Nh3
Well-known
This post is a by-product of my struggle with "street photography burn-out" and the contents should not be taken seriously by those who’re not serious about street photography. This is my feeble attempt at creating a structure from where I can work instead of free flowing and in confusion.
The state of photography as an art is in jeopardy. I need not explain why and the reason is beyond the scope of this thread but in my humble opinion the only way to save photography from turning into digital imaging is by working under a strict discipline and adhering by strict self regulation so to differentiate the serious photographers from the masses and digital manipulators. We need to make photography and especially street photography ‘difficult’ so to allow decent work to come to the front and filter the visual garbage which is all around us these days. Why street photography and not other genres? Well, the answer is easy; street is where life is and where human condition unfolds.
What is a good street photograph? When I say a 'street photograph', I mean a photograph taken on the street of people or an interesting found object(s) or architecture.
A street photo is taken by a 'street photographer', someone who goes out on the street and tries to capture 'what he thinks is an interesting situation' or he shoots from the hip and later on decides which one of those shots he likes.
To be considered a true 'street photo' the photographer must be there with the intention of doing street photography. Someone with a P&S who happens to be upon an interesting situation and capture the event (with a lucky shot) is not a street photographer but simply a man/woman who got a lucky snapshot. There must be intention and deliberation before an image could be considered a true "street photo".
The medium used does not make any difference but generally a hand held camera film/digital is preferable because the street photographer should be part of the scene and not an observer from a distance with a view camera or a telephoto lens.
Those were purely subjective qualifications to getting a 'street photo', but once the photo is taken how could it be judged and what would make it a good street photo, bad or a mediocre one?
Here is my humble opinion of what makes a good street photo:
First of all just because its street photography it does not mean anything goes, but at the same time it does; however, there must be deliberation behind the breaking of rules and reason(s) as to why the photographer broke them... A good street photo must either be perfectly composed, make the viewer feel, or it must convey a message. The subject must not be the end and the means. For example an attractive woman on the street is not an interesting street photograph, but the same woman captured in an interesting composition or with an interesting expression on her face or juxtaposed with another subject to convey a message is good street photography.
Also a good street photograph must not be CROPPED, yes, this is contentious but that is the discipline. Cropping a street photographs is like taking a camcorder and then later on splitting the frames to get good photographs... To be a good street photographer one must be disciplined and not simply a shooter from the hip who later photoshops an image from his collection.
[FONT="]
I repeat that a good street photograph must at least fall under three basic categories otherwise it’s a snapshot. The essential components are: composition, make the viewer feel or convey a message (an easily perceptible message/observation not some convenient narrative by the photograph after the photo was taken).
Also as a side note street photos should be captioned with only factual information, basically the place and the year (not day and month). Photographer should in no way try to manipulate the viewer with long captions or his thoughts and other fluff which has nothing to do with the image.
The only post processing that a street photographer can do with his images is what was possible in a darkroom. Cloning and any other post processing which adds or subtracts from the image is not allowed and if the photographer does so he compromises the integrity of his pictures... The photographer must also keep all the original images in a contact sheet or in the case of digital without post processing for the future verification of the integrity of the images.
Honest and committed street photographers should offer advice and critique their fellow street photographers and they should be honest with their opinion. Anyone who says 'nice picture' just for the sake of diplomacy is a dishonest individual who does not wish to help his fellow street photographers.
And finally, I have written all this for me so it’s self directed. Those who agree please help to refine/add these points those who don't point out the flaws.
Thank you,
🙂
P.S. Sorry for the gramatical mistakes, typos etc...
[/FONT]
The state of photography as an art is in jeopardy. I need not explain why and the reason is beyond the scope of this thread but in my humble opinion the only way to save photography from turning into digital imaging is by working under a strict discipline and adhering by strict self regulation so to differentiate the serious photographers from the masses and digital manipulators. We need to make photography and especially street photography ‘difficult’ so to allow decent work to come to the front and filter the visual garbage which is all around us these days. Why street photography and not other genres? Well, the answer is easy; street is where life is and where human condition unfolds.
What is a good street photograph? When I say a 'street photograph', I mean a photograph taken on the street of people or an interesting found object(s) or architecture.
A street photo is taken by a 'street photographer', someone who goes out on the street and tries to capture 'what he thinks is an interesting situation' or he shoots from the hip and later on decides which one of those shots he likes.
To be considered a true 'street photo' the photographer must be there with the intention of doing street photography. Someone with a P&S who happens to be upon an interesting situation and capture the event (with a lucky shot) is not a street photographer but simply a man/woman who got a lucky snapshot. There must be intention and deliberation before an image could be considered a true "street photo".
The medium used does not make any difference but generally a hand held camera film/digital is preferable because the street photographer should be part of the scene and not an observer from a distance with a view camera or a telephoto lens.
Those were purely subjective qualifications to getting a 'street photo', but once the photo is taken how could it be judged and what would make it a good street photo, bad or a mediocre one?
Here is my humble opinion of what makes a good street photo:
First of all just because its street photography it does not mean anything goes, but at the same time it does; however, there must be deliberation behind the breaking of rules and reason(s) as to why the photographer broke them... A good street photo must either be perfectly composed, make the viewer feel, or it must convey a message. The subject must not be the end and the means. For example an attractive woman on the street is not an interesting street photograph, but the same woman captured in an interesting composition or with an interesting expression on her face or juxtaposed with another subject to convey a message is good street photography.
Also a good street photograph must not be CROPPED, yes, this is contentious but that is the discipline. Cropping a street photographs is like taking a camcorder and then later on splitting the frames to get good photographs... To be a good street photographer one must be disciplined and not simply a shooter from the hip who later photoshops an image from his collection.
[FONT="]
I repeat that a good street photograph must at least fall under three basic categories otherwise it’s a snapshot. The essential components are: composition, make the viewer feel or convey a message (an easily perceptible message/observation not some convenient narrative by the photograph after the photo was taken).
Also as a side note street photos should be captioned with only factual information, basically the place and the year (not day and month). Photographer should in no way try to manipulate the viewer with long captions or his thoughts and other fluff which has nothing to do with the image.
The only post processing that a street photographer can do with his images is what was possible in a darkroom. Cloning and any other post processing which adds or subtracts from the image is not allowed and if the photographer does so he compromises the integrity of his pictures... The photographer must also keep all the original images in a contact sheet or in the case of digital without post processing for the future verification of the integrity of the images.
Honest and committed street photographers should offer advice and critique their fellow street photographers and they should be honest with their opinion. Anyone who says 'nice picture' just for the sake of diplomacy is a dishonest individual who does not wish to help his fellow street photographers.
And finally, I have written all this for me so it’s self directed. Those who agree please help to refine/add these points those who don't point out the flaws.
Thank you,
🙂
P.S. Sorry for the gramatical mistakes, typos etc...
[/FONT]
