AN AMAZING PHOTOGRAPHER

[FUJI]

I knew nothing of Photographer Vivian Maier until I received a heads-up about her after posting on another forum..............I think it was TIPF member geodar who posted a set of shots taken of historic streets with figures?......... All except one seemed to fall between being accurate and attractive records of the old buildings, the cobbles and passers by and Street Photography....... one stood out as a bit of what is known as ...Street Photography.....The Man with the Carrier Bag, in which the figure adds an extra dimension to the whole..

Having a very quick look at the wonderful portfolios of Vivian, which point out the difference between a photographic recording of a Street and....the Art of Street Photography; one of the aim of which is to capture life's little happenings, with no posing or preconceived plans.

You all know that I have had a dabble in the Genre and found that it isn't as easy as it might seem, the photographer needs to not only be confident with the camera but must be able to merge by not drawing attention to himself, that means no tripod, flash or long lens. Many of the old time Street photographers used beautiful little Leica's or other Range-Finder Cameras; forcing them to get close tho their human subjects.

A Photographer/Artists-Eye needs to be developed so that potential shots, perspective and composition can be worked out very quickly without thinking, all, whilst having the camera and lens set to achieve best results....there can be ...Happy Accidents amongst the hundreds of failed shots...Happily amongst all the frames from a days Shoot can be a few very real Gems.

There are a few Street Photography formulae to be absorbed; there are excellent Tutorials on YouTube plus many examples of...Good Practice...on sites featuring photographers like Vivian:

Please see here:

http://www.vivianmaier.com/about-vivian-maier/

ENJOY!

FUJI

[Black Pearl]

Saw a documentary about her last year, fascinating storey and you're right - an amazing photography.

[Guest DaveW]

Sorry the pair of you, that sort of photography does nothing for me, she even has excessive flare in one of the shots.

http://www.vivianmaier.com/portfolios/new-york-1/

I think many photographers would have culled some of those pictures as rejects. Really a lot of the pretentious stuff of what supposedly constitutes art is down to the "Kings New Clothes" syndrome. Tell people something is wonderful and only a fool would believe otherwise and most will then agree in order to not look a fool. I have seen many of the general public turn out similar images without being acclaimed as a great photographer. As with pop singers, you don't have to be a great singer just convince enough people you are, and that often comes down to the right publicity rather than talent, usually known as "spin" these days!

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/03/29/10-photographers-you-should-ignore/

I think these more or less sum up that type of genre:-

http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/pretentious%20photography

http://davy.vandevusse.com/photography.php

I think this send-up video sums up the pretentious art fraternity:-

http://www.trendhunter.com/trends/thexavius-portrait-of-an-instagram-artist

Sorry I can't get into that type of photography just because some other people tell me they are great photographers, since their opinion as to what constitutes art is no more relevant than my own, therefore we should all think for ourselves on these matters, not take what others say at face value. :laughing:

[Black Pearl]

I have read through Fuji's post several times now and at no point does he demand that everyone should like this style of photography because he says so.

At no point is he aggressive nor does he resort to name calling.

Put simply - he has discovered a photographer that he likes, has given a little background as to why without the need to say others should believe the same and has posted a link for people to follow if they want so they can look and make their own minds up.

I don't think replies that are bordering on being rude add anything to the thread.

[JohnP]

Not my scene I'm afraid... sorry.

Edited January 31, 2013 by JohnP

[Guest DaveW]

I was not referring to Fuji's pictures BP, but hers. I have seen pictures from Fuji that run rings around hers. What I am getting at is people are overly swayed just because somebody is branded a top photographer even though there may be many better photographers who have not received the PR treatment she has. I am afraid these accolades of top photographer are often assigned by an unrepresentative minority, just as so called art experts try and pretend they know better what constitutes art than the masses, which they do not. All they really prove is their ideas are out of step with the majority. We all like what we like, but lets not try and hype these people up as wonderful and better than many other photographers since they certainly are not, just put her pictures in front of the general public who have not been brainwashed as to how great she is and get their honest opinion?

In fact she is really just ripping off Cartier Bresson's style, so nothing unique about her work, she has not developed an original style of her own:-

http://apphotnum.free.fr/N2BE43.html

Why do many photographers think if you convert the nondescript into monochrome it suddenly becomes art?

Edited January 31, 2013 by DaveW

[FUJI]

I think that this is a truly magical example of her best work........a superb Street Shot incorporating a Self Portrat........Brilliant?

http://www.vivianmaier.com/portfolios/self-portraits/?pid=281

FUJI

[fuzzyedges]

I am a bit iffish about street photograhy, the reason being apart from old SP that has nostalga, it seems like I am looking at everyday life that I see everyday

Mz Maier's on the whole leaves me a bit cold, apart from the fifties effect, but there are some that are very well thought out and the composition is just so right

As for the need to get close up with cameras of that day, she is using a TLR which is so much more less intimidating for SP

No eye contact head bowed down

Must be great with a screen you can move if you could fit a hood

[Guest DaveW]

Afraid even that one leaves me cold Fuji. As said before she is simply copying Cartier Bresson rather than evolving a style of her own. I am not a fan of Cartier Bresson as you may have gathered and that style of photography, but at least he was the first and original. To slavishly copy another photographers style is to me rather like plagerism in literature where you take somebody elses text and pass it off as your own. If you like that style though these may be of interest:-

http://improvephotog...artier-bresson/

http://photofocus.co...artier-bresson/

http://www.annedarli...er-bresson.html

What many forget is Bresson was a man of his time just as Shakespeare was, but time moves on so photographers should be of their time and create their own modern style. Street photographers these days should be shooting in colour and exploring it's possibilities, not harping back to monochrome days. I am sure most would not use a "candlestick" telephone instead of a modern landline or mobile one, or swap their modern car for a draughty old vintage one, so why treat photography differently and use "stone age" methods like monochrome? If you want be retro why not at least go the whole hog and coat your own glass plates with wet collodian and use a view camera? :laughing:

[Guest DaveW]

Looking again at your link Fuji it says "Self Portrait" so how did she take it? The only way I could see her taking that would be with a wireless release and the camera on a tripod, which would hardly be the decisive moment but a set up shot. In that case she could not be sure of the cameras line of sight when the man moved so at best it would need to be an isolated image from a motordrive sequence, which seems unlikely. I think it is more likely another photographer has taken the shot, so it's hardly a self portrait in that case or her work?

[JohnP]

Afraid even that one leaves me cold Fuji. As said before she is simply copying Cartier Bresson rather than evolving a style of her own. I am not a fan of Cartier Bresson as you may have gathered and that style of photography, but at least he was the first and original. To slavishly copy another photographers style is to me rather like plagerism in literature where you take somebody elses text and pass it off as your own. If you like that style though these may be of interest:-

http://improvephotog...artier-bresson/

http://photofocus.co...artier-bresson/

http://www.annedarli...er-bresson.html

What many forget is Bresson was a man of his time just as Shakespeare was, but time moves on so photographers should be of their time and create their own modern style. Street photographers these days should be shooting in colour and exploring it's possibilities, not harping back to monochrome days. I am sure most would not use a "candlestick" telephone instead of a modern landline or mobile one, or swap their modern car for a draughty old vintage one, so why treat photography differently and use "stone age" methods like monochrome? If you want be retro why not at least go the whole hog and coat your own glass plates with wet collodian and use a view camera?

Brilliant Dave... :thumbsup:

[Heather]

Thanks for posting this link Fuji, ive just spent a very enjoyable coffee break looking through her photos. Have to say i think they are excellent overall.

The one comment i would make is that a lot of them seem to be of children, which these days would be likely to get you arrested for taking lol. It is such a shame as i often see kids doing things that would make great photos but i wouldnt dare take the image !

[colinb]

Looking again at your link Fuji it says "Self Portrait" so how did she take it? The only way I could see her taking that would be with a wireless release and the camera on a tripod, which would hardly be the decisive moment but a set up shot. In that case she could not be sure of the cameras line of sight when the man moved so at best it would need to be an isolated image from a motordrive sequence, which seems unlikely. I think it is more likely another photographer has taken the shot, so it's hardly a self portrait in that case or her work?

I learnt of Vivian Maier after reading about her in a magazine some time ago, from what I remember she was a quiet lonely woman who took pictures, lots of pictures in her spare time, never ask for fame and never received it. I like her work in particular some of her wide street shots which I think show New York from a different age so superbly. Dave you are fully entitled to you opinion as are Fuji, I and others but I do think you are being unfair about the mirror photo, wireless release? motordrive? would these really have been commercially available in the early 1950's? Why would someone, who from her other photos has so obviously the skill to operate a camera feel the need to let others take a 'self portrait' of her? She simply took photos for her own enjoyment and I think she would have been happy to know that others have enjoyed looking at her work too -RIP Vivian Maier

Edited February 1, 2013 by colinb

[Guest DaveW]

I obviously missed the mirror as that was not previously clear on my screen since it blended into the background. However I don't think the reflection in a moving mirror would have been long enough for her to capture unless the shot was posed and the mirror held steady, so hardly the decisive moment shot she is supposedly acclaimed for, but an obviously posed one. Neither do I see her looking into the camera viewfinder, which is an even clearer indication the mirror could not have been moving during the shot so is obviously posed with the man holding it still.

I guess my screen is due for recalibration!

Edited February 2, 2013 by DaveW

[Phil]

[EDIT: I posted this while Dave was editing his original reply. Anyone following the Topic will have a copy of the original.]

Sorry Dave but I'm really struggling to follow your logic here. What I'm seeing is a lady taking a photo of her own reflection in a mirror, we've all done it at some point.

The lady is clearly stood behind the chap holding the mirror with the camera around her neck, she presses the shutter and shows the 3 characters in the resulting image. Is the image posed? possibly but I don't see as that has any relevance.

Image copyright

Edited February 2, 2013 by Phil

[fuzzyedges]

I obviously missed the mirror as that was not previously clear on my screen since it blended into the background

Are you sure it only wants re calibrating ?

Obviously posed but what an idea, even if it wasnt hers, it is still one you will remember

[Guest DaveW]

Probably my glasses as well Fuzzy as I am due for an eye test. The post by Phil looks entirely different to what I was seeing on my screen before. On my screen originaly it just looked like a shaft of light hitting the building with a woman standing in front of it and a man in the foreground holding up a stick!

I had not done a monitor recalibration after my friend wiped my hard disk since I had to do a clean instal from Vista 32bit to Windows 7, 64bit. That meant loading my EyE One monitor calibration software again. When I tried that the software on the CD with the calibrator would not load, therefore I looked on the Web and found I had to load a patch from their Web site for Windows 7 and above. I did this and it loaded, but evidently it must have altered my monitor profile and as I never got around to recalibrating I did not realise this.

Anyway the monitor is now profiled for the complete gray scale and it's onvious it is a mirror and not a patch of light. So my apologies to everybody as I was seeing a different image to you all. I can therefore now comment on the same image we are all seeing (I hope!)

I still believe it is a posed image for these reasons. It would be virtually impossible for her to press the shutter button at the exact moment she was mirrored in a moving mirror if that chap was unloading it. Also she is not looking in the camera viewfinder, so if the mirror was moving she would not know the camera was seeing the same reflection she was. Therefore I think the man has been deliberately posed angling and holding the mirror to produce that shot. So it is really not the so called decisive moment photography she and Cartier Bresson are supposedly noted for, but a contrived image. However in this case she only claims it is a self portrait, which is true.

She may however have noticed her reflection in the mirror when the chap was unloading it and got him to do it again. These reconstructions are not unknown in photography. And often so called "spur of the moment" pictures have been faked in the past:-

http://www.museumofh.../photo_database

Anyway that's my opinion, so now you can all explain to me why it is not a posed shot?

[Black Pearl]

so now you can all explain to me why it is not a posed shot?

Why?

[Guest DaveW]

Because she is claimed to be a street photographer recording the decisive moment when something instantly happens. Therefore posed shots call this into question. If that one was posed were any of the supposed street shots and not only of hers but of the other so called decisive moment street photographers before her?

A few articles for Fuji:-

http://jophilippe.wo...rs-work-part-1/

http://jophilippe.wo...g/vivian-maier/

A few quotes from the following link:-

"I had trouble not picturing each as if they were from the view of a child standing behind each man in a crowd. You also can’t help but wonder whether these are staged, or whether she just happens to have impeccable timing."

"Was she asking her subjects whether she could photograph them, or was she a rogue agent, acting as Bill Cunningham does? "

" Finally, my major issue – the men have their backs to us, the boy is turning to look at her. Was this staged? Why do it like this? Framing the boy like that with the other two men is very interesting and likely speaks to some kind of relationship between the three, but why have him turn around? Did she yell “hey kid” and the other two ignored? It almost feels contrived."

http://meggasastuden...h-vivian-maier/

Seems I am not the only one who thinks all is not what it seems in so called "decisive moment" photography.

[Black Pearl]

Ok then, I'll rephrase my question.

Who cares?

This started as a 'I like' and have a look here thread now its a witch hunt.

No one cares - there I've answered myself within one post.

[Heather]

i think we can get to hung up on terminology of what is or isnt a street photography shot, or a macro shot or portrait shot or whatever. At the end of the day is the resulting image is pleasing to the eye and people enjoy it... does it really matter how it was taken ? 

 

my thinking on the street photography side for this particular ladies photos are .... the images are taken in the street. They are pictures of people going about daily life in the street. .... so its photography of people in a street ... or to phrase it another way .. street photography ... whats the problem ?

[Guest DaveW]

Simply, like Cartier Bresson she is put forward as a person capturing the decisive moment as things happen all around her. Staging shots is not considered ethical for this type of photography if you are passing them off as genuine unposed street photography.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/sfsp/

http://digital-photography-school.com/street-photography-exploitative-vs-respect

"Basically, you as the observer won’t interfere with the scene – if you become a participant in the image, then the reaction you provoke from your subjects will necessarily disrupt whatever it was you initially wanted to capture. Bottom line: be anonymous, unmemorable, and blend in. If you’re in a touristy area, this might mean pretending to take random photos of everything and anything, whilst actually being very specific about what you’re looking for. Or it may mean using a compact and holding it in your hand, always being aware, and getting a grab frame in whenever you can. It means having to be both anticipative and reactive; you’ve got to be a bit of a psychologist to figure out who’s going to do what when, so you can visualize the scene in advance and be ready to capture it."

http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/07/21/street-photography-ethics/

"I’ll define and use street photography here in the broadest possible sense of its definition. It’s candid pictures taken in public of real life. The moment one changes their action and pose due to the acknowledgment of the camera it no longer belongs in the street photographer category."

http://jasonmcgorty.com/2011/11/the-ethics-of-street-photography/

Posed photography is not usually considered genuine street photography by the purists. OK if you declare it is a posed shot but not if you pass it of as a genuine unposed moment on the street. Street photography is basically supposed to be "fly on the wall" photography where the subject/s are unaware of the camera and the photographer. Once the photographer intrudes upon the scene he affects the subjects reactions.

 

Street photography was largely defined by people like Cartier Bresson. If you accept the term Street Photography for any image taken on or from a street then Architectural photography would be street photography.

Edited February 5, 2013 by DaveW

[Guest Lee]

I like some of her shots and some I don't like just as I like some of Ansel Adams' and Don McCullin's (one of my favourite photographers) but can't stand some of their other work.

I know of one person (not here) who thinks that if it's not macro and not taken on a Canon then it isn't photography; just as someone else from my past who says that anything taken with a digital camera is NOT photography and his mate who considers that if it wasn't taken on a Leica M7 with a 50mm lens it isn't worth looking at!

The thing with photography is that not everyone will enjoy the same thing, just like people don't like the same cars, holidays or food.

[Guest DaveW]

Agreed, it's simply a matter of terminology as to what constitutes a certain genre. The same applies in all branches of photography. The convention is usually that the person who originally starts the genre decides what it encompasses. Are posed photographs in the street "Street Photography" or simply Portraiture? The term "Street Photography" is usually applied to candid photography taken in the street rather than posed photography, which is usually assigned to another genre:-

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_photography

 

"Documentary photography can be candid, but street photography is defined by its candidness."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candid_photography

 

Is a photograph taken at a smaller magnification than 1:1 macrophotography (Photomacrography) or simply close-up photography?  What actually constitutes Landscape photography, do urban scenes qualify?

 

All things taken with a camera qualify as photography and are relevant, it is simply a matter of which genre you assign them to.

Edited February 6, 2013 by DaveW

[Heather]

why do you have to assign them anywhere, why cant we just enjoy them for what they ...photographs. They either appeal to you or they dont ...simple

Like i said, people get way to hung up on terminology and labelling things.

Life is too short... if you enjoy what you see, stay a moment and let it sink in... if you dont, move on and look at something else, but leave it behind for others to enjoy without trying to box it up or  put it down or destroy others pleasure in it