2008 RFF Street Photography Contest: What is Street?

[Stephanie Brim]

Keep in mind that we've had countless "what is street photography" discussions over the years. That isn't really what this is about.

We can't really define street photography. It's an undefinable subject with many variations. It's a very broad theme.

What we can do here is decide how broad we want to be.

I say that we allow an open interpretation of the term 'street photography'. It's mostly a mindset anyway. Everyday people doing everyday things on the street. Everyday people doing amazing things on the street. Amazing people doing amazing things on the street.

So...what do we want it to be for this?

 

[MickH]

My interpretation would be "Everyday people doing everyday, or extraordinary things in a public place." Could be the street, could be indoors, could be in the countryside.

I don't mind. I'll abide by the rules, whatever they turn out to be.

Just tell us, girl!

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I don't really want it to be rules as such...more like guidelines that can be broken if a good opportunity comes along.

 

[photogdave]

As long as it's a candid photo of someone you don't know personally and it's in a public area or gathering place. So...
No shots of your buddies at the bar. No shots of performers on stage etc. Nothing posed or set up.

 

[MickH]

Keep in mind that we've had countless "what is street photography" discussions over the years. That isn't really what this is about.

We can't really define street photography. It's an undefinable subject with many variations. It's a very broad theme.
...

So...what do we want it to be for this?

OK it's past my bed time, so I'll offer this last thought as a guideline before I turn in: perhaps street photography can be defined as "Candid photographs taken in public spaces".

That'll do for me. I know how argumentative folk can be here, so I'll stick to that as a theme.

Thanks for coming up with the idea and putting up with us blokes getting all het-up about the minutiae.

Good night, and God bless.

 

[jayjee]

Yeah, I agree. Street photography is about special moments in public places which are captured in a photograph.

 

[Bingley]

I agree w/ photogdave and MickH above. There was an interesting comment over on RayPa's Urban Landscape Group on Flickr: urban landscape photography and street photography share certain similarities, but the former focuses on buildings and other structures or forms, while the latter focuses on people.

 

[gb hill]

Street photography is not photos of the dude sucking down a Rolling Rock inside the bar, but the wino who's passed out around the corner of the bar. Nor is it the band playing on stage at the club, but it's the bloke playing the saxophone at the intersection downtown. Keep the theme outside.

 

[RML]

As long as it's a candid photo of someone you don't know personally and it's in a public area or gathering place. So...
No shots of your buddies at the bar. No shots of performers on stage etc. Nothing posed or set up.

OK. Bye bye. I'm out.

 

[photogdave]

OK. Bye bye. I'm out.

What is it about my suggestion that puts you out? Do you think it's okay to pose street shots? Do you think photos of your friends count as street? I'm just curious so can you explain your decision please?

 

[RML]

What is it about my suggestion that puts you out? Do you think it's okay to pose street shots? Do you think photos of your friends count as street? I'm just curious so can you explain your decision please?

Doisneau's photos were posed. Capa's arguably were. So did HCB. They took photos of their friends and people they knew. So why all of a sudden this is out? If it was good enough for the best street photogs it should be good enough for us. But people seem adamant that these things aren't street, and I can't live with such a limited, short-sighted notion of street photography.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Doisneau's photos were posed.

They were not posed. People will cry "pedantry!" when I state that some of his shots were staged.

Saying that he "posed" his street photography is uninformed, at best.

Just like saying that waiting for some bicycle to run over some water puddle is "posing" a photo...I'd say that's inaccurate.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

As long as it's a candid photo of someone you don't know personally and it's in a public area or gathering place. So...
No shots of your buddies at the bar. No shots of performers on stage etc. Nothing posed or set up.

I agree that a bar is not a street, and a stage is not a street; there could be an open bar on a street, or a stage on a street, so that would be "street photography". But disqualifying as something "set up" is very broad. Anybody walking around with a camera with the intent of taking a photo is a "set up".

Broad generalizations never led to anything good. Never. Ever ever ever. Ever. Forever and ever. 😉

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I don't mind. I'll abide by the rules, whatever they turn out to be.

Just tell us, girl!

Now, you've got the right attitude. You will get far, and your life be merry 😀

 

[RML]

They were not posed. People will cry "pedantry!" when I state that some of his shots were staged.

Saying that he "posed" his street photography is uninformed, at best.

Just like saying that waiting for some bicycle to run over some water puddle is "posing" a photo...I'd say that's inaccurate.

Sounds like we're squabbling over semantics.

If you ask a couple to walk up to a point, stop there and kiss... I call they posing. Asking a fighter to run down a hill and pretend to be shot and drop... I call that posing.
Asking a little girl to run up a flight of stairs somewhere in Greece... I call that posing.

Now, simply waiting for an anonymous, random cyclist to pass through a rain puddle that happened to be there entirely outside my doing... I call that waiting for the decisive moment.

Wait... I heard that term before somewhere. Must have someone famous who said something like that. Can't remember who that was though. Probably wasn't someone who asked a small girl to run up a flight of stairs in Greece somewhere.

 

[BillP]

Let me turn this on it's head. Bear with me. Please read this carefully, and if you disagree, as you may, please be specific about which point you disagree with and why. What we have left, is then a common agreement on what IS "Street photography".

Right.

Street Photography is NOT:

a) Macrophotography
b) Microphotography
c) Astrophotography
d) Anything using fixed, or studio flash
e) Anything depicting animals in their natural habitat
f) Anything depicting natural landscape features as the primary motif - fields, trees, flora, cliffs, sea, mountains or rivers
g) Anything where a specific consumer product is the primary subject ("product photography"
h) Anything where food or drink is the primary subject
i) Portraiture, where the primary subject occupies more than 75% of the final image area. This applies to human and animal subjects (cats, dogs, other domestic animals and family pets)
j) Sunsets
k) Architectural details; door furniture, streetlamps, signage
l) Anything depicting a sport being played in a dedicated area (court, field, course) by individuals or organised teams
m) Anything depicting a mode of transport, either in isolation (aircraft in flight) or occupying more than 75% of the final image area (cars, boats, bicycles, motorbikes)
n) Any form of motorsport
o) Anything where the primary subject is nude or partially clothed and occupies more than 75% of the final image area
p) Anything taken within a domestic dwelling or the garden or yard thereof

That's all I can think of off the top of my head. I think if we do it this way, we can "define by elimination"

Thoughts?

Regards,

Bill

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Sounds like we're squabbling over semantics.

It is not dead: it is simply lacking in blood flow. I'm sure we all know what "it" is 😀 Wouldn't want to squabble over that.

 

[RML]

I'd disagree with points e, f, h, i, j, k, l, , k-2, l-2, m and n.

Martin Parr would turn in his grave if he had one, and quite a few others would too if they weren't long turned to dust already, when seeing this list of what's out.

Let me turn this on it's head. Bear with me. Please read this carefully, and if you disagree, as you may, please be specific about which point you disagree with and why. What we have left, is then a common agreement on what IS "Street photography".

Right.

Street Photography is NOT:

a) Macrophotography
b) Microphotography
c) Astrophotography
d) Anything using fixed, or studio flash
e) Anything depicting animals in their natural habitat
f) Anything depicting natural landscape features as the primary motif - fields, trees, flora, cliffs, sea, mountains or rivers
g) Anything where a specific consumer product is the primary subject ("product photography"
h) Anything where food or drink is the primary subject
i) Portraiture, where the primary subject occupies more than 75% of the final image area. This applies to human and animal subjects (cats, dogs, other domestic animals and family pets)
j) Sunsets
k) Architectural details; door furniture, streetlamps, signage
l) Anything depicting a sport being played in a dedicated area (court, field, course) by individuals or organised teams
k) Anything depicting a mode of transport, either in isolation (aircraft in flight) or occupying more than 75% of the final image area (cars, boats, bicycles, motorbikes)
l) Any form of motorsport
m) Anything where the primary subject is nude or partially clothed and occupies more than 75% of the final image area
n) Anything taken within a domestic dwelling or the garden or yard thereof

That's all I can think of off the top of my head. I think if we do it this way, we can "define by elimination"

Thoughts?

Regards,

Bill

 

[RML]

It is not dead: it is simply lacking in blood flow.

Your remark makes no sense to me. Must be an American thing I don't "get".

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Street Photography is NOT:

e) Anything depicting animals in their natural habitat

D@mn! My "chatting in front of Starbucks" series quashed! 😉