4 ms·
> he took pictures of things that other photographers thought were uninteresting. […] who takes random street scene photos? I could be wrong but I feel photogr
by 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.