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]
crawdiddy
qu'est-ce que c'est?
Those rules are a little restrictive. I won't get into the crop vs. no-crop argument, because it's a morass. I'm not so sure about the rule that the photographer must be on a deliberate street-photography mission, and that a lucky person with a p/s camera would not qualify. What if it's a lucky person who sometimes engages in bona fide street photography, who happens to encounter a worthy subject by chance? I don't think that should be excluded.
lZr
L&M
Good points. The lucky street shooter person is unknown. But Nh3 imposes this rule to himself. He is disciplinary tough
le vrai rdu
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]
a good picture is a good picture, no matter the photograph and the gear , that's my point of view
sjw617
Panoramist
If you shoot from the hip, aren't you giving up composition - one of your 3 musts?
.
If I put a picture on the table can you tell me if it was intentional or I 'lucked into it'? I do not believe so.
.
Isn't cropping really just post-composition? If I put a photo on the table how can you tell if it is cropped?
.
Future verification of the integrity of the image???? What a arrogant idea.
Steve
Pablito
coco frío
As a former painter, I would sometimes chop and re-strech a canvas after starting the painting . But I nevertheless print full-frame in my photography I DO shoot different formats for when 3:2 ain't right.
ampguy
Veteran
Cropping edges from your your native format file size to a standard framing size can be OK, I do this often, though sometimes it is difficult.
Cropping for other reasons is OK, it's like training wheels. The better photographer or artist will do it less as they get better and can eventually remove the training wheels.
Once you can print all your photos uncropped, you have essentially snatched the pebble from the hand ...
your mileage may vary.
Cropping for other reasons is OK, it's like training wheels. The better photographer or artist will do it less as they get better and can eventually remove the training wheels.
Once you can print all your photos uncropped, you have essentially snatched the pebble from the hand ...
your mileage may vary.
Ororaro
Well-known
Anyone who shoots and prints B&W is ALWAYS cropping in the darkroom. Printing a 24x36 image on a 5x7, 8x10 and even 11x14 paper necessarily involves cropping.
But yeah, when I shoot, I compose the whole image, from corners to corners with no afterthought.
But yeah, when I shoot, I compose the whole image, from corners to corners with no afterthought.
V
varjag
Guest
IMO it is good that you took your time to think about the subject. To me it sounds more like an attempt to define live language via dictionary than vice versa, but give it a try, you'll see if it works for you.
BillP
Rangefinder General
I take my hat off to you for the thought you have put into this. I have no issue whatsoever with your desire to bring discipline and hence structure into what you are doing. Where I struggle is with the concept of "rules". Rules are made to be broken. The end justifies the means. My fear is that you will unduly constrain yourself, and hence your vision and potential.
Guidelines are good, rules are restrictive.
Regards,
Bill
Guidelines are good, rules are restrictive.
Regards,
Bill
Quinn Porter
Established
I think there's value in establishing an artistic and/or technical framework for your photography, as it causes you to focus your efforts. However, when you start judging others by your framework, things can get tricky. If you don't want to crop, that's cool; but when you say that someone else's photo is of lesser quality or import because it was cropped or shot digitally, you're just being a jerk.
petronius
Veteran
After reading John Loengards book "Celebrating the Negative" I had to learn something new about cropping and the sense or nonsense not to crop.
I am a weak person and if a picture is composed imperfect I crop it until I like it.
I am a weak person and if a picture is composed imperfect I crop it until I like it.
Rafael
Mandlerian
I too applaud you for the thought that you have put into your photography. If I could venture an observation though, you seem to be caught between setting guidelines for your own photography and for others' appreciation of it. For example, the following injunction is very much directed at yourself.
You will certainly know when your photographs were planned and when they were the product of happy accident. If you choose to aim only for those that are planned, all the power to you.
On the other hand, the following rule is directed at the appreciation that others will show for your photography:
Obviously, you will know whether or not you have manipulated or cropped your photographs. So, the verification of which you write would invariably be done by others. Unfortunately though, you can't control how others will view your work.
So, my unsolicited advice would be to concentrate on your own approach to street photography. Don't worry about how others will receive it. That, I am afraid, is out of your hands.
Good luck.
You will certainly know when your photographs were planned and when they were the product of happy accident. If you choose to aim only for those that are planned, all the power to you.
On the other hand, the following rule is directed at the appreciation that others will show for your photography:
Obviously, you will know whether or not you have manipulated or cropped your photographs. So, the verification of which you write would invariably be done by others. Unfortunately though, you can't control how others will view your work.
So, my unsolicited advice would be to concentrate on your own approach to street photography. Don't worry about how others will receive it. That, I am afraid, is out of your hands.
Good luck.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
One question: why is there any need for a manifesto?
Most artists I know have a simple rule of thumb: 'whatever it takes'.
If this means drawing on decades of study and practice, fine. If it means breaking every rule you can think of, plus some you've not heard of, that's fine too.
How does a 'manifesto' add to this?
I'm not trying to be derogatory or diminish you, but my question strikes me as part of your question; or even vice versa.
Cheers,
R.
Most artists I know have a simple rule of thumb: 'whatever it takes'.
If this means drawing on decades of study and practice, fine. If it means breaking every rule you can think of, plus some you've not heard of, that's fine too.
How does a 'manifesto' add to this?
I'm not trying to be derogatory or diminish you, but my question strikes me as part of your question; or even vice versa.
Cheers,
R.
tomtodeath
Established
I definately "crop" when making prints, based on the paper size I am printing on. I do sometimes like to print 11x14 and 16x20 sized prints. Also, I keep in mind that I usually print on different paper formats when im shooting, and compose my images slightly wider so that they can be printed on 8x10 paper without cutting out an important part of the image. Also, Having freedom of cropping lessens the desire to bring more than one lens with me.
gb hill
Veteran
Why manufacture rules? Rules were made to be broken. It's the final results that count and unless working for a client, the only one you really have to please is yourself. When I see a good street photo I don't ask if it was cropped, shot from the hip, or any thing else. I just like it for what I see.
Leighgion
Bovine Overseer
While I believe it's everybody's right to follow whatever self-imposed rules they feel like, by actually writing this manifesto out and posting it, I think any value it might have had has been destroyed.
Any such batch of arbitrary personal rules are just that -- arbitrary and personal. They're not for anybody else but the individual who decided to abide by them. Placed in the light of day for peer review, I can't see this manifesto as anything but an absurd attempt to gentrify street photography by imposing an elitist and frankly baseless set of rules on it. Especially disgusting to me is opening it by declaring that street photography is in jeopardy and in need of salvation.
Again, I firmly believe that any artist has the absolute right to impose any rules they want upon themselves but given that this has been entered into open discussion, I must express unilateral disapproval. Even if it was never posted, I feel this "manifesto" is an exceedingly poor method of motivation and that posting it with the implication of looking for peer approval of such an essentially illogical set of rules is even worse.
Any such batch of arbitrary personal rules are just that -- arbitrary and personal. They're not for anybody else but the individual who decided to abide by them. Placed in the light of day for peer review, I can't see this manifesto as anything but an absurd attempt to gentrify street photography by imposing an elitist and frankly baseless set of rules on it. Especially disgusting to me is opening it by declaring that street photography is in jeopardy and in need of salvation.
Again, I firmly believe that any artist has the absolute right to impose any rules they want upon themselves but given that this has been entered into open discussion, I must express unilateral disapproval. Even if it was never posted, I feel this "manifesto" is an exceedingly poor method of motivation and that posting it with the implication of looking for peer approval of such an essentially illogical set of rules is even worse.
rbsinto
Well-known
It's about the image, not how it was taken.
Deliberate. Accident. Full-frame as shot. Cropped.
To me these things are immaterial. It's about telling stories with pictures, and the rest is just details.
Deliberate. Accident. Full-frame as shot. Cropped.
To me these things are immaterial. It's about telling stories with pictures, and the rest is just details.
timmyd18
Established
i'm with all of the others here, i bet you learned a lot about yourself by writing this and i'd guess that all of us have a code of what we think is good photography.
i guess i have two issues with the manifesto. the first is that i don't really see a clear distinction between digital computer technology and physical optical technology. on any given day with any given camera, you might find a photo worth setting up that you just don't have the right lens to frame perfectly. it is no fault of your own and no lack of skill, but perhaps lack of funds. If one person shoots with a 50mm lens and has to crop his shot to make it perfect, is he really less than the richer photographer who could pull out an 85mm or a 135mm lens and get the same shot?
the other issue i have is trying to draw a distinction between a real artist and everyone else. this is something that the art world suffers from and something that i've never understood. these false distinctions mean that some paintings are worth millions and some i can buy in a junk store for $5 USD. i like my junk store paintings and wish i could let the artist know how much i do- they made something beautiful and deserve some respect. photography is the same way. i don't think someone should have to belong to some sort of elite group in order to be a real photographer.
i really don't mean any disrespect- i do impose rules on myself and when i'm using my vintage cameras i won't allow myself to crop or the like. but, i think the most important thing for you or anyone else is to take pictures that you like. then it will be ok
i guess i have two issues with the manifesto. the first is that i don't really see a clear distinction between digital computer technology and physical optical technology. on any given day with any given camera, you might find a photo worth setting up that you just don't have the right lens to frame perfectly. it is no fault of your own and no lack of skill, but perhaps lack of funds. If one person shoots with a 50mm lens and has to crop his shot to make it perfect, is he really less than the richer photographer who could pull out an 85mm or a 135mm lens and get the same shot?
the other issue i have is trying to draw a distinction between a real artist and everyone else. this is something that the art world suffers from and something that i've never understood. these false distinctions mean that some paintings are worth millions and some i can buy in a junk store for $5 USD. i like my junk store paintings and wish i could let the artist know how much i do- they made something beautiful and deserve some respect. photography is the same way. i don't think someone should have to belong to some sort of elite group in order to be a real photographer.
i really don't mean any disrespect- i do impose rules on myself and when i'm using my vintage cameras i won't allow myself to crop or the like. but, i think the most important thing for you or anyone else is to take pictures that you like. then it will be ok
chikne
Well-known
Thank you for taking the time for writing this. The following sentence is simply a joke and is meant to be taken "lightly".
Now I'm off to stick feather up my butt so I can become a chicken...
Now I'm off to stick feather up my butt so I can become a chicken...