|
Yeah, good read. But I think he's overlooking the value of using Flickr or a blog as a sketchpad. This gets into my whole rant about using the web as PRODUCT rather than PROCESS, which I know I'm ripping off from Jeff Jarvis, but I think it works for photography too.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
True that. It depends on what your final format is; is your flickr site the final destination of your shots, or is it intermediate, a step toward a tighter-edited personal website or blog or print? Using different online locations for different steps in the editing process makes sense, as long as your audience appreciates the difference between those sites/editorial stages. I think. This is a pretty new development.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i like the last line.
"He has edited away the mass of the superfluous stream of continuous happenings, these pictures are a product of what Matt excluded as much as they are a product of what he focused on."
a bit of a contrast to he process thing in some ways maybe, but i can relate really to that line.
Originally posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
123regina edited this topic 33 months ago.
|
|
Flickr is definitely an inbetween stage for me. I like to use sets as a way to organize/edit my photos. Every now and then I'll go through my photos to see if I can find some consistency in what I've done over the years. I've changed my sets so many times I don't even know what I started with anymore. I do know that I'm no where near the "final product" stage yet though.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
hey are there gone be two threads with the same topic now?
www.flickr.com/groups/onthestreet/discuss/72157622370725252/
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Well said Kramer.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I enjoyed it, too. My chief complaint, however, is that while it his thesis remains completely valid for one's personal site (i.e., not Flickr), this site is different. Flickr is not only a sketchpad but also a way for people to share more personal photographs, not to mention creating a fan base, which can exceed one's personal work and possibly expand an audience... which Bryan accurately describes as "blog." Lately, one of my biggest uses of Flickr has been to arrange street photography photowalks and to organize art walks, in a way similar to the Cardiff crew.
Incidentally, I met with a movie director several days ago who is shooting some test footage for a potential street photography film. He was sharing his aggravation about the kinds of so called photographers who were asking to be in his film. Part of the ad read:
"....I would prefer shooters with more than two years of street work and obviously images that don't just have your drunken friends at the fireworks.. "
I have a feeling that Turpin's post was the same sort of gripe about the applications he received for In-Publics new member campaign this past July, which is the same gripe the admins have here when reviewing a queue filled with HDR and tele shots.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I think most of them view Flickr as the Product, a place where one would put their portfolios or best work.
When in reality, it's much more like a collective artist's studio which is how many people view Flickr.
And I suppose most of this comes down to what you want to consume in terms of photography. The photography people like Turpin or Jeffrey Ladd who have been around awhile more than likely want polished work that's been through the fine art meat grinder.
For me, part of the enjoyment of Flickr is finding new work from photographers who are still finding their voice. The raw, embryonic material. The best comparison I can think of would be music fans who are out there going to shows, looking for new music and bands, etc.
Lately I've been thinking about this though. I think I'm more likely to buy a print or book from someone I've followed over the years on Flickr than an established photographer with a name. And that's the rub, the personal connection people make through networking might impact where we spend our art dollars. That I find interesting....
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Bryan, just to add, I think that the most interesting is when you know a photographer on flickr who's been doing some good shit, and it's his new project that's finding a voice
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Yes, exactly. Through the web you're allowed to follow the process, and in fact, you can become apart of the process.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
bryan, that makes sense in more ways than the obvious sympathy one i think (the last paragraph of your post i mean) (edit: the long post, that is. i was too slow). how many people can produce something that truly stands on its own? not near as much as the number of people that can produce something worthwhile helped by the addition of the subtle context added by watching their stream, seeing them active online or maybe even drinking a beer with them.
and stearing a bit back to the topic, same goes maybe for the raw embryonic material. i have a soft spot for debut novels, films and i guess also records, there is a sort of undefinedness and searching in that i can really appreciate. but with how many bands you don't get disappointed by the second or third album, how many keep the ability and will to reinvent themselves? they can't all be sonic youth.
but i guess that wasn't really the point... the pixies and stone roses were great too and they never lasted long enough to reinvent themselves like that but that doesn't mean that what they did isn't awesome.
and now you can look in the studio/rehearsal room of the photographic equivalent of the latest new band. or sonic youth.
okay, i am trying to find a way to talk this back onto topic, but i guess i can't.
sorry for the sidetracking.
Originally posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
123regina edited this topic 33 months ago.
|
|
|
After taking a closer look at Turpin's post, I realized we are looking at "Edit Edit Edit" from alternative perspectives. If you remember from the Photochart post, Turpin reduces Street Photography the following:
Preoccupation with the ‘moment’ and the ‘found’, generally collections of single unconnected images, largely small format for publication and web presentation, completely documentary tradition.
This is even more evident when you consider the "Edit Edit Edit" post where Turpin lays out four things to remember. Obviousily he is discussing a portfolio approach of singular and individually strong imagery. It's what he considers photojournalism and fine art photography (see Photochart again). Alternatively, we are viewing "Edit Edit Edit" from a project based perspective.
Apples and oranges?
Originally posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
John Goldsmith edited this topic 33 months ago.
|
|
|
WAXY: I think that's a fair comment to post on his blog
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I think the blog makes great sense for anyone who is "serious" about street photography. (I'm not, obviously.)
I've been a fan of Matt Stuart's portfolio for ages, but I don't necessarily think he is some sort of genius. His hit rate is no higher than many people in this group, but by not publishing his "so-so" pictures, the impression is that his work is uniformly of a high standard.
On a personal website, editing is absolutely key, but flickr isn't a personal website. It's a place to showcase a wider selection of images and get feedback on them. Anyone that only uses Flickr to display their pictures is probably not "serious" about them.
Basically, I agree with what was said in all the early replies to this post.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Yes, Waxy, I think you're right. I also think this ties into some of the ideas in the Snap Art. What if Turpin or Matt Stuart had Flickr accounts where they posted some of their outttakes? What if the regulars in this room found 'value' in some of those outtakes and actually preferred them over what they put in the portfolio?
I mean, he says that you can't find genuine critical comment on Flickr but I think you can. And I think it's in this room. I mean, come on, there's some uninspired or cliche crap on in-Public too.
www.in-public.com/AmaniWillett/image/2216
www.in-public.com/AmaniWillett/image/2217
www.in-public.com/GusPowell/image/1070
www.in-public.com/GusPowell/image/1061
www.in-public.com/AdrianFisk/image/2258
www.in-public.com/AdrianFisk/image/2265
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
well i think the critical comment you find on flickr is very different from, for instance, real life. i can only speak for myself, but it's not like i have a group of friends here with whom i have ongoing conversations of my or their work or progress, and not everybody gets and image, or edit, discussion thread. it's more like little snippets you collect from strangers and glue together to turn into something coherent you can work with. that's a different way of criticism, that comes with the different medium, and it might work for some, while for others it doesn't. maybe it's back to the oldschool/newschool thing
and of course a portfolio/best of and a project edit are like apples and oranges. in fact i think for the first a flickr account could be even more beneficial: just upload a selection and see what people comment and fave most...
:)
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Flickr can be quite interesting in terms of feedback. Of course not in terms of critical comment, but just the tumbleweed or unexpected popularity.
My photos probably get about 100–200 views from my couple of hundred contacts, quite a few of whom I regard as good photographers (OK, you could call that circle-jerkery, but that does include some in-Public members and people I think are widely regarded as being good photographers, like Mark Alor Powell.)
About 95% of the time I will post a photo and it will get the response I expect. A few comments and superfaves.
(BTW, stating the bleeding obvious, the vast majority of those photos are not all-singing, all-dancing, standalone pop songs of photos, but are pictures that I think will come in useful for some future projects, whose definition ranges from clear to quite fuzzy. They meet some basic standard but more importantly are candidates for projects that will make the individual photos make more sense when grouped as a whole.)
But what is really interesting is when you post, say, an older photo that you had always assumed was one of your best and it meets the tumbleweed. I have one particular example of that, and while I obviously still like the photo, it definitely made me think twice about using it for various things. Call me shallow.
What I have found more instructive is when I have posted a picture that I thought was borderline and quite a few good photographers seem to like it. These tend to be quite complex photos where one tiny thing has always annoyed me about it (not necessarily clusterfuck) that has made me dismiss the whole photo. And while I can't entirely ignore that one thing myself, I think I've learnt something about how other photographers look at images. They were looking at the doughnut and not the hole, maybe, which is possibly a ‘failing’ on my part when looking at photos. Possibly due to my natural pessimism.
Of course, you could ask five different expert photographers for a portfolio review (and get five different answers), or get this vague, amorphous feedback from the few good photographers on Flickr, which I think it is possible to learn from over time.
Originally posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
Paul Russell99 edited this topic 33 months ago.
|
|
|
paul, i think it matters where you are on 'the ladder'. we don't all have established photographers checking out our stuff :)
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@ Regina -- erm, I'm sure you have some good photographers following your stuff. I didn't mean to sound like that was name dropping, just to avoid it sounding like circle-jerkery. Either way, I sound like an arsehole. OK, I'll stop digging now.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I agree with the ideas expressed above that recognize different formats for showing our photos and the possibility of having Flickr serve purposes such as "sketchpad". Thanks for reminding me about this before I deleted more of my photos.
The article had useful thoughts for me like: "The best street photographers get only a handful of ‘keepers’ from a year of shooting." As a relative beginner, it is easy to get discouraged about how little I produce that is worth even keeping on my computer. Also sometimes I post a knowingly marginal photo because I miss having feedback. After this read, I will likely only post my marginal work when I lack that incite or am just experimenting.
Originally posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
Jack Simon edited this topic 33 months ago.
|
|
Well I surely don't consider my account a portfolio of any kind but was still inspired to delete 300 images. Even with the sets, I don't find the layout or experience very congruent. Maybe one day Flickr will give us a tool for really putting together some serious sets; for now I am happy framing them and toting them to the cafe.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Nick Turpins blog entry might be the right advice for someone who likes to build a portfolio and obviously it is true when someone applies to be a member of in-public. But not every web site be it flickr or a personal one must necessarily be of such kind.
And although a web presence with not only fantabulous photographs might be boring or mediocre in the eyes of photographers who only want to see the stellar, top notch results, to me the opposite is the case.
To always only see the super duper stuff gets sooo boring over time. I like both the so-so and brilliant work of people as long as their work shows their eye.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@Regina: "it's more like little snippets you collect from strangers and glue together to turn into something coherent you can work with. that's a different way of criticism, that comes with the different medium, and it might work for some, while for others it doesn't."
That's great! And spot on.
@Paul: I hear you on the Tumbleweeds and re-considering photos.
I think the crowd-sourcing of feedback on Flickr is something you need to experience. When we sit here and talk about it I'm sure most photographers who don't use Flickr will just roll their eyes and think, 'why would you depend on the feedback of a bunch of Flickr dorks?" And it's wisdom of the crowds, but in this case, a niche crowd that grows organically.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@Dr K: I just left a post. Back to editing....
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Am I the only one underwhelmed by the photos Turpin chose from Stuart? Maybe its the choice of the photog but for me Stuart is sort of a great example of a guy shooting chiched street photography.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
No, you're not the only one
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I never knew who Nick Turpin (the photographer) was until today. I looked at his stuff a few hours ago and just now looked at his Matt Stuart edit. They are totally the same. Maybe all of Stuart's work is like what appears in the article, but if not this is a good example of a curator turning someone else's work into their own.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
John,
ditto on Turpin, Ive never heard of the guy before and looking at his stuff yeah, he pretty much did what you say. Is it just me or has In-Public stagnated? I mean you look at tyhe site and its one visual gag after another, almost proving JC right about that kind of photography being one big cliche.
"many rely on a tired formula"
half of turpin's stuff invoilves a juxtaposition of a sign and something happening. Pretty much the most tired formula in street photography.
Originally posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
!Jinju edited this topic 33 months ago.
|
|
|
!Jinju That style has become a cliché because it's popular and marketable. Anyone doing really weird stuff will obviously not be as popular.
I don't know which street photographers inspire you, but I should think that they might be a little too "difficult" for many of the people in this group and certainly for the average flickretard. One has to make a choice over how far to push the boundaries in street photography before disappearing over the precipice into art wank, but if you go there I won't stop you. ;)
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Paul Russell99 wrote "What is really interesting is when you post, say, an older photo that you had always assumed was one of your best and it meets the tumbleweed. I have one particular example of that".
I think we've all experienced that phenomenon. It's like how it's often the most thoughtless and poorly processed shots on a stream are the ones that reach Explore.
Did you ever post the image in the critique thread to see if anyone could isolate why the image didn't work for them?
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I respectfully disagree with the generalisation of most comments on Nick's essay. His conclusions are definitely applicable to the in-public style of street photography but not necessarily to all things SP. I recall a post by Hin a long time ago saying that the majority of In-Public photographers mostly go for the same type of photo*, what he called the "visual gag": the guy with the umbrella-handle instead of a nose, the guy with the 3 arms, the guy watering the other guy like a plant and other intelligent ways of making interesting photos out of nothing basically. I am not commenting on the value of this type of photography, I've certainly faved dozens of them and I fully appreciate how difficult they are to get. It says a lot about the photographer's patience, imagination and reflexes: should the umbrella be a couple of cm to the right, it wouldn't overlap the old guy's nose, the photo would not be have been succesful. Delete. Keeper ratio must be extremely low, editing must be extremely tight but a little bit predictable: it must be obvious if the visual gag worked or not? However, there are other types of SP which are based on other things like aesthetics, content, story, editorial subjects, a pre-conceived theme. They might have portraiture (Bruce Gilden) or landscape/cityscape (Steven Shore) elements in them etc. I dont know, its very hard to generalise with these things. I can see how going for the Matt Stewart type of photo can only yield a handful of good photos a year, but I suspect others might have very different workflow and results.
*Then again they have the likes of Trent Parke and Narelle Autio, which breaks the mould a fair bit.
edit: LOL I think I just managed to say exctly what Jinju said only it took me half a page... fuck I hate foreign languages
Originally posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
_Pachinko_ edited this topic 33 months ago.
|
|
Edit Edit Edit is fine, but most amateurs don't have the time to put in the hours that the more recognised street photographers put in. They shoot post work and at weekends and if the weather is shit for the 'away from wife and kids' slot then that's it gone for another week. If you really have the time then you can shoot the shit out of a location and then edit to pick something worth-while.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Nick Turpin is, as his site makes clear, a commercial photographer, and his stuff looks commercial, even when it's not (if it's ever not).
Maybe I'm a snob but commercial photography is my least favorite form of photography. My wife works in an ad agency and at one point got me an almost 600-page book showing the work of hundreds of commerical photographers. I went through the whole thing in a half an hour and didn't see a single picture I thought was interesting. I appreciated her getting it for me (even though it was free) but had no desire to look at it a second time.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
It's probably pretty clear that I'm a fan of some more ambiguous stuff, but that doesn't mean I don't love Matt Stuart's work. I don't really understand choosing only to find value in a narrow stylistic range. Sure, some photography is going to resonate with an individual more than other stuff does, but Matt shoots really, really well. That's the difference between him and the thousands of flickr-ites whose photos are 90% there – Matt's stuff fires on all cylinders; there's no wondering what he's going for. It reads immediately and it also works upon further reflection. And that ain't easy.
Beyond the broader question of whether online places can be used for editing (a good point, and a new, evolving development in the photo discipline), the essay's basic point is pretty damn resonant for me. If your shot sorta works, it probably doesn't, really. Flickr is certainly a good place to try out stuff you're on the fence about and see whether it comes across to others, but be prepared to toss it. A 95% effective shot probably isn't effective enough.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
ofcourse it works upon further reflection. His photography is pretty much based on a shallow gag that will always work. The guy's umbrella handle will always look like a nose and hence the gag will always work. But what real interest does an umbella nose have. What do we get from those photos? I hate to parrot Colberg but what questions are asked? A gag is served up on a platter and you can't help but get it. It is obvious, unambiguous and shallow. It's like a bat on your head. It hurts, you get it. You can't help it. Half of the shots at in-Public use some of the most exhausted cliched formula in street photography: using a sign to create a gag with some action. Turpin is especially bad here. Like the bag with pigeons and the pigeons on the street. very clever. I cringe whenever I see that because Ive seen so much of it. Is it well done? Who cares, its like the 3 stooges. I dont care about the choreography of the 3 Stooges because fundamentally I simply find slapstick absolutely boring.
I love ambiguous photos. I love when you look at a photo and you must draw your own conclusions, make your own story, where details can have different permutations of meaning, where once it works, another time it doesnt, you think about it and it works later on. A photo will work differently based on being sequenced with different photos. Photos like that dont offer up easy bite size gags for quick consumption. The umbrella nose will always be an umbrella nose, it will never offer more.
Originally posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
!Jinju edited this topic 33 months ago.
|
|
|
Well said, Kramer. I agree. While Turpin didn't post many of my Stuart favorites, he certainly is a fine shooter with excellent and quirky material. I wish I had taken many of the shots on his website. They're fun. Not all street photography has to be sinister. Stuart's work is playful. I like that.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Thanks Waxy. Jinju: Um...because the "gag" is so well done that it transcends "gag"? I've seen a few thousand "gag" pictures, and I wish any of them were 1/10th as good as the weakest Stuart I've seen. I don't think the Three Stooges are the apt comparison (although they were pretty goddamn funny); I would say more Jacques Tati (who was also slapstick, and died a failure, because too many people were too damn dense to get him).
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@Jinju: While there are cliche shots on In-Public, Stuart does have many thoughtful images as well. I appreciate his humour and his eye. Not all photographers have to be ambiguous or operate in a deathly-serious-project-mode for me to enjoy them. While ambiguity is wonderful, I also enjoy a good dose of laugh. Try it. You might like it.
Originally posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
John Goldsmith edited this topic 33 months ago.
|
|
|
Waxy,
I enjoy fun photography But I just don't like cookie-cutter photography. With these sort of juxtaposition gag photos you just know the photog is working off a formula: find a sign, juxtapose. The only feeling I get there is of it all being so automatic and formulaeic very little looseness and hence little humor. It's like a fill-in-the-blanks joke. Knock know, who's there? It's ________. ________who? _________ ____________.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
...so I'm getting the impression you're not a fan? The shots work too well? We should all be so cursed.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I think you have to consider the filter that many websites such as Flickr put pictures through. To get to the picture, you have to first be attracted to its much smaller, often cropped-into-a-square form. Then you have to like the tiny version on the photo page enough to guess it might be worth looking at larger, and then you can either view it larger or bump your browser image size up. Surely this has an effect, and this is a major reason why some photos are inexplicably more popular even though, seen full size and in a proper presentation, they fall flat, while others, which look good as tiny squares, get the views and the popularity.
As far as editing goes, I see Flickr as a dumpster for most of my photos that I think have a glimmer of hope; I've been toying with the idea of opening up another account for just the good ones, like I've done with JPGMag. But that leads back to the question of what is good? What I like? What you like? What the man over there likes?
Originally posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
Poagao (a group admin) edited this topic 33 months ago.
|
|
|
Its not that they work too well, its on how many levels they work thats the point. It's like cars, a drag racer is great but what's the use if it only goes crazy fast in one line and can't turn? Give me a Mercedes Benz 600S any day, it can go 190km/h on the autobahn, it can corner and I can put my family in it comfortably.
But I would like you to dissect that umbrella nose pic for me, tell me your analysis of its imagery, the meaning you get from it, etc. I really doubt you could write more than a paragraph not only on that one pic but pretty much on the whole body of work. What is the photographer trying to convey, what is his purpose for building the body of work he is building.
But this isn't really about in-Public per se, rather it is more about this approach to street photography, and it is the approach not the execution of the approach that matters to me here.
Originally posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
!Jinju edited this topic 33 months ago.
|
|
|
!Jinju But we're talking about photos, not cars. Photos of all kinds have one main purpose - to create an emotion in the viewer. Maybe boredom is what you feel when you look at this stuff, because you don't find it challenging enough, but for many people this kind of thing ticks all the right boxes. I guess it's just a personal taste thing.
Maybe "amusing juxtapositions" are formulaic, but isn't it better to have a formula that speaks directly to people than something wishy-washy and ambiguous? To me, the phrase "different permutations of meaning" translates as "lacking cogency". It's the difference between pop music and freeform jazz. The latter will always be less popular, but it's neither "better" or "worse" because of that.
I'd argue that successfully placing all the parts of a formula in one picture takes a lot more effort than creating something that is open to interpretation. If what Stuart and Turpin did was easy, we'd all be doing it. Most of us, as krameroneill alluded to, are happy when one of our images "sorta works". Stuart and Turpin's work does much better than "sorta".
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
What !Jinju is talking about maps to my idea of commercialness. The image has to be easy to understand and it has to be focused and it has to trigger positive feelings and not trigger negative ones - or so at least for the target audience.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
John Legweak Yeah, I understand what you mean. These type of images appeal to a culture surrounded by advertising. But in them we don't see "perfect" airbrushed models. There is a kind of humour in the everyday. It's more "absurd" than slapstick, and I think it's very much in tune with the English sense of (ironic) humour.
I doubt Matt Stuart would even try to write a paragraph about his "umbrella nose" photo. (Gonzo). It's just a faintly amusing picture of a frozen moment on the street. Judging from the composition, the "nose" might not have been noticed by the photographer when he clicked the shutter. I think Matt was just capturing two unconnected people shielding their eyes from the sun while life continues around them and got lucky. (You make your own luck on the street).
My heckles rise when people think you should be able to write a thousand words about a photo. If you need a thousand words to describe the meaning of a photo, the photo has failed. Do we need to write dissertations about each of HCB's decisive moments for the images to be considered worthy? I think the reverse is true. Many of the greatest photos speak for themselves.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I disagree. If a "photo tells a thousand words" then I don't think you fail if you can write those thousand words about it. the problem is when you can't write more than 4. "It's an umbrella nose".
Originally posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
!Jinju edited this topic 33 months ago.
|
|
|
First of all, it's a cane, so "cane nose" is more accurate.
Secondly, I like a good one liner. It doesn't matter if it comes from Clint Eastwood, Rodney Dangerfield or Matt Stuart. A well constructed one liner can be enjoyable many times over.
As far as the car analogy: I take mass transit.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Sure, an occasional one liner is great. Problem is when its all one liners. Can you imagine Eastwood doing a whole movie with just one liners? Could you sit through that?
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
It depends if the whole movie was like this or this. If it is the Caruso one liners... I might kill myself. Thankfully I put Stuart in the Lebowski category: Dude!
Originally posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
John Goldsmith edited this topic 33 months ago.
|
|
Some more analogies you might want to use:
Weather - sure, I love hot days, but wouldn't you miss the seasons?
Food - doughnuts are great, but you'd get sick pretty quickly if they were all you ate
Literature - sometimes i like to have a break and read some Dan Brown - but I need some proper books too
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
HCSP hit by analogy shortage.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@Paul, got to say that your long post above really resonates with me, and I think the key point is that without some kind of 'peer review' we probably risk discarding images that may actually prove to be of worth - maybe it's time to get a dump all flickr account :D
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
"A 95% effective shot probably isn't effective enough."
I've been thinking about this often lately, and after reading that Snap Art article and drifting more and more into the ideas around that aesthetic, I'm becoming more convinced that going only for home runs is an antiquated mind set.
I'm not saying that we should embrace pure shit, but photographs that are off a bit, within the right context might be more interesting than those that are perfectly executed, like Turpin's and Stuart's.
Of course, all of this is going to lead us to the great street photography debate. And as I think I've made fairly clear of the years, I'm really not a big fan of street photography for the sake of street photography. The in-Public manifesto really resonated with me when I was first shooting in the street and it felt right, but after walking that path for a few years, it started to feel hallow.
It's kind of like walking down the busy boulevard day after day, and then one day you veer off course and get lost in the city. Then when you go back to the busy boulevard you're excited for 10 minutes, then bored. (another cliche analogy?)
There's work on in-Public that I really like, Gus Powell, Solomons, Jesse Marlow, Melanie Einzig and Parke of course, but there's also a lot that just feels dated to me for some reason.
I think Matt Stuart and Nick Turpin are exceptional photographers and I admire Turpin's ability to put all this together. The mag will certainly be worth checking out too.
Originally posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
bryanF. edited this topic 33 months ago.
|
|
"But what is really interesting is when you post, say, an older photo that you had always assumed was one of your best and it meets the tumbleweed. I have one particular example of that, and while I obviously still like the photo, it definitely made me think twice about using it for various things. Call me shallow."
You're shallow. Me too. I had a photo selected for a juried show by a well-known photographer that got a whopping single comment... from my roommate at the time. That felt good.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
i think it depends on what comments you get and from whom.
((speaking of that, paul, i get the occasional fave or one word comment/ nod in the right direction from someone whose stuff i really like, but usually the people who go into what they don't like about my pictures that much (not completely including the image critique thread here) are saying something that makes me think "they obviously are not getting what i am going for". people are probably going to call me arrogant for saying that, but i don't want to put down the two page version.))
as for bryan saying "I'm not saying that we should embrace pure shit, but photographs that are off a bit, within the right context might be more interesting than those that are perfectly executed, like Turpin's and Stuart's. "
i don't think anyone would be surprised when i say i agree, but (BIG BUT) i think the imperefection should add something (strengther or play with) the mood/ message of an image, not distract from it.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Paul's comments way up-thread also resonated with me. I get very tired of the dissing of Flickr by photographers who don't use it. It's sort of like saying California isn't worth visiting because of all the freeways in LA. There are too many distinct communities using this platform to make any kind of worthwhile generalization, and for all their collective might, HCSP, LPV, yousuck, etc, are drops in the bucket.
Flickr mitigates against a carefully edited presentation by its very nature and is interesting precisely because of that. It's not that I'm interested in seeing your garbage or you mine, but rather that it's interesting to watch someone's visual thought process at work -- like crawling under the house and checking out the foundation. So I like seeing what Todd Fisher's posting even though I don't worship his stuff as the second coming, and I love looking at Waxy's family shots because those images give me a fuller sense of what he's doing when he's being "serious" whatever the hell that means. I can say that about a lot of photographers on Flickr -- I like to see what visual ticks have got them going at this moment. The imperfect stab at a solution is often more helpful in understanding my own current photographic dilemmas than the really really good ones. And a lot less intimidating!
So far as shooting jokes and one liners goes, I figure never turn down an opportunity, formulaic or not. Art was all formula until about 150 years ago anyway. (And by the way, the damn nose picture that keeps coming up here is about way more than the cane in front of the guy's nose and frankly, I wouldn't have that much trouble churning out a page of words about it, probably about the balletic nature of this kind of photography, but why?) If I see something funny I'll shoot it. If I see a celebrity (assuming I could actually recognize one!) I'll take the picture.
Ok I'll shut up now.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
That would be a nice way to close this thread. Thanks as always Chuck.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
someone in another group said that hating flickr is like hating the phone book.
Flickr is also like a large body of water with a lot of rubbish on the surface and some fascinating stuff the deeper you dive down
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
1-2-3-regina wrote ""they obviously are not getting what i am going for".
I think we all get that. I sometimes think the "story" in one of my pictures is obvious, but find I have to spell it out to average viewers. But is it all the fault of the viewer? Maybe I(or you) didn't make it clear enough what we're going for.
That's why Matt Stuart's work is great. On a first glimpse of some of the pictures I thought "What's so special about this?" but then I noticed the "joke". One has to balance the obvious with the subtle. Some of the most interesting photos on Flickr are perhaps too subtle, or rather the message wasn't quite obvious enough. At least flickr feedback (or lack of it) provides information on what "flickr people" like or dislike.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
And by the way, the damn nose picture that keeps coming up here is about way more than the cane in front of the guy's nose and frankly, I wouldn't have that much trouble churning out a page of words about it, probably about the balletic nature of this kind of photography
Hmmm "balletic"
...
Ok I'll buy that. I usually see it more clearly it in D Solomons' photos but looking at this one more carefully it is true, there is something balletic about it. Its not all about the nose.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Hmmm... I read it all through as I am lacking in a focus or motivation right now. Flickr (which is one of my testing grounds) is used mainly by myself in the prepare phase. It helps me keep out of a rut - though I am in one now - and if for nothing more than the community and the discussion that has taken place here - it is all good.
At times there is only so much theorising and labelling and taxonomic classification that one can take and you just have to grab a few rolls and go outside. ;-)
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
arthur, i don't think this thread was about discussing my work, but to put it in one sentence: i go for ambiguity a lot of times, which can complicate the situation :)
for the rest i think chuckp summed it all up pretty nicely.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Ahh that felt strangely good. Deleting stuff that is. I think I ought to do this more often - every couple of months or so.
Still in a rut. But feeling a little better. Flickr does have a use after all. ;-)
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
In a similar vein to the "one-liner" of Matt Stuart's "Gonzo cane nose" is this shot I found in my faves:
I don't think I could be friends with someone who didn't like that photo.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
That's interesting and all, but it has nothing to do with editing
I like this discussion that was posted somewhere sometime
eliotshepard.tumblr.com/post/65692898/buffalo-new-york-by...
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Yeah awesome, I love it too. Very different though, look at all these lines, deep shadows, beautiful light, contrast, perspective. There's shitloads here other than the nose.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
would be a good shot if it weren't for the guy in the back looking right at the camera. The girl is great, she belongs but the guy in the t shirt totally ruins that shot.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Blake Andrew weighs in..
blakeandrews.blogspot.com/2009/09/streetwise.html
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
None of these seem very exciting for a portfolio:
www.in-public.com/BlakeAndrews/image/1323
www.in-public.com/BlakeAndrews/image/1324
www.in-public.com/BlakeAndrews/image/1326
www.in-public.com/BlakeAndrews/image/1329
www.in-public.com/BlakeAndrews/image/1335
www.in-public.com/BlakeAndrews/image/1336
www.in-public.com/BlakeAndrews/image/1790
www.in-public.com/BlakeAndrews/image/1884
www.in-public.com/BlakeAndrews/image/1886
Originally posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
Paul Russell99 edited this topic 33 months ago.
|
|
|
Based on those pics (maybe except for the first one) I'm surprised he's even allowed to have a blog.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Edit edit edit!
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Credit to Blake Andrews for admitting he's a photo snob, but if his job is to curate In-Public, it's a bit rich for him to tell people to only submit their best stuff. The people submitting their stuff don't know if it's any good. He is the editor, not the people who send in submissions. If he doesn't like the job, he should give it up and perhaps spend more time editing his own portfolio.
99% of life is crap. Editing it down to manageable chunks that provide a modicum of pleasure is the fun bit.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
so you are basically saying that everyone wanting to submit to a/the site should just go ahead and send a hundred photographs and have the editor do the job of picking out the few that are better than the rest?
oh come on. that's both lazy, arrogant and showing lack of balls.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
but of course you are right: admins, when will that limit of two images to the cue be changed to an unlimited amount?
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
www.in-public.com/BlakeAndrews/image/1324 is sort of OK. The rest are weak. The thing Im curious about is how a guy with a weak portfolio like Andrews gets on a soap box against weak submissions.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
And Paul Russell goes straight for the jugular.
Yeah, those wouldn't give me much pause, and would likely go straight into my trash bin. But what the hell do I know...
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I see this thread eventually coverging with the Chris Weeks thread.
Lots of boring photos from Blake Andrews and Richard Bram so they convert them to black and white to give that street edge. Chris Week's vimeo Leica promo was no better.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i doubt they're doing bw conversions
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Sorry. You're right. I'm just still hacked off from the Chris Weeks vimeo show.
What I was trying to say is how unimpressed I am with photos that are deemed worthwhile in black and white yet if they were in colour would be probably forgettable. If the editing process got past the black and white fixation, they would realise that many photos are pointless.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I like BA's photography. I find it subtle, refreshing and funny, but not the slap-you-in-the-face-with-a-fish kind of funny. I think it's mostly about seeing in B&W and observing how the (what used to be) colours and shapes blend with eachother in an unexpected way. Its a game with details and perspective. I think these are more representative of his style:
www.in-public.com/BlakeAndrews/image/1328
www.in-public.com/BlakeAndrews/image/1320
www.in-public.com/BlakeAndrews/image/1884
I think if you look at his gallery this way it takes a new meaning. There's probably something to learn there about seeing and editing the visual chaos around you while you take photos and it sure says something about the photographer. Just try to do what he does and observe how many days in a row you will come back empty handed.
Does it say something about the photos too? I dont know. I can see how most people wouldnt understand or appreciate it but then again most people wouldnt appreciate anything in this pool either. Presonally I wouldnt be too quick to dismiss it.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Also, one question: does an editor necessarily need to be a super-photographer himself?
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Is this thread still about Nick Turpin? If so, nobody seems to be commenting on the fact that Nick Turpin - or somebody who is doing a very good job of impersonating him - made a post in the 1964 thread a couple hours ago. He was promoting a new website, but he's not the first or last person to do that, plus he said something actually relevant to the thread. Just thought I would mention it.
BTW, while we're on the subject, I recommend that everyone who's interested in edit edit editing go see "The September Issue" while it's in theaters. Cajole a friend into going with you if you're afraid to go by yourself. The real subjectof the movie is not the fashions, not the designers, not the models, not Vogue, it's the 20 year old work relationship between Anna Wintour and Grace Coddington. Coddington is the quintessential creative type. Wintour is the quintessential editor. Together they make the magazine (until they get pushed out by younger people, if they haven't been already).
Originally posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
John Armstrong aka John Legweak edited this topic 33 months ago.
|
|
|
It would be interesting if Nick and Blake would participate directly.
I'm really curious to see what both would have to say about the questions we have about their editing choices.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
ask blake on his own blog. he's been pretty good about thoughtfully responding in the past.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I'm too lazy for that...
Originally posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
bryanF. edited this topic 33 months ago.
|
|
I suspected my post would provoke some backlash since it was a fairly negative and sweeping assessment. I think Nick's original post sparked some lingering frustration in me from seeing so much mediocre photography out there. I'd been ready to write about that and Nick's post sent me off.
Since my own photos are out there I thought they might take some flak. I can't really defend them other than to say they are ones I personally like. But of course as my post makes clear everyone is entitled to their own strongly held opinion, and it's fine for others to consider them mediocre.
About IP, I think you guys would be amazed at what gets submitted. HSCP has some great photographers. Most of the submissions are not of that quality. I don't have any special qualifications for that job but I have put in my 20,000 or 50,000 hours shooting or whatever it's been and I've looked at a LOT of what's come into IP. The same ideas tend to recirculate and they are easy to spot, and it is also fairly easy to spot photographers who have their own unique vision. I want to make it clear that we edit as a group. I am the initial pointman. I winnow out the crap, but for stronger entries it's not just up to me. And with such a diverse group there is usually disagreement and so we wind up being picky.
About the b/w issue, I do shoot in b/w because it helps reinforce the things that I'm looking for. I'm not generally concerned with what's in a photo as much as how its formal pieces fit together, and b/w helps with that. You're right that they wouldn't work in color. They're not meant to.
Thanks for carrying on an interesting discussion here.
-Blake
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Nice to see you around Blake.
I was just going to chip in earlier, when he hadn't appeared himself. I'm with Pachinko. Blake sent a box of 100-200 discarded prints for the Stravaganza and I can say that there was plenty to look at. Specially when edited down... ;-) That said, I'm still surprised about a couple of those pointed out by Paul. It is in a very weird way related to the original topic as it goes back to editing by what started as an ad hominem. Bizarre are the ways of the internet.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I think you guys would be amazed at what gets submitted. HSCP has some great photographers. Most of the submissions are not of that quality
I haven't seen the HCSP submission queue but I have a pretty good idea of how awful it is compared to the pool. There are lots of people on flickr who will send their "good" images to every single status oriented group no matter how badly it fits the submission guidelines. I guess they figure that the worst thing that can happen is they will get a few more views from whoever is curating these groups before the image gets booted. I wonder if we can get a screenshot sometime of what the 200 picture daily submissions look like? I'm also assuming lots of those are carried over from the day(s) before. Are there really hundreds that get submitted and booted every day?
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I booted over 800 on friday, I know for a fact that another admin has also been hacking away since then and there are over 100 in there right now.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
admin'ing slightly more popular (though not nearly as popular as say hcsp) group(s) has taught me that people will also just submit the same image two or three times. i don't know if this is because they forgot they already submitted it (which i admit to probably having done as well, but am now learning to try avoid. you can give it a tag for instance) or if they think: "maybe people just need to see it twice"."maybe another admin will like it" whatever it is, it's not going to work. if i see an image in the cue i have thought about for a few times before throwing it out (or having someone else do that) i am not spontaneously going to go and add it the next time.
i am sure this has something to do with editing or nick turpin if you want it to... anyway props to the admins here, i think some people really don't think about the work that goes into maintaining a pool like this one.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
800 sounds like a nightmare. Perhaps it would make sense to have a few hcsp helpers/elves (willing volunteers who have at least one photo in the pool, eg Regina) promoted to moderators to weed out the obvious crap and leave the admins to approve the selected gems.
Back to the topic, Flickr is really no different to the X Factor or Britain's Got Talent. In today's instant gratification world, far too many people think they're as good as Beyonce or Winogrand and want to show that to whoever will listen. The idea of projects sounds great but it takes a lot of hard work and time. No one wants to go away for 6 months or a year and come back with their hard sweat and tears to be told their work is mediocre, cliched or just plain awful. People want instant feedback, to at least know they're on the right track. Even Simon Roberts was testing the waters with his blog.
Plain fact is most people's photography is crap (and I lump myself into this field) and will never be good enough. It's a skill that for many will never be learnt. It's just unfortunate for street photography that it's the most pervasive, common and obtainable form of the art of photography. And with digital and the internet, HCSP is bound to get saturated with submissions.
I guess those who do stand out from the crowd, who have proven that they do have some skill, it's up to them to go away and do something special. And edit, edit, edit.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I'm generally anti-elitist, but maybe the HCSP pool should be invite only. I mean, no one should add an image to the pool until they've received an invite or had at least one image chosen. Having 500+ images waiting in the queue is a waste of everyone's time, really.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
lots of pictures in the pool are from people that don't regularly post here and/or i don't look at their streams.
invite only would be more work for the admins in my opinion.
and really, it only takes 15 minutes or so to clear the queue of 3-400 pictures..
15 agonizing minutes :)
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
If it's not such hard (or time consuming) work, I've got even less sympathy for the likes of Nick Turpin complaining about how much editing they do. I think it's probably quite good fun finding the gold nuggets amongst the dust.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Just stumbled across this old post thanks to a tweet by @the_djp.
Of course, for most of you here the tips are probably a no brainer.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
 |
patrick_moran [deleted] says:
simple!!! F&£k the rules!
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
"(or time consuming) work"
15 mins per 3-400 wasn't quite right.. i think it's more like 15 minutes per hundred .. depends on the quality of submissions i guess..
still, washing dishes ain't hard or really time consuming but.....
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Agree with what others have said re 99% of everything being crap.
And I can think of worse ways to spend an afternoon than looking at photos, even bad ones.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
HCSP (Hardcore Street Photography) /
Discuss
!Jinju That style has become a cliché because it's popular and marketable. Anyone doing really weird stuff will obviously not be as popular.
Paul Russell99 wrote "What is really interesting is when you post, say, an older photo that you had always assumed was one of your best and it meets the tumbleweed. I have one particular example of that".
John Legweak Yeah, I understand what you mean. These type of images appeal to a culture surrounded by advertising. But in them we don't see "perfect" airbrushed models. There is a kind of humour in the everyday. It's more "absurd" than slapstick, and I think it's very much in tune with the English sense of (ironic) humour.
1-2-3-regina wrote ""they obviously are not getting what i am going for".
Feed – Subscribe to HCSP (Hardcore Street Photography) discussion threads