Paul, Both child and grandmother were aware of the camera. The child was not responding to the camera, he was responding to my laughing at his getting stuck with the rear wheel of the tricycle... It was the sound of my chuckle that made his turn his head and wave, then I pointed the camera at him. Grandmother was well aware of the camera in my hand already, but was concentrating on the runaway. :-)
Voyeuristic ... yea, it is a word easily miscontrued. I'm interested to see your efforts in street photography, would love to see a selection of the set. G On Mar 7, 2007, at 7:37 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > I agree that one can sometimes capture an interesting image when the > subject is aware of the camera. Your shot of the child and woman is > nice because only the child sees the camera. Juan's pictures are > mixed. > In some, it's obvious that the camera was not seen. In others, it's > apparent that the subject was aware. Although I am no expert in this > genre, I have also worked both ways and have had some success both > when subjects were aware and when they were not. In this case, I was > merely responding to Chirstian's remark that these were "voyeuristic." > That word carries negative connotations, but to be honest, all street > photography is "voyeuristic." We enjoy watching people as they go > about > their lives. It's a good thing. BTW, I'm currently trying to sell a > show of street photography that was all executed on one street over a > period of several years. I think it's an interesting collection. Most > have been seen here at one time or another, but maybe I'll group them > on a webpage when I have time. (I'll probably have to do that anyway > for some of the people I've been talking to regarding this set.) > Paul -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
