bill Posted October 2, 2011 Share #41 Posted October 2, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hopefuly, people with a sense of humour who understand that this did not start out as a serious thread... Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 2, 2011 Posted October 2, 2011 Hi bill, Take a look here Can we ban?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
earleygallery Posted October 2, 2011 Author Share #42 Posted October 2, 2011 Thank you Bill. Looks like we have already banned humour from the forum!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronan Posted October 3, 2011 Share #43 Posted October 3, 2011 I'd go further and ban any street photography where the photographer does not engage with the subject. Otherwise I don't see the point. (Note lack of smiley) If you (the photographer) is engaged with the subject, while shooting street photography... you kind missing the point of street photography, Leica M cameras and blending in... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted October 3, 2011 Share #44 Posted October 3, 2011 Bill's picture looks like planking. Which should probably be banned, too, as it is very dangerous. I prefer the version entitled plonking which entails plonking oneself down in a chair and indulging in a glass or three of plonk. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
businessasusual Posted October 3, 2011 Share #45 Posted October 3, 2011 Bill's picture looks like planking. Which should probably be banned, too, as it is very dangerous. I prefer the version entitled plonking which entails plonking oneself down in a chair and indulging in a glass or three of plonk. This is the "new" planking - called horsemanning. We should set up a thread for our own submissions. :D 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/163122-can-we-ban/?do=findComment&comment=1808367'>More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted October 3, 2011 Share #46 Posted October 3, 2011 Thanks for the "heads up", Karina! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted October 3, 2011 Share #47 Posted October 3, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) there is a line between voyeur and using the camera to express a point of view -- be it social commentary or light & form or both. a lot of what gets posted appears to me to be a voyeuristic exercise and as such the picture appears exploitative, imho. beauty, however, is in the eyes of the beholder and posting can have a workshop value when people's comments are more than "great shot". therefore if you feel that way about a particular posted photo let the poster know, it is equally your right of self expression to say what you want as it is the right of someone to post the picture. steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
businessasusual Posted October 3, 2011 Share #48 Posted October 3, 2011 there is a line between voyeur and using the camera to express a point of view -- be it social commentary or light & form or both. a lot of what gets posted appears to me to be a voyeuristic exercise and as such the picture appears exploitative, imho. beauty, however, is in the eyes of the beholder and posting can have a workshop value when people's comments are more than "great shot". therefore if you feel that way about a particular posted photo let the poster know, it is equally your right of self expression to say what you want as it is the right of someone to post the picture. steve A bit like cooking with love, Steve. My food tastes lousy if my heart is not in it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted October 3, 2011 Share #49 Posted October 3, 2011 How can you "ban" a photograph. Need I remind everyone of the amount of "banning" by governments that occurred. First book burning, then only "acceptable" photography. The question becomes, "what is acceptable"? Who decides? Leni Rosenthal was accepted, and while she was a master in and of photography, she branded by professional photographers for the work she did in the 1920s, 30's and to the mid 40's, a fact that stayed with until her death. Banning also implies a form of censorship. Who are the censors? Hi Dave, off the topic a bit here but I'm not sure I follow where you're going with Riefenstahl (thanks Anne) after the first part of your statement. Yes, she was an extraordinary artist and cinematographer, but she actively supported and facilitated a political and social obscenity that led to the suffering and deaths of millions. It was her politics that burned and banned. She well deserved all the 'branding' and any banning she may have received. The end (as in her art) did not justify the means. One cannot separate her culture and art from politics. Or is that what you're saying? Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
prunelle Posted October 3, 2011 Share #50 Posted October 3, 2011 How can you "ban" a photograph. Need I remind everyone of the amount of "banning" by governments that occurred. First book burning, then only "acceptable" photography. The question becomes, "what is acceptable"? Who decides? Leni Rosenthal was accepted, and while she was a master in and of photography, she branded by professional photographers for the work she did in the 1920s, 30's and to the mid 40's, a fact that stayed with until her death. Banning also implies a form of censorship. Who are the censors? Leni Riefenstahl. That's why I proposed that we ban the photos four ourselves only. The photo I would ban woudn't disappear from your forum. I don't remember where I saw this but I remember a project of the kind consisting in chosing what photo could display on a web page. The photo wouldn't disappear from the page, it would simply not display on the screen of the person who chose not to see it. I kind of remember that it was in Wikipedia... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted October 3, 2011 Share #51 Posted October 3, 2011 Anne, my first reaction to that is, it's a bit like putting your head in the sand. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
prunelle Posted October 3, 2011 Share #52 Posted October 3, 2011 Anne, my first reaction to that is, it's a bit like putting your head in the sand. Yeah, Wikipedia wanted to set this up in order to protect the youngest from things they shouldn't see, etc. Inapplicable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 4, 2011 Share #53 Posted October 4, 2011 No, unless the derelict homeless is give a name. Acknowledge his identity, Especially if his his name is Pico DiGoliard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 4, 2011 Share #54 Posted October 4, 2011 I liked the irony of Bill's image - the guy apparently sleeping rough under glossy advertising. In the same situation, I'd probably take the same image. But it would give me pause for thought. There was fairly unanimous condemnation of the pictures in another thread (linked above) of apparently homeless people sleeping out, and a lot of discussion about Bruce Gilden's street photography style (and the lawyer in Japan, for that matter). We also have the discussion about shooting street with long lenses, and whether or not we should engage. I'm detecting a fair amount of hypocrisy in all this. If you feel that a "street" photographer should not engage, then prurient images of people in distress are surely just part and parcel of capturing life's rich tapestry, whether it's people down on their luck, shop-window prostitutes in Amsterdam, or protesters. I don't see a moral judgment is justified. I suspect those complaining simply don't particularly like the image. The difference between snapping away with a 35 mm lens and strobe, or being removed and using a telephoto is surely a matter of degree. One is being offensive, the other furtive. Look at Bill's image above again. If you're taking a moral stand, then why is his image not subject to the same scrutiny? Because it's a good image (which it undoubtedly is)? For me, the jury remains out on the ethics of snapping images of strangers just because they're in a public place (if they're obviously identifiable). I'm still uncomfortable with it, but I'm not sure that moral judgment is warranted. I'm not taking a superior position in this - I have taken many pictures in public, but I have not taken pictures of people in distress or down on their luck without their consent (and a few coins changing hands, it has to be said). I recall a person from Nepal asking me why Westerners like taking pictures of poor people. He had a point. Taste? Perhaps. Bruce Gilden's style is not for me, and an endless string of images of startled people doesn't interest me either. I tend to think - would I take this picture if it was me (I hate having my picture taken), or a member of my family, or a friend? And can I identify the person, or is it just a face or silhouette in a crowd. If it was my home town, how would I feel about it. Robin Morrison took some fantastic pictures of very curious people in my country, but he did so with humour and compassion. I sincerely doubt if a single person in his published work would be offended by the images, yet they show them with all their quirks. Sure, there are legal rights, but there are many things I might do which are perfectly legal, but make me feel considerably uncomfortable. I suspect that a lot of "street photography" is taken without consent, without compassion and with dubious motivation. The next time you go out to take some pictures in a public place, why don't you pause and consider how you might look as you stop to capture an "image" in the name of your hobby, or your "art". The sight frequently makes me put my camera away in shame. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted October 4, 2011 Share #55 Posted October 4, 2011 Bill's subject is just a guy who's had too much to drink. He's neither homeless nor derelict. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted October 4, 2011 Share #56 Posted October 4, 2011 John, I accept your POV, as just that. But I don't entirely agree with it. I see no problem with street photography as a form of art. However, things are changing. The plethora of 'shooters' with image capture devises that seem to be coming plague proportions is actually turning me off photography. Not just 'street.' It is the 'act of photography' that can so easily be the problem. Not the subsequent image. For some reason, someone holding a 'thing' at arms length and leaning backwards while squinting really annoys me. They seem to take an erternity! They are always interrupting life around them. Give me a sneaky shooter anytime in preference. Learning 'street' photography is no different from landscape, or any other branch. It requires practice and training, necessitating crappy output for a period of time. None of the good streeter's just got it right. They shot crap too. In fact even the good one's still shoot crap as well. They just learned to edit better. I have always maintained examining a photographers proofshheets is the best way to assess their true ability. You need to see the ratio of crap to good. Just another POV to stir the possum. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted October 4, 2011 Share #57 Posted October 4, 2011 Bill's subject is just a guy who's had too much to drink. He's neither homeless nor derelict. Exactly! The 'homeless' expression is far too easily applied. And using our own 'position' to compare with others is only natural, but not definitive. A lot of (not really) 'homeless' people I have shot are probably happier than I am. Happiness is a state of being, not a condition measured by wealth. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
prunelle Posted October 4, 2011 Share #58 Posted October 4, 2011 Bill's subject is just a guy who's had too much to drink. He's neither homeless nor derelict. You don't know that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted October 4, 2011 Share #59 Posted October 4, 2011 I do. I was there. It's also obvious from the photograph that the man is not homeless. The subject is back at his desk working in the insurance brokers* this morning. * That bit is conjecture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
prunelle Posted October 4, 2011 Share #60 Posted October 4, 2011 ... It's also obvious from the photograph that the man is not homeless. ... Why? Because of his clothes? Do you really think that all the homeless wear dirty and smelly rags? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.