xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
Interesting to hear a Gilden's point of view on his photography.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pnVLkTohlo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pnVLkTohlo
Bruce Gilden.. being interviewed by Martin Parr
- Thread starter xayraa33
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 11
- Views 1K
charjohncarter
Veteran
I still wonder how he gets that close with a Leica: >3.5 feet.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
In meters it is one meter, most of more less modern lenses could focus 0.7 meters.
0.7 meters is the arm length.
> is more, < is less, btw.
Any other technical questions?
0.7 meters is the arm length.
> is more, < is less, btw.
Any other technical questions?
Timmyjoe
Veteran
He was probably shooting f8 or maybe f11 in his street images, maybe using a 35mm or 28mm, which, if he focused at about 3 feet, would give him a depth of field probably down to a foot and a half.
Best,
-Tim
Best,
-Tim
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
The INternet's most hated photographer?
Like a lot of folks, I have mixed opinion of the man's work, but what tends to get overlooked is that he's taken that style of photography to places like Haiti and created master works from it.
Like a lot of folks, I have mixed opinion of the man's work, but what tends to get overlooked is that he's taken that style of photography to places like Haiti and created master works from it.
Retro-Grouch
Veteran
Which, if it's the case, probably means he had a lot of otherwise good shots that were ruined by bad focus. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you don't fall into the Instagram trap of believing that every photo you make should be made public. A good photographer edits his/her work ruthlessly, and knows what to toss. I've always thought it would be fun to root around in Edward Weston's (or Ansel Adams' or Minor White's, etc. etc.) wastebasket. I'm sure those photographers known for their technical excellence nevertheless threw out a lot of less-than-excellent stuff.
Out to Lunch
Veteran
At one point, we had shock radio and shock TV, and then we had Bruce Gilden. He was not the only photographer shooting people in the face with a flash gun -have a look at Mark Cohen's work, but the media crowned him the King of assault photography. Today, people have grown tired of the genre. E la nave va.
Retro-Grouch
Veteran
The perennial dilemma of the Avant-Garde: What to do when the shock wears off? Why, become more shocking, of course! Yawn.
Last edited:
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
phranklee
Member
Geez both Gliden and Parr are speaking out the wrong ends of their digestive tracts. Awful human beings
WoodallP
Pragmatist Barnack lover
I must be missing something but why do so many people hate Martin Parr? As a brit who grew up in the 1970s and 80s he captured exactly the bizarreness of what things looked like when you pushed them to the extreme and sometimes you did not have to push very much. I recognise so much from when I was growing up in his work.
mconnealy
Well-known
I thought it was an excellent interview. Both men spoke candidly and honestly and obviously love the process of photography aside from any consideration of recognition or recompense. Gliden's story resonated with me because of the era he got started doing street work in NewYork. Using close-in flash would never be in my tool box, but his comments about what makes street photography interesting seemed right on to me.
Similar threads
