Interesting pissing contest... An example of why true democracy doesn't work.

I feel left out... fugg, I just take pictures...

Whoa!! Please. Whoa.

First, I very much appreciate Damon's comments, though I don't feel attacked, and even if I am being attacked, I can take it.;-) But I will respond to something Damon has said, Tony's non-attack, and a few other things.

First things first - while this forum is called Documentary, and was previously called "Street and PJ," there are very, very few people on it doing true documentary work, real street photography, and, God know, photo journalism. So I have long argued that it should be called something like "Reality," or "The Real World," because documentary, street photography, and photo journalism are all forms of photography that capture - or attempt to capture, reality. Tony writes quite disparagingly of wedding photography, suggesting that wedding photos should be posted in the Weddings forum. I would argue that someone who shoots a wedding as they see it, as the events occur, is doing documentary photography in its purest form - they are documenting the melding of two families into a third family. I'm not talking about the kind of wedding photography one finds on the Wedding forum - most of which makes me gag, and I would rather live under a bridge than shoot. But I am talking about the kind of work that Liz posted, or much of the wedding work you can find in the Weddings section of my website. Before I shoot a wedding I tell the bride and groom that I am not going to create a fantasy of their wedding, I am not going to pose them, I am not going to have them link arms, holding champagne glasses, with lights in their eyes. Instead, I will document their wedding day. I will shoot it from 'dawn to dark,' and give them a document they can later look at to remember what happened. That is documentary photography.

As to a photo of a knapsack on a bush - I assume that here Tony was mocking and objecting to my posting photos of found objects - thus far I believe I have posted a shot of a little girl's pink purse hanging in a hedge, a photo of three soccer balls in a gutter, a baby's pacifier hanging on a wrought iron fence, several shots of a child's Mary Jane shoe on and next to a fence post, a rubber boot in a bulldozer scoop, and a yellow rain coat hanging on a street cone. Tony, if that isn't documenting life, I don't know what is. You may not like it - that's your right. But how are those photos of found objects, of odd juxtapositions observed, any less documentary than Walker Evans photos of objects in a share cropper's cabin? (NO, I am not comparing myself to Walker Evans! :-) ) The answer is - they aren't any different. They also are street photos.

Dogs? Okay, I like dogs. I am besotted with mine. But again, most dog photos I've posted have also had humans in them - there have been several from the dog park, a place where humans congregate with their dogs, share their lives, talk over their days, discuss the qualities of dog poop.

One of the problems here is that there are those on this list who believe that every mediocre snap shot of a 'funny looking' person in a public place, no matter how haphazardly framed, or contextually vacant, is interesting, and a street photo. Very often those photos are neither. A well composed photo with a dog or dogs, a photo with dogs that tells us something about people, however, may well be - both interesting and a street photo.

I would never suggest that everything I post here is great, or even good. I post some things simply because I like them, and probably hope they are better than they are. But I will go so far as to say that most of what I post is at least interestingly composed, and many people here can learn something from thinking about the composition - or, from thinking about WHY you don't like a particular photo. For example, the latest photo I posted which had both dogs and people. Someone commented that they thought it really should have been a photo of the two people on the right, talking - I hope I am describing this 'critique' correctly. But actually, if one steps back and looks at the photo, one will see that the conversation appears to include all three people in the foreground, and it also appears to include two dogs engaged in 'conversation.' Further, look at the composition, note curve created by the standing dog and the people, the lines of the field, and light. Truth be told, there are elements of that photo that a number of people could learn from.

End of lecture, or response, or counter-attack, or whatever. ;-)

First of all, it wasn't an "attack". It was a pointed commentary about images in this forum
that are not the type of image we normally expect to see in this forum. It was in response
to the "...but this is a 'Documentary' forum - and there is nothing 'documentary' about photo
illustration...". I agree that the image in question falls short of "documentary" because of
the processing, but disagree that it is somehow inappropriate here because of this. It's not
the first, nor will it be the last, of images that are questionably not within the generally
accepted boundaries of "documentary" as defined by what we normally see and expect
here.

On dog shots...An image that contains a dog in the scene can certainly be "street" or
"documentary", but an image of a dog is a pet shot.

As far as I'm concerned, this is a Pet Shot of my son's Louisiana Catahoula Leopard
Dog pup: https://www.dropbox.com/s/i02ojibtiy...-05-06-102.jpg

and this is a shot that I feel qualifies as "Street": https://www.dropbox.com/s/rfzd3ecde9...0-01-30-11.jpg

On found objects...Photographs of found objects can be very, very good. Museum quality,
even. Bringing them into "Documentary" because they document life, though, is a weak
argument as far as I'm concerned. If we starting including all of the scenes we see daily
in real life, we become "Other Cool Shots" with endless images of rusty objects.
Palmetto bugs (the euphemism for "cockroaches" in Florida) and golfers (I live on a golf
course) are a daily scene to me, but I don't choose to document them here.

Not that there's anything wrong with posting a found objects shot here, but let's not try to
legitimize it by saying we're emulating some famous guy who shot a series of photographs
depicting life in the South during the Depression. Each of his photographs was part of a
mosaic that led to the next photo and back the one before it.

On funny looking people...Is there a whiff of double-standard here? If we see, and
photograph, funny looking people are they not just as much a part of life as unfunny people?
Sometimes they can provide a more interesting photograph and tell us something about
the person. Although I suspect this is a bit of mocking reference to my recent Pirate, it
seems that I come across funny looking people often enough in "life", but that may be
because they draw my eye more than not-so-funny-looking people.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/388ay311yc...2-01-21-17.jpg

On wedding shots...Sure, they document real life. Point the camera randomly and push
the button and you've documented something about real life. The trick is to document
something that has some interest to the people in this group if you are going to show
them in this group. And, preferably, something the presents a different view than what
we could see in other forums if we chose to go to them.

I suspect that the reason we see photographs that are not the usual style for this
forum in this forum is that the posters consider "Documentary" to be their home base
in DGrin. Nothing wrong with that.

Hey watch what you say about the rust junkies on other cool shots....

their weapons of choice are high sat , over sharpened/contrasted and they have no remorse nor do they take prisoners

that said, they're a lot more fun than this forum; you folks are too serious...

I don't know about you, Tony, but I have never made a single image because I think it would be of interest to people in this group, or of interest to any one else. I create images of what interests me, and hope that the resulting image may interest someone else.

And to clarify - I quite specifically did NOT compare myself or my work to Walker Evans; I quite specifically said I did NOT feel attacked.

Finally, I never suggest that one should not shoot "funny looking" people. I do, however, feel that there should be a reason for shooting anyone. If someone is ugly, or funny looking, or down and out, and you can create a meaningful image of them, or including them, go for it. If all one is doing, however, is shooting the "funny looking guy," I have no use for it.

As to Walker Evans, weddings, and found objects - sorry, but you're wrong on all three. Think about weddings - why should a photo of two people sitting in a coffee shop talking be meaningful, or interesting to anyone who doesn't know them, but a photograph of two people sitting at a disheveled table talking, in the midst of a wedding, isn't because we don't know the people? Why should a photo of a couple having a private moment in a library be worth photographing, but compositionally interesting image of a bride and groom having a private moment is not? Sorry, but you simply don't like wedding photos; that's your privilege; but your argument makes no sense.

Found objects - you don't want to shoot them, don't. Don't like them? Then don't look at them, don't comment on them. But yes, they can be considered documentary photos, depending upon what they are of, and the statement they may be seen to make. If you don't think that images of what we cast off, or lose, and where we cast it off, tell us something about who we are and how we live, you're not really thinking very hard.

Walker Evans - He shot all kinds of things, some of which we documents about things that showed how people lived. Argue all you want, but a pink plush purse, with the words "My First Purse" on it, tells us something about how we raise children, about consumerism, and about how we live. If you don't get that, you don't get it.

Originally Posted by bdcolen I don't know about you, Tony, but I have never made a single image because I think it would be of interest to people in this group, or of interest to any one else. I create images of what interests me, and hope that the resulting image may interest someone else.

Just as I had decided to discontinue participation in this thread,
you had to go and write this disingenuity. I made no mention of
what anyone chooses to photograph. It's what one chooses to
post in this group.

Originally Posted by TonyCooper Just as I had decided to discontinue participation in this thread, you had to go and write this disingenuity. I made no mention of what anyone chooses to photograph. It's what one chooses to post in this group.

I am really trying to understand this Tony , am I to understand that if someone photographs a back yard dog playing with a ball shouldn't post it in this forum, and that's O/K with you? but if that same person photographs a back alley dog eating scraps out of garbage can, and chooses to post it, is that O/K with you ?

Originally Posted by TonyCooper Just as I had decided to discontinue participation in this thread, you had to go and write this disingenuity. I made no mention of what anyone chooses to photograph. It's what one chooses to post in this group.

Well, given that I never said the image in question shouldn't be posted here, which you have suggested. What I have said is that it is not documentary and is, in fact, no longer a photograph.

Originally Posted by lensmole I am really trying to understand this Tony , am I to understand that if someone photographs a back yard dog playing with a ball shouldn't post it in this forum, and that's O/K with you? but if that same person photographs a back alley dog eating scraps out of garbage can, and chooses to post it, is that O/K with you ?

Anything's OK with me. There are no "shouldn't post" images. There
should be some discretion involved in choosing what to post, though.

There are various forums in DGrin and there are other venues in which
to post images. The whole idea of a forum dedicated to "Documentary"
is that it should suggest to the poster to use this forum for photographs
that fit that description.

I also recognize - as I stated in another post - that this is "home base"
to some posters, so some submissions will be from the posters who
appear here regularly who want to share something (like a heavily
processed photo illustration) that they've done. Nothing wrong with
this.

The recently posted dog shot is a good example of what fits here.
It's a dog, but a dog in a very interesting contextual setting peering
through a window. Not really "street", but a good shot, good post.

A photograph of that same dog without that context might better be
posted in a pet forum if there was one. That's why I said that my
photo of my son's Catahoula was a pet shot. I wouldn't post it
here.

Originally Posted by bdcolen Well, given that I never said the image in question shouldn't be posted here, which you have suggested. What I have said is that it is not documentary and is, in fact, no longer a photograph.

Imagine that instead of seeing the image on a computer screen, you had in your hand a physical print of the exact scene, one that had been processed normally but was printed sixty years ago and is physically distressed--faded colors, actual texture of the paper from wear and abuse. Many people might value it today more because it looked so old than because of its photographic merits. It might, in fact, look exactly like the image posted here. Surely it would still be a photo.

I liked this image mainly because it reminded me of old photos, even if it isn't one. Works for me.

Reminds me of a Normal Rockwell - print. Not photo.

This thread/forum reminds me of the immortal dialog from the movie Stripes (1981) and the timeless wisdom of Sergeant Hulka:

Psycho: The name's Francis Soyer, but everybody calls me Psycho. Any of you guys call me Francis, and I'll kill you.
Leon: Ooooooh.
Psycho: You just made the list, buddy. And I don't like nobody touching my stuff. So just keep your meat-hooks off. If I catch any of you guys in my stuff, I'll kill you. Also, I don't like nobody touching me. Now, any of you h*m*s touch me, and I'll kill you.
Sergeant Hulka: Lighten up, Francis.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Originally Posted by TonyCooper Anything's OK with me. There are no "shouldn't post" images. There should be some discretion involved in choosing what to post, though. There are various forums in DGrin and there are other venues in which to post images. The whole idea of a forum dedicated to "Documentary" is that it should suggest to the poster to use this forum for photographs that fit that description. I also recognize - as I stated in another post - that this is "home base" to some posters, so some submissions will be from the posters who appear here regularly who want to share something (like a heavily processed photo illustration) that they've done. Nothing wrong with this. The recently posted dog shot is a good example of what fits here. It's a dog, but a dog in a very interesting contextual setting peering through a window. Not really "street", but a good shot, good post. A photograph of that same dog without that context might better be posted in a pet forum if there was one. That's why I said that my photo of my son's Catahoula was a pet shot. I wouldn't post it here.

Yes I agree photographers should use discretion when posting,but some may be new to the forum and it has been said before we are our own worst editors we need feedback from others . I have been unsure of a lot of my posts some more than others ,about the kind of response one might get from the community. I don't really have a problem with what people post,but I do feel strongly about this being a forum about photography, life straight up ,and not computer art ,yes illustrations composites should be posted in other forums. I have nothing against this type of art ,but it is not photography . BTW thanks !

Originally Posted by lensmole Yes I agree photographers should use discretion when posting,but some may be new to the forum and it has been said before we are our own worst editors we need feedback from others . I have been unsure of a lot of my posts some more than others ,about the kind of response one might get from the community. I don't really have a problem with what people post,but I do feel strongly about this being a forum about photography, life straight up ,and not computer art ,yes illustrations composites should be posted in other forums. I have nothing against this type of art ,but it is not photography . BTW thanks !

Perhaps what is needed is a sort of, I don't know, Salon des Refuses for such work.