Bruce Gilden.. being interviewed by Martin Parr

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?
 
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
 
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
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.
 
the man's work
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.
 
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.
The perennial dilemma of the Avant-Garde: What to do when the shock wears off? Why, become more shocking, of course! Yawn.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom