Is Street Photography Dead?

Is Street Photography Dead?

  • Yes

    Votes: 82 20.6%

  • No

    Votes: 317 79.4%
  • Total voters
    399
JSU said:
Ditto, and props to Keith for making me look.

I've watched this scenario very up close, twice. You are brave to document this, but then it may be therapeutic.

One day at a time. . . .
Click to expand...


I'm glad someone took the trouble to take a look at those images.

The irony of discovering those amazing photographs of that woman in this thread is not lost on me ... or you I suspect! :)
 
Carterofmars said:
Is Street Photography Dead?
Click to expand...


Sadly, the way I see it - yes.

No, you can go and shoot streets all day long, and it does not even cost you much as we are shooting digital... But the main purpose of street photo is lost, I think. People, at least in US, besides few cities like NY, Chicago maybe... they don't live ion streets, they don't spend life time on streets. They just go somewhere. They live in malls, houses in burbs and restaurants.

Another thing, perhaps even more important: what breakthrugh in photo can you get on street now, that has not been already done?
So, yes. Street photo in it's classical form is dead, I beleave.
 
It's only dead to you, if you lose interest or have no interest in that Genre' anymore...

SP Lives, and many young talented street photographers are making it their own....
 
MIkhail said:
Sadly, the way I see it - yes.

No, you can go and shoot streets all day long, and it does not even cost you much as we are shooting digital... But the main purpose of street photo is lost, I think. People, at least in US, besides few cities like NY, Chicago maybe... they don't live ion streets, they don't spend life time on streets. They just go somewhere. They live in malls, houses in burbs and restaurants.

Another thing, perhaps even more important: what breakthrugh in photo can you get on street now, that has not been already done?
So, yes. Street photo in it's classical form is dead, I beleave.
Click to expand...

...really? NYC has to be one of the hardest places to shoot street photography in a sense. Anyone who has been there for longer than 3 days knows that people just walk from one shop to the next. Nothing really ALIVE happens on the streets in manhattan. It's a tourist city with hollow tourist characters and situations. Unless you REALLY know the city, hang in the hoods of harlem, drink with the bums at Coney Island, explore the alleyways of the lower east side....you're pretty much just getting people walking to work, going shopping or looking up.

Granted, you get the occasional character or group on the streets of Manhattan. But for the most part, you need to give up the white-washed comfort zones and really explore outside the rich/middle class areas to get anything truly great.
 
jordanstarr said:
...really? NYC has to be one of the hardest places to shoot street photography in a sense. Anyone who has been there for longer than 3 days knows that people just walk from one shop to the next. Nothing really ALIVE happens on the streets in manhattan. It's a tourist city with hollow tourist characters and situations. Unless you REALLY know the city, hang in the hoods of harlem, drink with the bums at Coney Island, explore the alleyways of the lower east side....you're pretty much just getting people walking to work, going shopping or looking up.

Granted, you get the occasional character or group on the streets of Manhattan. But for the most part, you need to give up the white-washed comfort zones and really explore outside the rich/middle class areas to get anything truly great.
Click to expand...

Doesn't this confirm my point?
 
Thanks for the link! Very well written in my opinion. Offers really good insight....Street photography is not dead you just have to dig deeper to find the good stuff...

gns said:
Maybe it is dead. Has anyone practiced it at the level of a Frank or a Winogrand? Has anyone since the seventies created anything as vital with it? If they did, was there an audience?
Photography took a different turn in the eighties, away from the documentary style. It was a turn away from what interested me about the medium, but I understand that people need change. Something new.

If it is dead, maybe that is the best time to do it.

Here is an interesting related essay by Paul Graham that you might want to read...
http://www.paulgrahamarchive.com/writings_by.html
Click to expand...
 
35photo said:
Thanks for the link! Very well written in my opinion. Offers really good insight....Street photography is not dead you just have to dig deeper to find the good stuff...
Click to expand...


Indeed! In just about any genre the most vital stuff is being made (in the) "underground".
 
Wait a second.... Isn't "street photography" really just 'photography'? The thread was a good read but IMHO, pointless. Either you're interested in photography or not.
 
I had a friend who was a genuine street photographer back in the late seventies early eighties. He worked for Boral who was a supplier of asphalt for roads. His job was to fly to from various locations around Australia photographing road laying results for their records.

OK ... so he was a 'road photographer!' :D
 
I think it is more about doing street photography, but through focussing to what we do we ignore the others doing street photography too. Frequently, when I get my mind out of snapshot hunting, I see others doing the same.
 
"Street" photography can happen anywhere.

Here's a link to a picture in my RFF Gallery of the Little Mermaid statue in Copenhagen. I'm proud of it. I think the composition is good, and I haven't seen any other picture of the Little Mermaid like it. For me, this is street photography, alive and well.
(Minolta CLE with Leica 21mm Super Angulon)

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffgallery/gallery/2246/med_U2246I1362478728.SEQ.0.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom