Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/11/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Interesting interpretation, Rob. But I meant that the environment for street photography is generally *photographically* hostile: uncontrollable lighting, plenty of random, background activity, that sort of thing. I guess one could extend the "hostile" notion to the subjects themselves, but that's not what I meant. As for asking permission of one's subjects, I don't have an easy answer. Too much depends on circumstance: someone in a crowd, looking up at a building, taken from a distance vs. a close encounter with a street musician. The former would, it seems to me, not require permission, while the latter may. Best, Joel Rob Wrote: Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 16:56:53 EST From: Ruralmopics@aol.com Subject: Re: [Leica] RE: Street Photography debate In a message dated 11/1/99 3:20:38 PM, Joel.O'Rourke@osd.pentagon.mil writes: >Therein lies the unique >appeal (for me, anyway) in street photography: being constrained to >photograph the "decisive moment" in a hostile environment, while paying >attention to formal constraints of composition, lighting, etc. Maybe I'm just not in tune but I find the "hostile environment" comment interesting. Everyday newspaper and magazine photographers document the lives of very rough characters in very rough environments. I've seen published photo stories on homeless people, drug addicts, gang members, you name it, it's been done -- just look at the Pictures of the Year annual. They do this with full knowledge and participation of the subjects and still make telling, honest photos. So is the idea of so-called street photography that one must make pictures without the subject's permission? Why is this? Please don't tell me it's because of camera awareness -- like I say, look at the Pictures of the Year annual . . . Bob (Just ask) McEowen