De-ranted discussion on Street Photography" Post succinctly!!

[Kevin Stecyk]

Los Angeles Sidewalks

The way I am doing this is the camera is mounted to a tripod in my backseat with a flash pointing out the window and I click the shutter with a remote from the driver seat as I drive by (see below). Camera is set to f8 iso 200 and prefocused. As I drive around and the ambient light levels fade into night I lengthen the shutter speed so I can pick up more of the ambient. I try to keep the background about stop or two under exposed but when the sun goes down and the camera is still set to f8 iso 200 ambient goes black except for the lights which streak across the scene now as I drive by and the shutter is around 1/15s. I like this effect, though agree it is a departure from the daytime scenes. Next time I go out I will raise the iso instead of shortening the shutter and see how much detail I can get beyond the reach of my flash in the night scenes.

Even though I quoted Charlie Chipman, I started a new thread. This thread might be controversial, and I want to allow Charlie to enjoy his thread.

I enjoyed viewing Charlie’s pictures. Some of this picture really caught my attention, especially the picture with Jesus standing beside the two women and the picture on the corner with sign of CARNICERIA. Not sure why I enjoy these particular two photographs most, but I do.

Then I read how Charlie captured his photographs. Suddenly I lost some of my admiration.

Although not a street photographer—and most would argue not a photographer of any type—I understand that the street photographer cognoscenti frown upon on long lenses, because they believe street photography should be up close and personal. If you’re going to engage in street photography, use a 50 mm lens or something similar. Don’t use a 600 mm lens two blocks away.

It is with that viewpoint that I considered Charlie’s photographs. By creating his photographs in a drive-by manner, is he, in effect, escaping getting up close and personal? Is there something voyeuristic about it?

I recognize the right in the U.S. that, if you're in public, you have no right to privacy. Therefore, your image can be captured and displayed. I got that.

To me, however, street photography is different. Yes, you want to capture your subject without your subject being aware of your presence. But once the image of a subject is captured, then there might be a dialog between the subject and photographer. My own personal belief is that as a photographer you should be available for that dialog. You shouldn't hide behind a long lens where you can never be seen or contacted. If the subject is pissed, you have to deal with his or her attitude. Either explain your position and convince your subject of the photograph’s artistic merit; tell the subject your rights as a photographer; have empathy for the subject and delete the picture if requested; or simply move away, read, run fast.

Of course, even though you are up close and personal, the subject might never notice that you captured his or her image. Do you have an obligation to let the subject know? No, I don’t believe you do. Still, it might be a nice gesture if you did. And, again, you might have to deal with his or her response. The point, though, is that you might have to deal with his or her reaction.

Using a long lens or engaging in drive-by photography, you are completely removed. There is no opportunity for your subjects to voice their concern. I know if I were shot deliberately by a person engaged in street photography, I likely would be okay with it, because I understand the issues. However, there might be times when I would prefer that my image not be shown. On the other hand, if a photographer used his car to engage in a drive by shot where he flashed me as he drove by, I wouldn’t be happy. My first thought would be, what the hell was that? And then I would want to know, what’s the purpose.

What say you? When engaging in street photography, does anything go? As long as we are within our legal rights, should we push the envelope? Some believe that we should disregard the subject’s concerns about appearing in a street photograph. Do you share a similar belief? In essence, what should be our moral or ethical codes while engaging in street photography?

 

[Sandrine Bascouert]

I had exactly the same feeling... In a way it sounded to me like a bit of stalking. But I'm afraid of making snap judgments. I feel just sort of uneasy... I'm unable to do that as well as conventional street photography (with people on the pictures ) So I couldn't tell why exactly, and I don't make assumptions about any skills-better-than-others. To me the fact that the photographer is being hidden at some point, no matter what the subject is (I mean bloody corpses after a shooting or people happy, kissing) is spoiling the WOW factor. Still remain the images, I am very keen on the "carneceria" one as well.

 

[fahim mohammed]

Hi Kevin,

..........

I agree with you. Any photograph must be with the photographer in full view. That shows respect
and a concern for the sensitivity for the person/s being photographed.

The vast majority of my posts in fora reflect my views on this subject.

Not just talk, but photos and how they were captured for all to see.

 

[Jerome Marot]

Actually, I thought exactly the same as you did. When I learned how the pictures were made, I lost interest. I felt like a voyeur.

 

[Asher Kelman]

There are different types of street photography.

1. One, typified by Fahim's work, Affable Street Photography, allows the camera and a smile to make connections with different people and breakdown barriers we often assume are there. This work is almost always pleasing and satisfying as there is a sense of positive aspects of humanity.
   
   
2. Another broad category of Documentary Street Photography, requires clinical disconnection from the subject. While one might indeed have feelings of empathy, there is sufficient distance and or stealth that, in almost all cases, the photographer in no way alters the scene being photographed. That means there is no insertion of oneself or the presence of one's camera into their lives at that time. One is merely sampling the behaviors and attributes of that scene. So, although the photographer selects moments, everything recorded is free of the disturbance and modulation by the photographer's presence.

Now just as some folk couldn't stomach being policemen, surgeons or roof repairman, each of us has naturally a different propensity for the type of street photography they want to do.

I must admit, I enjoy Fahim's work but also greatly value the far more risky imaging working in marginal high crime rate areas where "what is" is documented. That's what Charlie Chipman does so well. If anyone thinks they can stroll in the same neighborhoods at night and get 3,000 like pictures without their heads split open or worse, go ahead, try it!

The very nature of the work requires not only stealth but an escape route! I never use flash in those circumstances as I feel it might be a shock to someone day dreaming, waiting for a bus! However, it's no crime! Charlie needs it and takes the risk and in balance, I think that's fine. I do shoot pictures from my car while moving through such areas. I've always planned to set up my camera on a tripod and trigger it remotely to sample the areas more effectively. With pleasant chats, one learns a lot and makes friends, however, we also need to see life as it is and not romanticized.

One cannot easily be a documentary photographer after introducing oneself. Of course, one can move into a neighborhood and be accepted. In all other cases, for documentary work, one must accept any stratagem that allows a picture to be taken, undetected, so the scene is never perturbed by the photographer or his/her camera.

Asher

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

That someone is doing a different style of photography using the same subjects does not stop it being photography or art. Having to use any traditional or 'that's what is done' methods to achieve art is by definition crippling it and we've seen enough of that over the centuries..........


Anything goes, the only thing that matters is that the end result reflects the intention of the artist.

 

[Kevin Stecyk]

Therein lies the challenge, doesn't Asher? I and many others could never do some of the daring photography that war photographers regularly perform. Yet, these war photographers are out there, risking their lives. You didn't see them driving through the crowds in Egypt in their protected humvees, did you? They were out there risking it. Is LA more dangerous place than walking around as an American in Egypt during an uprising? What about Bahrain or Libya or Afghanistan or, well, you get the idea.

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

My point is it's only the snob who cares...

End of the day, does the image do anything for/to you? If it needs a story to back it up then it wasn't strong enough in the first place. If it's strong enough but the story lets it down then that is the fault of the viewers subjective opinions which will almost certainly not be shared by others and other generations and as such is only relevant to the viewer who happens to hold that subjective opinion at that point in time.

I'd hate to be an artist who specifically channelled the impressions of my art based on current popular mindsets...

 

[Ken Tanaka]

Back to the germane issues here...

I find Kevin's reaction to his recognition of personal prejudice admirable. Grabbing your mind by the throat and asking it why it has reacted in such a manner is precisely how you avoid letting prejudices and fetishes turn your mind's eye into a schlerotic pin hole.

In Kevin's case he graciously started a new discussion and bared his reaction to the revelation that Charlie is drive-by-shooting on the streets of LA, and began exploring the preconceptions that he suspects as motives for his reactions. (Unfortunately for Kevin, this public venue has become more of a referendum and unproductive shoving match.)

Kevin, confronting your personal boundaries is precisely the path toward gradually overcoming them...or discovering that they're simply part of your DNA. Being as close to, and involved with, a major art museum as I am, I don't think a month passes where I don't have such discussions with myself over any number of types of arts.

Recognition and exploration of prejudices may not restore the value of work to your eye today...or tomorrow...or even next year. But, like statin medications, it can prevent such intellectual cholesterol from accumulating and clogging your mind. The heaviest baggage we take to our graves is regret.

 

[Kevin Stecyk]

Recognition and exploration of prejudices may not restore the value of work to your eye today...or tomorrow...or even next year. But, like statin medications, it can prevent such intellectual cholesterol from accumulating and clogging your mind. The heaviest baggage we take to our graves is regret.

I like art as much as the next person. But I respect and admire people even more. We have no clue what the other person might be going through in their lives at the moment we snap a picture. We have no idea how that picture might affect another individual. In fact, in some countries or regions, you can be sued taking and publishing a picture of a person in a public setting.

For those that don't believe me, here's a homework assignment for you. Read about a woman in Quebec who was in public view and sued a photographer and magazine publisher who took and published her picture. Canada's Supreme Court ruled in her favor (pdf).

.................

 

[Mark Hampton]

Some things are path dependent.

Kevin,

I agree ... but its how you read the path that can can change how your interpretation of the path was formed...

what if the images you are railing against are railing against the same thing?

what if the way their made is particular to their reading and a critique of a society?

I dont ken if this was the makers intent but its how I read them and enjoyed them all the more...

just my thoughts...

 

[Jerome Marot]

Maybe the reason why we don't agree is simply because this is an international forum and the perception of whether this kind of photography is "right" or "wrong" depends a lot on one's particular culture. In which case we shall never agree.

 

[Kevin Stecyk]

Actually, I thought exactly the same as you did. When I learned how the pictures were made, I lost interest. I felt like a voyeur.

Maybe the reason why we don't agree is simply because this is an international forum and the perception of whether this kind of photography is "right" or "wrong" depends a lot on one's particular culture. In which case we shall never agree.

Jerome, thoughtful responses. However, I believe it is deeper than that. Respect for another individual transcends most cultures.

Of course, there are certain cultures that have the distasteful practice of descriminating against others or failure to recognize the equality of women or both. Aside from those hideous forms of society, most of us recognize the importance of individual. Most of us adhere to the golden rule--the one says do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. And some of us try to do even better by treating others as they'd like to be treated.

So as a test, we could walk around with a Quantum flash and blast a few unsuspecting people in face to judge their reactions. And maybe we could snap some pictures in the name of art. My hunch--and it's just a wild, wild, wild guess--most subjects would not be appreciative. And, if our subjects were bigger and in close proximity, I suspect we'd get a few fists in the face to aid our cultural understanding. Now, how would that be for making a point?

We hear President Obama talk constantly about universal values. I think respect for others is right up there with universal values. And we think that blasting unsuspecting people with a flash while taking their picture is respectful, well, what can I say?

I'd like see how many people would attempt the same courageous act if they weren't in a fast get-away car. And that says a lot, doesn't it?

This topic isn't complicated, honest.

 

[Ken Tanaka]

Kevin,

No debate from me. Just a few observations.

You have a remarkable assortment of objection ingredients in your judgement thesis; good/bad, right/wrong, humanism, fairness, undertones of cowardice, criminal justice, etc.

Two points. First, the scant information Charlie provided about the referenced series does not provide solid grounds for many, if any, such judgements. It seems to me that you're making some awfully big asumptions and preconceptions.

Second, and more generally, if you filter all photography through such such a fine sieve of judgements you probably should turn your interests to painting and drawing. Virtually all candid public photography would probably fail to pass such filters.

 

[charlie chipman]

Kevin, you started off quite gracefully with a valid topic for debate but have since turned the conversation into more of a bashing, for that reason I am hesitant in responding to you.

You are bringing up tortured animals and humans, the incident at Abu Ghraib, discrimination, the lack of equality for women, all as an arguments to prove that my project is 'unfair, wrong, lacking courage, disrespectful, etc.....' before you have ever spoken to me about it.
Is this what you consider fair and respectful towards me?
Perhaps you loose respect for people when you disagree with them?

Do you really think that when Obama speaks of universal values he is refering to people talking pictures with a flash on the streets of Los Angeles?
You say this topic is not complicated so why are you bringing up all these completely unrelated and complicated topics?

Kevin I do not subscribe to the idea that there is a set of rules for any art form, it is the end result that matters. For you perhaps a 50mm lens and a smile is the way to go about photographing strangers in public. If it takes a 600mm lens from two blocks away to get the shot that someone is after then by all means use a 600mm lens. If a projector helps a painter create their masterpiece why should they not use it? Thankfully humanity does not have to live by one mans code of ethics.

I spend many many hours sitting in traffic in my car here in Los Angeles along with millions of other people. During this time I see all sorts of interesting scenes taking place on the sidewalks that are oblivious to my presence as I drive by. This is what I set out to capture and I know of only one way to do that, from my car as I drive by. If I was there standing in the street with my flash as opposed to driving by, it might very well be an entertaining project, but it would not be the same project.

 

[Kevin Stecyk]

Kevin, you started off quite gracefully with a valid topic for debate but have since turned the conversation into more of a bashing, for that reason I am hesitant in responding to you.

I was hesitant in bringing up my concerns, but in prior offline correspondence, Asher said I should make my post. I should have known better.

You are bringing up tortured animals and humans, the incident at Abu Ghraib, discrimination,

I make no apologies for those comments. Go back and read the context.

If you recall, I was responding to the question: "End of the day, does the image do anything for/to you?" Abu Ghraib do anything for you? It does for me--complete disgust. Which goes to prove that just because an image does something doesn't mean it is art. Or, put differently, the ends don't necessarily justify the means.

the lack of equality for women, all as an arguments to prove that my project is 'unfair, wrong, lacking courage, disrespectful, etc.....' before you have ever spoken to me about it.

It's odd that a photographer who takes pictures of others from a car wants a conversation with a critic. Perhaps some of your subjects want to have a conversation with you?

Artists should be accepting of criticism. That's part of the game. Some will like your work (and some do) and others won't.

And those that don't like your work feel that way for a variety of reasons, including how your work was created.

Is this what you consider fair and respectful towards me?
Perhaps you loose respect for people when you disagree with them?

I lose respect for those who treat others with a lack of respect and courtesy.

I am not a big supporter of those who take pictures of others without an opportunity for interaction. Even worse, I believe flashing people without an opportunity to listen to their concerns is improper. You obviously believe differently. And you might believe my treatment of you and your photography is improper as well.

Do you really think that when Obama speaks of universal values he is refering to people talking pictures with a flash on the streets of Los Angeles?
You say this topic is not complicated so why are you bringing up all these completely unrelated and complicated topics?

You're right, Obama is most certainly not talking about street flash photography in LA.

But again, let's put this comment in context. I was responding to a culture comment. So I referenced Obama's universal values. I believe, as do many believe, that some things transcend cultures. Don't you?

And one of the things that transcends culture is respect and courtesy for ~all~ people.

So that's why I bring up these related things. Others throw out red herrings such as strong images and different cultures. As we've seen, a strong image doesn't necessarily imply art, and different cultures don't override respect and courtesy for others.

Kevin I do not subscribe to the idea that there is a set of rules for any art form, it is the end result that matters. For you perhaps a 50mm lens and a smile is the way to go about photographing strangers in public. If it takes a 600mm lens from two blocks away to get the shot that someone is after then by all means use a 600mm lens. If a projector helps a painter create their masterpiece why should they not use it? Thankfully humanity does not have to live by one mans code of ethics.

Agreed with respect your comment that humanity does not have to live by one mans code of ethics. And disagree that 600 mm two blocks away is appropriate for street photography.

I spend many many hours sitting in traffic in my car here in Los Angeles along with millions of other people. During this time I see all sorts of interesting scenes taking place on the sidewalks that are oblivious to my presence as I drive by. This is what I set out to capture and I know of only one way to do that, from my car as I drive by. If I was there standing in the street with my flash as opposed to driving by, it might very well be an entertaining project, but it would not be the same project.

And that's where we differ. You believe that it is fair to flash and photograph unsuspecting people and to shoot people from two blocks away using a 600 mm lens, and I don't.

So here we are Charlie, taking different viewpoints on photography. Some will strenuously agree with your process, and some, like me, will disagree.

At least, you've had the opportunity to contact me and voice your concerns. You're free to tell me exactly what you think. You can do so as politely or as aggressively as you like. And, to your credit, you've been extremely polite.

Unfortunately, your subjects are denied that same opportunity to communicate with you. You might publish their image when they would very much appreciate that image(s) of them not be shown in a public setting.

All those who show their work or art in a public setting must know that some others will criticize their work. It comes with the territory. Just as I recognize some will resort to ad hominem attacks when they voice their opinions in reaction to my comments. We're big boys Charlie. I am sure we can handle it.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Kevin,

First, to defend the individual from abuse by society is necessary and admirable. Never stop! We do need your voice and concern as to whether or not Charlie's or my own actions, for example, in "drive by photography", are either invasive or wrong. So, your bringing to the open the questions and reservations you have is entirely positive and deserves addressing. After first seeing that no heinous crime is committed, I look at a cost/loss versus community benefit in such matters.

Holding a lantern to our cultures helps us know where to put resources. So it's valuable to look closely at life in a major metropolis such as L.A. To understand what life is about in Los Angeles in these times, one can go to print or to pictures or perhaps videos. Each might provide a little more information to flesh out some description of what we are and how we behave.

Charlie's work is one small, but IMHO, valid and valuable contribution to knowing about ourselves here in L.A. I am, myself, too timid to use flash from my car, at least until now. in fact I never have contemplated doing so. I do take similar shots and am greatly limited by light and speed. Looking at Charlie's pictures makes me realize he is adding a lot more for us to see more of our own cultures with little if any perturbation. There are costs, yes, but folk such as Charlie are, unfortunately or fortunately as you may see fit, few and far between. So after Charlie passes with his 1 microsecond single flash, it's likely that the persons photographed will never experience such an event ever again in their entire lives! Given that, I see very minimal interference with the folk, no devilish harm and in balance a job well done! Still, I am open to the possibility of some key flaw in my judgment. So I must therefore tolerate and look at any opposite point of view. You have extended from disturbing folk with the flash to repression of women's rights! So let's look at these two issues.

As far as reprehensible societies, you complain of, that don't allow certain freedoms to women, why are they bad? By what standards must they have the freedoms Western women cherish. Do we have the right to carve out standards in stone for all other cultures? Obviously, people in our society must be treated according to our norms, but is there any moral absolutes requiring such "norms" be fostered on other groups with other traditions? I'm not saying you are wrong, but rather wondering if there's some logic from which we can either know that flashing light from a passing car is immoral or unethical, (choose your term) or else to know that not according a woman the freedoms expected here in the West, is somehow wrong, immoral, backward or reprehensible.

In a way, Kevin, I am wary of shooting Charlie, the messenger. Looking at the content, I feel we have to give him a pass on the flash and quick escape!

Asher

 

[Ken Tanaka]

I must admit to feeling a bit foolish as my read on Kevin's perspective and intentions were clearly mistaken. Further debate attempts on this subject of "street" photography would seem an utterly pointless time waste, as Kevin's point of view is clearly intractably embedded in a cloud of other beliefs.

Still, I do once again encourage others to recognize, face, and question their prejudices, as I suggested in post #13.

That's all I have to offer here. Too much time spent typing to no benefit today.

 

[Jerome Marot]

Jerome, thoughtful responses. However, I believe it is deeper than that. Respect for another individual transcends most cultures.

Not quite. Every culture has its own ideas about what is "respectful" and what isn't.

So as a test, we could walk around with a Quantum flash and blast a few unsuspecting people in face to judge their reactions. And maybe we could snap some pictures in the name of art. My hunch--and it's just a wild, wild, wild guess--most subjects would not be appreciative. And, if our subjects were bigger and in close proximity, I suspect we'd get a few fists in the face to aid our cultural understanding. Now, how would that be for making a point?

Actually, it would depend on the circumstances. We accept this behavior from the appointed photographer when at a wedding. People accept it on some parties (this is an example: http://www.nachtagenten.de/gallery/genji-yoshida.838980.html , the whole site is about amateur photographing the latest parties).

There are costs, yes, but folk such as Charlie are, unfortunately or fortunately as you may see fit, few and far between. So after Charlie passes with his 1 microsecond single flash, it's likely that the persons photographed will never experience such an event ever again in their entire lives! Given that, I see very minimal interference with the folk, no devilish harm and in balance a job well done! Still, I am open to the possibility of some key flaw in my judgment.

The key flaw is that the disturbing act is not the taking of the picture, but the publication of it. Actually, the law recognizes that (in Europe and even in the US): you can take pictures of strangers on the street, the problems start when you want to publish them. The laws are only different on acceptable conditions for publication.

 

[charlie chipman]

Kevin, I apologize for not making it clear earlier that I have no problem with your disagreeing with my process, critiques, or that you voiced your concern. As you put it so eloquently "We're big boys".
I just think the arguments you are using are a stretch.

For what it's worth I am using 24mm-35mm, not 600mm.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Kevin,

The advantage of your bringing up this issue of propriety in street photography is that it does need to be addressed every now and then. It reminds folks of the stands we take when we do some kind of street photography, affably or separated from the subject. Whether we realize it immediately or not, each time we do take pictures, we are sampling the world of possibilities in recording what's around us. In some way, whether by stealth or charm, we do "capture", "take" or "get" pictures of our targets, making us hunters.

This picture taking can give us enjoyment, news, a memento of happy times or help to document things as they are without our intervention. How we use these images is another matter, privately or publishing them somehow for profit or not and subject to a myriad of different laws in our various communities.

Given such a plethora of motivations, kinds and end use of photography, it's unsurprising that we can get so much discord in our attitudes and opinions. For clarity we do need to narrow down to one purpose and place the picture in the specific context of its use.

Given one's admitted very strong opinions and "moral" values, justifiable and noble as they might be, it is only natural that you would feel really strongly about photographers who seem to trample on other folks rights. Still, it doesn't mean that you are, in some logically determined absolute sense, correct. It is more likely that your approaches to how you measure and value things is a way to fairness as we might derive from "do as to others as you'd have them do to you". Even then, the derivations of our specific behaviors in photography are still not definable in exact terms. Rather I can honestly say that I understand your position and it's kind intent.

If we applied strictly that "Golden Rule" to life, the lion and paying mantis, the frog and the snake would all be condemned just like the societies "repressive to women seem to be or the photographers with some long lens and stealth. After all, we are merely animals, apes with Nokias, Palm Pilots and iphones.

Almost all the "shoulds" we treasure as truths, believe me, are just local customs, necessities or imposed rules!

Still, it does not hurt, to do as you so, raise the question of what our accepted values really are. Addressing that is even useful perhaps. We can see how the basis of our opinions is as diverse and as varied in substance as our photography.

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

Asher,

Here are two YouTubes by Jock Sturges. These YouTubes are not safe for work.

Video 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4BETqLDzJY

Video 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq1qhiIfeeI

Listen how Sturges describes the three categories of photographs starting at about 1:30 into the first video.

Kevin,

Having talked personally to him, I already know some of his views. He's not easily repeatable for so many reasons, not the least of which are laws of the land. The categories he refers to, make sense for his own direction. They do not apply to news, crime or forensic photography, where the measure must be the importance of the information to the community. While the good, neutrality or negative impact the picture might have for the subject, (willing or not), might be important and considered, the significance of the news dominates decision-making.

In Jock's work, he tries to discover and bring out some essence of the person he labors with to make a photograph. It's both planned and yet a spontaneous artifact, an artistically collaborative paradox! Street photography, by contrast, deals with the dynamics of people and the persons, recording bits of giant and ever-changing Bruehgelesque canvases of our communities, as their actions pass before us.

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

would support those who engage in street photography taking pictures with a 600 mm lens two blocks away?

Maybe Ken might know of an exception, but I myself am unaware of photographers using 600 mm lenses to do street photography unless, as I have done, testing a lens for the fun of it at the doorway of a photography store in N.Y. where they are scared stiff you are going to run off with it!

Or those using a car with a flash and camera system?

Asking Jock that, is like asking a ballerina on strip-mining! No doubt both Jock and the ballerina would ask what the person was trying to do and whether or not the method used worked well for its intended purpose.

can you imagine a situation where a street photography subject might not wished to be published?

For sure. I've had many experiences where the subject wants the photograph to vanish! If the person is polite, I most often delete the image, although I offer to send them the picture or take a new one if they wish. If the person is hostile, rude or threatening, likely I'll not delete the picture, just invite them to call the police!

In the USA, it's a high bar for a plaintiff to pass in order to make a case for defamation or other damage, especially if the work is made for art. A case in point would be pictures of the homeless, which like abandoned wood sheds are popular subjects for photographers! Not photographing the homeless is likely to move them further from our attention.

So your quick questions do not lend themselves to simple answers.

Asher

 

[fahim mohammed]

Kevin,

As far as reprehensible societies, you complain of, that don't allow certain freedoms to women, why are they bad? By what standards must they have the freedoms Western women cherish. Do we have the right to carve out standards in stone for all other cultures? Obviously, people in our society must be treated according to our norms, but is there any moral absolutes requiring such "norms" be fostered on other groups with other traditions? I'm not saying you are wrong, but rather wondering if there's some logic from which we can either know that flashing light from a passing car is immoral or unethical, (choose your term) or else to know that not according a woman the freedoms expected here in the West, is somehow wrong, immoral, backward or reprehensible.

Asher

Asher and me have very divergent views on certain specific subjects. But this is a statement of his
which is profoundly wise, considered and stems from the experience of an old man!

As for photography, do what your conscience allows. And the culture and laws dictate.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Asher and me have very divergent views on certain specific subjects. But this is a statement of his
which is profoundly wise, considered and stems from the experience of an old man!

As for photography, do what your conscience allows. And the culture and laws dictate.

Hi Fahim,

Our photography does not have to win prizes or attract great fees to make it successful. Opening our eyes to parts of the world we cannot ourselves visit, is a job for which photography is so well suited.

We're entertained and sometimes humbled visiting with and learning of other cultures. We might realize the richness in family traditions, where, for example, the old are respected and looked after, the girls are not forced to parade as property on sale and energies are also devoted to charity as well as community and spiritual needs.

So I'm especially impressed from your photographs in that you bring us into many cultures. Perhaps still only touching the surfaces, but nevertheless, opening our eyes a little to things beyond Western habits and expectations. Your pictures show respect for the inherent dignity of folks practicing such diverse traditions you meet. I'm even more impressed, as, after all, I know how the basis for their beliefs, especially in veneration of idols, is an anathema to our education and values. That you show them deference is obvious. No picture has portrayed them "backward". It's that, the holding of others to the light as worthy of grace, that elevates you so much in my eyes.

BTW, do you offer the folks any pictures, I wonder and if so, how good are you at follow up. That I find the hardest to do!

Asher

 

[fahim mohammed]

Hi Fahim,


BTW, do you offer the folks any pictures, I wonder and if so, how good are you at follow up. That I find the hardest to do!

Asher

Asher mostly yes. Sometimes ( in Nepal ) for example many did not have either email nor could give me an address.

In Bali, people I have photographed have generally had an email. I have mostly sent them unedited photos. I always mail prints to people whose address I have. It is the least I can ( and should ) do.

But I always show the people on the little lcd what I have captured. I have deleted countless others as per their wishes. Strangely, it is the women who wanted most deletions as they thought they didn't look beautiful!!! Vanity, thy name is...

Regards.

p.s btw, I am in Kuala Lumpur right now. I don't intend to go out. I am tired, more with humidity than anything else.

pps The Petronas towers would fill my cam frame from where I am stayin. I just am too lazy to get my camera out.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Geting back to the "correctness" of street photography, it's important to practice what you are comfortable at and then do it well.

If it's Fahim's stlye of travel photography, meeting the denizens and learning about their way of life, bring it to us and we'll welcome all of it. If you're brave enough to walk the streets of Tripoli our respect will be so high and we wish you to be safe. Each set of circumstances requires different skills.

I know for certain that taking pictures in the streets of LA where Charlie has made his pictures, would be taking your life in your hands. Sooner than later your camera would be stolen and if you are not assaulted you would be awfully lucky.

In a war situation, having a press pass might be the only thing that keeps you alive beyond common sense and avoidance of confrontations. The same press pass might do you little good in East LA.

There are no 600 mm street photographers that I have ever seen, met or heard of, so far, although someone may dig them up. So mentioning that is a spurious argument, at best. Further, there's no universal code of conduct except I'd offer, "be nice to the others in the tour bus". In East LA, however, you may not belong in that bus and need your own!

That's a fact of life. Charlie is doing great work. I never heard of w wedding photographer asking all the old ladies if the flash would be safe for them, or they should turn down their pacemakers first. The harm proposed is not really an important factor, although, until now at least, I'd never dare to do it. Not because I think it's unethical or wrong, but I fear the consequences. Charlie's approach may just have licked that problem!

Asher

 

[Jim Galli]

For me, Charlies pictures were marginally interesting at first just because I was interested in whatever technical machinations were causing them. When I saw the picture of the camera in the station wagon......I said, Oh.

End of interest.

I will go on record as being everbody's worst case scenarion of personal predjudice / bringing pre-conceived passe ideals to photography as art.

I hate craft without art. I hate art with no craft.

So now we've got machines that can automatically make perfect calculations of impossible pictures to the point we can aim them out a window and fire a remote from the front seat on unsuspecting folk standing on a street corner.

Digital trash.

Vivian Maier and her ilk. That is street photography.

OK, rant over. You can all ignore me and get back to the blah blah blah

 

[Asher Kelman]

We can, at this point, discuss street photography and consent in a more rational way!

All the posts remain in the original thread. They are copied, all or in part, less 23 rantoid posts or those that circled back, including a few of my own. Now we can continue with focus:

• Purposes, kinds, circumstances, relative propriety, safety,
  
  
• Social, commercial, political and artistic and other values to street photography
  
  
• In relationship to customs, laws, permission, exploitation and other considerations
  
  

Street photography, in its myriad of forms provides us art, news, documents out lives and more. It does involve harvesting other folks' likenesses. That's where we have different attitudes and perhaps different rules of engagement.

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

I hate craft without art. I hate art with no craft.

So now we've got machines that can automatically make perfect calculations of impossible pictures to the point we can aim them out a window and fire a remote from the front seat on unsuspecting folk standing on a street corner.

Jim,

Let's go beyond beauty. That's where Charlie's work has to be pondered. These are images Vivian couldn't have taken. I cannot imagine setting up a tripod there more than a couple of times for fear of safety. His pictures are perhaps worth you looking at a second time. You might find value in the aspects that touch your heart and values rather than your senses of esthetics, (spoiled as they are by the best art and craft available today ). They show us parts of our society that we mostly ignore. Is it really necessary to have the focus and composition properly crafted as well?

Asher