term). The only one in which I find myself wondering, a little bit, about the story is "Just One", and then the title rather gives it away - might be more street without the title. In all the others, what is going on seems clear.
-
Some better than others...but Nice Work.
Keep blasting away!
-
I find good street photography to be extremely compelling, but also extremely hard to achieve, with a lot of practice required.
With these series, I agree with Ken that they are nice documentary shots, but they don't pose any particular questions for me.
Nice series and I commend you on trying street (it takes a certain level of courage to really tackle street photography seriously) and hope you stick with it and post more examples.
-
Thanks for the comments. I can see the 'reportage' rather than 'street' thing though. Worth persevering with though?
-
The Couple shatters my perception of Brits as pale and skinny ;)
-
The Couple shatters my perception of Brits as pale and skinny ;)
They were USAians on 'vacation' ;)
-
They were USAians on 'vacation' ;)
You see how unsettling being abroad can be?
Rob C
-
Bill, It's reasonably interesting stuff, especially the guy in "Indecent Exposure" whose apparatus is banging around upside down. That gal off to the left probably is singing "Straighten up and fly right." To me they all seem to be straight documentary shots. I don't get ambiguity from any of them. But it's not just ambiguity that makes a street shot. To learn what does make a street shot, study the work of HCB, Andre Kertesz, Robert Donsneau, Willy Ronis, Elliott Erwitt, Marc Riboud, Helen Levitt, Robert Frank, Lee Friedlander, Todd Papageorge, and Garry Winogrand, to name just a few people who did very fine street photography. HCB and Kertesz defined the genre, but the others in the list expanded and, in the case of Frank and Winogrand created branches off the original tree. At the risk of seeming to brag, I'm including a picture I think I posted once before that has all the elements of a good street shot. Notice that it's not on the street.
But far be it from me to discourage anybody who wants to pursue street photography. As Peter pointed out, good street is damned difficult. In fact, after having done street, landscape, weddings, wabi sabi, portraits, and just about every kind of photography in the sixty years I've been shooting seriously, I'd say that street easily is the most difficult of all. Landscape is like fishing with a net. Street is like fishing with a flyrod. Street can be maddening, mainly because you miss the vast majority of your shots, but when you win one it's a real joy -- maybe even as good as sex. (Well, in that ballpark anyway.)
-
Russ, you're right about the miss-rate. And yes, it's damned difficult. But for my first attempt, I'm happy simply to have got some half/quarter-decent docu-type shots. I'll certainly try again, in different settings/venues. And thanks for the list of 'togs to look up & study their work.
-
Bill, One thing I forgot to mention: for all these folks there was a difference between what they did when they were on assignment and what they did when they were on their own, being amateurs again temporarily, in the real meaning of that word. I think the difference shows especially in Erwitt's work. On assignment he used to ship and carry a ton of equipment, but when the work day was over he'd go out with his really beat up M3, and do the kind of thing you can see in his book: Personal Best. You can see a picture of that M3 at http://blog.ricecracker.net/tag/leica-m4/.
HCB's work is another lesson. He did a lot of his best street shooting in the early days -- the twenties and thirties -- before WW II. Once he started doing photojournalism his work became more formal, but when he was just wandering with his camera he was back into real street. Check his "Lock at Bougival, 1955" to see what I mean. You can see the more formal stuff in books like The People of Moscow. But even in that book there are shots that qualify fully as street.
Glad to hear you're going to do more of it. Wish more people would. Real street reveals things about the human condition that only a photograph can encompass. Street is the real "fine art" branch of photography.
-
The Couple shatters my perception of Brits as pale and skinny ;)
They were USAians on 'vacation' ;)
The UK is sadly following another US trend as we are the fattest nation in Europe.
Here's Little and Large....
-
Glad to hear you're going to do more of it. Wish more people would. Real street reveals things about the human condition that only a photograph can encompass. Street is the real "fine art" branch of photography.
Apart from Fine Art photography that isn't street of course. Which is most of it.
-
Apart from Fine Art photography that isn't street of course. Which is most of it.
+1. ;D
-
Sorry, jjj, couldn't resist:
And the chap is biting his tongue, whilst trying to think of acceptable answer.
-
No guesses what the gulls are thinking: which head? Maybe both?
I don't mean to start another fruitless argument about ethics, but I can't help feeling sorry for the lass. Nobody (okay, I can't) can really tell why she is as she is; opinion these days swings towards bad diet because of shortage of readies, misdirection of available funds, genetic problems, heaven alone really can tell.
It just seems a shame to snap folks with these difficulties. Yes, I know: because of the photographer being a pro, maybe it's part of a professional assignment - again, I don't know the background, but it still leaves me uncomfortable. And no, my own version of my Mr Universe body tends to the skeletal. Legs to die for. If you have none.
Rob C
-
If people are overweight, it's 99.9% because they eat more than they work off through exercise.
As for the wretched gulls, they aim for your chips in the hope you leave them for the gulls to eat.
-
because they eat more than they work off through exercise.
True but useless as an explanation; because you've reduced questions of Biology, Sociology, Economics... to a question of Physics the answer misses the point of the question.
-
True but useless as an explanation; because you've reduced questions of Biology, Sociology, Economics... to a question of Physics the answer misses the point of the question.
No, it's physics [which determines the chemistry and in turn the biology] that is the truth of the matter, not sociology/economics/slow metabolism and so on, which people hide behind to excuse the fact their being overweight is simply due to their eating too much.
So there are no ethics issue to address in my opinion, with doing street/documentary photography which may feature people who simply don't look after themselves. What else shouldn't one document if overweight people are off limits?
-
Don't pay any attention to these guys, Bill. To see where pictures of people, in which genre street shots are tops, fit in as fine art, just pick up any book on the history of photography or walk into any photo gallery. By photo gallery I'm not talking about art stores with a mix of painting and photography that exist to help you "decorate," I'm talking about a gallery that specializes in photography. Sometimes it's hard to find such a thing. I know of four in Santa Fe, where I'm going to go for a couple days next month, and I know of several in San Francisco where nowadays I wouldn't go on a bet. They're out there if you look.
-
Russ, the wife says I can't go to Santa Fe, nor San Francisco, but I can take her to Paris. I might have to look through A Propos de Paris for inspiration ;)
-
Here's Little and Large....
That's a cheap shot as is any image setting out to belittle, humiliate, sneer....I could go on but I'm too annoyed. Have you nothing better to do with your camera?
-
Well said, Seamus.
jjj, I'm afraid you're incorrect. This is "Little and Large"
Yours is an image of 2 people sitting on a bench. Would you have bothered to take the shot on film, needing to develop and print it? I doubt it. Merely a nondescript immaterial image. I see your profile describes you as being 12 years old. Time to grow up?
-
That's a cheap shot as is any image setting out to belittle, humiliate, sneer....I could go on but I'm too annoyed. Have you nothing better to do with your camera?
Now, that is an interesting concept. A photographer should be embarrassed to take a picture in public of someone who is not embarrassed to appear in public?
There was a time, not so long ago, even after Rob's Golden Era, where people would rather be dead than caught in public outside accepted norms. People put their Sunday's best when flying. Men shaved (gasp!) before going out. Freaks and weirdos had their gathering holes well outside public path. Today, all that is on display. We even organize parades for it. Today, college girls come to lectures in pajamas, with signs of a monthly event still quite visible (and I am not making this up). Today, morbidly obese wear leggings and thongs. But, of course, it is us, public and photographers who should be embarrassed?
-
Now, that is an interesting concept. A photographer should be embarrassed to take a picture in public of someone who is not embarrassed to appear in public?
What he wrote was that a photographer shouldn't set out to humiliate, belittle or sneer. A different idea, surely. I don't think anyone should set out to humiliate, belittle or sneer. These are hardly worthwhile objectives. The interesting question is whether it is possible to take a photograph of a fat (or otherwise abnormal looking) person with a less objectionable intention. Anyone who believes that fat people should be embarrassed to appear in public will probably think not. I am not sure if you believe that - your post could be read that way, nor not. I would be more optimistic and a Google Image Search on "Photography Fat People (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=photography+fat+people&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=rxwgUvCnKqahiAfMuoHwDA&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1920&bih=1137)" gives me comfort, as many of those shots affectionately celebrate the humanity of their subjects.
-
What he wrote was that a photographer shouldn't set out to humiliate, belittle or sneer...
And who is to say that the photographer intended to do that!? On what grounds, other than that he documented reality?
-
And who is to say that the photographer intended to do that!? On what grounds, other than that he documented reality?
The only possible grounds would be in the photograph itself, based on the particular aspect of reality the photographer chose to document. I don't personally find the image in question demeaning, but I don't much care for the balloon. I think of Diane Arbus's images of freaks, which some people find exploitative. I don't see them that way. To me her unsparing gaze includes real human sympathy. But I think it is possible for photographers to exploit and demean their subjects, and when they do, I don't see that "documenting reality" is any excuse.
-
That's a cheap shot as is any image setting out to belittle, humiliate, sneer....I could go on but I'm too annoyed. Have you nothing better to do with your camera?
Dear me, we are an over sensitive lot aren't we. Read post in context. Someone commented that he thought all Brits were pale and skinny, someone else referenced [fat] Americans visiting. I pointed out we are sadly the fattest nation in Europe and I happened to have an image that showed both aspects. Hence the little and large caption in the post. The image isn't captioned thus otherwise.
As it happens, the fact someone in shot is overweight is not the slightest bit relevant to the series of images that the picture belongs to and had zero to do with why image was shot.
-
The issue is one of context, and interpretation. One of the images I took was of a very over-weight woman, using a crutch to get around. I actually saw someone who looked quite magisterial & imposing, and steadfastly refusing to be cowed by her physicality. But then I decided not to post it, because I expected that someone, somewhere, would see it in a very different light - maybe as exploitative, as poking fun, presenting a person for ridicule, or all manner of otherwise negative things.
The reality though, is that humanity is made up of of all sorts of people, who come in all manner of shapes & sizes, and if we exclude certain people from public discourse (including that which accompanies photography), we fail to be inclusive, fail to represent society as it is, and effectively conspire to silence & make invisible certain elements of that society.
And somewhere between all that lot, we make decisions about what we photograph, and what we share, and live with the consequences.
-
Well said, Seamus.
jjj, I'm afraid you're incorrect. This is "Little and Large"
To whom I was referencing, duh! Try not being so literal.
Yours is an image of 2 people sitting on a bench. Would you have bothered to take the shot on film, needing to develop and print it? I doubt it. Merely a nondescript immaterial image. I see your profile describes you as being 12 years old. Time to grow up?
Once again with being a bit too literal. I'm guessing 12 years must be how long I've been using forum, not my age as I do not tend to give out my correct birthdate online. And guess what, I used to take such shots on film too. Why don't you have a go at Michael Reichman then, whilst you are at it? As he does a lot of shots of people going about their quotidian business too as do many others such as Magnum photographer Martin Parr.
Now should all photographers who take pictures you don't like give up then, as that's what you are arrogantly saying. And quelle surprise, you have no links to any of your work like most armchair critics.
BTW - other people have liked the shot. So who's right, them or you? No-one, as it's just personal opinion reflecting people's individual taste.
-
The issue is one of context, and interpretation. One of the images I took was of a very over-weight woman, using a crutch to get around. I actually saw someone who looked quite magisterial & imposing, and steadfastly refusing to be cowed by her physicality. But then I decided not to post it, because I expected that someone, somewhere, would see it in a very different light - maybe as exploitative, as poking fun, presenting a person for ridicule, or all manner of otherwise negative things.
Usually people are saying things that are more about themselves and how they view the world when they make judgemental decisions about say in this case photographs. Thus revealing how they see the world which may have nothing to do with the photographer's views or intentions.
You shouldn't let other's misinterpretations prevent you from showing your work.
The reality though, is that humanity is made up of of all sorts of people, who come in all manner of shapes & sizes, and if we exclude certain people from public discourse (including that which accompanies photography), we fail to be inclusive, fail to represent society as it is, and effectively conspire to silence & make invisible certain elements of that society.
Nail, head, hit.
-
In the UK television shows fat people walking in the streets. The shots are from the shoulders down showing only their bodies where the fat is. Should photographers do the same? I can't make up my mind. :-[
-
Well, I'm a bit sorry that I commented on the picture; as I implied, ethics is not a theme that's going to be resolved through any rational, dispassionate conversation - look at today's political news about the UK vis-à-vis Syria: I'm against interference but equally so against what's being done there. What's the right thing to do or not to do? Shakespeare, we need you now.
But cutting one another up here solves nothing in the broader sense: it simply creates bad feelings where we really don't need them. The actual image isn't offensive enough - to me at least - to warrant that, just a straight image of what exists; as I also indicated and jjj comments, the motivational reasons for the shot are not ours to know. In this sort of territory, where I do take strong exception is towards Mr Martin P. and his use of photography of parts of British society where, for me at least, there can be no doubt about his motivation: self-promotion and profit, admirable qualities in other fields, but unpleasant where all I sense is mockery.
Rob C
-
In the UK television shows fat people walking in the streets. The shots are from the shoulders down showing only their bodies where the fat is. Should photographers do the same? I can't make up my mind. :-[
Absolutely not. Two different mediums and completely different contexts. On TV when then anonymise overweight people, it's usually in context of a news item or documentary on obesity or similar. Faces are not shown so as not to spotlight any individuals, but still show the issue being discussed. Similar tactics are used when covering other topics too.
Photographs taken in the street which include overweight people is not the same at all.
-
In this sort of territory, where I do take strong exception is towards Mr Martin P. and his use of photography of parts of British society where, for me at least, there can be no doubt about his motivation: self-promotion and profit, admirable qualities in other fields, but unpleasant where all I sense is mockery.
Not a big fan of Parr's later work myself [I like his early B+W though], but not sure it's mockery. It's more a revealing 'mirror' to how people really are.
-
What makes the thing objectionable to me is its judgemental title - Little and Large. Call it, for instance, 'Day at the Seaside' or something similar and it's in different territory.
-
What makes the thing objectionable to me is its judgemental title - Little and Large. Call it, for instance, 'Day at the Seaside' or something similar and it's in different territory.
Indeed it does. Sometimes a title works to the photo's advantage, but as with my original offerings in this thread, sometimes a title closes down interpretations. I wish now I'd posted them without.
-
And who is to say that the photographer intended to do that!? On what grounds, other than that he documented reality?
So, what was the purpose of your bubble other than to get a cheap laugh at the expense of the lady? I'm surprised at you, honestly.
-
So, what was the purpose of your bubble other than to get a cheap laugh at the expense of the lady? I'm surprised at you, honestly.
You do realize that the photographer and the person who inserted the bubble are two different ones?
-
Of course I do - I was just surprised that somebody of your stature, whose work I greatly admire, would have done it. A good cartoon - yes. But an image of unwitting participants - real people who probably didn't even know their picture was being taken and who would be horrified to find themselves on a website portrayed like that - well, it goes against the grain for me.
-
Of course I do - I was just surprised that somebody of your stature, whose work I greatly admire, would have done it. A good cartoon - yes. But an image of unwitting participants - real people who probably didn't even know their picture was being taken and who would be horrified to find themselves on a website portrayed like that - well, it goes against the grain for me.
(http://i.imgflip.com/3atvs.jpg)
-
What makes the thing objectionable to me is its judgemental title - Little and Large. Call it, for instance, 'Day at the Seaside' or something similar and it's in different territory.
Dear me. Try reading all the posts before commenting. The image does not actually have a title, 'Here's Little and Large...' is part of the post and is referencing perception of UK obesity Vs reality.
Indeed it does. Sometimes a title works to the photo's advantage, but as with my original offerings in this thread, sometimes a title closes down interpretations. I wish now I'd posted them without.
And why I rarely give photos a title.
-
The UK is sadly following another US trend as we are the fattest nation in Europe.
Here's Little and Large....
I think you're on thin ice there, jjj. Like it or not, the phrase is associated with your picture. Anyway, I'm done with this now. Cheers.
-
Of course I do - I was just surprised that somebody of your stature, whose work I greatly admire, would have done it. A good cartoon - yes. But an image of unwitting participants - real people who probably didn't even know their picture was being taken and who would be horrified to find themselves on a website portrayed like that - well, it goes against the grain for me.
You have a point, Seamus. I removed my post.
It was meant as an inside joke, among a small community here. I would not have done it on Facebook or any other site with a potential to go "viral" instantly. However, given the possibility, however unlikely, that someone might take it from here, I removed it.
-
I think you're on thin ice there, jjj. Like it or not, the phrase is associated with your picture. Anyway, I'm done with this now. Cheers.
Quoting selectively and out of context. You seem to have misread original post and both subsequent times I've explained it. Well done.
Are you leaving conversation because you realised you were taking offence at nothing?
-
Worth persevering with though?
This one -- "Quick, run!"
-
Well done, Slobodan.
I have from time to time done the same with street shots I posted. Having looked at them in the context of a site like this, I've removed them fairly quickly. In the street, I'm constantly conflicted by the dilemma of people's right to privacy and the photographer's right to take the shot.
Are you leaving conversation because you realised you were taking offence at nothing? -jjj
No, I'm leaving because there is no more conversation to be had and I've given too much time to it already.
-
No, it's physics [which determines the chemistry and in turn the biology] that is the truth of the matter,...
As I said - "True..."
...not sociology/economics/slow metabolism and so on, which people hide behind to excuse the fact their being overweight is simply due to their eating too much.
But useless as an explanation -- their being overweight is simplistically due to their eating too much.
-
... their being overweight is simplistically due to their eating too much.
Occam's razor to the rescue?
-
Occam's razor to the rescue?
Cut away the assumption that "too much" is the same for different people and different groups of people.
Cut away the assumption that "eating too much" is independent of what is eaten.
Cut away the assumption that what is eaten is independent of upbringing and education and income.
Cut away...
Hence simplistic and useless as an explanation.
-
Jesus, Isaac,
I often wondered if there is a chance that you finally reached a pinnacle of hairsplitting, the point even you couldn't outdo? And every time I think you did, you manage to surprise me.
"Eating too much" is "eating too much," for god's sake, however you slice it and dice it (pardon the pun).
-
Jesus, Isaac,
I often wondered if there is a chance that you finally reached a pinnacle of hairsplitting, the point even you couldn't outdo? And every time I think you did, you manage to surprise me.
"Eating too much" is "eating too much," for god's sake, however you slice it and dice it (pardon the pun).
Made me laugh out loud.
-
But useless as an explanation -- their being overweight is simplistically due to their eating too much.
But that is the only reason [bar rare medical issues]. There are however lots of excuses, which are used by people to pretend/hide that they have not in fact eaten too much.
As a break from splitting hairs Issac, please inform us of other ways of putting on weight other than eating too much. Exercising too little does not count - as it's the same thing.
-
"Eating too much" is "eating too much," for god's sake
You don't need to eat very much burger-joint $1 fast-food before that's "eating too much".
You can eat sack-fulls $5 raw baby spinach before that's "eating too much".
You don't need to consume much super-sized soda before that's "eating too much".
You can consume maybe a gallon of tap-water before that's "eating too much".
-
You don't need to eat very much burger-joint $1 fast-food before that's "eating too much".
You can eat sack-fulls $5 raw baby spinach before that's "eating too much".
You don't need to consume much super-sized soda before that's "eating too much".
You can consume maybe a gallon of tap-water before that's "eating too much".
Eating too much is still eating too much regardless of whatever you are eating. It's just...tooo much.
Also water isn't food.
-
To get back to something vaguely photographic here are some other shots from same series as the photo that some people got in a silly tizz about.
-
Eating too much is still eating too much regardless of whatever you are eating. It's just...tooo much.
Being simplistic is just... being simplistic.
Also water isn't food.
Soda is.
-
Eating too much is still eating too much regardless of whatever you are eating. It's just...tooo much.
Being simplistic is just... being simplistic.
No that is not being simplistic. It is exactly what the problem is - there is nothing to add or remove from the equation.
Too much food=Excess weight.
I see you still haven't offered any other alternative reasons for gaining weight - oh yes, because there aren't any.
Also water isn't food.
Soda is.
...not water. And water is still not food, so not something you can overeat particularly as it has zero calories.
-
jjj, you are such an enabler ;D
-
So does anyone want to share diets or exercise regimes, or should we limit discussion to photography?
-
Ok, Bill, no more food... back to photography... street photography, to be precise ;D
-
Or promoting mens sana in corpore sano on the street:
-
You sure that's New York, Slobodan, and not The Big Easy?
-
I like what she's not wearing
-
jjj, you are such an enabler ;D
He, he. ;D
But I don't think I'll actually get any answers to my question for alternatives.
I did post some street shots to try and steer conversation back to things photographic, but only Issac responded.
Does he even do photography?
-
I like what she's not wearing
I might even prefer the shot from the front... or would that be 'interference' with the natural flow of events and not genuine street?
As ever, one has to leave ultimate judgement to the snapper.
Rob C
-
I might even prefer the shot from the front...
Happy to oblige, Rob :)
-
No food here either... other than in the metaphor :)
-
Happy to oblige, Rob :)
Well now, that's some paint job!
;-)
Rob C
-
http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/local_news/water_cooler/topless-in-new-york-ok-women-have-the-right-to-bare-breasts-on-the-streets-new-york-times-reports
-
No food here either... other than in the metaphor :)
Some food end product here in this literal street shot of NY.
-
Ok, Bill, no more food... back to photography... street photography, to be precise ;D
How about landscape photography... of food (http://www.carlwarner.com/foodscapes/)....
-
I did post some street shots to try and steer conversation back to things photographic...
You did ignore Chairman Bill's photographs and steer the conversation away from things photographic --
If people are overweight, it's 99.9% because they eat more than they work off through exercise.
But I don't think I'll actually get any answers to my question for alternatives.
I very clearly said that your remark is True, so there's no reason to expect alternatives - other explanations would be additional not alternative.
And water is still not food, so not something you can overeat particularly as it has zero calories.
food noun (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/american-english/food?q=food): "something that can be taken in by an animal and used to keep it alive and allow it to grow or develop, or such things considered as a whole"
"A 28-year-old woman died of water intoxication (http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-2358958.html)..."
-
One from today
-
If you didn't buy the mirror, maybe your should.
-
One from today
Excellent!
-
Good shot, Bill. Keep working at it. It's fun.