Dave, strange coincidence today I'm clearing out some old mags.
In one (7th September 2002 edition of UK Amateur Photographer) there
was an article on Street Photography featuring the work of Nils
Jorgensen.
One picture really stretches the bounds of faith in the author's
assertion that everything is "relying on chance things all the time".
http://www.in-public.com/nilsfolio.html
Specific image:
http://www.in-public.com/nilsimages/twoheads.jpg
This is much clearer in the magazine but, how can I phrase my
scepticism, "you couldn't have chosen the old man, or placed him in
the frame, or chosen his expression, better if the picture had been a
set up!"
I feel sorry for doubting the author's "honesty" if he really was just
walking by and saw the juxtaposition ...
Bob
Whether Jorgensons photo was set up or not it's a great photograph. I have no quarrel with setups as long as they are reprsented as such. I have been a street photog for more years than i'm willing to admit to. On rare occasions i've done setups,but i generally don't have the imagination for them. The photographer that can construct a photograph and do it well is an "artist". I as a street photographer Is only a keen observer of life and it's surroundings. then capture the scene keeping tonal and compositional elements in mind. Doisaneaus photo of the the Kiss is no less a classic. but it was tarnlshed when it became known that it was set up. But he had the artistic imagination to set it up. That's why I get a little frustrated at times when some reviewers suggest that I move or change some elements of a photo. The spontineity of the moment would be gone or for that matter the subject is usually g Dave Small
