Bruce Gilden and "Street" Photography

it was a different time.

His entire body of work is the same unflattering, blurred, candid portrait over and over again.
There is no variation in his work, and his style got old for me fast.
>I don't care about the photo looking nice
>muh capturing the chaos
>muh capturing all the LIFE around me
>muh characters! I find characters!
It's not deep.
It's not meaningful.
It's just being a nuisance.

I feel like good street photographers are so rare. Most fall into the abundant clichés of the genre like homeless peoples' wrinkly faces.
And almost all have some sense of unwarranted self-importance.

>>3117741
i agree with you, lots of street togs end up replicating the same style thats been done before which is not
entirely bad, but it also hinders your creative ability to shoot with your own style and instead keep replicating the same shots over and over again.

does anyone know of any good street photographer to study up on?

>>3117758
>togs
This is worse than OP's video

>>3117761
WHAT UP STREET GODS

I don't like people that inviade my spacelike this and I woulnd't photograph in such way because of it. For me it's the worst kind of street photography styles. At this point I don't know if he's good, or got the photos because statistically even a monkey with the camera can take a good photo with enought tries.

File: 403adabbf4ebc52abc7344a01ada9ddb.jpg (72KB, 625x468px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 625x468px

>>3117720
>>3117869
I like that he does it. I wouldn't do it, but I like when people get offended by trivial matters. There is actually nothing to be offended by. Nothing in this universe can offend you.

>>3117720
that's a huge ego if I ever saw one.

>>3117877
you mean mental illness.

Proper street photographer.

>>3117884
this

i bet you guys know his works only from the internet and never got one of his books

/i like this video with him in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=540JpC9IbEU

Watched the guy. Think the guy is disgusting. A poor version of an 1980s anchorman asshole. I WANT MY NEW YORK PEOPLE FOOTAGE 'CAUSE NEW YORK PEOPLE FOOTAGE ALWAYS SELLS. Meh.

>>3117924
Check his Haiti work.

>>3117920
Oops. Meant this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNilCJTcJxA

>>3117869
Yeah, I really enjoy your pictures of people's backs, they're very mindful of people's feelings against being photographed.

>>3117924
Hes a photographer and hes realistic. He isnt going to feed his grandkids with a wallet full of "artistic recognition."
Nigga needs money.

>>3117946
> gagging someone with the lens is the only way to take a photo

>>3117758

I like Daniel Arnold, Troy Holden and Jake Michaels (Jokemichaels=IG)

They have great observation skills, and can compose a good photograph.

>>3117741
just putting "muh" in front of everything doesn't make it bad

>>3117720
>walking around times square
>"people used to look different now it's like disneyland"

career disregarded.

>>3117918
You actually bought his shitty books?
His photos are blurry and so close on someone's face that they offer hardly any context.

Who cares about a yakuza boss having his cig lit when he looks like a frog?

Who cares that he has a blurry photo of a man with a fro and glasses?

Who cares that he got a close up of an old couple walking?

None of these photos offer anything to the audience. It just proves we're stupid monkeys that enjoy looking at other stupid monkeys without them being able to look back.


Gilden is a hack, he is like a radio shock-jock. His shtick is alarming so people take notice but do they notice how his work never grows, always the same off camera flash and wide lens shoved in a strangers face.


Total crap.

>>3119244
I don't care much for his pictures or his style but I can respect him because he owns what he does. Can you imagine him getting accused of being a creep a pedo or a terrorist even though he looks like all three? Can you imagine him being bullied on the street by a "concerned citizen"?

He does what motivates him and doesn't give a rat's arse about what anyone else thinks. I'm fine with that.

>>3119297
I don't respect people who aren't self-aware of how their actions may affect others. If they are self-aware, but choose to do it anyways, then that is even worse.

I understand that some toes need to be stepped on to achieve great things, but it's not like the man is finding the cure to cancer. He's literally just snapshitting. Could you imagine having a flash shined in your eye for some man's snapshits? Especially when you're having a bad day?

>>3119302

boo fucking hoo.

Also, art is more important than curing cancer.

>>3119302
>He's literally just snapshitting.
YOU think they're snapshits but what you think isn't important. Sure he's vulgar and brash and if he did it to me I'd probably take a swing at him.

As I already said, I don't care for what he does but at least he stands up for what he does. He is part of the crowd that is his subject. He doesn't tippy-toe around hiding in shop doorways trying to be discrete. Shooting from the hip and smiling gingerly before sidling away and generally behaving exactly as perverts and pedos would.

>>3119318
>YOU think they're snapshits, but what you think isn't important.
Is this just another way of sounding profound without actually saying anything?

As for your second point: I don't understand the praise for him standing up for what he believes in. Especially when what he believes in is a detriment to others, and he doesn't give a fuck. He'll shove that belief in your face and you're gonna take it.

Should we praise Hitler because he stood up for what he believed in too?

I think WHAT someone believes in is more important than whether or not they stand up for it.

>>3119085
Those aren't bad qualities at all. If Bruse actually did any of that he might actually be good

>>3119335
>Is this just another way of sounding profound without actually saying anything?

Don't be so butthurt. It's a simple acknowledgment that his work earns him enough money and that whatever you or I think of it is irrelevant.

>Should we praise Hitler because he stood up for what he believed in too?
>Comparing the slaughter of millions of innocent people to spots in peoples eyes for a few minutes.

What I don't understand is how people can scatter their most private information; their health records, financial information, political affiliations, sexual preferences (including photographic evidence) etc etc across the internet to be scooped up by Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft, the NSA and any other government or advertising agency they choose to sell it to. Then they get upset because some photographer somewhere is taking unflattering snapshits of other people.

>>3119297
>He does what motivates him and doesn't give a rat's arse about what anyone else thinks. I'm fine with that.
The problem with America in a nutshell. And I don't care if you're not American, what I'm saying is you'd fit in here.

>>3119380
>It's a simple acknowledgment that his work earns him enough money
How much he earns is irrelevant to the discussion. In this thread, we are discussing the merits of his photography, not its monetary value. Just because a shitty movie is a financial success, does not make it any less of a shitty movie.

>and that whatever you or I think of it is irrelevant
Where do you think we are? This is a discussion board dedicated to photography. If we're not here to exchange opinions on photos, then what the are we here for?

>Why is it OK for people to spread private information about themselves willfully and of their own accord? But then when someone else does it they lose their shit?
I don't know, anon. You tell me.

>>3117720
new york is so fascinating. the only US city i would move to

>>3119408
>The problem with America in a nutshell
Americas problems will not fit in a nutshell.

Your problem is the assumption that what motivates Bruce Gilden is the same force that motivates the political establishment and everything else that is bad in America.

The world is not black and white, they are just the extreme ends of a million shades of grey. The sooner you subscribe to that idea the sooner you will discover that those shades provide endless variety and nuance that can both educate and enrich your life. That can also help you to realise that bitching about how one photographer goes about his craft is a feckless waste of your own creative energy.

File: Alex Webb 1996.jpg (239KB, 1052x704px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 1052x704px

>>3117741
Truth!

>>3117758
Alex Webb and Constantine Manos

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh)
Photographer	Alex Webb
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3892
Image Height	2605
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Unknown
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2017:04:26 12:23:14
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	3892
Image Height	2605

File: Constantine Manos 2.jpg (1MB, 1200x805px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x805px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Pixelmator 3.4
Photographer	©Costa Manos/Magnum Photos
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:11:15 15:11:22
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	805

>>3119419
>In this thread, we are discussing the merits of his photography
Anon and I were discussing the morality of how he goes about his photography, if that doesn't interest you move along

We reviewed Bruce in my Media photography course, the prof loved him because of his character. Most of class didn't like his style of approaching his subject but I think he's an excellent photographer. He's consistent with taking photographs and is a well rounded street photographer. See you in the future when I'll be taking photographs of celebs! -DJ Keep Calm

i wanna follow bruce golden around with a bright led torch in his eyes until he gets upset

I don't care about his approach, but the results suck. Everything looks like a screengrab from a Beastie Boys video.

I understand that street photography takes skill and courage. I am often amazed at how quick street photographers can react to capture an interesting scene. But looking at street photographs they also quickly start looking formulaic to me. Maybe I am being too cynical, maybe I misunderstand the definition of cliche, but so far I've noticed the following cliches

>person seemingly interacting with an advertisement poster
>magazine with an image of a face covering someone's face
>foreground and background lining up
>several things having the same color
>several people doing the same pose
>architecture photograph with one person walking from the side
>close up of someone with flash (like gilden)
>surreal flash photograph with motion blur
>images of crowds trying to get as many people doing something in a frame as possible
>someone doing something that looks weird taken out of context

>>3117758
>street togs

ugh go back to red dit

>>3119244
that's why he's one of the few FULL members of Magnum Photography and not just semi member as most photographers nowadays
while little frustrated sony kids like you beg to shoot their neighbours wedding once a year
right ?

File: david alan harvey 3.jpg (135KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1280x720px

>>3119498
His books get boring after the first 15 pages desu

>>3119436
snapshit

>>3119335
>Should we praise Hitler

Yes

>>3119502

Looks like you're still stuck in that shallow dead end of "muh composition". Feel bad for you, son.

Story is always more important.

>>3119519
>a good picture is worth a 1,000 words
Single stills are good at describing a moment in time, and maybe even suggesting a narrative. But to tell a whole narrative? Which includes a beginning, middle, end? That requires a photo album.

Ask any professional photographer or photojournalist. They'll tell you that a single still is a horrible medium for storytelling. They're there to provide context and to describe something.

>inb4 but movies are basically thousands of stills
Yes, but movies also have dialogue, an accompanying score, and an overarching storyline.

>>3119551
I believe Harvey's picture did come from a series with a story. Divided Soul or something similar I think it was called. But it wasn't a very interesting story

>>3117741
this. his stuff doesnt grate on my nerves nearly as bad as all his little acolytes running around with an TTL cable attached to a light shooting every person that walks by and saying "nice shirt" to everyone.

>>3119498
>implying that magnum wasn't created as a hugbox for zionists.

We're discussing Gilden and saying he sucks. You're advocating his work but yet you bring Magnum into this? You're sinking your own argument anon.

>>3119551

What the fuck are you even saying?

>>3119669
I'll dumb it down for you
>a single photo can't tell a story for shit, oogabooga

>>3119830

Sure it can.

And it's not about telling a singular story, it's about how the ethical sense of a photo is more important than the aesthetic. Sorry if I go too fast for you, buddy.

>>3119839
Hold on here. You said that story is more important than composition, right? I gave you an argument explaining why you're wrong.

Where is your counterargument for that?
All you've given me is a
>Sure it can!
without telling me how it can.

Then you tell me how NOW it's NOT about the story, but NOW it's about the ethical sense.

The only thing you're fast at is moving goal posts, apparently.

>>3119854

The story is the ethical sense, fucktard. Read a book lmfao i have a few suggestions if you need help

You also didn't give a well-reasoned counterargument, it was literally just "NO U'RE RONG". Not really worth a spirited debate.

wow, the sheer austism in this thread is astounding.

File: 1467067276603.jpg (23KB, 400x302px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 400x302px

>>3119898
And this surprises you?

>>3119898
>won't even bother elaborating on his thoughts
>just shitposts vaguely yet loudly

You, friend, are everything wrong with this board.

>>3120021
I get why people don't like Gilden, but how can any of you say he's a bad photographer? The composition on some of his early work from Coney Island and NYC is amazing. And his work in Haiti is so full of life and energy. He may seem like an asshole, but thats how he gets the photos he wants.

>>3117720
>black and white
*yawn*

>>3119519
I know story is more important, his books don't tell a story to me. It's the same shit repeated for 60+ pages. There's no beginning, middle, end.

>>3117926
He is absolutely afwul in that video. Nothing he does there contributes to anything but himself looking better

>>3119519
>story is more important
Lol how do you think a story is effectively told in images? Through composition. Directors know this and so do photographers. Anyone can take centered snaps of things and write about them. It saddens me that people get into a visual medium bit then ignore the visual part of it.

>>3120591
>Lol how do you think a story is effectively told in images?

Subject matter, my dude.

>>3120808
Literally why even bother learning proper photography at all if all you care about is "subject?

Anyone can capture something "cool" on camera. Making that shot stand out with framing, angle and the omission of extraneous details is how you make an image better than just a thoughtless snapshot.

>>3120816

>Anyone can capture something "cool" on camera.

You're showing how little you know about photography my dude. Quit while you're not that far behind.

>>3119297
>He does what motivates him and doesn't give a rat's arse about what anyone else thinks. I'm fine with that.
Fuck off. This is the #1 thing wrong with the US. There's this thing called ethics: get some of them.

>>3120386
His color portraits are much better.
https://www.google.com/search?q=bruce+gilden+portraits&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiO_eL79aXVAhUo6IMKHQvbCuAQ_AUICigB&biw=1280&bih=709#imgrc=_

>>3117720
Basically he's a 1 from a technical perspective a 10 from a balls perspective.

>>3120818
You're clearly this same idiot who's been pedaling "composition isn't important" on this board for about a few months straight. As if you just somehow ignore composing altogether and only go for a "story", but that's not how it works at all.

>no u you're just wrong
Not an argument. Substantiate your claim or get the fuck out.

>>3120916

It's been about a decade, newfag, which is why I get tired of spoonfeeding fucktards the basics.

You also literally just gave me the "that's not how it works at all" right before you asked me to substantiate my claim. How exactly does that work?

But, hey. You want to break it down and explain it to you? No prob. Here's the brightline (look it up) for the argument of ethics versus aesthetics: can you swap out the subject of a photo while maintaining an identical composition and have it make the same emotional (or artistic) impact? You and I both know that the answer is, of course, no. Just look at bass ripping off the McNally afghanistan orphan shot. Identical composition, totally different meaning.

On the other hand, did Joe McNally (or Dorothea Lange, or fucking Capa) have to compose their photo in exactly that fashion for it to have any meaning? Could they have posed or composed in a slightly different manner and still have had the same effect?

>>3120945
>could they have posed or composed in a slightly different manner
I like how you posit "slightly different" and not "completely different" because you know deep down composition is important.

It doesn't have to be perfect angle and framing every single time but at a base level composition is the inclusion or omission of specific details in a photograph, and that is precisely why you cannot say it is "not important". And believe it or not subtle shifts in angle or subject distance can and DO have significant impacts. Would Migrant Mother have had such an impact if Lange shot it from far away? Do you not think there's a good reason that image was chosen because it fills the frame with the mother and her children vs the other frames that were shot that day?

>the argument of ethics versus aesthetics
I don't understand why you insist on it being ethics vs. aesthetics. You want to be a good photographer? Try doing good at both. Don't botch one thing for the sake of another and then yell at other people to "get on your level". Because right now it sounds like you just don't care for composition or don't know how to do it well and you're projecting that onto everything and everyone else.

He is one of the best, definitely. He's crafted his own style and stayed dedicated to it.

As we can see again in this thread, discussing street is pretty haram on /p/ - people here hate street in general. Some because they don't understand it, others because they're basement dwelling neckbeards focused on taking closeups of animu figures that are afraid of people, and are either projecting their jealousy or just their fear of people who could potentially take a photograph of their pimply, fat face on the street.

>>3119303
>art

Come again?