Surprise

Up until recently, most of my photography has been of places that had few or no people at all. Of late, as you know, I’ve become quite interested in people and photographing them. Thinking back, I believe this to have always been the case, but I had to get over, or perhaps manage is the better word, a number of insecurities, of which I have many. I refer, often, to Craig Tanner’s The Next Step creativity workshop. I think that it was the jumping off point for me to begin to explore my photography.

Photographing landscapes vs. people is quite different. I’ve always been an early riser, so getting out, enjoying the sunrise, the quiet, and the bug-free environment was pretty easy to do. Also, the thing that I liked best was that there was no one around. I had the place all to myself, unspoiled, untouched. Getting out and photographing people is just the opposite. Unless you want to photograph joggers, you needn’t get up so early. You need to go where the people are … when they are awake! I think that I’ve always enjoyed people watching, now people photographing.

As I’m out with my camera, shooting film, I have no chance to chimp. This is a huge advantage, I’ve found. Well, chimping, I think, leads to missed shots when you have your head down looking at what you’ve done, things are changing there right in front of you and you are missing it. Also, there is the most pleasant surprise of getting out the negatives and seeing something that you didn’t remember photographing or getting something that has so much detail that adds to the story that it’s rather breathtaking. I’ve been pleasantly surprised a number of times. I’d be concentrating on a theme, say the vibrancy and diversity of the Harlem sidewalks and just happen to take the photograph at the right time to say something else. Serendipity, to be sure.

Reaction
Though I have very little experience at photographing on the street, I do follow the ‘ways’ of the street photographer: f/8 and be there. On the street, there is very little time to focus, auto or manual. You see something, you frame it quickly, snap, snap, snap (maybe), and that’s it. You either got it or you didn’t. Contrast this to the methodical way of landscape shooting: arrive early, pick a location, set up, wait for the light to get right, shoot. Of course, this is probably an over simplification, but you get the idea. From a compositional standpoint, street photography probably doesn’t follow the ‘rules’, or guidelines. The object is to get the shot.

Tools
I’ve been rather pleased with both cameras, the Leica M6, and the Olympus 35 LC. Both are good rangefinders; both deliver the goods easily. I like the Leica a little be better because the location of the controls makes more sense and it is easier to keep them set where you want. I find that it is very easy move the aperture on the Oly and that I have to always make sure that it is set right when I take it out of the bag. I believe that you would be hard-pressed to tell the difference between which images came from the Leica and which from the Oly. I cannot. I only know because I use different film in each.

I can certainly understand why a rangefinder is the right tool for the job on the street. It’s inconspicuous, quiet (though not really necessary in NYC!), and the nice clear viewfinder with the frame lines makes it really easy to frame things up, and fast to use. Add to that, you can see elements that are about to enter your field of view and perhaps avoid, or include them at your discretion. With an SLR, you only see a maximum 100%. With the RF, you get maybe 120% – 200%, perhaps more, depending on what lens you have on.

Anyway, it’s just allowed me to express myself in a different way. Who knows what’s next? I certainly don’t!

Welcome to Heavenly Harlem
Though it wasn’t on the plan, Tom and I went to Harlem, NY. We had made our way into the city and were waiting for the ‘A’ train, which would take us to 86th street and Central Park. The train arrived, we boarded, sat down, and were waiting for it resume. Suddenly, Tom jumps up and says: Follow me! We exit the train opposite of where we got on and went into another train. This train was an ‘A’ train as well, but an express. It didn’t make as many stops in between where we were and where we wanted to be.

The doors closed and we were off sailing through the darkness, the occasional light flashing by at high speed. It seemed that we’d been rocking and rolling along for a while. Suddenly, in the light, I saw a station flash by, 106th street. We had passed our intended disembarkation point, 86th street. When the train finally came to a stop, we were at 125th Street, the beginning of Harlem. Tom asked if I wanted to go up and have a look. I most certainly did. It was a nice ‘mistake’, if you believe in those types of things, but since I don’t believe in mistakes, I was supposed to see this.

I must admit, forthwith, that my mind is as polluted as the next person’s with the Hollywood portrayal of Harlem, or anything else for that matter. Make no bones about it, this used to be a rough place, very rough; however, after New York’s good fortune to have two back-to-back good mayors, the city as a whole is in much better shape and is demonstrably safer. If I believed what Hollywood showed me, I would have exited to a city that was filled with drug dealers, heroin addicts, pimps, and all manner of criminal activity with each and every face being black.

This was not what I saw when I exited the subway. The subway exit is at 125th Street and St. Nicholas Avenue. I had never been here before, but knew about it. It seemed familiar in name. I’d heard a few raps back in the day that mentioned that particular corner. Turning the corner, looking to the right, I could scarcely believe my eyes. There it was, the Apollo Theater. One of the most well-known black venues in the world. So many famous people have graced the halls of this theater: James Brown, Fat Joe, Michael Jackson, Lauren Hill, Gladys Knight, Chris Rock, Bill Cosby, Dave Chappelle, just to name a few. I could certainly go on about those who have been born here, lived here at one time or another, or that live here currently, but you get the picture!

The streets were alive. There were all types of street vendors selling oils, African jewelry, all manner of clothing, and even bootleg videos and music. The sidewalks were filled with the sounds of old-school hip hop as well as R&B. No longer is Harlem a black-only thing; there were people represented from all races, each going about their own business.

Harlem has gone through many cycles, some good, some bad. Right now it is at the beginnings of gentrification. Yuppies are moving in, buying property, putting up expensive stores that the local residents have no interest in or cannot afford. This causes the property values to rise as well as the associated property taxes. Further, rents start to rise. Soon, the people who’ve lived there all of their lives can no longer afford to. The face of Harlem starts to change. There are some groups who are trying to fight it, yet, others who applaud it.

It was very difficult to choose one photo out of the many that I took that represented my feelings about Harlem, complex though they were; however, the photo at the top of this post seems to do the trick. Pictured are:

Malcolm X
Barack Obama
Nelson Mandella
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Each, a hero in the black community. Each offering a ray of light, hope, and strength. In case you cannot read it, the banner says: Welcome to Heavenly Harlem.

Note: These images mark a first for me in a few ways:

1. This was my first trip to Harlem
2. This was my first time using Ilford HP5 (ISO 400). I shot it at 800.
3. Naturally, this was my first time developing HP5+. I really liked the results!
4. I didn’t use the Leica for this. I shot all of my Harlem images using a Olympus 35 LC from 1965 or so.

It has been one of those crazy weeks where life gets in the way of photography. Usually, I can make time for photography, but this week, not so much. I’ve not developed or scanned any film in the last 17 days! Yikes! And, as I realized yesterday, daylight is becoming a very precious thing, especially for those of us who like to go out to the street and shoot. Sunset is now at about 6:39 PM and loosing about 1 minute in the evening each day.

If I leave work at 5:00, I can get downtown at about 5:30, which leaves me, technically, about one hour to shoot, but it turns out to be much less than that due to the numerous buildings that happen to be there. Not that downtown Charleston has any large buildings, it doesn’t. It’s just that the angle of the sun is so low by the time that I get there that I have maybe 30 minutes to shoot. Perhaps I’ll have to load up with higher speed film, or, dare I say, get to work earlier so that I can leave earlier. Hmmm? I’ll have to think about that.

Not only is it the sunlight factor, it seems that most every day this week, I’ve had something that I have to do right after work. Today, I have to come back to the apartment to pick up a FedEx overnight package, sign some papers, and return it. The apartment closes by 6:00, which usually means about 5:45. So, were I to come here, get the package, and attempt to go downtown, it wouldn’t work. Downtown is 45 minutes from here. Sigh. Yesterday was my volunteer day, so that was out. Maybe tomorrow evening I’ll get to go and shoot. We’ll see.

I’m chompin’ at the bit here. I feel the need to get out and shoot, but life just is not cooperating. Sunrise isn’t until 7:30 AM. I would get up, go downtown, and do some morning shooting, but for the most part, there are only joggers in the morning. Not much to see. Also, traffic coming out of downtown and going towards work is nightmarish. Not a good way to start the day.

Oh well, I’ll get to do a lot of shooting next week when I go to visit Tom, The Photo Father. More about that later! I ought to put myself in a massive backlog of film needing to be developed. At least I hope to!

Day at the beach? Family? Baby’s first steps? Missing fathers? Same sex marriages? Sisters? Point & Shoot Cameras?

Continuing on with some more thoughts based on the Gary Winogrand video, I’m wondering if a picture is really worth a thousand words. Gary Windogrand said:

The fact that photographs — they’re mute, they don’t have any narrative ability at all. You know what something looks like, but you don’t know what’s happening, you don’t know whether the hat’s being held or is it being put on her head or taken off her head. From the photograph, you don’t know that. A piece of time and space is well described. But not what is happening.

In one respect, I would say that yes, a picture is worth a thousand words, but only in describing how something looks. I would have to agree that you can get little or no story from it. QBP rather solidified this point for me in her comment yesterday where she said:

For me, it depends upon what is presented. I think a photo can be as impactful, if not more, than someone’s writing. I was recently reading a blog where the author had written a series about a farmer who had to close his farm due to the corporate competition. He could no longer keep up. Although the writing was quite impactful, I found myself turning away and skipping over some of the many photos he’d taken to document the event. It was powerful, the sadness and emptiness captured in those photos. Painful.

For me, that ability to hit an emotional nerve with either the reader of the word or the viewer of the photo makes the difference.
–QBP

From what I can infer, she read the article, or at least part of it, then went to the photos. By the simple act of reading the article, or even the title of the article, she had context, was able to gather feelings about the article or situation, then looked at the photographs, which just added additional impact, allowing her to add her own narrative and feelings about the subject. If the pictures of the farmer were not included in the article, I would say that the article would have much less impact, but certainly more impact than photos alone; however, I would say that if the photos were in a spread by themselves, well, they would have just been photos of some farmer and no one would have a clue as to what they meant. Therefore, no narrative ability whatsoever.

I could go back to my photos of the poetry reading. Without the context of the poetry reading, the photos might hold up on their own, but as what? As I write this, I’m hit by another thought. This is probably why I’m not so attracted to photo-only blogs. There’s nothing to go along with the photograph to help me along, to frame it, I suppose. I want context. I can appreciate a pretty picture, or perhaps a disturbing one, as much as the next guy or gal, but give me some words with it and it takes it to a new level!

In the end, I guess that I’d have to agree with Winogrand 100% that photos have no narrative ability by themselves. Probably some of you would disagree. I’d like to hear your take on it. Can a photo stand entirely on its own as a narrative piece? I’m not talking about can a single photo evoke an emotion, I know that it can, but can it tell the entire story? Should it be able to?