On 6/26/05, Jerome Reyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Personally, I still can't believe that folks are really trying to define > "street photography" according to what lens is used. It's quite silly, > actually.... don't buy into it, David. Call your photo whatever genre > you'd like. If you say street... then street it is :o) <snip>
Well, I thought your post was going to start a discussion of "what street photography is, and what lenses/cameras we're allowed to use for it." I guess not, which is maybe just as well. I'll just add my two cents, however. <g> I agree with you about the "who gives a crap what lens is used" thing. I'd go a step further and wonder why we even have to define something as a "street photo", "macro", "architecture", whatever. I guess that's just the way the human brain works: we seem to be hardwired with this insatiable desire to pigeon-hole everything. If a category doesn't exist to stick something into, we'll "invent" one. If one photographs a person holding a dog, is it a dog shot, a person shot, or a person-holding-dog shot? What if it was taken on a city sidewalk, as opposed to their living room? Is it now a street shot? If it's on the street, but it's in front of a well-known building, is it now an architectural shot? Answers to all of the above: Who cares? A photo is either good or bad, meaningful or not meaningful, irrespective of where it was taken, what's in it, who took it or what they took it with. Genres are meaningless. It's the photograph that counts, IMHO. Feel free to disagree... <LOL> cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
