INTERESTING READ.

[ABERS]

You may find this of interest if you like going out and about on the streets.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2010/apr/18/street-photography-privacy-surveillance

If you can get a copy of this week's Observer Review it contains some interesting images from around time and the world as well as the copy here.

[nickt]

Interesting read indeed.

[picsfor]

I agree - but just a prelude to the whole debate on using cameras in the public arena.

[ABERS]

I know we've read most of the anti-photographer blurb before and there is perhaps nothing too new or exciting in it, but the thing that caught my eye was,

'Both of them agree that to be a good street photographer you need to be, as Stuart puts it, "incredibly patient and dedicated to the point of obsessive". Of the 10,000 or so photographs he has taken in the past two years, around 50 have made it onto his website.'

If he was shooting film that would equate to one image approx. every 5.5 rolls, do you think digital has had some influence on this ratio? Or has he decided that the scatter-gun approach pays off, or yet again is he a slow learner not anticipating what's going on in front of him?

What people will do for their art

[picsfor]

Interesting point about the ratios Alan.
I suspect that whether we like to admit it, all of us have increased the number of pictures we take under digital as opposed to with film.
The other interesting point is - the number of pictures he considers 'acceptable'.

I discard pictures now that i would have kept a few years back, but i take more pictures because i want to be sure 'i've got the picture'.
So am i taking the scatter gun approach - or have i raised the standard for what i call 'acceptable' which in its own right brings about more throw aways!

Interesting discussion

[ABERS]

I am sure I take more pictures than I ever did with film Andrew, but not willy nilly just in case I might hit on an acceptable or unique image, but rather than to give myself more options of a particular scene/person/event or whatever. I do find though that those that I think worth keeping and/or working on are usually a one or two off.

Horses for courses I suppose.

[picsfor]

I'd be inclined to say that you have an established and well worked style and photography taste, where as I've just stepped out of my little photography room and discovered a huge world to explore.
I mean, look at the whole new world i discovered the other week courtesy of Jonathan at Harold Wood.
I am starting to see the foundations of a style that i'm happy with develop - but have a few years to go as yet before i've got it perfected.
But at least i can do so at my own pace and in a manner that suits me.

I suppose ultimately, it's as you say - horses for courses. And i'm a fan of the Suffolk Punch

[Jonathan]

'Both of them agree that to be a good street photographer you need to be, as Stuart puts it, "incredibly patient and dedicated to the point of obsessive". Of the 10,000 or so photographs he has taken in the past two years, around 50 have made it onto his website.'

Did you check his site?  http://www.mattstuart.com/ - some incredibly clever juxtapositions.  Reminds me a little of Elliot Erwitt.

[ABERS]

Strange you should say that Jonathan. I was showing my wife his web site and she said,"Youv'e got a couple of his books haven't you?" thinking it was EE. It was the dog pictures that did it.

Pradar have done an "in depth" interview with him recently on 24 tips to becoming a street photographer, as thet do.

[CML-1591]

my lecturers found this so interesting I have to respond to this article with a pinhole camera, great one