I'm lost with "Street Photography" definition.

From Wiki -

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. The subject of the photograph might be absent of people and can be object or environment where the image projects a decidedly human character in facsimile or aesthetic. The origin of the term 'Street' refers to a time rather than a place, a time when women achieved greater freedom, when workers were rewarded with leisure time and when society left the privacy of their sitting rooms, people engaged with each other and their surroundings more publicly and therein the opportunity for the photographer.

Framing and timing are key aspects of the craft, with the aim of creating images at a decisive or poignant moment. Much of what is now widely regarded, stylistically and subjectively, as definitive street photography was made in the era spanning the end of the 19th Century through to the late 1970s; a period which saw the emergence of portable cameras. The advent of digital photography, combined with the exponential growth of photo-sharing via the internet, has greatly expanded an awareness of the genre and its practitioners.

Documentary photography usually refers to a popular form of photography used to chronicle significant and historical events. It is typically covered in professional photojournalism, or real life reportage, but it may also be an amateur, artistic, or academic pursuit. The photographer attempts to produce truthful, objective, and usually candid photography of a particular subject, most often pictures of people.
 
To me someone availability to sell their pictures doesn't always represent availability to take picture I'm going to like.
Vivian Maier wasn't good at marketing and "working the system" at all. Yet, she is one of the best street photographers to me.

Agree I have been to several of her exhibits her in Chicago and have one of her books. Love her work.

Winogrand in his own words didn't care much about selling work. In fact he was surprised there was a market at all for it. Both Adams and Winogrand worked first for themselves. Adams and Weston both took commercial assignments. A great quote from Weston and I kind of feel the same way about the work I do for others but I don't hate it as he did.
"When money enters in, - then, for a price, I become a liar, - and a good one I can be whether with pencil or subtle lighting or viewpoint. I hate it all, but so do I support not only my family, but my own work." - Edward Weston

And something similar from Avedon.
"There’s always been a separation between fashion and what I call my “deeper” work. Fashion is where I make my living. I’m not knocking it. It’s a pleasure to make a living that way. It’s pleasure, and then there’s the deeper pleasure of doing my portraits." Richard Avedon

The stuff I do professionally pays for it all and I am lucky because I love both worlds.

My point is that those greats have had influence countless others. I just find the web world humorous.

The thing I find funny to is when someone says photographer A only sells his work because he is photographer A. My response would be he wasn't always popular and worked hard at it to get to that point. When they say anyone can do that I say then do it....

Ko.Fe I also wanted to say I like your work and think of it as much more than a simple term like street or what ever. In my opinion it is much broader and richer than that.
 
....

My point is that those greats have had influence countless others. I just find the web world humorous.

The thing I find funny to is when someone says photographer A only sells his work because he is photographer A. My response would be he wasn't always popular and worked hard at it to get to that point. When they say anyone can do that I say then do it....

I have no idea how web popularity works, to be honest.
I'm on Flickr for sharing my images and look at the others.
Many "99+ likes" are nothing but cliches for me, with "street photography" at it worst for it. 😕

And I'm constantly put my "like" under pictures with few or none of the favourites.

...

I'm confused with "A Photograph" statement of yours. I have no intention to put it in my comments here, none I have seen so far on this thread from the others.

But, here is the thought for you.
According to HCB, one of the reasons he switched to photography, was because it was many artists around, but only few photographers.
After he retired from photography business, he went back to paintings.
Do you think people were paying attention for his art after photography, because of he was as "photographer HCB"?

Thank you for nice words about my pictures. I participated successfully in international competition once, I have my digitally taken pictures published regionally , used in local election campaigning, but I decided to switch from it to pictures I have now.
 
I don't have a web presence with the exception of a few photography sites like here. Bresson was a great photographer because he had vision. But to call him a street photographer would not be accurate because he also did some pretty incredible landscapes and portraits. So why the label especially if the label is ambiguous as it is? To me and many others he was a great photographer.

Sorry, point me to the statement because I use the word photograph a lot.

If you haven't seen my work and would like to I have a thread here and I put a label on it that as soon as I pushed send I wish I hadn't have. Got called on it in the thread LoL...Thought they really are portraits that are in the moment. My work is about a lot of things. Relationships, visual and emotional. People. Moments. Society. Time. Place. And many other things....
Have a look around if you haven't already...
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=127307
 
....

Sorry, point me to the statement because I use the word photograph a lot.

If you haven't seen my work and would like to I have a thread here and I put a label on it that as soon as I pushed send I wish I hadn't have. Got called on it in the thread LoL...Thought they really are portraits that are in the moment. My work is about a lot of things. Relationships, visual and emotional. People. Moments. Society. Time. Place. And many other things....
Have a look around if you haven't already...
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=127307

#84. It isn't about "a lot", but "just photographer".

I have seen your street photography here and where. Good quality, people are close.
But I'm not getting it.
Cheers, Ko.
 
My work is about visual relationships repeating shapes, leading lines, tone and foreground/background relationships I think we should include whats happening today in our society. It helps gives the work a relevance to the time like advertising signs in Evans or Maier's work. Whether you like my work or not is not a biggie and is maybe a good thing. People tend to like things they already know. And I to usually do not like close ups of people that just don't know they are not getting their photos taken. If I did I would be shooting a block away with a long lens.

Speaking of stories have you heard what Winogrand says about stories in single photographs? If not check this out. About a 1:40 in
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl4f-QFCUek

And I would say repeating shapes, leading lines, tone and foreground/background relationships and seeing those and capturing them in real time are not easy prey but hey what do I know.

I am also glad my work isn't like Winogrand's. Doesn't mean I don't like and admire his work, just means it's not the way I see though he is an influence on me as well as Bresson, Frank, Lyons, Davidson, Meyerowitz all are.

None of this changes the reality that the term is ambiguous at best and is something I nor Garry Winogrand wanted to have pinned on us. But you can certainly be whatever you want to be.
 
A definition is only necessary when you want to establish rules and consequently judge who violates the rules or who plays nice.
In math you need to define certain rules to come to an accurate result and it is pretty much black or white if you followed the rules in your calculation and the result is valid.

For anything else rules and definitions are only relevant if you want to either want to stick to them and be part of the "rules group".

As for [stick your label here] photography you can try to comply and limit yourself or you can be happy and just shoot away as a renegate 😀.
 
A definition is only necessary when you want to establish rules and consequently judge who violates the rules or who plays nice.
In math you need to define certain rules to come to an accurate result and it is pretty much black or white if you followed the rules in your calculation and the result is valid.

For anything else rules and definitions are only relevant if you want to either want to stick to them and be part of the "rules group".

As for [stick your label here] photography you can try to comply and limit yourself or you can be happy and just shoot away as a renegate 😀.


Agree completely!
 
...My work is about visual relationships repeating shapes, leading lines, tone and foreground/background relationships I think we should include whats happening today in our society...

I see! I completely missed it, was just looking at people.
Makes sense now. Reminds me how my auntie was showing me Dali book for first time. I wasn't good at finding hidden images in his paintings.
Shapes to be with you!
Peace!
 
Not saying that my work is great but those kinds of things that you call hidden should be obvious to those in a visual field. Those hidden things become more obvious, if they are indeed in the work, to those that spend time with the work and can see those elements. Those elements are building blocks to what we do as visual artists. It takes a lot of time to become fluent. Bresson called it a developed instinct. if you are trying to build staying power in your work and trying to create work that is beyond the obvious and has the kind of power to reveal more the more you look then you need to start looikg deeper to see if those things your aunt was pointing out are in work. Everything in the frame should be supporting the visual statement. Especially those, as you called them, hidden things. They shouldn't be hidden but might take a little looking to see. They are elements that might be in reflections, backgrounds etc and might not be seen if you just glance at a peice and move on.

A lot of work today is about the obvious/immediate gratifaction and nothing more than what you see in an instant and get it. No reason to keep looking though becasue you get it right away and can move on. Great work demands attention and the more you look the more you see to borrow your word (hidden).

A great quote by Gibson that gets to this issue.
"A good photograph, like a good painting, speaks with a loud voice and demands time and attention if it is to be fully perceived. An art lover is perfectly willing to hang a painting on a wall for years on end, but ask him to study a single photograph for ten unbroken minutes and he’ll think it’s a waste of time. Staying power is difficult to build into a photograph. Mostly, it takes content. A good photograph can penetrate the subconscious – but only if it is allowed to speak for however much time it needs to get there." - Ralph Gibson

And in my opinion you are really starting to arrive when people start saying they knew it was one of your photographs before they looked to see who took it. To me that is a huge compliment. In this world where it is hard to tell one photographers work from the next because they are all following the same rules and trying to keep their work pigeoned holed in neat little categories that are ambiguous at best it is special to see work that doesn't look like everything else.

Copying, staying in the lines and following rules is easy and safe. Finding your own path is extremely hard, takes courage and is a life long journey.

I say get off the much traveled path and find your own road. That can start by not looking for the obvious and trying to put real staying power in your work.
 
Here is one aspect in street, candid photography which I find to be related with previous two comments (#119 and #200).

I'm bringing some of photos to Halton Camera Exchange store, classic camera shop where people are not just big box store sales dummies. At this place they knew and teach photography also.

If I have brought good photography to them, I knew it by their comments.
It is interesting, how they look at my street, candid photography and how they tell me the story, but only if any in it. I do not tell them anything about it while I show it, nor I name it.

If "street" photo is good it does it better without name. Viewer will find his own story if any is present.

And in my opinion you are really starting to arrive when people start saying they knew it was one of your photographs before they looked to see who took it. To me that is a huge compliment.

I have one UK photog on Flickr. Off focus, wet print scans. Easy to recognize. I like them too.

And here is Parisian with digital M, I follow. Heavily over processed b/w. No brainer "who_is".

I could recognize "who" by pictures of almost all regular Flickr users I follow or see regularly.

Recognizable "from_who" photos and good photographs are irrelevant. Crapshooters are recognizable, perhaps, even more.
 
Having a style that is your's is not irrelevant? Having work that looks like everyone else''s work is common and not at all special. All the greats had work that you recognize without seeing who shot them because they all developed a personal way of seeing. I usually can't tell one guy on Flicker form the next. And then you have to say who is deciding what is or isn't crap. Maybe there are those that don't know any better and can only see the obvious and never take the time to look and deeper like you describe your own experience with your aunt. So if you are an artist/photographer you should always try and tailor your work for the ignorant?

Stories? I believe what Winogrand had to say about that.
 
For me, "street photography" means public photography, i.e.: photography done in spaces where The Public gathers. Most of these spaces are obvious (streets, parks, playgrounds, the beach, etc.). But then there are the gray areas. For example, what about photos made in a bar? I could go either way on those. But if a picture in a bar, or at rock concert isn't "street photography", then what is it?

Ultimately, there is always going to be huge gray areas for each of us when trying to define something like street photography. Same goes for landscape, portraiture, still life. That's OK with me.
 
Having a style that is your's is not irrelevant? Having work that looks like everyone else''s work is common and not at all special. All the greats had work that you recognize without seeing who shot them because they all developed a personal way of seeing. I usually can't tell one guy on Flicker form the next. And then you have to say who is deciding what is or isn't crap. Maybe there are those that don't know any better and can only see the obvious and never take the time to look and deeper like you describe your own experience with your aunt. So if you are an artist/photographer you should always try and tailor your work for the ignorant?

Stories? I believe what Winogrand had to say about that.

Having style and good photography is as irrelevant as having bad photography.

Everyone free to decide what is crap and what isn't, because everyone also free to tell - "you have good pictures".

Yes, I can't easily read the shapes sometimes, but I could often distinguish one photog from another on Flickr, here and where...

I have seen video with Winogrand, where his answer to "what makes picture good" was - "it has to have a drama in it".

I don't think easy to read photographs are something tailored. It comes naturally from the photog.
I also agree with - if photo needs to be explained, it isn't good photo.

And I like what John Free is saying about street photography in terms of importance of be recognizable.
Not word by word, but:
"It isn't about you to become famous, it is about them, their lives and their moments."

Cheers, Ko.
 
Back
Top Bottom