and again a big thanks for your message. So, I guess it boils down to how to present the usual in some special form that goes further than simple trivial appearance. It's like balancing on the razor's edge, isn't it?
Of course it is not the *what* one captures, but the *how*, and this exactly makes things be much more demanding than simply going out and taking pictures of whatever one finds.
For me, at my current state, the question remains, which I translate again using the example of Springsteen for staying in line with you. His songs are that simple, at least to me, no matter if he himself is or isn't "ordinary". The songs, taken as the analogous products of mental work in the world of hearing, aren't they of the same essence as the images in the world of seeing? Iff so, then we get perhaps a good hint about that kind of simplicity. The image has, as you said, to make someting special exactly through its usual being - and here is where I don't have much experience and that kind of maturity, of which I think there is no other way to reach it, than trying and reading what people have to say about some image.
For the time being I only can say that I still study the street itself as a "space" - I really have a long way to go and have as much exercise as I can on this subject, even on the purely technical sides. I hope to be able to reach that maturity but first things first. We can't write novels without learning the ABC first. Except of course for accidental "nicely sounding letter sequences" carrying no other meaning than JHBSVWUTR, or similar. ;-)
Well, there's an awful lot to think about in your response to my original comment, Nick. But I guess you sum up my thoughts in your penultimate paragraph: "a special look and feel and at the same time the dust of everyday". Because anybody can go out these days with their cell-phone and take an ordinary picture of everyday life on the street. Now of course I'm not in any way suggesting that's what you did (for a start, you used a camera that I understand was way ahead of its time when it first appeared), and I'm pretty certain that you are far better than you give yourself credit for at the end of the same paragraph.
Unfortunately, by definition, a great photograph of ordinary everyday street-life is going to be eye-catching and stand out one way or another. (I was going to qualify this and say a great "artistic" photograph, but I think it probably applies to any photograph.) In the same way, Bruce is no longer just another "ordinary" guy on the street!
Thanks a lot for the nice and detailed comment, Visar!
You hit exactly my point considering such images, and it is very interesting to have two diametrically opposed comments about them here. AJ goes more for something "remarkable" in the sense that the image perhaps should also put some more weight on something, which would be also a very acceptable thing to do. But on the other hand, as I already said in my reply to his comment, I think that the "everyday" would be converted to something quite unreal this way. To me it is exactly that answer by Tarkovsky, that you referred to, that could describe best what I (try to) do. Rain is rain. Any kind of hyper-ultra-extra capture of that would of course generate something impressive, but would at the same time take all "touch of the real" away.
Lets take also for example the street shots of Avi. Do they catch any kind of "Fantasia Land"? I guess that it is exactly that sincere touch that at the end makes those images so very special. But I also must confess that I do have much of an allergic reaction against any wish to quasi-declare my own self as an "artist" by looking for extravagance in such scenes.
Of course it depends very strongly on the way we perceive the street, the people around, and anything at all. For me the best one could do would be much like writing a photographic diary about the street in the same sincerity and straightness in which one would write a real diary for the own self. But then again, would that staight look and feel would get weaker if, say, making it look more spectacular or absorbing? I guess that any answer can only be given for a single certain image - no general rules here? And still something tells me that the purity of the simple everyday would be in danger to turn to something "fantastic" on an image, if too much attention is put on making the seen look more special than it really is.
Anyway, a hard question, but a very fruitable one too. And I am only greatful to you for your comment that put my mind in motion about this very question. It's that kind of discussion that goes above the usual one-liners of "wow, what an image", isn't it?
Hi AJ, and many many many thanks for the great comment! Do not regret anything, quite the contrary! I must thank you because it is exactly such comments that deserve the name! They are *comments* because they do *say* something, and above all because they generate that kind of exchange out of which we all can be enriched. So keep on hatching, keep it up!
I can immediately understand your thoughts about the image. Indeed it is nothing "special". And this exactly is my view and intention of such scenes. On most of my images of the street you wouldn't really see anything else than pure everyday. I don't want to catch something "important" at all. The street should remain as chaotic, full of life yet also empty, quite indifferent to any wish for finding something pretentious.
It's much like my gusto in music. I can accept that somebody like Yngwie Malmsteen is quite a virtuoso, but at the same time the more straight songs of somebody like Rory Ghallagher (RIP) are more my case.
So, I don't look for any kind of "special" scene when I am on the streets. I rather look for the "unimportant", the ordinary, perhaps also the completely replaceable or neglectable man, I look for people that go to work everyday, that try to get along in life, that are "one of us". They should be important exactly through their seemless look on an image, or so I think. It's my own try to tell something about all those "neglectable" guys on the street, that still have a personal life, hopes, fears, anything. I may sound like Bruce Spingsteen here, too! ;-)
Do you think that I should let them look a bit more eye-catching? (Real questions, no rhetorics here.) If I do that, then will that kind of everyday not somehow vanish? This is my big fear, if you like, that I could end up making "superstars" and "VIPs" out all those people around, and I'd feel very uncomfortable with that. I have to keep in mind that they are not that kind of "untouchable image" - they are real, and tangible. So, wouldn't a more impressive look destroy the very reality?
Of course keeping both on an image, a special look and feel and at the same time the dust of everyday would be tremendous - but I don't think that I am as good as it takes yet to try that. I'll have to work a long time to be able to do that, I'm afraid.
Again, there is absolutely nothing to forgive about your comment! But there is much too much to thank you for!
we all know the subjects cannot be negated as they are there, by default. and many times we have it, and treat, in a way or another, within a frame, on a particular moment on the scene/ composition that interacts- and that usually happens when the composition is well thought! now, here i see AJ has raised some important questions/ issues, that i myself would want to get from pritty much most of the pics. but usually what is given is what is seen, as a paradigm for trigging the imagination to ask for what there is! the, way i look at this pic, is only what i see and if i were a good poet i might dedicate a few lines- for the everyday life, that passes unnoticed to the mind of many of us in our busy lifes.
while looking at this shot, a line from an interview with A. Tarkovsky came to my mind. asked by the journalist as why there's always rain in your films, what does rain represent to you??- he replied, 'it is just there, and rain is rain'.
to come to my point, i would say that the composition is well arranged, to me that is enough- adding to it that it has a very good feel of spontanity, naturality- nothing pretentious; a mere pedestrian walking along on a sunny day--
Hi Nick! I'm probably going to regret this, but you do ask for any comments...
I think maybe you need to explain what you were trying to achieve with this one, as I don't find anything specific that catches my eye (although this image obviously did catch my eye, or I wouldn't be here). My eyes are leaping around all over the place, looking for something to focus on.
There's the pedestrian and his shadow, nicely framed by the shadow of the building and the shelter on the far side of the road, but he's rather small and walking out of the shot.
There's the car on the right, but it's pretty much already gone.
There's a bit of colour in the road surface, the buses, the adverts etc, but overall this might be better in B&W.
The overhead wires, building at top left, shadow at bottom left and building on the right produce a sort of natural frame that holds the scene in, but I'm still left feeling I want something else in that scene...
Hope you forgive my hatchet job - am I missing something?
0 
