Erik van Straten
Veteran
A few years ago in The Netherlands it was forbidden to take pictures in shopping malls. Now that everyone makes selfies with an iPhone this prohibition seems to be forgotten.
Leica I model A, Elmar 50mm f/3.5, 400-2TMY.
Erik.
Leica I model A, Elmar 50mm f/3.5, 400-2TMY.
Erik.
PKR
Veteran
I always found being a rather thick, tattooed and scary looking man allowed me a whole lot of breathing room
I was visiting some business friends after business hours. I buy my pelican cases from these folks. A good client called asking to come in after hours. A big Lincoln pulled up and the guy was let in. He's dressed in expensive athletic clothing. So, they are talking and the customer turns a little and I see the butt of a H&K poke out of his pants waste band.
That works too.
Turns out he was buying cases for 3 sniper rifles. The guy was head of security for a very rich hedge fund trader.
PKR
Veteran
It's okay for you to photograph them, but it's NOT okay for them to "look at you" afterward?
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Robert Frank's The Americans was published in 1958; Henri Cartier-Bresson abandoned photography in 1966; Diane Arbus died in 1971, and Bruce Davidson's Subway was published in 1980. The examples you cite are all from at least 35 years ago. The question is not whether their historical works are extrordinary, but whether society's attitude toward street photography has changed in the intervening years so as to jeopardize the vitality of the genre.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Why would their times be in more important than ours?
My point is if they had followed someone else's ideas of what should be photographed or not the work might not exist.
No one has the right to dictate how others should see and record the world around them. Is landscape photography less valid than when Weston and Adam captured it? Is portraiture no longer valid because Newman did it a half century ago?
ptpdprinter
Veteran
The issue in the thread was not the validity of the genre but the changing attitudes of society and individuals toward having their photographs taken in public places. Landscapes do not object when you take their photograph and portraiture is by its nature consensual.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Read the post I was responding to #191
If folks like Frank would have listened to that advice The Americans would not exist.
When I first started working on the streets in the early 1980s I was always being hassled and I stuck out because i was the only one shooting on the streets then. Now I can't walk a block in Chicago and not see several other photographers. People really pay little attention because cameras are everywhere. 35 years ago everyone was aware when they saw me and my camera because there weren't many out there doing it. Things have changed a lot but I find it a lot easier today than I did 30+ years ago. I also feel today's times and all the moments in it are no more or less valid than those times and moments of the past and should be open to record just as they were in the past. I think the challenge as it was then is to find a way to say something about it in an individual way.
If folks like Frank would have listened to that advice The Americans would not exist.
When I first started working on the streets in the early 1980s I was always being hassled and I stuck out because i was the only one shooting on the streets then. Now I can't walk a block in Chicago and not see several other photographers. People really pay little attention because cameras are everywhere. 35 years ago everyone was aware when they saw me and my camera because there weren't many out there doing it. Things have changed a lot but I find it a lot easier today than I did 30+ years ago. I also feel today's times and all the moments in it are no more or less valid than those times and moments of the past and should be open to record just as they were in the past. I think the challenge as it was then is to find a way to say something about it in an individual way.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Really? Why?
And even if it were, exactly how is that consent given or withheld?
Cheers,
R.
PKR
Veteran
Yeah, Mr. Morgan, was that a knife in your hand? I don't think Steichen liked Morgan. Consent was given until Morgan saw the photo. I guess he could have had Steichen killed, but that would have been too obvious.
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/49.55.167/
OT: way before PhotoShop.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
By the subject agreeing to sit for the portrait, and generally paying the photographer. Arnold Newman was held up as the example of a portrait photographer to which I responded.
PKR
Veteran
Newman's photo of Alfred Krupp.. same story as Steichen and Morgan I would think?
https://iconicphotos.org/2009/05/05/alfred-krupp/
Roger Hicks
Veteran
ptpdprinter
Veteran
The any photograph of a person is a portrait school?
airfrogusmc
Veteran
airfrogusmc
Veteran
And again I would rather others not push their morals and ethics on anyone else. No one really has the right to tell others what they should see or create.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
By one very limited definition, yes. By a vastly more limited (but different) definition, it's only a portrait when the subject consents and (ideally, in your view) pays the photographer.
As I fairly clearly implied, there are many kinds of portraits.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, actually, we do. It's up to the recipient of the advice whether he/she accepts it.
Cheers,
R.
kiss-o-matic
Well-known
What neighborhood are you in usually these days? I try to take advantage of the ridiculous amount of sunlight after work, but am pretty busy unfortunately.
I'm 6'3" white guy with long hair and a beard. Jesus-y, if you will. Tatoo is not visible. I've done the majority of my shooting in Tokyo, where I have ALWAYS stuck out like a sore thumb. I still find a way blend in. Here in Chicago, it's a bit easier, but people are more likely to go off and explain to you why you're wrong.