tappan Posted April 17, 2011 Share #1 Posted April 17, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) This was on TV last night. Make sure you click on the video. Downtown Crossing ‘Street Photographers’ Crossing The Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 17, 2011 Posted April 17, 2011 Hi tappan, Take a look here Boston TV news judges street photographers harshly. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted April 17, 2011 Share #2 Posted April 17, 2011 These guys give street photography a bad name, imo quite harmful for serious photographers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ash Posted April 17, 2011 Share #3 Posted April 17, 2011 Wow, what a scandal! And what has not been mentioned in the report although obvious is that there were "outlaws" who took movies of peaceful photographers with the only target to sell it to a stupid TV station who has no other worthwhile story to present to their audience. Regards Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted April 17, 2011 Share #4 Posted April 17, 2011 On the surface, it seems like the perfect storm ... a TV crew with no concept of street art (or art history) meets street photographers who can't explain what they're doing. (Edit: there is an interesting followup here: http://thephotorecession.webs.com/index.htm) Depictions of public life are part of a long tradition in the history of art. Sean Reid has a nice essay noting how the original street "photographers" were painters painting life on the street. But a painter setting up his easel or sketch pad by the street is pretty self-explanatory to anyone passing by. Unfortunately, street photographers aren't self-explanatory and raise "red flags" for some people, as the reporter suggests. It may be advisable for these guys to have business cards with their web sites or Flickr sites, or even little iPhoto books in their bags. I know that wouldn't have worked for a private person like Vivian Maier who worked before web sites, etc., but maybe it's good practice now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 17, 2011 Share #5 Posted April 17, 2011 There is a difference between a street photograph and a peekchure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
J_Thompson Posted April 17, 2011 Share #6 Posted April 17, 2011 It looks like this TV station is just trying to manufacture news and increase their ratings. Modern television "journalism" has lost most of its integrity over the years to the extent that they love to exploit any type of tragedy by finding people to cry on camera. That isn't invading someone's privacy? It's not for nothing that the saying goes, "If it bleeds, it leads." Must have been a slow news day at that station. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 17, 2011 Share #7 Posted April 17, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Two sides to the argument - the news hounds vs harassing the public with a camera. Both not good news for legitimate street photographers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ash Posted April 17, 2011 Share #8 Posted April 17, 2011 Who cares about a reporter who would sell his mother at a blink of his eye. Regards Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted April 17, 2011 Share #9 Posted April 17, 2011 This is one of those areas where blanket rules simply don't work. Take for example, this concept of "privacy". In my view, no one is entitled to anonymity - that is a relatively recent construct developed by city dwellers trying to live their lives without responsibility. Traditionally, we live in relatively small communities where we are aware of each other's lives, loves and losses. The concept of "privacy" is a bit of a fallacy, in my view - it encourages people not to face up to what they do and who they are, and to take responsibility for their actions. So, while these guys on the street corner are creepy, are they any different from other annoying people like religious nuts proselytising on street corners, the Hare Krishna guys handing out books, or people just talking to you. While I would never engage in this sort of activity in this way, there is no law against being annoying, anti-social (provided no harm is being done) or just plain creepy. Looks like a sad bunch belonging to some camera club ... Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sm23221 Posted April 17, 2011 Share #10 Posted April 17, 2011 I have to agree with John above. Although the news is reported accurately it is often embellished. Also, many relevent parts may be missing to further enhance the news story. I know this well because I was interviewed on the news not long ago - my story was edited for effect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Your Old Dog Posted April 18, 2011 Share #11 Posted April 18, 2011 A topic I know well. I'm retired from 35 years in the television news business. I was a TV photographer/editor first in film and later in video. An Assignment Editor fields a phone call from any member of the public, or, heres a complaint sent out to law enforcement officers over the police radios. He then weighs the interest/value of the story and if he deems it of interest to the general public then he assigns a reporter and photographer to the story. The crew then gets in the news car and immediately STARTS TO DISCUSS THE STORY. At this point impressions start to gell and when the crew gets on location the photographer shoots everything he can find that supports the story they have been told to generate. If they interview 15 people (MOS = man in the street in todays jargon but Mit Out Sound in the original sense). Of the 15 people some 9 people say it doesn't bother them at all to have street photog's take their picture and 6 say they find it disgusting. Well, you are given one minute and thirty seconds to make your point in your story so are you going to use the 9 folks saying it's okay with them or the 6 who are utterly disgusted by these guys? I'm not saying it's correct to do that but I am saying that's the way it works. Here's another scenario. Most all reporters strive to tell a balanced story. So, lets say that the story is global warming. They interview 100 people to see if the public believes in it or not. Of the 100 people they interview, 97 say it's a hoax and 3 say it's for real. Well, balanced to most reporters means 3 for and 3 against !! The fact that 97 percent say it's a hoax is completely lost on them. This is why YOU must listen to the story and question nearly every thing about it from, how was the question set up, How many people were interviewed and what was the count, how could they possibly know a certain piece of information or are they speculating or guessing? Are reporters interviewing other reporters as experts !! ?? The public needs to not be so lazy and question everything they see and hear in the media as it is driven by ratings. More outlandish stories equal buzz equals higher ratings equals more MONEY. If you get duped it's partly your own fault. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_n Posted April 18, 2011 Share #12 Posted April 18, 2011 It looks like this TV station is just trying to manufacture news and increase their ratings. Modern television "journalism" has lost most of its integrity over the years...This is pretty much it. WBZ is a rubbish channel despite carrying CBS national. It's roughly at the level of WFX, the local Fox channel here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted April 18, 2011 Share #13 Posted April 18, 2011 Outrageously bad reporting See what one of the street photographers posted here: http://thephotorecession.webs.com/ I sent the following "letter" to the station: ------------------------------------------ I saw the piece by Jim Armstrong about the street photographers at Downtown Crossing. What Mr. Armstrong failed to even attempt to explain is how video reporting by WBZ is any different than what the street photographers are doing. I know there are time constraints, tight budgets, and you may not have the most knowledgeable reporters these days, but I cannot believe that any news organization is not capable of doing a much better job of “reporting” than was done here. And that includes high school news papers. Apparently any information that could serve to actually educate your viewers about what the subjects were doing was either not solicited or was cut out of the story. I see that “Jim is a summa cum laude graduate of Boston University’s College of Communication. He also holds a Master in Public Policy degree from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.” Did these programs include classes in journalism? This example of reporting does not indicate that he has much understanding of the field. Has he ever taken a class in photo journalism or does he have any kind of knowledge of or appreciation of photography as a fine art? By the way, I studied photography at RIT and at the Polytechnic of Central London (now the University of Westminster) so you can be assured that I am “qualified” to make these remarks. As a commercial photographer, I am occasionally hired to document the amenities, life styles, and night life of various communities for my real estate developer and ad agency clients. They want this in a candid style. I started out enamored of photo journalism and did my share of street photography starting when I was a kid. Here is a photo that I made back in 1969 at age 17. This photo has won some awards and is featured in the ASMP photography book “Ten Thousand Eyes.” And yes, god forbid, it is of children, and they are in bathing suits! I must have been some kind of pervert and didn’t know it. Let’s ban this now before it gets out of hand. I can’t believe that any legitimate news organization, would not stand up for these photographers. You may be next. I made a special gallery of a few of the street photos that I have made over the years: http://alangoldstein.photoshelter.com/gallery/Street-photos/G0000860j7kcoJTA I invite Mr. Armstrong to take a look at it and advise me why he needs to raise alarm bells about this sort of activity when he could have just as easily re-assured the viewers that there was little to worry about. Sincerely, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacarape Posted April 19, 2011 Share #14 Posted April 19, 2011 jaap, I don't see how "these guys" give street a bad name. This is the typical American reply posted by "Marty". marty If they were bothering me I would take their camera and smash it….then they’d learn to mind their own business and pay the people that they are photographing!! Americans are pigs, sad to say that I'm one. (American, not a pig except I love Italian food.) Last year I was living in StuyTown in NYC and loving Veneiro's, I took some of the best photos of my life of children playing there. Before that I couldn't imagine why anyone would want to take photos of children playing in a playground. What joy! What happiness and freedom! At first I felt like a perve, a voyeur, but to witness the childhood and joy that I enjoyed, that my children also played in was special to see as a 52 yo dude, in a wheel chair. I think that if I went back now that I can walk (is a limp less acceptable then a chair?) with a big lens digital camera and not an MP with a Lux, I wonder how the mother's would react? Maybe the Grasshopper lesson here, borrowing from some psycho science, is when we photograph (measure) something, we change it.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Washington Posted April 19, 2011 Share #15 Posted April 19, 2011 What I don’t get is these guys all hanging out in a bunch on the same corner, this is bound to be annoying it itself…. and raise mush attention. Isn’t drawing attention exactly what you don’t want? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted April 19, 2011 Share #16 Posted April 19, 2011 If they were bothering me I would take their camera and smash it….then they’d learn to mind their own business and pay the people that they are photographing!! Americans are pigs ... In this case if you were to smash a camera, I think you would spend an inordinate amount of time and money in small-claims court, or worse, be arrested for disorderly conduct and/or assault, and if the camera was expensive enough, an additional felony charge. Then you would learn the meaning of being a pig. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted April 19, 2011 Share #17 Posted April 19, 2011 Um, I think you will find that Jaracape was quoting an individual named "Marty"... Those are not his personal views. Regards. Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted April 19, 2011 Share #18 Posted April 19, 2011 Apparently Rita Skeeter works for WBZ. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted April 19, 2011 Share #19 Posted April 19, 2011 What I don’t get is these guys all hanging out in a bunch on the same corner, thisis bound to be annoying it itself…. and raise mush attention. Isn’t drawing attention exactly what you don’t want? Yes, it is weird to work in a "pack" and their approach is not very refined. This work can and should be done much more unobtrusively. I wonder how experienced they are. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Washington Posted April 19, 2011 Share #20 Posted April 19, 2011 Yeah, it’s kinda like a street gang. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.