« Out and About with the Pentax K-01 | Main | No One Gets Out of Here Alive »

Friday, 15 June 2012

Comments

I HAVE noticed that few fans of Ansel Adams admire street photography, even if it's in "analog" b&w :-)

That is to say that some art is about order and some is about randomness..and there are distinct personality types that enjoy each
(but not both) Though it must be said that all photography outside of
the studio involves chance elements.

Yes, very strange comments from the peanut gallery...I enjoyed his work very much.

I just don't happen to think that as street photography goes, his isn't particulary interesting.

Nobody said that the Internet persona had anything to do with the real world persona, right?

The BurnMyEye Collective (to which Andrew Kochanowski belongs)has a statement that pretty much sums up the aim of street photography:"aiming to show the extraordinary within the ordinary."

Maybe you don´t choose the best from andrew and the people from Calle 35 make first isn´t important but i take a un- posed walk on may.

I love and follow street photography, so I've gone back to look at Andrew's photographs in his Pentax post, and I'm not so sure it is fair to peg some of your readership as unaware of this movement, simply because they don't enjoy his pictures. After visiting Andrew's site, I believe he is capable of good street photography, but I'm not sure the photograph's in his Pentax write-up are good examples. Granted, that's just one guy's opinion, and we should all remain respectful of artists whose vision differs from ours.

Your Felix Lupa posted pic is quite nice.

"After visiting Andrew's site, I believe he is capable of good street photography, but I'm not sure the photograph's in his Pentax write-up are good examples."

There's no reason anybody should feel forced to like anything they don't, but some of the comments I disallowed were vituperative, and there's no excuse for that either.

Mike

I, for one, have learned that seeing pictures on the web is not a very good indicator of their actual quality, largely due to problems you (Mike) mentioned. I notice that the TOP photos always look better when viewed in the RSS feed than on the site itself. But more importantly, there are so many parts of the chain from camera to display that judging picture quality based on seeing it on the web is akin to judging music based on hearing it played through a 2 inch speaker. One can get the melody/harmony/rhythm, but can't really get the sound or feel. And with the photos here on TOP, due to the size limitation, I think the problem goes well beyond color/gamut/what-have-you because size and detail are a large part of the viewing experience.

In short, although the pictures as shown on the web site didn't grab me personally, I'm not certain or suggesting that they might not have, had I seen them in person.

And as to the camera itself, when I first read of its announcement, I thought 'cool, a K5 on a budget!' While that is not an accurate description, its a good substitute for certain photographers who don't require the weather sealing and other expensive parts of the K5, and just want that sweet Sony sensor.

I say keep featuring posts from readers who are challenging. I don't care if I don't like them all, and would find the site less interesting if it only featured stuff I like.


Patrick

PS as to handling the untoward commenters, I say kill all extremists (g)

Re: David Blankenhorn's comment above.
Who's Ansel Adams ?? :) :)

One of the side effects of the democratisation of photography via the digital age, I suspect.

I rarely (if ever) have not clicked on the link to read TOP postings when they arrive in my inbox, but the one this article is about I let sit for a day and then deleted it. I do not get all the "street" photography stuff. It seems bland with no special or distinctive features to me. But, someone obviously likes it somewhere.

Ad hominem attacks and plain nastiness are rarely persuasive outside of the politcal attack ad realm. I agree that such comments should be disallowed.

If a commented can't phrase their thoughs in civil, clear language, then that suggests a lack factual basis and careful analysis. Nastiness begets counterattacks and pretty soon a very uncivil and unpleasant culture sets in. That would ruin a very worthwhile place to discuss serious photography.

Couple thoughts.

First, it seems like photo forums have actually gotten worse in the past two months (D800 v 5D3, anyone?), as if that were possible.

Second, I have long admired Mike for keeping discipline in his playground.

Not a special fan of street photography myself, but I enjoyed reading Andrew's observations on using the K-01, a camera I've been intrigued with and may buy, and I also enjoyed his photos.

I applaud and am grateful for your editorial stance. Makes this a classier place.

It wasn't clear to me that the contributor was even inviting artistic criticism, given that it was a review of a camera.

It's an odd place, the interweb. People put stuff out there opening themselves to criticism, but the trouble is that there isn't always a good way to judge the validity of that criticism. It seems we either have to know the source (from previous contributions) or in the case of a new source, that they express themselves in a cogent and knowledgeable manner. Basic manners requires it, imo.

Too bad there aren't better moderators in modern day political debates. It might raise the bar.

It seems to me that the biggest problem with street photography in the Flickr era is an absence of editing. Documentary photography has always had a much lower hit-rate than other genres, but these days most people just upload everything. "Engaging with the genre" can be hard when so much of what's on offer is chaff rather than wheat.

Yeah, but...

Yesterday's post wasn't about street photography, it was about the Pentax. In that "75% chance" post the other day, we were discussing the role that chance takes in photography, and of all the different kinds of photography, street is probably the chanciest. How many of those Pentax shots would Andrew consider among his very best? How many would he choose for a book? Would I be far wrong if I said, "None of them?" So what we really saw were pretty average street photos taken with a specific camera, which may or may not have been the best camera for the role it played. How many of the people who dissed the photos (on aesthetic grounds) could have done nearly as well with a single walk through town? On the other hand, the comments about dynamic range, etc., seemed pertinent, because we were talking about the camera, not about the street photography.

IMHO, the camera's pretty average, even considering its compactness. I think Pentax screwed the pooch, as the saying goes -- the new Canon compact will probably outshine it, and in a more convenient package, and the m4/3 and Nexes certainly do. We shall see, eh?

Anyway, I'm not sure TOP should really feature fine photographers trying to demonstrate the fineness of their photography while doing camera reviews. The guestalt is all wrong.

I'm not sure why street photography is so polarizing. I don't "get" street photography, so I don't pay much attention to it. But I can't work up any hostility toward it either. It's just "meh" to me. I've witnessed some nasty debates on forums over street photography, though.

As I wrote yesterday, I enjoyed the piece. Also after I got a chance to look at the Burn My Eye site, I was really happy that it had taken me there. I found some photos that I really enjoyed looking at. My point is "more pieces with more photos" would make this supporter even happier with this site. Also reminded me that I was once a "street photographer". I think age turned me into a landscape guy, but I may be doing another u-turn and getting back out on the street.

Well, my comment was disallowed, but it was certainly not vituperative. I had no comment about the photography, but I felt - and still do - that the tone of the article lets down ToP badly on several levels, and that's sad to see. Probably I should lay off the irony a touch, for, er, transatlantic reasons, but as a very long term reader of ToP, and contributor, and past subscriber to the 37th Frame, I also feel a touch kicked in the nuts.

Guess this won't get published either. I never realised how much editing was going on here. Oh well. Another illusion bites the dust. Guess I'll get back to something more constructive, like photography

The point of Andrew's article was the Pentax camera. We can argue whether or not he chose good samples to illustrate his thesis (that the camera is better than it's perceived to be). I think he ran into bad territory when the first snap clearly suggested results contrary to some of his claims.

I also agree that Andrew needn't have side-swiped another camera model (E-M5) with which he was unfamiliar in an attempt to strengthen his position.

What I took from his article was that the camera might, indeed, be better in-hand than has been suggested since its introduction.

I'll leave the whole topic of "street photography" for another more appropriate time.

Well Mike, it seems from my vantage point that you are being, unconsciously, a bit disingenuous.

“Photography” is like a huge rambling old house that’s been added onto haphazardly through the decades, such that no one who visits or stays is likely to know all of it. Each wing is different and each room at least somewhat different from its neighbors.

One part of your interest is being comprehensive in knowledge of the house, a mapmaker, historian and guide. That’s nice, as you enjoy it, and I can benefit. But you also have your favorite parts and rooms and those that don’t much interest you.

You have more than once said here that landscapes don’t interest you. I’m pretty sure you used the word “bore” in one post I read. Although that’s understandable to me intellectually, it is simply incomprehensible to me at a feeling level. Being in natural settings, looking at nature, taking pictures of nature and looking at pictures of natural subjects, my own and others, is a major part of my enjoyment of life.

I don’t know if there are specific rooms for pictures that are somehow a combination of elements, composition, color, tonality, presentation, whatever, that attract and engage me, regardless of genre or context. More likely, one must wander through the house, looking at everything.

There is a group of rooms full of shots of everyday life on everyday streets, kids on bikes, people walking dogs, people washing cars, and so on, that clearly has an emotional impact for you. Generally, they just don’t speak to me; just snaps of people I don’t know. You have made links to photographers of this kind of images in books and on web sites. The majority of them are just wallpaper to me, there is no interior spark. Those that do engage me, generally do so not for content or social meaning, but for their form as pure image. When I converse with those who make and/or like this type of image, it’s clear that my comments about the form and technical qualities mostly miss the points that are important to them, and vice versa.

Although photojournalism has been an important part of knowing and understanding the world since the invention of photography, it is a source of information for some, socially and/or politically Important to others and an important art form for others. Other than when it informs, or creates an image that is of interest apart from its contextual place, photojournalism doesn’t interest me for its own sake.

Street Photography, the largely urban version of everyday life photography, often with an emphasis on the gritty or odd or amusing, has produced some images that I quite like. I’ve done street photography, my only book so far is largely street photography, although my technique and style wouldn’t get me into the hard core club. For me, though, as Andrew writes, “… but if the photos fail—as almost all street photos do of course— …“ the problem for his and similar styles is only that they edit down to 10%, when it should be 1%, or maybe 1% and 0.1%.

A book of photographs of drive-in movies? I would pay money to avoid having to go through that. Yet bless Carl Weese for working so hard to provide one for those who will enjoy it, perhaps even treasure it.

“… although that seems like cutting an awful lot out of the corpus of photography …”

Again, our interests in photography differ. What does it matter to you, or to anyone, if I concentrate on those aspects of photography that interest and engage me, and pay little or no attention to those that don’t? There are now more images in the world than I could view in several lifetimes. I wander and sample what appears before me, relying on synchronicity, but why would I spend a lot of time with what doesn’t interest me? I appreciate your interest in the whole corpus, and that’s one of the attractions to me of TOP, but I am neither mapmaker nor historian.

I do browse photography books in shops or online. My experience is that more than a few famous photographers made images that just put me to sleep. After flipping through a book, I just put it back. Does that make me ‘bad’ or disrespectful? Think back on Ctein’s column about the number of prints his last offer sold, and his comments on how one may be a successful artist by only pleasing a small % of the people.

“…Or aren't impressed with his affiliations. And don't know that he's a very accomplished and widely admired street photographer, and/or don't think that status means …”

Clearly, our way of relating to the world, in one way, differs. Credentials and hearsay mean little to me, especially in photography. The images are all that matters. I may want reviews and referrals for a plumber, dentist, mechanic, builder, etc., but I know when a photograph engages me. Perhaps that’s part of what I enjoy about being an amateur in photography.

I did read the whole article. I found the images uninteresting, “been there, seen that, nothing new to see here”, so I didn’t explore further. Nor did I read the comments. It seems that those that most bothered you didn’t see the light of print, anyway. I do certainly agree that one should be polite, understand that “one man’s meat is another mans’ poison”, and avoid personal attacks over what are at bottom matters of taste in a world made rich and delightful by its diversity.

Mike,

Thank you for the nice write up, but as far as I'm concerned it is not necessary to keep even, by your words, ungracious comments out of circulation. Unless it's some kind of ad hominem, which I can't imagine from your crew, people should be able to express whatever they want to express; others can judge whether they have any basis for their views. Believe me, I have heard it all.

And of course I am grateful for the very nice comments, which by right you could have excised as well.

Looking forward to sharing some street photography with you in the future.

"The guestalt is all wrong."

I see what ya did there.

Mike

"You have more than once said here that landscapes don’t interest you. I’m pretty sure you used the word 'bore' in one post I read."

No, no: SCENICS. A scenic is a landscape dressed up just to be pretty. Or a natural subject dressed up just to be pretty.

I like many landscapes.

Mike

I would think that people considerably more computer savvy than I would by now know not to judge IQ (and therefore the image itself) by small jpegs on a monitor. I have casually dismissed and disparaged many of them in the comfort of my own home, only to be taken aback and humbled by the quality, presence and revelation of the actual print.

I'm beginning to think we may need some kind of mandatory, online jpeg warning like those on rear view mirrors, "Images online may appear substantially poorer in quality (than in real life)."

"My experience is that more than a few famous photographers made images that just put me to sleep. After flipping through a book, I just put it back. Does that make me ‘bad’ or disrespectful?"

Moose,
A very thoughtful comment, for which thanks. And you make a lot of good points. But you're talking about something that's really a different subject: how we respond to art we don't understand vs. how we respond to art we understand but just don't like. Those are subtly but significantly different things. I suspect you wouldn't have taken the time to write an angry or dismissive comment about something you're already fully aware that you don't care about. You'd just move on. We all do that.

Mike

Cultural collision. With his sharp photographic style and his insightful comments on fashion brands, Andrew induced a critical resonance frequency.

The advantage of practicing another native language is to require a step back which allows to better calibrate his messages, I hope ...and you know that some French are cold-blooded ? Etiquette is a so beautifull word.

In passing my favorite photographers are Ansel Adams and Ara Güler.

Based on this blog post, I'm *guessing* that either street photography wasn't well received, or that Andrew Kochanowski wasn't well received, or both.

I thought that the review was a bit casual but completely acceptable, and based on the pictures that came over the internet, off base about the camera's performance. I noted in the comments section you mention that the blog software has a real tendency to butcher images, but I don't see that in Felix Lupa's image, or the images in a number of previous posts.

I don't think of street photography as being something that I find personally "challenging" to view. It's about people on the street, and not much more than that, really.

Since the review was about a camera, I'll say this: based on these images, I wouldn't buy the camera. It may be nice for casual use, and it may feel really nice to use, but what clicks for me is image quality. Perhaps somewhere there's a chart of image quality to camera price, and I'd like to see that.

re: "After visiting Andrew's site, I believe he is capable of good street photography, but I'm not sure the photograph's in his Pentax write-up are good examples."

I don't see that Andrew's post was about his photography or that the photos provided were offered by him as "good examples" of his overall work. His post was about his experiences and impressions in using this camera and the photos were the ones he took while using it. They obviously would refect his style, but might not be the ones he or I or you my choose to be representative of his overall body of work done on other cameras. This was, in the end, a form of camera review (the kind I like and find the most useful personally). I thought is was great and appreciate its appearance on TOP.

I find street photography intriguing. Perhaps it's because a lot of it *isn't* "obvious" in the way a lot of the popular photographic subjects are.

As for those who got bent about the camera, seriously? Go out and shoot with your choice of gear. In 50 years' time somebody might care about the photographs you made, but they won't care about the camera used to make them.

You mean some people didn't like those photos? And were, like, rude about it? No comprende x 2.

From what I've read other places, I'm thinking at least part of the negative reaction is just due to the fact that Andrew defended a camera that just can't be a "serious camera" (whatever that means). It's pretty funny seeing the visceral reaction some people have to this camera.

My wife likes what she calls "people watching". I always thought of street photographers as people watchers with cameras. I've done a bit of it, usually unintentionally as in a photo I made and posted on my blog back in February. I like some street photography but a lot of it today is just snapshots. There's no "decisive moment" in it.

Kudos on going for the "challenging" approach.

Yes, the images didn't do an awful lot for me - the technical presentation issues get in the way and I admit I'm no good at "reading" street material like this. So I'm up for the occasional prod to improve abilities in the genre.

I have a suspicion that some of the nasty comments were fed by the negative comments Andrew Kochanowski made about some other systems and not really by his pictures which were quite respectable IMHO. I certainly enjoyed them all and I didn't understand such negative reactions at first.

The thing about street photography is its exactly like wine, it gets better with age. Rarely do modern street photographs interest me that much, however I love to pour over street photographs taken say a 100 years ago. Although none of the featured photographs are all that interesting to me, give it 20 years or so and it might change. Taking street photographs is something I rarely do but boy I wish I had done when I was 18. I suppose that sums up one of the most important things in photography, the importance in the role of the photographer to preserving time.

Could it be that "not getting it" with street photography is just brain-filtering? Something akin to watching TV but never taking notice of the advertising. If you looked around the surrounding areas in your daily life, most of it it is just "there" and nothing more. Should a "something" of interest to the brain, by movement, color, subject, or unusual size cause it to catch your attention, the brain will not filter it out. So when it comes to photographic images or styles, you can see that your brain is just filtering out material that to you -- is just there. It is hard to think right now or express it better. I shot over 400 architectual photos Wednesday and Thursday at the UW. I am fried.

On the internet, anyone can be a critic, or often just critical.

Michael:

Regarding the latest round of discussions about street photography (as voiced in your "Sitegeist" article): I think anyone interested in modern street photography needs to spend some time reading the articles and looking at the photographs on photography.ultrasomething.com

I must admit, before I discovered this site, I had little regard for the street genre. Now, thanks to the site author's articulate, clever, tongue-in-cheek articles, and his multilayered photographs of everyday life, I have a huge appreciation for the genre. So much so that I'm even trying to do it myself now -- and, by doing so, realize just how difficult it is to do well. And maybe that's part of the problem. A lot of bad street photography has a tendency to drown out the really good stuff, like this.

Of course this kind of photography is not to everyone's taste, but most people, I think, comfortably ignore things they don't care about, without the inclination to deride it. I can only guess at a few reasons "street photography" is met with such reactions.

1. As has been pointed out before, many people utilize "street photography" as an excuse not only for poor editing but also for poor photography. Instead of struggling to surmount the enormous challenges of maintaining standards of composition, color, content, emotional impact, etc., they snap and post indiscriminately and just call it "street". So much of this goes on that it is no wonder the genre is so maligned.

2. Street shots that are done well, ones that resonate with masterful composition and emotional impact, though few and far between, appear to be deceptively simple, and often induce the reaction, "Well, anyone could do that, if they happened to be there at the time!" But when whomever says such things makes an attempt to do so, and, predictably, fails, the worth of the entire genre is again suspect.

I personally agree with Nick Turpin that "street" is kind of a false genre. To me, "street", properly defined, is simply photography, whereas genres such as "sports" and "landscape" and "abstract" are specific subdivisions. But that's just me.

"No, no: SCENICS. A scenic is a landscape dressed up just to be pretty. Or a natural subject dressed up just to be pretty.

I like many landscapes.

Mike"

A distinction that is lost on me. Not that I think you are wrong; the fault is likely in me, for not understanding the nature of the distinction.

How does one dress up a landscape? I imagine an art director, "And pull out that scraggly pine, we need a nice maple there!"

Definitionally Challenged Moose

"Moose,
A very thoughtful comment, for which thanks. And you make a lot of good points."

Thanks, I know I got excited and wrote a lot. I appreciate your grace in publishing it all.

"But you're talking about something that's really a different subject: how we respond to art we don't understand vs. how we respond to art we understand but just don't like. Those are subtly but significantly different things."

I agree, and yet - it's such a tricky distinction. There is art I think I understand, and like, some I don't dislike, some I dislike, but what if I in fact don't understand it? There is certainly art I don't pretend to understand that I like.

I'm not entirely sure I know what it means to understand art. By understand, do you mean emotionally resonate in some way, or understand with the mind?

That's why, just for me, I rely on how it engages me. I reserve cognition for how it was made, and occasionally for exploring why a particular piece does or doesn't emotionally engage me.

In any case, most of what I wrote applies, from my perspective, to both categories.

"I suspect you wouldn't have taken the time to write an angry or dismissive comment about something you're already fully aware that you don't care about. You'd just move on. We all do that."

I wouldn't do so for either category. Arguing taste is a mug's game.

BTW Mike,

The corpus of photography contains some great street.....as a matter of fact Vivian Maier was added to the party lately. And I feature Martin Parr on my website and prominently as well......I liked his exhibition in Helmond for instance more then I would have thought before seeing it.

But having said that, the tone and the photo's of the post Andy presented well, got the hairs in my neck in allert position. And if somebody tries to provoke a strong reaction with some strongh words and some harsh photos, well maybe that is his point, maybe Andy wants to provoke a reaction with his pictures, maybe he wants to offend.

And I like people who are offensive in general but not at the cost of others. The others being some of the subjects in Andies pictures. I somehow don't think the Indian/Pakistany guy he depicted got up that day and thought "well today I have my picture taken with a 24mm straight in my face while I'm very busy crossing the street". I neither think that he will call Andy in order to order a copy of that picture to hang in his office, do you, but off course I might be wrong. If he would have left that picture out of the post I probably wouldn't have bothered to respond.

Now I guess I wasn't the only one offended by Andies rash tone of voice and his "style"....by the way Andy can do (a lot) better if he wants, as is seen on his site (I agree).

And in general I would like to say about street, learn not only shoot unseen......learn how to shoot with passion and COMPASSION......guys. Cartier Bresson and even Martin Parr could/can do that and that makes them great. Andy may have some catchin up to do in that department. Martin Parr shows people as victems of their society and even of their status and wealth. You feel sorry for his subjects but not because Martin took their picture but for the state they got themselves in or society got them in (wether they are Belgiums showing off their wealth (and lack of taste) in Knokke or Germans eating a Brattwurst in Cologne).

And I would also like to add, be carefull lads and lasses since privacy and law can be a pain in the ass to deal with. In most main land European countries Andrew could have taken the shot of the Indian/Pakistani looking guy but would have to ask him politely to sign a paper in order to be able to use it on the net.....well that sure takes the wind out of street photography doesn't it, and guess what got these laws instated in the first place?

Greetings, Ed

Moose,
Landscape:

http://artblart.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/robert_adams_07-sm.jpg

Scenic:

http://enchantingkerala.org/digital-photography-school/photos/landscape-photography-graduated-neutral-density-nd-filter.jpg

This is not a definition, and it's certainly very, very reductionist(!), but I think it at least points to the distinction.

Mike

"By understand, do you mean..."

Moose,
Well, it's probably not helpful to take my feeble few words as being some sort of gospel to be lovingly decoded. I'm just trying to express a bigger idea hurriedly. And the questions you're asking now, those are really what a good art school would take a semester, or a year, or four years to pick apart and explore....

Mike

"Well, my comment was disallowed, but it was certainly not vituperative. I had no comment about the photography, but I felt - and still do - that the tone of the article lets down ToP badly on several levels, and that's sad to see. Probably I should lay off the irony a touch, for, er, transatlantic reasons, but as a very long term reader of ToP, and contributor, and past subscriber to the 37th Frame, I also feel a touch kicked in the nuts."

To quote John McEnroe, "you cannot be serious." Your comment was not ONE of the worst I received that day, it was THE worst. Outrageous. And now you're acting all hurt that it wasn't posted?!?

Amazing.

Mike

Suitably chastised, I will now eliminate the phrase "witless anachronism" from my personal lexicon...
Roy

Ed,
I guess I don't get your preoccupation with what the subjects of the pictures might think of the pictures. The great majority of the subjects of street photographs never see the photographs, I'm guessing. The pictures aren't FOR them.

Mike

I’m not saying the rude comments that Mr. Kochanowski received were justified. I read the post, I disagreed with most of what I read, and I moved on. Others would have been wise to do the same. At the very least, they could have voiced their opinions in a more civilized fashion. What I am saying is, no one should be surprised by the reception the post received, based on its tone and content. Personally, I actually rather like the K-01, and I’ve been disappointed by the fact that so many have spent so much time bashing it’s looks, when what matters is how it works. Frankly however, in my opinion Mr. Kochanowski’s post did little to clarify what makes the K-01 a compelling choice.

As for the picture in this post compared to Andrew's in the other post, and with all due respect to the author of this one, one can make a few notices :

- It's B&W : WAY easier for street photo.
- Only one element is moving (the man). So, you 'just' have to wait on the other side of the street for someone interesting to cross your chosen background.
- The background itself is already narrative and you almost have a cool picture as it is.

Don't get me wrong : I enjoy this picture a lot and it's clearly an achievement. But it's just not fair to compare its merits with Andrew's ones in yesterday post, especially given he wasn't showcasing his work but his feelings about a camera.

Even better : one could argue it's an entirely different step (ha ha), which is a point I guess the two photogs would agree on. As usual, once you have stated a picture belongs to a genre, you still have a long way to go to define it further.

Frankly, I have a hard time understanding how people can feel so hurt and become overly aggressive because of a post that shows something with a bit of strong personality, especially on this blog where the boss of the place is known to have strong positions too.

THIS makes me feel I could become overly agressive (but I won't).

Vincent - A moderately warm blooded french reader.

That is a great comparison. I like them both but prefer the Scenic

"This is not a definition, and it's certainly very, very reductionist(!), but I think it at least points to the distinction."

The danger of a high level of reductionism is creation of "a distinction without a difference". "I can't describe it, but I know it when I see it." straddles the line between definable difference and taste.

If the flag were not there, would the second example still be Scenic? The examples you chose seem to me to skate awfully close to a sort of visual esthetic of asceticism.

Which is this? I assure you that it is simply a shot of a scene I came across while driving, stopped, and took a photo of. Neither artificially chosen subject, nor time of day/year, etc. nor containing any man made elements.

"Reductionism is dead." is a pretty accurate paraphrase of pp 208-210 of A Different Universe, by Robert B. Laughlin, PhD, Nobel Prize, endowed chair at Stanford. Of course that's only for science. \;-)>

Irreducible Moose

"And the questions you're asking now, those are really what a good art school would take a semester, or a year, or four years to pick apart and explore...."

OH boy, thanks! I'm even happier than I was, to be simply taking and enjoying photographs, and not in school dissecting art. {:~)>

Back to playing at photographer ...

Moose

Regarding scenics vs. landscapes, did Ansel Adams do mostly scenics, landscapes, or a mixture? Certainly he cared about how they looked, and they were often pretty. Sounds like a good topic for another post...

I really appreciate the art of putting together a portfolio, and it's not a quality I'm looking for when I'm reading a review. Especially not when I'm enjoying the review as much as I did yesterday.

@Mike,

I know Mike and I don't hold that against you. But in my world (and in my photographic views) respect is something that is given unconditionally not something that is received unconditionally. I hope you'll be able to spot that fine difference in a picture...maybe not now, but in the future. Anyhow that's why I like Vivian Maier's (which she didn't publish by the way) and Bill Cunninghams work and detest most of Adrew's (and Bruce's).

(and thanks for posting my views)

Greetings, Ed.

The comments to this entry are closed.