Street Photography no-nos?

Discussion in 'Photography' started by Rah Q5, Jul 29, 2012.

  1. Rah Q5

    Rah Q5 Guest

    What are some of the major no-nos for photographing people and places?

    I imagine kids, museums, city buildings, etc.... but being on the
    street, isn't it all okay? More or less legal to do??

    Just wondered, as I went to a fair and tried a few shots but I figured
    that was safe enough.. :)

    Thanks for any imput!
     
    Rah Q5, Jul 29, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Rah Q5

    Savageduck Guest

    Kids are best deal with by a non-confrontational conversation with
    parents or guardians. Common sense and discretion are always the best
    practice here.

    Museums will usually have a photography policy posted. Some forbid
    photography, but most have policies which allow photography with stated
    limitations and restriction. For example, no flash photography, and no
    tripod use without prior endorsement.

    City/State buildings are usually fair game for photography, but might
    have some posted restrictions. Private property is a little more
    complicated in that private property owners have the right to establish
    rules for photography ON THEIR PROPERTY. What they cannot do is to
    control photography of their buildings or property shot from public
    property of public right of way.


    Don't be obnoxious and intrusive, don't be creepy, be discrete as
    possible. Try not to look like a stalker. If you are planning
    commercial use of the images, have a model release handy.

    Tony Cooper, our resident candid shot and street photography enthusiast
    might step in here to add his opinion and hints from his bag of tricks.
     
    Savageduck, Jul 29, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Rah Q5

    tony cooper Guest

    Basically, with a few exceptions, there are no rules against
    photographing anything or anyone. The rules come into play about 1)
    where you photograph, and, 2) what you do with the photograph.

    The owner of the property can forbid photography on his property, but
    not of his property. The owner of a copyright - and this includes the
    design of a building - can forbid publishing a photograph for
    commercial purposes.

    That means a museum can prohibit photography, and the owner of the
    copyright of an artistic piece can prohibit the publication of a
    photograph of his piece for commercial use.

    If you go to a fair, you can photograph anyone at that fair. You can
    publish those images on your own website provided you don't offer to
    sell the images. You need model release to do that.

    Common sense should tell you that it's not wise to photograph
    stranger's children no matter how cute they are. While the parent may
    have no legal right to object, you really don't want to argue with a
    suspicious parent or the cop he/she might call.

    I rarely photograph children even if it's a "snipe" shot where the
    subject or the subject's parents don't know I'm photographing. I have
    done so, though. Some scenes just can't be passed up. I recently
    posted one such here. Sometimes I take a photograph with a child in
    the scene, but not as the central subject.

    The "rule" that I personally follow is "If I have to show this
    photograph to the subject of the photograph, would I feel
    uncomfortable or would they be embarrassed?" If the answer is "yes",
    I don't take it.

    I also keep in mind that the police are not trained or informed about
    the rights of photographers. If some subject of photograph calls a
    cop, and the cop sides with the subject and insists that I delete the
    image, I do it. While they are both dead wrong, no photograph is
    worth the hassle to me. Winning small battles is not on my agenda.

    I do carry several SD cards with me at all times, though. I am not
    above switching SD cards and denying that I snapped the picture.

    The above, by the way, relates only to the US. Some other countries
    have laws that we don't have.

    You might want to read this:
    http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
     
    tony cooper, Jul 29, 2012
    #3
  4. What is acceptable or not is both a legal distinction
    and a cultural one. Hence it depend greatly on what
    country you are in, what part of the country, and even
    which neighborhood!
    I imagine kids, museums and buildings... I also take
    pictures of all of those!

    There are places in the world where anyone in a public
    place is fair game for a photographer. There are places
    in the world where you cannot even do that with their
    permission.
    There are cultural things that are hard to describe.
    What is an invasion of privacy in one place means
    nothing in another place. And what makes a
    photographer, or his equipment, acceptable here may make
    it unacceptable in a different place.

    Street Photography is a term that commonly makes people
    think of taking pictures of strange people doing strange
    things on the concrete sidewalks of New York or Paris.
    A lot of discussion about how to "blend in" can be
    found, but much of it is useless!

    City streets are *not* what defines Street Photography!
    There need not be streets, or a city, or even people
    much less strange ones! Street Photography actually is
    taking pictures of how people interact with each other
    and their environment. It's an interesting distinction
    between portraiture, which is a picture of the person,
    and a picture of a slice of life which is not
    specifically about the person.

    Here's an interesting bit of Street Photography. No
    people, no pavement, no city. An empty truck parked on
    an unmaintained gravel "road". The nearest concrete
    sidewalk is 500 miles south. A paradise to some, while
    others say it is desolation.

    http://apaflo.com/street/d8a_2303.s.jpg

    A couple miles away though, life goes on as it always does
    anywhere that little boys are little boys:

    http://apaflo.com/street/d8a_2346.s.jpg
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jul 29, 2012
    #4
  5. Rah Q5

    Robert Coe Guest

    : Here's an interesting bit of Street Photography. No
    : people, no pavement, no city. An empty truck parked on
    : an unmaintained gravel "road". The nearest concrete
    : sidewalk is 500 miles south. A paradise to some, while
    : others say it is desolation.
    :
    : http://apaflo.com/street/d8a_2303.s.jpg

    What's the (manmade?) black object with two white spots near the right edge of
    the picture?

    : A couple miles away though, life goes on as it always does
    : anywhere that little boys are little boys:
    :
    : http://apaflo.com/street/d8a_2346.s.jpg

    Why, in an area as flat as a pool table, do the bicycles have such small
    wheels?

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jul 29, 2012
    #5
  6. Rah Q5

    Robert Coe Guest

    : The owner of the property can forbid photography on his property, but
    : not of his property. The owner of a copyright - and this includes the
    : design of a building - can forbid publishing a photograph for
    : commercial purposes.

    Didn't we establish a couple of years ago that while commercial use of a
    picture of a building (in that case the Eiffel Tower with special lighting)
    can be prohibited in some countries (e.g., France), it is not the case in the
    U.S.?

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jul 29, 2012
    #6
  7. Rah Q5

    tony cooper Guest

    The last line of my post stated that my comments were about the US and
    that other countries may have other laws.

    The laws of other countries may not be observed here.
     
    tony cooper, Jul 29, 2012
    #7
  8. Rah Q5

    tony cooper Guest

    Those of us who are active "street" photographers - and I am - have a
    trouble defining the genre. You've done no better, or no worse, than
    the rest of us.

    While street photography is not just photographs of people in an urban
    setting, it is generally photographs of people. I don't think you
    can say that there need not be people. The presence of people counts
    as in the shadow or reflection of people, though. I don't think you
    need interaction with other people or with the environment. Isolation
    from either can make an interesting shot and is sometimes the thing
    that makes the photograph resound.

    If I take a photograph of a seated man, it is "street" when that man
    is on a park bench, but it's not "street" when that man is on a
    tractor seat in a corn field. It can be a candid shot in either case,
    it can be a character study in either case, but "street" has a sense
    of setting that must be present. The man on the tractor seat shot is
    in the "documentary" genre.
    I like the image, but it is not - in my opinion - in any way a
    "street" shot.
    Nor is this a "street" shot. It's an interesting candid shot, but the
    overall composition takes it from "street" to "documentary". The
    "street" version would be in-camera framed down, or cropped down, to
    the subjects. The "documentary" version shows the setting including
    the signage. "Street" says more about "who" and "documentary" adds
    "where".

    One of the online forums that I regularly participate in recently
    changed its name from "Street" to "Documentary". The contributors
    remain the same, the type of images submitted remain the same, but the
    name change reflects considering "street" to be a sub-genre of
    "documentary". The change was made because many of the contributors
    do both, and didn't want to feel that their "documentary" efforts were
    out-of-place.
     
    tony cooper, Jul 29, 2012
    #8
  9. Rah Q5

    Savageduck Guest

    An interesting shot, but not even close to being "street photography".
    This is a desolate landscape with the incidental inclusion of the
    truck. I could give you similar shots on Carrizo Plain, or in Death
    Valley. Hardly "street photography".
    While this might certainly be shot on what passes for a street in
    Barrow, and has much of the candid character of "street photography".
    However, few familiar with that genre would consider it such. This shot
    is missing vital elements of what many would require to consider it
    "street photography".
    I will concede that this might well be Barrow "street photography", but
    most would consider that what you have here is an opportunistic
    documentary shot.

    ....and without being in anyway judgmental, Barrow does not give a
    photographer much opportunity for what most would consider "street
    photography". There is plenty of opportunity for candid character
    and/or documentary shots, but not "street photography".
    You have conditioned yourself to the frozen North, and have tried to
    equate the byways of your community, fine as it might be, with the
    character of European and North American city streets, and their
    inhabitants where "street photography" was born and defined.

    I make these remarks as somebody who only occasionally engages in the
    type of candid photography which could be described as "street
    photography."
    Having said that here is my take on the subject;
    < http://db.tt/hu2IpF71 >

    ....but as usual I expect you, "Floyd, the Sage of Barrow" to tell me
    that I am an ignorant ass, as you know all, and can define all related
    to photography and technology.
     
    Savageduck, Jul 29, 2012
    #9
  10. Rah Q5

    Peabody Guest

    Rah Q5 says...
    Well, here's how not to do it:

     
    Peabody, Jul 29, 2012
    #10
  11. Rah Q5

    Robert Coe Guest

    :
    : >On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 23:45:32 -0400, tony cooper <>
    : >wrote:
    : >: The owner of the property can forbid photography on his property, but
    : >: not of his property. The owner of a copyright - and this includes the
    : >: design of a building - can forbid publishing a photograph for
    : >: commercial purposes.
    : >
    : >Didn't we establish a couple of years ago that while commercial use of a
    : >picture of a building (in that case the Eiffel Tower with special lighting)
    : >can be prohibited in some countries (e.g., France), it is not the case in the
    : >U.S.?
    :
    : The last line of my post stated that my comments were about the US and
    : that other countries may have other laws.
    :
    : The laws of other countries may not be observed here.

    Well, I guess that was my point. I'm not sure it's true in the U.S. that "the
    owner of a copyright - and this includes the design of a building - can forbid
    publishing a photograph for commercial purposes".

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jul 29, 2012
    #11
  12. Those are four 55 gallon drums.

    Historically there have been literally millions of rusty
    drums left in various Arctic locations, primarily by the
    US military but occasionally by other government
    agencies too. For the past 20 years or so the Feds have
    been trying to clean them up.

    I'm not sure exactly why those are there, because they
    don't appear to be horribly old. For the past several
    years they were laying near each other, but this spring
    someone put them all upright and right next to each
    other. I assume that at some point the intension is to
    remove them.
    Kids are born with short legs!

    Kids here do "go places" on bikes, the are into "doing
    things". No sidewalks, no pavement, and nothing is far
    away.

    But one needs to be careful about what you think you
    see. The area is in no way "flat as a pool table"! It
    is rough as a cob! Riding a bike on the tundra would be
    a real pain, and walking is far easier because a person
    walking can step from one high point to another and
    avoid the little drainage paths (commonly 6 to 20 inches
    deep).
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jul 29, 2012
    #12
  13. Most of us who've been actively doing Street for years
    know what is isn't... But you seem confused, and
    without a solid opinion of your own.
    That is not different than what I said.
    So you admit that what I said is exactly correct!

    There need not be people in the picture, but the
    existence and the effect of people is what gets
    photographed.
    I can't agree with you. That statement appears to miss the
    entire concept of what Street is!

    But mostly you seem just confused! Here you say the above,
    and a bit below you say the "settings" are a requirement for
    Street, and then farther down you say the opposite...
    If you isolate a person with photography, you're doing
    portrait photography.
    That might be true, but not necessarily. It very much
    depends on whether the image is of the individual man,
    or of some unique or timely example of a universal human
    situation (i.e., Street).
    Candid has nothing at all to do with defining Street Photography.
    So you once again are confirming exactly the definition that
    I gave previously...

    Odd though that here you point out that a sense of the
    setting is required... yet above you say it isn't, and
    also say it isn't down farther.
    Sorry kid, it absolutely is Street Photography!
    Sorry kid, it absolutely is Street Photography.
    That's just plain wrong. And it contradicts what you just
    said a short distance above, '"street" has a sense
    of setting that must be present'. You don't seem to have
    a clear idea what Street is.

    Portraiture is defining/describing/photographing people.
    It's about "who".

    Street is about interactions in human life, and it
    virtually always requires in some way that "the setting"
    be included.
    The distinction is rather clear. That is why I
    generally say that what I do is "people pictures", as it
    includes Street, Documentary, and Portraiture.

    I would not disagree with their concept that Street is a
    form of Documentary. You can't do Street without it
    being Documentary, but you can do Documentary without
    doing Street.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jul 29, 2012
    #13
  14. I hates to tell you boy, you just nailed the exact
    reason it is in fact Street.

    The idea that to you it is a "desolate landscape" and
    that the truck is incidental are what makes it Street.

    The fact is you are wrong on virtually all counts. It
    is Street, it does not show anything close to desolation
    (with the possible exception of the 55 gallon drums on
    the right hand extreme) and the truck is both literally
    and figuratively the center of the photograph.

    The fact that you don't understand a photograph says
    nothing at all about the photograph. It does speak
    specifically about *you* though!
    Oh, it "might" be in Barrow, eh? Interesting that you
    are so sure of something that you are stating is not
    necessarily or even likely to be true! (Your comment
    bridges on abject stupidity... You are not qualified to
    certifiy that the picture was taken in Barrow. I am.)
    You must not be very comfortable with what Street
    Photography is!
    What do you think the vast majority of Street is?

    The fact is, the same shot along a street in New York
    would be Street too
    That isn't judgmental, it is abject ignorance!
    So you think that Street Photograph has to be of
    European or North American *city* streets!

    Walker Evans didn't think so...

    That is abject ignorance of what Street Photography is,
    and of it's history.
    So you even admit of abject ignorance.

    Here's a pretty good article, from an authoritative
    source, explaining a lot about what Street Photography
    is:

    http://www.lfph.org/what-is-street-photography
    It's Street, but it isn't particularly of any significance at all,
    either subject wise or photographically.
    Ducks quack a lot, eat grass, and poop everywhere. A
    small goose.

    Why do you post trash about topics you don't know
    anything about?

    And when anyone that does know posts articles with
    accurate details you attack them with gratuitous insults
    like the above "Sage" crack.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jul 29, 2012
    #14
  15. Rah Q5

    Robert Coe Guest

    : Rah Q5 says...
    :
    : > What are some of the major no-nos for photographing
    : > people and places?
    :
    : Well, here's how not to do it:
    :
    :

    I guess that's one way.

    The objective of street photography (say I, with virtually no experience
    thereof) is to photograph people going about their business in a natural
    manner, not looking startled, puzzled, embarrassed, or peeved. If the subject
    happens to have one of those expressions, it should be despite your presence,
    not because of it. When you make yourself part of the action, as this guy did,
    the picture usually loses much of its meaning. There are exceptions, of
    course, but those require careful planning and an expectation of failure.

    Nobody asked me, but I think, from what I've seen, that Tony Cooper is a
    pretty good street photographer. He may not be Arthur Fellig or Henri
    Cartier-Bresson or Vivian Maier, but he often captures his subjects behaving
    naturally. Whether his definition of street photography is more accurate than
    those of his critics is a swamp into which I resolutely refuse to wander.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jul 30, 2012
    #15
  16. Rah Q5

    Savageduck Guest

    Actually, no it isn't. Not even in your wildest imagination is that an
    example of "street photography" in its broadest interpretation. Nice
    shot, but not "street photography".

    Just because there is a road of sorts and a manmade artifact is placed
    in the image does not make it "street photography".
    I certainly would not call this shot of a road, which includes a
    manmade element, a fence, an example of "street photography". Though it
    seems to meet your definition.
    So it is a photograph of a truck.
    I get that.
    I thought you would come around to your usual opinion of folks in
    disagreement with you soon enough.
    Absolutely you are qualified to locate any and all photographs captured
    in the frozen North.
    My assumption of location was based on all you have given us over the
    years as to the community you reside in and photographic subject
    matter. I certainly could have been less vague and done a bit of
    research to positively place the Matsutani Community Resource Center,
    at 579 Kingosak Street, Barrow, AK.
    Naah! It is you who has stretched the definition. As I said, it might
    pass for street photography in the frozen North.

    Hey! I made a concession that the shot could well be considered "street
    photography" among the members of the North Slope Photographic Society.
    Not ignorance, fact. Barrow has a certain character which I am sure you
    are able to capture with all the photographic skills you have refined
    over the years. However, the opportunity for "street photography" as
    most would understand it is limited.
    No. I was merely expressing that the opportunity for "traditional
    street photography" in your particular environment is limited.
    Where did you pull that from?
    The Walker quote in your article is profound, but says nothing with
    regard to his opinion of locating "street photography":

    "Stare. It is the way to educate your eye, and more. Stare, pry,
    listen, eavesdrop. Die knowing something. You are not here long."
    Walker Evans
    ....er, no!
    That is merely your expression of ignorance regarding my understanding
    of the subject.
    Nope! I merely admit that "street photography" and candid shooting is
    something I only occasionally engage in. There is no admission of
    ignorance of the subject there.
    Yup! That is a good article, and he has cited a fair definition, which
    brings your shot of the kids into the genre, but excludes your "lone
    truck" shot and my "Rolling Hwy".

    “un-posed, un-staged photography which captures, explores or questions
    contemporary society and the relationships between individuals and
    their surroundings.â€
    Now that is what I call a great definition of "street photography"!
    Thanks for that!
    However it meets the definition of "street photography" as defined in
    your London Festival of Photography article. (Great definition that!)
    Pretty much as does this shot, a man on a park bench, but fully within
    the LFPH definition.
    < http://db.tt/diFtr7Nh >

    Your opinion regarding "any significance at all, either subject wise or
    photographically" is purely your opinion, just as your shot of the kids
    holds no significance subject wise or photographically for me. That
    said, your truck shot is a good shot and with some recomposition could
    actually be a great shot. (It hasn't quite reached that level.)

    I suspect your opinion of anything I shoot or write is chiseled in granite.

    Actually there are quite a number of us who know much more that you
    give us credit for. I usually post responses when I do know what I am
    talking about. You have a low opinion of all who question your lofty
    position as, ...OK, I am going to elevate you a bit here, "The Sage of
    The Tundra".
    No! Not "them". It is fun to poke fun at your pompous arrogance and
    know it all stance.
     
    Savageduck, Jul 30, 2012
    #16
  17. Rah Q5

    tony cooper Guest

    Justice Potter Stewart had the same problem in ruling on Jacobellis v
    Ohio.
    No, you said much more than there need not be people, and you didn't
    intimate what constitutes the presence of people. "Exactly" it is
    not.
    No, as I've written in another post on this subject, two people in an
    image without the slightest interaction with each other can most
    definitely be "street". In some cases, that lack of interaction is
    what makes the photograph interesting. They are with someone, but
    they are isolated from that person.
    The Northern Lights are blinding you, Floyd. What I said was that
    interaction with other people or with the environment is not needed.
    They can be isolated and it is still "street". In this sense of
    "isolated" there can be more than one person in the photograph...each
    isolated from the other(s). It's a visual thing.

    Photographing a single person does not make it portrait photography
    instead of street. That you think so, indicates how little you
    understand of the genre.
    No, Floyd. Not by any stretch. If you can tell, in the photograph,
    that it's a man on a tractor seat in a cornfield, it's not "street".

    Grant Wood's "American Gothic" would not be "street" if it was a
    photograph even though it represents that universal humanness.
    Yes, it really does. You are probably under the assumption that
    "candid" means taken without the subject's knowledge. That's just
    half the definition. The other half is "unposed by the photographer".
    A shot where the subject knows he/she is being photographed is still a
    candid if the photographer doesn't pose them. Even if the subjects
    assume a pose (ie: giving a finger to the photographer), if it's not
    the photographer doing the posing, it's candid.
    Not at all. You evidently have no understanding of a "sense of
    setting".
    Photographs have a sense of setting. Photographers have a sense of
    *the* setting. You confuse the two.

    The sense of setting is the "what". What was the subject doing? What
    was the subject feeling? Or, as some ask, "What's the story here?".
    I gotta laugh at this claim. It's too bad, too. It's a nice photo
    that shouldn't be the brunt of a joke.

    It is no more "street" than this one of mine:
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/t6icibjd54x1y54/2008-11-26-3.jpg
    In your mind.
    The physical setting, in that instance, is the group of boys, the
    range of ages, and attention seemingly focused on the small boy. The
    "what", or the story setting, is about them being friends, bullying
    the small boy, tolerating him in their big shot older presence...what?

    You spoil that for street when you widen the view in an effort to show
    the physical setting. Your "where" sacrifices the "who" and the
    "what".

    Not that this makes a bad photograph. It's just not an example of
    "street".
    By that definition, sports photography is portraiture. That famous
    shot of a bloodied Y.A. Tittle would be in "portraiture". Anything
    with a person in it is "portraiture" to you.
    Not at all. Sometimes it does, often it doesn't when you say "the
    setting". That's the physical location. A sense of setting can be
    established solely by the person(s) photographed.
    You may well do "street". You haven't shown examples, but you may
    have taken some. I looked at www.apaflo.com and didn't see any that
    would pass muster as street, but that may not be your entire work.
    It never occurred to me that you would agree with anything said
    contrary to your own (misguided) opinions.
     
    tony cooper, Jul 30, 2012
    #17
  18. Rah Q5

    Rah Q5 Guest

    Thanks everyone for all your input!

    Its alot to consider! I appreciate it too. I will be going over all that
    has been said here and saving it for future reference.

    At the fair I took pics of people on rides, a rat a lady was carrying
    (but I asked for her permission!), and some walking by.

    The Danish Festival will soon be held and I thought how fun it'd be to
    sit someplace and take some cool shots.

    Being a novice, I wanted to at least know the particulars. Thanks for
    all the links to articles, etc which I will be saving to read up on!
     
    Rah Q5, Jul 30, 2012
    #18
  19. That just shows how little you understand of what Street
    Photography is and how to evaluate that image, or any
    other, in terms of Street. Roads have nothing at all to
    do with Street, and it is only in *your* imagination
    that the road in that image is what I'm saying makes it
    Street.

    Granted, the fact that it features the extreme in a
    non-urban gravel road is the reason I used it as an
    example! It is a very good example, because it quickly
    divides those whose knee jerk reactions are correct from
    those who simply don't know what Street Photography is.
    And it is *you*, not me, that has made up that
    definition.

    Doesn't look like Street Photography to me!
    Apparently not.
    You are the one willing to post rants about topics you
    know nothing about...
    More of your absurdly ridiculous off topic non-sequitur
    BS gratuitous insults.
    You could have, but didn't, and that would have been even more
    ridiculous if you had!

    What is the point of you saying a photograph the I took
    "might" even be in Barrow, with obvious skepticism that
    it is either Barrow or that Barrow even has streets:

    "While this might certainly be shot on what passes for
    a street in Barrow, [...]"

    Again, you think streets/roads are required for Street
    Photography, and therefore by suggesting that Barrow
    doesn't even have them there cannot even be Street
    Photography in Barrow.

    Hilarious on all counts! Just made up BS...
    It seems however that the definition I use is a very
    common definition, used by many who view Street
    Photography at a philosophical or academic level.

    And it seems that when you are accosted with virtually
    the same definition from a very authoritative source,
    you accept it readily.

    You are clearly judging these things by the source, not
    by the substance.
    More non-sequitur gratuitous insults to hide the simple
    fact that you don't know what you are talking about.
    Ignorance running rampant. You don't have a clue about
    Street, and you don't have a clue about Barrow.

    Why do you continue to make pronouncements about things
    you are totally ignorant of?

    Street Photography in Barrow is hardly limited in any
    way different than it is anywhere else. The limit is
    merely an artifact of your poor definition and
    understanding of Street Photography.
    So you *still* insist that it requires "European or
    North American city streets".
    I didn't reference Walker Evans to any quote. That is
    *your* ignorance again. Are you actually unaware of the
    huge volume of Street Photography in rural America done
    by Evans? Sheesh.
    Pretty funny!
    Well... you certainly have shown just how ignorant you
    are of it!
    Read it again.
    And in fact the images I posted both fit very well into
    that definition.

    What they don't fit into is the usual mistaken ideas
    that people like you have. I thought it would be
    hilarious to watch what happens when something that
    demonstrated the difference was posted. It *is*
    hilarious!
    I'm not the one running around making clueless
    statements about a topic with no experience to back it
    up. That's your forte!

    If you like to images you've posted, then they are just
    fine. I have no need to say they are different than
    what you see them as.

    It seems that *you* are the one with an opinion chiseled
    in stone *before* you've even seen it!
    About something, no doubt. But you are typical of a
    group here that will post total nonsense about whatever
    subject happens to come up, regardless of what you know
    about it.

    Clearly Street Photography is an example.
    And more often when you don't.
    At least I respond to what you say, and have no need for
    making up childish gratuitous insults that are imagination
    rather that substantive discussion.
    You don't realize how pompously arrogant what you just
    said is?
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jul 30, 2012
    #19
  20. Rah Q5

    Savageduck Guest

    No I understand that you have deemed it "street photography" because
    you mistakenly choose to.
    ....and you are wedged into your denial. No it highlights your
    reluctance to admit that you could possibly be wrong on any subject.
    I defined nothing there, the definition is yours. It is you trying to
    convince the World that your pleasant image of a truck parked in the
    middle of nowhere, and headed to the other side of nowhere, is a fine
    example of "street photography" when it isn't.
    Of course it doesn't, because like your "truck" shot, it isn't "street
    photography". I never intended to imply that it was "street
    photography". Even if I had parked a truck out on that road it would
    not have been "street photography".

    Oh! So it isn't a truck. Now if you could have somehow got a Ferrari
    out there you might have had something truly thought provoking.
    ....but you don't believe that anybody who disagrees with you on any
    topic, knows anything. You seem to hold that all who disagree with you
    are for you beneath contempt, and should not have any opinion taken
    seriously. I believe that most of us here understand that you have a
    fine technical education and are blessed with a broad general knowledge
    which would put the bulk of the Mensa membership to shame. However, you
    remain mired in a strange reflexive reaction to any perceived threat to
    the walls of your icy intellectual kingdom, and others in these groups
    who bear the brunt of this odd behavior of yours.
    ....and here am I with my tongue jammed firmly in my cheek. I guess I
    should make liberal use of the appropriate emoticons.
    Exactly, but you chose to make something out of s remark stating the obvious.
    Maybe about Barrow. No I'll take that back. I probably know as much
    about Barrow as any other American who has never visited, nor has plans
    to visit the place. I have certainly read about it, long before I was
    made aware of the fact that it was your chosen community of residence.
    Do I?
    Still trying to ram it home that the kids with bike could be termed
    "street photography"? I already gave you that concession.
    I never did. All I have stated is "street photography" has its
    traditional beginnings on European and North American city streets, and
    it is tough to equate them to the boulevards of Barrow. You will find
    great street photography on all the streets of the World from Rio to
    Havana, from Cairo to Cape Town, sometimes even on the sleepy streets
    of Paso Robles.
    Agreed, you didn't, and that is a problem. Then why even bother? You
    wave the LFPH article like Old Glory, dropping Walker Evans's name as
    if that was the authoritative reference in that article. It wasn't. All
    it was, was you name dropping to no purpose.
    Besides, Walker Evans was a "Street photographer" in the sense that
    Cartier-Bresson and Arthur Fellig were street photographers. He was
    also a documentarian, much in the vein of Dorothea Lange, I will
    concede that he shot a fair number of true street scenes, and subway
    character captures, but nothing such as your "lone truck" passed off as
    street photography.

    I suspect you would be hard pressed to find Evans walking your gravel
    road to search for subject material. He might have made that search
    amongst the indigenous people of the far North, but not out on that
    track.


    The street photography that came from that period of his career was
    incidental. Like Dorothea Lange he was involved in documentary work, on
    assignment in rural Alabama, much of it posed portraiture, much like
    Lange's work in the Nipomo and Salinas Valley migrant camps in
    California.

    Glad you liked it.
    Far from it. Your perception of reality is clouded by your opinionated nature.
    OK! I conceded that the shot of the kids met the definition and could
    be called "street photography". However the "lone truck" fails on quite
    a few points. ICBW but I suspect the truck usually used by a certain
    Floyd Davidson. That he might have parked said truck and walked to a
    position where he could photograph it, making it the center piece of
    his image. Now there is nothing wrong with that, other than it makes it
    "staged" with a "posed" truck disqualifying it as an example of "street
    photography", per the definition you provided. To take this further,
    ....and it is probably my dull intellect doing this to me, but I fail to
    see how the "lone truck" shot "captures, explores, or questions
    contemporary society and the relationships between individuals and
    their surroundings.
    No mistake. One shot, "the kids" can be called "street photography" the
    other, "the Lone Truck" cannot.
    You might want to rewrite the above sentence. It doesn't make sense.
    Why not? You see everything else of mine differently.
    No! I am typical of the group here pigeon holed by you because they
    find themselves in disagreement with some position you have taken.
    No! I recognize street photography when I see it.
    Actually we are back to your opinion.
    Hey! I am here to serve and entertain.

    Why? you just continue to inflate your arrogance, making you a bigger
    and bigger target.
    ....I guess I better quit now, or we might have an ego spill on the North Slope.
     
    Savageduck, Jul 30, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.