Please help me understand street photography

If your a suburban daddy like me, participating in the corporate rat race everyday, you can't be a street photographer. Which is good for me cause I don't "get" much of street photography either, maybe because a lot of it is really bad.

Like Todd said, my decisive moment is getting my 3 and 4 yrs old boys in the perfect pose, when the light is right and I am ready to shoot! So I am more of a "sesame street" photographer! haha
 
I used to think i was a "street photographer" but I like to shoot so many different subjects that I just dont label any of it. Also, I dont shoot a lot of people stuff when out and about.
 
Gary R said:
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.


you're probably not looking at good work. 🙄
 
Ghost, if you disagree, please explain why. In a discussion like this it isn't enough to say you disagree. If you can't explain your opinion I'll dismiss it 😀
 
I think what ghost is saying is:
Far as I'm concerned street photography is not there to document. It's all about the perfect shot, its not about getting the shot.
 
Journalism=story
Mood=feeling
Moment=instant
Luck=fortune
All good photography embraces these things. Street photgraphy is just another topical genre that better matches the medium: photography.

Other mediums come close, poetry, street music, rap, grafitti and so on. All have the possiblity of being art by being sublime because after all they are all found objects. Chances are, however, most will just be crap.

Most successful 'art' of this type becomes 'art' in the editing.
 
RicardoD said:
If your a suburban daddy like me, participating in the corporate rat race everyday, you can't be a street photographer.

lots of street photography has been done in suburban and rural areas. winogrand, friedlander, frank, eggleston, koudelka, and erwitt all did it.
 
Ash said:
Ghost, if you disagree, please explain why. In a discussion like this it isn't enough to say you disagree. If you can't explain your opinion I'll dismiss it 😀

form and content are both strong in good photographers' work. what else is there to say?😕
 
We aren't talking about 'good photographers' we are talking about the 'street photography' categorisation.
 
The problem I'm seeing here is the general perception that street photography is defined by its method of capture, not its content.
From what I've been reading here and on other forums, people seem to think (as Gary R said) that to shoot street you have to have a rangefinder tucked under your jacket and sneak up on people or get "grab shots" by "shooting from the hip".
These can be useful techniques but they're not the only ones. I've only been shooting with rangefinders for about a year-and-a-half and I feel like I'm still in the learning stages, so I've fired off my fair share of grab shots. But in the previous 12 or so years of SLR photography I think I nailed some pretty good street shots.
I think the most successful street images are the ones where the photographer anticipates what could be a good shot, sets up the camera, and waits in the ready for it to happen. All my favourite shots in my gallery were arrived at by that technique. All the mediocre ones are "under the jacket, shooting from the hip grab shots"!
 
Very interesting discussion, thanks to Gary R for initiating it.

On good steet photography, I agree with Ghost on this: content and form have to operate synergistically, reinforcing each other.

When it comes to great photographers like Bresson, Winograd et.al, please remember that we are witnessing only a tiny fraction of their work, usually heavily edited by them (perhaps by others too). As far as I know, Bresson was shooting two rolls a day (I forget where I read that, so no reference): not all was gold, but there was gold in it. If it were possible to look at the discarded images then, probably, one would arrive at the conclusion that Bresson's work doesn't resonate after all. You have to take image after image after image to arrive at something that vibrates with meaning.

To me, photographs are bits of information, not unlike sentences. The difference between the two is that the first are formed somewhat randomly, impromptu, so that you end up with a much greater number of 'ungrammatical' visual expressions (in which case they are nonsense). Sometimes things fall into place and they are grammatical - they convey meaning. And sometimes they go beyond the merely meaningful to become something higher: they are trully poetic.
 
I've often wondered what street photography is .... it use to be a style introduced by some past well known photographers, then of course not called street.

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.

Now a way to find out is to check all fora's and look under street and select the truly nice pictures you find .... after analysing the amount of pictures seen, compared to amount of pictures chosen you will come to the conclusion thats "street" is nothing .....
 
I stopped thinking in terms of genre and decided to see myself as a kind of documentarian, making a record of the way things look in this day and age, so that if someone in the future wants to take a look at my negs, they will find how Wabash Street looked in the early 21st century.

That's precisely the way I see street photography myself: people provide the eternal, persistent gestures and attitudes, but the rest of its charm comes from the surrounding areas.

And, like Oscar, I stopped looking at my negs and decided to think of what I really want to photograph: people. Now, since I dislike the predatory side of the job, I ask for permission to photograph people... or at least try not to make it evident that I am taking a photograph.

Good thread. Thanks, Gary! 🙂
 
Magnus said:
Now a way to find out is to check all fora's and look under street and select the truly nice pictures you find .... after analysing the amount of pictures seen, compared to amount of pictures chosen you will come to the conclusion thats "street" is nothing .....


How is that different from any other photographic genre? 😕

Also, calling 'something', 'nothing', is fallacious. 😛
 
Back
Top Bottom