In a message dated 7/15/2006 7:26:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Interesting, in a macabre way. Bad light, but the victim is fully exposed. I generally pass on these shots. They're easy, but cruel in a way. If the shot is truly artful with fantastic light and an intimate look, it's justified. But this is nothing more than a voyeur's gaze. Sorry, but that's my take. paul ======= In a way, all photography is voyeurism.
My attitude toward "street photography" over the years has changed. While, I personally, have great difficulty taking shots of the homeless and other types of street people, I can go out and take shots of people on the street that are yuppies or tourists and no one is bothered. Even me. Or kids playing, or people working. I still have difficulty with that, personally, shooting people I don't know, but I've thought about taking shots of people here in downtown WC going in and out the Tiffany's on the corner. If I ever doubted I lived in yuppieville, when the Tiffany's moved in, that settled that. That sort of picture could make a statement as well. Refusing to photograph the homeless and otherwise, would on the flip side, would be like denying their very existence. Which could be considered a form of denial. Anytime we shoot people we don't know, we are moving into the realm of something, voyeurism or whatever. Why do we shoot people we don't know? Maybe to make some universal statement about the human condition, yuppie or tourists or kids or otherwise. And maybe because we can't all afford to hire models. I have concluded that anyone in a public place is fair game and that is the most sane approach. At least for myself. But, definitely, looking at pictures of the homeless and down and out may be the most gut wrenching. Marnie aka Doe -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
