The Absurdist

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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
Nh3 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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 !
 
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).
 
pvdhaar said:
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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
tom.w.bn said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.












How would you like it to fall down on your doorstep? Remember how BIG it was?





 
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.


srtiwari said:
This is meaningless posturing. Why not just move along and let those who are enjoying it, do so ?
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom