RE: [Leica] RE: Street Photography debate

["Stewart, Alistair" <AStewart@gigaweb.com>]

Guys, 

Isn't this about Results (what is obtained, and Carl said it really well)
vs. Form (how they're obtained, and Bob is right on)? We've been down Avenue
"sneaking-is-bad-form-and-'generally'-gets-poor-results" before. Gary W and
HCB versus the others. Let's not take a long promenade there again.

Asbestosly challenged but photo-cajones-rich Alistair

BTW, If you want to try the sneaky stuff, don't do it where I live. Yes
Virginia, those are real bullets.




- -----Original Message-----
From: Ruralmopics@aol.com [mailto:Ruralmopics@aol.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 1999 6:49 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Leica] RE: Street Photography debate


There has been some wonderful "street photography" but it seems the vast 
majority of work labeled street photography is crap -- more reflective of a 
photographer afraid of people and trying to sneak a picture rather than any 
sort of insiteful observance of the human condition . . . 

Bob (donning his flame-proof suit as you read this) McEowen



In a message dated 10/31/99 10:49:37 PM, dkhong@pacific.net.sg writes:

<< During a recent discussion with a friend who takes mainly salon style
photography, he said that street photography is not artistic photography
because it breaks too many rules of composition, lighting, etc.

I said that as long as street photography (including candid and some forms
of documentary photography) captures the essence of life and the heartbeat
of the environment and does not appear grossly badly taken in terms of say
horizon, exposure, perspective, it is an artform in itself.

Any comments?
 >>