JackForster
Established
Hi everyone,
With some trepidation I'm making my first (well, second; I posted a couple of shots to the "best street photo" thread) post on these forums. It's been an interesting experience, these last couple of months. I'm not sure exactly what happened but after three years or so of shooting things for the mag I work for (a quarterly for high end watch collectors) with an EOS 30D and then a 5D MkII I realized that I was sick of lugging around a heavy DSLR and several lenses, and found out that for most of what I was doing (largely straight to the website; hardly anything for print as most of our product shoots are done in Singapore, in a studio, by a pro, and then digitally composited) the DSLR setup was not only overkill but unecessary. Soooo. . .
At about the same time I started feeling that way I also started playing with my wife's old cameras from college --a Rolleiflex (which reminded me of the Yashica D I used when I was a teenager) a Yashica Electro 35, and a Nikon FE. A battery adapter and a few rolls of color film later I found myself reading around on the Internet and BIN'd a Canonet QL17 GIII off eBay.
The inevitable happend, which is that I started reading about Leicas and suddenly it seemed as if nothing else would do (this despite my being perfectly aware that the Canonet was taking perfectly good pictures at less than the cost of the cheapest usable Leica body I could find, let alone lenses.)
I find myself now carrying around an M6, waiting for an M3 just purchased from another forum member, and using my wife's FE as a second body (it's got a nice f1.2 prime on it.) (My wife, who is a street/urban landscape photographer, has meanwhile been taking great pictures with a Canon S95 and her iPhone camera, and is about to have her second show here in NY.)
I imagine this is a familiar story and it's not really philosophically pertinent but after shooting a couple of dozen rolls of film here in New York I do have a couple of thoughts --well, observations, anyway; I hardly think I have anything philosophically conclusive to offer about as thoroughly discussed a subject as street photography! Anyhow, here goes.
First, the street imposes a very strong geometry on a photograph --the rectilinearity of buildings and streets is something I feel really aware of compositionally and it's easy to fall into very comfortable, formulaic framing; something to watch out for.
Second, it's amazing how much the mobile phone has homogenized human posture --there is something about a person hunched over a cell phone that seems really kinesthetically dead, and one sees it a lot when one starts paying attention to how human posture presents itself.
Third, taking people's pictures feels intrusive. I don't like having my picture taken myself, and taking someone's image feels like stealing on a very deep level (maybe it's just that like most people who pride themselves on being very rational I'm also deeply superstitious.) I seem to need to feel that a photograph on the street is philosophically justifiable in some way --aesthetically, journalistically, or what have you --otherwise it's an inexcusable exploitation of another human being on a very serious level; it's an existential exploitation, almost a form of involuntary enslavement.
Finally, it's hard not to feel the weight of the billions of images that are made every day and wonder why one would want to add to them.
Jack
PS Oh, and then there are the thoughts I'm sure many of you have had about whether or not, in being choosy about cameras and lenses, I'm not just indulging in a sort of equipment fetishism that is not only beside the point but actually a distraction from really thinking about the photograph. . . that sort of thing ;-) .
J.
With some trepidation I'm making my first (well, second; I posted a couple of shots to the "best street photo" thread) post on these forums. It's been an interesting experience, these last couple of months. I'm not sure exactly what happened but after three years or so of shooting things for the mag I work for (a quarterly for high end watch collectors) with an EOS 30D and then a 5D MkII I realized that I was sick of lugging around a heavy DSLR and several lenses, and found out that for most of what I was doing (largely straight to the website; hardly anything for print as most of our product shoots are done in Singapore, in a studio, by a pro, and then digitally composited) the DSLR setup was not only overkill but unecessary. Soooo. . .
At about the same time I started feeling that way I also started playing with my wife's old cameras from college --a Rolleiflex (which reminded me of the Yashica D I used when I was a teenager) a Yashica Electro 35, and a Nikon FE. A battery adapter and a few rolls of color film later I found myself reading around on the Internet and BIN'd a Canonet QL17 GIII off eBay.
The inevitable happend, which is that I started reading about Leicas and suddenly it seemed as if nothing else would do (this despite my being perfectly aware that the Canonet was taking perfectly good pictures at less than the cost of the cheapest usable Leica body I could find, let alone lenses.)
I find myself now carrying around an M6, waiting for an M3 just purchased from another forum member, and using my wife's FE as a second body (it's got a nice f1.2 prime on it.) (My wife, who is a street/urban landscape photographer, has meanwhile been taking great pictures with a Canon S95 and her iPhone camera, and is about to have her second show here in NY.)
I imagine this is a familiar story and it's not really philosophically pertinent but after shooting a couple of dozen rolls of film here in New York I do have a couple of thoughts --well, observations, anyway; I hardly think I have anything philosophically conclusive to offer about as thoroughly discussed a subject as street photography! Anyhow, here goes.
First, the street imposes a very strong geometry on a photograph --the rectilinearity of buildings and streets is something I feel really aware of compositionally and it's easy to fall into very comfortable, formulaic framing; something to watch out for.
Second, it's amazing how much the mobile phone has homogenized human posture --there is something about a person hunched over a cell phone that seems really kinesthetically dead, and one sees it a lot when one starts paying attention to how human posture presents itself.
Third, taking people's pictures feels intrusive. I don't like having my picture taken myself, and taking someone's image feels like stealing on a very deep level (maybe it's just that like most people who pride themselves on being very rational I'm also deeply superstitious.) I seem to need to feel that a photograph on the street is philosophically justifiable in some way --aesthetically, journalistically, or what have you --otherwise it's an inexcusable exploitation of another human being on a very serious level; it's an existential exploitation, almost a form of involuntary enslavement.
Finally, it's hard not to feel the weight of the billions of images that are made every day and wonder why one would want to add to them.
Jack
PS Oh, and then there are the thoughts I'm sure many of you have had about whether or not, in being choosy about cameras and lenses, I'm not just indulging in a sort of equipment fetishism that is not only beside the point but actually a distraction from really thinking about the photograph. . . that sort of thing ;-) .
J.
FrankS
Registered User
I'm with you on all but your third point. Your feelings are valid for you, but you mustn't project or impose them onto others who do not have similar emotional baggage about being photographed and photographing others.
Oh, welcome to RFF!
Oh, welcome to RFF!
claacct
Well-known
Maybe you shouldn't hit the road with your camera, Jack...
JackForster
Established
Thanks for the welcome! It goes without saying (or at least I thought it did) that I don't have any particular judgement about other people's reactions. I do think, even as a beginner at shooting in the street, that there is something to be said for being mindful about presuming there is no need for consent or presuming that consent is a given merely through a person's presence in a public space --and clearly, from the number of electrons that have been spilled already here and elsewhere on this point, I'm not alone in thinking it deserves at least consideration in the photographer's mind when he or she is taking a picture
.Jack
JackForster
Established
But I do. As I mentioned in my other reply (and apparently I wasn't clear on the point) I am not being prescriptive about what other photographers do and I'm not inclined to project my own aversion to being photographed onto others (and as the history of photography clearly seems to demonstrate disliking having one's own picture taken is not a barrier to taking photographs oneself.)
In medicine the principle of treatment is informed consent --"informed" is a key concept to me in considering this issue. When we take a person's picture they have no knowledge of what use we will make of it, and often their permission is neither solicited nor, even if it is, is there any realistic way they can know what use we intend to make of their likeness. I certainly don't argue that this should constitute an absolute barrier to photography, as I myself have already transgressed this barrier on numerous occasions, but why should one assume a priori that it's OK to take a stranger's picture, anymore than one should a priori assume that it's not?
There are certainly plausible arguments on the pro side, but especially given the ease with which images can be manipulated and the speed with which they can be disseminated nowadays, isn't the question even more apropos now than in the past?
J.
jesse1dog
Light Catcher
I'm curious - just why did you go to the expense of buying Leica? Are your images any better than those with the Canonet? Are they significantly more obviously film images than the DSLR or the Canonet?
And, yes, this is a great forum - hope to see a lot of your pictures - welcome.
jesse
And, yes, this is a great forum - hope to see a lot of your pictures - welcome.
jesse
SteveM(PA)
Poser
Welcome Jack. I like your thoughtful words. Don't force a style onto your convictions (unless of course you're looking to modify those). NYC is so full of visual ironies and conundrums that people could so easily not have to be a focus but rather a consequence.
Many photographers may not think it is ok, but are willing to deal with the consquences and / or be responsible for what they choose to make photos of. Photographing strangers IS generally intrusive... but that doesn't stop many of us anyway.
JackForster
Established
Haha, well, funny you should ask. My wife wants to know exactly the same thing
. You know, part of the reason that I went to the expense and trouble of buying Leica was. . . well, there were several reasons.The first was sheer curiosity --I was wondering the same thing you are! Why should anyone go to the trouble and expense of buying Leica? That they have excellent optics and build quality doesn't take away from the fact that they are undeniably savagely expensive (the more so now that, as friends of mine who cover these things for a living tell me, the fast growing Chinese market for luxury products has helped drive up prices and make Leica glass like hen's teeth.)
The second was --and I admit it straight out --sheer equipment fetishism. It is a character flaw, but there it is
.The third was a deep disgust with the equally high expense and ultimate disposability of digital. It just suddenly seemed incredibly foolish to have thousands of dollars of equipment that you can practically see depreciating unless you are a pro and you can write off a new body every couple of years as an expense.
The fourth was the incredible backwards compatibility of Leica equipment --I just found the idea that a fifty year old lens would still work well on one year old camera seductive.
The fifth was a desire to feel tangibly connected to a tradition of great photography done with the Leica (though natch, a camera doth not a great picture make and I know from my own experience that it is as easy to make a tedious, cliched image with a Leica as with a Canonet. I've done it
.)So no, it doesn't make a better picture. It doesn't make a more film-like or richer image. It is not really a practical decision. But then Man Doth Not Live By Bread Alone, or we wouldn't be taking pictures in the first place, I suppose.
J.
PS Oh, and James Bond used one in "Goldfinger." James Bond
.JackForster
Established
Thank you Steve. Indeed it's difficult to not force a style onto one's convictions and in fact, I find it interesting to work against them (they're not really convictions but gut reactions anyway, at least the one about invading people's privacy.) New York really is an overwhelming place to shoot; in a way it's tough because it's been so photographed and the "New York Street Photo" is a cliche unto itself; but on the other hand there are so many possibilities on a single block you could confine yourself to a single block for a lifetime without ever running out of things to shoot.
J.
JackForster
Established
Sure. It's not stopping me either. I think "taking responsibility" is important and a very thoughtfully put way of considering it. Part of that is thinking fully about the implications of what one is doing. Actually, I think ultimately it can enrich the image.
J.
L David Tomei
Well-known
Hi J.
Enjoyed reading your posts. Welcome and looking forward to seeing more of your work.
Ciao!
David
Enjoyed reading your posts. Welcome and looking forward to seeing more of your work.
Ciao!
David
furcafe
Veteran
uhoh7
Veteran
Well if you are in a city you are on CCTV everyday. Nobody thinks twice about that. But if you SEE a stranger shoot your pic, you may take offense.
Just never let them see you, Jack
Re billions of images. You're right, today we see so many shots we get jaded and think, so what?
However you also might ask, why write a diary? So much has been written, what's the point? For me my photostream is a diary, and once in awhile strangers--and of course family---enjoy the entries. The better the shot, the more power it has to make me reflect.
You could also ask a 6 yr old: why finger paint? So much has been fingerpainted already.
For that matter our existence itself is a bit redundant---7 billion?---except to us
hellomikmik
Well-known
i think you are asking yourself right questions.
dig deeper, don't listen to others people: "it's ok, don't worry"
dig deeper, don't listen to others people: "it's ok, don't worry"
emraphoto
Veteran
i concur. ask yourself these questions. i think issues of anonymity need to asked. you might find the questions can lead to better photographs.
as Frank has mentioned, the questions are of course personal reflections.
i believe KM-25? wrote quite a bit about these issues and their effect a while back. at the time i didn't think much about it but as it (the topic) lingers in my head, i can't help but echo some of the sentiment.
from a purely personal point of view, 'street' photography is a term that generally neuters my interest. i was having beers with a fellow photographer a few nights back and the sentiment was "knowing peoples name makes for far more compelling photographs".
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Jack,
First highlight: Why not?
Until you are, maybe you'll never be happy about photographing people.
Remember, HCB gave it up for drawing -- and reputedly, he hated being photographed.
For me, anyone who photographs people but who objects to being photographed is about as intellectually and morally dishonest as it is possible to be. You don't have to like being photographed -- but objecting is another matter.
(I place quite a high value on intellectual honesty.)
Second highlight: unless you feel you can say something worthwhile with your pictures, there is indeed no reason to add to "the billions of images that are made every day". So don't. Much like adding to all the crap on the internet. You think you had something worthwhile to add there (here), something that wasn't crap (and I agree). Show the same self-confidence behind your camera as behind your keyboard,
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Nomad Z
Well-known
PS Oh, and James Bond used one in "Goldfinger." James Bond
An M3. He also used an unspecifed Leica in Moonraker.
celluloidprop
Well-known
This is a big issue for me - it was highlighted by an image that's probably long gone from RFF. Someone was touring India (IIRC) and had taken a photo of a woman begging. It was shot from some distance (15-20 feet), from normal standing height (she was sitting or kneeling), and was your basic 'here's an interesting looking homeless person!' shot. It repulsed me, and it had numerous extremely positive comments in the gallery.
I don't think that images on the street (made for art's sake - documentary/PJ work is a separate issue) need to be philosophically justifiable on a higher plane so much as humane and respectful.
There's not a lot of talk, even in the philosophy of photography forum here, about the ethics of public photography.
FrankS
Registered User
It is important to examine what one is doing and ask tough questions, in order to keep oneself mindful and honest. I was thinking that if there is something that makes one feel uncomfortable it usually only means one of two things: either your gut is telling you that what you are doing, whatever it is, is wrong and you should stop, or the uncomfort indicates that you have found an area for growth in yourself and the uncomfort comes from an unconscious realization of that. Just thinking out loud myself.