This is street photography?

i think Garry Winogrand said it best.

“I hate the term, I think it’s a stupid term: “street photography”. I don’t think it makes any –It doesn’t tell you anything about the photographer or work, in a way.

You know on the subject, I have a book out called ‘The Animals’. Call me a ‘Zoo photographer’ –- the whole thing doesn’t make any sense to me.”

the winner and runner ups are great photographers no doubt though.. excellent composition.
 
steveniphoto said:
i think Garry Winogrand said it best.

“I hate the term, I think it’s a stupid term: “street photography”. I don’t think it makes any –It doesn’t tell you anything about the photographer or work, in a way.

You know on the subject, I have a book out called ‘The Animals’. Call me a ‘Zoo photographer’ –- the whole thing doesn’t make any sense to me.”

the winner and runner ups are great photographers no doubt though.. excellent composition.
Click to expand...

Agree!!!!!!
 
Peter de Krom is an excellent photographer.... and his winning shot fits *my* view of contemporary street photography. My favorite of his? no.... but there are plenty that I'm a big fan of.

Regarding the winning shot... IMO - it's a wonderful capture. The composition, setting, background and surrounding elements all blend in nicely.

I noticed Caspar Claasen is in there as well.... (3rd runner up). love his simple (not to be mistaken with "easy") style.
 
jsrockit said:
I always feel that RFF has way too narrow of a definition of what street photography is or can be...
Click to expand...
Quite. I'd go further: "too narrow of a definition of what photography is... ".

These photographs put the majority seen on RFF to shame.*If people can't see the careful, extremely considered compositions nor understand the thoughtful sometimes hilarious comment on modern life in these images, then I think your understanding of photography is way too shallow or narrow - or both.

Now, we can all disagree what constitutes the rather vague and flexible genre of "street photography", and that's fine and expected. But anyone dissing these winning photographs as poor snapshots is just ignorant - at least about photography.

Whatever your definition of "street", it should include comment on the human condition, as these do - otherwise it's just taking banal, vacuous pictures, even if well composed (like many photographs on RFF).
 
For me, this competition turned out to be a two-horse race, with ''Runner Up'' No. 4 winning by a country mile, followed home at several lengths by No.9.

Every other entry fell into the 'also ran' category...
 
I don't consider myself to be an art critic but I do agree with Dave, there are much better photographs in the galleries of this forum.
Pete
 
second prize and 6th runner-up fit the bill for me. i looked at second prize guy's entries. definitely a street aroma to them.

i shoot a lot of "street" elements with no people. i wouldn't ever call those photos street photographs, though. i guess i am brainwashed by the hcb school on the street genre ...
 
RichC said:
Quite. I'd go further: "too narrow of a definition of what photography is... ".

These photographs put the majority seen on RFF to shame.*If people can't see the careful, extremely considered compositions nor understand the thoughtful sometimes hilarious comment on modern life in these images, then I think your understanding of photography is way too shallow or narrow - or both.

Now, we can all disagree what constitutes the rather vague and flexible genre of "street photography", and that's fine and expected. But anyone dissing these winning photographs as poor snapshots is just ignorant - at least about photography.

Whatever your definition of "street", it should include comment on the human condition, as these do - otherwise it's just taking banal, vacuous pictures, even if well composed (like many photographs on RFF).
Click to expand...

Well Rich, I'll take the highlighted statement above as a direct refutation of my comment on that winning photo in my original post. I might also add that I'd be very hard pressed to come up with a "...definition of what photography is..." But we're not actually discussing "photography" per se; rather, the subject is a small subset of that vast category. Just as portrait photography is a subset of the whole of photography. Just as the quite beautiful photos on your own home page are.

In an earlier post, #8, FrankS offered a definition of street photography to which I thoroughly subscribe. To wit: "For me, street photography has to include at least one person, outside, in a public space.
If there is no person, then the image is architectural, landscape, urban landscape, or still life, etc, etc." Whether one disagrees with Frank's definition, or the artistic merit, or the very existence of the genre is really beside the point. It is what it is.

So, let me put my money where my mouth is with an example from my own portfolio. You'll find it here, http://www.pbase.com/hlockwood/image/126160320. (I was unable to post the image except as a thumbnail, which doesn't do it justice.)

This is a shot of an attractive young woman, alone in an open pedicab, in a crowded area of midtown Manhattan. She looks vaguely uncomfortable, why? There is, in the background, a more traditional taxi which offers a contrast to her chosen mode of transportation. The pedicab driver is anxiously waiting for the traffic light to change. What is he thinking about? In my view, the photo raises questions and suggests a story. It fits my idea of what used to be called "candid" photography - unposed, capturing a (decisive?) moment in time. In other words, "street" photography, probably not at its best but illustrative of the subset of photography I happen to enjoy.

So, fire away.

HFL

[Moderator inserts photo....]
 
There's fantastic work in that selection from nearly all of the winners and runners-up. I see photographs made with keen eyes, sharp insight, excellent composition, and wonderful use of context. I laughed out loud several times at the wit displayed in some of the photos.

I'm glad this particular contest wasn't concerned about whether the entrants hewed closely to convention. It's true that the style of several of the entrants seems to be rather distant from the subjects and include a large amount of their surroundings, and that's the only meaningful difference I see here in comparison to a stereotypical "street" shot.
 
regularchickens said:
There's fantastic work in that selection from nearly all of the winners and runners-up. I see photographs made with keen eyes, sharp insight, excellent composition, and wonderful use of context. I laughed out loud several times at the wit displayed in some of the photos.

I'm glad this particular contest wasn't concerned about whether the entrants hewed closely to convention. It's true that the style of several of the entrants seems to be rather distant from the subjects and include a large amount of their surroundings, and that's the only meaningful difference I see here in comparison to a stereotypical "street" shot.
Click to expand...

+1. I agree with you.
 
paulfish4570 said:
second prize and 6th runner-up fit the bill for me. i looked at second prize guy's entries. definitely a street aroma to them.

i shoot a lot of "street" elements with no people. i wouldn't ever call those photos street photographs, though. i guess i am brainwashed by the hcb school on the street genre ...
Click to expand...

HCB hated the label decisive moment and he invented it. I think he would even object more than Winogrand to a label like "Street" and I am just as guilty of the next because I use the term all the time but probably shouldn't. I say ts all just photography. I do think there is a lot more to good urban or dare I say street work than just candids or snap shot photos of people on the street. There needs to be shape, leading lines, repeating shapes and or many other visual elements that contribute to form that constitute a good photograph no matter what the genre. I do think there are some really strong images that are in the competition. The second prize image (Gustavo Gomes) is very strong. Robert Frank would love that image.
 
RichC said:
Quite. I'd go further: "too narrow of a definition of what photography is... ".

These photographs put the majority seen on RFF to shame.*If people can't see the careful, extremely considered compositions nor understand the thoughtful sometimes hilarious comment on modern life in these images, then I think your understanding of photography is way too shallow or narrow - or both.

Now, we can all disagree what constitutes the rather vague and flexible genre of "street photography", and that's fine and expected. But anyone dissing these winning photographs as poor snapshots is just ignorant - at least about photography.

Whatever your definition of "street", it should include comment on the human condition, as these do - otherwise it's just taking banal, vacuous pictures, even if well composed (like many photographs on RFF).
Click to expand...

Dear Rich,

I will be very happy if you'll explain what makes the winning photo a great street photography shot and not a boring snap shot (to me and to others narrow minded who producing banal even when well composed pictures).
It's always good to learn something new (no irony here). Please note I don't care what kind of pictures you like and how open minded you might be, I just really want to know what strikes you in the winning photo.

Regards,

Boris
 
Im with Boris, I just don't get how any of the photographs from the winner's submission were good in the slightest.

Street photography to me is an observation of every day life in public settings. A good street photograph in my opinion is one that, while working in that framework, captures moments of extreme emotionality. A heated exchange between strangers, a passionate kiss, two friends reuniting, a drunkard being thrown out of a hostess club, etc. Basically I see it as a portrayal of the small miracles, but many of these photos seem to focus on the exact opposite; the most banal and commonplace occurrences.

I am not sure I will ever understand them or think they are any good, but I am open to trying, I suppose.
 
taskoni said:
Dear Rich,

I will be very happy if you'll explain what makes the winning photo a great street photography shot and not a boring snap shot (to me and to others narrow minded who producing banal even when well composed pictures).
It's always good to learn something new (no irony here). Please note I don't care what kind of pictures you like and how open minded you might be, I just really want to know what strikes you in the winning photo.

Regards,

Boris
Click to expand...

I'll post my comments on the winning image if thats OK. As already atated I'm not as big a fan of it as of course the judges or Rich but I still see visual merit. One truly great photographer once told me the ONLY rule that you ever need to know is either everything in the frame is helping your visual statement or if its not helping then its hurting it. Things should not be just there in strong images.

Ok now to Peter de Croms winning shot.

I really do like the use of space and how little this man look in context to the environment he is in and that he is standing in nature and looking at the approaching future. The line in the grasses lead your eye to the man that is naked like Adam was in the garden of eden which is being slowly squeezed out of existence. The haze is a product of what is to come. Like most really good work this works on more than an immediate gratification level and actually has a deeper social message. I love this quote by Ralph Gibson
"A good photograph, like a good painting, speaks with a loud voice and demands time and attention if it is to be fully perceived. An art lover is perfectly willing to hang a painting on a wall for years on end, but ask him to study a single photograph for ten unbroken minutes and he’ll think it’s a waste of time. Staying power is difficult to build into a photograph. Mostly, it takes content. A good photograph can penetrate the subconscious – but only if it is allowed to speak for however much time it needs to get there." - Ralph Gibson

Thats my 2 cents.... And I still like the second prize image better.
 
taskoni said:
I will be very happy if you'll explain what makes the winning photo a great street photography shot and not a boring snap shot
Click to expand...

It is no snapshot, but part of a series studying the behaviour of a group of solitary nudists on the beaches around Hoek van Holland - apparently a local social phenomenon. The photographer gives an explanation of the subject in the accompanying text. Did you miss the portfolios?

By the way, the picture in itself would be interesting in a Gursky way, with its odd duplication of industrial architecture on the horizon behind the chaotic texture of the dunes - it either is a strangely conceived post-processing manipulation or a highly unique vantage point. It certainly has a lot of structure and rhythm to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom