Bingo! I like to work with people. I like to photograph them in their day to day routines, make connections with them, give them copies of the photos I make ...
I suppose that any photo of people doing something can have implications of social commentary. But y'know, I don't often think about such things when making a photo. That's not to say I never do, because there are times I set out to document something specific, but that's not always about homelessness or poverty, or drugs, or the dark side of life. When I was in Chicago I was looking for "happy snaps." Last week in San Francisco, I wanted to see things as a tourist might, to the point I was using my "tourist" camera. Evident throughout all the photos though are people going about their daily lives, interacting with other people and their environment. I'm surprised this pic generated so much comment. It was badly exposed and I tried to correct it in PS using some new (to me) techniques. It was posted because I wanted to get feedback on how it looked technically - did the techniques used save the pic, make it useable, give it some depth. One may ask why I chose that particular photo? It may even be suggested (in fact, it has been STRONGLY suggested) that I wanted to intentionally stir up controversy. That's miles from the truth. The simple truth is that I was working with some istD images that Paul sent me, and wanted to explore the Shadows/Highlight adjustments in PS to see how it would work on raw files. I then wanted to see how the adjustments would work on a poor quality B&W image. The next folder down was the one in which this photo was located. I grabbed it as it seemed to be the best choice to help me learn the adjustments. The rest is history. Had I moved up, to the previous folder from the one in which Paul's images were, I'd have just as easily chosen a different image to experiment with. Posting the pic was pretty much a random act. The foto has been in my files since, I think, 2001 or 2002, when I got my first LX from a list member. It was from one of the first rolls of film I ran through the camera, and my first disappointment with the LX due to its metering system and various problems. Had I been inclined to make a political and social statement when I made the snap, it would have been posted long ago, when the image was fresh. It never was intended as anything but a snap of a couple of people "doing their thing" one late afternoon in Berkeley. Recently I posted another snap of a street scene in Berkeley, one that i thought made a much more relevent and stronger comment of life in the area. It garnered little comment, yet, to me at least, it said more about how the homeless and impoverished are treated here than this recent photo. Frankly, I'm glad this recent photo has stirred up such strong and passionate feelings. It pleases me no end that some people think it, and me, to be a fraud, just as it pleases me that some like it, and find it to be a strong photo both artistically and from a social point of view. Long ago I came to realize that if too many people liked my work, my work was a failure, because, above all else, a photograph should make the viewer feel and think, perhaps to the point that those feelings and thoughts touch upon something deep within the viewer. Clearly this photo reached such a place for some people. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Steve Desjardins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 10/18/2004 10:21:15 AM > Subject: Re: PAW PESO - Spare some sex? > > I think you favor pictures of people, and those lend themselves in many > cases to some level of social interpretation, especially if they are > interesting. There was no criticism implied. I guess the word > "commentary" is too strong or at least too loaded. Perhaps it would be > better to say that many of your photos have a strong social/personal > element. OTOH, I favor nature pictures, but I also take pictures of > people. > > There may also be an element of selection here, in that I may notice > your people pictures more than your other shots because I find them > appealing. > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/18/2004 12:25:13 PM >>> > You're so very wrong about the type of photography that I "favor." > Yes, I > like photos that make social commentary, but I've posted numerous > funny > pics here, a whole series of kids in my old neighborhood, portraits, > color > snaps and digi pics, abstracts, and still life. In fact, by my > estimation, > the other types of photos substantially outnumber those that make a > "social > commentary," at least in the sense that I think you mean it in this > context.
