View Full Version : street photography thread
I found this street photography thread extremely interesting, especially the post by Kent. Perhaps some of you will too.
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00EBJY
bmattock
11-20-2005, 15:53
Thanks for pointing it out!
We've had this discussion here as well - it's a common theme, it seems. Seems there are always those who want everyone to ask permission of strangers before photographing them, and those who feel that people have the right to privacy in public. And etc.
I found Kent's comments interesting, but I've seen the same statement before.
The problem, as I see it, is that there ARE bad people out there taking clandestine photos, as well as those who are merely photographers. How do you tell which are which? As one fellow pointed out, one has no idea what a person is doing with a photo once they get it home. Are they exploring the human condition, or making their eyesight bad?
The solution, when one cannot read minds and determine intent, seems to be to ban it altogether - at least, that's the mindset the USA seems to have at the moment.
Frankly, I deplore it. It makes me want to take more street photos, and make people good and mad, just to tick off a few "I'm not comfortable having a camera pointed at me without my permission" zombies. Like they're not being photographed a hundred times a day by the goverment and private businesses anyway.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Bill, I sympathize with you, but I think our worlds have to be more personal and less paranoid, despite the increasing oppression and its love of dumbth.
I'm highly pessimistic about the future: this is the time for me to withdraw into my cave, lurking dangerously I hope... and when photographing seeking direct contact with my subjects, even though it may confuse them, hopefully confuses them. For me permission is the heart of photography, the actual essence, and whatever doesn't involve permission is just cold illustration or artsy fartsy doodling (eg scenics)...for somebody else it's something else. I'm just starting to do the photography I really want to do.
I was interested in the transference thing, where a person projests their own negative characteristics onto someone else, to dislike that person. Brought back memories of university psych courses.
Frank, Kent's "shadow" concept is interesting, but my thinking is more primative than his...like natives everywhere used to, I believe we're capturing souls and traveling in time with these devices, so I think we should consider the possibility that our subjects have a right, a profound right, to know that we consider the act important, and to know what we intend. If we don't consider it important, and don't share our intentions, we do deserve to be beaten in the streets, if that's what our subjects want to do to us.
I tell people that I'd like to make their photograph and I'd like to send them a print. Unfortunately I slip up on sending prints sometimes, which makes me feel guilty. But I'm improving, morally IMO.
bmattock
11-20-2005, 17:00
I was interested in the transference thing, where a person projests their own negative characteristics onto someone else, to dislike that person. Brought back memories of university psych courses.
"He who smelt it, dealt it." I think that line of reasoning has been around for awhile.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Because I almost always work close to my subjects with wide lenses, they're aware what I'm doing. I do get at least acceptance, if only through a shrug or nod. Possibly due to my friendly/harmless demeanor I'm rarely refused. But people do sometimes ask me what purpose this has, and what I intend to do with the photos. I'm another who tries to look up the victims and gift them a print. :)
Gabriel M.A.
11-20-2005, 20:42
I found this street photography thread extremely interesting, especially the post by Kent. Perhaps some of you will too.
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00EBJY
Thanks for the link Frank. Good to see there are some people still thinking out there...
old guys checking out young girls. or boys. *yawn*
hey, where are the female pervs?
Frank, Kent's "shadow" concept is interesting, but my thinking is more primative than his...like natives everywhere used to, I believe we're capturing souls and traveling in time with these devices, so I think we should consider the possibility that our subjects have a right, a profound right, to know that we consider the act important, and to know what we intend. If we don't consider it important, and don't share our intentions, we do deserve to be beaten in the streets, if that's what our subjects want to do to us.
I tell people that I'd like to make their photograph and I'd like to send them a print. Unfortunately I slip up on sending prints sometimes, which makes me feel guilty. But I'm improving, morally IMO.
Djon, as much as I can understand your point of view, I'm still wondering whether it's more a matter of "I should act as such" and less a matter of "I <i>am</i> acting as such". For example, from your own gallery ( http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=16111&cat=500&ppuser=1194 , a wonderful shot BTW). Did you ask her permission? I'm not saying you should or shouldn't have but let's face it, there are many situations where asking permission is either not possible or not "required". Of course, you have to act according to your own moral stance and if you can most of the time, you have my respect.
Frank Granovski
11-20-2005, 23:26
I don't ask permission when I'm using my 135mm. With a normal, I ask, unless they're not looking.
if you're taking a "street portrait" and ask permission to take a photo, you aren't really doing street photography, imho. you're just taking portraits, a la diane arbus.
Diane Arbus definitely took street shooting to a different level! :)
I never ask for permission but I don't conceal what I'm doing either (unless of course it's an opportunity too good to miss)
For me permission is the heart of photography, the actual essence, and whatever doesn't involve permission is just cold illustration or artsy fartsy doodling (eg scenics)...for somebody else it's something else.
*cough* *cough*
I wouldn't dismiss so many (most?) of street shooters as hacks just because they don't ask for permission. It works both ways, you know: some would argue that you're just a chicken (although I know that asking for permission and shooting without one is about equally hard).
James Burton
11-21-2005, 02:06
I think the thinkn is best done after the shootin. But after the shootin not much matters.
James
bmattock
11-21-2005, 03:07
I think that any statement that begins with "In these [modern, dangerous, unusual] times, we need to..." is itself a dangerous statement, and it immediately gets my hackles up. Governments, contrary to popular opinion, and the perception of Hollywood, traditionally don't just strip rights away one sunny day. They normally eat them away slowly, and usually by seeking buy-in from the populace - making such moves seem "reasonable" and "neccessary" and "for our own good." I see it for what it is, and I want to throw up.
It is my opinion that there are too many people who are far too willing to trade away traditional liberties and freedoms in exchange for what they see or have been told is increased safety. Unfortunately, they never trade away their own rights - they trade away mine. I have a teeny little problem with that.
Are there dangerous people out there? Yes.
Do many of them have cameras? Yes.
Are some 'street photographers' actually nothing but perverts? Yes.
Are there more people who seem to think they are entitled to privacy when they wish it, regardless of whether or not they are in public? Yes.
And the solution to this is to change how we (street photographers) go about what we do?
Does that work? Do pedophiles stop being pedophiles? Oh, please.
I'm sorry that the person who posted on PN thought that the photographer he saw was 'creepy' and he wanted to confront him and/or punch him out. Maybe the guy was a pedophile. Maybe not. I wasn't there, and I doubt I'd be able to tell what the guy's intent was by watching him.
But that's the point. If I subject myself to the 'rules' of 'not creeping people out' then I am subject to YOUR interpretation of what 'creepy' is. By YOURS, of course, I mean anyone in the vicinity. Now I'm supposed to be a mind-reader?
Maybe I'm just a creepy looking guy. Maybe I just look 'suspicious' even though I have no malicious intent. So I can't do street photography because of the way I look?
You know, like when a black (hispanic, middle-eastern) guy walks around in a 'white' neighborhood. I think we'd better put a stop to that, shouldn't we? I mean, he just looks suspicious. Maybe we'd better confront him, ask him what he's doing in the neighborhood. Maybe we'll punch him out. There's no telling if he might be a burglar, and he sure looks suspicious to me. Better if we just pass a law, keep all the black guys out of here. Or maybe the black guys should just accept the fact that in these dangerous times, everybody needs to keep more in their place. I mean, hey, sorry about that, black guy. I'm not racist, I have nothing against black guys, but I think that in these dangerous times, it would be best if everyone just avoided getting anyone's suspicions up. It's just for the duration, then everything will be fine. Right?
I'm sorry - I know I'm in the minority here. I realize that we're all worried about what are very real dangers. But I will not change my methods - I can't do it. For the sake of my art, for the sake of my freedom.
And if it means getting confronted, punched, or even arrested - I will not stop doing what I do. I will take your picture if I want to, and I won't ask your permission.
I know that many of you don't do street photography, or you ask permission, etc. I don't have a problem with that. I understand that some of you feel uncomfortable having a camera pointed at you by a stranger, and you think that people need to be more considerate of others' privacy rights even in public. I'm ok with that, too. But I have a problem with those who would then impress those desires on me - by changing laws, by encouraging police to hassle street photographers, by 'confronting' photographers and demanding to know what they're photographing and what they intend to do with their photographs. I mean no offense - but such a demand of me is likely to meet with a response you don't care for.
A society that can't stand to have a light shined on it is not a society - it is a regime.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
terrafirmanada
11-21-2005, 03:38
For me street shots are the essence of what I enjoy about photography. The art is pushed to a new level by being candid. This is where photography differs from painting. If I want a seated portrait I can paint it. But a TRUE, in the moment candid, can put me the viewer in the shoes of the subject.
I can become that woman looking at the shoes in the window. I am the old hunched over man carrying his groceries.
When I stop to ask permission, this essential aspect is lost. The catharsis does not carry through the same way. The part of ourselves that we see in our subjects fades away.
In order for my photography to move toward it's best possible moment I want it to be pure. Otherwise to me it is not art.
I agree on many points with Bmattock, that's what i was about posting...It's really hard to walk around with a camera, well everyone has their privacy, u may quote them in a condition that embarasses them, mayeb some one is upset enough not to bear the pressure of a camera pointed somewhere that might be at him...Even sometimes when we r ready fro a group photo, some people just try to clear themselves off the field of the lens...!
Adding this to the degradation that is happening to the world day by day, some ass might use photos in a very improper way...People ar emean today.
Where i live if i saw a guy that is pointing his camera at me, i'll hardly believe he's after an innocent shot, 90% i'll think, he's a mean *******!
Mainy cause the photography hobby isn't popular and those who are interested wouldn't go for street photography...
Some other places in the city, lower life style, poorer, they might eat u alive if they spot u with any sort of camera even if u don't have the intention to shoot, they r very freaky about it, and i agree there r many times i wouldn't shoot because i feel it's wrong, cause i feel that it's not right to violate that mood!
I'm also not afraid of people reactions towards me as i'm afraid of hurting/annoying them...Some people would smile but deep inside that's not how it is, specially if this person is having a rough moment...
But still i like to do that, and i'm not gettin shots, cause i don't want them to feel it's happening, so..i'll try to improve..!
Ignoring the the rights debate, if everyone asked everyone else for permission to take their photographs in the street, the world would be awash (hell, it's bad enough as it is) with insipid street portraits of performers, homeless people, old people and other miscellaneous alternatives. Unless your name is Diane Arbus, there's only so many of these sorts of shots I can stomach.
Cartier-Bresson, Winogrand, Erwitt, Koudelka, Frank, Meyerowitz, Parke... I wonder how many of these asked the majority of their subjects for permission. As far as I can tell, pretty much every famous and anonymous street photographer I admire never asks for permission and that to me is as good a reason as Bill's very reasoned argument :cool: In London there are CCTV survellance cameras around every street corner. We're being watched anyway.
bmattock
11-21-2005, 05:19
There is an excellent book that I read a couple of years ago: "The Transparent Society: Will Technology Force Us to Choose Between Privacy and Freedom?" by David Brin. Brin is a science-fiction writer who sometimes writes on privacy issues. He correctly notes that while government agencies and private businesses increase their level of surveillance on US, governments at the same time create new laws restricting the right of public photography BY us.
In other words, the government watches us more, we watch them less.
And some feel that this is a good thing.
I have to disagree.
On the subject of 'street photography' as a concept, it is the one field of photography that I often feel does not have to be made to be seen. With most of my photography, I feel what it important is sharing the photograph with others. Yes, I shoot to satisfy myself, but in the hopes that I can create images that others will want to see - to make 'art' if you will. In the case of street photography, I often feel it is more important that I am there, taking the photograph, than that anyone else appreciate it or even see it.
"Being a witness" is a powerful motivation.
And speaking of witnessing - I have a good friend who announced to me that he is changing his religion in response to these modern times. He's now a "Jehovah's Bystander." He's pretty sure something happened, but he really doesn't want to get involved.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Bill, you're the best! I know you're for real but, man, you write it down in such a way I can't hold me laughter in. I may not always agree with your points but on this right to photograph issue I'm with you.
Hin, I've been a fan of your work for a long time and as I was reading this thread I was getting ready to post essentially 90% of what you said below. I read an interview you did here: http://interviews.dailysnap.com/aiotf/index.shtml which gave me the courage to do more street shooting. It was really amazing to find someone whose street shots I admire so much to have struggled with it in much the same way I have. The more I shoot the more comfortable I am doing street photography. I’m only speculating, but I would think that my increased confidence makes me less noticeable to those that I am shooting. I have not yet asked for permission.
Once I was shooting next to a newspaper photographer taking some shots of young kids at a midnight release of a Harry Potter book. A parent did approach us and I explained that I was there with my kids and the newspaper photog explained that she was working on a story for the issue the following weekend. Kids are the one area I am a little cautious with. Maybe that comes from being a parent myself. I would have gladly exchanged info and sent him a print of his kids however he seemed less interested in me and more excited about the possibility of having his kids run in the newspaper. So obviously, it works both ways.
Ignoring the the rights debate, if everyone asked everyone else for permission to take their photographs in the street, the world would be awash (hell, it's bad enough as it is) with insipid street portraits of performers, homeless people, old people and other miscellaneous alternatives. Unless your name is Diane Arbus, there's only so many of these sorts of shots I can stomach.
Cartier-Bresson, Winogrand, Erwitt, Koudelka, Frank, Meyerowitz, Parke... I wonder how many of these asked the majority of their subjects for permission. As far as I can tell, pretty much every famous and anonymous street photographer I admire never asks for permission and that to me is as good a reason as Bill's very reasoned argument :cool: In London there are CCTV survellance cameras around every street corner. We're being watched anyway.
Hey Scott,
Thanks for your kind words; I'm rather embarassed about that interview because I come an insufferable young fool (unfortunately I'm a bit older but still insufferable now). You are absolutely right in that confidence is the key to street photography. You are out there and you are doing nothing wrong (I too avoid children, not only because of the possible seedy issues but because there are enough cutesy photos of kids in the world already ;) ). People only notice and object to you if you're being furtive (or if you have shoved a Canon 17-40 right in their face!). And if they notice, smile at them and stop for a chat. A camera is a great way to re-connect with strangers on the street!
Street photography is a mood, a state of mind. If you're in the groove you should be aware of what is 'kosher' and what isn't. I wander around the street every day and it doesn't matter if I'm using my Hexar RF or my big Canon 5D. Queue up the right sequence of tracks on your iPod, smile to yourself (and strangers) a lot and most importantly don't be a jerk. There's just no time to stop and ask. Street photography is like swimming in a shoal of tiny fish and waiting for that perfect moment when the constantly changing form morphs into an incredible, miraculous shape.
There's that oft-referenced article (http://www.photogs.com/bwworld/xtol1.html) by Mason Resnick that talks about the way Winogrand worked:
He was constantly looking around, and often would see a situation on the other side of a busy intersection. Ignoring traffic, he would run across the street to get the picture. Incredibly, people didn't react when he photographed them. It surprised me because Winogrand made no effort to hide the fact that he was standing in way, taking their pictures. Very few really noticed; no one seemed annoyed. Winogrand was caught up with the energy of his subjects, and was constantly smiling or nodding at people as he shot. It was as if his camera was secondary and his main purpose was to communicate and make quick but personal contact with people as they walked by.
Nomade, sounds like you could use a pair of inconspicuous but tough bodyguards... :(
bill, since you mentioned "witness", i've got another movie for you to watch. there's even a leica in it, briefly. the title might suggest something it isn't. :D wim wenders' "wings of desire". all about angels watching us. and yeah, there is a love story.
hinius, you listen to the ipod while doing street photography?! lol, that's so post-modern. :D
Gabriel M.A.
11-21-2005, 11:09
It is my opinion that there are too many people who are far too willing to trade away traditional liberties and freedoms in exchange for what they see or have been told is increased safety. Unfortunately, they never trade away their own rights - they trade away mine. I have a teeny little problem with that.
Bill for president!
Gabriel M.A.
11-21-2005, 11:12
Ignoring the the rights debate, if everyone asked everyone else for permission to take their photographs in the street, the world would be awash (hell, it's bad enough as it is) with insipid street portraits of performers, homeless people, old people and other miscellaneous alternatives. Unless your name is Diane Arbus, there's only so many of these sorts of shots I can stomach.
So, only a few people should take pictures of a certain kind so they can be digested? Interesting point of view...
Bill M's more tuned in to reality than most. Catch 22.
Maybe it's worth remembering (or learning) that many people suspect that cameras steal souls, or at least intrude into their humanity uninvited. Maybe soul ripoff is exactly what "street photographers" are after: perhaps there's a lack of soul? Honest self awareness is certainly lacking, eg. the earlier comments by someone trying to convince us that he becomes his subject ;) Cannibals are more honest: not having cameras they eat their "subjects" livers.
Sneaking is an illicit pleasure, right? Peeking through a keyhole at one's parents, early Sunday morning. Would one feel equally "artistic" calling oneself a "sneak photographer?"
And why the "art" label? Tis is 2005: People who decorate tissue boxes and paint duck decoys are artists. Rumsfeld's tortureres are artists, right? Is everything that's not profitable "art?" Why do "art" photographers express so much insecurity when they see great work from commercial photographers (eg Avedon). And aren't Magnum photographers commercial photographers, even the late HCB ?
Don't take my comments as hostility. Shoot what you want, call yourself what you want. I'm just expressing my own thoughts: I did a lot of street photography in the 70s, quit it when a friend showed me long lens shots of street people. Now I'm just a photographer. :angel:
Don't take my comments as hostility. Shoot what you want, call yourself what you want. I'm just expressing my own thoughts: I did a lot of street photography in the 70s, quit it when a friend showed me long lens shots of street people. Now I'm just a photographer. :angel:
Ah, but what makes you think that long lens photos of street people qualifies as 'traditional' street photography? You're absolutely right, those sort of shots are voyeuristic (and as importantly, they're usually pretty crap). As far as many are concerned are concerned though, they're just not street photography.
As Petteri Sulonen forceully puts it, Telephoto is for cowards (http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/Pontification/n_Telephoto_Is_For_Wimps/a_Telephoto_Is_For_Cowards.html). As far as I'm concerned, it's as far removed from street photography as portraiture.
i bet i could do street photography with a tele. only people who've used a tele on the street had other things on their minds. it's all about intent, right?
Of course there is another method ... carry a portfolio of 6x4 prints of your best work, if someone stops you show it to them, say you'll be happy to send them a print if you have their contact details... surely having your photo taken by a talented ( or otherwise in my case) street photographer should be a good thing to happen to you... why not some positive PR for street photography?
There's just no time to stop and ask. ..
Mason Resnick talks about the way Winogrand worked:
He was constantly looking around, and often would see a situation on the other side of a busy intersection. Ignoring traffic, he would run across the street to get the picture. Incredibly, people didn't react when he photographed them. It surprised me because Winogrand made no effort to hide the fact that he was standing in way, taking their pictures. Very few really noticed; no one seemed annoyed. Winogrand was caught up with the energy of his subjects, and was constantly smiling or nodding at people as he shot. It was as if his camera was secondary and his main purpose was to communicate and make quick but personal contact with people as they walked by.
There are many ways to ask, not just formally stopping. Basicaly it's your inner moral standing.
Cheers,
Ruben
People who post on Photo.Net's street forum embrace the lable and their work on that forum defines the activity. Numbers count, not theories or post-mortem labels. Steiglitz was as much a street photographer as Meyerowitz or Frank. Frank was a commercial photographer. Skilled. Few street photographers seem technically skilled, again judging by Photo.Net. Basic skills do have to do with photography in some way, IMO.
Street photographers do what was, for decades, called "candid photography " : snapshots of people one doesn't know, without permission
which circle of hell do street photographers go?
back alley
11-21-2005, 17:01
i rarely ask permission but i never sneak.
joe
bmattock
11-21-2005, 17:06
With respect for everyone's viewpoints - I'd like to elucidate on a couple of points I made earlier.
First, I am not exclusively a 'street photographer' - I very much enjoy nearly all forms of photography. I sometimes find myself in the right frame of mind and in the right location to do some street shooting and then I do it. I have no idea if I am 'good' at it, but I hope to improve, in any case.
Second, whether you refer to street photographers as candid snapshotters or something ruder, it is fine with me. Street photography is the term that is commonly used, and it works for me.
I am intrigued and fascinated by 'candid' photos - at least some of them. When the mask slips, we see what people really are, what their lives mean. And frankly, it is uplifting for the most part. You see the goodness that is inside, often enough. That divine spark, if you will. You will seldom see that in a posed picture - the closest I have ever seen were photos of M. Gandhi and Mother Theresa. I'm not saying that I'm capable of producing such shots, but sometimes I feel like I'm getting closer.
Some street photos are more about the situation, the location, the setting, or whatever. It can be an attempt to capture moments in time, with varying degrees of success.
Third, when I take street photos, I do not hide or sneak around, although I often find myself in the shadows. I am usually out in the open, I am vulnerable, and perhaps that is part of what I enjoy about it. I'm in a lot more danger than anyone I'm taking a picture of. I've got to remain aware of my surroundings, use my periperal vision, listen to people's voices and their tone of voice, gauge the mood of the crowd. I have to use my own discretion and judgment about what photographs to take, which to pass up. Sometimes I stir some dissonence, sometimes not. I try to adjust my responses and my actions accordingly. As some here have noted, one can maintain a positive and friendly outlook without saying a word. Body language, eye contact (or not), a nod, a wave. Sometimes acting with authority, moving with sureness and purpose, are all that are needed. Other times, acting humble works. I seldom have anything in the way of a confrontation. And I do understand people's fears and concerns.
But there are some other things that are at work within me as well. Things about freedom, really. About society and expectations.
I don't justify my actions when confronted. I don't need to. More importantly, I shouldn't. I am a photographer, and I am taking photographs. Making art, if that doesn't offend anyone too much. I am a part of society, I am not alien to it. I am as much a part of the scenery as the parents with their stroller, the kids with the soccer ball. I belong here - and I won't justify or apologize for that.
There was a time when people in society worked hard to not take offense. Now, we work hard on not giving offense. The onus is off individuals to be open and accepting, or at least tolerant, and on individuals to guess what might give offense to any one of a thousand people and find ways to not squick them. This is, I believe, a problem. But I'm not going to 'fix' society, I know that. But I can continue to try to be honest with myself. And I fail at that a lot, believe me. I'm no saint and I'm no hero, but I'm resolute - maybe too much?
And finally, I have always objected to the notion that the actions of the law-abiding must be rescinded to protect society from the actions of those who break the law. Taking upskirt photos of women and hiding cameras in changing rooms and bathrooms are not legal - nor should they be. And some sexual deviants seem to get a charge from taking and viewing photos of clothed body parts, or shoes, or Norge refridgerators, or whatever it is that flips their switches.
But I just can't shrug and say "Well, we live in different times now. I guess that street photography was an innocent pasttime that has been polluted. Time to move on."
How does any member of the public know that I'm not a fridge freak when they see me moving stealthily through a junkyard towards an innocent Westinghouse? The answer is that they don't.
Punish people for the wrong they do, not the wrong you suspect them of, or that which you think they might do. That's my model, and I have a hard time letting that go, even in these 'modern times'.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
PS - Besides, as good as Ansel was, I seldom see a photo of El Capitan that captivates me. Sorry.
Punish people for the wrong they do, not the wrong you suspect them of, or that which you think they might do. That's my model, and I have a hard time letting that go, even in these 'modern times'.
Right on, Bill. This ties in to that transference psycho thing where people project the characteristics they most dispise in themselves onto others. Perhaps it is those people who can't face their own perversities, that see them in others.
Kinda reminds me of a story about a person reacting negatively to a photograph. The viewer admonishes the photographer for depicting a man lying on a bed watching his mistress remove her clothing before joining him for an afternoon tryst. The photographer responds by explaining that the woman is the man's wife, it is morning, and she is getting dressed. :)
bmattock
11-21-2005, 17:43
Kinda reminds me of a story about a person reacting negatively to a photograph. The viewer admonishes the photographer for depicting a man lying on a bed watching his mistress remove her clothing before joining him for an afternoon tryst. The photographer responds by explaining that the woman is the man's wife, it is morning, and she is getting dressed. :)
You awoke an ancient memory. Once, a long time ago, I worked for a time for the Denver Post in the circulation department, taking phone complaints. Missed deliveries, that sort of thing. Sometimes we got irate calls from people who were angry about this story or that editorial, etc, and they always wanted to read somebody the riot act and then quit their subscription. I was the guy who got dumped on. Not a problem for me, I never took it personally.
This fellow called to complain about a "The Neighborhood" comic. This was the one which showed a fellow bending over backwards, with his arms thrown wide, in an apparent display of delight. The caption was something like "Ed can resist anything except temptation."
The guy who called thought that the man was bending over FORWARDS and presenting his posterior to the viewer, kind of inviting someone to, um, 'take advantage of him in a special way'.
I looked at the comic strip and started laughing, because I could see the character's zipper - unless it was in the back, the character was bending over backwards, not forwards. The guy read me the riot act and hung up on me, after suggesting that I was 'one of those'.
I never thought about it until now - I guess he might have had a little identity problem, eh?
Well, live and let live. It's a sick world, and I'm a happy guy.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
bmattock
11-21-2005, 17:59
This is one of my very best 'street shots' although it was taken on a train. Does anyone suppose I could have gotten this shot if I had asked the young man for permission to take his photo? He knew I was there, taking photos. I was less than 4 feet away, hard to not know. And by the way, that was a Yashica Electro CC.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
http://www.growlery.com/amtrak/boy_on_train.jpg
back alley
11-21-2005, 19:33
nice shot bill.
As Petteri Sulonen forceully puts it, Telephoto is for cowards (http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/Pontification/n_Telephoto_Is_For_Wimps/a_Telephoto_Is_For_Cowards.html). As far as I'm concerned, it's as far removed from street photography as portraiture.
Thanks for posting this link, you beat me to it. I've read this article as well and I think he pretty much nails it. I liked your interview too, Hin :D.
Whenever I do urban photography (I don't call it "street" because people are not usually my main focus) I try to move at a relaxed, steady pace, smile, nod, no furtive or stealthy movements, just a guy with a camera taking pictures. It probably helps that I'm only 5'8" and still look young enough to pass for a college student. I've never really had any overtly hostile reactions but I will say that carrying an SLR generally brings me more negative attention than any other kind of camera.
I use my mystical soul catching device all the time. Sometimes I even dare to point it at people I dont know, but usually they walk into the frame on their own accord.
I think it takes different kinds of street photographers to capture different kinds of pictures. It really depends on what you want your pictures to look like. Do you want dark, sneaky mysteriousness in your photos? Then you might want to try sneaking around for your shots. Do you want a photo that tells a lively and friendly story? Then you might want to try and interact with your subjects.
It all depends...
Also:
Third, when I take street photos, I do not hide or sneak around, although I often find myself in the shadows. I am usually out in the open, I am vulnerable, and perhaps that is part of what I enjoy about it. I'm in a lot more danger than anyone I'm taking a picture of. I've got to remain aware of my surroundings, use my periperal vision, listen to people's voices and their tone of voice, gauge the mood of the crowd. I have to use my own discretion and judgment about what photographs to take, which to pass up. Sometimes I stir some dissonence, sometimes not. I try to adjust my responses and my actions accordingly. As some here have noted, one can maintain a positive and friendly outlook without saying a word. Body language, eye contact (or not), a nod, a wave. Sometimes acting with authority, moving with sureness and purpose, are all that are needed. Other times, acting humble works. I seldom have anything in the way of a confrontation. And I do understand people's fears and concerns.
Fully agree here.
Since I feel like beating a dead horse today, here is another article that deserved to be linked here.
http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/street.shtml
Key paragraph:
Don't be sneaky. Don't carry a big tecky-looking camera case. A small shoulder bag is all you need for a body and a few lenses and film. Wear simple, unpretentious clothing. Dress like the people that you're photographing. Don't hide your cameras. Don't "sneak" your shots. Don't skulk at a distance shooting with long lenses. Don't be a voyeur, be a participant.
Gabriel M.A.
11-22-2005, 15:22
As Petteri Sulonen forceully puts it, Telephoto is for cowards (http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/Pontification/n_Telephoto_Is_For_Wimps/a_Telephoto_Is_For_Cowards.html). As far as I'm concerned, it's as far removed from street photography as portraiture.
While I can see what his point is, I think that's a pretty strong and misguided statement. Extrapolating, you could have "wideangles are for exhibitionists". Sounds rather assinine to state something like that, imho.
What is this "Yankees vs. Red Sox" mentality? Must everything be so black and white? When did rhetoric become a means for confrontation rather than exposition and dialog?
It's a column title that grabs your attention, isn't it? It certainly got my attention (as a sometime-telephoto fan) enough for me to read the article the first time I saw it. Solid points and minimal rhetoric once you get into the meat of it, though.
And for the record, on the Yankees vs. Red Sox issue, I weigh in firmly on the side of the Seattle Mariners :D.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.