Help me understand street photography

telenous said:
It certainly seems to me that 'Street photography' need not be made on the street at all.
Click to expand...
As was said in one of these (perennial) threads earlier last year, most of it is really "sidewalk | footpath photography".

telenous said:
About the conventional label 'street photography' - I have no gripes with it even if it is just a misnomer. And I 'd be unconcerned if it were called 'Not-street-photography-strictly-speaking-because-that-would-be-a-misnomer-and-we-don't-like-that' or 'Something-something-photography-I-forget-what-right-now'.

But I 'd still try to do it in the best way I could.
Click to expand...
For reasons set out here I tend not to call any of my photos "street" because there always seems to be somebody "policing the boundaries" of what (they personally believe) is or isn't "street photography", and because, as mhv said:

mhv said:
...but my point is simply that too many people believe they are The Sh!t because they do street.
Click to expand...

I certainly don't think I'm "The Sh!t", and if people are going to make the inference that I do, just because some photo of mine is called "street", then, well, I'd prefer not to apply that label to my photos. I try to take photos that please me, some of which are of people in urban settings. That's because I find people interesting, possibly because I'm one of them (or at least a reasonable approximation), and because I'm often in an urban environment as I seem to be living in a city. Sometimes I do manage a photo that pleases me, and its an added bonus if someone else likes it as well (and sometimes they do).

But it seems that the moment the term "street photography" gets thrown around, tempers start to flare. I'm not quite sure why, though the resulting fuss can be interesting in a "train wreck" sort of way. I'd be more interested in people's ideas of what works and what doesn't in "spontaneous portrait" or "urban life" types of photos - and am sure that people will differ about that. Those differences would probably be interesting in a more productive way. But the moment such opinions are related to the term "street photography" it seems that many take leave of their senses.

Oh well...

...Mike
 
Last edited:
Oh, the joys of a good street fight. As opposed to street photography.

Can I get anyone a beer while there's a break in the action?
 
aizan said:
life is still published?!
Click to expand...
No I don't think so.

I have a book, 'The great LIFE photographers'. The stories of how they did their job (and died doing it in many cases) is extraordinary and makes the photos all the more incredible.

You're not going to rip on them too are ya? :)

John
 
Ducky said:
We have threads about blacking out cameras. There was a thread aboout a hip-holster for stealth shooting. There has been a lot of advice about such things and it's lost on me.
Click to expand...

If it makes you feel any better, right before opening this thread I was attaching a graflock & creating focus scales on a 4x5 Speed Graphic with the intention of going out and shooting people. Stealth? What dat?
 
Pitxu said:
I thought I'd check out your gallery to see if I could learn something, but oh, you don't have a gallery.

Don't critizise anyones photos if you don't post any yourself.
Click to expand...

Gee, what are you, four years old? "You can't criticize if you don't post." Who decides that?

And what difference will it make? I told you I am just a sh!tty little photographer, and you won't like my pictures anyway.
 
Last edited:
Pitxu said:
I think that I might have been getting a bit mixed up with yourself and "mhv" who said my school kids shot was "dead" and "held no life".
Click to expand...

Well, I haven't said it, but if you want I can say it.

Your school kid shot is dead and holds no life. Happy now?

All I said was that your photo was not to the standard of your pretension.
 
Last edited:
mfunnell said:
But it seems that the moment the term "street photography" gets thrown around, tempers start to flare. I'm not quite sure why, though the resulting fuss can be interesting in a "train wreck" sort of way. I'd be more interested in people's ideas of what works and what doesn't in "spontaneous portrait" or "urban life" types of photos - and am sure that people will differ about that. Those differences would probably be interesting in a more productive way. But the moment such opinions are related to the term "street photography" it seems that many take leave of their senses.

Oh well...

...Mike
Click to expand...
Dear Mike,

Like you, I am utterly puzzled by people trying to put restrictive definitions on 'street photography' -- who cares how they define it? -- but unlike you, I'd not encountered this strange world-picture before. On the basis of this thread, I'd completely agree with the quote above.

Cheers,

R.
 
good mornin:)
I see the thread still lives. Great.
I also see it started getting back to the question. Even better :D

Doesn't matter if it's english, french, or malayalam, no language is adequate enough to communicate through the internet. Not when feelings get involved and people start feeling offended.
Even "emoticons" don't help enough, although they do help to avoid lots of confusion.
 
Maybe the thread ought to focus on why the subject of street photography is so catalytic.

I don't get it. Photos are photos. A few are good, most aren't.
 
My wife has asked me the same question about street photography. "Where would you hang up framed street photos? Who would look at them? Why have them in our home? Isn't this a waste of money?

When you have little children, and family photos are expected, you get such questions.

I am soooo glad that I see all the answers in the above postings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom