Malboro Man

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

 

[Rob C]

The newspaper recommends ten minutes of laughter a day; looks as if the guy has either not reached that bit, has reached it and thought it intrusive and prescriptive, or having reached it, feels pressured to look back at an earlier article which might have been about politics, thus a repeated motif.

Actually, truth to tell, I expected an outline of a spectacular Cullin Rushmore, with a carving of the cigarette hero.

It would never fly in Scotland: not red enough for an official permit, so I won't hold my breath.

David James and Jane Sumner did some beautiful photographs together for Marlboro; all five foot seven-and-half inches of her.



;-)

[RSL]

Dave, it's great to see you attempting street. I'd like to see a lot more of it on LuLa. In fact, I don't understand why we have a landscape section but no street section when in fact street is the highest and most important reason to raise a camera.

[David Eckels]

I'd like to see a lot more "street" on LuLa. In fact, I don't understand why we have a landscape section but no street section...

Why don't you start a thread, Russ? Just call it Street under User Critiques and ask people to post there. Several of our LuLa colleagues have done so with various subjects.

[BobDavid]

A question about the "Street" aesthetic:

Is the clutter above the Marlboro Man's head acceptable?  Is it okay to Photoshop it out?

Of course in photo journalism it's not acceptable.

Well known street photographers: HCB, Elliot Erwitt, Gary Wingrand, Brassaï, and Robert Frank to name a few didn't alter their pictures in the darkroom. Is that because they couldn't, because they wouldn't, or because they were highly critical and threw out what would otherwise have been a great picture?

[BobDavid]

And for sure, let's ask the moderator to set up a "Street" forum. It's a significant genre that deserves an LL venue.

[Rob C]

Maybe what's there is why they made the shot?

Rob

[Rob C]

And for sure, let's ask the moderator to set up a "Street" forum. It's a significant genre that deserves an LL venue.

Started one in Discussing Photograhic Styles.

If it works out, maybe the head honchos will indeed set up a unique spot for the genre.

It would make a lot of sense, and perhaps attract fresh blood.

Rob

[RSL]

A question about the "Street" aesthetic:

Is the clutter above the Marlboro Man's head acceptable?  Is it okay to Photoshop it out?

Of course in photo journalism it's not acceptable.

Well known street photographers: HCB, Elliot Erwitt, Gary Wingrand, Brassaï, and Robert Frank to name a few didn't alter their pictures in the darkroom. Is that because they couldn't, because they wouldn't, or because they were highly critical and threw out what would otherwise have been a great picture?

Hi Bob,

I don't want to rain on Dave's parade, so I didn't critique his street shot. I'd love to see a lot more LuLa-ers try street.

I don't think the clutter is a terrible problem. It's always nice if you can eliminate that kind of thing, but you can't always do it. I can see that Dave shot this picture at f/16, which gave him way too much DOF. If he'd been shooting at f/5.6, or even f/4 he'd have cut out the background. My main beef, if I have one, is that the picture doesn't really tell me much of a story. The story in this picture is that a guy's sitting there reading the paper and drinking tea (unless that's a crack in his cup).

Really good street deals with interactions between people or between people and their surroundings. The story doesn't have to be clear. As I've said many times, ambiguity often can help a street shot. But there has to be a story. Hopefully one that's interesting. This one falls a bit short of that.

But, what the hey? It sure beats landscape, and it sure beats disingenuous lectures about climate change.

Oh, and the thing about cropping? Those guys learned to frame on the camera. If you spend enough time with a 50mm lens or equivalent, you get to the point where you frame at 50mm. I used to do that pretty much. Not so much nowadays. I suspect HCB lost a few pictures because of his insistence that they not be cropped. But I know of two of his that were cropped. One of them is one of his most famous: "Behind the Gare St. Lazare."

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

Dave, it's great to see you attempting street. I'd like to see a lot more of it on LuLa. In fact, I don't understand why we have a landscape section but no street section when in fact street is the highest and most important reason to raise a camera.

I think Russ that might be because this is (or at least was) primarily a landscape photography site, it is sort of given away by being in the title I believe. But yes I agree with you Russ, there should be a 'Street' section, if we can have one for camera phones and users of selfie sticks, then surely we can have one for those who like 'Street'.

Hi Bob,

I don't want to rain on Dave's parade, so I didn't critique his street shot. I'd love to see a lot more LuLa-ers try street.

I don't think the clutter is a terrible problem. It's always nice if you can eliminate that kind of thing, but you can't always do it. I can see that Dave shot this picture at f/16, which gave him way too much DOF. If he'd been shooting at f/5.6, or even f/4 he'd have cut out the background. My main beef, if I have one, is that the picture doesn't really tell me much of a story. The story in this picture is that a guy's sitting there reading the paper and drinking tea (unless that's a crack in his cup).

Really good street deals with interactions between people or between people and their surroundings. The story doesn't have to be clear. As I've said many times, ambiguity often can help a street shot. But there has to be a story. Hopefully one that's interesting. This one falls a bit short of that.

But, what the hey? It sure beats landscape, and it sure beats disingenuous lectures about climate change.

Oh, and the thing about cropping? Those guys learned to frame on the camera. If you spend enough time with a 50mm lens or equivalent, you get to the point where you frame at 50mm. I used to do that pretty much. Not so much nowadays. I suspect HCB lost a few pictures because of his insistence that they not be cropped. But I know of two of his that were cropped. One of them is one of his most famous: "Behind the Gare St. Lazare."

You should critique the shot Russ, that is why I put into the critique section after all 

But I am going to be completely honest now and state loud and clear for all the world to hear and say that I really don't like street photography, as it always feels as if the photographer is trying to pry into the personal space of other peoples and their lives (and grief, or sorrow, or being down on their luck etc) and so it gives me a feeling as if something is not quite right and a little creepy about trying to do this type of photography and especially when people get a buzz out of doing it. But I can appreciate that it rings a bell for some people and so that is OK for them, but for me it sort of leaves me cold and feeling like I need a shower afterwards - but hey that might be my problem and I have it all completely wrong about street photography.

So getting back to the shot above, I only took it because I was there in this medieval square also drinking my cup of tea and thought the guy at the next table looked interesting and was wearing a lot of gold, so I fired off a couple of quick shots without him knowing and then instantly felt guilty for doing so. I mean there he was, enjoying his peace and quiet on a Saturday morning and the next thing I am sticking a camera in his face, not literally of course, but you know what I mean. And there is the rub I now realise, because if this had been the other way around, I would have been very upset at someone doing this to me on my day off, or any other time.

Yet having said all that, I can see the merit of some of HCB's work, but he was the top of a very thin pinnacle as I see it and a very rare talent indeed, but most of what I see of what other people do (except for your girl in a chalk circle Russ) just seems to be the result of taking advantage of other peoples unfortunate circumstances for self entertainment.

Now I am sure some people will read what I have said above and think ooh what's got into Dave and why has he got his knickers in such a twist, but nothing could be further from the truth, as I have now had something of a cathartic moment in my photographic life and finally realised that as far as I am concerned, street is of no interest to me and never has been and is probably why I am not any good at it, because I am now fully awake to the fact that I really don't care for this genre in any way and find it totally pointless and in most cases, an invasion of other peoples privacy.

But I would also like to finish by saying that just because I don't like it, that I am not saying that everyone else shouldn't like it either. So if this is your thing then get to it and fill your boots as they say, but for me scouting then finding, composing and shooting the exquisite beauty that can be found in the world, is always going to be much more satisfying and deeply rewarding experience and absolutely no one else has to suffer while I get my kicks doing it.

So thanks everyone as all your comments are really appreciated and you have all helped to make an old man very, very happy 

Dave

[Farmer]

I don't think the clutter is a terrible problem. It's always nice if you can eliminate that kind of thing, but you can't always do it. I can see that Dave shot this picture at f/16, which gave him way too much DOF. If he'd been shooting at f/5.6, or even f/4 he'd have cut out the background. My main beef, if I have one, is that the picture doesn't really tell me much of a story. The story in this picture is that a guy's sitting there reading the paper and drinking tea (unless that's a crack in his cup).

Really good street deals with interactions between people or between people and their surroundings. The story doesn't have to be clear. As I've said many times, ambiguity often can help a street shot. But there has to be a story. Hopefully one that's interesting. This one falls a bit short of that.

Isn't the "clutter" part of the story?  It's talking about the place.  It gives some age to the location, and the clothing and style and the black and white mean it could be almost any time in the last 60 years.  Except for one thing.  The mobile phone laying face down on the table.  And there it is.  A device from which he could access almost the entirety of human knowledge, but he's reading a paper and he smokes cigarettes and he lets the world, cluttered as it may be in parts and open and simple in others, just pass on by.  I can just imagine that it's like a switch, picking up the phone or having it facing up instead of down.

Dave's explained the shot and he wasn't looking at that it seems, but that's what he captured and what captured my attention.

Different things speak to different generations, obviously.  No story for you, lots for me.  Good that we can be different, and neither is wrong.

[BobDavid]

One thing I thing we can all agree upon is that Marlboros cause problems--lots of problems...

[Farmer]

One thing I thing we can all agree upon is that Marlboros cause problems--lots of problems...

:-)

[Rob C]

Dave writes a clear mesage about where he stands with street.

Problem is, the great street snappers were not about other people's misfortunes. But then, Arbus has never been a great street shooter in my view; she has been a hunter of misery and the world of the unfortunate freak, whether in poverty or in riches.

It is she who I feel has been mistaken for a street photographer which, for me, she decidedly is not. Making an exposure in a street or park does not a street photographer make, but unfortunately, she is what has come to define street by virtue of widely and wildly mistaken example.

I can't think of an HC-B, Ronis, Doisneau shot where they mock anybody. Yes, they often show poverty, but don't forget that the left-wing/Communist press was the paymaster for those shots in the Paris suburbs. It needed graphic poverty in order to have an agenda to push. That said and admitted, the photographs often transcended the press concerns and touched a human note that's beyond economics or politics: they connect with our human nature and the common realities of love, fun, children, and just the getting on with life against all odds.

More than that, even, I think that those photographers taught us about atmosphere.

Later "street" photographers? By and large, I think that like Arbus, they also missed the plot somewhere down the line, and being a Gilden or a Parr is not where I think it is desirably at.

[Ivo_B]

There is something happening in the frame, but the composition and post processing works against it.
I'll try to explain.
The couple on the background is far more interesting than the man staring in his paper. The couple looks at something outside the frame. The wife is looks a bit in doubt. because I find the newspaper man boring and the background interesting the composition feels not right. And yet. The composition is set to have the man with his news paper pressed against the frame, this make him, to my feeling, secondary and I start looking for the real point in the picture.

About the post processing
The manipulation of the image, the enhanced microcontrast,  pull the attention tot the news reading guy. Not the best choice, imo. To my taste, the micro contrast is pulled up to much in the background, it makes the whole image nervous to look at.



Just my few cents tough....
 

Ivo

[Ivo_B]

But I am going to be completely honest now and state loud and clear for all the world to hear and say that I really don't like street photography, as it always feels as if the photographer is trying to pry into the personal space of other peoples and their lives (and grief, or sorrow, or being down on their luck etc) and so it gives me a feeling as if something is not quite right and a little creepy about trying to do this type of photography and especially when people get a buzz out of doing it.

Dave

Very honest statement, and I didn't dare to say in my previous post, but your feeling about shooting on the street reflects in your Marlboro man shot.
And yes, if you sit on a terras drinking coffee and aiming your camera at somebody, slightly out of sight of the subject, it does have something sneaky. Totally correct.

It is this what makes good street photography so damn difficult. I do not often see good street photo's passing by on the photo fora.

[Ivo_B]

Later "street" photographers? By and large, I think that like Arbus, they also missed the plot somewhere down the line, and being a Gilden or a Parr is not where I think it is desirably at.

Street photography is not spelled in Latin and for that reason not a dead style. It evolves in a newer way of looking at things on the street.
Gilden is brutal and direct, I would call it street photography.
Parr is not brutal. Parr is not a street photographer, he is a social documentary photographer, isn't it?

Ivo

[RSL]

I think Russ that might be because this is (or at least was) primarily a landscape photography site, it is sort of given away by being in the title I believe. But yes I agree with you Russ, there should be a 'Street' section, if we can have one for camera phones and users of selfie sticks, then surely we can have one for those who like 'Street'.

But I am going to be completely honest now and state loud and clear for all the world to hear and say that I really don't like street photography, as it always feels as if the photographer is trying to pry into the personal space of other peoples and their lives (and grief, or sorrow, or being down on their luck etc) and so it gives me a feeling as if something is not quite right and a little creepy about trying to do this type of photography and especially when people get a buzz out of doing it. But I can appreciate that it rings a bell for some people and so that is OK for them, but for me it sort of leaves me cold and feeling like I need a shower afterwards - but hey that might be my problem and I have it all completely wrong about street photography.

Hi Dave,

First off, I don't for a minute believe that when Michael named this site "Luminous Landscape" he was suggesting it be limited to landscape. Michael did some landscape, but he also did wabi sabi and a lot of other things. . . including street! (Imagine that!!) He saw the whole world as a luminous landscape.

As far as the second part of your post is concerned, if you hate street that much, why even try to do it? But I have to tell you, that's the excuse I get from everyone who isn't willing to give it a serious try. The reason behind the excuse is fear of a reaction from a subject. And it's not an unreasonable fear.

Bottom line, read books on the history of photography. You'll find that ultimately, pictures of people are what made photography what it is today -- not pictures of Half Dome, which never will change in your lifetime.

[Rob C]

Street photography is not spelled in Latin and for that reason not a dead style. It evolves in a newer way of looking at things on the street.
Gilden is brutal and direct, I would call it street photography.
Parr is not brutal. Parr is not a street photographer, he is a social documentary photographer, isn't it?

Ivo

I would call Gilden aggressive, confrontational and nothing much more. Flashing faces like that is lousy technique, in my opinion. And once done, what do the pictures tell us? Nothing, other than that he stuck a flash in somebody's face and made a snap, and lived to do exactly the same thing again another day.

Parr is many things, apart from being a honcho in Magnum. In my opinion, he made a wider name for himself by making fun of the underclasses with which most parts of Britain teem. Exploitation, then, of the poor and unsophisticated. Whether that is any the less cruel that what Gilden has done to strangers is, at the very least, matter for debate.

Social documentary... just exactly what HC-B was paid to do by the left-wing press, who must have been privately delighted to have this rich kid playing along with them and singing their song. So, by extrapolation, HC-B is not street?

As Keith wrote, hard to find a convincing definition of street...

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

Very honest statement, and I didn't dare to say in my previous post, but your feeling about shooting on the street reflects in your Marlboro man shot.

I think you have definitely hit the nail on the head there 

Hi Dave,

First off, I don't for a minute believe that when Michael named this site "Luminous Landscape" he was suggesting it be limited to landscape. Michael did some landscape, but he also did wabi sabi and a lot of other things. . . including street! (Imagine that!!) He saw the whole world as a luminous landscape.

As far as the second part of your post is concerned, if you hate street that much, why even try to do it? But I have to tell you, that's the excuse I get from everyone who isn't willing to give it a serious try. The reason behind the excuse is fear of a reaction from a subject. And it's not an unreasonable fear.

Bottom line, read books on the history of photography. You'll find that ultimately, pictures of people are what made photography what it is today -- not pictures of Half Dome, which never will change in your lifetime.

Totally agree with your first part Russ and is why I agree their should be a 'Street' section on this site, all I was doing was mentioning the name of the site and the fact that it probably draws more landscapers into it than if if was named under a 'street' title.

Yes I do now realise that I don't like street and is also why I very rarely (this is the first image in about five years) take street shots, but the reason I took this shot is that I was doing the tourist thing and walking around an old part of town with my camera and then I ended sat next to this guy and it seemed the obvious thing to do, so I did, and then regretted it.

I have many books on photography, as I am sure we all have, yet the few I own about street just sit there gathering dust and the ones on landscape have all become dog-eared. So I suppose I had already made up my mind many years ago, but wasn't fully aware until I tried to create something with this shot and how sullied (perhaps too strong a word, but you know what I mean hopefully) it made me feel. So no Russ I will not be trying to learn, understand or engage in this type of photography, as it really is something that I am now finally enjoying the realisation of just how alien it is to me and at the opposite end of my scale of photographic fulfilment - which doesn't mean I will not enjoy looking at others enjoying themselves while doing or displaying this type of photography, it is just that I am now so relieved to no longer think that I should also try to do it, when deep down I was obviously thinking subconsciously that it was in no way what I really wanted to be doing at all.

So have a good day Russ and thanks once again for opening my eyes to what subconsciously I must have already known, but couldn't admit to myself for some reason until now

Dave