The street photographer in his elements

Bodies of work my friend. This is a Bresson and it looks like a Bresson. And again Bresson wasn't always a name. He got to be a name because of his work. His work was a reflection of who he was .
 
airfrogusmc said:
Bodies of work my friend. This is a Bresson and it looks like a Bresson. And again Bresson wasn't always a name. He got to be a name because of his work. His work was a reflection of who he was .
Click to expand...

So it is about context, which is fine. I was just interested to know if there's more to it.
 
He was one of the founders of the genre ... when that was taken there was nothing to judge it by, his famous Scrapbook of his pre war photos would be ignored if it were posted on here now, he has to be seen in the context of his times and contemporaries

I was just winding-up The Faithful earlier .. the feet thing wasn't a rule until much later ;)
 
MickH said:
So it is about context, which is fine. I was just interested to know if there's more to it.
Click to expand...

Spend some time with his work and you start to see a real visual consistency in it. There is a wonderful upside down triangle in this particular image. Bresson's work usually has a real strong sense of geometry. His work definitely reflected his philosophy as it pertained to photography.

If you missed the exhibit a few years back
http://www.amazon.com/Henri-Cartier-Bresson-The-Modern-Century/dp/0870707787
 
OurManInTangier said:
I agree regarding Davidson's Subway book but I've always taken the subway shots from Walker Evans in a different light, well possibly...I'm assuming from that you prefer the upfront risk taking of Davidson. Admittedly whilst I've seen the pictures I've never read or heard too much about W.E.'s methods or personality, so I've often thought he may have been simply reacting to some of the issues of his time. For instance, now you can take 4000 shots of the drunken kissing couple opposite you on the Underground on your phone while they're oblivious to another mobile/socialmedia/selfie/mobilegamer/facetimer phone user. Whilst Evans was taking these in a period when everyone was aware of photography, many could enjoy it as a hobby but very few took photographs in such an odd location...and of strangers. Perhaps it was his belief that using a hidden camera may ensure a more honest presentation than if an openly operated camera was employed in a time when using a camera usually still heralded some level of event.

Davidson on the other hand had his own issues borne of his time to deal with, when it probably wasn't whether you pointed a camera at some one so much as look at them funny. I'm happy to see people use whatever method or technique works for them pretty much, having said that I'd rather a 'sneaky' pic taken than some of the invasive, thoughtless and sometimes verging on abusive methods I've seen in some places.

Just the take I've had on it since seeing the pictures he took.
Click to expand...

I tend to be impressed by those photographers whose work makes me think, 'I could never do that'. That might not be a very intelligent measuring scheme but that is how I appraise other photographers, famous or not.

Walker Evans bores me, while seeing the Subway series of Bruce Davidson, I sense the adrenaline that he must have felt while taking those shots.
 
I really like Davidson's Subway but probably without Evans there would not have been the inspiration for Davidson to do it. He said he was inspired by Evans. Very different times and very different photographers. I tend to admire good work period. Whether it's difficult or not to do is not my measure. If the works is solid and the I can see a piece of the creator in the work. To me that's special.
 
Thanks. I'll be honest - I haven't seen too many of his photographs (probably only in the low tens). What I have seen has been on TV, web-slide shows, or single photographs in books on 'the history/masters of photography' and the like. There are a couple of his photographs that stick in my mind and there are others that I've seen deconstructed and, because of that analysis, I have gained a little insight into why photo 'x' or 'y' appeals.

I can understand how a photograph can be appreciated when viewed as part of a 'body of work'. I never 'got' Moriyama until I bought a book of his and spent some time with it. It's obviously a personal thing, but, as yet, I've not found an image of his (Moriyama) that stands alone.

As for the photo in question, I can understand how it would fit in with the rest of his work and be appreciated at that level, I was just wondering if there was something particularly outstanding about that specific item.

Thanks of taking time to respond to a fairly naiive query.

Now, back to discussing shooting on buses and trams. :)
 
Mick just start looking at the entire image. See if you can see what the reason, gut reason, the image was taken. Look deep after first seeing what is obvious and see if you can see things like repeating shapes, geometry, leading lines and how and if those things help support the image. IF they are not helping then how are they hurting it and are they hurting it more than they are helping it. The web is a horrible place to try and view work.
 
Hsg said:
I tend to be impressed by those photographers whose work makes me think, 'I could never do that'. That might not be a very intelligent measuring scheme but that is how I appraise other photographers, famous or not.

Walker Evans bores me, while seeing the Subway series of Bruce Davidson, I sense the adrenaline that he must have felt while taking those shots.
Click to expand...

Nothing unintelligent there, we all feel moved by different things. Walker Evans has never been my favourite photographer either, his images of tools leave me completely cold whilst I'm sure others see the 'Beauty Of The Common Tool' as a piece of inspired genius.

Sometimes its like music and depends on my mood which is why its good to be eclectic.
 
airfrogusmc said:
Thanks Frank for posting that, doesn't bother me either. If it were a photo of feet then they would need to be there. It's clearly not about feet, its about that moment which in my opinion feet are not important to show.
Click to expand...

Cor blimey - a photo of feet would need to have the feet in it - who'd have thought? Well, you should never underestimate the absolute wisdom you'll get from reading these threads.
 
The subject is the boy and the bottles, its not about the boy running or walking or jumping - acts that require the feet to convey a sense of motion.

On the puddle jumper photo, without feet that photo would be useless.

Gare-de-Saint-Lazare-1932-HCB1.jpg
 
airfrogusmc said:
I really like Davidson's Subway but probably without Evans there would not have been the inspiration for Davidson to do it.
Click to expand...

Without Nicephore Niepce, Louis Daguerre, Henry Fox Talbot, there wouldn't be photography as we know it today, but we don't credit every great photographic work to them.

Just because Walker Evans was the first 'famous' photographer to photograph in the subway, it does not make the whole genre his legacy. God knows how many amateurs took photos in the subway without anyone knowing about it.
 
No and I don't think I said that. If that is implied then that was not my intent. Just wanted to show that he inspired Davidson who has a higher value of Evan's subway photographs than you apparently have.
 
Hsg said:
The subject is the boy and the bottles, its not about the boy running or walking or jumping - acts that require the feet to convey a sense of motion.

On the puddle jumper photo, without feet that photo would be useless.

Gare-de-Saint-Lazare-1932-HCB1.jpg
Click to expand...

... kept the feet that time ... a pity about the blocked shadows though
 
THis type of image should not be the zone system and this is a real good example of how the message is what is most important. In fact I would argue he has shown all the important information that needs to be shown. The shapes are accentuated by the silhouette technique in this case making the really important shape standout and better match the shape in the background and eliminating details that are not important.
 
I must say that the 'puddle' photo is one that, to me, (to use a naff phrase) just keeps giving. I see different things each time I look at it and I see it in different ways on different occasions.

Simon brought in a music analogy and that fits in well with the appeal of this photograph to me.

I fear this thread is in danger of going a bit off topic so...

I quite enjoy watching videos like the one in the opening post. I'm sure it's a clip from something much longer - and it's amusing how Frank, the woman next to him, and the chap with the briefcase all manage to look uncomfortable. :)
 
fotographz said:
WoW... I at times find myself fascinated with how photographic legends are created...
Click to expand...

Are photographic legends created or they happen?

Nobody decides that they're going to be a legend one day, the label happens to them.

Robert Frank is a legend because he turned the world of photography upside down. And the proof of that is in his work, The Americans. Some people see it, some not. And neither are right or wrong.

And the label 'legend' is not something tangible, its not created, it just happens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top