The Shot That Got Away

[Anscojohn]

Margaret Bourke-White recounts in her autobio of having been in a life boat, watching as the torpedoed troop ship she had been on exploded and sank beneath the waves. Her Rolleis had been left behind and she saw a perfect photograph which she could not make. She wrote that "..I blinked my eyes, and saw the scene in my mind, where all good photographs are recorded."

John, Mount Vernon, Virginia USA

 

[copake_ham]

Why? Have things changed appreciably since the dismissal of Erno Nussenzweig's appeal against Philip-Lorca DiCorcia?

I thought, though welcome a correction, that only commercial use required a release.

For what it's worth, I am a street shooter among other things, and I make a strong distinction between photographing a person and photographing a moment. You can never get permission to photograph a moment, as it has passed already.

cao,

The point was metaphorical.

Jamusu believes the shot is "newsworthy". I do not think it is.

I fully understand that jamusu does not actually NEED to acquire a model release.

The metaphor has to do with the fact that if you take a very commonplace street shot, then it approaches a banality such that it might as well have been posed and is not "newsworthy".

And, since it's so commonplace that it COULD be posed it almost SEEMS like you should get a model release.

So, yes, I agree with you that you don't need to obtain a model release to shoot a commonplace street shot.

Okay?

 

[copake_ham]

George, and as I mentioned above, I don't find celebrity comings and goings interesting, but that stuff is plastered all over every news network. So who is really the judge of "newsworthiness"?

I was once told by a local radio station that a photographic project I was working on was completely "unnewsworthy" and I was wasting my time trying to get publicity for it. The next day, the local news picked up the story of the project and ran a major story on the 6:00 news.

"Newsworthy" is just as ambiguous a term as "artistic." Let each photograph what they feel is important, without going on at length about why you feel it isn't.

- CJ

Cheryl,

I'll simply note that I didn't raised the issue of newsworthiness in this thread. That was done before I joined.

I simply agree with Paul.

BTW, perhaps "newsworthy" is a less useful term in this context than "documentary"?

A picture of racial tolerance between black and white Americans in 2008 in the US is hardly unusual and provides little or no "documentary" evidence of a changing society.

Now, show me the picture of a black Southern Baptist church sharing a Sunday picnic with a Hispanic Iglesia de Christos - that would be "documentary" of changing social attitudes.

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

George, I think it's naïve to state that "tolerance between black and white Americans in 2008 is hardly unusual". It certainly is in parts of the country. Watts comes to mind. It's dangerous to make assumptions.

Your example of a black Southern Baptist church and a Hispanic Iglesia sharing a picnic doesn't strike any sort of reaction in me because it was commonplace where I grew up in Southern Cali.

I'll say again, I think we should refrain from telling a photographer that their view of society is not as good as our own. That's silly and rather arrogant.

CJ

 

[copake_ham]

George, I think it's naïve to state that "tolerance between black and white Americans in 2008 is hardly unusual". It certainly is in parts of the country. Watts comes to mind. It's dangerous to make assumptions.

Your example of a black Southern Baptist church and a Hispanic Iglesia sharing a picnic doesn't strike any sort of reaction in me because it was commonplace where I grew up in Southern Cali.

I'll say again, I think we should refrain from telling a photographer that their view of society is not as good as our own. That's silly and rather arrogant.

CJ

A black Southern Baptist church does not exist in SoCal! Never can, and never will. Yes, a black Baptist church might - but not a "Southern" Baptist one!

"The South" is a geographical place. Real dirt, on the ground. It bascially is composed of those states which lie below the Mason-Dixon Line and which rebelled against the Federal government in 1861.

It is unique and both fascinating and frustrating at the same time. It gave us William Faulkner, Eudora Welty as well as Jim Crow and George Wallace.

As to the point of documenting the "changing South" in the 21st Century:

With the exception of Florida, where the in-migration of Cubans first occured in the early 1960's (following the revolution there) and who were later followed by other Central and South American latinos, "The South" has been late to the immigration wave of Hispanic migration. But is now experiencing a large influx of Hispanics, many are employed in the agribusiness sector (particularly pork processing plants) . These immigrant are often perceived by black Americans in the region as an economic competitor.

The irony of this is that most of the jobs filled by the immigrants were going for the begging because many lower income Americans in The South, both black and white, consider such labor to be "beneath" them!

Simply put, it is a situation of the lowest guys on the economic ladder filling a vacuum in the labor market.

So a "telling" documentary photo would show either the tension between these groups (a negative image - to be sure) or one that shows "cooperation" as in my hypothetical church picnic (a "feel good" positive pic).

More largely, it's sad enough on this site how people from tiny, nearly homogenous countries in places like Europe try to compare their insular experience to that of a continent-wide nation that is the most diverse on the planet. Why anyone living in this amazing polyglot would try to make it seem narrower rather than broader is really depressing.

If you want "documentary" or "newsworthy" pics of blacks and whites together you can find them every day in the newspaper. Just look at the photos shot at Obama's or Clinton's or Edward's political rallies!

 

[jamusu]

George?

What do Mexicans have to do with this conversation? How did we go from what Paul wrote, which I agree with for the most part, to how blacks dislike Mexicans? I am rather shocked that you would play the race card in such a distasteful manner. What point are you attempting to prove by stating that they are not allowed as members of black churches? I do not know if you are aware of it, but church is the most segregated place that their is in the United States. You are no longer stating your opinion which you are entitled to. You are making a judgment. I can understand if you feel my picture would not have been newsworthy, but why take this conversation down a road of racial biases and undertones?

Why do you make this an issue of race when it isn't? No one else has. Why must you? As stated previously,I felt that had I captured the image, it would have been a merger of three different eras; 1960-1970-2008, an essay narratively reflecting the HUMAN DYNAMICS OF CHANGE in a Southern State marred by racial inequality in its much storied past. The black man and the white woman were not a reflection of race, but rather a reflection of two eras of racial inequality in the past, but has and is currently showing growth and progress in the present.

Go back and read my original post. I stated that the black man had an afro, a hairstyle from the 1970's. The white woman was elderly and had on clothes, eyeglasses and a hairstyle from the 1960's. These are two eras when blacks and whites were basically segregated in Little Rock, Arkansas. To see them dressed as they were, but sitting by one another in 2008 was ironic, because had this been 1960 they would not have sitting together; 1970 a slim maybe. The image would have shown how things, how big or little they may be, have changed for the better. Or would you rather we go back to how it was during those time periods?

For you to say that a picture of racial tolerance between black and white Americans in 2008 in the US is hardly unusual and provides little or no "documentary" evidence of a changing society shows your ignorance on the matter by which we speak. I do not mean ignorance as a sign of disrespect but rather as sign of naivety. In 1960 blacks would not have been allowed in that very library in Little Rock, Arkansas! In 1960 blacks would have been denied an adequate education in Little Rock, Arkansas.! In 1960 blacks would have had to drop their heads and look at the ground had a white person walked in their direction in Little Rock, Arkansas! The 1970's were a little better, but not by much. That was only forty years ago! Forty years ago! Don't tell me that it is not a sign of change for the when history clearly shows that there is. It has been documented. We have the black and white pictures to prove it.

This is pointless. My explanations are meaningless when it comes to your level of comprehension. San Fransisco, California and Little Rock, Arkansas are two different beast's. How can you comprehend that of by which I speak when you have never seen it; lived it; felt it; breathed it. It is clear that you are that photographer of whom I wrote of earlier.

With that said, Apug is not the place for the direction you have taken my original post. It was not about race; why must you make it? I am thinking of contacting the council and ask that they remove this post. I do not want to be the reason for starting a once informative post on the Human Dynamic to one that has spiraled out of control to a debate with racial tensions. To make matters worse; your point of view is thwarted by the things that you have posted. Of all of the people who have posted their views, you are the only one who has spoken in racial undertones; the only person who has played the race card. Race had, and has nothing to do with this discussion. How did we go from documenting the Human Dynamic and its positive changes to how blacks despise Mexicans?

So molest me not with your false visions of grandeur. I dare not bathe in your foolishness for yet another moment. My hands are washed of you.

I bid you goodbye.
Jamusu.

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

George, Southern Baptist is a denomination, not a geographic location. There are plenty of 'em in California. I've attended most of them. If you mean "black Baptist church in the south" that is what you should say.

The rest of your latest post I will address tomorrow.

- CJ

 

[jamusu]

Cheryl.

How nice of you to grace us with your presence.

Jamusu.

 

[Phillip P. Dimor]

I miss all the opportunities I had to take photographs of the ones i've loved who have left me or passed on.

 

[Phillip P. Dimor]

I live in the South. Don't get me started. I miss Dunkin' Donuts, the Red Sox, snow, real seafood, etc.

But Chick Fil-A is pretty good.

 

[jamusu]

Everyone.

From this point on can we please stick with the original post? "The Shot That Got Away". I would feel more comfortable were we to do so. If not, then I strongly suggest that we end this thread.

Phillip although I have not eaten at Chick-Fil-A in over a decade, I would have to agree with your statement, it is pretty good.

I thank you for lightening up the mood with your words!

Jamusu.

 

[jamusu]

Ross.

No offense taken. Your opinion is well valued. In fact, it will make me more conscious of my surroundings in the future.

I humbly thank you,
Jamusu.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

First major venture with new 10x8 after doing testing. Beautiful snow covered landscape with epic feel that I had waited two years for in Snowdonia, Wales. Took about 8 frames and tearing to get home and develop them.......FAULTY FILM! Maco up100 (Efke 100) was rated at 50 but looked like it would not be making ei 12 (tried DDX on back up frames but to no avail - never seen anything like it. Awful Dmax too...... Massive fog levels and weird black flecks in the emulsion. No decent resolution either, just fluffy. Reshot some test frames at home and just the same, whereas another pack of 5x4 was fine. And no, the film was not in upside down. I was gutted as the printed images still had something but were not of a quality that could be enoyed at all. But they did who what it could have been. Here I am at home in N wales 2 years later and there is no snow even in mid Jan and I have no idea if I will be able to shot tat scene again. GUTTED! Oh, well, I have film and a camera so...next time!

 

[Alden]

jamusu,

Though you called for ending the conflict I think ending it with an unfair and brutal attack on George hardly seems right.

You went way overboard attacking George and taking his statements as rascist. He has merely making the salient point that by documentary standards a mexican/ african american tension in the south is currently
at a more volatile level than a black/white. Whether it is or not is subjective. His statements had nothing negative about anyone's race in them. No one can address social movements without describing the players.

Your best point is that for you there is relevance in your perception and your portrayal. Fine. But I really think you owe George an apology. You skewed his words dramatically.

 

[Ljusdahl]

Nah, nothing major that stalks my dreams. What really haunts me is not the things I do wrong, but the things I do not do.

I miss public/people shots because of several reasons. I'm not bold enough to take pictures of people, and too shy to ask for an upclose portrait.
Also, my mind is split regarding wether it is right or not. On one hand, my intentions are to capture something real, a glimpse of life to be preserved and shared as a small part of our cultural legacy. On the other hand I fully emapthize with those who want to be able to go about their buisness without being knowingly or unknowlingly recorded. If I hadn't been into photography as I am, I would probably feel suspicious of people with cameras. Their intentions, motivations, and what will happen with the pictures they take. I would (and partially do) think that it's a moral personal violation.
On a similar note though, isn't it rather discouraging to take pictures of strangers if you cannot legally share these photos with the public? Sure, you can ask for permission and all, but how often are you in a position where it's possible/suitable/favourable? If you take a photo of an old man on his bike rolling down the cobblepath with his little furry dog in the front basket with tongue flapping around, do you run after him screaming?

Back in the days when I was in school and shot mainly digital I lost a few gems to blur and unfocus, but they are not of much value to me anymore anyway. I lost a good one (120 b/w) of a photo buddy to a pinch mark not long ago. I'm pretty bummed over that one.

That's what I have to contribute with for now.

 

[mark]

There is a whole other way to look at this.

You did not miss the shot. A camera records what we see. Te shot was recorded in our minds before that. All you missed was the ability to share that image with others. Unless you suffer from senility or brain injury that image is with you.

 

[jamusu]

Ljusdahl.

I dare not disagree with your perspective of whether it is right or wrong. I struggled with the same issue as I photographed the gentleman while he read.

It was my assumption that he figured out I was photographing him because he looked at me from time to time and smiled, only to continue his reading, but it is only an assumption. That was the first time that I had done as such, and afterwards I had feelings of guilt for doing so. I reflected on the experience and asked myself, were they smiles of nervousness, shyness, or acceptance? Such thoughts I ponder; thoughts that whisper to me when I think of developing the roll of film.

I developed a separate roll last night, but could not bring myself to develop the roll with his images. In fact, I left it at home. I am debating whether or not I will keep those frames when and if I develop the film. I may destroy them and keep those that remain. If only I had informed him afterwards. If only.

By doing so, instead of an assumption I would have both certainty and a definitive answer to the question that dwells within my inner being, "WHAT IF?"

Nor would I think myself a hypocrite for capturing the images in the first place.

Jamusu.

 

[Ljusdahl]

Jamusu.
If I was in your position I'd return to the library the same day you took that picture, until you give up or see him again. If you're lucky he visits the library regulary and your question could be answered. Do you think that's a possibility for you?

 

[jamusu]

Ljusdahl,

I have thought of it. I was there two days ago to check out another photography book for my studies and did not see him. I will check again when I return them or pick up more.

Jamusu.

 

[vet173]

Perhaps it's always in the forefront of memory as the one that got away, because experiencing first hand instead of through a viewfinder shows ,in a way, how the camera can sometimes be a barrier to another experience to be had. For me it was most memorable, the 15 seconds I was NOT looking at the viewfinder during a full solar eclipse. You could have ask the old guy, and he would have happily obliged to have his photo taken. I bet you took away a more memorable experience. I don't do street so I have not had that situation.