.ken
I like pictures
This is more of a question. How would you teach someone who is familiar with other types of photography, to appreciate street photographs. For example, how can you explain to them what to look for in a good SP, especially photos that are out of the "standard" composition and a bit more abstract (I recall Mark Cohen shots where heads are cut off)... possibly Gilden shots that are off the "typical" scale that most people will identify with. I think HCB has more "classical" style and easier to digest, but others don't have the same effect. But how do you communicate this with others who in general appreciate flowers, rainbows and kittens... who think that blur is no good, or tilted shots are weird. etc...
All your comments are appreciated, and I'm not here to start any ruckus... I want to find the best way to communicate this to people who at this time do not appreciate SP.
All your comments are appreciated, and I'm not here to start any ruckus... I want to find the best way to communicate this to people who at this time do not appreciate SP.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
I'm not sure street photography is an acquired taste. People seem to either love it or hate it.
ferider
Veteran
.ken said:
That feels like a pretty good description, Ken, of your street photography. Nice gallery. Some great photos, that to me would speak much more than any verbal description of what the genre is that they are supposed to fit in.
Cheers,
Roland.
Merkin
For the Weekend
I tend to disagree with that. I was raised on a steady diet of f/64 photographers, particularly (of course) ansel adams. For a long time, I simply wasn't interested in photographs with people in them, and I would go out of my way while shooting to make sure that there weren't any people in my shots. Gradually, my tastes changed, and I am now to the point where most (but certainly not all) landscapes bore me. I don't know exactly how a lot of people define "street" photography, but I prefer more of a documentary style, and the vast majority of my shooting is in urban (or occasionally suburban if I want to instill my photographs with a strong sense of loathing
), and whether they have people in them or not, I definitely want to tell some sort of a story with my images. This is a pretty sizeable shift from my old days of composition heavy, never without a tripod, landscape and architectural shooting. That's just me though, I could be an exception rather than a rule..ken- I don't know about how to teach people to like street photography, but from my experience in my hometown as the local music snob, I have found that an important factor is to minimize expectations, not build whatever you are trying to hip someone to up too much, and generally let the work speak for itself. If they don't seem to dig it, don't worry about it, just politely ask them what it is about the work that they don't like. Start a little intellectual discussion, but don't push. Let the other person do the majority of the talking. If all else fails, use the Socratic method on them. You might then be able to suggest work that would be more akin to their tastes.
.ken
I like pictures
Thanks... I am actually helping out and doing a small "presentation" talking about street photography. Although I know the basics of what to explain, I'm trying to figure out if there's an actual way of explaining what one should look for in a good photo. It's one of those conundrums I guess ;-). Since a lot of good street photos just seem to "work" even if they break certain rules.
I'll have to pull some stuff from history books I think...
I'll have to pull some stuff from history books I think...
visiondr
cyclic iconoclast
I really don't think an appreciation for whatever you or anyone defines street photography as needs to be any more complex than learning about the basic principles of proportion, line, perspective, colour etc. in western classical art. Most people wouldn't know the "golden ratio" if it slapped them in the face. Start with the basics if you must teach it. Once that appreciation is embedded, then, an image will stand or fall based on its composition and/or emotional impact.
Andrew Sowerby
Well-known
Maybe I'm just lazy, but my approach would be to show some photos that are generally accepted to be very good examples of street photography and ask the viewers whether they like the photos or not and why.
Of course, you should probably have a back up plan in case no one says anything.
Of course, you should probably have a back up plan in case no one says anything.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I think street photography is not different than landscape photography, except the subject is people living their lives.
Some seem to have a preconceived notion that this reflects poor or weird taste. To achieve your goal, you have to get them over this.
Start by showing them the classics, ask them what they see, then tell them what you see. You can't "teach" appreciation.
Some seem to have a preconceived notion that this reflects poor or weird taste. To achieve your goal, you have to get them over this.
Start by showing them the classics, ask them what they see, then tell them what you see. You can't "teach" appreciation.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Think of it the same as wildlife photography, except that you can get a lot closer to the animals and shoot in urban areas.
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
Sounds like you're trying to convince someone of their value. I don't think they HAVE any inherent value. It's what the viewer brings to the experience.
For example: i don't really have any affinity toward Street Photos, unless they were shot A)with some sort of historical reference. I might like seeing how the world looked 60 years ago. Or 30 years ago. B)some sort of world/anthropological reference. I would be interested in seeing a 'street' in Nepal, TODAY, but not in seeing a street in Detroit TODAY. In both instances, composition is less the key than 'novelty' or 'foreignness.'
Pointing out things like cropped-off heads isn't really a demonstration of what TO appreciate. Just mentioning that seems to indicate that you believe those characteristics give the images added value. That's a matter of taste. It's also a matter of evaluating whether something was intentional or not, and then applying or diminishing value based on intent or accident.
Any kind of photography - it's like buying a pair of shoes. You can walk into a room with a thousand people in it, and not see anyone wearing the same pair of shoes you have on. Because everyone else has made a different aesthetic choice. You may see people with shoes you like better than your own, but do you believe you can convince the person standing next to you that the shoes on the third person are better than his own?
For example: i don't really have any affinity toward Street Photos, unless they were shot A)with some sort of historical reference. I might like seeing how the world looked 60 years ago. Or 30 years ago. B)some sort of world/anthropological reference. I would be interested in seeing a 'street' in Nepal, TODAY, but not in seeing a street in Detroit TODAY. In both instances, composition is less the key than 'novelty' or 'foreignness.'
Pointing out things like cropped-off heads isn't really a demonstration of what TO appreciate. Just mentioning that seems to indicate that you believe those characteristics give the images added value. That's a matter of taste. It's also a matter of evaluating whether something was intentional or not, and then applying or diminishing value based on intent or accident.
Any kind of photography - it's like buying a pair of shoes. You can walk into a room with a thousand people in it, and not see anyone wearing the same pair of shoes you have on. Because everyone else has made a different aesthetic choice. You may see people with shoes you like better than your own, but do you believe you can convince the person standing next to you that the shoes on the third person are better than his own?
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
Maybe I'm just lazy, but my approach would be to show some photos that are generally accepted to be very good examples of street photography and ask the viewers whether they like the photos or not and why.
Of course, you should probably have a back up plan in case no one says anything.
But, which pictures are "generally accepted" to be good? Could any of us, for example, agree? Everyone raves about HCB's puddle jumper. Personally, i think it's one of the most overrated, overhyped images ever.... And, don't get me started on Bruce Gilden.
Another issue: What, exactly, IS street photography? Does it have to be candid? Does it have to be shot in an 'urban' environment?
Merkin
For the Weekend
To whom are you giving this lecture? Do you have any idea about their level of photographic knowledge?
russianRF
Fed 5C User
Street photography is a genre within a practice of art, and like any genre, there are debates about which artists/works are best, and even debates as to the relevance of the whole thing.
I agree that the HCB puddle jumper is a bit over rated. Then again, when I was completing my English major, "Wasteland" rocked my world, and I had friends who thought it was wildly over rated.
Teaching someone something is a very personal experience; indeed, Plato was one of the first people to worry about the negative influence of technology when he wondered if the written word would rob people of the experience of learning by talking directly with a master/teacher (it has).
You can't make someone appreciate art. You can't even define art with the same precision as, say, science. You can only show what has been meaningful to you, personally, and maybe explain why it has been such a powerful statement in your life. In regards to street photography, I'd be willing to be that if the 'pupil' has any affinity for photography in general, that person will find something in street photography to love. Teach them with the same personal investment that Plato had with his students; show them what moves you, and question them about their response to the work you show them. If they don't eventually pick up an appreciation, then perhaps they weren't meant to.
I agree that the HCB puddle jumper is a bit over rated. Then again, when I was completing my English major, "Wasteland" rocked my world, and I had friends who thought it was wildly over rated.
Teaching someone something is a very personal experience; indeed, Plato was one of the first people to worry about the negative influence of technology when he wondered if the written word would rob people of the experience of learning by talking directly with a master/teacher (it has).
You can't make someone appreciate art. You can't even define art with the same precision as, say, science. You can only show what has been meaningful to you, personally, and maybe explain why it has been such a powerful statement in your life. In regards to street photography, I'd be willing to be that if the 'pupil' has any affinity for photography in general, that person will find something in street photography to love. Teach them with the same personal investment that Plato had with his students; show them what moves you, and question them about their response to the work you show them. If they don't eventually pick up an appreciation, then perhaps they weren't meant to.
Andrew Sowerby
Well-known
There are photographs in any genre that are well-known and highly regarded by people interested in that particular genre and photography generally. The same can be said about literature and the fine arts. It can be interesting to discuss the value of stuff in the canon, but denying that it exists is sophomoric.
.ken
I like pictures
Again thanks all, your comments and even though very different points, all seem valid! It's a matter of opinion, taste etc... that's art and that's life.
I guess the best approach is to be personal about what moves me and what I like about the photographs.
The presentation will be to a local camera group, mostly older generation, some are quite well versed in various types of photography and others are not, so it's a wide range of subjects. I just want to approach it in a way that I can relay the right message to them without trying to be too philosophical about it and come off on a bad note. I'll be bringing some of my books to show the range of styles from HCB to Winogrand... you never know what clicks.
I guess the best approach is to be personal about what moves me and what I like about the photographs.
The presentation will be to a local camera group, mostly older generation, some are quite well versed in various types of photography and others are not, so it's a wide range of subjects. I just want to approach it in a way that I can relay the right message to them without trying to be too philosophical about it and come off on a bad note. I'll be bringing some of my books to show the range of styles from HCB to Winogrand... you never know what clicks.
MartinL
MartinL
I often rely on a framework for my professional (non-photo) work. It also helps me understand (and explain to a few) the challenges of street photography and why great street photography is so rare.
Accomplishing great street photos is opportunistic, idiosyncratic, and strategic:
Opportunistic: You can't shoot it if it's not there; but there's a chance that wherever you are, there might be a photo-worthy subject. Opportunities are mostly external--sometimes having little to do with the photographer; for example, quality of light; an accident, a kiss, a tantrum, a chance architectural juxtaposition that's filled with irony worth noting, and so forth.
Idiosyncratic: The photographer's "eye"? This refers to your seeing what others are less likely to see. You made the shot because you were the only one to see it, and even if I were standing at your side with my camera, I would not have taken (maybe, even noticed) the shot you got. This is not about "difference" but differences that matter to people who pay a lot of attention to photographs (people who go to museums and galleries, look at books, browse forums, etc.)
Strategic: Broadly, this involves preparation and includes all the threads and topics and off-topics we read about here, including the particulars of camera, lens, technical decisions. Finally, street photography places a higher burden on "anticipation" (which is just another dimension of preparation) than other photo genres in which there is often a greater measure of predictability.
Accomplishing great street photos is opportunistic, idiosyncratic, and strategic:
Opportunistic: You can't shoot it if it's not there; but there's a chance that wherever you are, there might be a photo-worthy subject. Opportunities are mostly external--sometimes having little to do with the photographer; for example, quality of light; an accident, a kiss, a tantrum, a chance architectural juxtaposition that's filled with irony worth noting, and so forth.
Idiosyncratic: The photographer's "eye"? This refers to your seeing what others are less likely to see. You made the shot because you were the only one to see it, and even if I were standing at your side with my camera, I would not have taken (maybe, even noticed) the shot you got. This is not about "difference" but differences that matter to people who pay a lot of attention to photographs (people who go to museums and galleries, look at books, browse forums, etc.)
Strategic: Broadly, this involves preparation and includes all the threads and topics and off-topics we read about here, including the particulars of camera, lens, technical decisions. Finally, street photography places a higher burden on "anticipation" (which is just another dimension of preparation) than other photo genres in which there is often a greater measure of predictability.
steffen
Poser
The only time I have to explain someone the concept of street photography is usually when they catch me photographing them in the street. I'm thinking a very, very, very concise definition would help.
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
Not sure why you are so sensitive about my response to your post. You kinda jumped ugly there. My QUESTION relative to which street photos might be "generally accepted to be very good examples of street photography" is "sophomoric?"
Perhaps i'm just not as good as you are, at deciding for the public what is good and what isn't good, especially in this particular genre. I only know what i like and what i don't and i don't presume to project those sentiments as a universal truth. There are, of course, a few pictures that people write about consistently. Then, other people write about them because other people have written about them. I don't ascribe any sort of "excellence" to them. They are merely 'famous.' But, famous pictures don't necessarily give a new audience any sense of what's might be valuable in the genre.
Out of all of the photographic books in a not too insignificant library, i don't believe i could choose 20 images that would be considered, with any consensus, to fit your characterization. I'd be very interested to know what your list would include. And, THAT was the basis of my question. It wasn't an assertion that there was no such group. I just know what it would be or how it would even be defined. If it's so firmly defined in your mind, no, the question needn't be asked. But, again, i'd like to know how you see things. And, also to see if the rest of us share your convictions.
Andrew Sowerby
Well-known
@ CK Dexter Haven: Sorry, I didn't mean to be ugly about it. My use of "sophomoric" wasn't called for.
Let me try again: There are plenty of famous examples of street photography. They're famous because a lot of people like them and find them interesting. Or maybe a lot of people like them and find them interesting because they're famous. At any rate, if you're going to teach people about street photography, why not start with the famous stuff (the canon) and ask people what they think of it? That suggestion is premised on the notion that people can and will disagree about the quality, value, relevance, etc. of those pictures.
Let me try again: There are plenty of famous examples of street photography. They're famous because a lot of people like them and find them interesting. Or maybe a lot of people like them and find them interesting because they're famous. At any rate, if you're going to teach people about street photography, why not start with the famous stuff (the canon) and ask people what they think of it? That suggestion is premised on the notion that people can and will disagree about the quality, value, relevance, etc. of those pictures.
Last edited:
Merkin
For the Weekend
Judging by your description, and by my personal experience with old timers in camera clubs, I assume these old timers are the sort that worship at the altar of ansel adams, and have most likely never shot at any aperture larger than f/8 in their lives. As such, I would choose example images that are heavier on architecture or landscape than on people, images that use a pretty deep DOF, and images with little or no motion blur. Also, I would throw in a few humorous images, such as Doisneau's portrait of Jaques Prevert. To make a music analogy, if you were trying to interest an Elvis Presley fan in Pink Floyd, you would probably have better luck with Dark Side of the Moon or The Division Bell than you would with Atom Heart Mother or The Piper at the Gates of Dawn. You might also want to pick a few images from The Family of Man, as the old timers will probably remember its significance.