sean reid and street photography

[smokysun]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

thanks, sean. i appreciate it. for some reason i find it more satisfying to work in black and white. i'm never really satisfied with the color stuff, no matter how good they look. black and white brings out the fun in me.

wayne

ps. have you gotten your hands on the d-lux 3 yet? other than the sigma dp1 none of the other compacts at photokina seem to offer something more or different.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[kobold]

Imants,

 

You wrote: "almost a 'decisive moment' for me, her decision was well and truely made. no telephoto here just a 28"

 

Was there a link to that image in the post—love your images, by the way, but could not specifically find that one. cheers, KL

[Guest stnami]

Kit close but not close enough

[kobold]

Thanks Imants—I can see at least three ways in which the element of 'tension' is expressed here! cheers, KL

[Guest stnami]

As a 'street photography' one should would appear slightly intrusive, this caper about discreet use and a small camera is a bit of a lark..... I am walking down the street with a camera but I am shootinf from the hip so you can't see me nah nanah nah nah.

I don't think so

 

I prefer not to hide my camera most times I make sure people are aware of the camera and me and my here I am taking photographs up front way

 

..... just some ideas...... so no pocket cams for this fluffy duck

[vic vic]

imants - your photo???? amazing :-)))))

 

hi everybody here.... sorry - i just join u here, still have not read all tthe comments, so my excuses... i will try join u with time....

 

imants... about th ehip photography... im with u.... im not sure if th emain thing about th ehip photography is to hide your camera... i dont hide myslef too. hip gives u different reaction and different framing (than the eye level work) so this is th emain concidiration for me too.

in my "street phoptos" i look for desired reaction... some times i even invite people to look at me or at camera... creating then some "tension"... studing people by their reaction to the situation.

anyway - hip photo gives u so called "eye contact" with the surrounding and the subject... of course the viewfinder (built in leica, or the external wide angle) gives u sense of surrounding (ulike slr cameras) but still - it is not direct.

about the framing itself - well - i think it is obvious that for many photogs it comes from the rollei camera (or any camera with waist level).

 

another important issue is th eperspective and the angle of work...

lets put for a moment the concpet of "natural perspective".... means - a perspective of piture taking that coreponds the most to the real-time impression for the scene.

true - in real time u look from the eye level... but when u do photograph from this perspective... it is not corrsponds on the final piture.... in other words... eye-level photograph IS NOT EQUAL to eye0level naked eye impression.

 

with alot of watchings at others photogs, and my own experiments... i found out that the range from slighly upper chest down too the hip gives the most impressive correspondace... no clear further rule here - where exactly on this range of perspective depends on the lens u use, on the scene, on te distance from which u make photo etc....

for example -

1. if 50 mm lens is used (or 80 on rollei twin lens camera) u have more towards upper body - towards chest... the more far u go from your subject the more hip-wards u can use for most natural perspective impression. indded - those photos look like some realistic but myserious windows into the reality :-))))))

2. i will stay with 50mm lens or 80rollei. here i takle a kind of portrait of people... here - i dinfine about the center of the body of subject... center a little upper (very slightly towards eye-level) will give most "natural" impression. and anyway - this portrait method can work for many things... more envuronmental portraits (where u put people into their surronding in the frame). woth closer portraits... a more eye-level gives more natural impression of course...

3. now lets take the wide lenses... 25&28 (that personally i use on leica)... here the story is a little different. for natural impression... if u make photo on mid distances - say 3m to 1.5/1.2 m the about hip leven works best.... but for closer or far photos than this mid-range the perspective is more natural if u work more towards the eye level, cause the wide angle has very different distribution of space elements in the frame...

 

of course im not talking here about full creative possibilities of making street photos... it is only about "natural" perspective and "natural impression from the photograph". there are endless ariables to make great street (or what ever) photo without making it natural :-))))))))))

[smokysun]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

hi imants,

 

we'll see how you feel when you get the d-lux 3 (or sigma dp1). i think every camera causes a slight (or more than slight) change in shooting style. also, all the great street photographers have different kinds of shots. in some famous ones the subjects very aware of the photographer, in others not at all. look at doisneau for example. he runs the full range.

 

as for not shooting a lot, i think any photographer would have to be disingenuous to say they've gotten the shot they wanted right away (or that they didn't discover something better when they got home). i've plugged the contacts.1,2,3 dvd's because they've got probably 30 of the best photographers examining their contact sheets. as hard as people try, they do the 'choosing' and processing when they get home. look at edward weston's printing notes. those masterpieces weren't in the camera!

 

hi vic,

 

great notes. that was the point of johnny stilleto: shoot from lower to get the effects you mention. you see that you really have to defend yourself with imants. which is what provokes us all to think more clearly! and certainly your observations are the first of the kind (and important) in this thread.

 

thanks,

wayne

 

ps. the best defense of the pocket cam is the "photo idea index" by jim krause from how books. all the shots in the book from compacts and hundreds of ideas for using one. his main point: these little geniuses made for experimentation. for example, here's a shot it took walking the in woods last night. i'd never played with the slow synchro. guess it could be 'dirt road photography' and confrontational!

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Guest stnami]

Hi Small cameras I have used before. ie a CL (it dIed a natural death) as did a Lieca/Pana compact, a Oly XA (recently did a whole job with that as I had no other film camera). These cameras were never used disccreetly, present yourself as a tourist but work hard at the game. The d-lux 3 ( the cricket of the digital world...Chirp. chirp) came off the list as the D2 can do everything plus more and 16:9 is not a good narrative format (too static) especially withn a series, the Sigma could be usefull with a folded down monopod on the shoulders and really telegraph the photographic activity, did that with the XA, looked wierd but it worked.

Vic I will respond today after work it is am,sunny and a swanky day is ahead

[Guest stnami]

So Vic do you mentally map out this method of image making before every shot or do you apply that angle view on certain projects? Then again is it an intuitive way for you to work? Though I must admit that there is a certain consistency in your images that the subject is slightly right/right of centre

 

ps a D2 on a stick

[vic vic]

hi imants hi weyne.. whats up.. :-)

 

imants - hah ha with monopod... u use here the method of sound recording or mixer devices in movie making :-))))))) great, man :-))))) by the way - i dont remember if i told u that i saw your website (long time ago - there was war here in israel as far as i rmember) and dont remember if told u that love your works very much :-)))))

 

anyway... look, i dont want to get here too much into the epistemology, but i wil try to exaplain it briefly....

 

instinct/intuition/descursive-thinking belongs to the same family of mental/cognitive activity (at least in my opinion and in my epistemo-cognitive thesis) ... the main differance between them is the level of counsciousness, or more accurantly i should say the level of reflective ability of the mental process of thinking upon the cognitive contents.... as for... i think u can link (at least theoretically, and in many cases wit developed mental abilities in practice too) between the three kind of "thinking" or "cognitive content" awareness. so, if i have some intuition, i can validate it within the same system by serious descursive thinking and vis-versa...

 

about how i work in practice (and in my opinion many other developed photographers too from my observation)....

generally - i dont "think" at all while making photo, especially my personal works.... i trust my intuitions and even further - my insticts (my abilities to react). why... cause i dont mind about my theories in psycology when it comes to photography making :-)))) the freedom of relaying on instincts and intuitions give far more cretive possibilities... dont forget that photography is also "vision" from the first place (which is also mental process but more on aestetical level... aesthetical - i dont mean beautiful).

but from the other hand... step by step im developing so called "technology of photo-making"... what does it means.... it means to systemize some of the patterns in photo-making... both on the side of practical photo-making and on the side of "impression from the final result", and of course the link between them.... for example... in my nude works, tat are done very intuitivly and instinctivly so to speack... i recognize som epatterns... for example - when a not so nude woman becomes extrimly sexy.... for example when there is a special angle iin her hips, weists etc turned to the camera etc... she is not really nude, but a little exposed "flesh" with specific capture cretes it. now this "finding" becomes part of the content in "technology" building... then it is used in fashion photography for example. the technology approach is very welcomed in "desig" by the way... look at apple, at porsche designs, at some architects (enough to take la-courbosier) etc.... they come down to methodic work or call it in other words "technology". ya, in some works and projects i make replicas of my own works or my studies from other great classic photographers that i love... here - ya - i do map something... not ncessarily all in details - but there is some mapping....

 

about right/right... well - it appears sometimes (many times) - although i wouldnot say that it is too consistent in my works (u saw it from posts here or my web??? ).

do u know to play football??? if u r right leg player than, usually, your first step in dribble and your all drible will be towrds left in order to make u face with the diffender from the right... only then u can cut properly with biger chances that the diffender will be on his but on grass behind u :-)))) why is this... cause u have a specific eye-contact (which is also space persepcion, which is also your position indication in space) that allows u physical reactions in more flexible way. now, i dont see people in street as football defenders of course :-)))) but u know what i mean:-)) the camera is on my right hand my right eye if i use viewfinder, so many time i approach pepopel while walking someting like the footbal player - i mean in terms of mental conditions about "space".

besides - look at the photos, especially the horizonatl oriented.. especially the wide formats (2/3, 1/2, 9/166) ... it is the brain.... but no, im not bothered about it too much....

so it works pretty good indeed...

 

but again - dont take wrong imants or weyne ... i dont tink about those things while making photos... i just trust my eyes... the knowledge and tories are there in my mind only... but it deffenetly gives its tone on my intuitions and reactions in "pure" photo-making processes.

 

weyene... defently true about the differances in cameras that make u wor slightly differently...

here too, i think a more functional analyzes is needed... for example... i dont see any differance (at least for my way of working) between working with leica with 25 or 28mm lenses and alpa or technorama linhof 612 (that i want to get so much).... why.. casue it is the same procedure if i ahve enough light for the biger cameras.... the point here is functionality... the leica with wide angles, alpa and linhof allows about the same range of reactions... so they are similar to me for those aprticular cases... rollei slr or rollei tlr are alos about the same in terms of visison... different form leica... why cause u really dont have the vision as in leica or other viewfinder cameras, but then, since it is weist levle u have special direct eye-contact with the subject or "space".... but that is not the same viewing as with small slr like contax or canon.... the fact that both medium and small are slr has nothing to do with it (with vision)....

 

but i think with cameras... the most important ting is what camera radiates to your brain and to your hands - especially when it comes to reactive and intiutive photography.

so in reactive photo-making (those with instincts and intuitions) u r very much with what camera rediates and where u take it... with more concpetual approach to photo-making - a camera is choosed by its capabilities relativly to the concept. if needed - i have no principle problem to use large format camera (on groundglass) in street photography :-)))) think abou it - it is amazing what u can do with it if u develop some attitude to it :-)))))))

[Guest stnami]

Vic you are thinking too much.

I agree with you on the organised chaos level. The way I understand is that you work from a structural point in order to achieve a spontaneous intuitve image. This smacks of premeditation and goal orientated image making leaving a minimum to chance! I guess this is how most of us are forced to work when we photograph for a living or to please others. I hated all that commercial crap, bored me to tears.

Right now I am teaching Irresponsible image making with a camera and other assorted items (fine art computer graphics/ photography), it's really quite enjoyable for now and the kids being in the 8-25 age bracket I learn heaps from them.

Vic I will give your approach a go and see if I can work that way. Talking about large format camera s I found a old 1920's large format camera and I am converting it so the D2 fits inside and then I will take it out into the streets Fun and games there!!!! or it could be a really dumb idea, but what the heck

[vic vic]

ha ha imants - ya man... philosopher - i ahve to think too much :-))))))))

 

ya, but dont take me wrong... i dont "think" at all in photo-making process so to speack... especially for my personal works, or call it art or call it what ever it doesnt bothers me... i mean to photography that comes "from me" - i simply dont think....

but ya... some gained background has its effect but not disturbing at all on the "freedom" of photo-making as u say.

 

all those talks and thought about theories and "technologies of photo-making" doesnot bother me at all when i hold camera in hand... so ya.. maybe i have to or three faces (not in bad terms), one is a person who is photographer concerned about "pure photo" about "art" and things alike, other theory developer, and other more on commercial side using both the theories and the pure-photographer as some sinthesis:-))))))) but i dont find their co-existance difficult, at least at the moment.

 

about the comercial.... well, it is more complicated than "pleasing people".... u have to remember that in comercial projects, whether u r a manger or a photographer, or any other role... u r not alone... there are other people involved in it... there are goals and there are concepts... so ya, u have to work differently. but this is subject for different thread... i have my approaches here both theoretical and practical:-))) im only at the bigining i shall say, and ya... sucess in this field.. big sucess is important to me i have to admit :-)))))))

 

but with it, i can agree with u fully... doing with what u descirbe is of prime importance... cause it is there where new stuff (i mean really new stuff) can be born... in that "free minded work" - defenetly man :-))))

[rob_x2004]

Wayne, been a while since I had much of a look at your site. Bit of a recognizable change. Some really nice stuff. Lovely (self?) portrait 9.jpg photo - wayne pease photos at pbase.com Some good gear in that folder.

[smokysun]

hi rob,

 

thanks much. yes, that's me in the photo. partly i justify being my own character by saying, well, i'm the only one up here on the mountain (or, 'cindy sherman goes native'). alas, at six i wanted to be a movie star but hated memorizing other people's words. and when i did write a movie and act in it, the process bored me to tears. i love the process of live theater. but i'm finding these autobiographical projects a favorite with all kinds of anonymous viewers. i've always thought success comes with going with your strengths. (willy mays said it too.) trouble is, i get really bored doing the same thing over and over. and part of the change you sense may come from working constantly with the 16:9 format which i love, despite imants.

 

several artist friends wrote today and told me they thought this my best series. trouble is, friends, even artists give you too much the benefit of the doubt. a local printer told me not to trust family opinions about the worth of your artwork. and a poet, years ago, who had a play running on broadway said, 'you have to get your work beyond your friends.' that's why the web has become such a benefit to us all.

 

thanks again.

 

hi vic,

 

good, you can hold your own with imants. and he likes looking at things from different points of view. the greatest compliment someone on this forum can give you is, 'okay, i'll try it.' and then we see, ah, philosophical discussions can have practical results. i don't see your three hats competing at all. keep up the good work. as long as we aren't enslaved by our theories, they can be a point of departure, don't you think? (and i realized european authors often do their best work late in life because they are working out a theory. it doesn't have to be true, just inspiring!)

 

wayne

[vic vic]

ha wayne...

 

ha ha man - about the "truth" (in philosophocal terms) .... i have lost this naivity with truth long time ago:-))))) "truth", at least in its classical form, in its common sense form, is more a question of epistemology than metaphysics... at some point i have deeply relized step by step that truth concpet accompanies us in almost every thought in order to make us comfront with the reality (outside world, outside our minds, something that helps us to deal with reality somehow), and at some cases it even creates new reality when philosophy finds its practical implimintations (when we find a new way to look at reality and new ways of comfrontation with it).

the search for "truth" has its valuable outcomes... but as for truth itself... i think i am very much on the "methodological skeptisizm"... like descartes who said that "what was obviously true for me yesterday turned to be a lie today, and who can garantee that the beleifs that still left with me, or those i will aquire with time will not turn to be lie in the future??? "... :-)))))))))

without getting too much into philosophy... a brief presentation of "truth paradox"....

where this concept comes from??? what is the definition of this concept???

indeed the most common definition of "truth" is corelance between your thought (about reality too) and the reality itslef... so, in other words... reality validates your thoughts about it. but the problem is that u look for "thruth" because u r not sure about the reality... so how something that u dont even know can validate itself or your thoughts about it. paradox... somethiong that u want to reach, to study, to search becomes comfiramation (methodically) of itslef :-))))

some philosophers where deep into this concpet, almost blind... others were exrtimly sceptkical... but one of the best tries started with emanuel kant (german graet phil)... he tried to overcome this problem within his "reasoning" doctarine (in a method he was used and tried in anthenomies).... but , no ... no solution... but he created one of the most beatiful things of "human mind intelectual activity" :-))))))))

 

about the european artists note u have made... well, it is true in some cases, but i think mostly... the great art and tendecies were created in earleir stages... look at the same cratier-bresson, at kerteszh, lotte jacobi.. and so on and on... i think they got their theories... not based and sateled ones at those stages - but the "virginity" of their thoughts were the main inspiration (besides the vision of course). but ya, different artists have different periouds, some earleir are stronger, some later....

 

and ya - defenetly - no slavery to theories... defently agree with u... theories shold be taken in proportion... mainly as element of intelectual inspiration but not beyound it if one wants to create "art" and even further "novelty".

[smokysun]

hi vic,

 

one of my favorite pieces of advice from the indian guru, ramana maharshi: PUT ONE THING IN PRACTICE!

 

that's a good antidote to almost every spinning of the mental wheels. i remember someone else saying, 'if you want to change your life, it has to be something you do every day.'

 

lord chesterfield: "before i had children i had five theories about raising children. now i have five children and no theories."

 

yes, i once read most scientific discoveries have come from people who got their main revelation at about age twenty, the rest of their lives spent working it out. the unconscious is much more in charge and powerful then. also our physical awareness. for example, i read einstein thought very physically, sensed things that way, and it led to his discoveries. but he wasn't a great mathematician and later couldn't disprove bohr's uncertainty principle, hard as he tried to prove his own 'field theory'.

 

but you're right, different people do their best work at many different ages. i guess we all hope it will be later for ourselves! that way, we have something to look forward to.

 

alas, there are natural geniuses and all the training in the world won't create that.

 

thanks for the thoughts,

 

wayne

[frc]

Hi all,

 

 

Not, as far as I know has there ever been any good photogapher without a clear idea behind his work. Most of them being rather unconventional: Toscani's very controversal ads for clothes, Cartier-Bresson a self acclaimed anarchist or in the early days, what to think of dandy photographer Nadar.

Toscane, who's allways been condemning politicians is at present active in the left wing of the Italian political arena. In a recent interview he clearly stated to not see any problems in people changing there minds, just as he'd done.

 

Philosophy being aswell what you do with a beer in your hand standing in the pub as being a serious sceintific topic has puzzled me as a term used in photography. Is it the use of topic related words as: concept, ethics or the word topic itself as we all use them while having a drink or are we truly investigating underlaying mechanisms that may or may not boost our understanding of the nature of our activities. If the latter, I wonder, how much of what we studie is actualy usable on the spot. In my career as a sound engineer and as a musician i've notced that many if not most of the split second good decisions were made purely instinctive. Technical, theoretical and practical experience seem quite obvious to be a must to be a must. Many of the good pro's I worked with were " simple folks " watching Rambo, reading only the tabloids and showing a lack of interrest for more distant abstract scrutinising of their jobs impact. The more professional in scale the job got, the more it inclined towards the entertainment industry.

The people with a more broad view seemed to dwell the margins of the profession, jazz clubs, alternative scene.

In photography, just as in music, I've noticed there are many hardworking, more than just surviving, pro's doing well on reportage, weddings, portraits etc. without any indepth thoughts about there jobs, certainly not on an artistic or philosophical level.

Being the new kid on the block at the age of 43, having picked up photography three years ago after no dooing a single shot for two decades, I ask myself, should I advertise as the gun for hire or stay true to my principles and carry on my documentary stuff.

Well, fed up with commerce as I am the answer is clear, the question was purely rhetorical.

Working as a pro requires knowing the tricks of the trade but outstanding photography desires something more. An indepth investigation of the subject to be depicted as well as a founded motivation why it's you there behind that camera.

Will I ever get rid of philosophy, don't think so, but reading and thinking takes such a lot of time.

 

 

regards,

 

 

Fr.

[smokysun]

hi Fr.,

 

i have a theory (why not?) that once we get to where we can do what we want to do, our interest in analysis diminishes.

 

for example, at one point in the eighties i realized i finally knew how to write plays. i didn't have to keep reading about playwrights, etc. then three years ago, after nine more years of auditing all kinds of theater classes, i realized, 'ah, now i know how to direct plays.' so books and discussions of the subject interest me a lot less.

 

in both cases i discovered it was finding the few principles that really worked for me. and books helped: william ball's 'a sense of direction' solved damn near every problem i faced, and going through a choreography class three times and choreographing a couple of pieces taught me what i need to know about stage movement.

 

now it's photography's turn and my interest in sharing with you and others until i find those three or four things i need to put into practice. theater took me 45 years! hope the process is quicker this time. help!

 

do you know the work of josef koudelka, famous for his gypsy photographs? it was a new wide angle lens that enabled him to do the project, working in intimate spaces and getting the necessary depth of field. after seven years with a wide angle he felt he was repeating it and dropped it. more recently he's done a lot of panorama photos, probably echoing the interest of josef sudek.

 

so i think these questions valuable until we find what we need. and, alas, no matter what we do we take a lot of time with thinking, if we're thinkers born, and it sounds like you're stuck with it.

 

thanks much for the input.

 

wayne

 

ps. i think it also takes time to realize what you're good at. pursuing that is the next step. one other thing: there's a japanese printmaker active for only four months in the late 18th century who's now famous for his realistic pictures of kabuki actors. don't despair. one photo can put you in the history books.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[vic vic]

ha ha wayne - u r into theater???? great man - i really love theatre... we have in israel great stuff... but like our rock music... it is very isoteric because of the languege and special things we have here... but believe me man... i know both sides.. israely theater and music is great by all standards :-)))))) anyway - im aslo planing to get to theater at some point.... directing is the goal... u know then probably to movies... well - i dont have time now for it, but after finishing academy, i will free a little and think about it seriously :-))))

 

 

ya... as i have mentioned many times.... i dont think about any theory when i make photography... i dont care about theories... iti s there in the background though - serving me... what exactly u can do if u have not developed your intelectual abilities????

photographers without knowledge... of course there are countless of them:-)))) those who have no idea about the same josef joudleka, about alfred stieglitz... what is good in that that they afre ignorants????

 

i develop those theories cause i can live with boths (as wyne said - three hats).... why... well there is a very simple principle... and very usefull if u succedd to implimant it to your "activities".... in latin... devide de impera... which means devide things and control them... if u can use one in favour of the other than it is even greater :-)))))))

so no, no problems with theories... serious problems if u dont think though :-))))

 

wayne... defently agree with u.... although i fully impliment the "devide de impera" principle... my interest in theories is not only intelectual attempt... neither it is only a matter of biulding and developing the so called "technology of photo-making" which is very usefull and will be more and more usefull i suppose when it takes more mature form.... it is also examining some themes im dealing with...

im making now (in the begining stages) one project... about space and time.... or should i say more acuratly - "perception: space and time".... now, if i dont know something theoretical about those issue, and more than that - i dont develop some attitude in photography, i would rather throw it away... or at least throw away the word "perception"... otherwise i will be a bit ignorant... so, ya... in my attempts im looking for something in this project and im not sutisfied at all at the moment (well only started of course, but it will take some time untill i feel ok with it).. now i use the thoeries to help me... i use some of my photos that somehow radiate this issues in order to have some referance about visual aspects and emotional asepcts.... then... when i comfront with the scene and subjects in photomaking... i dont think about theories... something just "clicks" in me... or something clicks when the negatives are on the ligt table....

what u do is that u dont create random things, which might be intresting in its own way... u create languege, attitude, something which is more like system of itself, so to speack... something that becomes powerful not only by means of photos, but creates some "synergy" to it.

now, of course there are other ways to work, other themes to choose :-))) sure :-)))) but, to generalize and say that theories are not needed, at least at some extent???

[Guest stnami]

"one project... about space and time.... or should i say more acuratly - "perception: space and time".... now, if i dont know something theoretical about those issue"

 

 

So Vic does this mean that you are going to transcend your images and come over to the Fourth Dimension, the White Rabbit( aka Lewis Carol) loved a bit of mathamatical sparring via hyper-reality