View Full Version : I Reversed My Street Tactics And A Good Start.
Since I don't own the copyrights I will tell the full story, somewhat personal.
My attraction to street photography started with Beniliam. His pictures were of the highest inspiration to me and for many here.
Studying and enjoying Beniliam's photos, I noticed there a very special element, not seen by me before.
In many of his images Beniliam seems to wait until his subject notice him and react in some direction. That's his moment to click. His decisive moment. Fine. Then some day Beniliam dissapeared for a while from RFF, and I was already engaged in the streets.
But then came Formal's masterpiece, "more beef" and he shaked me. First I posted a "hurra" comment, but some time afterwards I found it appropriate to write a second commentary, more near a critique than a comment. There, looking and analysing his image, I came to the conclusion that the central element of power and tension of the image was the girl look into Formal's camera with a very special facial expression.
This, if you like, was the final strike to prompt me in that direction. Instead of catching people unaware, raise the camera, point it to your subject and wait untill he/she notices you. Then two possibilities: Either he/she signals you not to photograph, or any other reaction. In the first case, I will not shoot, in the second yes.
So yesterday night upon ending my job day, I mounted a flash on my Kiev color 100 and started going to the bus stop. Near a street crossing I noticed three female teenagers from some exhotic Asian ascendance, laughing to death. I started to waver, to be or not to be, and finally stood straight in front of them and started focusing. Immediately they reacted for good, with one of them standing specially for me, while the other two I don't know their expression since it was very very dark.
This morning, when waiting for the bus, I noticed an old man with a dog comming towards me from afar. Again, I raised my camera for long seconds while he looked at me all the time. His look was rather harsh, but he didn't signaled don't shoot, so at the right moment I shot.
This night, again back from work, I entered the bus with the color Kiev and flash, instead of my Kiev Neopan, which remained at my belly pouch. I sat diagonally to a teenager talking with her cell phone. She noticed me twice pointing my camera towards her but continued talking. She was shy and didn't give me anything to photograph but her profile. I didn't shoot.
Yet when descending from the bus I noticed a woman seated near the bus stop, within a somewhat interesting background and foreground. I stood in front of her by some 4 or 5 meters, she looked at me and I shot, with flash, as stated. Immediately after shooting her, I continued walking slowly as usual and when I was very close to her she asked smiling: "Did you shoot me ?"
"Yes!", I answered. Then she asked: "Why me ?", "Because you agreed" was my answer, upon which she laughed.
Cheers,
Ruben
ps
Of course, I don't mean to say all pictures must be done with the subject looking into the camera.
le vrai rdu
12-13-2007, 10:14
I don't want to hurt you but I think that you think to much while shooting. I my opinion you just have to feel the best place and moment to shoot, don't think about composition, just shoot when you feel the time has come. In street photo you cannot think, focus and shoot so don't think, just shoot ;)
Spider67
12-13-2007, 10:29
Good story Ruben and a very good and fresh approach for me.
As I either ask specifically before or I try to be invisible but to make the shooting itself the communication is somewhat new to me...except on parades or other events where people come to be seen and um..pictured (it's somehow absurd to imply that they are there to be shot)
J J Kapsberger
12-13-2007, 10:29
I admire your courage, Ruben. I've got to get over my fear of pointing a camera at a stranger. Carry on.
Harry Lime
12-13-2007, 10:33
Interesting Ruben. You can sometimes get some very unique results when the subject 'breaks the fourth wall'.
It is occasionally done in cinema or the theater. It doesn't always work, but when it does it can be very powerful.
HL
HL
I don't want to hurt you but I think that you think to much while shooting. I my opinion you just have to feel the best place and moment to shoot, don't think about composition, just shoot when you feel the time has come. In street photo you cannot think, focus and shoot so don't think, just shoot ;)
There is a big difference between mechanically thinking through every step of the procedure while you are taking photographs and reflecting upon technique afterward or planning it in advance. Obviously, much street shooting involves quick action. But that does not mean that there is no technique to it. I think that Ruben is right that much great street photography falls outside the category of "stolen moments." I agree with him that this fact is well illustrated in the work of Beniliam. And I also agree that there is a technique to making photographs like this that show an interaction between photographer and subject. It is likely that most great street photographers give no thought to technique while taking photographs. But this is only because they have arrived at a point where technique is second nature to them. I think that you are right, they just shoot when they feel that the image has come together. But it does not follow that one becomes a great street photographer by giving no thought to technique.
le vrai rdu
12-13-2007, 10:41
I agree with you, that the reason why before shooting you must have your apperture and speed ready. While walking in the street I always change speed and aperture as the ligth changes. That is why when I shoot I just have to focus.
vdonovan
12-13-2007, 11:16
Everybody shoots differently. Ruben, I appreciate your detailed explanation of your ideas and how you put them to work. It's an interesting read as well as helpful to my own photography.
mackigator
12-13-2007, 11:19
Bruce Gilden. First name that comes to my mind when you say street + flash + eye contact.
http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP=XSpecific_MAG.PhotographerDetail_VPage&pid=2K7O3R1482X4&nm=Bruce%20Gilden
Hi folks,
I cannot but recommend you to give a deep deep look to Formal's materpiece. Study this picture in depht by long observation.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=74639&cpage=2
Each of us, from his own approcha to photography, can lear a lot from this image. You can get different conclusions than mine, and it is ok. But I find hard to believe that through long observation you will not learn anything new.
Kindly avoid doing two things:
a) don't ask Formal how he has done it, since it is not appropriate.
b) don't read my commentaries there, to allow yourself more grounds of thinking and feeling.
We have a masterpiece of street photography. Don't let it pass by unattended.
Cheers
Ruben
I admire your courage, Ruben. I've got to get over my fear of pointing a camera at a stranger. Carry on.
Believe me that I am not more bold than you. Seriously. The only difference is my greedyness for gold, after discovering its location.
Cheers,
Ruben
ClaremontPhoto
12-13-2007, 12:50
I admire Ruben for doing what he's doing.
My style is to find the location, and then wait for the people to arrive.
Focus and exposure are already set, and I wait, hours maybe, until the right person walks in front of me. Maybe the guy in a suit, maybe the the mother and child, maybe the young woman in a mini skirt. Whoever.
It helps if the chosen location is outside a bar and you have a beer while you wait.
Ruben,
it is very interesting what you propose. You are affecting what you are
observing. It is a sort of 'quantic' photography, in the sense that you,
as the observer, affect the observation, whatever you are photographying.
Could you show the results? I am curious, because my first interpretation
after reading your post is that you were looking for eye contact (something
that can give life to many photographies), but I am not really sure that you
meant it.
Best regards,
Pau
Excellent observation and analysis, Ruben! I think this is a path to a new level of photography. It is, in fact, what I try to do, though perhaps not with Benilliam's talent. :)
It does take some courage, polite assertiveness, to approach strangers with the camera, but the subject agreement and the interaction between shooter and subject I think makes for a more powerful photo. The viewer then may share in that interaction.
I am by training and inclination an engineer, so tend to be more methodical and practical in my approach to photography, maybe a gearhead. :D But those who say go with instinct have a good point too. C'est Vrai! :) I am on occasion pleased and surprised to see elements in my photos that I must have seen and subconsciously processed at the time of exposure. These things can make the photo better, but sometimes my subconscious is out to lunch.
Best wishes for further success with subject-aware street photos, Ruben!
Some very interesting and different approaches to street photography. If there is interaction with the subject it can result in an very interesting photo. On the other hand, being "invisible" and avoiding any interaction with the subject / surrounding is also one approach to street photography. Anyhow, any approach in photographing strangers needs some skills and courage.
Just an aside and not totally relevant to what is being discussed here ... but sometimes when we take a photograph of someone we don't know, there are cultural issues to be taken into consideration ... not to mention personal beliefs.
The 'true' Australians, the Aboriginals of this country ... have a belief (more the older generation) that a photograph taken of them ... is actually taking something from them and they are not comfortable with it at all.
I supect that it relates to the same situation that arises when TV stations show documentaries etc about Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander cuture, there is alway a warning at the beginning of the programme informing viewers who may be from either group that the programme contains images of people who may be deceased.
... but sometimes when we take a photograph of someone we don't know, there are cultural issues to be taken into consideration ... not to mention personal beliefs.
The 'true' Australians, the Aboriginals of this country ... have a belief (more the older generation) that a photograph taken of them ... is actually taking something from them and they are not comfortable with it at all.I encountered similar sentiment years ago, Keith, when I lived near Izmir Turkey; some among the older generations objected to being photographed in the belief it captured some part of the soul.
And in a sense there may be a grain of truth to it, as the photo does freeze a likeness of them at that instant, and carries power derived from both subject and artist. It can be a positive power, or it's possible the photo could be used to ridicule the subject, who would be hurt if they learned of it. Getting subject approval, even if only tacit approval, would avoid the offense of the moment...
mike goldberg
12-13-2007, 21:20
Here in Israel, we also encounter subjects whose spiritual beliefs clash with photography done with the best of intentions.
I want to appreciate Ruben's detailed post and the replies herein. I work in the same Jerusalem street environment that Ruben does. Formal's photo of the young woman in Dublin is indeed a masterpiece. Note that he used a 24mm lens and was in close. Further, Ruben has clearly identified the element of contact between Beniliam and his subjects. For sure, this is different than surreptitiously "taking" something.
Beniliam's wonderful photos have disappeared from both RFF and flickr. There have been changes in Spanish legislation, making it more difficult for street work and publication.
Who we are, influences what we bring to our work. Doug is an engineer, and I can see that in his carefully crafted photos in DSLRx. Another factor is our gear and our comfort with it. I doubt that the photo in the Thumbnail below, could have been achieved with a Kiev raised to eye level.
Keep shooting & cheers, Mike
Bob Michaels
12-13-2007, 21:22
Bruce Gilden. First name that comes to my mind when you say street + flash + eye contact.
http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP=XSpecific_MAG.PhotographerDetail_VPage&pid=2K7O3R1482X4&nm=Bruce%20Gilden
Bruce Gliden's narrated essay of his early career work at Coney Island is excellent. He shares much insight about his interaction with the subjects, how he worked, and what he thinks makes each of the photos work.
See: http://inmotion.magnumphotos.com/essays/coney.aspx
Anyone who has not explored the "Magnum in Motion" series, all photo essays narrated by the photographer, should do so in my opinion.
mike goldberg
12-13-2007, 21:28
I like sitemistic's comment on governments!
Each of us, from his own approcha to photography, can lear a lot from this image. You can get different conclusions than mine, and it is ok. But I find hard to believe that through long observation you will not learn anything new.
We have a masterpiece of street photography. Don't let it pass by unattended.
Cheers
Ruben
Ruben,
How about keeping your opinions as opinions instead of presenting them as "the truth"?
I do a lot of "shoot and scoot" photos w/ a 21 or 25 w/o focusing. As I'm moving past my subject(s) (scooting) I often hear "why me" in Korean. Pretty funny because the native population almost never takes photos of each other. I think it's considered rude or some sort of a socio-economic put-down (rich guy/gal w/ a camera kind of thing).
Most of the photographers here shoot landscapes and they're good, but not my cup of tea. Others here shoot ONLY their family and consider it wasting film or even crazy to shoot anyone not in your family.
My style is to carry my camera discretely at my side on my Leicagoodies sling/ slide and then throw it up and shoot.
Sounds familiar to me ... When a Japanese photographer asks me, which kind of photos I usually take and I reply "some kind of street photography, photos of people in the public, daily life" the usual reply is " you are taking photos of strangers !?" None of my (Japanese) friends would ever do it. They take lots of photos of each other, in situations where I wouldn't take a photo, but a photo of a stranger in the street ...
ClaremontPhoto
12-13-2007, 22:45
I'm very aware if I'm at a construction site, for example, many of the workers there will be here illegally and do not want to be photographed.
Often in various situations people have seen my camera around my neck and have run to hide away.
I'm not here to cause any grief so I clearly walk right away.
ClaremontPhoto: I like your avatar :)
Ahh ... the dichotomy of the twenty first century right to 'privacy'. We are in imminent danger of not being able to photograph people, or buildings for that matter, candidly in the streets any more as 'big brother' tightens the noose ... yet we have reality TV shows that put people into controlled situations and environments expecting them to behave abnormally and chronical their every movement with hidden cameras to the waiting salivating public! :rolleyes:
ClaremontPhoto
12-13-2007, 23:52
ClaremontPhoto: I like your avatar :)
Thank you.
And just when I was thinking this morning of updating.
Winter clothing now, and different photos on the wall (not that they are at all clear in the avatar), and maybe with a different camera.
It's made with the camera included in the iMac.
mike goldberg
12-14-2007, 00:20
This discussion is very valuable, as it focuses on how we work... rather than with what gear. As Jon mentioned, I've also encountered resistance on construction sites, with potential illegal workers. And yet, 14 year old Arab workers in the souk [who should be in school], like to be photographed.
As I've come to know my colleagues in RFF, there are few, if any, who aggressively photograph against a subject's wishes.
Ruben's "revelation" is not the Torah from Sinai... as we say in local slang ;-) For me, the value in it is: Being seen or observed by your subject, can make for a memorable decisive moment. Here's a well known anecdote... Karsh, the Canadian portrait photographer asked Churchill to remove his cigar stub, and Churchill refused. Whereupon, Karsh removed it from the subject's mouth and got that famous, glowering gaze in the Churchill capture.
Ruben,
Could you show the results? I am curious, because my first interpretation
after reading your post is that you were looking for eye contact (something
that can give life to many photographies), but I am not really sure that you
meant it.
Best regards,
Pau
I am at mid roll now.
Fortunately we have got from heaven a master piece of the same, that although with many surrounding gifts, you will get it if you isolete the head:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=74639&cpage=2
Cheers,
Ruben
It does take some courage, polite assertiveness, to approach strangers with the camera, but the subject agreement and the interaction between shooter and subject I think makes for a more powerful photo. The viewer then may share in that interaction.
Best wishes for further success with subject-aware street photos, Ruben!
About the fear element
Take into account your own psycological status, when you are hiding. Project it to a scene of war.
Now within our war projection, imagine a small group attacking by surprise a larger army. Project it to yourself
Once you go for it, you will be in a totally different state of mind. YOU will be taking the initiative in the psycological internal war. YOU will be waiting for the suject to react. YOU will be mastering the initiative of the process.
For what is it good ?
When I saw Beniliam pics of this type, and I repeat this is just a portion of his pictures as he uses to picture unawared people as well, it is like you suddenly are passing a TV crew microphone to the subject: "what do you have to say to life ?" . It is a mini process of the like.
There are a lot of people around there, with lots of things to say without words.
Is this a forever tactic ?
No doubt that as a beginner I may be exaggerating the amount of these type of shots in the next future, until by some natural development it will get its proper proportions.
Not every situation and subject is suitable. I believe that with time one will be able to immediately smell the suitable situation and subject.
And I think that with an extra dexterousity, with a lot of exercise, I will be able to make two photos of the same subject, the first one while it is unaware.
Cheers,
Ruben
ClaremontPhoto
12-14-2007, 01:19
I think Beniliam photographed people who wanted to be seen. And so welcomed his presence. I mean if you dress eccentrically and sit in the city center you're a sitting duck for street photographers. I loved Beniliam's photos and am sorry that he can no longer show them. I had hoped we could have a Madrid meet and learn his techniques first hand.
In the same way that Beniliam photographs people in public typically on a bench or in the Metro, BACK ALLEY largely photographs in a local tourist trap, memphis often photographs musicians in bars.
Myself, I stick to my locale and everybody knows me. Occasionally somebody asks 'Are you from the newspapers?' To which I reply 'I'm a photographer'. Which is not really any sort of answer at all. Often somebody who knows me explains to my subject 'He's English.' Which is even sillier but seems to satisfy them.
Just an aside and not totally relevant to what is being discussed here ... but sometimes when we take a photograph of someone we don't know, there are cultural issues to be taken into consideration ... not to mention personal beliefs.
The 'true' Australians, the Aboriginals of this country ... have a belief (more the older generation) that a photograph taken of them ... is actually taking something from them and they are not comfortable with it at all.
This is a factual truth, and an Universal one.
Along this thread I forgot to mention a special element: The photographer as viewed by the subject. We aficionados, have no reason to go mad about loosing a good image.
We aficiandos enjoy the benefit of walking relaxed, Raise our camera to eyelevel in the most relaxed possible way, and adopt a kind relaxed approach to our subject.
Once and if the sujbect signals us not to photograph, weather we have or not clicked, we can always lower our camera, offer our best smile and symphaty, and signal with a slight movement of our hand and head: "OK, no problem, have a good day".
We can also raise our camera with the sujbect already aware, again in a slow and relaxed way.
Cheers,
Ruben
I think Beniliam photographed people who wanted to be seen. And so welcomed his presence.
This is one of my most intriguing speculations. Mine is that the subjects reacted to Beniliam the way they did, due to Beniliam being of kind facial expression himself, and young.
But let's not forget the experience element. He pictures a lot.
Cheers,
Ruben
Ruben,
How about keeping your opinions as opinions instead of presenting them as "the truth"?
Hi NB23,
You are right, and I am wrong.
It is buit in in the very human process of understanding and learning. When we start to know something new, we have no choice but making generalizations and eternal truths.
Afterwards, we learn the borders of our new knowledge and become more reserved about it.
Cheers,
Ruben
oftheherd
12-14-2007, 02:50
I do a lot of "shoot and scoot" photos w/ a 21 or 25 w/o focusing. As I'm moving past my subject(s) (scooting) I often hear "why me" in Korean. Pretty funny because the native population almost never takes photos of each other. I think it's considered rude or some sort of a socio-economic put-down (rich guy/gal w/ a camera kind of thing).
Most of the photographers here shoot landscapes and they're good but not my cup of tea.
When I was there we were always told the people thought we were making fun of them or just making them feel we thought they were different in a not complimentry way. I wonder how we would feel if we constantly found ourselves singled out by a particular group of tourists.
I don't know that that would make me want to stop doing what I always considered a sort of documentary photography when in Korea. In fact, much of the Korea that I knew in the mid-70s is either gone or harder to find.
I don't know that that applies to the idea of street photography. They may not be the same, or at least all aspects of it.
Ruben, thanks for the insight. Very interesting. I never considered myself a street photographer. If I ever decide to take it up, I will be interested in using the approach you mention.
To be honest, and not wanting to sidetrack this thread, even before I took up photography again i would have told the park warden to *&*!! himself and carried on photographing my child. On certain points of principle like this I am quite prepared to be arrested and have my day in court, because I shall be the one contacting every right minded media person i can come across to cover the story. (rant over)
Cheers, Lol
Ruben,
How about keeping your opinions as opinions instead of presenting them as "the truth"?
and how about you to stop talking like that on rff. you always have that agressive tone. ...
I admire Ruben for doing what he's doing.
My style is to find the location, and then wait for the people to arrive.
Focus and exposure are already set, and I wait, hours maybe, until the right person walks in front of me. Maybe the guy in a suit, maybe the the mother and child, maybe the young woman in a mini skirt. Whoever.
It helps if the chosen location is outside a bar and you have a beer while you wait.
Jon, I admire Rubens approach too, In fact I'm going to try it for myself, it sounds a great method. Your's too though is very good. Here in France some people call street photog's "Chasseurs d'images" (image hunters), though like your method, it was the great Doisneau who said he was more a "pecheur d'images" (a fisher) and found his spot then waited for the "fish" to come along.
and how about you to stop talking like that on rff.
You made a point ... but should have pulled up before the red zone ... you're adding fuel to the fire!
Just my opinion! :)
AND HOW ABOUT ALL OF US HAVING A MORNING COFFEE !!!
:D
i am going for mine now. It's Brazilian, filter way.
le vrai rdu
12-14-2007, 05:42
Jon, I admire Rubens approach too, In fact I'm going to try it for myself, it sounds a great method. Your's too though is very good. Here in France some people call street photog's "Chasseurs d'images" (image hunters), though like your method, it was the great Doisneau who said he was more a "pecheur d'images" (a fisher) and found his spot then waited for the "fish" to come along.
I try this: find a spot and wait for people, it works great :) , it's allow you to control the background wich is quite useful :)
le vrai rdu
12-14-2007, 05:43
AND HOW ABOUT ALL OF US HAVING A MORNING COFFEE !!!
:D
i am going for mine now. It's Brazilian, filter way.
14h 42 here :D anyway, time for coffee is anytime :D
ClaremontPhoto
12-14-2007, 05:47
Your's too though is very good. Here in France some people call street photog's "Chasseurs d'images" (image hunters), though like your method, it was the great Doisneau who said he was more a "pecheur d'images" (a fisher) and found his spot then waited for the "fish" to come along.
Thank you, I had forgotten Doisneau's words. And gone and invented the 'method' myself.
In your part of the world I occasionally overnight in Hendaye Hendaia and although I've never taken any photos there have always thought that the bridge between the French part and the Spanish part is ripe for photography; although we can walk across the bridge and enter another country quite freely there are border guards with kevlar jackets watching our every move.
The motorway border crossing is great for photos too. You'll have see it in Wim Wenders movie 'Lisbon Story'. But the border guards there always give me a hard time. I must trip their radar somehow because I always get the full search for thirty minutes. It's gotten so I'll travel from Bilbao to Portsmouth by luxury ferry rather than put up with the car search and questioning every time.
But when I am in Hendaye Hendaia I delight in walking to Spain to buy bread and cheese and carrying it into France two minutes away.
Similarly the main road north from there through Landes and the several caravan cafes seems just too good to be true for a guy with a camera and a few hours.
I have been up into the Pyrenees, but landscape isn't my thing so I had a beer and came back down.
ClaremontPhoto
12-14-2007, 05:50
I try this: find a spot and wait for people, it works great :) , it's allow you to control the background wich is quite useful :)
Mmm. I just 'wasted' an hour on the street. Got myself a table and a beer at a sidewalk cafe, set the exposure and the focus and waited.
And waited.
When I saw somebody interesting I lazily and casually took a photo as if I was photographing something over their shoulder.
Hi Jon,
I wanted along this thread to speak too about finding the background first and waiting for the subject.
The only reason I don't use it today, is lack of time. Although here and there I try to pay attention for possible spots to set an ambush. But once, long time ago, when I was young and pretty and had time too, using this tactic I obtained one of the best if not The best of my street pictures so far. You have to have time to spend, and luck.
Cheers,
Ruben
le vrai rdu
12-14-2007, 05:59
Mmm. I just 'wasted' an hour on the street. Got myself a table and a beer at a sidewalk cafe, set the exposure and the focus and waited.
And waited.
When I saw somebody interesting I lazily and casually took a photo as if I was photographing something over their shoulder.
wait 5 minutes under a porch during a rainy night ;) it is always nice
iridium7777
12-14-2007, 06:03
taking pictures of people, almost right up to their faces is something that i admire and have taken a long time coming to terms with it; i finally learned that no one cares.
*but*, sitting in front of someone's face and busting out your flash -- i'd bitchslap you and would fully expect to get bitchslaped if i did that to someone else.
get some fast film but please don't blind people with your light probe, have some courtesy; although i'm sure some of you are of the opinion of 'anything goes' in street photography.
I admire Ruben for doing what he's doing.
le vrai rdu
12-14-2007, 06:06
Flash is auwful : it kills volumes and colors :o
"I have been up into the Pyrenees, but landscape isn't my thing so I had a beer and came back down."
I lived 3 years in Edmonton Alberta, while there I "went up into the Rockies, had a beer and came back down"
Hey Jon, you just broke me up laughing with that one.:D
For the rest, I spent about 12 years in Hendaye, at the beach, and up in the old town. It's true the frontier is a great spot for shooting. At first I too thought it was amazing to just pop across on foot for some cigarettes or whatever. You won't get bored there ! It's allways so busy because the tobacco and alcohol are so cheaper there, about one quarter the price of in France ! The border used to be guarded pretty tightly, but since several new european agreements it's now wide open, they even tore down all the guards booths and customs buildings, so now you can drive strait through not even noticing that you've just changed country untill the notice a road sign or something in spanish !
Street shooting is no problem at all, the locals are used to tourists "snapping" away.
53227
AND HOW ABOUT ALL OF US HAVING A MORNING COFFEE !!!
:D
i am going for mine now. It's Brazilian, filter way.
Indeed!!!
And Ruben, you make me think about things I had not yet considered.
Although, I was already heading for the coffee pot... :)
I actually enjoy and look for my subjects to engage me when I'm out street shooting. I crave eye contact and sometimes wait for the person I'm eyeing to look at me. I get some interesting emotions from them as I snap away, often taking a few frames to get a range of emotions. Conventional wisdom for some street shooters is that you shouldn't do this but I like to break from the fuss of it all and do my thing. I doubt I'd ever use a flash as that may be too intrusive even for me.
ClaremontPhoto
12-14-2007, 07:30
I just got payment from a client in Colombia, and went and bought some Colombian coffee beans.
Mmm. I just 'wasted' an hour on the street. Got myself a table and a beer at a sidewalk cafe, set the exposure and the focus and waited.
An hour with a beer is never wasted :D
I keep wanting to set up camp at a likely spot and wait for suitable targets but I don't have the patience. I keep thinking of all the opportunities I might be missing elsewhere, so I keep walking. Wrt flash, I think Martin Parr has made it an art form, although I don't have his guts to emulate his style! Personally I'm fascinated with trying to capture expressions and gestures, however small, between individuals. In the millisecons before firing the shutter the world ceases to exist, just the target.
Thanks, Lol
Agressive Belgrade rivalries aside, what an interesting thread. Nice comments, Ruben.
One of the pleasures of my day-job is that I get to give a photo workshop for my students going abroad. It's a great opportunity. I don't think I'm anything special as a photographer, but it doesn't take much to present the essentials to newbies (the rule of thirds, for example, blows some people's minds and represents an enormous leap in technique).
At these workshops, there are always questions about taking photos of people, the ethics of it (and some of the cultural considerations some posters have rightfully brought in to the discussion here). I usually share the experiences of Matt Moyer, a professional photojournalist I know (and who's presented this workshop with me in the past) as to how he solicits permission or approval from his subjects. I talk about my own journey towards a more interactive photography with a recent portrait project in Copenhagen, and how I'm trying to make my photogrpahy more collaborative and democratic (by, in this case, giving people one of the polaroids I made of them).
So, Ruben, do you mind if I talk about your observations the next time I give this workshop? I think this would really help students think through multiple approaches to getting tacit approval from subjects through body language and expressions.
cheers
doug
Kim Coxon
12-14-2007, 08:22
Many members are enjoying this thread. Let's keep the personal comments out of it so that they can continue to do so. ;)
Kim
I'm really enjoying this thread, particularly as I am a beginner who is looking forward to venturing into the world of discrete street work.
I must admit that I am currently in two minds as to the ethics of "stealing" photographs from strangers. I think I understand most of the arguments put forward for the validity of street photography, and one cannot deny the arresting images posted here and elsewhere. Pitxu, your attachment is terrific. I am sure there is an etiquette to be observed when snapping away in public places, some of which I am picking up from the many posts above, but I doubt that it is right to take a photograph of an unwilling subject for purely "artistic" purposes. I feel a line has to be drawn somewhere, and with me that would be snapping unwilling participants in the enterprise.
I'm really enjoying this thread, particularly as I am a beginner who is looking forward to venturing into the world of discrete street work.
I must admit that I am currently in two minds as to the ethics of "stealing" photographs from strangers. I think I understand most of the arguments put forward for the validity of street photography, and one cannot deny the arresting images posted here and elsewhere. Pitxu, your attachment is terrific. I am sure there is an etiquette to be observed when snapping away in public places, some of which I am picking up from the many posts above, but I doubt that it is right to take a photograph of an unwilling subject for purely "artistic" purposes. I feel a line has to be drawn somewhere, and with me that would be snapping unwilling participants in the enterprise.
Your'e quite right Mick, Glad you liked the two berets. Actually this shot was taken with something like Ruben's method. But straight after it I lowered the camera and said something like "Good day gentlemen, how's it going, not too cold ?" etc. They said good day to me and we talked, only about 10 seconds, but they never asked about the photo or why I took it. It always pays to be polite.
ClaremontPhoto
12-14-2007, 08:50
"Good day gentlemen, how's it going, not too cold ?"
Yes, do that thing too. Just a small bit of chat like "What time's the football today?" or "Has that cafe over there got fresh bread yet?"
It shows that you're there and joining in their life (which I am) and being community not tourist.
I just got payment from a client in Colombia, and went and bought some Colombian coffee beans.
Hope you enjoyed the coffee Jon.
After we talked about shooting at the border I checked in an old guide to travel photography. It says that in France and Spain photography is forbidden at border areas. But for the US, Canada and Mexico there were "no limits".
How times have changed.
back alley
12-14-2007, 09:05
Hi NB23,
You are right, and I am wrong.
It is buit in in the very human process of understanding and learning. When we start to know something new, we have no choice but making generalizations and eternal truths.
Afterwards, we learn the borders of our new knowledge and become more reserved about it.
Cheers,
Ruben
ruben, perhaps if you used 'i', instead of 'we' a bit more, it would appear less like a universal truth and more like a truth for you.
i know for me that i do not like to be spoken for.
joe
ClaremontPhoto
12-14-2007, 09:12
The Campanille Hotel is Hendaye is fine and close to the main road.
The Colombian coffee here was nothing special.
I have some Uruguian beef for next week. I'm roasting it for 30 min. a kilo plus 20 min. at gas 8. Then resting.
Sean Moran
12-14-2007, 09:17
That's a great story about an Oldham park. Glad that 'Parky' got his come-uppance.
By the way, on one of the main roads into Oldham there used to be an enormous sign saying: Welcome to Oldham, the home of tubular bandage. Anyone know if it's still there?
Sean.
ruben, perhaps if you used 'i', instead of 'we' a bit more, it would appear less like a universal truth and more like a truth for you.
i know for me that i do not like to be spoken for.
joe
I would not dare to speak for Ruben, and I'm not sure that english is his first language, But surely you can not take offence at that. Here in europe "we" often use the word "we" where it might be more correct to use the annonimous "one". The queen of england often refers to herself as "we". It's commen usage with some "classes".
I remember in Canada people would say things like " if a guy did this" or "if a guy did that", where in cerrect english one should use the word "one" in place of "a guy".
"Britain and America are two countrys divided by a common language."
Kim Coxon
12-14-2007, 09:24
I do not agree. The Queen's use of "we" is somewhat different and bound in history. I would not expect it of others including in what you call the "classes". ;)
Kim
The queen of england often refers to herself as "we". It's commen usage with some "classes".
back alley
12-14-2007, 09:26
i didn't say anything about taking offense, what i said was i prefer not to be spoken for, the queen notwithstanding.
I do not agree. The Queen's use of "we" is somewhat different and bound in history. I would not expect it of others including in what you call the "classes". ;)
Kim
OK but what about prince charle's use of "one" , this I agree is not very "popular" nowadays in the uk ,but in french it is used by everyone every day.
what i said was i prefer not to be spoken for, the queen notwithstanding.
Me neither, but that was not my point.
*but*, sitting in front of someone's face and busting out your flash -- i'd bitchslap you and would fully expect to get bitchslaped if i did that to someone else.
get some fast film but please don't blind people with your light probe, have some courtesy; although i'm sure some of you are of the opinion of 'anything goes' in street photography.
Flash is auwful : it kills volumes and colors :o
Facing a person with flash from an 'in front of' position may produce awful red eyes on color film. Thats why I seated in a diagonal position to my prospected subject.
Since I pointed my camera to her for long seconds, evryone behind was aware I am going to make a photo. At some moment most if not all of people lost interest in me.
Today, due to natural evolution of consumer cameras, flash is accepted as part of the package. No doubt the flash I use is of the smallest available and not one for weddings.
With Neopan 1600 within an Israeli bus at night, you get a handheld digital meter reading of f/2,8 at 1/30 in the best of cases. The problem here for me is the 1/30. Several days ago I lost an overwhelming potential picture of a young mother smiling to her baby due to bus movement. I would prefer to loose it due to the mother disagreeing, but in such situation every one around including the mother would be very glad for a stranger making a photo of that baby. (For me it was not the baby but the unique happiness of the mother).
The issue of flash in general, is very simple. With Neopan you can shoot, and I use it and do, relatively lightened places, like shops, and well lightened streets. And in this case people should be relatively still. But there is a whole night world out there below these light levels, that the night photographers have to decide to catch or not.
Cheers,
Ruben
Indeed!!!
And Ruben, you make me think about things I had not yet considered.
I agree. Brazilian coffee - first class!
Cheers,
Ruben
The Campanille Hotel is Hendaye is fine and close to the main road.
The Colombian coffee here was nothing special.
I have some Uruguian beef for next week. I'm roasting it for 30 min. a kilo plus 20 min. at gas 8. Then resting.
I would need a rest too after all that cooking
:)
photogdave
12-14-2007, 09:40
With regards to Formal's "masterpiece", I just don't get it.
It's a nice shot, and I've admired much of Formal's work in the gallery, but I don't think it qualifies for masterpiece standing. Am I missing something?
It's a photograph of a staged event, the photographer got in nice and close with a wide lens and captured a good expression. It's the kind of shot I'd expect from a good newspaper photog but that's about it.
There are better photos in Formal's own gallery and many others here on RFF. Anyway, I'm not trying to sound negative; this has been a very enjoyable thread!
........I must admit that I am currently in two minds as to the ethics of "stealing" photographs from strangers. ..........
..... So, Ruben, do you mind if I talk about your observations the next time I give this workshop? I think this would really help students think through multiple approaches to getting tacit approval from subjects through body language and expressions.
cheers
doug
According to me, after you have given some fractions of second to the subject become aware of your intentions, whatever is not a clear cut "NO", should be taken as an invitation to.
I am tempted to believe it is also true. It is true at least at the uncounscious mind of the subject.
Cheers,
Ruben
With regards to Formal's "masterpiece", I just don't get it.
It's a nice shot, and I've admired much of Formal's work in the gallery, but I don't think it qualifies for masterpiece standing. Am I missing something?
It's a photograph of a staged event, the photographer got in nice and close with a wide lens and captured a good expression. It's the kind of shot I'd expect from a good newspaper photog but that's about it.
There are better photos in Formal's own gallery and many others here on RFF. Anyway, I'm not trying to sound negative; this has been a very enjoyable thread!
I'll be honest I'm of the same opinion regarding that particular shot, but as the saying goes "one man's Picasso is another mans piece of crap".
Cheers, Lol
With regards to Formal's "masterpiece", I just don't get it.
It's a nice shot, and I've admired much of Formal's work in the gallery, but I don't think it qualifies for masterpiece standing. Am I missing something?
It's a photograph of a staged event, the photographer got in nice and close with a wide lens and captured a good expression. It's the kind of shot I'd expect from a good newspaper photog but that's about it.
There are better photos in Formal's own gallery and many others here on RFF. Anyway, I'm not trying to sound negative; this has been a very enjoyable thread!
In a broad sense, there is no doubt that everyone is entitled to rate a photo by its appeal to him. Here my opportunity to confess that lanscape pictures, without humans within, bore me, although we have extreme high quality photographers, like Ferider, to mention just one example. In issues of taste there is nothing written.
But Dave, I am in serious disagreement about the capabilities of an average good newspaper photog to be able to produce this shot, unless that newspaper photog was another Formal, in need of the newspaper monthly salary.
(BTW, in Israel some highly prestigious photographers are employed by the best press, in exchange of miserable salaries).
I confess I had not have the time to review Formal's gallery, nor his interesting site, as I am reserving it for a good moment of relaxation. For me, I feel we have a mighty phenomena to diggest.
Cheers,
Ruben
photogdave
12-14-2007, 10:09
Then all I can say is that perhaps the newspapers in your area aren't employing very good photographers.
I'm not saying it is a poor photo by any means, but masterpiece is not a term to be used lightly. It is a fine photograph but not a once-in-a-lifetime achievement.
Ruben - what a great thread you have started.
I love the description of your thought process. My work in photo-essay brings me up-close to people who often have less hesitation after you have conversed with them for a while. Yet, there is always a moment that "makes" the picture - sometimes with their notice and sometimes not.
Any type of candid photography with strangers still requires the chutzpa/cajones/ba**s to get in someone's face and make an image. I love your encounter with the older lady who "let" you take her picture - a perfect reply!
I am fortunate enough to work with interns on occasion and while I don' t consider myself a "master teacher" my main advice to them is to think about what they are going shoot - have a shot list and then be prepared to throw that away as the situation changes.
Without a plan you are not making images, just taking pictures. The lucky ones take pictures that look OK - the rest of us bust our butts to be in the right place and time.
As a former newpaper photog I agree with Ruben's point to a degree. Editors often tell photogs what they need pictures of. There are photo drones that can deliver just that. But by and large the newpaper photogs I've met are very competent visual artists - they just don't always get to showcase their work due to the demands of the newspaper.
Thanks again.
Dave,
You open a very interesting issue.
Perhaps a better qualification by me and you could be obtained if we could put this picture within a live exposition in a line with others. In such eventual imaginary situation, it will be of interest to me what my choices would be.
By itself, this image excites me to my bones. This is me. Some other folks feel similary, although I cannot measure their inner feelings. That's all.
Cheers,
Ruben
back alley
12-14-2007, 10:26
Me neither, but that was not my point.
and so your point was...?
and so your point was...?
The multiple meanings of common English words in such diverse cultures as those represented by members of this forum, and their possible missinterpretation.
photogdave
12-14-2007, 11:06
Dave,
You open a very interesting issue.
Perhaps a better qualification by me and you could be obtained if we could put this picture within a live exposition in a line with others. In such eventual imaginary situation, it will be of interest to me what my choices would be.
By itself, this image excites me to my bones. This is me. Some other folks feel similary, although I cannot measure their inner feelings. That's all.
Cheers,
Ruben
Good idea. My computer's dictionary defines Masterpiece as:
A work of outstanding artistry, skill, or workmanship. (A great literary masterpiece/ The car was a masterpiece of space-age technology)
An artist's or craftsman's best piece of work. (The painting is arguably Picasso's masterpiece)
A historical piece of work by a craftsman accepted as qualification for membership of a guild as an acknowledged master.
So if we agree on these definitions then the first would agree with your opinion. Personally I find the first definition to be a little too broad.
If we consider the second definition then it's fair to say the artist must complete an entire body of work before one of the pieces within it can be considered the masterpiece.
The third definition implies some sort of judging process by other qualified masters. I don't think either of us have achieved "master" status quite yet, so we can forget about that one!
I consider the second definition to be closer to what I have always considered the criterion for masterpiece; the best example of a lifetime's worth of work.
It appears to me that we are both correct!
I will rebuke by going back to common use of the term. But what the hell it will help me, if I love this picture ? After all I am not distributing prizes at a competition, but reacting to what I see.
I am not the most balanced dweller around, I tend to be over-enthusiastic, I am one-sided by character and ceirtainly I didn't mean that this was Formal's best picture ever he will never surpass.
The only real measure I have to resize my definition, was to see this picture in an living expo along others, from other photographers. This side by side comparition is the known tool of the darkroom printer, allowing him to measure the most subtle differences.
Perhaps, instead of "masterpiece", "outstanding" would be a better definition. Would it make a real difference for us ?
Cheers,
Ruben
photogdave
12-14-2007, 11:50
Perhaps, instead of "masterpiece", "outstanding" would be a better definition. Would it make a real difference for us ?
I think it does make a difference because instead of saying "this work is the best" it is saying "this work is one of the best". :)
Brilliant, an objective set of definitions for a subjective subject.
My only problem is in the definition, because once we include "The painting is arguably Picasso's masterpiece" suggests instead the phrase "Best of a bad bunch", and I don't think this is what was meant.
Thanks to ruben, I enjoyed your thought provoking start to this thread, and if ever you are able to post the images I'd like to see them. The whole street photography is a new concept to me which I'd like to explore more, and your insights are very helpful.
Al Patterson
12-14-2007, 11:57
With regards to Formal's "masterpiece", I just don't get it.
It's a nice shot, and I've admired much of Formal's work in the gallery, but I don't think it qualifies for masterpiece standing. Am I missing something?
It's a photograph of a staged event, the photographer got in nice and close with a wide lens and captured a good expression. It's the kind of shot I'd expect from a good newspaper photog but that's about it.
There are better photos in Formal's own gallery and many others here on RFF. Anyway, I'm not trying to sound negative; this has been a very enjoyable thread!
I'm with you. OK, a Woman as a Piece of Meat. Yeah, nothing new with that as a concept. The expression made the shot, but I agree that it was staged, and thus likely not really a pure "street" shot.
But it was precisely the woman's special glance into Formal's what was not staged at all and became, for me, the center of interest of the picture. The abitity of Formal to study his angle, and click at the right mini fraction of second, is part of his own merit. He could have missed the moment as nothing, but he catched it. This is virtuosity too.
As I wrote in my second comment at below the picture, isolate the woman's face with the help of your hands, and you will see a wonderfull image too.
I was not there, but I would bet Formal surrounded the woman several times, studying her and the backgrounds, until he got his picture.
In order to avoid misunderstandings, in my commentary below the image, I mentioned the other elements, still enhancing the image.
Cheers,
Ruben
All semantics, and other literary/grammatical sayings aside Ruben it is your sheer joy of the photograph that shines through along with your enthusiasm for street photography in general. Someone can declare something to be the best as a statement of fact (although in this instance I suspect it was meant as a personal opinion, not a universal edict), but I reserve the right to disagree and I won't be offended in the nature of their language in the first place.
All the best, Lol
Well I'm in ruben's camp here, because I love the photo and added a comment accordingly. Thanks very much to ruben for calling my attention to it.
As for your revelation ruben, I congratulate you. I'm emboldened to try this technique myself. Thanks so much for sharing your enthusiasm and knowledge.
Well I'm in ruben's camp here, because I love the photo and added a comment
I'm with Ruben too.
Lover of cameras from the union formerly known as soviet.
Hi folks all,
There is a saying in Hebrew sleng saying something like his urine climbed to his brains. The meaning is that when a person get too much praise he becomes overconfident and contemptuos towards his fellows.
Kindly help me.
As for the pictures I did with the new tactics, I am not sure they will be great, for the simple reason that I am starting something new, to be polished with time. Any new technique requires the performer to study and practice it, to know its limits and weak sides. So let's be patient, giving time to time.
Since I made a turn towards the artistic challenge of photography, which was a great change in my mind, I went very much excited on one hand, and therefore had to balance it by letting myself evolve by innertia, slowly, according to my feelings at each moment.
And at many opportunities I didn't photographed a good potential image out of fear. But immediately afterwards I didn't feel guilty, but rather forgiving to myself: "it will come with time and experience".
Slow, slow. Easy. I am not running for Presidency.
Cheers,
Ruben
With regards to Formal's "masterpiece", I just don't get it.
It's a nice shot, and I've admired much of Formal's work in the gallery, but I don't think it qualifies for masterpiece standing. Am I missing something?
It's a photograph of a staged event, the photographer got in nice and close with a wide lens and captured a good expression. It's the kind of shot I'd expect from a good newspaper photog but that's about it.
Agreed. It's a decent, illustrative shot, that's it.
Gabriel M.A.
12-14-2007, 14:48
ps
Of course, I don't mean to say all pictures must be done with the subject looking into the camera.
I've noticed that in this age of human contact starvation, pictures that have subject directly looking into the camera have a special appeal...mainly because hardly anybody looks you in the eye nowadays in most industrialized countries where urban paranoia is sadly mixed with the Go-Go-Go pace of life which requires e-mail and voicemail and online shopping.
Just as people living in "tropical" climates are in awe of Northern Fall colors, those living in "temperate" and "colder" climates are in awe of "tropical paradise"s.
What's exceptional about Beniliam's images isn't that people are looking into the camera (which is where many people's fascination begins and ends), but that there is an engagement by the photographer with his subjects.
And regardless of whose images we talk about, B&W always helps. Only a few can pull color off to the same effect. Again, because most people are used to color and are in awe of B&W... etc etc etc
Gabriel M.A.
12-14-2007, 14:55
But it was precisely the woman's special glance into Formal's what was not staged at all and became, for me, the center of interest of the picture.
Beware of formulas. That may be true, but I think you're reducing an image to a single quality.
Which one of these two do you find more "engaging" (between the two)?
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/130/323573158_816607dab2.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/gabrielma/323573158/)
or...
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/127/323952218_9bd39d3ccb.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/gabrielma/323952218/)
The eyes carry a lot of weight, but they are no silver bullet.
Gabriel M.A.
12-14-2007, 15:14
Sounds familiar to me ... When a Japanese photographer asks me, which kind of photos I usually take and I reply "some kind of street photography, photos of people in the public, daily life" the usual reply is " you are taking photos of strangers !?" None of my (Japanese) friends would ever do it. They take lots of photos of each other, in situations where I wouldn't take a photo, but a photo of a stranger in the street ...
My experience tells me that that sentiment is pervasive in many parts of the U.S. Midwest (unless you're a female photographer). Interestingly enough, I didn't find that was the case in Germany, France and the Netherlands.
Gabriel M.A.
12-14-2007, 15:30
I think Beniliam photographed people who wanted to be seen. And so welcomed his presence. I mean if you dress eccentrically and sit in the city center you're a sitting duck for street photographers.
Yes and no. I've seen him in action, and both Marc-A. and I had both shocked and resigned reactions (shocked for his güevos and agallas, and resigned for not having his güevos nor agallas).
I have seen Marc-A's latest photos, and I can see he learned a few things from the Master. I have tried, too, but you don't want to do much of that in a place where it's ok for Average Joe (and Deranged Joe) to carry weapons.
Anyway... anybody who is "outside" "wants to be seen", depending on logic and point of view.
But sitting ducks? Beniliam doesn't hunt sitting ducks. He chases life and seizes it. It's something you have to both feel and let overcome you in tune with your art.
Gabriel M.A.
12-14-2007, 15:33
(btw, sorry joes, I used a "common expression". Average Gabriel and Deranged Gabriel doesn't quite have the same delivery) :o
Sounds familiar to me ... When a Japanese photographer asks me, which kind of photos I usually take and I reply "some kind of street photography, photos of people in the public, daily life" the usual reply is " you are taking photos of strangers !?" None of my (Japanese) friends would ever do it. They take lots of photos of each other, in situations where I wouldn't take a photo, but a photo of a stranger in the street ...
Gabor, this is extremely interesting!
Over the years I've become able to instantly differentiate a photogaph taken by a japanese (and any oriental person, to some extent) Versus the rest of the world. They are almost always Boke shots of some extreme close-up object or flower, always very colorful and almost never of people.
Have you noticed that, too? I tried to understand WHY and HOW COME this phenomena existed but I think I now understand. It's just because out of politeness. I guess this makes me extremely impolite :p
Quoted by Gabriel:
Originally Posted by ruben
But it was precisely the woman's special glance into Formal's what was not staged at all and became, for me, the center of interest of the picture[/I].
Gabriel:
Beware of formulas. That may be true, but I think you're reducing an image to a single quality
Quoted by Gabriel:
Originally Posted by ruben:
ps
Of course, I don't mean to say all pictures must be done with the subject looking into the camera.
Gabriel, please. I was talking about a specific image and you can find my whole appreciation at the gallery, below Formal's pic. You could contribute more by extending your viepoint of that specific image in detail, and then show my mistake, if I am mistaken, or just your view.
As for the two images you show, they are not usefull to me since I personally find none of them particularly engaging, nor those eyes carrying any weight. But this is just me. Along the same rail some folks don't find Formal's image of special interest.
"Beware of formulas" you say. I say don't beware of anything, try everything and judge by yourself.
Cheers,
Ruben
le vrai rdu
12-14-2007, 17:06
well ruben, can you show us a few pictures with your new technique ? (excuse me if I missed them)
I also encourage you to use full apperture , it is so beautiful :)
well ruben, can you show us a few pictures with your new technique ? (excuse me if I missed them)
I also encourage you to use full apperture , it is so beautiful :)
Go to post #96
Besides I am at mid roll with this.
But you can go to Formal's image "more beef", and study the relative weight in that picture of the girl glancing towards Formal.
Cheers,
Ruben
Ruben great thread. One thing that is so great about photography and veiwing photos is that we all have different taste. Does a photo thats declared a "masterpiece," a masterpiece only if liked or accepted by everybody? The dictionary states that a masterpiece is an exceptionally good work of art. The artist greatest acheivement. In my opinion the photo that Ruben speaks of "more beef" if one only focuses their attention on the young girl, you miss the more interesting expressions of the people in the background. It's all the expressions combined that makes the photo work for me. Not being afraid to get that look or expression is what makes a good street shot or any other shot alot of the time.
sitemistic: I like the old fellows look. Makes me wonder what he's thinking.
John Camp
12-14-2007, 23:00
The problem is, too many security guards *used to be* WalMart greeters...when you think about what a security guard does 99.9 percent of the time -- nothing -- you can see why governments are reluctant to pay for good quality people; on the other hand, when you need them, you *really* need them, and then most of the time you've got a f*ck up on your hands...One thing that George Orwell never foresaw was that the wardens of the future would be idiots who struggle to make the minimum wage...
I have to say that I've heard that thing about aboriginals not liking their picture taken, about their soul somehow being snatched, of about every aboriginal nation I've ever come across. Most of them never had such a problem in the beginning; the problem only developed when the photographers got annoying, or the aboriginals saw people making money from them, and they weren't getting any. I mean, how can an aboriginal have an ancient tradition about a camera, when cameras didn't show up until a hundred years ago? Usually you're told about this in solemnity, and you have to honor it, just in case, but when you really get to know some of them (northern American plains Indians in my case) they mostly just laugh. What they're really objecting to is being treated as some kind of object, or as an example of poverty. If you go to Santa Monica, CA, you'll find tribes of street people who similarly object to being photographed...
One place that does have that tradition is most of the Levant, where there have been wars over the making of icons... but even there, much of it now seems to be the annoyance of locals who are having their photos taken without permission by somebody who has about three-years of the local salaries hung around their necks. But it's not at all universal: I've had cops in Cairo *ask* me to take their photos...
That whole thing about privacy. This doesn't apply to other countries, but there is no mention of privacy or the right to privacy in the US Constitution, for the very good reason that most of the founders didn't think there really was much of a right to privacy. On the contrary, too much privacy means that democracy can't function as it should. For a democracy to work, all kinds of things have to be known by the public, who, after all, are responsible (through their representatives) for setting public policy. That idea is now being eroded, with various people "discovering" a right to privacy in the Constitution, but it never really was there. In the proto-Democratic village councils in New England, even matters such as conjugal relations between husband and wife were openly discussed, if someone were failing in their duty. I think part of the impulse to "privacy" is nothing more than the question if, in this media-saturated society, that somebody might be making a buck from *my* image, and I'm not getting a piece of it.
JC
John Camp
12-14-2007, 23:04
Not to continue the rant above, but I bet if you were taking street photographs as Ruben has decribed, and a woman asked you what you were doing, and you said, sincerely, "making you into a piece of art,' that they would not object.
JC
ClaremontPhoto
12-14-2007, 23:28
Yes and no. I've seen him in action, and both Marc-A. and I had both shocked and resigned reactions (shocked for his güevos and agallas, and resigned for not having his güevos nor agallas).
I have seen Marc-A's latest photos, and I can see he learned a few things from the Master. I have tried, too, but you don't want to do much of that in a place where it's ok for Average Joe (and Deranged Joe) to carry weapons.
Anyway... anybody who is "outside" "wants to be seen", depending on logic and point of view.
But sitting ducks? Beniliam doesn't hunt sitting ducks. He chases life and seizes it. It's something you have to both feel and let overcome you in tune with your art.
I do miss Beniliam's photo's and regret not meeting the guy yet and watching him with his camera.
It does seem harsh that he cannot publish his street photos while I can see the Spanish gossip magazine 'Hola' in a cafe this morning. Full of photos of celebrities doing silly things. My latest preference is Princess Bea wide-eyed and legless almost every night.
I know Beniliam uses a Konica Hexar and at one time we talked in PM's about whether he used the stealth mode and photographed from the hip; but he assured me he raised the camera to his eye.
That guy has got 'tomates'. [That's what they say in Portugal, and now I understand why the market seller used to laugh when I told her I needed some big tomatoes.]
Hi sitemistic,
There is a whole world of emotions each one of us carry within. I have given already a contrary example by stating that although I reckognize the high quality of many landscape pictures, this genre in general does not appeal to me to look at. Nor flowers or insects. In my special case, I can admire these types of pictures, reckognize the delicate approach of the photographer, his high technique, and still not be shaken. This is the flat side of my mind. Although I am very sensible to animals including birds.
Fortunately I am not a picture editor, nor a member of a picture expo competition jury team.
I have not been the only one high prizing Formal's image, more beef.
Now, sitemistic, I don't accept your invitation, sorry, What I had to say about Formal's image, I have said it twice below his picture and refined along this thread. And this thread has made me to realize further elements to celebrete at Formal's more beef : The whole image is a kind of song to life, of the sort Spannish speaking people could understand from Carlos Gardel tangos, a twisted tragy-comic parody, written in the most slenguish style, with extraordinary rythm, bearing a lot of sense.
It is ceirtainly unappropiate to bring to the fore for comparizon, as Gabriel has, a picture of your own, not to speak that the specific one is, for me, not matching your high capabilities. By far.
But it ceirtainly will be of interest to me, to compare Formal's image to another of your choice, but not of your own as to discard the personal element involved. You can choose among the reckognized Masters of Photography, and Formal's picture will stand its own. Or you could pick, I am talking just from the hip, one of Memphis pics. I mention Memphis, since in such a case most of the chances are I will be making differentiations but prizing it too. The eye contact is of secondary importance in such a comparizon.
No need to say that for a comparizon with one of Memphis pics, you will need his previous agreement.
Friends as before,
Ruben
PS
It is not just about eye contact, but what those eyes communicate to you. Beniliam uses to say something like the eyes are the windows to the soul. I add that sometimes such windows are closed, and sometimes open in a photo.
I'm finding this thread extremely interesting and while I wouldn't call "More Beef" a masterpiece, I'm very flattered by Ruben's enjoyment of the image. I do not view myself as an artist, but I'm pleased when one of my images provokes a strong reaction.
One of the reasons I use the 24mm lens is to force myself to get close and engage with subjects. Sometimes I do and sometimes I don't, but I rarely try to conceal my camera or take candid shots.
As Ruben has observed, I used the technique of framing the picture and waiting to the moment when the subject realizes that you are taking a picture and makes eye contact. Of course in this case the girl was posing, but in general this techniques gets an engaged subject before they start posing.
As some people have observed, the background in this image is very important. Obviously I position myself to get this general composition, but an interesting background is always a matter of luck.
I think that using a flash would be to obtrusive and I don't have the courage, but I have a friend who does and I'm impressed that Ruben has managed it.
David
telenous
12-15-2007, 03:02
Interesting Ruben. You can sometimes get some very unique results when the subject 'breaks the fourth wall'.
It is occasionally done in cinema or the theater. It doesn't always work, but when it does it can be very powerful.
HL
As above. Eye contact is not a photographic panacea but it may contribute to the final result in providing for some raw energy between photographer and subject. Agreed though, there's a sense of personal excitement when you manage to bring home that kind of intimacy in a photo: Sometimes it happens and you know straight away the photo is good, sometimes you think it is and it isn't, and, well, sometimes you think nothing of it and you are flabbergasted by what you see in the negative. I suppose, it's one thing to be pleased about having managed to take an intimate photo and another whether the photo is actually good. And while editing it may be useful to ask oneself, what the particular photo under examination actually means; and if and whether it integrates with what one has been doing photographically for a particular project or, perhaps, all along. Not that this process will spare you from making the occasional editing blunder, but there you are.
Going back for a moment to Formal's photo, I just had another look and I think it is a good one (at lease for me it is!) even if one chooses to raise a couple of quibbles. It seems to me to be offering a commentary on a certain state of affairs alluded by the photo (and the background people, esp. the drinking guy are a quintessential part of it); and it coheres with much else I have seen from Formal. As a comment on the photo I see above by Sitemistic (not picking on the two of you guys, just discussing the photos - Sitemistic I have seen some great photos of yours, so, please, no hard feelings, esp. as I am not entirely comfortable engaging in negative criticism in photography) I find it lacking in these two respects - btw part, or, sometimes whole of the reason most of my photos end up in the proverbial bin, notwithstanding quite a few ones that actually do have eye contact, flash or what you have.
Best,
I'm finding this thread extremely interesting and while I wouldn't call "More Beef" a masterpiece, I'm very flattered by Ruben's enjoyment of the image. I do not view myself as an artist, but I'm pleased when one of my images provokes a strong reaction.
One of the reasons I use the 24mm lens is to force myself to get close and engage with subjects. Sometimes I do and sometimes I don't, but I rarely try to conceal my camera or take candid shots.
As Ruben has observed, I used the technique of framing the picture and waiting to the moment when the subject realizes that you are taking a picture and makes eye contact. Of course in this case the girl was posing, but in general this techniques gets an engaged subject before they start posing.
As some people have observed, the background in this image is very important. Obviously I position myself to get this general composition, but an interesting background is always a matter of luck.
I think that using a flash would be to obtrusive and I don't have the courage, but I have a friend who does and I'm impressed that Ruben has managed it.
David
Hi Formal,
The very truth is that when I used the term "masterpiece", I used it in a rather "from the hip" language. I can retreat if you ask me for to a more accurate definition. Then I will say it is a Great photo, nothing less.
Yet there is another aspect I would like you to be aware of, Besides enjoying it, your image is the type of enabling me to learn a lot.
This is why I have been thinking about the possibility to have a special subforum at RFF in which each of us, willing to, could bring an image of the Masters of Photography, each one in a different thread, for in depht analysis. Imagine the treasure we could accumulate in such a subforum, enjoying the analysis of us, photographers, people with cameras, the most qualifyied beings to such analysis.
We have among us many members with great knowledge of the greatest photographers, who could contribute with more specific historical details about the masters' work. We have even professors of photography at RFF.
And we have the most powerfull weapon of all: team democratic thinking.
Cheers,
Ruben
Hi sitemistic,
There is a whole world of emotions each one of us carry within............ What I had to say about Formal's image, I have said it twice below his picture and refined along this thread. And this thread has made me to realize further elements to celebrete at Formal's more beef : The whole image is a kind of song to life, of the sort Spannish speaking people could understand from Carlos Gardel tangos, a twisted tragy-comic parody, written in the most slenguish style, with extraordinary rythm, bearing a lot of sense.
...............
Friends as before,
Ruben
PS
It is not just about eye contact, but what those eyes communicate to you. Beniliam uses to say something like the eyes are the windows to the soul. I add that sometimes such windows are closed, and sometimes open in a photo.
As specifically for those eyes, they simply speak to me, a viewer.
Cheers,
ruben
brianbek
12-15-2007, 06:10
Hi all
This is interesting. I like to read about how others go about street photography. As for my self I recently began visiting my local open air market, and takes pictures from the hip. I dont have the courage yet to put the camera to the eye. But I know it will come at some point.
But when I do take the pictures I look for interaction between people. I try to get minimum two people in the picture intereacting with each other.
The results so fgar have not produced any outstanding pictures but I am learning. And it is a joy to get back that roll of film a see how I performed.
Regards Brian
I have to say that I've heard that thing about aboriginals not liking their picture taken, about their soul somehow being snatched, of about every aboriginal nation I've ever come across. Most of them never had such a problem in the beginning; the problem only developed when the photographers got annoying, or the aboriginals saw people making money from them, and they weren't getting any. I mean, how can an aboriginal have an ancient tradition about a camera, when cameras didn't show up until a hundred years ago? Usually you're told about this in solemnity, and you have to honor it, just in case, but when you really get to know some of them (northern American plains Indians in my case) they mostly just laugh. What they're really objecting to is being treated as some kind of object, or as an example of poverty.
Thanks for posting this, John. It's so true. The process of capturing someone's image is one thing, but what the photographer's intent to do with the image afterwards is what anyone would be concerned with.
Beniliam
12-15-2007, 07:50
Hi friends,
Very interesting subject, Ruben, congrats too for all the replies. :)
I agree with Alkis: Eye contact is not a photographic panacea but it may contribute to the final result in providing for some raw energy between photographer and subject.
I think that the eye contact can turn in a ´easy´resource if you always search this. Well, I must explain better, If you only wait the reaction of the subject for photograph him/her, maybe, with the time, you have a great gallery of characters with malevolent look :). For example, the work of Bruce Gilden is a clear example of this. He wait until the subject look him, and then photograph, with direct flash and a wide angle lens. His images seems theatrical, delirious, raw... But Gilden craft is patent his image, and he know what he want.
Please, see the website of the spanish photograph Marcos Rodriguez, a Gilden´s pupil: http://www.urbefoto.com/
I think that the error, like in most of the cases, its just simplify. This is a valid and positive resource, but must not be definitive. There are in photography some unclear ideas that swarm around us and seems that condemn us to the repetition: the ´decisive moment´ of Cartier Bresson, the intersticio moment of Frank´s images, the fall horizon images of Winogrand, the eye contact of Gilden/Klein... Along the XX Century photography, a lot of photographs uses this eye contact formula for their images.But in most of the cases, this eye contact is not a characteristic in his work (like Klein or Gilden), was only a resource, one of the infinite resources for photograph people and enjoy.
I add some images that I hope you like it for example the eye contact.
Best wishes,
Lewis Hine:
http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/2363/lewishinepk5.th.jpg (http://img136.imageshack.us/my.php?image=lewishinepk5.jpg)
Erich Salomon:
http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/4673/erichsalomonbm7.th.jpg (http://img85.imageshack.us/my.php?image=erichsalomonbm7.jpg)
Henri Cartier Bresson:
http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/8651/bressontaxidriversas8.th.jpg (http://img507.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bressontaxidriversas8.jpg)
Elliot Erwitt:
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/200/venice49erwittcb4.th.jpg (http://img135.imageshack.us/my.php?image=venice49erwittcb4.jpg)
Louis Faurer:
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/1632/faurerimage2be1.th.jpg (http://img209.imageshack.us/my.php?image=faurerimage2be1.jpg)
Robert Doisneau:
http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/2238/doisneauaccordeoncz2.th.jpg (http://img107.imageshack.us/my.php?image=doisneauaccordeoncz2.jpg)
Robert Frank:
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/6461/titofrankkt0.th.jpg (http://img214.imageshack.us/my.php?image=titofrankkt0.jpg)
Eugene Smith:
http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/985/esmith07ls2.th.jpg (http://img212.imageshack.us/my.php?image=esmith07ls2.jpg)
Garry Winogrand:
http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/7651/20070628090913winogranddl4.th.jpg (http://img216.imageshack.us/my.php?image=20070628090913winogranddl4.jpg)
William Klein:
http://img106.imageshack.us/img106/6351/williamklein052td8.th.jpg (http://img106.imageshack.us/my.php?image=williamklein052td8.jpg)
Bruce Gilden:
http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/6443/brucegildeniy0.th.jpg (http://img206.imageshack.us/my.php?image=brucegildeniy0.jpg)
Ralph Gibson:
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/6392/gibson5ko2.th.jpg (http://img215.imageshack.us/my.php?image=gibson5ko2.jpg)
Not for me, just on the contrary. The facial expression of the woman centered on her eyes, that Formal captured, seems to me a very special moment of truth.
The woman is telling me (Formal, we,) something like "I don't give a damn, you poor guys upset by my teets ". Notice as well the Monalisa type of smile. Notice the wrinkles over her eyes, which can only show upon an internal feeling of a person, she is slightly fiddling with Formal. This woman is of a very powerfull character, seating there with great comfort. Formal captured a living person at a non staged moment, within a pre-staged situation.
As for Jock Sturges, in contrast, his pictures are staged and most of his subjects show dead frozen looks. Uninteresting to me, not to mention I feel a strong aversion of nude photos of minors. I cannot disconect myself from this aspect and deal with aesthetics in his photos as a separate dimension. I am part of this world, and I suspect Sturges is too. Worldwide fame is not necessarily relevant, sometimes right, sometimes wrong. As always, this is just me.
Cheers,
Ruben
Hi sitemistic,
Aren't YOU disturbed by Sturges nudes of minors ? If not, then kindly explain me how to enjoy it.
Cheers,
Ruben
In general, Sturges depicts a rather matter-of-fact attitude toward nudity, as does his subjects. That is the underlying thesis of his work. There is very little, if anything, "sexual" about his work... except in the minds of some viewers.
Paraphrasing 'mistic - if it ain't for you, don't look and don't ask how it enjoy it - there is no answer you'll find convincing.
Hi sitemistic,
Aren't YOU disturbed by Sturges nudes of minors ? If not, then kindly explain me how to enjoy it.
Cheers,
Ruben
I have to agree with sitemistic here Ruben. Try to appreciate Sturges' minor photos for their esthetic qualitie as a work of art. Steichen didn't have any sexual feelings photographing green peppers.
Ruben, Instead of changing your technique, why not change your understanding of what is an excellent, good, so-so and a bad image?
I think this is a very interesting thread....
Ruben, when I look at Formal's shot I do not see what you do. I do not see the woman looking at the camera or even the photographer. She seems to be looking to the right of the photographer.
Steve
Right, most people have no interest in children as sexual objects. But pedophiles and child abusers do, and I would not like either to feed their imagination nor bring them artistic umbrella, even if it was a non intentioned subproduct. There are more interesting things to do and aspire to.
Now you can tell me with much reason, that by these parameters the human nude had to be forbidden since ancient times. You are right and I have no grounds left to walk here.
The only I can say is that my issue is not with art but with child and adolescent abusers.
Yet, no matter how artistic the final result looks, for an adult to pose an adolescent showing his/her genitalia is for me a situation of subtle abuse. Not pedophilic abuse, but still abuse. An adolescent is not an adult with full development to judge the situation in which he/she is publicly shown.
Cheers,
Ruben
Right, most people have no interest in children as sexual objects. But pedophiles and child abusers do, and I would not like either to feed their imagination nor bring them artistic umbrella, even if it was a non intentioned subproduct. There are more interesting things to do and aspire to.
Now you can tell me with much reason, that by these parameters the human nude had to be forbidden since ancient times. You are right and I have no grounds left to walk here.
The only I can say is that my issue is not with art but with child and adolescent abusers.
Cheers,
Ruben
Ruben, your'e beginning to sound like a certain "park keeper".
Gabriel M.A.
12-15-2007, 11:33
I have to agree with sitemistic here Ruben. Try to appreciate Sturges' minor photos for their esthetic qualitie as a work of art. Steichen didn't have any sexual feelings photographing green peppers.
It is clearly a cultural issue.
How come nobody here finds Sports Illustrated's Swimsuit Issue "disturbing"? In many cultures, it is.
And they are looking right at the camera... ;)
Ruben, your'e beginning to sound like a certain "park keeper".
No, I'm sorry. That is a sweeping and dangerous generalisation. Ruben made a sound point, and expressed his own opinion based upon what he, personally, does or does not feel comfortable with. The over-zealous park keeper was a million miles away from entering into the reasoned and reasonable debate that we are seeing here. He stopped two parents from photographing their fully clothed child at play in a public place. There is no parallel.
Regards,
Bill
How come nobody here finds Sports Illustrated's Swimsuit Issue "disturbing"?
IMO, the SI Swimsuit issue tends to be more provocotive and sexually charged than most photos of nekkid girls. It makes me blush and turn my head away in shame.
No, I'm sorry. That is a sweeping and dangerous generalisation. Ruben made a sound point, and expressed his own opinion based upon what he, personally, does or does not feel comfortable with. The over-zealous park keeper was a million miles away from entering into the reasoned and reasonable debate that we are seeing here. He stopped two parents from photographing their fully clothed child at play in a public place. There is no parallel.
Regards,
Bill
You're quite right Bill. But where do we draw the line. I see you're in Britain, you must remember a case a few years back about a TV news reader who was "investigated" by the police (but more so the press), for having photogrphed her own kids at bathtime.
Your not allowed to "slap or smack" your own kids anymore, and thats perfecly right, but maybe sometime soon you won't be able to even touch them anymore!!! (for "touch" there I allmost wrote "carress", what horror ! )
You're quite right Bill. But where do we draw the line. I see you're in Britain, you must remember a case a few years back about a TV news reader who was "investigated" by the police (but more so the press), for having photogrphed her own kids at bathtime.
Your not allowed to "slap or smack" your own kids anymore, and thats perfecly right, but maybe sometime soon you won't be able to even touch them anymore!!! (for "touch" there I allmost wrote "carress", what horror ! )
I certainly do, and where the line is drawn is a real problem, not helped on this international forum by the diversity of cultural backgrounds - something which I regard as a huge plus, by the way. The issues tend to arise when we judge each other by our own standards, blinkered and shuttered to the cultural mores and upbringing of others. Times change, too. What was acceptable in the past in some regards is now taboo, and vice-versa.
Let me give you an example. I am a parent myself - my son is now 6'3" at the age of 14. When he was little we used to share a bathtub when I got home from work. It was fun for him, relaxing for me, and a bit of quality time that we could spend together before he went to bed. That was 12 years ago. In the current climate I would be afraid to do so for fear that the thought police would swoop and accuse me of abusing my own child.
We live, as has been said already in this thread, in a culture of fear, much of which is self-imposed. I often take "street" photos, but I am "child-aware". I have no desire to be accosted by a paranoid parent, nor arrested by misinformed and overzealous police. So I seldom take photos in which a child is the primary subject. In effect, I self-censor.
Take this to it's logical conclusion. In years to come some archaeologists may discover a trove of "ordinary" photos from the early 21st century. It would be reasonable for them to conclude, from the evidence, that children were in short supply. It would be further reasonable for them to assume that Japan is almost denuded of people, that all sunsets are tobacco-coloured but that tobacco smoking had been successfully eradicated.
Such is our politically correct world, and we are infinitely the poorer for it.
Regards,
Bill
the queen notwithstanding.
Joe, I was already pretty sure you've never stood with the queen. :p
I've enjoyed this thread, especially the thought-provoking discussion of different techniques of street photography.
But I think we need a little "lighten-up" juice when it starts getting personal with regard to one's taste or reaction to certain images. If an image really works for me and no one else in the world, what's the difference, what does it matter? If Ruben thinks a certain picture is a masterpiece to him, then it is what it is. I don't think he ever intended to dictate anyone else's reaction to that particular image.
Bill, I just don't see this "logical conclusion" happening ... given that paper, electronically stored info., and cave dwelling scribbling all last longer than average photographs.
...
Take this to it's logical conclusion. In years to come some archaeologists may discover a trove of "ordinary" photos from the early 21st century. It would be reasonable for them to conclude, from the evidence, that children were in short supply. It would be further reasonable for them to assume that Japan is almost denuded of people, that all sunsets are tobacco-coloured but that tobacco smoking had been successfully eradicated.
...
Bill
That's right Bill. Where I live it's tiny villages and small towns where everybody more or less, knows everybody. I have no problem photographing kids on the street, park or anywhere else. On the other hand, in Rubens part of the world, most women and young girls are forced to wear burka's. A bare shoulder over there would cause as much outrage as a bare ankle in victorien england.
Essentialy the question of "where" to draw the line should be "by whom should the line be drawn".
We each have to live with our own concience in our own culture.
This is where a better understanding of anothers mind-set can help us all get allong together.
Regards, Pitxu.
Bill, I just don't see this "logical conclusion" happening ... given that paper, electronically stored info., and cave dwelling scribbling all last longer than average photographs.
Forgive me Ampguy, I was using ironic illustration to make my point. I was not being literal.
Regards,
Bill
That's right Bill. Where I live it's tiny villages and small towns where everybody more or less, knows everybody. I have no problem photographing kids on the street, park or anywhere else. On the other hand, in Rubens part of the world, most women and young girls are forced to wear burka's. A bare shoulder over there would cause as much outrage as a bare ankle in victorien england.
Essentialy the question of "where" to draw the line should be "by whom should the line be drawn".
We each have to live with our own concience in our own culture.
This is where a better understanding of anothers mind-set can help us all get allong together.
Regards, Pitxu.
Spot-on, Pitxu. And it is debates like this, conducted in good faith and good humour that enable us better to understand each other, whether it is on the merits of Canon vs. Leica or what constitutes a decent hemline.
I have a simple philosophy:
We may disagree, but I defend to the end your right to hold a different opinion to mine.
Regards,
Bill
John Camp
12-15-2007, 16:28
I agree with Ruben on the Sturges photos. It's not the photos per se, and I'm not a prude, but I don't think that minors can give what in other professional arenas is called "informed consent." In the medical field, for example, doctors seek consent from a child's parents before doing a procedure, because the child is generally assumed not able to provide an informed consent (to understand the ramifications of saying 'yes' or 'no.') That an "informed consent" is sought even in critical situations (like medical emergencies, or criminal investigations) demonstrates the importance that many professions place on it.
I further don't think a photographer can really ethically get "informed consent" from a parent for nude photography because photography is not critical -- it doesn't *have* to be done, as a medical procedure may have to be done. The parent usually also has a conflict of interest -- the child poses for money, which the parent will control. This taints the informed consent process.
I have heard that Sally Mann ran into this problem after one of her children grew up, and decided that she really didn't like having nude photos of herself all over the place.
As for the Stuges photos in themselves, most of them look cold and unpleasant to me -- like the people have goosebumps and just want to get the photography done with. He certainly is a master technician, though.
JC
Alot of people think that Mapplethorp had a warped mind for his highly contraversial photographs. Helmut Newton for his nude women. Sally Mann for photographing her daughter, and then of course Diane Arbus for the type of characters she photographed. I haven't seen too much of Jock Sturges work but the photo that sitemistic submitted to my eyes wasn't vulgar, and that from a christian perspective. To a degree I think we all have a bit of carnality in our minds. Great photographers tend to take chances & buck the system. Offending prudes who don't even know nor care to here what the artist work is all about. I don't think Sturges is into kiddie porn, but I tend to hope to view some of his work to learn his perspective of why & what it is that he wants us to see. Strange that even writing this brings up fear of posting simply because there are people that tend to read into anothers thoughts and think the worst.
What is the REAL context of things ?
In the case of Sturges, you have to read the words as well as look at the pictures.
Context: family and family friends; parents involved and willing participants; photographs over time - maturation and evolution into adulthood.
These aren't kids he randomly meets on the beach, or pics he snaps while they aren't looking... or being held hostage. He works with an 8x10 camera... it isn't "street".
The bottom line, Ruben, is that you don't like Sturges' work or the genre. You make that perfectly clear. There is no convincing arguement that will make you change your mind; nor is there a convincing arguement you can make to change one's mind who does like his work/genre.
Re the photos by Sturges.
On French TV you'll see more sex than that in a shampoo or yogurt advert !
p.s. Ruben. If you ever bring your family on a trip to paris, don't take your kids to the Louvre Museum!!!
Rubens right. Child porn is huge and sex slavery is growing also but don't you think this has gotten a bit off the topic of taking pictures in the streets. I would rather read about Ruben sticking his Kneb in someones face....with flash even:D
Me neither. In fact, I find the very thought rather kinky and offensive. That is the epitome of degrading to women - an old guy "scrrewing her in his mind" while pretending to do something unoffensive.
Well Gumby, you happened to twist my intentions, but at the same time you implyied something about yourself.
The desire to love a woman to the point of dreaming sexual interaction, would be somewhat weird if it happens to you with strange women, for which no real feelings have been developed. I didn't refered to strange women.
The camera is an instrument of comunication and I don't find anything wrong for a photographer to try to reach the most inner in a woman whom he developed a relatgionship, through his camera. To make love through the process of photography.
Reducing all these to "screwing her in his mind", is of your own copyright.
Somehow the libertarians and monks seem to change positions along this thread.
Cheers,
Ruben
"The camera is an instrument of comunication and I don't find anything wrong for a photographer to try to reach the most inner in a woman through his camera. To make love through the process of photography."
But don't publish it or you'll start an argument like this one.
Well Gumby, you happened to twist my intentions, but at the same time you implyied something about yourself.
Actually, Ruben, I just read your words. Perhaps it lost something in translation, or perhaps you were tying to be too flowery and ethereal with your words... but the written words really said something about YOU. I suppose I now see what you meant, but only if I really stretch my imagination. :rolleyes:
John Camp
12-15-2007, 18:34
As I said, I have no problem with nudity in photos. I just don't think minors CAN give informed consent, because they don't have enough experience in life; they don't understand the ramifications. This is not a problem only for the child or the parents -- it's an ethical problem for the photographer.
As a photographer, I wouldn't take pictures of a nude minor because it's not ethical for me to do that: I don't care how eager they are to do it, or how natural nudity may be. It's also not ethical for the parent to allow it, and the child CAN'T make an informed decision, because there are too many other pressures on them, and they are not old enough to deal properly with them.
I'll give you an analogy: the (female) teacher who was arrested, several times I think, for having sex with a fourteen-year-old boy. The boy was eager enough, sex is natural enough, but it is not ethical for someone in a position of power to have sex with a minor over whom she had some power.
Sturges offers fame, or notoriety, or money, or whatever, to children and their parents. The children are too young to make the decision for themselves, so the decision has to be made by others -- and IMHO, it is not ethical for those people to make that decision.
There is nothing necessary about allowing a minor to have photos taken nude -- not necessary for their health, for their education, for their development as human beings, etc. Public nudity is not a natural condition in western culture -- perhaps some think it should be, or it has been, but right now, it's not. To allow children to become involved in something that they MIGHT regret for the rest of their lives simply is not ethical, when that action can be easily avoided. Of course, it is possible that they might not regret it; but that's unknowable.
The beauty or quality of the photos is absolutely beside the point.
JC
Sitemistic: I agree a lot if not most of what we discuss is personal opinion. There just seemed to be an increasing edge to some of the posts. In my estimation it was edging to the nasty side, but of course that is simply my opinion. I was just trying to ask people to be a bit more generous.
back alley
12-15-2007, 20:13
time to return to posting about things photographic folks!
17 pages on what started as a revelation that one can poke a flash in someone's face...
joe
Gabriel M.A.
12-15-2007, 20:16
time to return to posting about things photographic folks!
17 pages on what started as a revelation that one can poke a flash in someone's face...
joe
LOL
A flash for a flash...
pesphoto
12-15-2007, 20:19
You guys spend way too much time attatched to your computers.
An adolescent is not an adult with full development to judge the situation in which he/she is publicly shown.
Cheers,
Ruben
Well said, Ruben.
Pixtu made a very good comment also, regarding being being aware and sensitive to our own conscience and culture in which we live in. Obviously, this is an area where we will never agree 100%, because many things color what each of us personally find acceptible.
ClaremontPhoto
12-16-2007, 06:55