Street Art

[Ivo_B]

Again, you fail to remember what has already been posted; I bought the goddam thing and it sucked.

Wooden, posed and a study in nothing. Granted, he did that exceptionally well.

Hahaha, You are right, you already posted about your Brassaî trauma, I will make a note not to mention the war again in your presence. :-)

[RSL]

I would suggest taking a look at Brassaï

I've not only looked at Brassaï, Ivo, I have a couple books about Brassaï on my photography shelves. If you're suggesting Brassaï caught life on the street with his bellows camera, tripod, film holders, and lengthy exposures then you don't know much about Brassaï. As I pointed out earlier, even in the Paris brothels he had to pose his subjects. It was a hell of a long way from street photography.

[RSL]

Ivo, do you have a web site? I'd like to see some of your work.

[Ivo_B]

I've not only looked at Brassaï, Ivo, I have a couple books about Brassaï on my photography shelves. If you're suggesting Brassaï caught life on the street with his bellows camera, tripod, film holders, and lengthy exposures then you don't know much about Brassaï. As I pointed out earlier, even in the Paris brothels he had to pose his subjects. It was a hell of a long way from street photography.

(Please Russ, don't think to easy you are talking to photographic dummies, ok?)


....
I don't state any of this.

Kertesz made the street photography he was able to within the limits of his gear. And he was a master of doing so. Not recognizing this and classify it as 'it sucks' is ignoring its intrinsic quality. It sound to me as saying 'Pantzerkreuzer Potemkin' sucks because there are no arial shots of the stairs scene.

Take a not preoccupied look at Brassaï 's work and see where it differs from HCB's work, not in terms of technical modernism of the time, but esthetically, HCB's new approach came at a cost.

And yes, HCB with his 35mm was able to do what Brassaï couldn't and yes nowadays we are able to do what HCB couldn't, that is the reason why the whole street photography changes. Suddenly it is possible to introduce the nightly Brassaï claire obscure by using small very light sensitive cameras and no need for a tripod (something what was even unthinkable 10 years ago)

Times are changing, technology is changing, and for the same reason HCB was able to turn photography on his head, it happened again and again after HCB. Ignoring this, is ignoring 50 years of photographic evolution.

There is a world outside HCB, also in the street photography segment.

Ivo



 

[Ivo_B]

Ivo, do you have a web site? I'd like to see some of your work.

I will regularly post  some work, Russ. I already posted some of my portraiture on 8x10" and some street shots (remember the Paris Moulin rouge scenery?) I cannot share commissioned work, (I do real estate and architecture)

I have a totally other photographic view on the world as you (surprise :-) )
Feel free to find me on Flickr and Instagram

You should be able to find me as IvoPhoto_Belgium on Flickr
And as ivophoto_votw on instagram.

Have a look, you're welcome

Ivo

[RSL]

No Russ, I don't think your work posted here is pre 1970, I think you vision is.

Don't misunderstand me, I strongly believe in learning from old masters, see my above post about color composition.
And I don't have any problem defining genres.

I do feel that obeying to the definition of a genre should not be the benchmark, I would quote good old star Trek: To Boldly Go Where No Man Has Gone Before...

The benchmark should not be the definition of a genre, it should be the right of the image to exist, Is the picture worth not be trowed away straight away. We should think twice before showing our work publicly. (And I count myself as very guilty on this matter)

I look at a photo and try to appreciate it on its own merits, eventually, I assess to what style or genre it can belong. And the more it doesn't belong to what I know, the more curious I get.
I have the impression some on this subform, not only you, first look to the validness of the picture according to the genre and only if it qualifies willing to take a closer look.
I see very mediocre work appreciated because it is in the lines of what some think it should be and I see splendid work ignored for the opposite reason.

All this results in chitchatting about the rules and not playing the game.

I hope I didn't offended anybody, I react because I would find it a pity if members would not dare to show there nice work (I refer to the good portrait of the boy on the beach) because of the above.

Kind regards

Ivo

Gotta come back to this. Ivo, have you ever looked at either of my web sites? Maybe you ought to do that in order to understand what I do. I do practically everything that's done in photography. About the only thing I haven't done is combat photography -- pictures of people shooting and getting shot up. I've had opportunities to do that, but it's been done and done and done, and it long ago reached the point where it's just plain boring. I've done weddings, though I hated that kind of work and stopped after a few. I did photojournalism for a Colorado Springs commercial partnership and sort of enjoyed that. The only thing I haven't done is the kind of work Rob made his living at. Had I had an opportunity I'd probably have tried that too.

Obviously nobody is going to go out and say "I'm gonna do street photography today. If I get some landscape or wabi sabi I'll throw that away because it won't fit what I'm out to do." But you seem to believe that happens. You even seem to believe that that's what I do. It's not a question of "benchmarks," it's a question of categorizing what you have after you take it out of the camera. And if you aren't familiar with the existing genres you may have a hard time doing that effectively. If you have something from where no man has gone before you can do what HCB did and start a new genre.

By the say, "To boldly go where no man has gone before" is the worst kind of BS. Man has gone everywhere he has the capability to go, so it's impossible to go, boldly or even timidly, where no man has gone before.

I think you should continue, as you say, to "look at a photo and try to appreciate it on its own merits." That's commendable. But trying to cram crap that doesn't fit into a particular genre isn't commendable. It simply doesn't make sense, and makes the person who tries it look less than knowledgable. I won't say "stupid" because that's a value judgment, and I'd have to know the person better to be able to make that judgment.

May I suggest that before you try to discuss street further you study the people who defined it and try to learn what street is. That doesn't mean you shouldn't shoot the stuff you want to shoot. Be my guest. But to try to cram everything you shoot into the street photography genre simply results in ending up with a reputation for very bad street photography.

[RSL]

I will regularly post  some work, Russ. I already posted some of my portraiture on 8x10" and some street shots (remember the Paris Moulin rouge scenery?) I cannot share commissioned work, (I do real estate and architecture)

I have a totally other photographic view on the world as you (surprise :-) )
Feel free to find me on Flickr and Instagram

You should be able to find me as IvoPhoto_Belgium on Flickr
And as ivophoto_votw on instagram.

Have a look, you're welcome

Ivo

Too much work. Give me some links. That's why we have the web.

[RSL]

Take a not preoccupied look at Brassaï 's work and see where it differs from HCB's work, not in terms of technical modernism of the time, but esthetically, HCB's new approach came at a cost.

And yes, HCB with his 35mm was able to do what Brassaï couldn't and yes nowadays we are able to do what HCB couldn't, that is the reason why the whole street photography changes. Suddenly it is possible to introduce the nightly Brassaï claire obscure by using small very light sensitive cameras and no need for a tripod (something what was even unthinkable 10 years ago)

Now you've got me ROTFL, Ivo. Brassaï's work differs from HCB's work because Brassaï was working with primitive equipment compared with HCB's. That's the whole point of street photography. In street you catch things on the fly. You can't do that with a tripod and film holders.

And you say night photograph was "unthinkable" ten years ago? Here are two night shots from 2001. That's seventeen years ago. I have dozens more. I even can show you night shots from 1967 with the Leica M4 if you'd like to see them.

It's not that, as you say, I think you're a "photographic dummy." I simply think you're confused.

[Ivo_B]

Gotta come back to this. Ivo, have you ever looked at either of my web sites? Maybe you ought to do that in order to understand what I do. I do practically everything that's done in photography. About the only thing I haven't done is combat photography -- pictures of people shooting and getting shot up. I've had opportunities to do that, but it's been done and done and done, and it long ago reached the point where it's just plain boring. I've done weddings, though I hated that kind of work and stopped after a few. I did photojournalism for a Colorado Springs commercial partnership and sort of enjoyed that. The only thing I haven't done is the kind of work Rob made his living at. Had I had an opportunity I'd probably have tried that too.

Obviously nobody is going to go out and say "I'm gonna do street photography today. If I get some landscape or wabi sabi I'll throw that away because it won't fit what I'm out to do." But you seem to believe that happens. You even seem to believe that that's what I do. It's not a question of "benchmarks," it's a question of categorizing what you have after you take it out of the camera. And if you aren't familiar with the existing genres you may have a hard time doing that effectively. If you have something from where no man has gone before you can do what HCB did and start a new genre.

By the say, "To boldly go where no man has gone before" is the worst kind of BS. Man has gone everywhere he has the capability to go, so it's impossible to go, boldly or even timidly, where no man has gone before.

I think you should continue, as you say, to "look at a photo and try to appreciate it on its own merits." That's commendable. But trying to cram crap that doesn't fit into a particular genre isn't commendable. It simply doesn't make sense, and makes the person who tries it look less than knowledgable. I won't say "stupid" because that's a value judgment, and I'd have to know the person better to be able to make that judgment.

May I suggest that before you try to discuss street further you study the people who defined it and try to learn what street is. That doesn't mean you shouldn't shoot the stuff you want to shoot. Be my guest. But to try to cram everything you shoot into the street photography genre simply results in ending up with a reputation for very bad street photography.

Russ, what you are talking about, I left behind some time ago. It's not about cramming things into your definition, it is about inviting you too step out and move on.

I don't see there is more to say. We can agree to disagree, can't we?

Cheers

Ivo

[RSL]

Russ, what you are talking about, I left behind some time ago. It's not about cramming things into your definition, it is about inviting you too step out and move on.

I don't see there is more to say. We can agree to disagree, can't we?

Cheers

Ivo

It's not a question of agreeing or disagreeing. Please explain with some precision what you mean by "stepping out," and by "moving on." I get this kind of slogan pretty often, but the purveyors of same usually seem not to be able to explain what they mean.

[Ivo_B]

Now you've got me ROTFL, Ivo. Brassaï's work differs from HCB's work because Brassaï was working with primitive equipment compared with HCB's. That's the whole point of street photography. In street you catch things on the fly. You can't do that with a tripod and film holders.

And you say night photograph was "unthinkable" ten years ago? Here are two night shots from 2001. That's seventeen years ago. I have dozens more. I even can show you night shots from 1967 with the Leica M4 if you'd like to see them.

It's not that, as you say, I think you're a "photographic dummy." I simply think you're confused.

I'm afraid we are not going to find a common base to build mutual understanding.

I close this discussion from my side. No hard feelings from my side.

Still feel free to comment on my work I will post and take a look on Flickr and Insta. (Going to Flickr and do a search is less work than me trying to get the correct link in this  forum, sorry)

But here is one of my more recent snaps.

Antwerpe,n by Ivo Bogaerts, on Flickr

[RSL]

Well, it's a "snap" all right. And that's supposed to tell me. . . what?

[Ivo_B]

It's not a question of agreeing or disagreeing. Please explain with some precision what you mean by "stepping out," and by "moving on." I get this kind of slogan pretty often, but the purveyors of same usually seem not to be able to explain what they mean.

Well if you got this remark more often, could this point into a certain direction?

I tried to explain this in the number of previous post, Russ. Photography evolved. Other technical revolutions than 35mm changed the game.....

Sad we live on another continent, I guess we would have a very pleasant and interesting evening in a club or bar, talking about out mutual passion: Photography.

[Ivo_B]

Well, it's a "snap" all right. And that's supposed to tell me. . . what?

I got you where I wanted, Russ.

You are obviously not in the possibility to understand the situation in this picture and not able to grasp the interaction and sensitivity between the Muslim Girl and the Western Girls, you also fail to see the color game in the image. This is because you look at the picture whit-in the limitation of your references. And that is not wrong, or bad, it just is. When I say, step out and move on, I mean, take the challenge and seek the reason why I took the decision to take this picture. If you consider me as a lost or seeking soul, you wouldn't bother, but if you see me as somebody who potentially seeings things you aren't, you can do the effort and give yourself a change to 'perhaps' learn something.
And I don't have any intention to start a nasty discussion, Russ. If I may recommend (you asked about being more precise) when you look to a picture that doesn't match with your frame of mind,  let be the first question: Why did this photographer aim his camera and took this shot?

Kind regards

Ivo

[Rob C]

Now you've got me ROTFL, Ivo. Brassaï's work differs from HCB's work because Brassaï was working with primitive equipment compared with HCB's. That's the whole point of street photography. In street you catch things on the fly. You can't do that with a tripod and film holders.

And you say night photograph was "unthinkable" ten years ago? Here are two night shots from 2001. That's seventeen years ago. I have dozens more. I even can show you night shots from 1967 with the Leica M4 if you'd like to see them.

It's not that, as you say, I think you're a "photographic dummy." I simply think you're confused.

Moretti is a honey! One of the best you've posted yet!

Rob

[OmerV]

And that's exactly the problem. People look at the photography of HCB, Frank, Winogrand and say: "Interesting historical stuff, but it has nothing much to do with today," thereby missing the point entirely. The point of HCB's stuff isn't its historicity. The point is that he captured important points about the relationships between people and between people and their environment. Photographs that fail to do that don't fit the street genre. But if course, if it has a street in it, it must be street photography. Right?

Russ, your indefatigable belief in yourself is kinda enviable. You have yet to consider that in fact it might be you who is "...missing the point entirely." 

[RSL]

Okay, Omer, tell me what you think the point is.

[OmerV]

Okay, Omer, tell me what you think the point is.

I’ll try, but we both know it probably won’t change much.

Your criteria for what makes a “street” photograph legit* is in fact within GreggP’s photo. But it is packaged differently and owes little to the past, perhaps making it difficult to accept (too kaleidoscopic?) Except that today’s photographers are as capable as yesterday’s(please.) It seems too obvious to say but, whoa, guess what, love, loss, defeat, pride, difficulties, are all as relevant in today’s photography as in the beloved 1930s–60s pictures.** Ya just gotta toss that HC-B monkey offf your back.

Remember that The Americans was derided here in the US when it was first published, and as you know Frank had to go to France to publish the book because he met too much resistance here. It was the style that American editors and publishers found objectionable. Think about that.

So there you go. 

PS I think the street forum is still a good idea. Just lighten up a bit. That goes for Rob too.

*Emotional connection to the environment, relationships between folks, and you know the rest.
** I really dislike the Family of Man thing that Steichen put on... Just for the record.

[RSL]

I got you where I wanted, Russ.

You are obviously not in the possibility to understand the situation in this picture and not able to grasp the interaction and sensitivity between the Muslim Girl and the Western Girls, you also fail to see the color game in the image. This is because you look at the picture whit-in the limitation of your references. And that is not wrong, or bad, it just is. When I say, step out and move on, I mean, take the challenge and seek the reason why I took the decision to take this picture. If you consider me as a lost or seeking soul, you wouldn't bother, but if you see me as somebody who potentially seeings things you aren't, you can do the effort and give yourself a change to 'perhaps' learn something.
And I don't have any intention to start a nasty discussion, Russ. If I may recommend (you asked about being more precise) when you look to a picture that doesn't match with your frame of mind,  let be the first question: Why did this photographer aim his camera and took this shot?

Kind regards

Ivo

Okay, Ivo. First explain how I'm supposed to know that that's a Muslim girl? The headscarf? Lots of girls wear headscarfs. The point is that for it to be effective photojournalism a picture has to be complete. This one isn't.

[RSL]

Well if you got this remark more often, could this point into a certain direction?

I tried to explain this in the number of previous post, Russ. Photography evolved. Other technical revolutions than 35mm changed the game.....

Sad we live on another continent, I guess we would have a very pleasant and interesting evening in a club or bar, talking about out mutual passion: Photography.

In other words you're not going to answer my questions about what's "stepping out" and what's "moving on." What you're giving me is slogans. That won't cut it. If you're going to toss out slogans like those you'd better be ready to explain what you mean by them because I'm always gonna ask.