Very interesting, thanks for sharing, Shakester.
Very impressive. I could look at photos of decades past all day long. These are excellent pictures. Thank you for sharing.
The photos make me want to take the cameras out for a stroll. I love B&W, and every time I go downtown I see opportunities for making pictures. I’m thinking I should use the Nikon Fm3.
I wonder what is the protocol for taking pictures of people?
As far as the (U.S.) law, you’re in the clear if they’re public area with no expectation of privacy. For example, a person sitting on a park bench is fair game. Technically, taking pictures of buildings (from the outside) is also legal as well, but a lot of photogs get themselves into trouble taking pictures of government buildings and dealing with cops that don’t know the laws WRT photography. In fact, the same goes for people, like I said, if they’re in the public, you’re in the clear, but a lot of people don’t know that and are under the assumption that you can’t take pictures of them without their permission. People tend to also be very weird about you taking pictures of their kids (for obvious reasons). I know a lot of photogs will fight this, but the fact that you’re asking this question tells me you’re probably not one of them and more willing to take the advice of…just walk away. It’s easier to just not take a picture of an unwilling subject then deal with an angry person…it’s easier to find a different building then deal with a cop who thinks you’re planning to blow up the building. It’s easier to let someone else fight the good fight so to speak. I’ve seen photogs on my photog message board end up with busted cameras or under arrest this way. Sure they eventually get released and have their tickets dropped, but IMO it’s just not worth it.
Personally, I just try to keep people out of the pictures, but then I’ve never been a people picture taker.
What I was getting at re: protocol is this:
Many of the photos in the OP are portraits. I imagine Maier approached them and simply asked if she could take their photos. Others are candid shots, and it’s plain that there was no need to ask. But some of the photos depict people in less-than-ideal situations. I’d be embarrassed to have my photo taken were I them. (Or is it ‘they’?) Yet some of the most interesting images I see as I walk around Belltown are ones of people who are about their business. To ask them for a photo would take them out of the moment and turn the photo into a portrait instead of a ‘street scene’. Of course I don’t want to start a ruckus.
FWIW, these are photos I’d like to get: I often see women who are striking in some way. Maybe they’re portraying a vintage style. Maybe they’re punks. But for a guy to walk up to a strange woman and ask for a photo? In this day and age? Not likely! I’m no perv, but I am a guy. Non-perv guys just don’t do That Sort Of Thing. There’s also a homeless woman who hangs out near the shelter by the office. I suspect she has mental issues. She’s ‘older’ and dresses in many layers. (In the Winter she stuffs her trousers with free newspapers for insulation.) She has an interesting face. Not pretty, but there seems to be… something. Some sort of dignity about her face. She’d make a good portrait.
I’m kind of tired of taking photos of inanimate objects.
I’m really looking forward to the movie they’re making about her life. In addition to shooting snapshots, she also did a lot of video and audio interviews with many of the people she photographed. Going through that website that davidm so kindly provided, has been very cool. Seeing the contents of her storage lockers was amazing!
One of the advantages of the twin lens reflex (TLR) that she was using is that you look down onto it. There’s a glass top that is a mirrored view of what the top lens sees. The photograph is taken from the lower lens. Because she’s not holding a camera up to her face it’s far less obvious that she’s even taking photos. That makes candids a lot easier. I also find the waist/chest level point of view more pleasing than the head-level shot.
Or maybe that only works now-days since the majority of people have no idea what a TLR camera is. I had one of mine at a park once and folks thought it was brand new and very expensive – not a 50 year old camera I paid maybe $75 for.
Keep in mind this was a medium format camera. The negatives are quite a bit larger than 35mm. This, plus the nice lenses most Rollis came allows for some very sharp shots.
Edit: I really loved the photos. Some stunning stuff.
Always wanted a TLR. I’ve already got too many cameras, though.
The archivist missed knowing her by only a few days! He had her collection of things from her storage locker for over a year before finding an envelope with her name on it. A search online gave him an obituary from just a few days earlier, announcing her passing.
I can’t believe how much time I’ve spent on this today.
IMHO, you still have some options. As far as taking pictures of females (as you mentioned) have a female go along with you and let her ask. It’ll come off as much less pervy. For homeless people, perhaps offering them a dollar or a cigarette or something as compensation. For the candids, I’d say, just take them and as long as they don’t notice you, just keep moving, no need to bring it to their attention. But I agree, you can’t take a candid shot when people know you’re doing it. Last summer I did a wedding photoshoot with a friend. He did all the formal stuff, I did the candids. These are the two most unphotogenic people I’ve ever met. A picture like this doesn’t happen when they know the camera is out. Also, if you’re not planning to sell these, I really wouldn’t be worried, but if you want to you could setup a photobucket page and when you ask someone if you can take their picture, just make sure you let them know that it’s purely for hobby and if they want they can check it out on your page. From there you’ll have to decide on your own if you’re okay with them copying it and doing what they want with it. I mean, they WILL do that if they chose to, but you might want to watermark the pictures.
These are so freaking fascinating. I’m marveling at a woman who, on the one hand, literally saw herself in much of her work, playing with reflections and shadows of herself in the frame. And, on the other hand, never developed the film! I mean, she just shut *herself *in that storage locker until she couldn’t pay the rent. That’s just…woah…
Sorry, I’m probably not making much sense, but I’m still spinning emotionally from viewing these. This one, in particular, made me gasp out loud. I see a “modern” day Demeter in that photograph.
Saw this a few months ago–there’s been an exhibition of her work here in Chicago at the Cultural Center since January or February, and there was a bit of a buzz about her at that time (at least from several of my Facebook friends. I forgot what started it–maybe an article in the Tribune, or something). I haven’t been to the show, but the work I’ve seen online is absolutely phenomenal. I’m impressed not just by the characters and the street scenes, but also by here eye for light, geometry, and composition, and the compositional range of her work–from literal street scenes and character studies to quasi-abstract compositions based on characters, shapes, and shades. Unbelievable that this stuff was sitting around in a closet for all these years.
I’m glad others are enjoying these pics as much as I did, and thank you for thanking me.
I meant things that were designed for playing sports in. Track suits, sweatpants, that sort of thing. Anything made of Lycra. Anything made by Nike. I hate that stuff with a passion.
So, yeah, I pretty much hate all mainstream streetwear designed after 1980, and the 70s only gets a partial credit because I am amused by the over-the-top glam and disco eras.
Hey Johnny, there are tricks that street photographers use.
That twin lens reflex is handy because she could turn the camera so the lenses pointed to the left or right, so she could face 90-degrees away from the subject while snapping a photo.
Also, a street photographer might linger in the area, pretending to snap some innocent pictures of passing traffic, while setting the camera up for the real shot. Then they swing around and catch the real photo in mid arc, without letting the person know what they did.
Somehow I imagine she just smiled and many people posed for her. Like that young girl resting on folded arms on the car door.
Makes me want to hop on a train to NY tomorrow and take some street photos (mine would be much lamer, though).
Thanks for sharing this Shakester!
That’s why I love old Kodachrome photos from the Fifties.
Here’s solid proof that there was color in the 1950s!
(A different photographer altogether. But awesome color)
I can’t tell how old she is. My late mother was born in 1934, so she would have been about 20 when that photo was taken. I didn’t come around until the '60s. That ‘young girl’ is old enough to be my mother!
Gret photos, but why on earth is the word “death” censored in the page title? Is death a dirty word now?
Amazing. A talented writer could make an interesting story about every one of those photos. I love the woman near the strip bar, one foot bare. Was that a shoe in her hand?
There’s another photo with three women, each wearing the same style of shoe. Did they shop together, or did one woman buy a pair and the others liked them so much they bought them too? But one woman didn’t want to be a copycat so she bought hers in white.
The guy sleeping on the beach – drunk, homeless, dead?