I Reversed My Street Tactics And A Good Start.

[Kim Coxon]

I do not agree. The Queen's use of "we" is somewhat different and bound in history. I would not expect it of others including in what you call the "classes".

Kim

The queen of england often refers to herself as "we". It's commen usage with some "classes".

 

[back alley]

i didn't say anything about taking offense, what i said was i prefer not to be spoken for, the queen notwithstanding.

 

[ruben]

*but*, sitting in front of someone's face and busting out your flash -- i'd bitchslap you and would fully expect to get bitchslaped if i did that to someone else.

get some fast film but please don't blind people with your light probe, have some courtesy; although i'm sure some of you are of the opinion of 'anything goes' in street photography.

Flash is auwful : it kills volumes and colors

Facing a person with flash from an 'in front of' position may produce awful red eyes on color film. Thats why I seated in a diagonal position to my prospected subject.

Since I pointed my camera to her for long seconds, evryone behind was aware I am going to make a photo. At some moment most if not all of people lost interest in me.

Today, due to natural evolution of consumer cameras, flash is accepted as part of the package. No doubt the flash I use is of the smallest available and not one for weddings.

With Neopan 1600 within an Israeli bus at night, you get a handheld digital meter reading of f/2,8 at 1/30 in the best of cases. The problem here for me is the 1/30. Several days ago I lost an overwhelming potential picture of a young mother smiling to her baby due to bus movement. I would prefer to loose it due to the mother disagreeing, but in such situation every one around including the mother would be very glad for a stranger making a photo of that baby. (For me it was not the baby but the unique happiness of the mother).

The issue of flash in general, is very simple. With Neopan you can shoot, and I use it and do, relatively lightened places, like shops, and well lightened streets. And in this case people should be relatively still. But there is a whole night world out there below these light levels, that the night photographers have to decide to catch or not.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[ruben]

Indeed!!!

And Ruben, you make me think about things I had not yet considered.

I agree. Brazilian coffee - first class!

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[Sparrow]

The Campanille Hotel is Hendaye is fine and close to the main road.

The Colombian coffee here was nothing special.

I have some Uruguian beef for next week. I'm roasting it for 30 min. a kilo plus 20 min. at gas 8. Then resting.

I would need a rest too after all that cooking

 

[photogdave]

With regards to Formal's "masterpiece", I just don't get it.
It's a nice shot, and I've admired much of Formal's work in the gallery, but I don't think it qualifies for masterpiece standing. Am I missing something?
It's a photograph of a staged event, the photographer got in nice and close with a wide lens and captured a good expression. It's the kind of shot I'd expect from a good newspaper photog but that's about it.
There are better photos in Formal's own gallery and many others here on RFF. Anyway, I'm not trying to sound negative; this has been a very enjoyable thread!

 

[ruben]

........I must admit that I am currently in two minds as to the ethics of "stealing" photographs from strangers. ..........

..... So, Ruben, do you mind if I talk about your observations the next time I give this workshop? I think this would really help students think through multiple approaches to getting tacit approval from subjects through body language and expressions.
cheers
doug

According to me, after you have given some fractions of second to the subject become aware of your intentions, whatever is not a clear cut "NO", should be taken as an invitation to.

I am tempted to believe it is also true. It is true at least at the uncounscious mind of the subject.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[Lol999]

With regards to Formal's "masterpiece", I just don't get it.
It's a nice shot, and I've admired much of Formal's work in the gallery, but I don't think it qualifies for masterpiece standing. Am I missing something?
It's a photograph of a staged event, the photographer got in nice and close with a wide lens and captured a good expression. It's the kind of shot I'd expect from a good newspaper photog but that's about it.
There are better photos in Formal's own gallery and many others here on RFF. Anyway, I'm not trying to sound negative; this has been a very enjoyable thread!

I'll be honest I'm of the same opinion regarding that particular shot, but as the saying goes "one man's Picasso is another mans piece of crap".

Cheers, Lol

 

[bsdunek]

I suspect that governments everywhere will eventually attempt to restrict photography by citizens. Governments like to keep an eye on the people; but, don't want the people to keep an eye on them.

Modern times.

Boy, isn't that the truth!!!

 

[ruben]

With regards to Formal's "masterpiece", I just don't get it.
It's a nice shot, and I've admired much of Formal's work in the gallery, but I don't think it qualifies for masterpiece standing. Am I missing something?
It's a photograph of a staged event, the photographer got in nice and close with a wide lens and captured a good expression. It's the kind of shot I'd expect from a good newspaper photog but that's about it.
There are better photos in Formal's own gallery and many others here on RFF. Anyway, I'm not trying to sound negative; this has been a very enjoyable thread!

In a broad sense, there is no doubt that everyone is entitled to rate a photo by its appeal to him. Here my opportunity to confess that lanscape pictures, without humans within, bore me, although we have extreme high quality photographers, like Ferider, to mention just one example. In issues of taste there is nothing written.

But Dave, I am in serious disagreement about the capabilities of an average good newspaper photog to be able to produce this shot, unless that newspaper photog was another Formal, in need of the newspaper monthly salary.

(BTW, in Israel some highly prestigious photographers are employed by the best press, in exchange of miserable salaries).

I confess I had not have the time to review Formal's gallery, nor his interesting site, as I am reserving it for a good moment of relaxation. For me, I feel we have a mighty phenomena to diggest.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[photogdave]

Then all I can say is that perhaps the newspapers in your area aren't employing very good photographers.
I'm not saying it is a poor photo by any means, but masterpiece is not a term to be used lightly. It is a fine photograph but not a once-in-a-lifetime achievement.

 

[gregg]

Ruben - what a great thread you have started.

I love the description of your thought process. My work in photo-essay brings me up-close to people who often have less hesitation after you have conversed with them for a while. Yet, there is always a moment that "makes" the picture - sometimes with their notice and sometimes not.

Any type of candid photography with strangers still requires the chutzpa/cajones/ba**s to get in someone's face and make an image. I love your encounter with the older lady who "let" you take her picture - a perfect reply!

I am fortunate enough to work with interns on occasion and while I don' t consider myself a "master teacher" my main advice to them is to think about what they are going shoot - have a shot list and then be prepared to throw that away as the situation changes.

Without a plan you are not making images, just taking pictures. The lucky ones take pictures that look OK - the rest of us bust our butts to be in the right place and time.

As a former newpaper photog I agree with Ruben's point to a degree. Editors often tell photogs what they need pictures of. There are photo drones that can deliver just that. But by and large the newpaper photogs I've met are very competent visual artists - they just don't always get to showcase their work due to the demands of the newspaper.

Thanks again.

 

[ruben]

Dave,

You open a very interesting issue.

Perhaps a better qualification by me and you could be obtained if we could put this picture within a live exposition in a line with others. In such eventual imaginary situation, it will be of interest to me what my choices would be.

By itself, this image excites me to my bones. This is me. Some other folks feel similary, although I cannot measure their inner feelings. That's all.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[back alley]

Me neither, but that was not my point.

and so your point was...?

 

[photogdave]

Dave,

You open a very interesting issue.

Perhaps a better qualification by me and you could be obtained if we could put this picture within a live exposition in a line with others. In such eventual imaginary situation, it will be of interest to me what my choices would be.

By itself, this image excites me to my bones. This is me. Some other folks feel similary, although I cannot measure their inner feelings. That's all.

Cheers,
Ruben

Good idea. My computer's dictionary defines Masterpiece as:
A work of outstanding artistry, skill, or workmanship. (A great literary masterpiece/ The car was a masterpiece of space-age technology)
An artist's or craftsman's best piece of work. (The painting is arguably Picasso's masterpiece)
A historical piece of work by a craftsman accepted as qualification for membership of a guild as an acknowledged master.

So if we agree on these definitions then the first would agree with your opinion. Personally I find the first definition to be a little too broad.
If we consider the second definition then it's fair to say the artist must complete an entire body of work before one of the pieces within it can be considered the masterpiece.
The third definition implies some sort of judging process by other qualified masters. I don't think either of us have achieved "master" status quite yet, so we can forget about that one!
I consider the second definition to be closer to what I have always considered the criterion for masterpiece; the best example of a lifetime's worth of work.
It appears to me that we are both correct!

 

[ruben]

I will rebuke by going back to common use of the term. But what the hell it will help me, if I love this picture ? After all I am not distributing prizes at a competition, but reacting to what I see.

I am not the most balanced dweller around, I tend to be over-enthusiastic, I am one-sided by character and ceirtainly I didn't mean that this was Formal's best picture ever he will never surpass.

The only real measure I have to resize my definition, was to see this picture in an living expo along others, from other photographers. This side by side comparition is the known tool of the darkroom printer, allowing him to measure the most subtle differences.

Perhaps, instead of "masterpiece", "outstanding" would be a better definition. Would it make a real difference for us ?

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[photogdave]

Perhaps, instead of "masterpiece", "outstanding" would be a better definition. Would it make a real difference for us ?

I think it does make a difference because instead of saying "this work is the best" it is saying "this work is one of the best".

 

[palker]

Brilliant, an objective set of definitions for a subjective subject.
My only problem is in the definition, because once we include "The painting is arguably Picasso's masterpiece" suggests instead the phrase "Best of a bad bunch", and I don't think this is what was meant.
Thanks to ruben, I enjoyed your thought provoking start to this thread, and if ever you are able to post the images I'd like to see them. The whole street photography is a new concept to me which I'd like to explore more, and your insights are very helpful.

 

[Al Patterson]

With regards to Formal's "masterpiece", I just don't get it.
It's a nice shot, and I've admired much of Formal's work in the gallery, but I don't think it qualifies for masterpiece standing. Am I missing something?
It's a photograph of a staged event, the photographer got in nice and close with a wide lens and captured a good expression. It's the kind of shot I'd expect from a good newspaper photog but that's about it.
There are better photos in Formal's own gallery and many others here on RFF. Anyway, I'm not trying to sound negative; this has been a very enjoyable thread!

I'm with you. OK, a Woman as a Piece of Meat. Yeah, nothing new with that as a concept. The expression made the shot, but I agree that it was staged, and thus likely not really a pure "street" shot.

 

[ruben]

But it was precisely the woman's special glance into Formal's what was not staged at all and became, for me, the center of interest of the picture. The abitity of Formal to study his angle, and click at the right mini fraction of second, is part of his own merit. He could have missed the moment as nothing, but he catched it. This is virtuosity too.

As I wrote in my second comment at below the picture, isolate the woman's face with the help of your hands, and you will see a wonderfull image too.

I was not there, but I would bet Formal surrounded the woman several times, studying her and the backgrounds, until he got his picture.

In order to avoid misunderstandings, in my commentary below the image, I mentioned the other elements, still enhancing the image.

Cheers,
Ruben