Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7   Go Down

Author Topic: And Then. . .  (Read 5147 times)

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12719
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: And Then. . .
« Reply #40 on: September 05, 2018, 04:40:09 pm »

I'm happy to hear everything is okay, Ivo.

elliot_n

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 900
Re: And Then. . .
« Reply #41 on: September 05, 2018, 04:45:11 pm »

Russ, to steer back to your original post, you claim that the fact the two actors in the image are interacting transforms the image from 'reportage' into 'street'. Why?
Logged

Ivo_B

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 671
Re: And Then. . .
« Reply #42 on: September 05, 2018, 05:09:36 pm »

I'm happy to hear everything is okay, Ivo.

Just in case you forgot:

Really? Please explain why you think shooting pictures with a camera is not a hunt -- or as you put it, "predation?" Whether you're out there with a camera or in here -- in the studio -- with a camera, you're after a subject.

What premise is that, Evo?

In other words, you can't come up with a quote that supports your earlier contention that this section started with the idea that street is the only reason to raise a camera.

Sorry, Evo. What I see is bluster and sentiment rather than facts.
Quote from: Ivo
Ok Ross, I'll try to stick to the content of the discussion.

The subject of a picture is not necessarily a prey and a picture is not necessarily a hunting trophy. A picture can be an observation, it can be documentation, it can be a report, a report can be subjective or objective, full of emotion or emotionless, but in all these forms, it isn't a prey or a trophy, the subject is not hunted, only observed. A picture can be a gift from the subject to the photographer. Even further, with the attitude to hunt with your camera, you have no chance at all to make good portraits.

So what did you want to say about 'all photography' is hunting. A camera is not a gun, it is much more powerful than a gun, not because its precision or stopping power, but because the ability to observe and document in the hands of an observer.

Remember?  But please, answer Eliot's question.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2018, 05:14:46 pm by Ivo_B »
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12719
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: And Then. . .
« Reply #43 on: September 05, 2018, 05:26:28 pm »

Russ, to steer back to your original post, you claim that the fact the two actors in the image are interacting transforms the image from 'reportage' into 'street'. Why?

It's a fair question, Elliot. About all I can do is go back to this statement from an earlier post: "It deals with interactions between humans, other humans, and their environment, and as OmerV put it in another thread: ". . .street photography is not a hunt. It is a benign exploration of life in an effort to create a meaningful statement or poem."

Most street is also reportage. If the vendor in that first post had been working on his inventory and the bystander had been standing there looking at what he was doing that would be reportage, which is exactly the kind of thing most photographers on the street would shoot and call a street shot. But in this shot, something more is going on. I haven't the foggiest idea what it is, but there's a kind of relationship between these two guys that's intensely human.

I donít know how to explain it more specifically than that. Which always is the problem when you try to talk about street photography in the abstract. The other part is that good street goes beyond reportage. It always is a poem. I have no idea how many people in this thread actually have looked at https://luminous-landscape.com/on-street-photography/. From the tenor of the discussion Iíd guess almost none. But hereís an example from that article of what Omer was talking about. Itís not an interaction between people. Itís an interaction between a human and her environment. More importantly, itís a poem about a little girl deep inside her questing humanity. The best street photography always is a poem.

elliot_n

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 900
Re: And Then. . .
« Reply #44 on: September 05, 2018, 07:06:41 pm »

I like 'The Circle'. It has a mysterious atmosphere and it is visually interesting. There are rhymes and echoes.

I can't say the same for 'And Then'. The interaction between the two old chaps doesn't create any sparks for me. And on a purely visual level, I find nothing to get excited about.

But we all get off on different things. 
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12719
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: And Then. . .
« Reply #45 on: September 05, 2018, 07:45:48 pm »

If you check back, Elliot, you'll see that I said it wasn't an awfully good street shot. I put it in there to illustrate the difference between street and reportage. But there's an interesting connection between those two old coots that tells you something about humanity in general. I don't want to knock Chris Kern because the picture he posted in the thread that's still next to mine at the moment is a good picture. It just isn't street. It's reportage. That was my point.

elliot_n

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 900
Re: And Then. . .
« Reply #46 on: September 05, 2018, 08:13:50 pm »

Chris Kern's picture is here: https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=126633.0

To me, both pictures are snapshots taken at street markets.

Humans are in both pictures, and hence there is humanity. In one picture, an artist works intently, observed by a bystander. In the other, two old boys shoot the breeze.

They are very similar pictures. Documents of activity in a street market. Neither are 'reportage' (which depicts newsworthy events). Both are 'snapshots', 'documentary', and 'street'.

I do understand what you're getting at. But I'm not really feeling it.
Logged

Ivophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1104
Re: And Then. . .
« Reply #47 on: September 06, 2018, 05:16:38 am »

The girl photo:

I know this image is in high regards by some. I donít agree. It is a not really good composed back shot image of a girl fiddling with something. The rest is projection. The poem is in the romanticism of the genre, not in the photo.

And this is exactly my major comment on the majority of the so called street photography. It suffers from the photographers neurosis to feel comfortable in the entrapment of the definition.
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12719
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: And Then. . .
« Reply #48 on: September 06, 2018, 07:22:52 am »

Chris Kern's picture is here: https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=126633.0

To me, both pictures are snapshots taken at street markets.

Humans are in both pictures, and hence there is humanity. In one picture, an artist works intently, observed by a bystander. In the other, two old boys shoot the breeze.

They are very similar pictures. Documents of activity in a street market. Neither are 'reportage' (which depicts newsworthy events). Both are 'snapshots', 'documentary', and 'street'.

I do understand what you're getting at. But I'm not really feeling it.

That's okay, Elliot. Sorry to hear you don't feel it. I think most good artists: painters, photographers, poets, etc., are good because they feel it.

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12719
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: And Then. . .
« Reply #49 on: September 06, 2018, 07:24:16 am »

The girl photo:

I know this image is in high regards by some. I donít agree. It is a not really good composed back shot image of a girl fiddling with something. The rest is projection. The poem is in the romanticism of the genre, not in the photo.

And this is exactly my major comment on the majority of the so called street photography. It suffers from the photographers neurosis to feel comfortable in the entrapment of the definition.

Well, then that explains your problem, Ivo.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2018, 07:27:22 am by RSL »
Logged

elliot_n

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 900
Re: And Then. . .
« Reply #50 on: September 06, 2018, 07:59:59 am »

That's okay, Elliot. Sorry to hear you don't feel it. I think most good artists: painters, photographers, poets, etc., are good because they feel it.

For sure. But they have to communicate that feeling to the viewer. And I'm not getting it from your market picture. That is all.
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12719
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: And Then. . .
« Reply #51 on: September 06, 2018, 08:05:47 am »

Well, I agree that it doesn't knock you down, but it's there. It's a long way from being one of my favorite street pictures, but it illustrates the point I was making.

elliot_n

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 900
Re: And Then. . .
« Reply #52 on: September 06, 2018, 08:22:25 am »

What do you make of contemporary street photography? Take, for example, the work of the Brit, David Gibson:

https://in-public.com/photographers/david-gibson/

His work depends on humour - the surreal visual gag. The images are as much about him, and the cleverness of his seeing, as they are about the world out there.
Logged

Ivophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1104
Re: And Then. . .
« Reply #53 on: September 06, 2018, 08:29:34 am »

Well, I agree that it doesn't knock you down, but it's there. It's a long way from being one of my favorite street pictures, but it illustrates the point I was making.

It surely illustrates a point, not sure if it is yours.


Apart from that, I do appreciate your pitbulliness, I hope I will be so competitive at your age. And I mean this in a respectful way.
Logged

Ivophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1104
And Then. . .
« Reply #54 on: September 06, 2018, 08:31:43 am »

What do you make of contemporary street photography? Take, for example, the work of the Brit, David Gibson:

https://in-public.com/photographers/david-gibson/

His work depends on humour - the surreal visual gag. The images are as much about him, and the cleverness of his seeing, as they are about the world out there.

This is street photography with a good humoristique and intellectuel level. I like this a lot.

And you mention a nasty word here: contemporary. I tried to show and discuss this approach earlier but got served out with the: ďyou obviously didnít study enoughĒ

« Last Edit: September 06, 2018, 08:35:48 am by Ivophoto »
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12719
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: And Then. . .
« Reply #55 on: September 06, 2018, 09:11:36 am »

This is street photography with a good humoristique and intellectuel level. I like this a lot.

If this is your idea of good and humorous and "intellectual" street photography, Ivo, be my guest. Go with it. You've made the depth of your understanding of the genre clear.

elliot_n

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 900
Re: And Then. . .
« Reply #56 on: September 06, 2018, 09:32:42 am »

I'm curious to know what you think of it, Russ.

Is it street?

Is it good?
« Last Edit: September 06, 2018, 10:54:48 am by elliot_n »
Logged

Ivophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1104
Re: And Then. . .
« Reply #57 on: September 06, 2018, 10:54:33 am »

If this is your idea of good and humorous and "intellectual" street photography, Ivo, be my guest. Go with it. You've made the depth of your understanding of the genre clear.

Donít fall in the canyon.
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12719
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: And Then. . .
« Reply #58 on: September 06, 2018, 11:01:15 am »

I'm curious to know what you think of it, Russ.

Is it street?

Is it good?

Some of it's good. Some not so good. It's obvious he learned a lot from Helen Levitt, which is good. On balance I wouldn't knock it. What I would do is quote what I wrote in https://luminous-landscape.com/on-street-photography/: "Fact is that even when you get good at street photography, youíll shoot bags and bags of bloopers, a smaller number of not too bad shots, and the rare picture you should be willing to show. Beyond that, thereís the kind of picture upon which youíd be willing to hang your reputation. If you can average one of those a year youíre getting pretty good." Were I Gibson I'd have culled a lot of the stuff he posted, but, what the hey, we're all guilty of over-posting. And, yes, I wouldn't hesitate to call it street.

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12719
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: And Then. . .
« Reply #59 on: September 06, 2018, 11:01:52 am »

Donít fall in the canyon.

Do you really want to dig yourself in any deeper, Ivo?
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7   Go Up