Please help me understand street photography

[rool]

"Nowadays it's just another excuse for wasting time shooting anything that moves, turning into black and white and posting it on the web under the label "street" preferable the image should be tilted a bit."
Magnus, what the hell are you talking about?!

telenous, agree entirely.

 

[f8&go]

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

Thanks for the link. I enjoyed it, this guy is good!

 

[kbg32]

Gary, to understand is to see it and look at photographers who work in this genre. Other then HCB, have a look at Robert Frank, William Klein, Louis Faurer, Charles Harbutt, and Nathan Lyons to name a few. They are all "street photographers", with different points of view within this genre. To understand is to look and maybe try to experience photographing this way for yourself. There is a purpose behind what a lot of street photography is about. If you don't get it, it's fine. We all have our likes and dislikes. No one is going to help you understand. You need to "see" it for yourself.

Cheers.

 

[Magnus]

How is that different from any other photographic genre?

you'll probably get more likable pictures

calling 'something', 'nothing', is fallacious.

Got to pardon me for not knowing the meaning of the word, but this discussion is rather philosophical and has been one of the main issues of philosophy in the past 5 decades or so.

Is everything given a name something ?

 

[Crasis]

Here's my opinion: Shooting street photography is no excuse for having poor exposure, poor focus, poor composition, and nothing worth looking at in the photo.

It is no excuse to be mediocre. Take the technical perfection of still life, landscape, or whatever photography, and get that technical perfection within that fractional moment street shot. THAT takes skill. It isn't meant to be easy. If you have piss poor shots, it's not because you're shooting street, but simply because you have piss poor shots.

 

[Magnus]

Rool ... well Rool if you can't tell me how the flying blazers should I know .... 🙂

 

[dadsm3]

Agree Crasis, but motion blur, exposure latitude, very short DOF's, and soft focusing are sometimes tools for great street photography.....(at least that's what I tell myself!)

 

[Crasis]

Agree Crasis, but motion blur, exposure latitude, very short DOF's, and soft focusing are sometimes tools for great street photography.....(at least that's what I tell myself!)

Yes, but there is a great difference between intention and accident.

 

[Magnus]

Yes, but there is a great difference between intention and accident.

So some people say .... (and them saying that are absolutely right)

 

[dadsm3]

Not if the viewer doesn't know!

 

[dadsm3]

Just to clarify my point; if someone as skilled as HCB had to take hundreds of shots for a few keepers, then obviously 'luck' or 'accident' plays a larger role than many would admit. Others would have to take thousands (or tens of thousands) to get a few keepers. All great skill does is drastically increase the odds of getting that great shot just right.....along with a healthy dose of good fortune, or luck. HCB didn't know how much blur there would be on that shot of the bike rider until after he developed it. Voila, keeper!

 

[Crasis]

Not if the viewer doesn't know!

Yes, but I will know, and I have a high standard for myself. I, however, do not begrudge those who do not share a similar self standard.

 

[photogdave]

I would say there was a good chance he did know how much blur (roughly) there would be.
In one of the courses I took we did an exercise where the instructor wouls show us some of his slides with motion blur and we would have to try and guess the shutter speed. At one point I could actually distinguish between 1/30 and 1/15 etc.
Sadly, I think I have lost this ability. 🙁

 

[rool]

What I am saying is that thinking about street photography only as b&w, blurred and tilted shots is a pretty narrow view of the genre.
Most of what I shoot is street and I do it in color for example.

I agree on the fact that it is really difficult to take good street shots and that there is a lot of crap out there and that some people use the street genre as an excuse to poorly composed and exposed shots.

kbg32 makes a good point in the sense that I think it is almost impossible to define street photography, that different people see it differently and that the best way to figure out what it is is to just look at good work from good street shooters. then you start to "get it".
Flickr is a very good ressource in my opinion if you want to see what's happening now in street photography.

 

[nightfly]

Here's my opinion: Shooting street photography is no excuse for having poor exposure, poor focus, poor composition, and nothing worth looking at in the photo.

It is no excuse to be mediocre. Take the technical perfection of still life, landscape, or whatever photography, and get that technical perfection within that fractional moment street shot. THAT takes skill. It isn't meant to be easy. If you have piss poor shots, it's not because you're shooting street, but simply because you have piss poor shots.

I don't think you can seperate the two so neatly. The technique is part of the process so technical perfection isn't really a goal of street photography. Look at original prints of any of the street photographers who are considered "great" like Bresson or Frank and you will notice that the prints generally aren't close to technically perfect. However they are still good photographs. They transcend their technical imperfections.

I think the striving for teachnical prefection actually gets in the way of good photography often because it becomes about technique rather than what you are shooting. Some of the large format color guys who are currently popular come to mind.

I find the best street photograhy to often be very technically imperfect sometime in an exagerated manner, people like Daido Moriyama and William Klein are much more interesting photographers to me than people like Bresson due partly to the imperfection of their craft.

There is a supposition that there really is such thing as the "correct" exposure or framing that I think is false. If the photograph conveys what the photographer was trying to convey it works. This might well be done be heavily blocked shadows or blown highlights or skewed perspectives.

I think what you are really saying is that off kilter framing and poor exposure don't make it art which I wholeheartidly agree with. Technical imperfection can be as much of a crutch and a pose as technical perfection. In the end it comes down to how the technique and the content work together to form the finished whole.

 

[Crasis]

I don't think you can seperate the two so neatly. The technique is part of the process so technical perfection isn't really a goal of street photography. Look at original prints of any of the street photographers who are considered "great" like Bresson or Frank and you will notice that the prints generally aren't close to technically perfect. However they are still good photographs. They transcend their technical imperfections.

I think the striving for teachnical prefection actually gets in the way of good photography often because it becomes about technique rather than what you are shooting. Some of the large format color guys who are currently popular come to mind.

I find the best street photograhy to often be very technically imperfect sometime in an exagerated manner, people like Daido Moriyama and William Klein are much more interesting photographers to me than people like Bresson due partly to the imperfection of their craft.

There is a supposition that there really is such thing as the "correct" exposure or framing that I think is false. If the photograph conveys what the photographer was trying to convey it works. This might well be done be heavily blocked shadows or blown highlights or skewed perspectives.

I think what you are really saying is that off kilter framing and poor exposure don't make it art which I wholeheartidly agree with. Technical imperfection can be as much of a crutch and a pose as technical perfection. In the end it comes down to how the technique and the content work together to form the finished whole.

Why this seems to be known in all other walks of life except art, baffles my mind. You must have a mastery of the rules in order to break them well. This is, at least true of traditional art. This is also true of things unrelated to art. Master a small set of axioms, then learn how to break them for the best effect. You may know instinctively how to break a rule, but that just means you know instinctively the rule.

There's a reason for the rule of thirds. It is an easy and geometrically appealing ratio since such ratios occur in natural ordered systems. Understanding why it works and the typical dynamics of it allows you to change those dynamics in circumstances which would benefit such a change.

While it is easy for a musician to learn their craft without thinking of the rules and excel in it, they will eventually have mastered all the rules and can break them in their music. What we have these days is a glut of individuals being very proud of their mediocrity; their lack of understanding of the basic rules and breaking it in ways which convey nothing and add no meaning. When did we start holding up the average as something to strive towards?

*end rant*

 

[bobomoon]

Quality doesn't mean deep blacks and whatever tonal range. That's not quality, that's a kind of quality. The pictures of Robert Frank might strike someone as being sloppy--the tone range isn't right and things like that--but they're far superior to the pictures of Ansel Adams with regard to quality, because the quality of Ansel Adams, if I may say so, is essentially the quality of a postcard. But the quality of Robert Frank is a quality that has something to do with what he's doing, what his mind is. It's not balancing out the sky to the sand and so forth. It's got to do with intention. -Eliott Erwitt

 

[Toby]

Yes, but there is a great difference between intention and accident.

Yes, but great photographers are a lot 'luckier' than bad photographers. The true great street photographers spent hours upon hours and days and days etc. etc. searching for the apparently unintentional or accidental. Street phototography is a genre that demands shooting a lot of duds to get that one great photo. Accept the low hit rate as a given and work your bollocks off and you are on the first step on the ladder. The reason why HCB and others are revered is street photography is extremely hard to do well.

 

[nightfly]

Quality doesn't mean deep blacks and whatever tonal range. That's not quality, that's a kind of quality. The pictures of Robert Frank might strike someone as being sloppy--the tone range isn't right and things like that--but they're far superior to the pictures of Ansel Adams with regard to quality, because the quality of Ansel Adams, if I may say so, is essentially the quality of a postcard. But the quality of Robert Frank is a quality that has something to do with what he's doing, what his mind is. It's not balancing out the sky to the sand and so forth. It's got to do with intention. -Eliott Erwitt

Ahmen.

In all honesty the "rules" and "craft" of photography are pretty damn simple. With modern do everything cameras it's actually hard to break them at least exposure wise. That's why we sneak around with Leicas.

I think people try to make the technical aspects of photography more than they really are, probably because the act of taking photographs is so common and so simple. We need to build up this up to make ourselves feel like we are doing something. As a whole photographers are way too focused on technique and craft. Very few people would care what pen Hemingway used but a large percentage of photographers are obsessed with cameras and f stops.

The bottom line is that the tools and technique should disappear into the total effect of the art. If they are too conspicious whether by being too perfect (Ansel Adams) or too imperfect (90% of web "street photography") then the end result doesn't work.

All this talk has little to do with the art of it. You really have to look at the stuff to "get" street photography. Or you can reject it entirely.

I used to really dislike Winogrand and it took a lot of looking to see what the fuss was about. I still feel like I would edit most exhibitions I've seen of his more. However it's only by looking that you can decide what you like or don't like.

 

[40oz]

eh, "street photography" is just people taking pictures of people. Of course there is a high ratio of discards. It isn't like nature photography is inherently different in that way.

I take photos of my neighborhood and the people who live in it. I do so because I like to take pictures. I used to sit and wait for people to clear a scene before taking the pic, but found that makes for an unsatisfying shot. Now I try to capture people actually USING the sidewalk tables outside a cafe, or walking on the sidewalk, or whatever. Instead of looking like a shot of an unpopulated ghost town, my pictures now look to me like shots of a city, which is what they are.

I would say that some people go a little overboard with the whole "sharing" thing. This easily gives the impression that you must be missing something when you can't find any reason to remember 80-90% of what is out there. I don't think I've ever looked at 100+ pictures and said to myself, "damn, and they ALL were so unforgettable!" More likely, I say to myself, "someone needs to learn to be selective." To me, a "good eye" isn't taking great pictures, it is being able to pick just 5 worth sharing from your own work. Save the rest for posterity, rotate them out, whatever. Nobody can benefit from scanning 200 photos with no context.