Please help me understand street photography

[Gary R]

Whether I am reading the forums here or on photo.net, I see many discussions about street photography. Indeed, it seems the general consenus is that Leica's and rangefinders in general are the preferred tools for this type of work. When I look at this work, however, I just don't get it. I am not intrigued by photos of people walking down the street trying to avoid looking at the photogrpher, the back of some guys head on a subway, or some little old lady eating at a cafe. It's not that these subjects couldn't be interesting, it's just that the photos I see are mostly badly composed, poorly exposed, out of focus or blurry (the last two aren't ALWAYS bad). I also know many "street photographers" pride themselves on shooting from the hip or hiding their camera in a coat pocket to get the shot and thus the poor composition. I still can't get into these photographs, I just don't understand what the appeal is. I know some of this is subjective and deals with my own artistic views, but I keep thinking maybe I am missing some piece of the puzzle, some key idea or component of this "bad" art that keeps me from enjoying it. I do not post this in an attempt to offend anyone who is a hardcore "street shooter" but rather to ask for such people to enlighten me as to the finer points of the art so that I might enjoy it with the rest of you.

 

[Ash]

I agree with you that a lot of 'street photography' is poor. It's all about trying to get a candid photo.

check out people's photo's of Camden or RFF meets. go to my myspace/blog and look to the bottom for some of mine.


Far as I'm concerned street photography is there to document. It's not all about the perfect shot, its about getting the shot.

For example, a cultural document:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=47386&cat=500&ppuser=5280

Or this, which is disappointing it's a really bad neg, but proves that 'street photography' can catch moments you otherwise miss using a different camera
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=48370&cat=6185

I guess a lot of street photo's end up like this one I took
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=42056&cat=6185
They're all pretty boring. I do it for the satisfaction of having a large number of points of interest of the town at the moment, so when I'm older and the town has changed, I can look back at how it once was

 

[lZr]

There is no strict definition about. Please read this 150 pages pdf file by Chris and You will get into the idea.
http://ic3.deviantart.com/fs11/f/2006/227/e/2/street_photography_for_the_purist.pdf
I think the book is fantastic. That's the last one I read about

 

[Ash]

anyone having difficulty with the deviantart link, right cllck, select "copy link location", then go to www.deviantart.com and let the main page load. after that, copy the link to the pdf into your address bar and press enter

 

[taffer]

Gary, in fact there's nothing wrong at all in your view on the subject.

I found myself looking at mostly a bunch of void pictures (my own) after a couple years trying to pursue a subject that for me was non-existant, yet I didn't know.

Time and effort should be best invested in what one really wants to shoot, otherwise we're just trying to fool the others presenting them the work we think they want us to show, and most important, we're trying to fool ourselves.

Try to explain your photographic interests to somebody who doesn't know anything about it. Once you hear your own voice trying to do so, you'll know if you're really doing what you want.

There's much more than just streets.

Cheers,

Oscar

 

[Nikon Bob]

Gary R

You are not the only one who does not get it. Each to their own I suppose. It is just too bad that people get the impression that is all Leicas are made for from reading most Leica forums.

Bob

 

[varjag]

A lot of street photography is crap, as is any other genre. Look at HCB, Winogrand, Erwitt or Koudelka for examples of its original spirit. This forum also has its share of very good shots, but you have to be able to sort them out.

And I disagree that street photography about documenting anything. It is not journalism, at least not primarily. While both share common techniques, street is about aesthetics of moment rather than information. PJ wants the shot to get point across or tell the story; streetshooter shows the beauty side in routine life. Great streetshots are beautiful just with the light, the play of form, symmetry, repetition and other visual means. You can know nothing about the culture and the context depicted but a great street shot would still look great.

 

[nightfly]

It's good question and makes me think about my own love of street photography.

I think to really understand it, you need to think about what photography does as an artform. That is what it makes it different from say painting or sculpture. One of the things is that it offers a snapshot of an actual moment in time. A painting may attempt to reproduce a moment in time but most modern painting, pushed by photography out of this realm, is generally more abstract because modern painting has become "about" paint on canvas rather than representation.

So streetphotography to me, is about capturing the visual cacophony of modern life. It's a representation of how things actually look from the minds eye, not necessarily perfectly composed or focussed but it's about glimpses of slices of time.

In many ways this is "un-artful' if you take art to mean something that is composed or artificial like say a portrait. To many people art implies a certain deliberateness that street photography lacks. Street photography is more like a Pollack than a Rembrant, there is a spontenity and lack of control which is part of it's nature.

Probably the best way to understand it and judge if you feel it's art, is to look at some of the classic practioners: Henri Cartier Bresson, Robert Frank etc. If after looking at the acknowledged masters and it's still not art to you, then you probably don't get it. Or you just don't feel it's art which is fine. But you might gain some insight and then be able to judge better what might make it art to some.

To me it really doesn't matter so much if it's art or not. It's the form of photography I most connect with. Portraits and Landscapes, particularly the painfully perfect Ansel Adams sort of stuff just leaves me very cold. I acknowledge it's technical merits but it doesn't connect with me. Street photography to me is the essential form of photography, it's what photography does best and what it does uniquely as an art form. And to bring it back to this forum, many people, myself included feel that the Leica or other camera's like it, are the ultimate tool for practicing it. Their ability to focus quickly, shoot quietly and their general intuitiveness allows one to really disappear into the moment and grab shots without arrousing much notice or removing yourself from the flow of time you are trying to capture.

 

[Crasis]

Look down. Take a photo of the street you're standing in. There, done. Simple, right? 😀

 

[pesphoto]

Check out the work on this site.
http://www.funtigo.com/urbanphotos?g=1354475&cr=1&rfm=y

 

[Todd.Hanz]

Gary, in fact there's nothing wrong at all in your view on the subject.

I found myself looking at mostly a bunch of void pictures (my own) after a couple years trying to pursue a subject that for me was non-existant, yet I didn't know.

Time and effort should be best invested in what one really wants to shoot, otherwise we're just trying to fool the others presenting them the work we think they want us to show, and most important, we're trying to fool ourselves.

Try to explain your photographic interests to somebody who doesn't know anything about it. Once you hear your own voice trying to do so, you'll know if you're really doing what you want.

There's much more than just streets.

Cheers,

Oscar

this is very true!


Todd

 

[Ash]

And I disagree that street photography about documenting anything...

Then what the hell is it?! I'm sorry but by taking a photo you are by the definition of the word documenting something. Maybe that's my view. People are welcome to their own.


For the record I much prefer taking photo's of people in an informal but obvious manner (ie, portraiture) but if an image takes my fancy while I carry a camera around the street, then I'll document it by taking a photo!

 

[Gary R]

Stangly, I like the work of Bresson but have never really considered his work as street photography although as pointed out here much of it is. I never really looked at street photography as a historical documentary as Ash suggested. This idea does give the genre more meaning to me. I also appreciate nightfly's comments, and do not want to be understood as seeing art only as posed or thought out. In fact, I am a photojournalist myself (or at least a student hoping to get a full-time job as one) and can understand and empathize with street shooters with regards to taking a slice of time and capturing it. It seems that where I would want that moment to be demonstrative of something or to impart some information on the viewer, the street shooter does not feel any such tendancies. I am very interested in what has been said so far and hope that we can keep this discussion going for awhile longer. Thanks for your help.

 

[varjag]

I'm sorry but by taking a photo you are by the definition of the word documenting something.

In the same sense that writing a grocery list is an act of writing, perhaps 🙂

The question is not about broad definition (otherwise all photography the same and it makes no sense to talk about genres), but rather particular function dominating in the works. If you intend your work to document something, then there are words for it, "documentary" or "photojournalism". It is indeed true that many streetshoters also do PJ work (some actually live off it), but IMHO it is a stretch to equal street photography to journalism. Classic painters are great not because they tell you the fashions, hairdos or customs of the centuries past, there is undeniable strong aesthetics in their works.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

Gary,

Your points are well taken ... but in truth ... a lot of ALL photography is bad, not just street photography. Second, there is no need to 'get' street photography. As Oscar rightly notes, either it is there for you, or it isn't. Focus on what moves you.

Frankly, I love street photography, or landscapes of human faces, as I like to see them. Here are the sorts of photography I don't get and never really find myself wanting in my inability to get them :

1) animal photography, particularly horses (probably from seeing some of the truly awful 'horse' work on RFF)
2) flower photography
3) modern color (think Martin Parr or Eggleston)
4) baby photography (Ann Geddes)
5) celebrity photography (where the only point of interest is that someone famous is the subject)
6) magenta photography (where all blacks are *******ized to magenta)

I view photography, both in terms of appreciation and creation, as a highly almost uniquely individualistic endeavor. So as long as you satisfy your own sensibilities, ours do not matter 🙂

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

There are very few purely street photogs left.

You might want to look into Raymond Depardon and Josef Koudelka of Magnum. They are great street photogs in my estimation.

 

[w3rk5]

You can know nothing about the culture and the context depicted but a great street shot would still look great.

I'm not much of a street shooter, but I think what you said here made a lot of sence to me. I've seen a lot of street shots that didn't do anything for me. Then there are the ones that just look great.

 

[Ash]

Eugene, to document something is not to be a photojournalist. Well in a sense it is, but again you are placing the two terms too close together. A photojournalist in my mind reports an event, such as in war or for the newspapers. You can document a town for archival use. it's not photojournalism, its for historical reference. do you get me? there's too much to generalise here

 

[Todd.Hanz]

I don't like the term "Street Photography", now days it seems to give the photog some sort of cred, like it makes them tougher, badder, cooler...it's pretentious, whatever. Street is just where you are when the shot is taken, if you were on the playground would it be called playground photography, eh...probably not.

Winogrand didn't like the term either, "still photographer" was his chosen title, and he had a little experience shooting still photos on the street.

I've done the hipshot thing, sometimes it works but for me, most of the time I suck really bad at it. I prefer to compose through the viewfinder, that way if I want to cut off the top of someones head, feet, etc. I do so by choice and not through an act of random pointing. That said, I still try hipshots, and they still suck.

It's a challenge to shoot good street, sorta like getting a good shot of your two year old after pumping them full of red Koolaid and m&m's. People moving unpredictably, things change and your reaction has got to be fast, so you see and react. I guess over time you hone the skill and instinct to see what's going to happen before it does, then you react. Somedays it's a rush shooting on the street, click, click, click, somedays I'll be lucky to get three or four frames off, it's the ebb and flow.

I'm not a great street shooter, don't claim to be, but I enjoy it for the challenge and the asthetic. Check out Markus Hartels site: http://www.markushartel.com/blog/ , look through his archives, he's also a member here (different handle), I really like most of his work and it doesn't hurt to live in NY if street is your thing.


Todd

 

[kevin m]

I agree that there is lots of bad street photography out there, just as there is any other sort of photography. And frankly, too many Leica owners are way too concerned with whether HCB used a Sonnar or a Summicron for a particular photo when lens differences contribute next to nothing to the impact of an image relative to other, more important factors.

Here's a link to a guy who, I believe, makes his living as a fashion photographer in NYC. He has outtakes from that work on his site as well as some wonderful street shots. I'm always amazed that he can capture an image with many people in the frame, and they're all doing something that compels your interest, like here: http://streetzen.net/index.php?showimage=547 or here: http://streetzen.net/index.php?showimage=606 His homepage is www.streetzen.net

Another is this guy here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/63361458@N00/
Tell me you've ever seen a pigeon look so good: http://www.flickr.com/photos/leveckis/297791353/