I'm lost with "Street Photography" definition.

Hi,

Since Wikipedia is a street definition you'd better go along with it...

Otherwise it will be like one of those hardy annuals we get in the ex-USSR threads.

REgards, David
 
It is one of those terms that has a specific meaning that isn't reflected in the name. I think the Wikipedia definition is quite accurate, at least it is what I consider street photography.

Did you know a black box is orange? Same thing...
 
icebear said:
Oh well, ...what a serious issue 😉.

Isn't the content of the picture more important than what "tag" it has attached to it ?
...Don't worry so much about wrong labels attached to whatever photography.
Essentially it comes down to "Do you like the picture or not?".
Is it more important if the category might not be choosen correctly ?
Get out and shoot , i.e. with your camera.
Click to expand...

My feelings exactly.
 
Addy101 said:
Wikipedia to the rescue:
"Street photography is an art photography that features the human condition within public places and does not necessitate the presence of a street or even the urban environment. "
Street photography on Wikipedia
So, it has nothing to do with the street.
Click to expand...

Just two days ago I read this same article. I thought it was pretty interesting.
 
What's great about Street Photography is that you can never care about its definition, never understand, feel lost, but if you do very good photographs for some time, you'll probably end up there, considered a great street photographer, because the streets are full of human content stories and subjects for a more interesting visual approach than a direct social critic or a mirror for unjustice... As Atget said, "documents for artists", postcards for dreaming, for creating, or as Warhol said, "art: what we can go away with".
Another great thing about it, is it's so relevant already in Photography History, that it doesn't require a street to be done, and most photographs made in a street, just don't qualify. And while the name "Street Photography" will stay here long after we're dust as all those who ever remembered our ancient name, all that matters to it is, a bit, what we photograph, and a lot, how.
A respectable name, isn't it?
IMO some other kinds of photographs are great when they have some of the fresh feel of street photography, fresh and fast, but deep... And I feel Street Photography is the real photography, and where the most lovely photographer's eye can be enjoyed...
Why look for words to define something that's in the highest reign of eyes, mind and heart?
Cheers,
Juan
 
As far as I am concerned its nothing more than photography on a street, in a street, on or in anything near a street, connected to a street or accessed by a street. Relax and get on with it.
 
CliveC said:
Could Street Photography be as simple as publicly photographing people you don't know and are not expecting to be photographed?
Click to expand...

But what about posed or street portraits? What about places where it's very clear many people will photograph you (festivals, for example).

I like the term candid photography more, but then I run into the issue above. What about street portraits?

And also, what about non-human subjects, be they other animals or inanimate objects? Eggleston is considered a street photographer and yet his body of work largely consists of inanimates or urban scenes and fragments.

Perhaps it is just easy to stick with the term street photography. It's the term most people understand and most seem to get that street photography is open-ended and could not be taken on a street or even a public place. Many street photographers have ventured into people's homes or workplaces and documented life in those environments.
 
I was thinking that the term "street photography" may refer to walking/being in streets for images no matter the subject, no matter whether candid or not, and regardless of the street being paved or not. So now I must define "street"... So much for that thought!
 
van_d said:
But what about posed or street portraits? What about places where it's very clear many people will photograph you (festivals, for example).

I like the term candid photography more, but then I run into the issue above. What about street portraits?

And also, what about non-human subjects, be they other animals or inanimate objects? Eggleston is considered a street photographer and yet his body of work largely consists of inanimates or urban scenes and fragments.

Perhaps it is just easy to stick with the term street photography. It's the term most people understand and most seem to get that street photography is open-ended and could not be taken on a street or even a public place. Many street photographers have ventured into people's homes or workplaces and documented life in those environments.
Click to expand...

Street portraits are perhaps a subset, but I think separate. People react different when they know a camera is pointed at them, moreso if they're posing. Street portraits are really environmental portraits.

All Street Photography photos are candids, but not all candids are street photography. Photos you take of your friends who are not aware they are having their photos taken at that moment are candids, not street.

Shots without living people/animals (or at least without people as the photo's subject) are landscapes in my mind. Urban landscapes.
 
Agree a definition is in not absolutely essential or important for some. But we communicate, and definitions are widespread and can be useful. And in photography, there are many definitions of "type": fine art photography, nature photography, landscape photography, portrait photography, sports photography, panoramic, wildlife....So, like other conversations and ponderings, defining street photography is relevant to some, not relevant to others. But communication is relevant to all. When I do "street photography" according to my personal definition that family and friends seem to understand, I take my camera into town (e.g., Philadelphia) and walk the streets and neighborhoods because there is so much of interest in doing so. Meeting new and interesting people and seeing their activities, their pets, seeing interactions...interesting architecture, urban parks...it goes on and on.
But when I say I'm going into town to do some shooting, I'm thinking of this as street photography. Arbitrary but useful to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ko.Fe.
Amateur Street Photography with classic Leica and -14 C.
Replies
3
Views
2K
B.Toews
B.Toews
Back
Top Bottom