Am I getting this 'street' thing?

[Isaac]

I finally remembered one place where I read it…

That isn't Cartier-Bresson telling you, that's Colin Westerbrook telling you his understanding of Cartier-Bresson's writing.

What Henri meant by the decisive moment was the moment when the photographer made his decision -- when he was ready.

So whenever the photographer makes his decision is a Cartier-Bresson "instant décisif" ?

So until the photographer is ready there can be no "instant décisif" ?

In the frame "there is one moment at which the elements in motion are in balance" -- ready or not.

[RSL]

Isaac, your arguments are so weak I'm not going to bother to answer them. Bottom line, as I said in another post, what difference does it make? You've never done street photography so you really haven't a clue. You do occasionally find some interesting pictures.

[Isaac]

Isaac, your arguments are so weak I'm not going to bother to answer them.

That's hilarious.

[RSL]

Laughter always helps.

[Otto Phocus]

You've never done street photography so you really haven't a clue.

Just wondering how you know that Issac has never done street photography?

[stamper]

I think he is trying to "provoke" Isaac to produce some "credentials" to back up his undoubted book knowledge. Theory & practise are two different things.

[RSL]

If Isaac had done ANY photography he'd have posted it on LuLa by now to make some of his points. He hasn't. He claims to be an expert on several genres, including street, but I know of no case where he's backed up one of his claims with an example. I have to qualify that statement by saying I've only been on LuLa for six and a half years. During that time I've never seen Isaac post a picture. It's possible he posted something before I got here.

But having said that, don't you think it's strange Isaac doesn't want at least to try to back up some of his outlandish claims?

[stamper]

He has posted an image that Slobodan managed to find. Ironically it was a fence post. Possibly didn't realise that an image could be posted without a fence post in it. Isaac before you get your knickers in a twist it is a humorous statement that I hope you will respond graciously to?

[spidermike]

If Isaac had done ANY photography he'd have posted it on LuLa by now to make some of his points. He hasn't. He claims to be an expert on several genres, including street, but I know of no case where he's backed up one of his claims with an example. I have to qualify that statement by saying I've only been on LuLa for six and a half years. During that time I've never seen Isaac post a picture. It's possible he posted something before I got here.

But having said that, don't you think it's strange Isaac doesn't want at least to try to back up some of his outlandish claims?

Out of interest, how will him posting an image validate his ideas on what constitutes 'street' photography?

[RSL]

You can't be serious, Mike?

[RSL]

He has posted an image that Slobodan managed to find. Ironically it was a fence post. Possibly didn't realise that an image could be posted without a fence post in it. Isaac before you get your knickers in a twist it is a humorous statement that I hope you will respond graciously to?

Interesting. I didn't check Isaac's history before I said what I said. Turns out he's been on here just a bit more than half the time I've been on here, so I'm surprised I didn't see the fence post. Knowing this, in the future I'll pay close attention to what Isaac has to say about the fence photography genre.

[Otto Phocus]

If Isaac had done ANY photography he'd have posted it on LuLa by now to make some of his points.

I am confident that a moment's reflection will show how illogical this position is.

Just because someone chooses not to post photographs on a form does not indicate any experience.

I am sure I am not the only one who chooses not to post photographs on this site.  I would opine that the majority of the members of this forum don't post photographs here.... including members with considerable experience.

Evaluating an argument on whether someone chooses to post a photograph on this form is sophistry.

[spidermike]

You can't be serious, Mike?

I am. It is why I asked the question.
If he posted what he called a 'street' photograph how would that validate his ability to define someone else's picture as 'street' photography? If he posts what you say is a great street photograph would that affect your own definition of street photography? If he posts what you think a poor street photograph it would have no bearing on your definition. In other words his output is irrelevant to what is really an academic discussion.

I am not defending Isaac at all, just wanting to understand your reasoning and why seeing an image of his is so important.  

[RSL]

It's pretty obvious Isaac does extensive reading on photography, and if he wants to discuss, say, the virtues or lack thereof of a particular photograph relative to some other photograph, we may disagree, (and more often than not do) but at least he has a valid basis for his arguments. But when he tries to discuss technique he's way out of his depth unless he can demonstrate he knows something about the technique.

Re Otto, you can choose not to post photographs on a photo forum. It's a free internet (until the UN takes over). But if you discuss technique it reasonably makes other readers question your knowledge of the subject.

[spidermike]

But when he tries to discuss technique he's way out of his depth unless he can demonstrate he knows something about the technique.

We are not talking about technique. We are talking about categorisation - I could post an image that matches your definition of street photography perfectly but it doesn't mean I agree with your definition, nor you with mine. And you don't strike me as someone whose thoughts are so whimsical that you would change your mind simply because someone has a certain level of knowledge.

If you are talking about technique, I am pretty crap at decorating my house but that does not mean I can't recognise a good job when I have paid someone to do it.  However, were I to advise someone on how to get the best paint job then my statement would be supported by me showing I know what I am on about.

[stamper]

Credentials. If someone states they know something about a certain thing and criticises someone else's efforts then showing their "credentials" you will respect their opinion. If you go for a job interview then you won't be believed unless you show your CV. To be blunt there are a lot of armchair snipers on the internet who like to snipe and they haven't a clue what they are talking about.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

You guys can't be serious. It surely makes all the difference in the world if you have experience in the matters you pontificate about. It adds (or detracts) credibility to your words. Who would you rather be operated by: a surgeon with thousands of successful operations or someone who read a lot of textbooks on surgery? As the old adage goes, have you ever seen a monument erected to a critic? This is not to say there is no room for critics, bibliophiles, bookworms, arm-chair philosophers, etc., or that they can't be occasionally correct. Or even most of the time correct - just like a broken watch is infinitely more precise than the most sophisticated working one; it is just a different level, different world.

[spidermike]

Credentials. If someone states they know something about a certain thing and criticises someone else's efforts then showing their "credentials" you will respect their opinion. If you go for a job interview then you won't be believed unless you show your CV. To be blunt there are a lot of armchair snipers on the internet who like to snipe and they haven't a clue what they are talking about.

The thing with photography is that so much of it is personal opinion. Whether a photograph 'works' is a personal opinion as is a summation of the elements that make it work and the ones that stop it becoming great.
I could if I so chose illustrate my comments with a photo that does work and whether the photo is mine or someone else's would be irrelevant. My POV would stand or fall depending on the quality of the argument including the illustrating image. Now if I was talking about how to take certain studio shot then showing my own work would be far more important.

Similarly with the discussion about 'street'. I take a picture and call it street photograph. You call it documentary. The category we place on it is an opinion and says little to nothing about my technical expertise or the qualities of the photograph.
I don't need to be able to paint to be able to recognise some pieces as being impressionist piece of work. Or to be a potter to recognise some pieces as being art nouveau or art deco. I am pretty sure that many respected film critics have never even taken a home video let alone made a movie but that does not stop there being some highly respected film critics out there (yes I now there are far more film critics who are a waste of space but they don't negate my point). 



Suppose I cynically post a crap street photo so what does that prove other than I can take crap photos.

[RSL]

We are not talking about technique.

If we're talking about what "A la sauvette" means, we're talking about technique. If you haven't done street photography you really haven't a clue about the feelings, the tradeoffs, the approches involved that are pretty much summed up in the full meaning of that phrase.

To top it off, when Isaac said, "That isn't Cartier-Bresson telling you, that's Colin Westerbrook telling you his understanding of Cartier-Bresson's writing," he was wrong and, since he's an extensive reader, he knew he was wrong. What Colin was doing was describing what a fluent and intelligent Frenchman explained to him about the phrase "A la sauvette." The salient point was that that's what Henri chose to call his book, and when he made that choice he was talking about the mindset of the photographer. If Isaac actually had done some street photography he'd know in his bones that "A la sauvette" was the right title.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...  I am sure I am not the only one who chooses not to post photographs on this site.  I would opine that the majority of the members of this forum don't post photographs here.... including members with considerable experience...

Which is why posts by such members only get a glance, at least by me