Photographers who don't shoot street are missing something. c/c welcome

The_Traveler

Completely Counter-dependent
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
18,743
Reaction score
8,047
Location
Mid-Atlantic US
Website
www.lewlortonphoto.com
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
Photographers who don't shoot street are missing something.
Shot today at the July 4th parade in Washington, DC.

IMO, there is no way to shoot a landscape that has this kind of interest and view into the human condition.


p897716939-5.jpg
 
I have to agree with Tirediron on this one.. no interest for me at all.

I prefer being out in the middle of nowhere, where there are NO people... that is when I am happiest, shooting or not shooting! lol!
 
Photographers who don't shoot street are missing....Street
There are many phenomenal photographers out there who've never shot street.
Irving Penn comes to mind.
So does Helmut Newton, Rankin, David Bailey, Cecil Beaton, Ellen von Unwerth.
Leibovitz and Ansel Adams don't shoot street either but their greatness is arguable.
 
I have to agree with Tirediron on this one.. no interest for me at all.

I prefer being out in the middle of nowhere, where there are NO people... that is when I am happiest, shooting or not shooting! lol!
I have to agree as well. Sorry, Lew, but except for the girl in the background wiping her hands on her butt a similar shot could be taken at any makeup department of any department store. To me it's just a girl putting on eye makeup.

I'm also more content in areas where there are no people. The paths in the woods are my streets and the animals and birds are my people. That's where I'm the most content.
 
I like the image, it's not outstanding, but it's nice. I don't shoot street people and really don't feel like I'm missing anything, just like I don't feel like I'm
missing anything if I dont shoot pretty flowers, bugs or sunsets. I could say that people who don't shoot sports are missing something, but for the most part, lots that try and shoot sports end up missing anyway.
 
Photographers who don't shoot street are missing....Street
There are many phenomenal photographers out there who've never shot street.
Irving Penn comes to mind.
So does Helmut Newton, Rankin, David Bailey, Cecil Beaton, Ellen von Unwerth.
Leibovitz and Ansel Adams don't shoot street either but their greatness is arguable.

I didn't mean that they were incomplete - or un-great so to speak - as photographers but that it is a great thrill to see and capture in an instant a moment in time that will not be repeated and that 'means' something. Like seeing a trout rise to a dry fly. And people who don't shoot that way, miss that thrill.


Although it seems like I may be the only person to which this particular moment appeals,
 
I think to be interested in street photography...u have to interested in humans....where I fall short ;)
 
Well, they got some dramatic landscapes. But in gen I agree with street pix and working your way into the house as well.
 
Looking at the image, my eye gets drawn first to the neon green shirt the woman on the right is wearing. My gaze then goes to her eyes, and shee seems to be looking at the logo on the shirtsleeve of the woman on the left. My eyes then go up to the woman eye, which I cannot really see , and the arc of the makeup brush(?) kinda points to the man's head standing behind her. He seems to be holding a similar coloured shirt as the woman on the right. The logo colors on the woman on the left seem to be the Mexican colours, and the writing on the back appears to be spanish.

Looking past the makeup brush, I also see a woman out of focus, with her hands on her bum. The background does not tell me what the event is, nor do I see any connection between the people in the foreground and the background. The fact that none of the three people are looking at each other (the man is looking left, out of the frame, the woman on left is looking at her reflection, and the woman on the right seems to have an averted gaze) again does not signal a connection to me.

If I were to make a narrative to describe the photo, I'd be somewhat lost.

Perhaps this is why the image is not getting lots of positive feedback - we're really not sure what is going on and what the significance of the elements is/are.
 
Am I the only one who thinks the OP's photo does not, strictly speaking, belong to the street photography type? I have a feeling this is a show of some sort, not random people in their everyday life. I don't see HCB shooting anything like this.

Or maybe I'm just ignorant and I don't know what street photography is? :)

Ciao!
 
That chick is totally grabbing her butt in the bokeh. How did I miss that the first time!
 
I didn't notice the butt thing either at first lol.

I have to agree with the others though. I don't see how this exhibits the true human condition beyond two Middle-Eastern women putting on makeup at the fair.
They just aren't doing anything...interesting...

And besides, the woman holding the mirror appears to be wearing temporary Midler-Eastern (I don't know?) garb of some sort judging from the fact that the man on the left is holding a a piece of clothe that is very similar to what the woman in the right is wearing, which shatters the illusion of East meets West.

The analogy about the trout is different from this particular image. Not many people get to see a trout do that, and even less get to see one frozen in a split moment of action. But...this scene can be, and was viewed by probably several people. I don't understand what message about the human condition you are trying to communicate.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top