cam
the need for speed
Lancaster Street just gutted me.
i used to work in an area with lots of homeless people and became familiar with many. i used to bring leftovers, be it from going out or cooking to much for myself. we became friends, in a wary way that it was possible. i see this in their faces that they feel the same towards you. warmth, amusement, but with the necessary caution of the street.
i, for one, love the look of the Noctilux. the half-plane facial focus/out of focus expresses all this duality brilliantly.
but still, it's Lancaster Street that will haunt me...
i used to work in an area with lots of homeless people and became familiar with many. i used to bring leftovers, be it from going out or cooking to much for myself. we became friends, in a wary way that it was possible. i see this in their faces that they feel the same towards you. warmth, amusement, but with the necessary caution of the street.
i, for one, love the look of the Noctilux. the half-plane facial focus/out of focus expresses all this duality brilliantly.
but still, it's Lancaster Street that will haunt me...
pcsmythe
Member
Wow. I am truly thankful for all of the comments. I didn't really expect such a response.
You guys have been generous with your words so let me see if I can answer a few questions.
I started out the project in the same manner as Avedon, Howard Schatz and Lynn Blodgett - I put up a background and took portraits after talking to the subjects for 1-2 minutes. The portraits were the usual 1/2 body portraits - head and 1/2 body. While that turned up many technically good photographs, they seemed sterile and, frankly, seemed to be just a copy of those 3.
After mulling over what I wanted to accomplish, I realized a problem with clothing. The 3's homeless portraits included clothing which allows many viewers to form a disassociation - an "I'm not one of them" mentality. Consequently, I shifted my approach.
I ditched the R9 and the background and took my M to them. I'm not a volunteer at any of the shelters, etc. (wish I had the time) so it took a lot of time to develop a rapport. I didn't spend an extraordinary amount of time with any single person, but I could tell you a lot about each one (you'd be surprised who is the crackhead, the seven-time felon, or has been working for years to get off the street). And the nice thing is, they all know me.
Except for two (from the first day), every photograph was made on the street with available light and no props. As for daylight photos, I'm also not a real fan in a technical sense, but this is their environment (which was not a part of Blodgett's, Avedon's or Schatz's work - their portraits are, in a way, excised from environment) and part of my "eye" was to juxtapose soul to environment.
There is a variety of reasons for why I wanted to do the project; money isn't one of them. I've kept my day job and have a few ideas of where to take it. Honestly, I learned some things from my subjects during the project that made me change my mind about where to take it.
With regard to the Noct's softness, Jay's and JD's photos (2nd and 3rd on the first series) were both taken with it. Of course, there are others that are softer Noct pics, but I chose those photographs over sharper ones that I had taken.
Just a note about softness and approach. The Avedons, etc. all took their homeless projects with the same camera, same lens, same approach (well, Blodgett had two cameras). I used several different lenses handheld. Over the course of the project I found myself gravitating more to a creative aesthetic than keeping with a strict sharpness regime. In my mind, that has allowed more for my subjects' individuality (and more creative photography which is always a good thing).
One good example is Dale (he is one that has an out of focus "bulbous" nose). I took about 15 fifteen photographs of Dale and several of them were technically sharp as a tack. The one I picked as "best of show," though, is all out of focus except for his eyes. This one with his eyes demonstrates much more of his soul than the other ones did.
To me, the creative photograph is much harder than the technically sharp one.
One result of the project is that it has firmly planted me in the rangefinder camp. I'm M and can't go back.
Cam: Your comments were spot on with what I've attempted to communicate. Thanks - makes the whole project worthwhile.
You guys have been generous with your words so let me see if I can answer a few questions.
I started out the project in the same manner as Avedon, Howard Schatz and Lynn Blodgett - I put up a background and took portraits after talking to the subjects for 1-2 minutes. The portraits were the usual 1/2 body portraits - head and 1/2 body. While that turned up many technically good photographs, they seemed sterile and, frankly, seemed to be just a copy of those 3.
After mulling over what I wanted to accomplish, I realized a problem with clothing. The 3's homeless portraits included clothing which allows many viewers to form a disassociation - an "I'm not one of them" mentality. Consequently, I shifted my approach.
I ditched the R9 and the background and took my M to them. I'm not a volunteer at any of the shelters, etc. (wish I had the time) so it took a lot of time to develop a rapport. I didn't spend an extraordinary amount of time with any single person, but I could tell you a lot about each one (you'd be surprised who is the crackhead, the seven-time felon, or has been working for years to get off the street). And the nice thing is, they all know me.
Except for two (from the first day), every photograph was made on the street with available light and no props. As for daylight photos, I'm also not a real fan in a technical sense, but this is their environment (which was not a part of Blodgett's, Avedon's or Schatz's work - their portraits are, in a way, excised from environment) and part of my "eye" was to juxtapose soul to environment.
There is a variety of reasons for why I wanted to do the project; money isn't one of them. I've kept my day job and have a few ideas of where to take it. Honestly, I learned some things from my subjects during the project that made me change my mind about where to take it.
With regard to the Noct's softness, Jay's and JD's photos (2nd and 3rd on the first series) were both taken with it. Of course, there are others that are softer Noct pics, but I chose those photographs over sharper ones that I had taken.
Just a note about softness and approach. The Avedons, etc. all took their homeless projects with the same camera, same lens, same approach (well, Blodgett had two cameras). I used several different lenses handheld. Over the course of the project I found myself gravitating more to a creative aesthetic than keeping with a strict sharpness regime. In my mind, that has allowed more for my subjects' individuality (and more creative photography which is always a good thing).
One good example is Dale (he is one that has an out of focus "bulbous" nose). I took about 15 fifteen photographs of Dale and several of them were technically sharp as a tack. The one I picked as "best of show," though, is all out of focus except for his eyes. This one with his eyes demonstrates much more of his soul than the other ones did.
To me, the creative photograph is much harder than the technically sharp one.
One result of the project is that it has firmly planted me in the rangefinder camp. I'm M and can't go back.
Cam: Your comments were spot on with what I've attempted to communicate. Thanks - makes the whole project worthwhile.
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
Welcome to the M Camp, Peter.
usagisakana
Established
I just had a look through the galleries, and all I can say is wow. Amazing work.