1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

    Any content, information, or advice found on social media platforms and the wider Internet, including forums such as AP, should NOT be acted upon unless checked against a reliable, authoritative source, and re-checked, particularly where personal health is at stake. Seek professional advice/confirmation before acting on such at all times.

Street Photography

Discussion in 'Talking Pictures' started by Geren, Feb 10, 2020.

  1. Catriona

    Catriona Well-Known Member

    I did.
    Merit? Was his voyeurism any different in essence from the other people looking on? Did he show any caring qualities? Tony is right. Post photograph justification. Yes, he was there when it happened. He took the picture. Quite what that says about him, I don't like to think. I know it wouldn't have been my reaction, even holding a camera as I do most places. It certainly doesn't make me respect his comments on it.
    Done_rundleCams likes this.
  2. beatnik69

    beatnik69 Well-Known Member

    Done_rundleCams likes this.
  3. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    That's your choice. You can be sure I won't hold it against you. :D
    Paul M likes this.
  4. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Assuming I have the right post in 160 or so.

    Over my head. I can't see that as “making” a photograph. Good reactions and fortune to have such a confluence of events happen in front of him I understand. I can see why it would be a favourite. I guess if you dedicate your life to walking the streets these events happen.

    So far I have only come across one “scene” that struck me as worth taking. I’d just come off the Eurostar when I saw it. I had a struggle to get my camera out of my luggage and then took an out of focus picture.

    In general I think taking pictures of recognisable people without their knowledge is wrong unless serving a clear documentary purpose. Silhouettes, backs - the generally anonymous is OK.
  5. Done_rundleCams

    Done_rundleCams AP Forum Ambassador to Canada

    IMHO, Tony, all photography is post justified, heavily or otherwise.


    Catriona likes this.
  6. Done_rundleCams

    Done_rundleCams AP Forum Ambassador to Canada

    An outstanding photograph from an even outstandinger photographer ... thanks for sharing, Paul :) And, yep, it could have been shotcropped tighter and, like a lot of
    photos taken on the street, there are, generally, numerous photos in the single photo :)

    Paul M likes this.
  7. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    I think there's definitely a truth to that in a lot of art. Even song lyrics are analysed after the fact and writers may find themselves explaining them based on a memory of an emotion that may or may not be true. But I think when you take a landscape, you probably have a view of why it was good before you pressed the shutter. So much good street photography is a moment that you had to predict or guess at, and you're never quite sure what's going to be in the frame, so I just get the feeling some of the great shots are justified long after the fact. Not all, maybe not even most, but more than say portrait or landscape which feel more deliberate.
    Dan S and Done_rundleCams like this.
  8. Done_rundleCams

    Done_rundleCams AP Forum Ambassador to Canada

    Touche, Tony, touche .. re: portrait, landscape pics :)


  9. RovingMike

    RovingMike Crucifixion's a doddle...

    Hopefully so. It is far more complicated than most of the "oven-ready" subjects most people rely on. That's why it has more lasting effect.
    Done_rundleCams likes this.
  10. RovingMike

    RovingMike Crucifixion's a doddle...

    It follows because he said IMO. Or is he not allowed one?

    And the crop suggestion is banal.
    Paul M and Done_rundleCams like this.
  11. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    Yes, but it's true of all art surely? While I made the statement that street probably has the highest amount of post justification, I don't think any other art form avoids the accusation. This may be because emotionally we produce things we don't understand at the time and only by talking it through do we come to that awareness, or at least, believe we have.

    I like the shot in question, I like how nearly everyone is looking a the chap on the ground, but a couple of key folk aren't. The photographer didn't make that happen, but they did capture a shot that didn't exist before or after that moment. It's resulted in a study of people and how they react, we have their reactions captured for us to review. I could argue there's no truer method of capturing human emotion than candid photography.

    I've known authors and spoken with them, and asked 'why did you write the character doing that' and their response is often, 'that's what the character told me they wanted to do', because we genuinely don't understand our own emotions and thought processes at first touch, we often have to work them through and form an opinion, which is often flawed.

    So some of us might view it as pretension, some of us might buy in to it, I think as long as the artist is genuinely trying to explain the emotional situation as they understand it, then I'm prepared to let it stand.
    SqueamishOssifrage likes this.
  12. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    Indeed, as alluded to, I like to think that candid photography (not all candid is street, and not all street is candid, etc.) captures other people's emotion better than almost any other form of art.
    Done_rundleCams likes this.
  13. Capeaker

    Capeaker New Member

    Excellent photographs. I love those.
  14. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    He is allowed his opinion, you are allowed your opinion and I am allowed my opinion.
    As usual, you would rather score a non-point than make a positive contribution. Hey! It's why we love you. :D
    Done_rundleCams likes this.
  15. Dan S

    Dan S Well-Known Member

    I remember seeing a shot after the twin towers, a person falling from the tower, upside down. from the photo it looked like the person was calm, had resided to his or her fate. This photo was used in the mainstream media as a moment captured. But the other photos of moments captured of the same person, showed a very different emotion that the person might be experiencing,he/shewas tumbling, not very calm looking. It just so happened that out of all the photos, the one that was used, was used to get a message across, or to hide one, it was misleading.

    The point I'm trying to make is that emotions captured on film can be misleading, at which point does the eye see something and the face react? It may take a few moments to understand a scene before any of us would know how to react, capture that moment and it may seem that the onlooker is not concerned for the fate of a fallen person. To suggest that a non reaction caught on camera, is the true reaction of an onlooker, is misleading.
    Done_rundleCams and EightBitTony like this.
  16. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    Yes. A single still image is not necessarily a true record of an event.
    Done_rundleCams likes this.
  17. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    All photographs lie. That's the dirty little secret* of photography.

    How about - not every photo is a true reflection of emotion, but candid photography is more likely to be an honest emotion.

    *not a secret.
    Done_rundleCams likes this.
  18. Catriona

    Catriona Well-Known Member

    It's all a matter of timing. How much 'truth' can be gathered from that moment is supposition. I remember seeing a motorbike being crashed into as I waited at the lights at a crossroads. One split second would have seen me sitting in my car with my mouth open in horror as he flew across the road. A moment afterwards would have seen me dive from my car and run to where he lay. There I stayed until the ambulance came.

    My point is it is a split second moment.
    A photo of me in my car might have led some to assume I just watched the occurence like a rubber-necker.
    The later photos would have seen a different story.

    And no, I didn't take any pictures.
    Done_rundleCams and John Farrell like this.
  19. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    But both those moments are a true and honest emotional responses. Of course, there's a long story associated with any moment, and in a 100th of a second, the emotion you capture isn't the entire story, but it's still honest.
    Done_rundleCams likes this.
  20. Dan S

    Dan S Well-Known Member

    I see what you are saying, but maybe it is no emotion at all that is captured, and is still viewed as having some meaning to the scene, when it is in fact a moment before any emotion/reaction can even be registered..

    But yes, I think what is captured is honest in as much as 'it happened' but its the reading into the photo some meaning that is perhaps not there, no one can be certain unless there are more photos to build up a picture.

    A photo of someone's arm outstretched, is it on its way up to cover their face, or on its way down to gesture annoyance?

    It might be that because you can interpret it both ways that that is the interest in the photo, but to interpret it one way and decide that is what makes the photo is not convincing to me.

    But I sometimes think I also argue myself out of my own argument, so please don't take me too seriously.
    Catriona and Done_rundleCams like this.

Share This Page