[Leica] Speaking of Street Photography

[tedgrant at shaw.ca (Ted Grant)]

Peter Klein offered:
Subject: [Leica] Speaking of Street Photography


> I'm going to go out on a limb here and present a couple of pieces of my 
> early work apropos the "Street Photography" subject.  I've never 
> considered myself a "street photographer," but I have taken photos on the 
> street.  Below are a couple of photos that I took in 1972, when I was a 
> mere college freshman in Boston.<<<,

HI Peter,

Hell I was shooting documentaries of Canadian cities and others about the 
world long before the terminology... "street photography" became the in 
vogue term for documenting people as they were found on the street. No 
matter what class of life they existed in. All it ever was in our eyes was 
interesting motivating moments usually involving humans.

First time I saw the term I thought it meant..... "taking interesting 
pictures of pictorial streets!" ;-) Honest, as true as I'm typing this. It 
never occurred to me " street photography" meant anything more than what it 
described, "Pictures of streets!"

So it meant  "People on the street? Well hell what's the big deal about 
that? I'd been shooting it for 20 years at least as "documenting life in a 
city!" And for specific many months long photo assignments. It was a 
different world in those times... quite frankly? A damn sight better than 
today! We were all innocent folks!   " shooters and subjects"!

> The first photo was taken on a foggy weekend morning in early spring. 
> Before breakfast, I went prowling about Beacon Hill looking for 
> atmospheric fog shots, and ended up in Government Center.  I spied three 
> guys "sleeping it off" in a gray granite window nook.  Now, I have seen 
> and *not* photographed many down-and-out people before and since, but for 
> some reason, this one needed to be taken.  I wasn't in analysis mode then, 
> it was one of those Ted Grant "Gee, look at that" moments.  So I took 
> several angles quickly.  Fortunately, the subjects didn't wake up, and I 
> figured I could outrun them if they did.<<<<<<<
>
> http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/oldpics/homeless72.htm<<<<<<<<<<<

I don't see this as some down and outers simply because it comes together as 
an interesting photograph of people and time. Let's put a photo credit.... 
"HCB photo!"  Why everyone would be pissing their pants ravng about it 
because "HE DID IT!" BS, It doesn't matter whether he shot ir or not, it 
wouldn't be any better! This is as good as it gets my friend!

It's a fine example of a photojournalist with a good people eye putting it 
all togther without waste space, as a sharp crispy shot and exposed on the 
mark! It's as good as it gets in capturing a lifetime moment in the lives of 
people with nothing more than..."jeeeeeesh look at that... click!". You 
don't get this kind of photograph screwing around figuring out all the 
angles, the light, metering, concern over film.......... damn folks these 
happen because a photographer is motivated, instinctively re-acts to what he 
sees, "click." Walk on to the next moment!  KISS SHOOTING!  Think about it 
and it's gone!  See, shoot,  then look around if you feel you must!

> Here's another one, this time on Boylston Street right across from Copley 
> Square and Trinity Church.  The worker was building the reviewing stand 
> for April 19th (Patriot's Day) parade.  This time I knew it was all about 
> composition, the idea of a "framer" framed by his own handiwork.
>
> http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/oldpics/framer.htm<

It's not bad but nowhere near the "in your face impact" of the first!

> So, are these pictures "street photography?"  Are they reasonably good 
> photography? I know that some people regard pictures of the down-and-out 
> "exploitive," but I always have felt that the one above is one of my 
> better pictures, and it does "say" something.<<<<<<,,

Well as I said above, I don't see the sleepers as one of those card board 
covered unfortunates that are super easy to shoot! It's a damn fine 
photograph way above the usual "down and out folks." So I don't see it 
exploitive in th least. And I've made my point about the quality of the 
photograph, excellent moment in life.

> Both pictures: Leica M2, Dual-Range 50 Summicron, Tri-X in D:76 1:1.  The 
> first shot was probably 1/60 or 1/30 at f/4.  The second was "cloudy 
> semi-bright" exposure.<<<<<<<

And Peter as much as I know some folks get off on this need to know 
"technical details" to take similar photographs. In reality the techie stuff 
means absolutely diddly squat when the photograph is as well shot as this 
one of the sleepers.

Good on you lad!

ted