Reader's Comments - Index of - Free

Street Photography
THANK YOU PHIL :)
-- F D, May 7, 2003
I do not support quantitative approach to photography. One of the Marxist axioms was that “quantity
will convert itself into quality”. After 50 years of social experimentation the communism fell miserably.
Although I admire work of Gary Winograd, and his lifestyle (of taking thousands of pictures) I believe
in those few pictures selected for publishing. I advocate restrain in manufacture of garbage!
-- Wieslaw Zdaniewski, May 13, 2003
for all you who say the photographer must interact with their " victims" to be a real street photographer,
what's the point? are we talking candid photography or social work here? and just because they happen
to be poor or disheveled or one race or the other or drunk or hungry or whatever else you can think of,
they are still a part of our culture, like it or not. and i think that making a record of that is what is
interesting. fifty years from now people may actually enjoy seeing "us" as we were. some of the most
interesting photographs i can remember looking at were of people. in their natural surrounding. acting
natural. it allows one to see what it was like living at that particular time in history. to interact with
people and then take their photo is more like a snapshot. posed expressions and fake settings. as for
shooting from a vehicle, so what? was the photo interesting? was it well done? isn't that all that matters?
"street" photography is about what you find on the "street". period. i have taken candids using a point
and shoot walking down the street. i have also asked permission first. i have also used a telephoto from a
vehicle, because if i had been seen taking the picture, i would have probably gotten into a fight or worse.
some people just don't trust a photographer. they either think they are 5-O, or they will do their best to
recover the picture. and then you have a problem. for those who stick to photographing "safe" people,
( and for those knuckelheads who wonder what i mean by "safe", i mean your typically white middle
class surburbanite) i guess you can try to ask permission first or become chummy and then ask if you
can "log their photo for posterity". but then it isn't candid. is it? and nothing can ruin a candid shot more
than a posed facial expression. i photograph the seamier side of our culture in a different way than i
photograph the "safe" people. you have to, where i live. they respond totally different. as for invasion of
someone's privacy, too bad. if they are out in public i will take their picture if i damn well please. i don't
post them anywhere nor do i sell them. i think they are an interesting segment of our society and maybe
someone else, someday will think so too, and enjoy them just for what they are. there are any number of
techniques you can use. and they are all "street" photography. and so, to those of you who won't take a
candid picture of a homeless person because they don't want to injure their dignity, try asking them
sometime. and while you're at it, ask them when they allowed their dignity to take it's leave in the first
place. just make sure you have an escape route planed in advance.
-- perry atristain, January 30, 2004
QUOTE My dear friend Michael, those photographs were *taken* in colour. The photographer knew
this, and composed accordingly. You cannot simply desaturate a colour image in Photoshop and get a
decent B&W image. The *style* of your photography, at camera level, must change in B&W. Try using
http://www.photo.net/photo/street-photography (20 of 31)7/3/2005 2:18:44 AM