Guth
Appreciative User
A few of my friends over the years have come from the same mold as yourself. One of them even introduced himself to me as someone who enjoyed a good argument. With that in mind I'm not really sure how to respond as I'm guessing you'll find fault in whatever I type, lol. While i myself am somewhat confused by the phrase street photography, I can't say that I cringe at the thought of it. I don't find it surprising that some would take issue with this term. Many can't even agree on what makes a good photograph as that seems to mean different things to different people. So it shouldn't come as a surprise then that people can't agree on the labels or categories that photographic styles tend to be lumped under. I do know that much of the photography that I enjoy viewing is considered by many to be street photography.
Coming at this from another angle, I think we all tend to know what we like as individuals. Over the past few months I've spent a fair amount of time on this forum. Of those who choose to share their images here on a somewhat regular basis I can say that I've come to appreciate the photography of a few individuals in particular including Erik van Straten, helenhill and rhl-oregon. I'm almost always sure to spend more time looking at their images than those posted by others. I would struggle to find the words to explain what qualities in particular I find appealing about their images. But I can tell you that it has nothing to do with how they or someone else might label their work. Is theirs truly "street photography"? I don't know. I do know that they all bring something different to the mix that I really enjoy. Maybe that's why I don't get as worked up about such things.
colker
Well-known
I believe false categories ruin things. See... all the photo heroes mentioned here did not have a day job. They abandoned any other safe lifestyle to become photographers. They dedicated themselves to find perfect images: those pictures that help everyone understand life, freedom and above all image itself. They did not want to be just a good street photographer... they chose photography as a medium to do the best they could to give back what they received from life: inspiration. They gave others the understanding of the power of image and not categories. I believe any false theory does wrong to these people who risked something to expand photography´s vocabulary.
The internet made reaching other people easy. It also made easy to create fake news, fake theory, fake everything else. I can show how the term street photography is misguided so i do it. The term street photography clouds knowledge. So yeah.. i get worked up about it and yes, i have also seen good images in the Forum. One thing has very little to do w/ the other.
willie_901
Veteran
Sega
Established
I've just always thought of it as just a way to describe the syle of the thing that you are shooting, I mean you could call it Urban Landscape crossed with Portraiture photography if you wanted as technically it applies, but street is less of a mouthful.
People could argue for eons on wether or not what to call it in the same way they could argue wether or not something is art or not, just enjoy the images and call it what you want to call it.
People could argue for eons on wether or not what to call it in the same way they could argue wether or not something is art or not, just enjoy the images and call it what you want to call it.
Corran
Well-known
That's what I was thinking reading the premise of this thread.
Oftentimes "50 years of experience with photography" often means "someone who can't come to grips with anything outside of their preconceived notions."
Why should anyone care about the term and/or what it should be called?
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
The real question is, why get worked up about it at all? What does it matter that a person or a group of persons chooses to call something street photography? It sounds like there should be more photography made than splitting hairs about an arbitrary term on the internet just to stir the pot. There is another Thread about Robert Frank right now and I love his work. He is one of the greatest photographers the world has ever seen in my opinion. So if you were to look at the book titled The Americans which is considered a master collection of street photography , and really look where the images were taken you might see that many of them were not taken on the street at all. But doesn't matter if something like that was photographed in a foyer or on the sidewalk? It's technically not in the street. What is being mentioned here is akin to the difference between taking photographs of the actual asphalt street surface and taking photographs of someone standing near it.
Phil Forrest
Phil Forrest
peterm1
Veteran
I find the term street photography constraining too. I only use it I suppose, because it has such currency in the field. But I often take images while on the street, pointing my camera through a window to capture people inside a building candidly (together with the reflections and blur induced by the window, most often). And I do the reverse - from inside a building I shoot things going on in the street. Are these really street photographs?
Some die hard iconoclasts would argue that neither are legitimate 'street photos". But I disagree. After all, photographers like Saul Leiter were famous for this type of photo and I would have thought many would regard their work as encompassing (if not being entirely dedicated to) street photography. But having said this I am then forced to consider the question that if these are legitimate "street photos" then why are photos, shot entirely within a room, that are of the traditional street photo style also not street photos. Well I suppose I would draw the line there and say they are not as I am neither on the street nor taking photos of street happenings, though as another poster says these could be called candid photos with perfect accuracy.
So I suppose the problem if there is one is with the name "street photography" and the expectations this engenders. But on the whole I am more inclined to agree with others participating in this thread who's central argument seems to be "lets not get too fussed about what we call it' and just enjoy doing it. It's only a name after all.
Some die hard iconoclasts would argue that neither are legitimate 'street photos". But I disagree. After all, photographers like Saul Leiter were famous for this type of photo and I would have thought many would regard their work as encompassing (if not being entirely dedicated to) street photography. But having said this I am then forced to consider the question that if these are legitimate "street photos" then why are photos, shot entirely within a room, that are of the traditional street photo style also not street photos. Well I suppose I would draw the line there and say they are not as I am neither on the street nor taking photos of street happenings, though as another poster says these could be called candid photos with perfect accuracy.
So I suppose the problem if there is one is with the name "street photography" and the expectations this engenders. But on the whole I am more inclined to agree with others participating in this thread who's central argument seems to be "lets not get too fussed about what we call it' and just enjoy doing it. It's only a name after all.
colker
Well-known
Because it´s not my opinion. It´s not what i think. It´s facts.
The guys revered as founding fathers of street photography or whatever never cared for that categorization. So where is the tradition? There is a tradition of fashion photography, photojournalism, nudes, still life.. there is even a tradition of wedding photography. Street photography though .. it does not exist. Wake up.
If you want to bring facts, i am interested. If you have Bresson, Doisneau, Frank or even Salgado on record sayin anything about them being street photographers.. bring it in. Otherwise don´t bother.. My preconceived notions i find at History of Photography. Nothing else. Have a nice day.
aizan
Veteran
Did anybody here major in English or film? I think they'd know a lot about the question of whether genre exists or not.
colker
Well-known
Good point.
Corran
Well-known
Yeah nah.
Street is just a commonly used label. Would you argue that "classical music" is a bad term because in its day it was pop music? That term was not around during Bach or Mozart's time.
More to the point it doesn't matter whatsoever.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Exactly.
Get over the fact that you don't like the term "street photography." That's it, pure and simple. If someone else's description of anything doesn't hurt you or someone else, perhaps the best course of action is to not care about it at all. Does it affect you? No.
Personally, I don't really like the term "street photography" but I don't start threads railing against my dislike for the term itself. I really hate it when it is changed to "street" and don't get me started on the term "togs." Guess what? They don't hurt me, nor anyone else.
Phil Forrest
Steve M.
Veteran
It's probably best to refer to the experts on this one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyvRyxpvDi8
And that just about sums it up. Being called this or that, well, anyone who takes photographs is a photographer, and anyone who calls themselves an artist is an artist. But always, the relevant question is...... are you any good or not? For myself, I, myself, am the sole authority on that question. However, everyone else who weighs in on that question is also the sole authority.
All kidding aside (if this is indeed kidding) the moniker of street photographer is just as relevant as the title of landscape photographer or portrait photographer. People tend to like to work in one of those mediums almost exclusively, and it's the rare landscape photographer that can do street photography (and vice versa). There are plenty of other categories too like photojournalist, fine art photographer, etc. Still, good or bad is all that matters, and sometimes being really, really bad is called being ahead of her or his time, which is good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyvRyxpvDi8
And that just about sums it up. Being called this or that, well, anyone who takes photographs is a photographer, and anyone who calls themselves an artist is an artist. But always, the relevant question is...... are you any good or not? For myself, I, myself, am the sole authority on that question. However, everyone else who weighs in on that question is also the sole authority.
All kidding aside (if this is indeed kidding) the moniker of street photographer is just as relevant as the title of landscape photographer or portrait photographer. People tend to like to work in one of those mediums almost exclusively, and it's the rare landscape photographer that can do street photography (and vice versa). There are plenty of other categories too like photojournalist, fine art photographer, etc. Still, good or bad is all that matters, and sometimes being really, really bad is called being ahead of her or his time, which is good.
colker
Well-known
I am not a musician. I know rationally it does not matter... i just have a visceral reaction to this thing. It feels wrong to me.
Salgado revived black and white reportage photography in the eyes of the world. He is a freaking superstar and shoots like W Eugene Smith is watching. I never thought it would happen but it did! There is a huge turn of events going on. Just when the photo industry gave up film and Apple is trying to convince the world there s no need for cameras .. a BW photography comeback happens and fuji is bringing rangefinders to the digital front. So ... instead of us enjoying the win we build a ghetto.
jbharrill1
Established
What is the point in this thread? To let us know that you find the term "street photographer" corny and annoying? Maybe try and rattle some chains?
Yes, most will agree with you and nothing that you posted is news.
Yes, most will agree with you and nothing that you posted is news.
Guth
Appreciative User
This thread has pretty much been colkered to death.
davidnewtonguitars
Family Snaps
Wake me up when this thread turns to discussing which camera works best for street.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
You mean digital vs analog or it is not street unless it was taken with a Leica?
