Ep. 15: Streets Of Rage

Discussion in 'Sunny 16 podcast' started by moroseduck, Sep 15, 2016.

  1. [​IMG]Uncle Nozzer by Jeremy Beachman, on Flickr

    In this episode three is the magic number, because Dave off of the forums is back, and this time it's personal. The three amigos discuss Dave's Minolta collection, shooting with a 35mm lens, and whether or not Street Photography is the worst of all things

    "Honey Bee" by Kevin Macleod (incompetech.com)
    Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License

    Links:

    Fujifilm Instax Monochrome: http://www.fujifilm.com/news/n160906_02.html

    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/sunny16podcast/
    Flickr group: https://www.flickr.com/groups/sunny16podcast/
    Twitter: https://twitter.com/sunny16podcast

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  2. Good episode guys and thanks for the kind words on those photos I posted. :)

    Enjoyed the debate about street photography too.

    One question, any idea when you'll be selecting a new subject for the Cheap Camera Challenge? Only asking as I may need to take a mortgage out for my next set of Impossible Project film. :)
     
  3. Thanks Col, it went places! We're going to start a new project this week, but you'll be relieved to hear that it won't be part two of the Cheap shots challenge, that will probably be next in the hopper.

    Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk
     
  4. We're starting a new project this week? No wonder @Davis 's Uncle Nozzer looks so happy!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  5. Ooh! Do tell!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  6. I'm with Dave on street photography. I hate doing it, hate the arseholes like Bruce Gilden who think it's perfectly fine to shove a flash two inches away from someone's face when they are just going about their daily business and I hate people who take pictures of homeless people because it's all edgy.

    I think there is very definitely a line between taking pictures of streets that just happen to have people in them, and taking pictures specifically of people who do not know or want their picture taken, and most people don't want their picture taken by some complete stranger because they have a funny looking face or are doing something "interesting".
     
  7. I feel like I have said this before (and I'm not searching the forums) but do they have streets where you live @IainK? All your photos are of coastlines and fields.
     
  8. That argument is just way to broad, and cuts out so much amazing photography - would you really rather not have the bulk of Cartier-Bresson's work? Or Bill Cunningham who shot fashion on the streets?

    I stand by what I said in the show, it comes down to the individual photographer, and even the individual picture. I completely respect anyones choice not to do it, and also your dislike of the work by people like Bruce Gilden (told you there was a Bruce @Ade ), but when it's done well it's amazing.

    Would it be better if all the crap street photography went away? Of course, but you wouldn't want all music to go away just because you hate the Spice Girls (current reference). We are lucky that we can take the good, ignore that bad. In a world filled with many horrors, the potential angst caused by street photography doesn't register on the scale, and yet it has the potential to produce images that move us. Is one fantastic and enduring shot worth a thousand shitty pictures of homeless people? I'd say yes.
     
  9. That argument is just way to broad, and cuts out so much amazing photography - would you really rather not have the bulk of Cartier-Bresson's work? Or Bill Cunningham who shot fashion on the streets?

    I stand by what I said in the show, it comes down to the individual photographer, and even the individual picture. I completely respect anyones choice not to do it, and also your dislike of the work by people like Bruce Gilden (told you there was a Bruce @Ade ), but when it's done well it's amazing.

    Would it be better if all the crap street photography went away? Of course, but you wouldn't want all music to go away just because you hate the Spice Girls (current reference). We are lucky that we can take the good, ignore that bad. In a world filled with many horrors, the potential angst caused by street photography doesn't register on the scale, and yet it has the potential to produce images that move us. Is one fantastic and enduring shot worth a thousand shitty pictures of homeless people? I'd say yes.
     
  10. #10 IainK, Sep 21, 2016
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2016
    Trying to decide whether this is a dig or not, might just be my tired brain reading more into that than you intended. However, I make no bones about what I enjoy shooting and given I get to go out with a camera about once a month if I'm lucky now then I'm not going to waste time shooting things I don't want to shoot.

    But to answer your question, I may live rural but I work in Aberdeen, but I don't enjoy taking pictures of strangers so that aspect of street photography - and I accept that its only a small subset of what street photography is - is not something I'm going to participate in. The few people shots I've taken have always been of people I know or with permission.
     
  11. It's perhaps broad as a sweeping statement, but that's certainly the rule I operate by for the most part. Don't get me wrong, I'm not out to censor people and I've defended the rights of photographers to take pictures in public before, but each of us has a set of rules to live by after all.

    Sometimes the situations people put themselves in lends itself more to an openness and acceptance of random people taking their pictures. The motorcycle meet you have talked about, for example. Clearly, people attend these things to show off their bikes and their leathers etc, so will be far more open to candid portraits, but I do find a lot of candid, voyeuristic street photography uncomfortable to look at. I can't help but see a thought of "just leave me alone" in the faces of many people in such shots, and given that's how I would react it would be hypocritical of me to put others in that situation.
     
  12. I think this reflects one of the things about any art, not just photography, that I find fascinating, the way that we interpret images and how our own personality directly informs what we see. In this case you can have no way of knowing what the person might be thinking, but you know how you would feel and so you apply it. An extrovert could look at the same image and come away with a completely different view of a shot.

    Again, I'm not saying that you're wrong to feel this way, and your statement about each of us drawing their own lines and boundaries is spot on, but it's interesting to think about why these images make you feel uncomfortable, and with you just as with Dave it's clear your antipathy stems mostly from putting yourself in the position of the subject, and the discomfort associated with that.

    I firmly believe that everyone should shoot what they like, and whilst pushing ourselves out of comfort zones can be useful, only when it isn't in direct opposition with fundamental likes and dislikes. I'm glad that people are pushing at boundaries I would never. I may not like it all, in fact there may be an awful lot I find unpleasant or even offensive, but if every creative individual worried about causing offence then a lot of great work in every form wouldn't exist.

    And I'm pretty certain that Ade was in no way having a dig, unless he's had a complete personality transplant since yesterday!
     
  13. Certainly not a dig mate, just a reference to your idyllic country lifestyle (when not in Aberdeen).
     
  14. Ok, no worries. Definitely just my stupid old tired brain then, apologies.
     

Share This Page