I have eight HCB books, Paul. You don't respond to the kind of interaction and resonance his work depicts, it seems. None of your work seems to be 'street photography' in the same genre as HCB. Please show some.
No need to get personal. I though we were having a discussion. You've been awfully touchy lately. Godfrey On Oct 16, 2007, at 9:05 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > HAR! You obviously haven't seen much of HCB's work. There is little > or no "interaction." What I don't get is your pretentious notion of > street photography. However my work in this genre has been well > received. > Paul > > -------------- Original message ---------------------- > From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Paul, >> >> With all due respect, from your words you simply don't 'get' street >> photography. It's all about connection, interaction, between the >> subject and the photographer, the subjects and their surroundings, or >> between the subjects themselves: a wry or insightful eye for >> intimacy, juxtaposition, contrast of circumstance whether intended or >> accidental. >> >> My comment has/had very little to do with focal length. Shorter focal >> lengths, however, permit an intimate perspective, a sense of >> connection ... not isolation. Selective focus and shallow DoF is >> isolating, does not embue the work with a sense of connection. It >> becomes "glimpses of people at a distance" with little to affect one >> way or another. >> >> Godfrey >> >> >> On Oct 16, 2007, at 3:07 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: >> >>> The merits of this photo are of little consequence or interest, but >>> the notion that good street photography has to show a connection is, >>> to my mind, silliness. Most of HCB's pics are of unaware subjects. >>> And if the subject doesn't see the photographer, the focal length of >>> the lens matters little. To me, it's more important to be able to >>> achieve some selective focus -- blur the background -- than to be in >>> the proximity of the subject. I think the big advantage of wider >>> lenses has nothing to do with "intimacy." It's a matter of not >>> having >>> to focus, or at least not having to focus accurately. Most often, >>> when the subject sees the photographer, you get either stock pose or >>> an angry response. >>> Paul >>> On Oct 16, 2007, at 12:24 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: >>> >>>> Hadn't looked at this one, Paul, but I have to agree with David. >>>> There's no sense of connection or intimacy to me. It's just a >>>> picture >>>> of some women, nicely exposed and composed but otherwise of no >>>> particular emotional merit. >>>> >>>> Godfrey >>>> >>>>>> I'm not sure what you mean, but I appreciate the comments. Thanks >>>>>> for looking. >>>>>> >>>>>> From: "David Savage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>>> It generates a detached feeling for me, and as such doesn't draw >>>>>>> me in & hold my interest. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Another shot with the K 135/2.5 at the farmer's market this >>>>>>>> afternoon. >>>>>>>> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6529425&size=lg >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above >> and follow >> the directions. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above > and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
