Jun 012010
Even understated scenes are interesting to me when I go to the west side. My eyes are just too accustomed to the east side. It’s not that nothing happens here, it does. But it does seem that every time I go over to the west side something happens. This time it was a woman with Turrets syndrome that accidentally broke the window of a nail shop. Cops called. Pitiful to watch. Yes, I photographed the scene, but don’t feel like posting it. That’s my problem I guess.
But it is an unfortunate world, and filled with unfortunate pictures, and I’d rather look at a guy leaning against an old building.
Not as uneventful as you think, Dave. I believe this guy has accidentally wedged his arm into the crevice of the building’s facade and is waiting for the fire department to rescue him.
If one of the pictures was sensational and also in some way illuminating from a human point of view, then it’s almost
your duty to post it. Taking pictures of the sick or downtrodden is always tough, because what’s the motivation to show
the picture. I understand the reasons to take it, but what can the picture do to enhance one’s understanding of a terrible
situation. Everything has been done before, yet as we discussed every single frame we expose is a brand new discovery
which has never been seen by anyone before. Confusing for sure. Just shoot and then, as you did today, decide what to share.
Matt – yes. I don’t censor myself when shooting. Later – I put my editorial hat on – and that’s when various issues about privacy, sensationalism, virtue, illumination etc. come into play. It’s like the old west saying, shoot first ask questions later.
That’s a nice peaceful image Dave. I’ve been thinking about doing a series on people waiting. It’s always interesting watching and waiting…
I used to catch a bus with a guy who has Tourettes Syndrome (full blown coprolalia, the lot) and I often thought it would be fascinating to photograph him. His face is unbelievably expressive but I could never get over the fact that I wanted to photograph him because of his Tourette’s not because he had an expressive face. But, on the other hand, if he didn’t have Tourettes, he would never have been that expressive.
It was around the same time that a fellow photographer in my small city was shopping round his long lens “portraits” of homeless and people living on the street. I knew for a fact that several of the people he stealthily took “portraits” of weren’t homeless at all – they just dressed a little rough.
It also mightily pissed me off that in shopping round these portraits, he advertised himself as “working with the homeless” like he was the annointed one who could cure society’s ills with a 5D and a long lens.
That sort of put a sour taste in my mouth for photographing people who are doing it a bit tough in life.
As Matt says, confusing for sure.
.-= Phill´s last blog ..InstaArt =-.
Nothing annoys me like the guy with a 300mm lens shooting the homeless or the more troubled people in this world.
For one thing, it simply seems unfair. But I’m generally against the use of the long lens unless there is no other way to get the shot.
if your trying to get compression, or a certain angle then I’m going to use a long lens.
My homeless shots are mostly about us…the people that walk by them in our old worlds.
DB
Talk about amazing acts of self-censorship. The White House photographer, Cecil Stoughton, who took that photo of the Kennedys with Marilyn Monroe after her famous rendition of Happy Birthday Mr. President, kept it secret his entire life. I can’t imagine any photographer doing that today. Luckily, the negatives were in the dryer when Kennedy’s Secret Service men came around to confiscate any of Stoughton’s photos of Marilyn in JFK’s presence.
One of the things I have to get better at is when an image is a picture. If I had this image on a roll, I might not have looked twice. But it works here, for sure.
.-= Chris Klug´s last blog ..Visit to NYC via the Train =-.
Chris. I liked it as soon as I saw it through the viewfinder – yes the viewfinder not live view. And I liked it when I saw it in Lightroom.
But – frankly – I’m not sure why. That’s one of the most difficult things to figure out. I do remember that I was watching the out-of-focus pedestrians and waiting for them to get out of the same plane as the guy. And the way his legs were crossed seemed interesting. And I was aware of him being sort of framed by the building, the citibank sign and the newstand… and that he would be on the left third etc. But when you try and analyze images where the subject isn’t “the moment” – it is tricky stuff and you wind up sounding like an academic that’s had too much wine… which is what I’m sounding like now.
Subconsciously you were drawn to him because of the simple way he was dressed. Straight out of 1964 and
not a bad pair of colors for you to work with…
Dang. That’s it.
Actually, the guy waiting is about to have a “meet cute” moment with the lady in the dark glasses.
.-= Mike Mundy´s last blog ..The Boys Have Come! =-.
A “Frank ” moment for sure , has that timeless character of the human experience.
We had a guy with Tourettes in our home town.
We all accepted him. He was a market porter,
never arrested, many of us kids could calm him
down, or stoke him up.
Pity your guy broke a window.
I respect you all the more for not publishing
that image.
Stephen