In a message dated 10/12/2005 2:35:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 10/10/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes. It's a contrast and a dilemma. How do you provide intimacy that street > photography seems to require when you are trying to portray isolation? ;-)
"street photography" doesn't "require" anything, other than that it be (more or less) taken on the street. sometimes it's intimate: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3125114&size=lg sometimes it's not: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3739186&size=lg -frank =========== That's what I would think, frank. I remember the train one, thought it was one of your best. Conversely, I thought the Chinatown was one of your not bests. ;-) Actually, not to be inflammatory or anything, but I don't see much connection between intimacy and shooting people one doesn't know (in the street or elsewhere). Appearances of intimacy in those situations would be illusionary to my way of thinking. Unless one talks to them and gets to know them a bit or something. That doesn't mean one can't be closer or more far away or show more touching moments between other people or and more isolated moments of individuals. But then one could argue that anytime one takes a picture, putting a camera between oneself and "what is out there," one is actually removing one's self one step from the experience. Putting up a mirror between one's self and the world. Or a piece of glass. Observer and observed. Interesting stuff to think about. Thanks for looking, Marnie aka Doe
