Etiquette

[rabanito]

The topic is about commenting on pictures.

Not about genres.

Thank you for explaining.

I had no idea that there was a joke running around.
And there is also the possibility that the forists confused kolla children with - I suppose - mexicans.
Which is like mistaking a Spaniard for a Russian, IMHO 
Anyway, they are persons, whatever life made of them in the meantime-

I put a picture of those children and the first comment (not Slobodan's btw) I read is
"They look like rapists and drug dealers to me."
I was not involved in any joke and had no clue. Just showing a picture I like
I gave a very mild warning. I got an unsatisfactory response. As I thought it was going to escalate I removed the picture.
A pity IMO.

Sorry for making it too long. Probably a misunderstanding.

[KLaban]

No, Keith, your travel atmospherics are wonderful examples of their genre. They're just not street.

Russ, I've never so much as suggested on LuLa that they are Street.

That said, are you just trying to piss me off by continuing to and insisting on placing my work into a "genre" that was a figment of Rob's imagination?

The topic is about commenting on pictures.

Not about genres

Please, don’t hijack another thread

Indeed!

[KLaban]

you can never escape genre, however much you try. It just is.[/b]

I don't doubt for a moment that you believe this to be true, so much so that you'll not even stop at inventing genre of your own.

[Rob C]

So an image of a homeless guy in New York is street but an image of a homeless guy in Mumbai is travel atmospherics. Maybe a Mumbai resident would think the image of the homeless guy in New York is travel atmospherics.

No. Travel atmospherics are positive representations: the term stems from its original use in the photostock business, where a particular photographic requirement was early recognized, that being images that shed a positive, interesting and alluring light on a destination, and that inspire people from outwith that area to come visit. Homeless is not a draw. The objective of those atmospherics was to sell travel.

The problem of eventual image overload, as described earlier, is that everybody with some skill is drawn to the same "interesting" locations and to produce the same generic images. Even more than Indian culture is the ubiquity of the desert island image, the blue sky, the white/golden/pink beach with the single palm tree swooping low over that sand with a hammock attached. If your budget allowed, you had a pretty blonde in that hammock, peferrably sipping a colourful cocktail that some invisible, out-of-shot bar had provided. The Tony Stone specialty, if memory serves, was to have that blue sky with a single white cloud.

Even in goode olde Scotland, travel atmospherics were big busines for local Scottish photographers.

In all my years there I saw Loch Lomond twice in beautiful summery light; every other trip that water looked black, the sky grey, yet each year there were dozens of calendars being sent abroad to the Scottish diaspora showing the place all sunny, with flowers blossoming on the banks. All I ever saw on the banks were twigs and dead, blackened branches. Oh - and a couple of times, one of my models.

Travel atmospherics used to be very good business, as did Slobodan's cityscapes. It's his misfortune that he was born too late to make the best financial return on that skill that he has; all the big picture agencies had pages after pages of city. Why? Because they fulfilled not only travel promotion needs but business motivational image needs, too. Today, they go for cents to the photographer. What a waste.

[KLaban]

No. Travel atmospherics are positive representations: the term stems from its original use in the photostock business, where a particular photographic requirement was early recognized, that being images that shed a positive, interesting and alluring light on a destination, and that inspire people from outwith that area to come visit. Homeless is not a draw. The objective of those atmospherics was to sell travel....

Despite having been a contributor to various photo stock agencies from the 1980s until today I've never come across the category Travel Atmospherics and certainly never come across a genre within the arts of the same name, other than, of course, here on LuLa.

[Rob C]

I don't doubt for a moment that you believe this to be true, so much so that you'll not even stop at inventing genre of your own.

Ah Keith, you credit me with too much creativity!

;-)

[Rob C]

Despite having been a contributor to various photo stock agencies from the 1980s until today I've never come across the category Travel Atmospherics and certainly never come across a genre within the arts of the same name, other than, of course, here on LuLa.

That surprises me, very much indeed.

It does not surprise me that you have not come across it within the art world. That's a different world.

[KLaban]

That surprises me, very much indeed.

It does not surprise me that you have not come across it within the art world. That's a different world.

What is the relevance or wisdom of associating your long remembered category/genre within the stock agency business to my images posted here on LuLa?

[Rob C]

What is the relevance or wisdom of associating your long remembered category/genre within the stock agency business to my images posted here on LuLa?

 

That's an easy one: the relevance is derived from what they generally are, which is stuff you have shot on your travels in various bits of Greece and, now, India.

They represent good examples of the material that agencies wanted because they had keen buyers waiting in the form of travel brochure and travel poster clients. Quite why you appear to me to have taken this as some sort of put down escapes me; on the contrary, they fulfil the function very well and are to be lauded. It would be interesting to learn how else you'd categorize them, though I do appreciate that, for some reason best known to yourself, doing that's somehow taboo.

Of the ones you've posted here, two, for me, go further and onto another category, that of fine art. Those two are the rear shot of the girl by the window, and the shot of the young lad, the Artful Dodger, as it were, with the mischievous look on his face.

Quite how the first reference to travel atmospherics photography arose here in LuLa I can't remember, and I sure as hell don't intend rereading all this material, even if it's my own; enough trouble writing it in the first instance!

I can't think of any series of photographic works that doesn't fall into one category or another. The moment a series of similarly themed works exists it is, then, by definition, a genre of one kind or another, with or without a popularly recognised name.

Rob

[petermfiore]

Artists abhor being labeled...


Peter

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Artists abhor being labeled...


Peter

+1.

[RSL]

The topic is about commenting on pictures.

Not about genres.


Please, don’t hijack another thread.



The point is: we all should take care to comment on the picture, not on the person who made it, or on the person(s) on the picture.

The point behind the point is this:
The Lula habitues should understand not all members follow all threads or are interested in the cross topic tongue in cheek jokes and shots to each other.
Not all members can follow or expect the subsurface links to US or international politics coming out of the blue.

That create confusion and unnecessary discussion.

I had the same with the intrinsic harmless comment of Slobodan about ‘tension at the border’ and Rabinato logically misunderstood the sarcasm about the comment on his picture, what was a comment on the comment of Slobodan.

That is how concealed messages in comments leads to discussion, even to unnecessary anger.

?

[KLaban]

 

That's an easy one: the relevance is derived from what they generally are, which is stuff you have shot on your travels in various bits of Greece and, now, India.

They represent good examples of the material that agencies wanted because they had keen buyers waiting in the form of travel brochure and travel poster clients. Quite why you appear to me to have taken this as some sort of put down escapes me; on the contrary, they fulfil the function very well and are to be lauded. It would be interesting to learn how else you'd categorize them, though I do appreciate that, for some reason best known to yourself, doing that's somehow taboo.

Of the ones you've posted here, two, for me, go further and onto another category, that of fine art. Those two are the rear shot of the girl by the window, and the shot of the young lad, the Artful Dodger, as it were, with the mischievous look on his face.

Quite how the first reference to travel atmospherics photography arose here in LuLa I can't remember, and I sure as hell don't intend rereading all this material, even if it's my own; enough trouble writing it in the first instance!

I can't think of any series of photographic works that doesn't fall into one category or another. The moment a series of similarly themed works exists it is, then, by definition, a genre of one kind or another, with or without a popularly recognised name.

Rob

Which would be germane if the images of mine to which you refer had anything to do with stock agencies or their clients. They were not captured with commercial intention or gain and will never be marketed. I believe there is a fundamental difference here between the the artist and the commercial artist.

You are right in thinking that I don't have any time for the placing of anyone or anyone's images into little boxes, but if gets your rocks off then who am I to spoil your fun?

[RSL]

I don't normally take photos of bums, but do you see a story here?


Kent in SD

No, Kent. What I see is two pictures: (1) A hobo asleep on a street. (2) Two girls walking down a street. There’s no connection between the two. If there are any stories here they are: (1) A bum’s asleep. (2) Two girls are walking.

Ho hum. Yawn.

[rabanito]

?

Hahahaha, Russ
From the last 10 or so messages this is the one "on topic"

The rest - I believe - is a personal discussion between 2 members who think that with"etiquette" was meant "label" :-)

Just my humble opinion...
 

[PeterAit]

Russ, I've never so much as suggested on LuLa that they are Street.

That said, are you just trying to piss me off by continuing to and insisting on placing my work into a "genre" that was a figment of Rob's imagination?

Indeed!

When I die and go to hell, I expect I will be put in a room full of guys (yes, always guys) spending eternity arguing about what is and isn't street photography. Maybe I should go to church more often!

[KLaban]

When I die and go to hell, I expect I will be put in a room full of guys (yes, always guys) spending eternity arguing about what is and isn't street photography. Maybe I should go to church more often!

Regarding that argument and definition, I wouldn't have a clue or a care. Perhaps listen to those who would have you believe they do: the preachers here on LuLa.

[PeterAit]

The topic is about commenting on pictures. Not about genres.

Nope. This thread (read the original post) is about whether or not to ask strangers on the street for permission to take their photo.

[Ivophoto]

Nope. This thread (read the original post) is about whether or not to ask strangers on the street for permission to take their photo.

Nope (read the original post on a not selective manner):

In the topic "Etiquette" I didn't find what I was looking for:



So I expect - and I guess my "subjects" too - that their "portraits" are treated with respect they deserve when I show the pictures to other people. That they are never commented in a negative way. Not even as a joke.

This thread is a reaction on comments given on a picture of Rabanito.

[rabanito]

Nope. This thread (read the original post) is about whether or not to ask strangers on the street for permission to take their photo.

Sorry. I initiated the topic
Ivophot is right.