Author Topic: Photography again  (Read 51254 times)

Re: Photography again
« Reply #30 on: November 15, 2014, 08:18:36 AM »




I showed this one to Sir Paul McCartney, who gave it the title: "Cunt In A Hat"


Re: Photography again
« Reply #31 on: November 16, 2014, 09:32:07 AM »
I held my tongue the first two times, and was half going to hold my tongue again but then I immediately saw this pop up on my Facebook feed and it felt like fate. Basically, I don't mean to be a dick but could you possibly not take pictures of homeless people?

I know the article is from Vice who, as an organisation, are hardly the bastions of moral integrity and are more exploitative of suffering than most, but I completely mirror the opinion in her article, and she seems a good egg.

Sorry to be a shithead. Just wanted to get that off my chest.

Re: Photography again
« Reply #32 on: November 16, 2014, 10:40:30 AM »
I held my tongue the first two times, and was half going to hold my tongue again but then I immediately saw this pop up on my Facebook feed and it felt like fate. Basically, I don't mean to be a dick but could you possibly not take pictures of homeless people?

I know the article is from Vice who, as an organisation, are hardly the bastions of moral integrity and are more exploitative of suffering than most, but I completely mirror the opinion in her article, and she seems a good egg.

Sorry to be a shithead. Just wanted to get that off my chest.

PM'd so as not to derail the thread.




Re: Photography again
« Reply #33 on: November 16, 2014, 11:06:49 AM »
Christ, I'm a fucking idiot.

I don't get it, what was going on here?

Also, that photo, it's a painting isn't it?
If not, what is it a photo of?

touchingcloth

  • Member
  • **
  • She is hot in the arse.
Re: Photography again
« Reply #34 on: November 16, 2014, 07:03:38 PM »
It's a photo of a stream going down a hill, obv.

newbridge

  • Endless Summer of George
Re: Photography again
« Reply #35 on: November 16, 2014, 07:32:15 PM »
I held my tongue the first two times, and was half going to hold my tongue again but then I immediately saw this pop up on my Facebook feed and it felt like fate. Basically, I don't mean to be a dick but could you possibly not take pictures of homeless people?

I know the article is from Vice who, as an organisation, are hardly the bastions of moral integrity and are more exploitative of suffering than most, but I completely mirror the opinion in her article, and she seems a good egg.

Sorry to be a shithead. Just wanted to get that off my chest.

I don't agree with this at all. I'm generally sympathetic to a Susan Sontag-type critique of people who think that the best art is taking pictures of "freaks," but I don't think homeless people are freaks at all and to the contrary are an essential component of an urban street environment. Warning people against photographing them seems to set a dangerous precedent that we should just ignore them entirely because it embarrasses us to focus on them.

Obviously it's easy to cross into being exploitative when you are gawping at a homeless person through your expensive digital camera, but I don't see anything exploitative in the shot Noodle Lizard posted.

Mr_Simnock

  • BREXIT? what brexit
Re: Photography again
« Reply #36 on: November 16, 2014, 08:23:44 PM »
Vivian Maier took a lot of photo's of down and out's and homeless people without it even a whif of exploitation or whatever, what Newbridge says is spot on.






Mr_Simnock

  • BREXIT? what brexit
Re: Photography again
« Reply #37 on: November 16, 2014, 08:26:23 PM »
Quote
I showed this one to Sir Paul McCartney, who gave it the title: "Cunt In A Hat"

Which was nice



Re: Photography again
« Reply #38 on: November 18, 2014, 11:31:08 AM »

Re: Photography again
« Reply #39 on: November 18, 2014, 01:16:27 PM »
I held my tongue the first two times, and was half going to hold my tongue again but then I immediately saw this pop up on my Facebook feed and it felt like fate. Basically, I don't mean to be a dick but could you possibly not take pictures of homeless people?

I know the article is from Vice who, as an organisation, are hardly the bastions of moral integrity and are more exploitative of suffering than most, but I completely mirror the opinion in her article, and she seems a good egg.

Sorry to be a shithead. Just wanted to get that off my chest.

Personally, I lean towards to that view – partly due to what discussing with others about shooting in public areas and partly talking to people. Where I don’t have such an issue is where the photographer has engaged with their subject(s) – for example, there was a project that Steve Huff did photographing homeless people in his town, where he exactly did that.

Vivian Maier took a lot of photo's of down and out's and homeless people without it even a whif of exploitation or whatever…

Mileage will vary.

Re: Photography again
« Reply #40 on: November 18, 2014, 01:37:13 PM »
… but I don't think homeless people are freaks at all and to the contrary are an essential component of an urban street environment…

As per in the previous thread, when street photography was being discussed one of the problems with street photography is that some – and I do stress some - people think they have the right to behave intrusively because they have a camera.

People can be very sensitive to being photographed by strangers, and in my experience (which is shared by quite a few people I know), homeless people can be particularly so. Not that long ago, I was chatting with someone - I was out photographing and he asked what I was taking pictures of; this was by a spot that he and a friend share. Although more than a few people will be very happy taking pictures of them, they’re not so keen on talking – talking to the guy, he found this (not very surprisingly) rather alienating and uncomfortable. The snappers may have been taking shots of public areas, but it was also the home of others.

CaledonianGonzo

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • No Cheeses For Us Meeces
    • DEC Syria Appeal
Re: Photography again
« Reply #41 on: November 18, 2014, 01:43:54 PM »
It's definitely a tricky one.  I'd always err on the side of - if not asking - then vaguely waggling a camera at them so they could see what I was about to do and then giving them the option of opting out.

The exception would be when someone specifically comes up to me panhandling, at which point I'd usually see if they're up for exchanging a cheeky photo for some local shekels.  Most people are.

Re: Photography again
« Reply #42 on: November 19, 2014, 01:51:11 AM »
I already spoke privately to BoC about this so as not to derail the thread, but since we're talking about it anyway I figured I'd just clarify that I try and ask everyone I focus a photo on if they're comfortable with it and offer to compensate them if they'll let me.  That was the case with two of the photos in question (the harmonica fella and the one on this page).  The other one I think he was referring to is a ticket tout for one of the Hollywood tours and probably isn't homeless, just looks a bit Tom Waitsy and happened to be standing near a bin.

I think street/stranger photography is always a bit tricky regardless of the subject, so it really comes down to just trusting yourself not to be a cunt.  And I should also clarify that I don't set out to take photos of homeless people, it just so happens that two of my best shots are. 

Anyway, here's Chris O'Dowd waving at some ladies:


Re: Photography again
« Reply #43 on: November 23, 2014, 06:18:27 PM »
I'm intrigued by this talk of high-end compacts. Are there tried and tested  models worth looking for 2nd hand? Anything worthwhile under £200? I have a Canon 20d which weighs a ton and I hardly ever take out. Would appreciate any pointers.

Re: Photography again
« Reply #44 on: November 24, 2014, 08:01:58 AM »
I'm intrigued by this talk of high-end compacts. Are there tried and tested  models worth looking for 2nd hand? Anything worthwhile under £200? I have a Canon 20d which weighs a ton and I hardly ever take out. Would appreciate any pointers.

At that price I would guess you'd be looking at something like the Fuji X10 or the original Sony RX100.

Re: Photography again
« Reply #45 on: November 24, 2014, 08:16:27 AM »
I would really argue that "street shooting" people often falls into quite different camps, taking off the cuff shots without a great deal of interacting is really very different from speaking to people and essentially getting them to pose for you both in the skills needed and the end result.

I look at something like that Humans of New York website for example and whilst the guy involved comes across well I can't say that I find the photography itself very appealing, just endless strangers pulling the same few poses and smiling at the camera.

Personally I would say your intended output would have a good deal to do with your decisions on how to shoot. Someone producing work that seeks to produce some degree of social commentary should probably consider themselves bound less by politeness than someone shooting for there own personal enjoyment. Doing that latter myself I would generally take the view that I would shoot off the cuff with your standard person on the street with a normal/long lens but would interact with someone homeless or someone I'm sticking a wide lens into the face of, not that I do either of those very much.

Re: Photography again
« Reply #46 on: November 24, 2014, 08:43:36 AM »
At that price I would guess you'd be looking at something like the Fuji X10 or the original Sony RX100.
I got the fuji x10 this summer and have found it to pack quite a punch in terms of image quality and handling. People have found that the in built jpeg engine to be as good as raw processing and I just use it in full automatic mode and happy with the results so far. It isn't pocketable though as it has an optical viewfinder which makes it slightly more bulkier than the sonyrx100 which can squeeze into a trouser pocket. Maybe you should also consider the Olympus XZ-2 which rates very highly in many reviews and can now be found for less than £200. 

touchingcloth

  • Member
  • **
  • She is hot in the arse.
Re: Photography again
« Reply #47 on: November 24, 2014, 04:00:41 PM »
I'm intrigued by this talk of high-end compacts. Are there tried and tested  models worth looking for 2nd hand? Anything worthwhile under £200? I have a Canon 20d which weighs a ton and I hardly ever take out. Would appreciate any pointers.

You might be able to pick up an Rx100 Mk I on an eBay auction for under £200, but used buy-it-now ones seem to be going for around the £230 mark. If you can get one for under £200, then I wouldn't hesitate at all in recommending it.

Depending on your definition of compact, you might want to consider some older, larger mirrorless cameras — Sony, Fuji, Canon, Olympus have all produced very nice built-in and interchangeable lens cameras over the past few years which, while not pocketable, are a hell of a lot smaller than a DSLR. If you're after something that will fit in your pocket, offers a decent zoom range, and has good low light capabilities and a decent sensor size, then the Rx100 series and the new Canon G7x are more or less the only games in town.

Re: Photography again
« Reply #48 on: November 25, 2014, 02:12:10 AM »
Thanks all, that's very helpful. I don't need something so small as to fit in my pocket, as handy as that would be with a child in tow. Something a fair bit smaller and lighter than the 20D would be quite liberating though. Time to move it on I think.

Re: Photography again
« Reply #49 on: November 25, 2014, 10:49:28 AM »
The big advantage that doesn't get mentioned much with the X10 is that it actually has a proper manual zoom rather than a typical zoom by wire that most compacts go with, much more responsive. The X20 does have the advantage that theres info including focusing points in the optical finder.

The easiest answer to any street photography moral maze, just take pictures of buskers and then give them some cash...






« Last Edit: November 25, 2014, 12:45:51 PM by greenman »

Nobody Soup

  • ephedrine and orange juice... and also ket
Re: Photography again
« Reply #50 on: November 26, 2014, 11:16:14 PM »


edit

oh bollocks, no wonder they were all so good. this is for pro-photographers work.

Re: Photography again
« Reply #51 on: November 28, 2014, 05:47:56 AM »
EDIT:  Well I fucked that up

Re: Photography again
« Reply #52 on: November 28, 2014, 11:07:00 AM »
Fucked what up?




touchingcloth

  • Member
  • **
  • She is hot in the arse.
Re: Photography again
« Reply #53 on: November 28, 2014, 11:36:34 AM »
Fucked what up?

The lives of the Los Angeles homeless. Why do you hate tramps so much, Noodle Lizard?

Fabian Thomsett

  • #FBPE #ABTV #WATON #OFOC #MCC #OBE
Re: Photography again
« Reply #54 on: November 28, 2014, 07:17:09 PM »
Went to the most beautiful place on earth today - Mogden Sewage Works, opposite Twickenham Rugby Ground. These seemed to turn out okay.






Re: Photography again
« Reply #55 on: November 28, 2014, 08:13:42 PM »
Fucked what up?

I tried to post a photo but it went all wrongish.  I then forgot to re-upload it.  Here:







Don't think I fucked around with these ones.  Maybe did a little exposure and contrast on the first.

Re: Photography again
« Reply #56 on: November 29, 2014, 06:25:21 AM »

wasp_f15ting

  • おたく/オタク
  • Golden Member
  • *****
    • zuzox.com
Re: Photography again
« Reply #57 on: November 29, 2014, 11:37:33 PM »
Despite wanting to get a deal during black friday.. I ended up getting a Panasonic LX100

Apologies for the crap content just trying out the camera and its features..


wasp_f15ting

  • おたく/オタク
  • Golden Member
  • *****
    • zuzox.com
Re: Photography again
« Reply #58 on: November 30, 2014, 04:04:02 PM »
Couple of churchy photos with the new toy.

The raw version of the files have so much range..



Re: Photography again
« Reply #59 on: November 30, 2014, 04:09:41 PM »