Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => Discussing Photographic Styles => Topic started by: Isaac on October 02, 2014, 07:24:09 pm
-
Newly published and so far a great read. The definition of street is widely ranging…
Stamper, go to Amazon and check my review of this book. You're right, according to these guys a picture of a street is street photography.
So I went to Amazon and looked at Russ's review (http://www.amazon.com/review/R11H31CT2KX0VG/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm).
That "review" didn't tell me much at all about The World Atlas of Street Photography. That "review" made no specific reference to anything written or shown in the book. That "review" is all about Russ: what Russ thinks street photography is, and what Russ thinks street photography is not.
Please stamper tell us what you are learning from The World Atlas of Street Photography.
-
Have you actually seen the book, Isaac, or are you just shooting off your mouth?
-
......are you just shooting off your mouth?
Will the sun come up tomorrow?
-
Have you actually seen the book, Isaac, or are you just shooting off your mouth?
Isaac you have started a thread. A few months ago you started a thread about downloading Nikon's raw converter and asked for opinions on it's merits despite the fact you didn't download it yourself. :-[
-
Why don't YOU tell us more, Isaac. Since you're onto this I have to assume you have the book in hand and can discuss what's there. Tell us what you think about it.
-
Couldn't agree more. :)
-
I haven't finished reading it yet. However there is merit in what Russ has stated. The book is wide ranging in it's choice of images.
-
Unfortunately your "review" is merely a long winded way of saying -- It ain't what I call Street Photography. . .
No kidding. And without looking at the book you can tell whether or not what I said relates to the book and whether or not what I said makes sense? You can do that how?
Better see if you can find a way to reduce the rattle in your head before you pontificate on subjects of which you have no knowledge.
-
I said -- That "review" made no specific reference to anything written or shown in the book.
A picture of a street is not street photography. A picture of someone on a street is not street photography. A picture of a building is not street photography. A picture of a group of buildings with a street included is not a street photograph. An informal portrait is not street photography. In most instances a picture of a hobo sleeping on a street is not street photography. In general, posed photographs are not street photography.
None there, just ranting.
To understand what street photography actually is you need to go back to the people who originated it and defined it: Andre Kertesz, Henri Cartier-Bresson, … and others of that era. If you look at the work of these originators …
None there, just what you think street photography is.
That "review (http://www.amazon.com/review/R11H31CT2KX0VG/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm)" is all about you: what you think street photography is, and what you think street photography is not.
A book review would at least tell us what the book says street photography is and is not, and tell us about the photography shown in the book.
-
Rattle, rattle, rattle. Give it up, Isaac.
-
I read Russ' comments as being a brief informed critique of the book's failure to actualy do what it claimed to do, supported with some reasonable argument to account for his critique, and some suggestions for further reference. Each to their own I suppose.
-
I feel sorry for you, Isaac. :'(
-
Once again, you have nothing sensible to say, so you insult.
I have found this often to be the case with him. I'm not sure why that is. I looked over his website and he is clearly a fine photographer, but I found nothing there that qualifies him to pontificate on street photography.
-
It would be interesting to see the web site. I don't see a link in his profile. I think he prefers to be a sniper....rather than a shooter?
-
I have found this often to be the case with him. I'm not sure why that is. I looked over his website and he is clearly a fine photographer, but I found nothing there that qualifies him to pontificate on street photography.
Hi Rip, And your knowledge of street photography comes from. . . where? It doesn't seem to be visible in your website. How about a link to one of your street photographs?
-
Hi Rip, And your knowledge of street photography comes from. . . where? It doesn't seem to be visible in your website. How about a link to one of your street photographs?
Gladly.
-
Okay. That's it?
-
It would be interesting to see the web site. I don't see a link in his profile. I think he prefers to be a sniper....rather than a shooter?
The reference was to Russ, not Isaac.
-
Okay. That's it?
No, Russ, I have literally thousands, but I'm not going to get sucked into your little game.
-
In other words, Rip, you're like Isaac: you don't really have the background to get into this subject. I have at least part of my own background on display with an annotated bibliography, two web sites, and two articles on the subject. Anybody can claim to "have literally thousands." Claiming it doesn't make it so.
-
It would be interesting to see the web site. I don't see a link in his profile. I think he prefers to be a sniper....rather than a shooter?
The reference was to Russ, not Isaac.
As they say in Canada, "Eh?" There are two web links in my profile, Slobodan.
-
The reference was to Russ, not Isaac.
As they say in Canada, "Eh?" There are two web links in my profile, Slobodan.
Stamper was thinking Rip was referring to Isaac. That's why Stamper said "I don't see a link in his profile."
-
In other words, Rip, you're like Isaac: you don't really have the background to get into this subject. I have at least part of my own background on display with an annotated bibliography, two web sites, and two articles on the subject. Anybody can claim to "have literally thousands." Claiming it doesn't make it so.
As I said, I'm not playing your game.
-
As I said, I'm not playing your game.
Not sure what game you're talking about, but it's clear you're not any better qualified to discuss street photography than Isaac is.
-
Stamper was thinking Rip was referring to Isaac. That's why Stamper said "I don't see a link in his profile."
Thanks for that. It wasn't wholly clear who he was referring to. I thought it must have been Isaac because Russ's credentials with regards to street is clearly evident.
-
Does the book claim to be limited to Russ's narrow view of what street photography is?
That is impossible because the book was written before Russ critiqued it???? I have other books on street that are more attuned to Russ's way of thinking. The book that is the topic of debate is certainly a wider definition of street. I think it is meant to attract a wider audience as a way of marketing. It has 399 pages with dozens of contributors therefore it is wide ranging in it's opinions and beliefs. However I can see where Russ is coming from.
-
... Russ doesn't own the phrase "street photography".
Not until he trademarks it, then all bets are off ;)
After all, someone apparently claims a trademark on the word "how"... no, seriously:
Chobani is accused of violating ‘how’ trademark with its marketing campaign (http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/article/chobani_is_accused_of_violating_how_trademark_with_its_marketing_campaign/)
-
No point in getting into this crap, Slobodan. Since Isaac hasn't even seen the book it's obvious on the face of it he hasn't a clue on the subject. He's just rattling on.
-
I clicked on this thread thinking it was going to be a thoughtful, intelligent discussion of the merits of this book. My mistake. No need to follow this waste of time thread.
-
I clicked on this thread thinking it was going to be a thoughtful, intelligent discussion of the merits of this book. My mistake. No need to follow this waste of time thread.
Same as it ever was.
-
Your complaint about the book will still be your complaint about the book after I've read it - It ain't what Russ call's Street Photography - it's what the author calls Street Photography.
Isaac, instead of just rattling your head about something you know nothing about, go buy the book, then go to page 170, describe the picture you see there and tell us all what that picture has to do with street photography. I picked that one at random. If explaining the relevance to street photography of that picture isn't within your capabilities there are dozens more I can ask you to critique. Away you go. Off to the bookstore.
-
This thread reminds me of medieval scholastic debates on how many teeth a horse has. The guy who suggested to just open a horse's mouth* and count it got beaten for being uneducated and unworthy of academic discussion.
* or just read the damn book first
-
What that picture has to do with your narrow view of street photography or with the authors broader view of street photography?
No, your view of street photography. You've never told us what that is. Reading the book might help you clarify your ideas. You obviously have strong convictions on the subject but you haven't bothered to tell us what they are. You can read mine at the URL's I posted earlier. I have no idea at all what yours are. I think that a critique of the picture on the page I referenced would tell us a lot about your competence in this area.
-
Then I guess you'll have to read the book to find out. Until you do, your opinion is based on ignorance.
I'm finished trying to talk about this with you, Isaac, until you've got the book in hand, you've turned to page 170, you've described the picture you see there, and you've explained how you feel this picture fits the street photography genre. Until then, anything you say about the subject is froth.
-
It's a label -- some will apply it broadly, some narrowly. Some will use the label as a way to dismiss other peoples photographs.
'Street photography' is such a vague term. My general take on 'street' is that it's unposed photos in public places [which can be indoors like a market or cafe], but like news do tell some sort of story. As opposed to simply being a photo of someone, i.e. a portrait. If images do not contain people, then they show aspects of humanity - such as say graffiti commenting on a billboard or maybe people's shadows. Obviously genres portait/news/street/documentary etc can overlap.
Whether the pictures are good or bad is a completely separate issue.
-
…unposed photos in public places…
…Avedon's Paris photographs from the late 1940s emphasize the inspiration city streets afforded the young American photographer and are an unapologetic demonstration of street photographs as controlled art, one that necessarily requires us to reconceive the work's process and eventual context.
page 21 Unfamiliar Streets (http://books.google.com/books?id=dyk_AwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA11&dq=unfamiliar%20streets&pg=PA22#v=onepage&q=%22Avedon's%20Paris%20photographs%22&f=false): The Photographs of Richard Avedon, Charles Moore, Martha Rosler, and Philip-Lorca DiCorcia
-
I do think this whole thread is just about Isaac baiting Russ because they cannot stand each other. However.
I think that trying to define 'Street Photography' becomes as pointless as trying to define landscape, portrait or wildlife. As a keen amateur (as well as professional) I come across this attempt to categorise pictures all the time. Loose categories are quite handy to express what you are talking about - but being pedantic about them seems fruitless as far as I'm concerned. Some of the questions I get asked are -
Portraits.
Does the subject have to be looking at the camera.
Is it a portrait if you photograph the back of their head.
What if they are very small in the picture
What if they are unaware you are photographing them.
Landscapes.
Suppose it is mostly sea.
Do towns and buildings count.
How close up do you have to be before it becomes a macro.
These are all the sort of questions there will be a wide range of views on. I have done what I consider 'street photography', but I don't like to be constrained by a subjective straitjacket over what it should be. I've not seen the book in question but would not comment on it having not read it. If I contemplated buying it I would certainly put substantial weight on a purchase decision based on any review by Russ - but as with all reviews I would use my own discretion and balance all reviews.
Lastly - I certainly think that any poster here who wants to be taken seriously should certainly be prepared to share their own work - especially as most of us have done so.
The two attached pictures are the sort of thing I like to shoot - amongst others, but would not want to categorise them. One is candid and the other with interaction.
Jim
-
Isaac if you are trying make to point, say what the point is rather than quoting someone else.
This 'quote' from you shows as blank as you appeared to say nothing.
-
As Daniel Patrick Moynihan pointed out: "You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts." Unfortunately, Mr. Moynihan left out an important corollary: If you know absolutely nothing about a subject you're not entitled to an opinion on that subject.
The subject of this thread, as stated in the OP's opening post, is whether or not my critique of The World Atlas of Street Photography fits the facts. In order to have a right to an opinion on that subject you have to have done two things: (1) You have to have read the book, and (2) you have to have read the critique. The OP has satisfied the second requirement, but he hasn't seen the book. Therefore, he isn't entitled to an opinion.
But the same thing goes for most of the other posters in the thread. It appears Stamper and I are the only two people who've looked at the book. Therefore Stamper and I are in a position to have a discussion about the book and the relevance of my critique. None of the other posters are in that position.
-
As Daniel Patrick Moynihan pointed out: "You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts." Unfortunately, Mr. Moynihan left out an important corollary: If you know absolutely nothing about a subject you're not entitled to an opinion on that subject.
Indeed, but you do tend to drift perilously close to the idea that your *opinion* about street photography objective fact. It's not. It's frequently well-reasoned opinion, and consistent opinion, but opinions that diverge from yours are not, by definition, factually incorrect. I don't agree, for example, with your oft-stated assertion that ambiguity is critical to any "street" image (unless your definition of ambiguity and mine are radically different.). Instead I would offer that visual irony can substitute for ambiguity, for example.
But no, I haven't read the book.
-
Quite so -- although some will use a definition as a way to dismiss other peoples photographs.
Here's Russ's review (http://www.amazon.com/review/R11H31CT2KX0VG/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm).
We learn the book ain't what Russ calls Street Photography, anything else?
Yes, but Isaac your whole post is just a personal attack on Russ. I've not read his review and I'm not going to because I haven't read the book in question and probably will not buy it anyway. If I read it now I will come to it looking specifically for it's faults - and how can I judge as I don't have the book. I take your point but really, why are you so obsessed with Russ and his narrow view of what is and is not 'Street"? I posted two pictures above of what I enjoy as Street Photography - why don't you do the same - then we have got something more interesting to talk about. Photography is about pictures not words.
I don't agree with Russ over many things (especially gun laws - haha) but I have every respect for the guys opinions, particularly in photography. He takes quite a strong view on facets of photography but at least he backs up his arguments by having a web presence and will show his own pictures for critique.
Jim
-
Okay - I relented and read the review.....
Personally I think it is a good review. True, it does focus on Russ's firm held views - but isn't that what one would expect from a reviewer? Perhaps it needs some balance from other reviews but I think it is uncompromising in it's criticism of the title and target of the book, not the images themselves. Nothing wrong with that. Just one (informed) opinion.
Jim
-
I wasn't. If Avedon's Paris photographs don't interest then they don't interest and there's an end to it.
You weren't making a point!?! So what was the purpose of quoting some text and a link to where it came from and no info as to what pictures to look at to see if I'm interested or not. And if the pictures have relevance then there may be a point to your post and if they do not then you seem to be posting randomly. Either way, you aren't making much sense.
The problem with your posts Isaac is that all too often they are succinct to the point of having no functional meaning. Do you have some sort of rule against posting more than a couple of lines, even if doing so would add clarity to what you are trying to say?
-
Okay - I relented and read the review.....
Personally I think it is a good review. True, it does focus on Russ's firm held views - but isn't that what one would expect from a reviewer?
My view on reviews in general is that they tend to be more informative of the reviewer's biases/beliefs than what they are reviewing with few exceptions. However if you know the critic's biases and if they align somewhat with your own, then it may be slightly useful. Otherwise about as much use as a clockwork powered software.
-
It doesn't seem to me that you learned anything from the "review" apart from the book ain't what Russ calls Street Photography, but I don't wish to put words in your mouth, so -- What did you learn from the "review" apart from the book ain't what Russ calls Street Photography?
What I hope for, from a reviewer, is that they are trying to tell me what the book is about - so I'll be able to decide if that's a book that would interest me.
When the "review" states "Jackie Higgins has a strange idea of what street photography is…" I expect the reviewer to tell me exactly what that strange idea is rather than telling me the reviewer's idea of what street photography is (or was in a bygone era). It's really not much to expect.
I learned that the author's take on what makes a street photograph is wider than than Russ Lewis's definition. But then I am an informed reader and can accept the bias in the review.
Secondly, I would have a different level of expectation from a professional review in say a newspaper or magazine to one that is posted on Amazon. For a professional review I would expect a balanced appraisal even allowing the reviewer would voice their own opinion. For an Amazon review I expect anything from "Great Book" to a fully informed review. On that basis I would preferably read a number of reviews to get a balance. In the case of this book there are only two reviews on Amazon.
I'm not sure why you are so excited about this review. It is just one man's opinion.
Jim
-
It's no use, Jim. Isaac's excited about the review because it gives him an opportunity to shift into high gear with his trolling. As usual, he's pontificating on a subject he knows nothing about, but since few LuLaers are calling him out he sees a golden opportunity to troll away.
-
.., I'm not sure why you are so excited about this review...
Slow news day? ;)
-
To enhance Isaac's confusion I just added The World Atlas of Street Photography to my annotated photographic bibliography at http://www.russ-lewis.com/Bib/Bib.html.
-
I don't agree, for example, with your oft-stated assertion that ambiguity is critical to any "street" image (unless your definition of ambiguity and mine are radically different.). Instead I would offer that visual irony can substitute for ambiguity, for example.
But no, I haven't read the book.
Hi Jim, If you can find a place where I've asserted that "ambiguity is critical to any 'street' image" please give me a link. I've often said that the best street shots contain an element of ambiguity, but not that ambiguity is critical. And yes, visual irony can make a good street shot. In fact, visual irony is what carries most street shots.
Sorry you haven't read the book. There are some very good photographs in there; even some very good street shots. But it's also crammed with photographs that have nothing at all to do with street photography.
-
Hi Jim, If you can find a place where I've asserted that "ambiguity is critical to any 'street' image" please give me a link. I've often said that the best street shots contain an element of ambiguity, but not that ambiguity is critical. And yes, visual irony can make a good street shot. In fact, visual irony is what carries most street shots.
Sorry you haven't read the book. There are some very good photographs in there; even some very good street shots. But it's also crammed with photographs that have nothing at all to do with street photography.
I am about 3/4 of the way through the book. It is also heavy on descriptions of the photographers. Russ's quote above I am in agreement with. :)
-
At least one way to see some of the photographs, without buying the book:
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2014/sep/02/world-atlas-of-street-photography-in-pictures
-
I daresay, given a photographer's name and photo title, we could find some of the others elsewhere.
I read Russ' comments as being a brief informed critique of the book's failure to actualy do what it claimed to do…
Here are snippets from the UK and US publishers blurb, which you could reasonably take as claims about the book:
Including classic documentary street photography as well as (http://www.thamesandhudson.com/The_World_Atlas_of_Street_Photography/9780500544365) images of urban landscapes, portraits and staged performances, The World Atlas of Street Photography focuses on an abundance of photography that has been created on street corners around the globe…
The World Atlas of Street Photography focuses on the abundance of photos created on street corners internationally, including classic documentary street photography as well as (http://yalepress.yale.edu/book.asp?isbn=9780300207163) mediated images of urban landscapes, staged performances, and sculpture.
If we're going to make an "informed critique" based on the correspondence between the book's title (iirc usually chosen by the publisher) and the book's content, perhaps the first question should be -- Are there useful maps? :-)
-
Isaac, you poor sod, the more you write on this subject the behinder you get. Most sane people would say that if you're going to make an "informed critique" of a book you first have to read the book. Just reading the jacket blurbs doesn't get the job done. Did you also depend on Cliffs Notes when you were in school rather than reading the material?
-
The title should have been something like "Pictures From Around the World." Introducing a photographic genre into the title made the publisher look like an ass. The ridiculous title of the book certainly makes the claim that the book is "just street photography." Jacket blurbs that try to spin away from that title simply don't cut it. If you'd actually read the book you'd be on somewhat more solid ground. I didn't just ask you what the picture on page 170 has to do with street photography; I asked you to describe that picture and THEN tell us what it has to do with street photography. You can't do either thing without seeing the picture, and your responses emphasize that fact.
As I said, the more you write the behinder you get.
-
I the link I provided, all of those would fall into what I would consider street photography.
Russ, you claim some (or many) do not, throughout the book. Care to show us which ones? And no, "page 170" won't cut it, as I do not have the book. However, as Isaac pointed out, it would be relatively easy to find the same photo somewhere else on the web and post a link here.
-
If you don't have the book you can't talk about it. I picked page 170 more or less at random. There are plenty more examples in that book that are far, far from being street photography. I'm going to leave this discussion at this point. Stamper's in a position to disagree with me. Nobody else is until he has the book in hand. Dorking around looking for examples of pictures from the book isn't going to cut it. You need the damn book.
It sounds as if everybody thinks I'm saying this is a lousy book. It isn't. It just doesn't have a hell of a lot to do with street photography. What's lousy is the silly title the publishers gave it.
-
What we don't learn is the author's take on what makes a street photograph.
("[Wider] than Russ Lewis's definition" in some ways but also narrower than "Russ Lewis's definition" in other ways -- "…the idea that street photography is confined to urban areas and streets, an idea that won't hold up under examination.")
It just ain't what Russ would call Street Photography except that there apparently are "even some very good street shots" (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=93961.msg770072#msg770072) in the book (although that's not said in the "review").
You did say that you thought it a good review ;-)
I'm not. Your stated opinions about my feelings continue to be completely wrong.
I have to admit you're much smarter than me - I feel as if I'm going round in a circle on a topic that does not interest me that much, so I think my part in this discussion is over.
-
If you don't have the book you can't talk about it. I picked page 170 more or less at random. There are plenty more examples in that book that are far, far from being street photography. I'm going to leave this discussion at this point. Stamper's in a position to disagree with me. Nobody else is until he has the book in hand. Dorking around looking for examples of pictures from the book isn't going to cut it. You need the damn book.
It sounds as if everybody thinks I'm saying this is a lousy book. It isn't. It just doesn't have a hell of a lot to do with street photography. What's lousy is the silly title the publishers gave it.
[/color]
Speaking as someone who is about 3/4 of the way through the book I am in broad agreement with what Russ states. I bought the book based on a five star revue in the Amateur photographer UK. They tend to imo rate books higher than I do. As russ states you can't review something you haven't read? ::)
-
The phrase 'street photography' doesn't mean anything at all in contemporary usage. It is a useful marketing phrase, though, in which context it means roughly 'cool, hip'
It used to mean something pretty specific. Russ has a very clear grasp of the historical usage, but tends to cling to it a little vigorously.
-
You're absolutely right, Andrew. A picture of a street, literally, is a street photograph. But if we accept that usage, then the term "street photography" becomes meaningless as a name for a photographic genre and the genre disappears. I'd hate to see that happen because as far as I'm concerned real street photography tops the list of things for which a camera is useful. Maybe we could come up with a better term for capturing meaningful human interaction to take its place.
Here's a quote from my essay "Why Do Street Photography?" I stand by it:
"Nowadays we can look at the photographs of Eugene Atget and learn something about the people who lived in his time and in his surroundings, but the most effective glimpse of historical human differences comes not from the kind of documentary photography possible with Atget's slow view camera and his posed subjects, but from the kind of street photography that became possible with the introduction of the small hand camera. Oskar Barnack's 1925 Leica finally made it possible for artists like Andre Kertesz and Cartier-Bresson to photograph people as they were, in an uninterrupted state, rather than as they were when posing.
"An historical novelist guesses at the past on the best evidence he can find, but a photograph isn't a guess; it's an artifact from the past that has captured time. And so, a street photograph that has captured not only the visages of its subjects, but the story that surrounds their actions can be a more convincing reminder of how things were than any novel or any straight, posed documentary photograph."
-
I have come to the conclusion that many people actually cannot see what, for example, Cartier-Bresson was doing. If they have any sensitivity to art they may perceive that there's something going on, but they lack the vocabulary of design and composition to really see it.
Since most photographers today are in fact camera enthusiasts, sensitivity to art is not really a given.
So, for various reasons, because they cannot articulate what is different, they lump all black and white pictures of people in as 'street'
-
I'm afraid you're right.
-
It sounds as if everybody thinks I'm saying this is a lousy book.
Your "review" is titled "A Severe Disappointment".
The only thing positive in the "review" is a grudging "…and though there are some good photographs in this book…".
As russ states you can't review something you haven't read?
I have read Russ's review (http://www.amazon.com/review/R11H31CT2KX0VG/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm).
I bought the book based on a five star revue in the Amateur photographer UK.
Did Amateur Photographer magazine say the book included photographs of "urban landscapes, portraits and staged performances" ?
The Amazon description (http://www.amazon.com/The-World-Atlas-Street-Photography/dp/0300207166/ref=cm_rdp_product/183-5982822-0162251) says "…including classic documentary street photography as well as mediated images of urban landscapes, staged performances, and sculpture. Twelve specially commissioned artworks are featured, in addition to a wide selection of striking and well-known images of city life."
Are there any maps at all?
-
I have read Russ's review (http://www.amazon.com/review/R11H31CT2KX0VG/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm).
Good boy! Now read the book and you might be able to make a connection.
-
Your "review" is titled "A Severe Disappointment".
The only thing positive in the "review" is a grudging "…and though there are some good photographs in this book…".
I have read Russ's review (http://www.amazon.com/review/R11H31CT2KX0VG/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm).
Did Amateur Photographer magazine say the book included photographs of "urban landscapes, portraits and staged performances" ?
The Amazon description (http://www.amazon.com/The-World-Atlas-Street-Photography/dp/0300207166/ref=cm_rdp_product/183-5982822-0162251) says "…including classic documentary street photography as well as mediated images of urban landscapes, staged performances, and sculpture. Twelve specially commissioned artworks are featured, in addition to a wide selection of striking and well-known images of city life."
Are there any maps at all?
If you buy a map of your own you may be able to find the way to a book store where they might have a copy of the book that you can purchase and then read it and make up your own mind, instead of berating others who have purchased a copy. Of course if you do so then it is harder to carry on trolling? ;) ::)
-
You just can't stop beating your head against the wall, can you Isaac?
-
berate (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/british/berate): to criticize or speak in an angry manner to someone
Do you think Russ berates in his "review"?
Russ seems puzzled that "everybody thinks [he's] saying this is a lousy book" but his "review" describes "A Severe Disappointment" so there's really nothing to be puzzled about. That may be an inconvenient truth but is not an angry criticism.
All the descriptions I've seen so-far make it clear that the book includes a wide range of photography, not just street photography. Even the sample of photographs Slobodan provided (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=93961.msg770553#msg770553) says "Ranging from staged portraiture and classic documentary to impromptu snapshots of daily life around the globe…".
So when you tell us that you bought the book based on a review in Amateur Photographer magazine; the obvious question is did the magazine also make it clear that the book includes a wide range of photography, not just street photography.
I've been a map-maker, I'm interested in maps; but nothing I've seen so-far about this "Atlas" (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/british/atlas) mentions any maps?
That is because you haven't bought the book??? :o
-
I've been a map-maker, I'm interested in maps; but nothing I've seen so-far about this "Atlas" (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/british/atlas) mentions any maps?
You aren't obliged to be helpful, but please stop reading-between-the-lines what isn't there.
I think you will find many books that claim to be an Atlas of something - quite normal - it's not just for maps.
I did map-making too - in the Scouts.
Jim (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Atlas)
-
PERSEVERATION: An inability to switch ideas along with the social context, as evidenced by the repetition of words or gestures after they have ceased to be socially relevant or appropriate.
Psych General
I go away, and then come back after almost 3 weeks and, unsurprisingly, the same actors are repeating the same script over and over again.
-
…repeating the same script over and over again.
When you went away, I wrongly thought that Russ's review described "The World Atlas of Street Photography" as "A Severe Disappointment" because he has his own notion of what street photography has to be.
Now that it's obvious publishers and book-sellers promote the book as including "images of urban landscapes, staged performances, and sculpture", we can simply say -- Don't judge a book by it's title!