> 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. Indeed, nor do I. The text of the article I was reading though was ALL about spontenaity and the seeing / abstracing eye ... most of his work looks that way. This one shot however did stretch the bounds of belief ;o) > Doisaneaus photo of the the Kiss is no less a classic. but it was > tarnlshed when it became known that it was set up. That was because people had been decieved: I can't look at that shot now without "fraud" being the first word that comes to mind. The image is still the same - pixel per pixel - but that is where it ends ... > But he had the artistic imagination to set it up. But does that still count as "street" photography? I'd thought the definition (working brief?) was to take photos in the street of the street ... In parallel I get annoyed when people portray zoo animals as "WildLife" when they are anything but wild ... > That's why I get a little frustrated at times when > some reviewers suggest that I move or change some elements of a photo. When people say you should "move" something - of course you can't if you believe in honest street records. But the point remains that in the reviewer's opinion the photo would have been better *had* the elements been so arranged. > The joy of street photography is the hunt, and the high of the > moment. I've rambled on enough. Nah, you don't talk often enough. Streetphotography is a different world from what most photographers see: a sub culture almost (?) Done well they are fascinating - and an art that evades me almost completely.
