Just for Fun No C&C will be given: Chilly bearers

These guys haul big sacks of dried red chillies. The place was an erstwhile palace of a Mughal emperor's daughter. Its Delhi's biggest spice market now. The place is difficult for outsiders like me as one can't stop sneezing. But this shot shows an interesting habit of people of India, ie keeping a small towel on their head.

You know, Prateek it's getting harder to comment meaningfully on your photos as they are all good.

You always manage to capture interesting people and situations - or are they more interesting to me because I don't live there and for your subjects they are 'routine' or even mundane? Familiarity breeds contempt goes the saying and I wonder whether they would recognise the beauty in the scenes that you clearly have an eye for and which appeals to spoilt westerners like me looking from the outside in.

Would it be fair to say, for instance, that perhaps your view of this part of the world is almost seen through a foreigner's or westerner's eyes. Would locals see the same beauty or interest in what you shoot? This is not a criticism, far from it as I said your photography is excellent by any standards, just a question that got me thinking about perception and what interests us and it's relationship to where we are standing. What is familiar and perhaps even boring and mundane to one person might be interesting to another simply because it is outside of their everyday consciousness.

Years ago when I first picked up an SLR I was living in Bahrain and shot general stuff around there BUT it was very familiar to me and wasn't actually that interesting at the time, but now with my film scanner I am rediscovering some of my old shots and seeing them in a new light with the benefit of distance and they are more interesting because they are no longer part of my everyday landscape. Does this make any sense to anyone but me?

Nigel Allan said:

You know, Prateek it's getting harder to comment meaningfully on your photos are they are all good.

You always manage to capture interesting people and situations - or are they more interesting to me because I don't live there and for your subjects they are 'routine' or even mundane? Familiarity breeds contempt goes the saying and I wonder whether they would recognise the beauty in the scenes that you clearly have an eye for and which appeals to spoilt westerners like me looking from the outside in.

Would it be fair to say, for instance, that perhaps your view of this part of the world is almost seen through a foreigner's or westerner's eyes. Would locals see the same beauty or interest in what you shoot? This is not a criticism, far from it as I said your photography is excellent by any standards, just a question that got me thinking about perception and what interests us and it's relationship to where we are standing. What is familiar and perhaps even boring and mundane to one person might be interesting to another simply because it is outside of their everyday consciousness.

Years ago when I first picked up an SLR I was living in Bahrain and shot general stuff around there BUT it was very familiar to me and wasn't actually that interesting at the time, but now with my film scanner I am rediscovering some of my old shots and seeing them in a new light with the benefit of distance and they are more interesting because they are no longer part of my everyday landscape. Does this make any sense to anyone but me?

Click to expand...

Hello Nigel,
I live in an upper-middle class environment which is far removed from the reality of existence my pictures portray. These pictures create a story even for most of us. Only these people ( whom I photograph) can tell whether it is of any value to them. As far as I'm concerned, I wish to create images which include as many elements as possible and yet create music . To most western audience it seems new ( I'm a regular at 1x ), colorful and full of texture. That is also my objective. Create compositions like a Led Zepplin number. I also try to stay away from India's underbelly. Many have scavanged India's poverty and become famous. Believe me, I've seen more contentment, happiness in the lives of these people than in those who run big export companies.

Nigel,
Thank you for expressing what's I have been unable to describe.
I agree, Pratek has offered us a window to a people and a culture with which we (at least I)are unfamiliar.
More so, he places himself in almost a netherword area, between what is visually familiar or comfortable to him, and us the viewer. He has a unique talent for capturing that familiarity while at the same time presenting the image to us in a manner we can comprehend.
I don't know if that makes any sense.
Prateek - you are a splendid image maker!
Thank you for sharing your part of the world with us.

Prateek Dubey said:

Hello Nigel,
I live in an upper-middle class environment which is far removed from the reality of existence my pictures portray. These pictures create a story even for most of us.

Click to expand...

So my question about whether you are seeing these scenes through the eyes of a foreigner is not so far from the truth as you live in a different world from your subjects. This is not a criticism, I was just curious as to whether you were recording your world or the world of others, if you understand my meaning and in no way diminishes your beautiful, thoughful, 'story-full', well executed images.

Paul Abbott takes great shots of 'street' people and homeless people in London although I am sure he himself is not homeless

If you have read any of my contributions you'll see that I sometimes start to question how we see things and even why we see certain things. Would an outsider see things differently from a local or someone who lives there or that existence? For example, if Paul Abbott gave his camera to one of the homeless people and allowed him to shoot things from his perspective on life would they turn out differently from Paul's images - notwithstanding Paul's incredible photographic skills and 'eye' which you also possess?

John Angulat said:

Nigel,
Thank you for expressing what's I have been unable to describe.
I agree, Pratek has offered us a window to a people and a culture with which we (at least I)are unfamiliar.
More so, he places himself in almost a netherword area, between what is visually familiar or comfortable to him, and us the viewer. He has a unique talent for capturing that familiarity while at the same time presenting the image to us in a manner we can comprehend.
I don't know if that makes any sense.
Prateek - you are a splendid image maker!
Thank you for sharing your part of the world with us.

Click to expand...

Hello John,
Thank you so much. You hit the nail on the head by refering to my existence in a netherworld. Its absolutly so true. I see 'that' world more in terms of texture and composition than as a documentry evidence. But these images end up having more appeal because they describe a world which is different than ours.

Nigel Allan said:

So my question about whether you are seeing these scenes through the eyes of a foreigner is not so far from the truth as you live in a different world from your subjects. This is not a criticism, I was just curious as to whether you were recording your world or the world of others, if you understand my meaning and in no way diminishes your beautiful, thoughtful, 'story-full', well executed images.

Paul Abbott takes great shots of 'street' people and homeless people in London although I am sure he himself is not homeless

If you have read any of my contributions you'll see that I sometimes start to question how we see things and even why we see certain things. Would an outsider see things differently from a local or someone who lives there or that existence? For example, if Paul Abbott gave his camera to one of the homeless people and allowed him to shoot things from his perspective on life would they turn out differently from Paul's images - notwithstanding Paul's incredible photographic skills and 'eye' which you also possess?

Click to expand...

Hello Nigel,
You're absolutely right. I'm an outsider and a foreigner to them. And because I sport o ponytail, I'm often mistaken as one. Oftentimes I feel lazy ( like I am these days) and wonder what will I capture if I went there again, but when I do go, even with a doubt, there is something interesting to learn and take back home as a memory.
I'll give you an interesting example to present my position . I'm by birth a Brahmin. Brahmins are the most revered caste in Indian society, especially amongst the hindus. Now in my world, i.e the upper middle class, cast system is not taken too seriously and intercaste and inter-religious marriages are common. So when I went to Barsana to take pictures of Holi festival, I was stopped by a young man. He was pretty aggressive and said that I'm going to misuse the pictures and show India in poor light. In the matter of conversation where I presented my case as being an Indian and rejoicing my culture (blah blah), he asked my name. When I told him , his attitude changed completely. He sat me down and explained to me the great fortune of being born a brahmin. Then he even took me to the best vantage points to shoot. I don't even care that I'm a Brahmin, but I confess that I've misused it to my advantage often, especially in Hindu gatherings. I also confess that my conduct is most un-brahminical. I eat meat and have eaten beef ( though I don't eat pork), I don't know even one ancient incantation and don't go to temples to pray ( keep this secret ). If these guys come to know of it, they'll kill me.
So basically I'm a voyuer, in a slightly better position than a foriegner, because I know the language ( in north India) and enjoying myself taking pictures.
Your question is an important one, which I've often asked myself. I'm trained as a fashion designer and that too by India's premier fashion school. I worked with one of India's top fashion designer and till 2006 was in the business of fashion. Believe me I got so sick of it, that I hardly bought a fashion magazine for 15 years. Stayed away from parties, lost many friends, and even today I'm least inclined to make fashion pictures. Though I consider fashion photography the most difficult art form. I think, out on the streets is my calling. Even if I took pictures of dogs.

Hi Prateek,

With your pictures you have captured our souls, attracted to the lives you show, like moths to the light. With your self-revelation, now, you have our hearts too!

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

Hi Prateek,

With your pictures you have captured our souls, attracted to the lives you show, like moths to the light. With your self-revelation, now, you have our hearts too!

Asher

Click to expand...

Hello Asher,
You're too kind. Thank you so much. I'm learning a lot of nuances about compositions and arguments of aesthetics just reading your posts, replies to pictures in other threads. Association with this forum is no doubt going to make me a better photographer.