Photo Of The Week, By Other People #2

Photo by Chris Weeks. Used here for editorial purposes.

Now we’re talking! In my opinion street photography is the holy grail of all photographic pursuits in terms of mastery. To get great street photos you need to be close to mastering ALL aspects of photography, and then be able to put them together in an instant. Doesn’t sound difficult? Try it yourself. However, to get even to the point of trying you have to overcome the awkwardness of intrusion, the embarrassment of being a voyeur (not literally on every occasion!), which is a tough hurdle to begin with.

OK, so that’s one paragraph burnt up in my new keeping it short ethos, treading carefully.

The photo above is a good example of what street photography is, but it is selected here not on it’s own merit alone, as there are surely better street photos out there, but because it was taken by Chris Weeks. Chris Weeks is a very successful PJ, but who’s true love lies in street. He has written an interesting article treaty in your face account essay on street photography, which can be viewed from the link below and is the subject of this rambling post.

Street Photography for the purist - by Chris Weeks

(You will need to click on the download link there to get the PDF)

I just want to give a few of my comments to his essay here, so as it is not seen that I agree entirely with what he says, for some of it is an ego trip banter. is not entirely in line with my feelings on the subject.

For a start, I would suggest you should could skip the forwards written by various other street photogs. They are pretty dull and all mostly say the same thing smacking of someone being rather chuffed to have been asked to write a forward and in their excitement wrote something very nice that says nothing. That will take you to page 49. (Holy cow, that’s a serious amount of “Forwards”)

In fact even page 49, which is Weeks’ preface doesn’t get into the full swing of his in ya face, stuff it down ya throat style which Weeks’ adopts from page 50 onwards.

So, page 50 onwards is where it is at. Weeks’ style of writing here is almost prose like, and for me really works here. It gets quite rhythmic… ooops, starting to get into wind of a long nature again.

So, to keep it short, I agree with everything that Weeks’ says.

OK, so I don’t, and it won’t be that short. What I will do to keep it short and oh so sweet is tell you where I do not agree with him, or find something that I can nit-pick observe, or that I think is poignant.

For a start, Weeks’ theory that to take meaningful street photos you need to have an empathy with the subjects, “Because you have to love people. Street Photography is about sympathy, not hate. It is about community”, as Weeks states. Well, yes, I agree with that sentiment, but then I find that Weeks’ personal view of others is somewhat less understanding. “Trust me. Or don’t. Again, I don’t really give a flying fuck.” Hmmm, doesn’t really smack as a caring and sharing, sympathetic type?

One analogy he uses which I think is perfection is that of comparing street photography to golf, “Golf cannot be forced much like street photography cannot be squeezed as juice from fruit at will.” There are so many similarities between golf and photography in general, it is shocking. It is something that takes a lifetime to never master. It is fickle and usually lets you down when you need it most, and often delights when you least expect. I also found one line particularly humorous, and pretty much sums up how I ended up feeling about golf after my dabbling, “Like I had five hours to waste on a golf course with my friends getting all fucked up.” Bingo.

Right then, back to slagging the man off discussing some of my more negative criticisms of Weeks’ piece.

I think there is a fine line between what tool works best for a job and what tool you have to use to get the job done. Weeks repeatedly claims that you cannot participate in true street photography unless you are using a rangefinder, and goes on to say that the rangefinder better damn well be a Leica. I disagree – in a way. I understand his point, but I think it would be more accurate to say that using a rangefinder will result in a lot more successful street photos, and basically makes the whole process much easier. I don’t agree that you cannot take true street photos with anything else; a good street photo is a good street photo no matter how you get there. The points he makes as to why he believes that the rangefinder is the only tool for the job are spot on, for example the controls on rangefinders permit setting AND shooting from the hip, zone focusing (although older SLR lenses had them too - why the bloody hell not now?) but I think that they just state why the rangefinder is a better tool for the job rather than showing why they are the ONLY tool for the job. To go into the Leica territory, in terms of taking photos, there is little to separate them from any other rangefinder with equal function (ignoring lenses, as I don’t really consider anything without an M mount worth considering). However, they are quieter and more robust than anything else, but that has little effect, in most situations, on the outcome of the photo. To be fair, Weeks says pretty much the same thing when discussing non-Leica rangefinders. He also gets wound up by digital photographers, “pumping the fuck out of your contrast is ugly and proves you don’t know what you’re doing…” suggesting that pumping up contrast of an image deteriorates its validity as a street photo. Hmm. If done correctly, I see little difference between that and choosing a high contrast paper to print from film onto or pushing/pulling the exposure/development, the overall result is the same and looking at most of Weeks’ photographs I would guess that most are the result of traditional darkroom techniques to increase contrast. (I deduce this from the fact that he mostly uses Ilford Delta films, which are not by their nature as contrasty as the resulting images.)

All in all though, a great read; especially if you are interested in street photography. Sections like his beating up on “fondlers” or “pixel peepers” rings so so true; or maybe it is just that I share his downright contempt negative feelings on such people. When he talks of the “fondlers hero” I assume he is referring to a certain Leicaphile whose surname is also linked to golf, ya know those little shots that you do near the whole, and for all the great work that this guy does in lens testing, somehow in the context of photography it all slips into place when Weeks says of him, “I think that the award for making hot Dutch girls look like shit should be awarded to this guy.”

Go read it.

Damn damn damn – that was too long again. Must try harder

Oh, and to make this post EVEN longer than it already is, I am going to post something else!!! In fact I might make this a regular addendum to my posts. It is called “What the Duck” and if you are photographically orientated it is superb. Check them out on Sweet Jelly.