Help me understand street photography

M. Valdemar said:
Imagine if we had a photographic record of street scenes in ancient Rome, or Athens in 1200 BC or Paris in 1300, or London in 1623.

I'd be thrilled to look at even the most mundane shots. The best we have is Pompeii.
Click to expand...

I agree totally!
 
In regards to the original question, I just like to take pictures. ;)

(I prefer to call what I do "urban landscape" rather than "street". "Street" is more like Winogrand's style to my way of thinking.)
 
M. Valdemar said:
Imagine if we had a photographic record of street scenes in ancient Rome, or Athens in 1200 BC or Paris in 1300, or London in 1623.

I'd be thrilled to look at even the most mundane shots. The best we have is Pompeii.
Click to expand...

I've seen the pictures at Pompeli. Not so mundane but probably an accurate record since what they are doing is done the same way today.:D
 
M. Valdemar said:
Here is the correct use of "street photography":

Click to expand...

He looks like a man.


Street photography for poor saps like us is basically having a venue where we can make a picture whereas otherwise we have no other opportunities to do so.

Most street amateur street photography is void of meaning. We still do it though.
 
Street photos of ancient Rome or ancient Pompeii or ancient anywhere would be amazing and priceless. But we ought not to confuse a photo's potential historical value with its merits as an image. In other words, no points for just documenting something.

On the flip side, if we could send a robotic camera back to ancient Rome that could only capture 100 images, I wonder what historians would want to see?
 
Roger Hicks said:
Why not?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...
If the photographer's primary objective is to influence a viewer's response, I'd argue the result is not a documentary photo. (Influence, not provoke; the world is full of things we only need to mirror in order to provoke a response.)

A strictly documentary photo's purpose is to record something: a face, a crime scene, a globular cluster, an antique chair, a postage stamp sold in a catalog. It's much like a photocopy of a piece of reality. It's intended to accurately depict the subject. All other attributes of a photo are subordinated toward that goal.

Someone who views the image may, in fact, see aesthetic attributes. That, I think, is secondary to the purpose of a documentary photo. We're hardwired to generate on emotional response when we look at an image of a human face, regardless of how or why the image was made. A stamp or a chair, not at all, I think.

And, obviously, certain pieces of reality are either so beautiful or so horrific that a photo of them cannot avoid provoking an emotional response. Images of Auschwitz taken by robots would be just as sickening. Images from the Hubble telescope are no less beautiful because they are strictly research documents.
 
wgerrard said:
If the photographer's primary objective is to influence a viewer's response, I'd argue the result is not a documentary photo. (Influence, not provoke; the world is full of things we only need to mirror in order to provoke a response.)

A strictly documentary photo's purpose is to record something: a face, a crime scene, a globular cluster, an antique chair, a postage stamp sold in a catalog. It's much like a photocopy of a piece of reality. It's intended to accurately depict the subject. All other attributes of a photo are subordinated toward that goal.

Someone who views the image may, in fact, see aesthetic attributes. That, I think, is secondary to the purpose of a documentary photo. We're hardwired to generate on emotional response when we look at an image of a human face, regardless of how or why the image was made. A stamp or a chair, not at all, I think.

And, obviously, certain pieces of reality are either so beautiful or so horrific that a photo of them cannot avoid provoking an emotional response. Images of Auschwitz taken by robots would be just as sickening. Images from the Hubble telescope are no less beautiful because they are strictly research documents.
Click to expand...
Now we're into documenting it well, and the nature of aesthetics. A document that creates an immediate sense of recognition is, I think we would agree, a good photograph; and this is the sole aesthetic criterion in many documentary shots.

In other words, I am less than convinced that documentary photography and any other sort are so easily separated. This is obviously a continuum, as your last para agrees.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Now we're into documenting it well...
R.
Click to expand...


Umm... no. I want to focus on the intent of the photographer. If a photographer's intent is to record a faithful duplication of the scene in the viewfinder, and if the photographer avoids using technique to alter or enhance the aesthetic impact of the photo, I'd consider the result a documentary photo. Whether or not someone viewing the image may imbue it with aesthetic qualities is a different issue. As I said, some images of reality inevitably have powerful aesthetic and emotional impacts, even if shot randomly by a machine.

Now, I'll admit this is a narrow definition of documentary photo. Few of us take photos with no thought to their impact on the viewer.
 
Can I just go back to the first post, and add my little bit.

The point of street photography is the same point as any picture making, to make something people want to look at. I don't believe it has to be any different to anything else. If you want to document, you can. If you want to take pictures of stuff you like, you can. Does it have to have any point? I don't think so. Does Street Photography even exist, surely isn't photography exactly that, photography. Why divide and re label it?

Talking about this, I was watching Joel Meyerowitz shoot, that guy is a legend.
 
wgerrard said:
Few of us take photos with no thought to their impact on the viewer.
Click to expand...
Dear Bill,

Indeed, I'm not sure we can. There is always a choice of where to point the camera, when to press the shutter. The composition has an impact on us; and unless we assume we are unique, we may therefore reasonably assume that given half-decent technque, there will be an impact on the viewer.

Perhaps I'm arguing for 'native eye' here, whether at the time of exposure or selecting afterwards. A few photographers seem to me to have such a 'native eye' (thus loosely defined) that their documentary shots are more often than not memorable. What more than memorability can you ask? (Unless, of course, the pic is memorable for being so awful, such as Nan Goldin's 'Klara and Edda belly dancing' [title from memory]).

Edit: I think Larky's post about indivisibility is important.

Cheers,

R.
 
It strikes me that one of the great fallacies of 'street photography' is that much of it is achieved without the photographer interacting with his (or her) subjects. Some of it may well be but for me, the best 'street' photographers - like HCB, Roger Mayne and so on - are evidently part of what they are shooting, whatever they may claim.
 
Pitxu said:
I'm thinking of the Doisneau picture of a scruffy boy carrying a bottle under each arm (don't know the title). There is a very obvious, happy, interaction which makes it such a warm image.
Click to expand...


'Rue Mouffetard, Paris 1954' Surely that's an Henri Cartier-Bresson?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom