Please help me understand street photography

Just remember the rule of thirds and try not to get the center line of the street in the middle of the frame. People on this forum will jump you and accuse you of doing boring "street photography".

Best luck, and keep an eye out for traffic.
 
nightfly said:
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.
Click to expand...

maybe so, but go out without a meter and take photos of your friends in a dimly lit bar. Go home, develop them, and if they don't turn out, go do it again. When they all come out as you expect every time, make the claim that it is all simple and anyone could do it - if you still feel that way. Or use auto settings on your electronic camera with flash, send your film out to be processed, and bite your tongue.

Much of art is happy accident. That in no way diminishes the importance of technical mastery. The art is not in the technique or even the making, but in the product. Art that shows evidence of mastery is more valued than art that is slapped together with no effort. It's not all equal just because it is all "art."
 
Last edited:
nightfly said:
In the end it comes down to how the technique and the content work together to form the finished whole.
Click to expand...

For some reason this has stuck out to me the most after reading all the replies. After reading so many replies, both from "street" and "non-street" photographers I think I understand what motivates a street photographer a little more and thus I an appreciate what he/she is doing. I would venture that what most photographers, in general, are aiming for reflects nightfly's statement above. I don't think you can divore the technical from the asthetic, as the one informs the other. I guess you have to ask yourself the cliche old question of whether form should follow funcion or should the function follow the form. For me in the journalism world, my photographs should inform the viewer and so that is an important factor for me. It would seem that street photographers tend to free themselves from this. I see my photography as a possible means to disseminate a message, it doesn't always have to but I think that this enhances it. This is probably one reason why street photography has been hard for me to wrap my head around until today.

Also, as several have noted it is probably best to view the work of the street photographers who seem to have mastered their field to get a better view of that style. I think part of my problem has been the fact that I mainly see the stuff posted on the web that is fuzzy and badly exposed. (On a side note, I am not against such a shot if it the photographers intention or a reflection of how the photographer see the world around himself/herself.) If I looked at bad photojournalism (which is plentiful on the web as well) then I would get a rather sorry impression of photojournalism work too.

I appreciate all the replies to my question. I didn't expect so many, but I do think that now I understand why I din't like what I was seeing and that if I am interested in learning more I know the name of some photographers to check out.
 
http://www.ball-saal.com/MainPage/Gallery.php?type=Exhi&ID=30&page=1

http://www.lightstalkers.org/igorposner


The idea of taking street photography sounds intriguing to many photographers ...people new to photography see examples of this style and may feel this is what they want to do... and so they research and read and look and try for themselves ..... they may even hear the name Leica for the first time , HCB ,Winogrand......... people now have access to so much information and imagery over the internet ... the opportunity to learn is amazing but nothing takes the place of actually getting out there and shooting and finding what it is you are drawn to and perfecting it .... to me street photography is like the blues
 
Last edited:
Ansel in the gutter

Ansel in the gutter

This is not only an issue with street photographers by the way. There is a huge population of landscape photographers that think if they use large format and they develop using the zone system they will produce images just like Ansel Adams. What they end up with is perfectly exposed and perfectly printed boring images.[/QUOTE]

Apparently craftsmanship is a detriment to a good eye. NOT!!!!!
I've visited your site, your wind blew me there.

Your ignorance is showing. The zone system starts at exposure. If you practiced it you may very well be a judge of it. I think it would help out your photography. There are indeed skillfully excuted boring pictures, but every skill learned adds an opportunity to get it right the first time, and get it better.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand what's NOT to GET. 🙂 It's a genre. If you don't like it, then you don't like it. Every genre has its aesthetics and acceptabilities (those things that define it). For example, blurry, out of focus, grainy are for the most part unacceptable in studio protraiture, but those things are, as you've mentioned, very acceptable (and often desirable) characteristics in SP.

If your preference is for technically exact and precise exposure and focus, controlled/studio situations, and you're applying those aesthetics to SP, then no wonder you don't care for it. Although, if you gave it some time and explored the genre, you'd find that there are some photographers that do in fact bring a high level of technical quality to SP--even here in our gallery (see J.Borger' s work).

I think street photography's biggest proponenets are street photographers, those who do it and know how difficult it is. And yes, a lot of street photographers are very passionate about it. That's a bad thing? SP still has a cowboy/renegade/surfer (whatever) mentality or aura surrounding it. It is a rush to shoot on the street. You don't get it? Look at the work of some accomplished street photographers and then go out and try it.
 
nightfly said:
...

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.

...
Click to expand...
I feel it is important to make a counter-point to these statements. The technical approach to photography is so prominent because of how complex it is, not because it is so simple.

The Hemingway analogy seems quite irrelevant to me. Literature is not primarily a visual art and thus cannot be judged by the same criteria. Why not take technical expertise of the language as an example? Exploitation of vocabulary, grammar and phrasing technique compare very favorably to variables such as emulsions, papers, chemicals, and the dynamics of the street. Hemingway was a master in the subtleties of language much in the same way that skilled photographers are masters in areas which, to the untrained eye, could easily go unnoticed.

This "a good street photo is a good street photo" approach is far too vague for my taste and seems born of a lack of understanding. Sure, maybe you can't say why it is a good photograph and why it works - but to another person it could probably be explained easily, given the correct knowledge and experience.

The problem becomes a question of perception. A seasoned street photographer can more easily pick up on these subtle things - the vast majority of the audience probably never will, and this is where lots of neat fun things come into play. Thing such as - if a photo doesnt have to reach perfection, then to which technical standard should it endeavour? Is there a line to draw? Is there a reason to stubbornly ignore processes that would serve to improve ones photography?

One of the great things about photography to me, and especially street photography, is that it allows me to combine two minds (actually, surely even more if I wanted to delve deeper) into one process; the scientific mind and the social mind. The prospects to excel in an area such as street photography are nearly wide open simply because the standard is set so low, and this is another reason why it excites me so much. And this is where I will hopefully come to better explain the impulse of street photography a little:

So what if i can time a capture just right in the middle of city chaos. So what if I can get it framed just right. So what if I can set the exposure and depth of field appropriately. So what if I can perceive a conceptual scene forming on the street which has the power to make a meaningful social commentary and react to make that shot? So what if I can nail the focus. So what if I can hold the camera very steady. There are so many more.. so so so many more variables at play on the street and even again once I reach the darkroom.

But so what? Well, what if I could do that ALL. In the same frame. On the same piece of paper. Some people simply aren't interested in any of these things. Some people aren't interested in being excellent at anything at all. But for me, these are some of the things that make street photography interesting.

And what's more - when I'm viewing others street shots it makes it so much more easy for me to appreciate what's happening because I know what goes in to making a great shot. My 2 cents.
 
Last edited:
tblanston said:
...

So what if i can time a capture just right in the middle of city chaos. So what if I can get it framed just right. So what if I can set the exposure and depth of field appropriately. So what if I can perceive a conceptual scene forming on the street which has the power to make a meaningful social commentary and react to make that shot? So what if I can nail the focus. So what if I can hold the camera very steady. There are so many more.. so so so many more variables at play on the street and even again once I reach the darkroom.

But so what? Well, what if I could do that ALL. In the same frame. On the same piece of paper. Some people simply aren't interested in any of these things. Some people aren't interested in being excellent at anything at all. But for me, these are some of the things that make street photography interesting.

And what's more - when I'm viewing others street shots it makes it so much more easy for me to appreciate what's happening because I know what goes in to making a great shot. My 2 cents.
Click to expand...


See! Do landscape photographers have this much passion? Well said! Perfectly summarized. And you're right we could easily name several more variables. nice passage. Thank you. Close the thread now! 🙂




.

.
 
Ah OK, didn't understand right. sorry.
So no genres at all? I think it is quite practical to have genres -even if they are loosely defined- not only for marketing reasons. And what are we gonna argue about then?! Oh yeah, lens sharpness, I forgot...
 
I'm firmly with those who think that photography, like any art form, requires the twin disciplines of craftsmanship and conception.

Language requires rules - spelling and grammar - to aid communication, and writers use these rules to guide their readers. A photograph is simply another means of communication, and, like language, has rules that photographers use to underline what they are trying to say. In our case, the grammar of photography is composition, whether captured directly or created in the darkroom by, say, dodging/burning.

That said, rules aren't laws, so underexposure or slanted horizons are fine so long as they are deliberate, or at least don't work against what the photographer is trying to say.

However, knowing how to create a technically proficient and well composed photograph isn't enough: the photographer must have something to say, and all the elements in that photograph should support that idea.

If one of these two components is missing, the photograph will fail, in my opinion:

• How many poorly composed "street" shots do we see where we're not sure what the subject is and our eye is distracted by a several objects or led out of the frame?

• What about those myriad boring landscapes with the horizon a third the way down and a lone building or tree plonked on the intersection of a third?

Lacking craft, the former fails; lacking vision, the latter fails.

Ash states that he uses the camera to document the here and now, and that content in this context has primacy over technical proficiency. I can agree with this inasmuch as it's better to have any photo rather than no photo if the aim is to document Britain in 2006.

However, I'm sure Ash would agree that, none the less, the ideal documentary shot should communicate what the photographer is seeing and also be well-composed and technically perfect. He links to a photo of his:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=47386&cat=500&ppuser=5280

This communicates what Ash has seen, and is also well executed; for example, the flat lighting matches the sombre mood (it wouldn't work in colour on a sunny day), and the elements in the photo support each other (e.g. the lighter areas create a circle for the eye to travel around, and the two rectangles in the top left and lower right create dynamism, as does the slanted horizon). (I didn't realise we had such shops here <shudders>.)
 
The music is definitely terrible... but even without the sound, I don't think I would have lasted much longer than that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

peterm1
Who is your favorite photographer in history - who has influenced you the most?
2 3
Replies
40
Views
924
David Murphy
David Murphy
wrs1145
Please help me with some advice.
Replies
7
Views
888
Glenn2
G
E
Curious — What defines a perfect street shot for you?
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
3K
boojum
boojum
G
Which rangefinder to get for 35mm lens
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
WJJ3
WJJ3
maigo
Recuerdo - Latin American Photography at Art Gallery of Ontario (AGO)
Replies
0
Views
202
maigo
maigo
Back
Top Bottom