Check this guys street photos out and be inspired.

I agree that there are some nice, griping shots in the galleries but I equally have to admit there is much really uninteresting work in them. A shot of a cat, a man showing off his tattoos, the tailfin of a car... they look OK but almost anyone could have (and has) taken that kind of shots.

Anyone who can build up a good report with this or that group of people (Salgado IMO does that much better) can get the intimate, gripping shots; it's a matter of wanting it badly enough. I for one don't feel the need to go that deep when it comes to drug addicts or gangs, though I've seen my share when I was working as a security guard. I wasn't into photography in those day. Had I been I could have gotten this close as well. Nowadays I stick to my family-in-law. :)

Nevertheless, as a reminder of what street photography is about I find these shots interesting and quite stimulating. Some shots gave me ideas of how to deal with my experiences in Mongolia and the photo projects I have in mind.
 
One thing about the boogie pics... He's not getting in close and intimate with a wide-angle lens. He's back a ways with a normal or longer focal length. The pics still have impact.
 
gritty vs pretty

gritty vs pretty

First off, let me say that I like this sort of street photography. That is a matter of taste. For the life of me, not to offend anybody, I just do not get nature photography myself.

This sort of give and take, as to the value of street photography, particularly the type being discussed in this thread, reminds me of something I heard on one of the commentary tracks on the DVD version of the movie Superfly. (one of my favorite movies) When it was first screened to a predominantly white, suburban audience, they hated. They did not get it. When it was shown to a predominantly black, urban audience, they loved it. This might seem a bit off point, but one of the reasons postulated for it popularity with urban audiences is that it validated their lives. The fact that that movie was made at all meant that the lives of poor, urban people had intrinsic value and was worth presenting to the world as art.

I think that people respond to the sort of street photography Boogie is doing, because it gives us a window into a world we would otherwise not have access to. For me, that is what photography is all about. Otherwise, I would just paint pretty pictures of sunsets, and rainbows, and little children picking up seashells by the seashore.

Urban street photography is not something that is to everyone's taste, but to imply that the impact of these pictures is all in the writing and they have no visual value is insulting. Not just to Boogie, but to everyone who has ever found people to be interesting-period. If the lives of ordinary people are so boring, then why do people still study the work of people like Arbus, HCB, and Salgado?

Richie

PS ;) If I had a dime for every person who proclaimed that they did not get street photography..... :bang:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Some really good artistic ones there, some really good journalistic, some pretty boring.

I have to admit I would not want anyone pointing a submachine and/or handgun at me,with their finger on the trigger, for a photo. But that's just me ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom