3 ms·
It's interesting how we always take pictures of the wrong things. The treasure of this collection is he took pictures of things that other photographers thought
by WalterBright 2y ago
It's interesting how we always take pictures of the wrong things. The treasure of this collection is he took pictures of things that other photographers thought were uninteresting.
Like everyone takes pictures of Disneyland. But who takes random street scene photos?
Once around 1988 or so my dad and I just drove around running his video camera. It's interesting now as the there's been enormous change. I wish I'd done this in downtown Seattle, as it has all been redeveloped. The old Seattle is gone.
- spinningarrow 2y ago> But who takes random street scene photos? What do you mean? This is exactly what street photographers do.
- tetris11 2y ago> "But what significant portion of the public tend to take photos of everyday mundane things, barring those with artistic intrigue already in mind"
- spinningarrow 2y agoSorry, where are you quoting from? I can't find that in the comment I replied to or in the original article.
- tetris11 2y agoAn inability to extrapolate the general intent of someone's statement in good faith is often an omen for a needlessly entrenched discussion.
- inkcapmushroom 2y agoThat's not how quotes work.
- dredmorbius 2y agoIf you're paraphrasing or reinterpreting, don't use quote marks.
- williamdclt 2y ago> he took pictures of things that other photographers thought were uninteresting. […] who takes random street scene photos? I could be wrong but I feel photographing the mundane is very common, something that’s discussed a whole lot in photography and probably one of the main things discussed and taught in photography courses. Doesn’t mean it’s the majority of photos taken of course, and a lot of it probably stays uninteresting as art and as documentation, but it’s hardly a niche thing! Even in painting, representing the mundane has been a big subject for hundreds of years (eg Lowry in modern times)
- WalterBright 2y agoIf it's very common, why are these mundane SF pictures so rare?
- b112 2y agoThe missing piece, is that film was expensive, and few carried cameras around with them. Unless you were on vacation, or going to a memorable event, it was rare for a person to have a camera on them in the 60s. They didn't easily fit in pocket. And rarer still for someone to spend a few bucks taking photos of unimportant things. (Film and development costs both were not cheap in the 60s) Most people only had 15 or 20 shots in their cheap camera, and wanted to save them for the party or event. It's not like there were endless professional photographers wandering around.
- baq 2y ago> But who takes random street scene photos? May I introduce you to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_photography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_photography
- JKCalhoun 2y agoThat "James at 13" photo shows just how fun it was to be a 70's kid. And those banana-seat (free style?) bikes were the pinnacle of kid's bike designs. Am I showing my age much?
- WalterBright 2y agoThe banana seat bikes looked cool, but from a biomechanical perspective were inefficient to pedal. They were pretty tiring to pedal a significant distance.
- noizejoy 2y ago> ... looked cool, but from a biomechanical perspective were inefficient to pedal. They were pretty tiring to pedal a significant distance. You simply had to take a few longer breaks when going on longer distance trips to re-charge your muscles. ;-)