View Full Version : The Absurdist
srtiwari
07-03-2008, 16:37
Discovered this on StumbleVideo. Fascinating work, probably not anywhere as easy as it looks.
http://video.stumbleupon.com/#p=ov1wr2coq9
Wonder what lens and settings (exposure and focus) he uses to get those seemingly sharp images. :)
Very interesting. I'm definitely not that bold.
(I thought this would be a discussion on Albert Camus)
This is also a great example of the fallacy that rangefinders are less intrusive.
In the end of the day its not about which camera you use, its all about "how" you take those pictures.
nikonhswebmaster
07-03-2008, 17:47
Yes this guy is so intrusive, but gets by with it by acting totally nuts, I think people are probably afraid of him, I know I would want to just move on.
His photos are often a reaction to his bizarre antics.
Mermelstein pales in comparison to Bruce Gilden in the antics department!
I enjoy both of their images immensely. It takes daring to do it. I have a bit more respect respect for that JM admits to his theft of something from his subjects.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkIWW6vwrvM
And I do not mean to turn this into a Bruce Gilden thread!
There are 2 parts to this The rest is here.
http://www.youtube.com/results?q=jeff+mermelstein&search_type=
tom.w.bn
07-03-2008, 22:13
Really nice videos thank you. Amazing how bold he is and he gets away with it.
Found that comment under one of the videos:
I wish the shutter sound were edited out. Leicas ain't that loud! In any event, this is a very good documentary about street photography. Thanks!
My M6 is that loud too.
jfretless
07-04-2008, 00:29
Thanks for sharing.
This is also a great example of the fallacy that rangefinders are less intrusive.
In the end of the day its not about which camera you use, its all about "how" you take those pictures.
I beg to disagree with this.
The photographer is indeed very visible, but the subconscious threat felt when a small RF is pointed at you is much weaker than if it was a huge SLR. Also the size of the lens is an issue, especially the lengh. The flatter the lens, the bigger the doubt: Was theat pointed at me? Am I in the picture an so on.
Bigger cameras/ lenses lead to an earlier identification of the phog in the field and to more violent reaction afterwards (and this is a pain when you want to continue taking pictures quietly)
Just my 2c from my short experience...
Great videos BTW, Thanks!!
Take care
nikonhswebmaster
07-04-2008, 04:27
I just now took time to look through the photos of these two guys. Bruce Gilden seems more interesting to me, but this kind of anonymous photography on the street is so uninteresting to someone who lives here. I suppose it exists as a document of the late 20th century in NYC, for those living in the midwest?
Bruce Gilden's Coney Island photos are by far the most revealing and fleshed out.
Always a dilemma do you live it or photograph it?
In the end these photos are such a poor way of seeing, such a vague shadow of reality.
If I walk out my front door to go buy some groceries three blocks away...
I walk by the elderly spanish women sitting with their grandchildren in lawn chairs fanning out from the front door of their apartment building,
I walk by the men throwing pizza in the air, and serving customers though the open window to the street,
I walk by the Italian "social club" retired men smoking cigars, lawn chairs in front of their garden full of statues of the saints,
I walk by the doors to the church, next door the school for challenged kids is filling as parents walk hand in hand with the children,
You don't photograph street life in NYC by pointing a flash on the Avenue of the Americas, life is here, and it is very complicated, and tough to photograph. But men like Larry Clark and Eugene Smith have done it.
srtiwari
07-04-2008, 04:52
Both, Gilden and Mermelstein, have developed a style ideally suited to New York. I am not sure that one could do this anywhere else.
"...Always a dilemma do you live it or photograph it?
In the end these photos are such a lazy way of seeing..."
I don't agree that it has to be either or. If anything, the photograph "freezes" the moment so he (and the viewer, who not being there could never have lived it) can "live it" again and again.
In either case, I posted the link since I assumed others would enjoy (and envy) this man's work. I only wish I could do it. Here in "Small town Florida", a bedrock of conservatism, I would probably get arrested !
nikonhswebmaster
07-04-2008, 05:14
Both, Gilden and Mermelstein, have developed a style ideally suited to New York. I am not sure that one could do this anywhere else.
"...Always a dilemma do you live it or photograph it?
In the end these photos are such a lazy way of seeing..."
I don't agree that it has to be either or. If anything, the photograph "freezes" the moment so he (and the viewer, who not being there could never have lived it) can "live it" again and again.
In either case, I posted the link since I assumed others would enjoy (and envy) this man's work. I only wish I could do it. Here in "Small town Florida", a bedrock of conservatism, I would probably get arrested !
My point in the above post is that they "choose" the least interesting moments, and the moments they do choose are often clouded by their presence.
What I think most stands out in this video, is that Mermelstein takes pictures without riding the focus or the exposure.. (in other words he's not fiddling with focus or chasing the exposure needle).
tom.w.bn
07-04-2008, 06:28
What I think most stands out in this video, is that Mermelstein takes pictures without riding the focus or the exposure.. (in other words he's not fiddling with focus or chasing the exposure needle).
Of course he focuses. You can see the forefinger of his left hand at the focussing lever of the lens. Many Leica lenses have this nice and useful focussing lever.
Of course he focuses. You can see the forefinger of his left hand at the focussing lever of the lens. Many Leica lenses have this nice and useful focussing lever.
Hmm.. I didn't notice. But if he does, he's really fast in getting it right at these very close distances. I assumed he used a manual version of snap focus.. wait till the subject is so close that the rf spot aligns.
M. Valdemar
07-04-2008, 08:30
EVERYONE who goes to downtown Manhattan takes that same monkey-on-the-shoulder photo.
The guy with the monkey does it for a living. He lets tourists take a wacky photo, then asks for $5 and intimidates them if they don't give it.
I TOOK the same monkey picture. It's like taking a photo of the "Naked Cowboy" and considering yourself highly original or creative.
I agree, I think this Mermelstein is as much of a nut as his subjects, maybe more so. His photos are very gimmicky. He a stalking nut-job with a camera used as a weapon.
There are three parts to this series 1a, 1b and 2. In 2 we see Mermelstein on 9/11 and his incredible photos. They are reflective to what it was to be on the street that afternoon.
M. Valdemar
07-04-2008, 09:12
I don't find his 9/11 photos to be particularly good, except as simple documentary.
it's easy to make "Mermelstein" photos in NYC. I'd be scared if a big, intimidating doof pushed a black camera in my face.
http://img366.imageshack.us/img366/7562/popsaf2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img370.imageshack.us/img370/9568/friday7tg0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/4632/friday2xh1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/3980/popcornmg3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/6342/friday4lp2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
How would you like it to fall down on your doorstep? Remember how BIG it was?
http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/6618/wtcvc5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/6761/wtc2bg3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/6189/wtc6nr8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
I liked this street photographers work & esp his approach to people much better. Jamel Shabazz.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3HXILo9Znk
This photographer has some nice work also. Jake Dobkin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6js9mxud4k&feature=related
... If only there was a video clip of Robert Frank at work.
nikonhswebmaster
07-04-2008, 10:18
There are three parts to this series 1a, 1b and 2. In 2 we see Mermelstein on 9/11 and his incredible photos. They are reflective to what it was to be on the street that afternoon.
Maybe, but they are meaningless gibberish, when it comes talking about what it is like to live in new york city.
They are the lazy photos every beginner takes.
We all took good 9/11 photos, all you had to do was be there.
http://www.romdog.com/wtc/november/remember.jpg
WoolenMammoth
07-04-2008, 10:19
this kind of anonymous photography on the street is so uninteresting to someone who lives here. I suppose it exists as a document of the late 20th century in NYC, for those living in the midwest?
as a new yorker myself, this is the best statement I have ever read on "street" photography.
srtiwari
07-04-2008, 10:21
Maybe, but they are meaningless gibberish, when it comes talking about what it is like to live in new york city.
They are the lazy photos every beginner takes. We all took good 9/11 photos.
This is meaningless posturing. Why not just move along and let those who are enjoying it, do so ?
M. Valdemar
07-04-2008, 10:25
All he was saying is that it's extremely average "documentary" photography of things commonly seen in the street in NYC. Nothing special or inherently interesting to someone who lives here.
It's not fantastic photography, to my way of thinking, it's VERY ordinary clicking to capture common sights in the street.
The photos of Mars are extraordinary for us, because they are the first, and we've never seen them before. For a Martian, they are same old, same old.
This is meaningless posturing. Why not just move along and let those who are enjoying it, do so ?
Street photography for the sake of street photography is boring.
I actually find video footage of streets a lot more interesting than some of the stills.
M. Valdemar
07-04-2008, 10:28
PS: I think he's frightening and hostile, and pretty much a jerk. He is a big guy, and he thrusts his camera somewhat menacingly into the face of startled people to force a reaction.
I think he's basically an ambulatory schizophrenic with a camera, on the level of an idiot savant.
pesphoto
07-04-2008, 10:29
Do you feel the same about Winogrand or Helen Levitt or.......?
Honestly curious about your answer....
All he was saying is that it's extremely average "documentary" photography of things commonly seen in the street in NYC. Nothing special or inherently interesting to someone who lives here.
It's not fantastic photography, to my way of thinking, it's VERY ordinary clicking to capture common sights in the street.
The photos of Mars are extraordinary for us, because they are the first, and we've never seen them before. For a Martian, they are same old, same old.
M. Valdemar
07-04-2008, 10:29
Street photography for the sake of street photography is boring.
I actually find video footage of streets a lot more interesting than some of the stills.
It's been done very well already:
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/edhtml/edmpfr.html
M. Valdemar
07-04-2008, 10:30
Do you feel the same about Winogrand or Helen Levitt or.......?
Honestly curious about your answer....
I've extensively commented on Winogrand in another thread. This is one where Fred and I disagree.
In a nutshell, Winogrand doesn't impress me too much.
nikonhswebmaster
07-04-2008, 10:31
This is meaningless posturing. Why not just move along and let those who are enjoying it, do so ?
Because what I am saying is the feeling that many photographers, working hard to document the true essence of people's lives in NYC, feel about this kind of photography style.
It is certainly harmless, and if you enjoy it, great. These guys have made a good living for themselves, and certainly the Ron Galella style of photography is interesting socially.
pesphoto
07-04-2008, 10:35
So would your preference then be for the Walker Evans, and Eugene Smith type of photography? It is my preference for sure. Teach us something, show us how people really live.
Because what I am saying is the feeling that many photographers, working hard to document the true essence of people's lives in NYC, feel about this kind of photography style.
It is certainly harmless, and if you enjoy it, great. These guys have made a good living for themselves, and certainly the Ron Galella style of photography is interesting socially.
nikonhswebmaster
07-04-2008, 10:37
I've extensively commented on Winogrand in another thread. This is one where Fred and I disagree.
In a nutshell, Winogrand doesn't impress me too much.
I suppose we disagree on Winogrand, but he is far from what I actually look at.
I keep returning to Nan Goldin, Larry Clark, W Eugene Smith. As for NYC photographers, I look to Lewis Hine, and lately Stephen Shames.
When I am looking for inspiration I can look at the best, I do not have to settle for street snaps. I like to look at work that is better than what I can do.
pesphoto
07-04-2008, 10:44
Found this on Stephen Shames (http://www.stephenshames.com/books/friends_children.htm)website. thanks Fred.....
nikonhswebmaster
07-04-2008, 10:46
Found this on Stephen Shames (http://www.stephenshames.com/books/friends_children.htm)website. thanks Fred.....
I think he is one of the most interesting photographers working today.
M. Valdemar
07-04-2008, 11:04
Let's say this Mermelstein character was using a disposable camera or a cheap digital camera to take the same photos.
If he wasn't walking around like a psycho holding his camera like a pistol, and you saw the same video of him taking his photos with a disposable camera, would you still think he was as talented?
Let's say you didn't know who he was. They showed you two videos. One of a guy taking photos with a disposable or cheap digital camera, and one with a fancy, expensive black M-Leica.
They didn't show ANY photos in the video, just him taking photos. When you were shown the photos afterwards, would your opinion of his photos be prejudiced because of the camera you perceived he was using?
What if a chimpanzee was taking the photos? Or a baby? Or a teenager on skateboard?
Answer honestly.
nikonhswebmaster
07-04-2008, 11:12
Let's say this Mermelstein character was using a disposable camera or a cheap digital camera to take the same photos.
[...]
Answer honestly.
More frightening -- what if thousands of RFF photographers adopted this "style," and landed in NYC on the same day, the ones from Florida wearing shorts, and loud shirts, with camera vests?
One on every block from 42nd St. to 59th St., from river to river?
M. Valdemar
07-04-2008, 11:13
Aren't they all out in force doing this already?
More frightening -- what if thousands of RFF photographers adopted this "style," and landed in NYC on the same day, the ones from Florida wearing shorts, and loud shirts, with camera vests?
One on every block from 42nd St. to 59th St., from river to river?
... But I should add that the difference between an amateur and a professional/creative photographer is that extra step that extra push to the edge.
I don't have a problem at all with in-your-face aggressive photography as long as the results are worth it and the intention of the photographer is creative photos rather than showing off.
A majority of great/respected photographers are aggressive shooters and they shoot a lot as well, for example watch this video of David Allen Harvey, his a magnum photographer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aES5WD22FBA
M. Valdemar
07-04-2008, 11:20
What if a Middle-Eastern looking man wearing a gigantic turban and a Bin Laden t-shirt took photos in NYC the same way?
What about a really large, angry-looking black man?
What about an orthodox Jew?
Or a man wearing high boots and military/swat gear?
Or a very pretty woman in a tight mini-skirt?
Or a bum dressed in smelly rags?
Which one would be arrested or detained immediately for shoving a camera in people's faces and taking photos of them without permission?
nikonhswebmaster
07-04-2008, 11:31
Or a bum dressed in smelly rags?
Pretty much the way I see any over 50 man, in a floppy hat, fishing/camera vest, and 60's hair cut on the street. Pretty much half of the NYC press corps?
Seriously though, you do have look at the results and see if they really mean anything to you personally. Clearly for me, someone like Stephen Shames has much more personal draw for me. Those street photos do hold some vague interest, but more at the level of thumbing through a book at Borders, not the kind of photography I am likely to plunk down $50 on to take home.
A trick that every photographer working on the street knows or must learn is that one should not stand out, act as if you know what you're doing and smile and nod and talk as often as you can.
If there is no time for that, exude a lot of confidence and act as if you know what you're doing and be calm and collected.
A photographer must be a good actor as well.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.