Thank you, degrub.
I have often thought about the massive rôle of one’s location regarding the kind of imagery that comes out of the camera. I have lived the past 43 years of my life beside the sea, the relatively sheltered Bay of Pollença, in fact, that is nice for “calm” shots, but useless if one wants to introduce dramatic rollers crashing on wide sands: just doesn’t happen anywhere here I can find. We do get nice pix of crashing waves against rocks, but that’s another subject, and quite dangerous. You can be standing on what you think is a dry ledge when a rogue wave can send water right up at you. Happened to me once, with a Pentax 67 II on a huge Gitzo that I still own, but haven’t used in, literally, years. I managed to get in front of the camera in time, but the event scared me witless. I have never gone back there since. The location was Cala San Vicenç in northern Mallorca, the wide open face of the island that has nothing between it and Barcelona. The Med ain’t no fish pond.
Compare that way of life with somebody living in New York, for instance, and as you can guess, any local photographer there is going to come up with totally different images. I often envy such snappers their opportunities, but having said that, I very much doubt that I have the cojones to indulge in confrontational streets snapping. My people photos were always with people who wanted to be photographed because it earned them their crust; very safe (usually!) and quite enjoyable, with an emotional buzz a million miles removed from fear or self-doubts!
Then, of course, there is the little matter of time. What Saul Leiter could do in NY back in the 40s and 50s even he could not do in the later years of his life: neighbourhoods change, and the romantic old structures vanish under concrete and glass. Those old buildings may have been rat-infested, but it doesn't show in photos!
