I Reversed My Street Tactics And A Good Start.

[telenous]

Interesting Ruben. You can sometimes get some very unique results when the subject 'breaks the fourth wall'.

It is occasionally done in cinema or the theater. It doesn't always work, but when it does it can be very powerful.

HL

As above. Eye contact is not a photographic panacea but it may contribute to the final result in providing for some raw energy between photographer and subject. Agreed though, there's a sense of personal excitement when you manage to bring home that kind of intimacy in a photo: Sometimes it happens and you know straight away the photo is good, sometimes you think it is and it isn't, and, well, sometimes you think nothing of it and you are flabbergasted by what you see in the negative. I suppose, it's one thing to be pleased about having managed to take an intimate photo and another whether the photo is actually good. And while editing it may be useful to ask oneself, what the particular photo under examination actually means; and if and whether it integrates with what one has been doing photographically for a particular project or, perhaps, all along. Not that this process will spare you from making the occasional editing blunder, but there you are.

Going back for a moment to Formal's photo, I just had another look and I think it is a good one (at lease for me it is!) even if one chooses to raise a couple of quibbles. It seems to me to be offering a commentary on a certain state of affairs alluded by the photo (and the background people, esp. the drinking guy are a quintessential part of it); and it coheres with much else I have seen from Formal. As a comment on the photo I see above by Sitemistic (not picking on the two of you guys, just discussing the photos - Sitemistic I have seen some great photos of yours, so, please, no hard feelings, esp. as I am not entirely comfortable engaging in negative criticism in photography) I find it lacking in these two respects - btw part, or, sometimes whole of the reason most of my photos end up in the proverbial bin, notwithstanding quite a few ones that actually do have eye contact, flash or what you have.

Best,

 

[ruben]

I'm finding this thread extremely interesting and while I wouldn't call "More Beef" a masterpiece, I'm very flattered by Ruben's enjoyment of the image. I do not view myself as an artist, but I'm pleased when one of my images provokes a strong reaction.

One of the reasons I use the 24mm lens is to force myself to get close and engage with subjects. Sometimes I do and sometimes I don't, but I rarely try to conceal my camera or take candid shots.

As Ruben has observed, I used the technique of framing the picture and waiting to the moment when the subject realizes that you are taking a picture and makes eye contact. Of course in this case the girl was posing, but in general this techniques gets an engaged subject before they start posing.

As some people have observed, the background in this image is very important. Obviously I position myself to get this general composition, but an interesting background is always a matter of luck.

I think that using a flash would be to obtrusive and I don't have the courage, but I have a friend who does and I'm impressed that Ruben has managed it.

David

Hi Formal,

The very truth is that when I used the term "masterpiece", I used it in a rather "from the hip" language. I can retreat if you ask me for to a more accurate definition. Then I will say it is a Great photo, nothing less.

Yet there is another aspect I would like you to be aware of, Besides enjoying it, your image is the type of enabling me to learn a lot.

This is why I have been thinking about the possibility to have a special subforum at RFF in which each of us, willing to, could bring an image of the Masters of Photography, each one in a different thread, for in depht analysis. Imagine the treasure we could accumulate in such a subforum, enjoying the analysis of us, photographers, people with cameras, the most qualifyied beings to such analysis.

We have among us many members with great knowledge of the greatest photographers, who could contribute with more specific historical details about the masters' work. We have even professors of photography at RFF.

And we have the most powerfull weapon of all: team democratic thinking.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[ruben]

Hi sitemistic,

There is a whole world of emotions each one of us carry within............ What I had to say about Formal's image, I have said it twice below his picture and refined along this thread. And this thread has made me to realize further elements to celebrete at Formal's more beef : The whole image is a kind of song to life, of the sort Spannish speaking people could understand from Carlos Gardel tangos, a twisted tragy-comic parody, written in the most slenguish style, with extraordinary rythm, bearing a lot of sense.
...............
Friends as before,
Ruben

PS
It is not just about eye contact, but what those eyes communicate to you. Beniliam uses to say something like the eyes are the windows to the soul. I add that sometimes such windows are closed, and sometimes open in a photo.

As specifically for those eyes, they simply speak to me, a viewer.

Cheers,
ruben

 

[brianbek]

Hi all
This is interesting. I like to read about how others go about street photography. As for my self I recently began visiting my local open air market, and takes pictures from the hip. I dont have the courage yet to put the camera to the eye. But I know it will come at some point.
But when I do take the pictures I look for interaction between people. I try to get minimum two people in the picture intereacting with each other.
The results so fgar have not produced any outstanding pictures but I am learning. And it is a joy to get back that roll of film a see how I performed.
Regards Brian

 

[telenous]

telenous, i know my photo is not a good photo. And I was not trying to "trap" Ruben into somehow attacking me or my photo. I'm seriously interested in exactly what it is for Ruben that sets one eye contact photo off from the other. I think Formal's "More Beef" photo is an excellent photo. But after reading all of Ruben's posts, I'm left with the impression that it's the "eyes" that have it for him. But I think that eye contact is only a small part of what makes the photo a good one.

I was just hoping that if I could get him to express in words the difference in the photos, both of which involve eye contact, that I could understand better what made the photo outstanding to him.

Ruben, I'm many thousands of images distant from having my feelings hurt about my photography. I harbor no illusions that I'm a David Allan Harvey or Sabastiao Salgado.

Sitemistic,

I hope it is clear I agree both with what you say and the spirit of making the discussion by offering a comparison shot. I agree in particular that the eye contact is not the most crucial aspect of the photo although I think it contributes somewhat (and that's one reason that makes it preferable from the companion shot where the model is turned away - the other one is that in the aforementioned photo we do not see so much of the reaction of the crowd, and that is essential in my view).

Best,

 

[marke]

I have to say that I've heard that thing about aboriginals not liking their picture taken, about their soul somehow being snatched, of about every aboriginal nation I've ever come across. Most of them never had such a problem in the beginning; the problem only developed when the photographers got annoying, or the aboriginals saw people making money from them, and they weren't getting any. I mean, how can an aboriginal have an ancient tradition about a camera, when cameras didn't show up until a hundred years ago? Usually you're told about this in solemnity, and you have to honor it, just in case, but when you really get to know some of them (northern American plains Indians in my case) they mostly just laugh. What they're really objecting to is being treated as some kind of object, or as an example of poverty.

Thanks for posting this, John. It's so true. The process of capturing someone's image is one thing, but what the photographer's intent to do with the image afterwards is what anyone would be concerned with.

 

[Beniliam]

Hi friends,

Very interesting subject, Ruben, congrats too for all the replies.

I agree with Alkis: Eye contact is not a photographic panacea but it may contribute to the final result in providing for some raw energy between photographer and subject.

I think that the eye contact can turn in a ´easy´resource if you always search this. Well, I must explain better, If you only wait the reaction of the subject for photograph him/her, maybe, with the time, you have a great gallery of characters with malevolent look . For example, the work of Bruce Gilden is a clear example of this. He wait until the subject look him, and then photograph, with direct flash and a wide angle lens. His images seems theatrical, delirious, raw... But Gilden craft is patent his image, and he know what he want.

Please, see the website of the spanish photograph Marcos Rodriguez, a Gilden´s pupil: http://www.urbefoto.com/

I think that the error, like in most of the cases, its just simplify. This is a valid and positive resource, but must not be definitive. There are in photography some unclear ideas that swarm around us and seems that condemn us to the repetition: the ´decisive moment´ of Cartier Bresson, the intersticio moment of Frank´s images, the fall horizon images of Winogrand, the eye contact of Gilden/Klein... Along the XX Century photography, a lot of photographs uses this eye contact formula for their images.But in most of the cases, this eye contact is not a characteristic in his work (like Klein or Gilden), was only a resource, one of the infinite resources for photograph people and enjoy.

I add some images that I hope you like it for example the eye contact.

Best wishes,


Lewis Hine:


Erich Salomon:


Henri Cartier Bresson:


Elliot Erwitt:


Louis Faurer:


Robert Doisneau:


Robert Frank:


Eugene Smith:


Garry Winogrand:


William Klein:


Bruce Gilden:


Ralph Gibson:

 

[ruben]

Not for me, just on the contrary. The facial expression of the woman centered on her eyes, that Formal captured, seems to me a very special moment of truth.

The woman is telling me (Formal, we,) something like "I don't give a damn, you poor guys upset by my teets ". Notice as well the Monalisa type of smile. Notice the wrinkles over her eyes, which can only show upon an internal feeling of a person, she is slightly fiddling with Formal. This woman is of a very powerfull character, seating there with great comfort. Formal captured a living person at a non staged moment, within a pre-staged situation.

As for Jock Sturges, in contrast, his pictures are staged and most of his subjects show dead frozen looks. Uninteresting to me, not to mention I feel a strong aversion of nude photos of minors. I cannot disconect myself from this aspect and deal with aesthetics in his photos as a separate dimension. I am part of this world, and I suspect Sturges is too. Worldwide fame is not necessarily relevant, sometimes right, sometimes wrong. As always, this is just me.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[ruben]

Hi sitemistic,
Aren't YOU disturbed by Sturges nudes of minors ? If not, then kindly explain me how to enjoy it.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[Gumby]

In general, Sturges depicts a rather matter-of-fact attitude toward nudity, as does his subjects. That is the underlying thesis of his work. There is very little, if anything, "sexual" about his work... except in the minds of some viewers.

Paraphrasing 'mistic - if it ain't for you, don't look and don't ask how it enjoy it - there is no answer you'll find convincing.

 

[Ororaro]

Ruben, Instead of changing your technique, why not change your understanding of what is an excellent, good, so-so and a bad image?

 

[sjw617]

I think this is a very interesting thread....

Ruben, when I look at Formal's shot I do not see what you do. I do not see the woman looking at the camera or even the photographer. She seems to be looking to the right of the photographer.

Steve

 

[ruben]

Right, most people have no interest in children as sexual objects. But pedophiles and child abusers do, and I would not like either to feed their imagination nor bring them artistic umbrella, even if it was a non intentioned subproduct. There are more interesting things to do and aspire to.

Now you can tell me with much reason, that by these parameters the human nude had to be forbidden since ancient times. You are right and I have no grounds left to walk here.

The only I can say is that my issue is not with art but with child and adolescent abusers.

Yet, no matter how artistic the final result looks, for an adult to pose an adolescent showing his/her genitalia is for me a situation of subtle abuse. Not pedophilic abuse, but still abuse. An adolescent is not an adult with full development to judge the situation in which he/she is publicly shown.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I have to agree with sitemistic here Ruben. Try to appreciate Sturges' minor photos for their esthetic qualitie as a work of art. Steichen didn't have any sexual feelings photographing green peppers.

It is clearly a cultural issue.

How come nobody here finds Sports Illustrated's Swimsuit Issue "disturbing"? In many cultures, it is.

And they are looking right at the camera...

 

[BillP]

Ruben, your'e beginning to sound like a certain "park keeper".

No, I'm sorry. That is a sweeping and dangerous generalisation. Ruben made a sound point, and expressed his own opinion based upon what he, personally, does or does not feel comfortable with. The over-zealous park keeper was a million miles away from entering into the reasoned and reasonable debate that we are seeing here. He stopped two parents from photographing their fully clothed child at play in a public place. There is no parallel.

Regards,

Bill

 

[Gumby]

How come nobody here finds Sports Illustrated's Swimsuit Issue "disturbing"?

IMO, the SI Swimsuit issue tends to be more provocotive and sexually charged than most photos of nekkid girls. It makes me blush and turn my head away in shame.

 

[Trius]

The staffer should have been fired, not "made aware of his actions." People snapping photos of their kids in the park can in no way be construed as "inappropriate." The guy clearly doesn't have the sense god gave a commode float and needs new employment as a Wal-Mart greeter.

What an insult to Wal-Mart greeters.

 

[BillP]

You're quite right Bill. But where do we draw the line. I see you're in Britain, you must remember a case a few years back about a TV news reader who was "investigated" by the police (but more so the press), for having photogrphed her own kids at bathtime.

Your not allowed to "slap or smack" your own kids anymore, and thats perfecly right, but maybe sometime soon you won't be able to even touch them anymore!!! (for "touch" there I allmost wrote "carress", what horror ! )

I certainly do, and where the line is drawn is a real problem, not helped on this international forum by the diversity of cultural backgrounds - something which I regard as a huge plus, by the way. The issues tend to arise when we judge each other by our own standards, blinkered and shuttered to the cultural mores and upbringing of others. Times change, too. What was acceptable in the past in some regards is now taboo, and vice-versa.

Let me give you an example. I am a parent myself - my son is now 6'3" at the age of 14. When he was little we used to share a bathtub when I got home from work. It was fun for him, relaxing for me, and a bit of quality time that we could spend together before he went to bed. That was 12 years ago. In the current climate I would be afraid to do so for fear that the thought police would swoop and accuse me of abusing my own child.

We live, as has been said already in this thread, in a culture of fear, much of which is self-imposed. I often take "street" photos, but I am "child-aware". I have no desire to be accosted by a paranoid parent, nor arrested by misinformed and overzealous police. So I seldom take photos in which a child is the primary subject. In effect, I self-censor.

Take this to it's logical conclusion. In years to come some archaeologists may discover a trove of "ordinary" photos from the early 21st century. It would be reasonable for them to conclude, from the evidence, that children were in short supply. It would be further reasonable for them to assume that Japan is almost denuded of people, that all sunsets are tobacco-coloured but that tobacco smoking had been successfully eradicated.

Such is our politically correct world, and we are infinitely the poorer for it.

Regards,

Bill

 

[Trius]

the queen notwithstanding.

Joe, I was already pretty sure you've never stood with the queen.

I've enjoyed this thread, especially the thought-provoking discussion of different techniques of street photography.

But I think we need a little "lighten-up" juice when it starts getting personal with regard to one's taste or reaction to certain images. If an image really works for me and no one else in the world, what's the difference, what does it matter? If Ruben thinks a certain picture is a masterpiece to him, then it is what it is. I don't think he ever intended to dictate anyone else's reaction to that particular image.

 

[ampguy]

huh?

huh?

Bill, I just don't see this "logical conclusion" happening ... given that paper, electronically stored info., and cave dwelling scribbling all last longer than average photographs.

...

Take this to it's logical conclusion. In years to come some archaeologists may discover a trove of "ordinary" photos from the early 21st century. It would be reasonable for them to conclude, from the evidence, that children were in short supply. It would be further reasonable for them to assume that Japan is almost denuded of people, that all sunsets are tobacco-coloured but that tobacco smoking had been successfully eradicated.
...

Bill