Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/05/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I've been reading the comments to my, "Can one articulate what makes a powerful "street photograph?" On Apr 30, 2007, at 7:03 PM, H. Ball Arche wrote: > I will say, though, that a large part of what > motivates me to shoot what I do is the great joy I > feel to be back home in the South after being away for > most of the last 25 years. And by South I mean that > mental condition much more than the simple location. I > love being surrounded by folks that I 'get', and maybe > that comes through. I think that "great joy" comes through in his photographs. On May 1, 2007, at 6:42 AM, Philippe Orlent wrote: > Street photography. 4 criteria for me. > What I consider the perfect street photograph is the following: > It is a photo made 'out there' (indoors or outdoors), in public > places where people that don't necesserally know each other meet, > pass, interact or don't interact. High potential for boring (for me). > It is a photo where you feel that the photographer was unnoticed. > This doesn't mean that you can't have people looking into the lens, > but it should be with an 'empty' and non responsive look. Or that > pre-recognition look just before people understand that it's them > that are being photographed. Same potential still there (for me). > It is a photo that captures a moment that the viewer recognizes as > being unstaged, pure and genuine. A snap of life. A frozen moment. Still doesn't, in and of itself, necessarily bring anything interesting to the photograph. > And finally it is a photo that has a perfect composition. As if it > was staged to get all the elements in it at the right place at the > right time. Like everything suddenly falls into place. Without > being staged. This begins to feel like a valuable criteria. On May 1, 2007, at 12:31 PM, Luis Ripoll wrote: > I fully agree your criteria, that's more difficult is communicate > to the > spectator the same sentiment you had when you took the image. And this, I believe speaks to the heart of it; and to all fine photography, or any other art. Probably not the "same sentiment," yet, a sentiment or feeling, as close as possible. On May 2, 2007, at 1:46 AM, Alastair Firkin wrote: > I usually think that "interaction" makes the image strong. It can > be inter-human interaction, or the effect of the place on the > person etc And this comment also speaks to the "feeling" of the photograph. Perhaps also speaks to the "interaction" of the photograph and the photographer; as well as the photograph and the viewer. On May 2, 2007, at 3:31 PM, Philippe Orlent wrote: >> Philippe, >> >> I fully agree your criteria, that's more difficult is communicate >> to the >> spectator the same sentiment you had when you took the image. > > I really don't know if that is possible. > Anybody? I do think it possible, desirable, difficult and necessary in the context of fine, strong powerful photography; whether street or other genres. I think it fair to suggest that the best reach for more than just a record; and strive to communicate an emotion - at the very least a feeling of extraordinary beauty, irony, humor, pathos, compassion - something. Whatever the photographer feels then needs enhanced and/or amplified by the aesthetic elements composed in the frame. I don't think it enough to just document, technically well, a beautiful object, place, or event. If the photographer does not have strong feelings and/or thoughts about the subject it's unlikely that the viewer of the photograph will. Regards, George Lottermoser george@imagist.com