Cars and street photo

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Michael,

During various periods of the 18th and 19th Centuries, NYC and Montreal were "rivals" as export centers to Europe.

It was most "telling" during the hey day of the fur trade. Montreal had better connections to the continental interior (i.e. source of supply) whereas NYC had a year-round port (as you know, Montreal becomes ice-bound in Winter). That meant that the longer distances from the interior to NYC were less of a competitive disadvantage than they might have otherwise been. [If you look at the New York State emblem - it includes a beaver - and not because they are "cute").

I always enjoy visits to Montreal because it is m/l the same "vintage" as NYC and so has the many-layers of history that one doesn't find in say Chicago or Toronto.

Although, to be honest, one has to go to Quebec City, or down to Mexico City to find really old "Euro roots" (with the latter even going back to pre-Columbian times!).

Thanks for the fur trade detail, I always think of fur trading as the only thing that ever happened in Canada, and nowhere else either.

I agree with the Euro beat of Québec and Mexico City, having visited both. The Zocalo cathedral always awed me for having been started in the 16th century (but the Aztec constructions take the biscuit for awe-inspiration, nonetheless).

Montreal's "euro vibe" is more the result of the last 20 years of sucking to the French to be their friends than of the last two hundred years. Montréal is for me a North American city first in its history, and I find the similarity with New York flattering for both towns.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Streets belong to cars.

Come on, we're not even remotely denying the fact that there are cars in the street...<edit>

 

[copake_ham]

Thanks for the fur trade detail, I always think of fur trading as the only thing that ever happened in Canada, and nowhere else either.

...

Because of a larger, and more sparsely settled interior for a longer period of time, the Canadian fur trade "lasted" far longer than that in the US. Also, it was far more "managed" in Canada because of the exclusive franchise granted by the Crown to the Hudson Bay Company.

Rapid exploitation and depletion of the beaver in NY State and the US Midwest combined with ensuing rapid agricultural settlement was part of the explanation.

Unlike the US, Canada retained for far longer a remote, sparsely settled (primarily by Native Peoples and Metis - i.e. mixed blood) northern region - even as the St. Lawrence River valley and Upper Canada (Ontario) around both Lakes Ontario and Erie became agricultural.

Add to that the fact that being further north - the fur-bearing animal prey had thicker, more "premium" hides and it was inevitable that Canada would come to dominate the North American fur trade (and for such trade to become emblematic of Canada).

Few today realize how large the beaver (particularly) fur trade was. But every time you see a Buckingham Palace Guard in full regalia or a London "City" executive in a bowler - you are looking at a beaver on his head and a vestige of what once a major trading commodity!

Sorry for the history lesson.

Oh, BTW, the Romans paved the Appian Way over 2000 years ago - I guess they were preparing for Fiats and Alfas!

 

[rpsawin]

Cars can be distracting but I am always fighting fences and telephone lines. I hate them....fences in particlar. I have found very few fences that I want in a photograph.

Ah, just my own bug-a-boo......

Bob

 

[firecracker]

Streets belong to cars. Deal with it.

Oh, say that again to the Critical Mass folks out there. You will get your butt kicked!

Anyway in Japan, which is very uncivilized for this matter, from next year, there will be new laws for the bicyclists to use the sidewalks instead of the regular car lanes. The bicyclists will still be permitted to ride on their bicycles on the sidewalks, which is pretty dangerous and something I never understand. I think more than enough pedestrians have died in the "bicycle" accidents already on the sidewalks, but the government doesn't recognize that as a serious problem.

Instead, the government thinks the car lanes are too dangerous for the bicyclists to go on. There are no bike lanes in the narrow streets in Japan because there's no enough space or whatever. But then, usually in big cities, there's not enough space in the sidewalks for the pedestrians, either! No one seems to argue about this.

When I walk around in the cities, I have problems with some people on their bikes on the sidewalks: When they try to pass me, I don't know which side to step off. When they are coming from behind, I simply cannot tell. They don't seem to have any rules or morals to practice, and I just don't want to get knocked over by some asshole on a bike when I'm out in the street taking some photos.

Streets are not just for cars!

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

The sidewalk is a part of the street.

 

[jstraw]

I used to be bothered by overhead lines and such. I got over it. I'm not producing idealized, heroic, image-propoganda of how I'd like to depict the world around me for some fairy-tale. I photograph the world that exists.

 

[blansky]

Why are we discussing the semantics of what streets exist for.

Michael

 

[copake_ham]

Why are we discussing the semantics of what streets exist for.

Michael

Because YOU took all the sexy topics!

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Why are we discussing the semantics of what streets exist for.

Michael

"I'm offering you my body and you're offering me semantics!"

 

[robopro]

I used to be bothered by overhead lines and such. I got over it. I'm not producing idealized, heroic, image-propoganda of how I'd like to depict the world around me for some fairy-tale. I photograph the world that exists.

Bravo!

 

[firecracker]

VIII) Rollerbladers: More likely seen using streets in warmer months. They NEVER use the sidewalks!

I used to be one of them in the U.S. Well, if you are on some kind of wheels, whether you have two, four, six, eight, or whatever, you are not supposed to go on the sidewalks. Pretty simple. I believe in some areas it's clearly illegal. So, you either use a bike lane or a car lane. That was years ago, so I don't know how it is now.

By the way that's part of the reason why the skateboarders get busted by the police so much.

I remember some asshole driver pulled over and stopped me once and asked, " Will you just f--ckin' get off the road?" He seemed to believe the car lanes are just for the motorized wheels only, but that's not right. The funny thing was that there was a "Share the Road" sign on the side of the street within the same block.

But over here in Japan, the non-motorized wheelers still go on the sidewalks, and that's crazy!

 

[firecracker]

I've just accidentally quoted something from the post that got deleted. Is this still okay? Or does that mean my post will be deleted, too?

 

[jd callow]

Your post is fine and dandy... if a bit off topic.

 

[rpsawin]

I used to be bothered by overhead lines and such. I got over it. I'm not producing idealized, heroic, image-propoganda of how I'd like to depict the world around me for some fairy-tale. I photograph the world that exists.

Good for you. You have clearly found a personal approach to photography, and stick with it.

Best Regards,

Bob

 

[robopro]

jd callow, I agree with your decision. We're getting way off the subject here. I guess that's what happens when you pit an engineer against a lawyer...



Sorry guys!

 

[crispinuk]

Here's my tuppence:

It swings both ways.
I once visited Sacramento in California and would have loved to take some 'old timey' pictures in the Old Sacramento part of town, but street parking was allowed (despite there being a large multi-storey car park nearby), so all the buildings and boardwalks were obscured with modern cars.

Conversely, in Cuba I actively composed shots to include the cars (probably more flattened Russian oil drum and tractor engine than 50's Buick now but still looking the part).

I once developed an old part exposed film taken out of a second hand camera and could make a reasonable guess about the date and location because there was a street scene with a car in it with the number plate visible. So, as has previously mentioned, cars can provide historical references for future historians. Conversly, nothing puts a stock photo past it's use by date quicker than including a car

Crispin

 

[robopro]

Here's my tuppence:

It swings both ways.
I once visited Sacramento in California and would have loved to take some 'old timey' pictures in the Old Sacramento part of town, but street parking was allowed (despite there being a large multi-storey car park nearby), so all the buildings and boardwalks were obscured with modern cars.

Conversely, in Cuba I actively composed shots to include the cars (probably more flattened Russian oil drum and tractor engine than 50's Buick now but still looking the part).

I once developed an old part exposed film taken out of a second hand camera and could make a reasonable guess about the date and location because there was a street scene with a car in it with the number plate visible. So, as has previously mentioned, cars can provide historical references for future historians. Conversly, nothing puts a stock photo past it's use by date quicker than including a car

Crispin

As I think about it, I do remember taking a few infrared photos of an old castle in Germany once and thinking how cool it would look if that asphalt parking lot wasn't there, or the jet trail wasn't in the sky. But, that's the reality whether we like it or not. That doesn't mean reality can't be changed, and I absolutely agree with cars being banned or at least limited from certain historic locations. However, the city of Springfield Missouri tried that once back in the late 70's when they banned cars from the old downtown square and turned it into an historic park. A couple of multi story parking lots were built nearby and parking was allowed on the streets surrounding the square, but the square itself was pedestrian only. I even remember reading a newspaper article cheering the city council for taking a stand against the encroachment of automobiles into the city's history. Was a great place for us young college students to hang out in and discuss philosophy, take photos for our visual arts class, or 'blow a J', but business dried up and the square almost died. The city finally opened it back up to traffic in the early 80's because half the businesses had closed.
Welcome to reality...

 

[Roger Hicks]

Never mind the cars! Our mayor has Political Ambitions, with capital letters, and so we have new sidewalks (which necessitated moving my 100-year-old-bootscraper), new road, and (above all) new road markings with HUGE white lines and stop signs. His 'improvements' have probably doubled the value of our house but I didn't buy it as an investment -- just as an attractive place to live.

Having said that, I find my own 30- and 40-year-old street scenes in England, Scotland and Bermuda to be enhanced by much of the 'time stamp ugliness' in them. It's just hard to live with when it's new. I'd add that if you go to Lacock village, it's a horribly sterile, fake, Disneyfied village: you just can't pretend that William Henry Fox Talbot is still alive. Go to Valetta (or any other major, old Maltese town) and you'll see how an historic centre (Valetta, 1565 onwards) can be updated honestly without being 'Disneyfied'.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Roger, I love old bootscrapers! Around McGill University, some of the older building still have them. It took me a while to figure out their purpose, but it's that kind of genteel details I find fascinating across time.

Back to the car issue, my main contention with them really is that they have taken over our living space. But, as others have mentioned, it's not a reason for not depicting them, it's more a reason to think about how to represent them through my own perspective.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger, I love old bootscrapers! Around McGill University, some of the older building still have them. It took me a while to figure out their purpose, but it's that kind of genteel details I find fascinating across time.

Back to the car issue, my main contention with them really is that they have taken over our living space. But, as others have mentioned, it's not a reason for not depicting them, it's more a reason to think about how to represent them through my own perspective.

Dear Michael,

There are two boot-scrapers left in the whole village now: I've not got around to re-installing mine, though I rescued it from being buried. The first modern tarmac road in the world (in Monaco -- look up goudronne, with an acute accent on the terminal e) is only about 100 years old, and I still take Macadamized (non-tarred) roads wherever possible: they're prettier. The village is at least 1000 years old: the Donjon (castle) visible from my study window was built between 1020 and 1060, and the local wetlands were drained by the monks of St. Jouin de Marnes beginning about 1100-1200 years ago.

I fully take your point about cars but (as I say) find them easier to deal with than glaring, glowing white lines. And signs telling the tourists where the footpaths are, which ruin any picture of the footpath. If you can't see where the path goes, and haven't the initiative to explore it without explanatory signs, turn around and go home.

Cheers,

R.

 

[blansky]

Back to the car issue, my main contention with them really is that they have taken over our living space.

I took a neat picture in LA when I lived there of couple of homeless people sleeping on the sidewalk outside a building that had huge glass windows on the front of it. Inside the building were parked Rolls Royces all shiny and new ready to be adopted and taken home.


Michael

 

[copake_ham]

...
Back to the car issue, my main contention with them really is that they have taken over our living space. But, as others have mentioned, it's not a reason for not depicting them, it's more a reason to think about how to represent them through my own perspective.

Hi Michael,


I agree with you that they've taken over our living space.

I think the problem with cars in street shots has to deal with the fact that usually our subject is behind them. I know that personally, I am less "bothered" when shooting an urban street scene if the cars are in the background - their often then nothing more than the OOF "aura".

Sometimes cars in the foreground don't matter all that much. For instance, if you are doing a shot of say a construction fence covered with various "posters and bills", some fresh and some tattered, the cars in the foreground can be a "plus".

Kind of an additional element of "urban visual pollution".

But when your trying to frame a "timeless shot" of some urban landmark - or shoot "street" full of people etc. - the car(s) in the pic can be real ugly.

If my very first post here survived (haven't checked) you will recall that I noted that until the 19-teens in NYC - cars were rarely seen in photos at all.

Even then, since they were playthings of the rich, they were rare, and they were not permitted to park on the street! (The rich had garages - i.e. their converted stables). So there are few pics of cars from that era, except if in use.

It was only in the 1920's as auto ownership began to spread to the middle class that the pressures rose to permit on-street parking of autos (the middle class folk didn't have garages) so that such restrictions began to be lifted. Nonetheless, even into the early-1950's there were many streets in NYC where no parking was permitted at all - and others had significant limitations.

What this means is that many of the iconic "street" shots by the "masters" from the 1920's and 1930's that inform our "photographic consciousness" and which we seek to emulate had few, if any autos in them. So that even now, many decades after the auto has become a ubiquitous part of the urban scenery - I think "viscerally" we resent it's presence.

 

[robopro]

Michael,

If you're doing historic type photography -- historic buildings, landmarks, etc -- maybe you could talk to the city about momentarily blocking the street in front of the building off from parking so you can get the shot? Or ask the building manager across the street if you can shoot from one of their upper floor windows to get above the traffic. They may be willing to do it on a low traffic day for a few minutes, especially if you have a good portfolio already.
If you're just walking down the street looking for life shots, well, then you just get what you can take. A car in the photo will definitely date it, which could be a good or bad thing. Ever see a 1920's photo of a city street scene and found yourself looking at the cars as much or more than anything else? Earlier somebody mentioned using Photoshop to edit the car out, but I've personally never been very good with Photoshop.

But, as for cars taking over our lives, I'd be more worried about Playstation...

 

[robopro]

--Oh yeah, I almost forgot. Can't remember the photographer's name right now but recently on another forum I got a link to a web site showing photos of a photographer in NYC. She did extremely long exposures -- like 7 to 9 hours -- of ordinary city streets at night. The photos looked like they were taken in the early morning, and there wasn't a car to be seen on them. With a 9 hour exposure unless a car sits still for 3 or 4 hours it isn't even going to show up as a ghost image.
Just a suggestion...