Open Photography Forums  
HOME FORUMS NEWS FAQ SEARCH

Go Back   Open Photography Forums > OPF Welcome Hall > Still Photo: Approaching Fine Photography

Still Photo: Approaching Fine Photography Photography as a visual artform open to any serious picture, where classical photography is the mode of our expression. Open to all! Not curated. For works intended for clients and galleries submit to GALLERY ONE.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 2nd, 2008, 09:54 AM
Sean Reid Sean Reid is offline
Editor at Large
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 96
Default Mitch Alland's "An Approach To Street Photography" Article

Mitch Alland, who will be a moderator here once he gets a chance to register, etc. has recently published an interesting essay on what's often called "Street Photography". Here's the link:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad....html#comments

BTW, Mitch, since you mention James Nachtwey in your article (in reference to framing using an SLR) do you want to provide a link here for people to look at some of his work?

Cheers,

Sean
__________________
Sean Reid
Editor At Large
http://www.reidreviews.com
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old May 3rd, 2008, 12:02 PM
Mitch Alland Mitch Alland is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 43
Default

Thanks, Sean. James Nachtwey's website is here:

www.jamesnachtwey.com

Perhaps by way of introducing myself I can post here a few pictures from my Bangkok book series that is referred to in the street photography article.














These pictures are among the "loosest" in style that I've taken, using the method, described in the article, of framing by looking at the LCD rather than through a viewfinder. The pictures in the book series — there are 192 of them — can be seen here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/1026877...71568487/show/

—Mitch/Paris
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old May 3rd, 2008, 03:01 PM
Ray West Ray West is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK - Somerset
Posts: 1,703
Default

Hi Mitch,

Welcome here, and thanks for the images. I have a number of questions. Bear in mind, i am not into street photography, but I have sort of been involved with equipment for doing so.

So, starters for ten -

This is Bangkok (but these days it could be any capital or otherwise city). It looks as if it is on private property, a restaurant, although it may be a street cafe, possibly public property. Does this effect the necessity of getting model releases, etc? Would you take these photos in your home town?

Best wishes,

Ray
__________________
All images posted in OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated Comment Only or Edit and Repost.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old May 4th, 2008, 12:22 AM
Mitch Alland Mitch Alland is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 43
Default

Ray, these photographs are taken on the street (on public property) and the tables are outside on the pavement next to the restaurants. No model release is required unless you are going to use the photos for commercial purposes, such as in an advertisement. In Bangkok one could usually take these pictures inside restaurants as well without any difficulty: the only establishments that restrict photography are large, modern shopping malls and nightclubs.

Here are pictures in a similar situation on Paris:










And the following are taken inside restaurants in Paris:











—Mitch/Paris
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

Last edited by Mitch Alland; May 4th, 2008 at 03:58 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old May 4th, 2008, 02:46 AM
philip rigby philip rigby is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9
Default

Mitch,

I am with you when you make the point about having to have a project in mind when shooting. I have often been disappointed with my results when, for example being on holiday. I simply seem to drop into happy snapper mode, and just produce holiday snaps without realising what l am actually doing.

I recently spent over two weeks in Southern India, and started the holiday with the intention of shooting nothing other than the faces of people that l came across during the tour, beggers, children, shopkeepers, Station Masters, etc, etc. In other words, a "Faces of India " project.

For me, the project has worked, in that l now have a body of work that l can look at with some satisfaction. OK, l've no temples, no beaches, no palaces, no posed elephants etc, but what l think l have got are images as opposed to snaps.


philip
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old May 4th, 2008, 04:22 AM
Nolan Sinclair Nolan Sinclair is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 16
Default

Hi Mitch,

Although admittedly I'm not a big fan of your style, it's great to see another's process, especially when they have a style as developed as yours is.

That said, I did have to rummage through your photo stream, find that picture above with the pig and favorite it. It's the elephant in the room and the serious-looking guys really create a humorous picture.
__________________
Nolan
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old May 4th, 2008, 08:09 AM
Mike Cetta Mike Cetta is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4
Default

hi Mitch and all

For me street photography which i do more and more of is about capturing an ordinary moment in place that has a time capsule quality about it...for iinstance what did a street corner in Rome look like on any given ordinary day 2000 yrs ago?...Ben Lifson alerted me to an Italian painter from the 16th century Canoletto who did these kinds of paintings of the 'streets' of Venice

...and because i'm also trying to think fine art and painterly -my own sense of what that means- I'm much more interested in color than BW

I live in NYC so for the past 2 yrs I see myself trying to draw daily life scenes...but i have no purpose in mind when i take the camera out than that so I agree that a purpose is fine provided it is loose enough and open enough...that doesn't mean that you are not always thinking about what you are trying to do...how else could even frame what you see?...I like to have people in motion in nearly all of my pics because that 's what cities are all about...the trick is to present them as forms -each as clear and distinct as possible, as many as possible,- so that they almost look as if I put then there as in a movie set or still life...

...but's what so great about being a visual artist today...the boundaries and rules are wide open and the bottom line is as always dose the pic work as art....

mike
www.mikecetta.com

BTW how tdo you upload a pic here directly?


http://www.mikecettaphotos.com/manhattan01/MadisonSq_1
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old May 4th, 2008, 10:03 AM
Cem_Usakligil Cem_Usakligil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,946
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Cetta View Post
BTW how tdo you upload a pic here directly?
Hi Mike,

All details are explained in this post by Asher. Welcome aboard :-).

Cheers,
__________________
Kind Regards, Cem

flickr
website
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old May 4th, 2008, 12:23 PM
Ray West Ray West is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK - Somerset
Posts: 1,703
Default

Hi Mitch,

Thanks for the reply, and the extra images. I suspect it is debatable as to what constitutes commercial purposes, but interestingly, the second group of images, except the third, it looks as if at least some of the subjects realised you were taking a photo, and almost posed. I was interested in how that was. Is there a sort of politeness inherent to work in your own country, whereas elsewhere you are considered as a tourist, and can sort of get away with things differently? The final 'pig on the wall' image, did you ask the two guys before or after the photo? (oh, and the copyright of the pig painting, just to be picky)

Best wishes,

Ray
__________________
All images posted in OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated Comment Only or Edit and Repost.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old May 4th, 2008, 01:42 PM
Maggie Osterberg Maggie Osterberg is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9
Default

Mitch wrote in his essay:

Quote:
The point here is that street photography, like any other type of photography, is easier to do when you have a project, even when you set the project yourself. This may be especially important for street photography because, without a purpose, street photography can be meaningless, particularly if the pictures don't have any graphic distinction: how many times have you seen on the internet humdrum photos of street people, of old men sitting on benches, that say nothing either socially or graphically?
I think this argues that there is no such thing as "street photography" as a genre and that really what Mitch is doing is documentary/reportage. He has set out to document the public face of Bangkok and if this were writing, we'd immediately know it as reportage. No one ever talks about "street writing."

Hope I don't immediately lose my street cred. ;^)
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old May 4th, 2008, 02:39 PM
John_Nevill John_Nevill is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 581
Default

Mitch,

I like your style, to me its "urban journalism".

The grit and tonality of your images was one of the reason (along with Sean's review) why I got the GRD II. Yes, I've been lying in wings of GETDPI and have followed your work for a while.

I like some of your recent toning effects and can see that your a Lightzone advocate?

Anyhow, getting back to Street (or Urban) photography. Do you try and catch the moment (grab shots) or consciously pre-plan a lot of your images?. I mean in the context of the photo itself rather than the project.

Do you wander the streets with a preconceived idea in mind? or let the creativity flow.

I've tried my hand at street and one of the biggest obstacles to overcome is self awareness. If you feel confident (not overly) yourself then your subject's feel more at ease.

I'd be interested in hearing about your "on the street approach"

Thanks in advance.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old May 4th, 2008, 02:49 PM
Mitch Alland Mitch Alland is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 43
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray West View Post
Hi Mitch,

Thanks for the reply, and the extra images. I suspect it is debatable as to what constitutes commercial purposes, but interestingly, the second group of images, except the third, it looks as if at least some of the subjects realised you were taking a photo, and almost posed. I was interested in how that was. Is there a sort of politeness inherent to work in your own country, whereas elsewhere you are considered as a tourist, and can sort of get away with things differently? The final 'pig on the wall' image, did you ask the two guys before or after the photo? (oh, and the copyright of the pig painting, just to be picky)

Best wishes,

Ray
Ray, the pig painting is in a café and the owners or operators of the café don't mind people taking pictures of it. Again, there are no copyright issues if the photograph is not used for a commercial purpose. What constitutes a commercial purpose is quite clear in law: publishing a photograph in a photography or art magazine or in a photography or art book is not a commercial use. The only gray area I could see would be if one of the men were drinking a Coke and Coca Cola paid me or gave a publisher a subsidy to have the picture published in a photography book or magazine, in which case the subjects would have a right to compensation. I did not ask the men for permission either before or after taking the picture — to do so would make taking such pictures virtually impossible.

As to the politeness involved, it all depends on the personality on the photographer and his or her body language, which becomes particularly important if you make eye contact. I think it's impossible to provide a prescription on how to do this, because it depends on your personality.

The people in the other pictures did not pose: they saw I was taking a picture and were probably wondering whether I was taking a picture of them — again, how they react depends on the photographers body language and personality.

—Mitch/Paris
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old May 4th, 2008, 03:02 PM
Mitch Alland Mitch Alland is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 43
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggie Osterberg View Post
I think this argues that there is no such thing as "street photography" as a genre and that really what Mitch is doing is documentary/reportage. He has set out to document the public face of Bangkok and if this were writing, we'd immediately know it as reportage. No one ever talks about "street writing."

Hope I don't immediately lose my street cred. ;^)
Maggie, I didn't really think of the book project as documentary or reportage, although it certainly can be considered that way because it gives a feeling of Bangkok. Basically, I started with the premise that a photograph speaks the way a poem does, in which the form and content work together to express the meaning — the best example of which I know in literature is Shakespeare's sonnet 129, quoted in the comments to the TOP article. In formulating the project I started thinking of using a structure like a long narrative poem and the book has four chapters each of which start with a fish picture and end with a **** and a palm leaves, except for a frontispiece and and end piece. This repetition is meant to work repetition of sounds or rhymes does in a long poem.

"Street photography" is only a convenient label for photography which shows everyday life, in the manner of genre painting.

—Mitch/Paris
http://www.flickr.com/photos/1026877...71568487/show/
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old May 4th, 2008, 03:10 PM
Mitch Alland Mitch Alland is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 43
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Nevill View Post
Mitch,

I like your style, to me its "urban journalism".

The grit and tonality of your images was one of the reason (along with Sean's review) why I got the GRD II. Yes, I've been lying in wings of GETDPI and have followed your work for a while.

I like some of your recent toning effects and can see that your a Lightzone advocate?

Anyhow, getting back to Street (or Urban) photography. Do you try and catch the moment (grab shots) or consciously pre-plan a lot of your images?. I mean in the context of the photo itself rather than the project.

Do you wander the streets with a preconceived idea in mind? or let the creativity flow.

I've tried my hand at street and one of the biggest obstacles to overcome is self awareness. If you feel confident (not overly) yourself then your subject's feel more at ease.

I'd be interested in hearing about your "on the street approach"

Thanks in advance.
John, thanks for the kind words.

On planning shots: no I don't plan them at all, but having a project in mind often helps you to see signs that you might otherwise not have seen; and having an overall purpose in mind makes it easier to get yourself out to shoot. I find that if I don't have a project in mind I quickly tire of yet another walkby shooting — and even with a project one has to vary the types of pictures one takes, as otherwise the whole thing becomes too boring.

Generally, I find that when I have a camera in my hand, I suddenly feel a picture come together and shoot: usually it comes from "feeling the form" in what I see before me. I've written a bit about this in my latest comment on the TOP article. All this usually comes together very suddenly: that's about all I can say about it. If I go back the next day to try to do the same thing, it never seems to work.

—Mitch/Paris
http://www.flickr.com/photos/1026877...71568487/show/
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old May 4th, 2008, 04:26 PM
Kathy Rappaport Kathy Rappaport is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: So. California
Posts: 1,793
Default Publication

Mitch,

I just did a series of images to be published, from the street, and since the books will be for sale, required model and property releases. The image of the photo from inside the restaurant, with the pig would also require a property release if published.
__________________
You can call me ChatKat
********************
I created this piece of fine art. It's Fine Art because it's mine, I made it and I say it's fine art...
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old May 4th, 2008, 10:19 PM
Mitch Alland Mitch Alland is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 43
Default

Kathy, I don't why such releases would have been required in your case. All I can say is to repeat that the use of the photos have to be commercial for releases to be required, not just because a book is for sale — and photographers that I have spoken with, including James Nachtwey, Ralph Gibson and Sam Abell, have not had to have model releases for the monographs.

For a simple statement of this under US laws see:

http://www.photoattorney.com/2007/07...t-release.html

"Photographers often take photos of people. If a photo is used editorially, then no model release is needed. If used commercially, then permission is needed to use the person's right of publicity."

In France the law is very stringent but is not applied. Under French law the rights to an image belong to the subject — even a photograph of a building belongs to the architect. Nevertheless, street photography books are published in France without model or property releases, but I don't know how this is done under this stringent law.

—Mitch/Paris
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

Last edited by Mitch Alland; May 4th, 2008 at 10:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old May 4th, 2008, 11:00 PM
Kathy Rappaport Kathy Rappaport is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: So. California
Posts: 1,793
Default

Gibson and Sam Abell, have not had to have model releases for the monographs.

For a simple statement of this under US laws see:

http://www.photoattorney.com/2007/07...t-release.html

"Photographers often take photos of people. If a photo is used editorially, then no model release is needed. If used commercially, then permission is needed to use the person's right of publicity."

Editorial use vs. Commercial use; If you are publishing a book for sale, that is commercial use.
__________________
You can call me ChatKat
********************
I created this piece of fine art. It's Fine Art because it's mine, I made it and I say it's fine art...
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old May 5th, 2008, 01:43 AM
Mitch Alland Mitch Alland is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 43
Default

Sorry, Kathy, I don't think that you are correct. See the following on commercial vs editorial use:

http://www.photoattorney.com/2006/02...al-use-of.html

The above includes the following statement, which is extremely clear:
Quote:
Commercial use of a photograph usually occurs when the picture of the person has been used purely for "advertising purposes." While the photograph of a person may be used for something that is sold for profit, such as in a book or a print, that is not the test for a commercial use. Instead, using a picture of a person without consent gives rise to a claim for violating the person's right of publicity only when it injures the economic interests of the person due to commercial exploitation.
—Mitch/Paris
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old May 5th, 2008, 02:58 AM
Cem_Usakligil Cem_Usakligil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,946
Wink Think global...

Hi,

Some people on this board tend to forget, as Ray likes to point out occasionally, that there is a world outside of USA (surprise, surprise). All that discussion between Kathy and Mitch, while being interesting to us as well, does not apply to other countries. The link given by Mitch, for example, states that the rights of individuals must be evaluated in light of constitutional interests. The question is then, whose constitution? In other words, this discussion is moot, unless we bring in the legal expertise into the discussion from Thailand and France as well.

The point I'm trying to make is, we all have to behave appropriately as photographers even when we are abroad and we don't know the local laws. When in doubt, we should ask first. For example, a couple of Dutch plane spotters have been jailed in Greece a few years ago since they did not know that it was forbidden to photograph military air bases in Greece. Their excuse was that they did not know. But one is required to know what is legal or not. If you break it, even unknowingly, you are in trouble.

So what is appropriate behavior? This is dependent on the person and cannot be predefined. As an example, I would ask for permission of the restaurant owner and the guests before I took that picture of the pig hanging on the wall. On the street, one cannot keep on asking for permission of everybody every time one squeezes the shutter. That would be the end of street photography. However, if any person would indicate either verbally or by body language that they do not want their pictures taken, then I would certainly respect their privacy. Nowadays, I tend to err on the side of caution and ask anyway, sometimes by simply smiling and gesturing with my head.

Anyway, we have discussed this topic here a few months ago. It may make interesting reading for our new members.

Just my Euro 0.02
__________________
Kind Regards, Cem

flickr
website
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old May 5th, 2008, 03:53 AM
Bart_van_der_Wolf Bart_van_der_Wolf is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,046
Default

Hi Mitch,

I agree with Cem's remarks, especially where the following quote (emphasis is mine) is concerned:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch Alland View Post
... gives rise to a claim for violating the person's right of publicity only when it injures the economic interests of the person due to commercial exploitation.
That's where you'll find the various jurisdictions will differ most. In e.g. many European countiries (Berne convention signatories) the protection of the individual's rights exceeds their economic ones alone.

However, in general, one is often safe when it comes to shooting people as a part of a wider scene or group in a non-demeaning (which is open to interpretation) or compromising (which we cannot predict) way when shot on public property (which is not the same as shooting from public property e.g. with a long telelens while invading someone's privacy). There is however enough jurisprudence where the specifics led to fines.

We shouldn't get our knickers in a twist, but we should be aware that rules and interpretations do vary across the globe.

Bart
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old May 5th, 2008, 05:59 AM
Sean Reid Sean Reid is offline
Editor at Large
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 96
Default

It is indeed true that laws will vary from country to country. In the USA, "commercial use" is indicated when a picture is used to sell something else (soda, chairs, Fox television, etc.). Photojournalism and pictures that are exhibited or published *as themselves* (without being used to sell or endorse something else) do not, by current US law as I understand it, require model releases. And thank heavens for that because otherwise, photojournalism, as we know it, would not exist. The publication of a monograph (which does endorse any product, service, etc.) is not defined as commercial use.

I can say, from personal experience, that, over the past 24 years, I have published a number of pictures in editorial contexts (magazine articles not ads) and they have not required model releases. That's consistent with what I've read of the current USA law.

Mitch, I believe, linked the Bert Krages article which is worth reading. Perhaps photographers here from other countries can let us know the laws in their own countries.

When I go out in public, I must accept that my face, body, gestures, clothing, etc. will be seen in public. But I certainly have not consented to having any part of me used to endorse, for example, Coca Cola. As soon as my face is used to sell Coke (perish the thought) I've become a kind of model and a model release is required.

As for the ethical/practical issues, this is a topic I explored in an essay called "Photographing Strangers".

Cheers,

Sean
__________________
Sean Reid
Editor At Large
http://www.reidreviews.com
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old May 5th, 2008, 08:39 AM
Mitch Alland Mitch Alland is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 43
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cem Usakligil View Post
...As an example, I would ask for permission of the restaurant owner and the guests before I took that picture of the pig hanging on the wall...
Cem, I have breakfast in that café almost every day when I'm in Paris, where I spend 2-3 months per year. The staff of that restaurant know me well and have seen me photographing in the café many times and obviously don't have a problem. However, that doesn't mean much and the bottom line position would become very clear if a French publisher wanted to publish the picture beacuse the publisher what could and could not be done; and if necessary I could always get permission from the café.

As I mentioned earlier the French law is extremely stringent, giving the rights to the image to the subject and the rights of images of buildings to the architect. The law is so stringent that, if it were applied — as has been discussed in French newspapers — all photojournalism would cease as it would, for example, be impossible to publish pictures of a group of demonstrators if their faces could be identified. But the law is not applied and street photography books have continued to be published without model releases.

—Mitch/Paris
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

Last edited by Mitch Alland; May 5th, 2008 at 10:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old May 5th, 2008, 08:45 AM
Jack_Flesher Jack_Flesher is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 549
Default

In the context of this particular thread, I would appreciate some clarification of terms... Can someone please explain the accepted distinctions between "Street Photography," "Photo Journalism" and "Snap Shots?"

I ask this because I see a lot of images posted nowadays as either Street or PJ that l don't feel quite rise to the traditional level of impact for those genres. To be clear, they look more like simple snapshots to my eye and understanding of the terms traditionally. Hence I'd like to know what specific qualities allow such images cross over the line to qualify them as more than just casual snaps...

Thanks in advance for the edification!
__________________
Jack
www.getdpi.com
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old May 5th, 2008, 09:56 AM
Ray West Ray West is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK - Somerset
Posts: 1,703
Default

So, who owns the copyright of the pig picture in the cafe? The cafe owner (possibly). Does it matter? If it doesn't matter, then I can begin publishing books of whatever I see, including the work of other street photographers, artists, whoever with no concern of who really owns what.

Personally, I think the copyright issues with photography is similar to copying of cd's etc. If everyone did it, then what happens? Just because it is easy to do, doesn't mean it's OK to do it, and just because it is OK in France, does not always make it OK in England, or elsewhere.

Of course, the whole issue can be resolved by using the small video surveillance cameras, just stick it though your button hole, walk around, play back and select the frames afterwards. The end justifies the means.

As Cem, Kathy and others have mentioned, just because things seem to be OK, doesn't mean they are OK, and it is not easy to tell what is private and public property. Copyright law is a minefield.

Best wishes,

Ray
__________________
All images posted in OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated Comment Only or Edit and Repost.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old May 5th, 2008, 11:52 AM
Mike Shimwell Mike Shimwell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: North Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 1,792
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack_Flesher View Post
In the context of this particular thread, I would appreciate some clarification of terms... Can someone please explain the accepted distinctions between "Street Photography," "Photo Journalism" and "Snap Shots?"

I ask this because I see a lot of images posted nowadays as either Street or PJ that l don't feel quite rise to the traditional level of impact for those genres. To be clear, they look more like simple snapshots to my eye and understanding of the terms traditionally. Hence I'd like to know what specific qualities allow such images cross over the line to qualify them as more than just casual snaps...

Thanks in advance for the edification!


Jack

I think there is a serious point here. Taking your question at face value the distinction is not always clear, although I would subscribe to the view that photojournalism seeks to tell a (possibly important) story to a wider audience as a part of its intent. Street photography must have some form of intent, but may be concerned with aspects of the ordinary (my view only!!) and a snapshot probably does not have a considered intent.

The second part of your question then concerns the standard of execution, and in all fields of photography (as well as other endeavours) the changes in technology have allowed a much lower level of execution to attain to public viewing. Some of this may be good, but equally there are issues with volume. However, the question of what allows one image to rise above the waterline in terms of imapct is one I ask myself regularly.

Mike.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old May 5th, 2008, 04:20 PM
Ian Gittler Ian Gittler is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6
Default

At least on paper, copyright issues are pretty clear. But that's not the end of it. Claims do make it to court that don't necessarily meet the criteria laid out in the present law. It's an evolving debate. By the time a photographer finds himself a part of that debate, say in a precedent-setting case involving privacy or property or the rights of a minor, or any number of other justifiably sensitive sets of variables, win or lose he could be facing a daunting legal hurdle and expense.

I don't shoot on the street much, and I hate it when I discover I'm in the viewfinder crosshairs of a photographer who hasn't asked permission (which is common where I live). But I'm a huge fan of photography that has been created in public settings. For some reason (or many reasons) it is often the most intimate type of imagery. I don't want to see photographers who are pursuing this type of project stifled. Mitch's Bangkok work will eventually result in a great book.

The unfortunate thing is that the laws protecting honorable pursuits also indemnify some truly troubling behavior, such as a stranger armed with dSLR and telephoto lens lurking beyond the gates of a Greenich Village playground, snapping away at the children of others, as a rightfully concerned mom repeatedly attempted to make him get lost. As a few dads approached him, he finally moved on, but it was kind of chilling.

Demanding that releases be signed represents an opportunity for my subjects to reflect on the seriousness with which I approach my work, and a chance for them to opt out of participating. In a certain way, it can actually impact the tenor of the sitting. Historically, when I slack about getting one, that picture turns out to be something I really do wish I had (relatively) air-tight ownership of, regarding the potential for me or my "assigns" to use it in any way I decide.

There is more picture-taking going on than ever, and it's easier than ever. These issues may make for some interesting argument going forward.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old May 5th, 2008, 04:57 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 32,627
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack_Flesher View Post
In the context of this particular thread, I would appreciate some clarification of terms... Can someone please explain the accepted distinctions between "Street Photography," "Photo Journalism" and "Snap Shots?"
Jack,

This may very well be an important question. So let's get answers from you, yourself, in the generally accepted context of Photography" by people who collect, sell and show this form of work.

I could simply ask you what your definitions are before doing our own since your questions seems to ride on an underlying rail that takes us to the possible conclusion the Mitch's photographs from Bangkock turn out to be just snapshots after all. Fair enough, that might be true. So let's explore that and start with your baseline defintions of and distinctions between "Street Photography," "Photo Journalism" and "Snap Shots?"

When we have that, we can look at the context of these terms here in this thread and forum.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old May 5th, 2008, 05:39 PM
Jack_Flesher Jack_Flesher is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
since your questions seems to ride on an underlying rail that takes us to the possible conclusion the Mitch's photographs from Bangkock turn out to be just snapshots after all.
Apologies, especially to Mitch, if that came across as an implication -- it was not my intention at all!!! I am simply wanting to understand what the accepted definitions and distinctions are, from people who are currently working in these genres... The only factor I didn't mention that I'd also like clarified is who -- creator or viewer -- ultimately determines same?

Again, thanks in advance for any edification!
__________________
Jack
www.getdpi.com
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old May 5th, 2008, 05:55 PM
Jeff Jacques Jeff Jacques is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack_Flesher View Post
Apologies, especially to Mitch, if that came across as an implication -- it was not my intention at all!!! I am simply wanting to understand what the accepted definitions and distinctions are, from people who are currently working in these genres... The only factor I didn't mention that I'd also like clarified is who -- creator or viewer -- ultimately determines same?

Again, thanks in advance for any edification!
In my experience, at least on the different forums, is that the viewer dictates.
Though one could argue that in the pursuit of art the artist's intention is what counts.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old May 5th, 2008, 06:15 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 32,627
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack_Flesher View Post
Apologies, especially to Mitch, if that came across as an implication -- it was not my intention at all!!! I am simply wanting to understand what the accepted definitions and distinctions are, from people who are currently working in these genres... The only factor I didn't mention that I'd also like clarified is who -- creator or viewer -- ultimately determines same?

Again, thanks in advance for any edification!
Jack,

Edification! You do not need edification it's too early in the evening.

If I wanted to know anything about almost any of the leading photographers you could provide a nice talk on their work, the cameras they use and their style. There are not a lot of guys who can grab a LF camera, a scanning back or rangefinder and get to work without missing a heartbeat. You are not Rachel trying her best to master a new filed and make impressive art or Ray trying to set us straight, adding a dollop of dry or painful humor in his parting shot. So I feel that you, especially, might have a very firm notion of at least "street photgraphy" since there are enough famous photographers who we know stamped their names on that so-called "genre".

So, would you pick one, perhaps "street" and then I'l do my best with the rest! That's only fair!

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:06 PM.


Posting images or text grants license to OPF, yet © of such remain with its creator. Still, all assembled discussion © 2006-2017 Asher Kelman (all rights reserved) Posts with new theme or unusual image might be moved/copied to a new thread!