OurManInTangier
An Undesirable
Having commented and followed the recent thread from Keith (Kbg32) regarding the video of a young street photographer whose approach has ruffled feathers and sparked some interesting responses, it made me wonder quite when, how and why street photography became so popular with photographers and if it can last for much longer.
My personal guess would be the move from film to digital had a large part to play, allowing thousands of images to be taken per day, processed and edited within a day and all at virtually no extra cost beyond the initial outlay on kit.
But what of the 'why'...the most interesting part for me.
I must put my hand up at this point and admit that virtually all of my personal/fun photography is taken of people that I don't know personally, I've avoided calling it "street photography" simply because a) I don't believe my pictures necessarily fit with the current popular definition of the term b) it's purely cathartic fun.
I know that I get huge enjoyment from capturing or, more importantly and honestly, attempting to capture some recognisably human element that gets overlooked due to the speed of life. Big or small and it doesn't have to have a great weighty meaning - life can be pointless, boring and without direction at times. Are these the same kind of reasons all other photographers who walk around the streets do it? Is it an easy cop out that can involve little in the way of technical achievement/ability? Are we on the cusp of seeing photography students wanting to take up street photography over fashion (whenever I speak to photography students about what area they'd like to get into its seems the majority go for fashion, YMMV of course.) Maybe we're nearer to an implosion, the sheer number of Flickr (add to that RFF and all the other places) street shooters uploading images of massively varying quality may end up destroying the value of all but those at the very peak of the genre.
I came to RFF looking for information on rangefinders to enable to carry on taking these type of pictures without a huge DSLR, when I joined in 2006 the gallery here was predominantly "street" in style, now there seems to be a trend towards more abstract, detailed work....I'm struggling now, I'll end up having to say ART through my own ignorance. So, is this a localised (as in RFF) trend or one that is starting to reach across the board?
What say you?
P.S. I apologise for my waffling nature, I tend to get myself tangled up in words.
My personal guess would be the move from film to digital had a large part to play, allowing thousands of images to be taken per day, processed and edited within a day and all at virtually no extra cost beyond the initial outlay on kit.
But what of the 'why'...the most interesting part for me.
I must put my hand up at this point and admit that virtually all of my personal/fun photography is taken of people that I don't know personally, I've avoided calling it "street photography" simply because a) I don't believe my pictures necessarily fit with the current popular definition of the term b) it's purely cathartic fun.
I know that I get huge enjoyment from capturing or, more importantly and honestly, attempting to capture some recognisably human element that gets overlooked due to the speed of life. Big or small and it doesn't have to have a great weighty meaning - life can be pointless, boring and without direction at times. Are these the same kind of reasons all other photographers who walk around the streets do it? Is it an easy cop out that can involve little in the way of technical achievement/ability? Are we on the cusp of seeing photography students wanting to take up street photography over fashion (whenever I speak to photography students about what area they'd like to get into its seems the majority go for fashion, YMMV of course.) Maybe we're nearer to an implosion, the sheer number of Flickr (add to that RFF and all the other places) street shooters uploading images of massively varying quality may end up destroying the value of all but those at the very peak of the genre.
I came to RFF looking for information on rangefinders to enable to carry on taking these type of pictures without a huge DSLR, when I joined in 2006 the gallery here was predominantly "street" in style, now there seems to be a trend towards more abstract, detailed work....I'm struggling now, I'll end up having to say ART through my own ignorance. So, is this a localised (as in RFF) trend or one that is starting to reach across the board?
What say you?
P.S. I apologise for my waffling nature, I tend to get myself tangled up in words.
jky
Well-known
My take...
My take...
...the varying quality of street photos uploaded to sites like flickr exemplifies the difficulty of the genre (Street) imo.
Let's be honest and step away from the "nice capture", "great moment", "thumbs up" pat-in-the-back to an otherwise boring image of a guy crossing the street or having coffee at a cafe... SP is simple, but not easy.
Perhaps some time ago, these day to day recorded images suffice, but it seems to me that SP is now becoming much more than that... or more "artsy" perhaps?
Complex compositions + various layering and depth combined w/ how one uses light and of course the subject matter.... street can be as abstract as any other I've personally seen.
Although I wasn't particularly taken by the methodology in the video ("...this guy's style") , it is something different (a'la Gilden but with no flash).... and if the results were better - personally I would have liked to see more than just a few snips of images - then why not?
My take...
...the varying quality of street photos uploaded to sites like flickr exemplifies the difficulty of the genre (Street) imo.
Let's be honest and step away from the "nice capture", "great moment", "thumbs up" pat-in-the-back to an otherwise boring image of a guy crossing the street or having coffee at a cafe... SP is simple, but not easy.
Perhaps some time ago, these day to day recorded images suffice, but it seems to me that SP is now becoming much more than that... or more "artsy" perhaps?
Complex compositions + various layering and depth combined w/ how one uses light and of course the subject matter.... street can be as abstract as any other I've personally seen.
Although I wasn't particularly taken by the methodology in the video ("...this guy's style") , it is something different (a'la Gilden but with no flash).... and if the results were better - personally I would have liked to see more than just a few snips of images - then why not?
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Simon, a good question (or a set of those ).
To me, a good "street" photograph is one that transform me into that specific moment of time in that location where the shot happens.
So the ability of the photographer to spot interesting subjects/scene, and then frame those in a strong composition (according to their vision/style) determines the level of impact that the photograph will have on viewers.
There are some street shots that are dominated by geometrical or spatial symmetry, and there are others that contain minimalistic styling. These are common visual cues that you see in various other types of photography including the ones labeled as "art," but in this case, the subjects are un-posed, real-time happenings on the streets, which I suspect draws us into it because we are curious beings by nature.
On the side, I do wonder about something that you touched in your post above: digital technology. Does it make street photography "easier" to do? I guess it depends on how you're using it. If you use the spray-and-pray method, then yeah, I think it reduces street-photography to merely "street-videography"
).To me, a good "street" photograph is one that transform me into that specific moment of time in that location where the shot happens.
So the ability of the photographer to spot interesting subjects/scene, and then frame those in a strong composition (according to their vision/style) determines the level of impact that the photograph will have on viewers.
There are some street shots that are dominated by geometrical or spatial symmetry, and there are others that contain minimalistic styling. These are common visual cues that you see in various other types of photography including the ones labeled as "art," but in this case, the subjects are un-posed, real-time happenings on the streets, which I suspect draws us into it because we are curious beings by nature.
On the side, I do wonder about something that you touched in your post above: digital technology. Does it make street photography "easier" to do? I guess it depends on how you're using it. If you use the spray-and-pray method, then yeah, I think it reduces street-photography to merely "street-videography"
Tompas
Wannabe Künstler
When you're through with 'my beautiful cat/dog/girlfriend/boyfriend' -- what could be more interesting than the human animal in its natural habitats?
SimonSawSunlight
Simon Fabel
P.S. I apologise for my waffling nature, I tend to get myself tangled up in words.
there is only one solution for this: beer.
FrankS
Registered User
Add babies, flowers, insects, and sunsets to that list.
To OMIT (our man in tangier): great questions.
Last edited:
dave lackey
Veteran
gho
Well-known
To be honest after seeing the video I thought that photographing in the street is at its' end and that "street photography" has become a huge TM.
Last edited:
dave lackey
Veteran
Having commented and followed the recent thread from Keith (Kbg32) regarding the video of a young street photographer whose approach has ruffled feathers and sparked some interesting responses, it made me wonder quite when, how and why street photography became so popular with photographers and if it can last for much longer.
My personal guess would be the move from film to digital had a large part to play, allowing thousands of images to be taken per day, processed and edited within a day and all at virtually no extra cost beyond the initial outlay on kit.
But what of the 'why'...the most interesting part for me.
I must put my hand up at this point and admit that virtually all of my personal/fun photography is taken of people that I don't know personally, I've avoided calling it "street photography" simply because a) I don't believe my pictures necessarily fit with the current popular definition of the term b) it's purely cathartic fun.
I know that I get huge enjoyment from capturing or, more importantly and honestly, attempting to capture some recognisably human element that gets overlooked due to the speed of life. Big or small and it doesn't have to have a great weighty meaning - life can be pointless, boring and without direction at times. Are these the same kind of reasons all other photographers who walk around the streets do it? Is it an easy cop out that can involve little in the way of technical achievement/ability? Are we on the cusp of seeing photography students wanting to take up street photography over fashion (whenever I speak to photography students about what area they'd like to get into its seems the majority go for fashion, YMMV of course.) Maybe we're nearer to an implosion, the sheer number of Flickr (add to that RFF and all the other places) street shooters uploading images of massively varying quality may end up destroying the value of all but those at the very peak of the genre.
I came to RFF looking for information on rangefinders to enable to carry on taking these type of pictures without a huge DSLR, when I joined in 2006 the gallery here was predominantly "street" in style, now there seems to be a trend towards more abstract, detailed work....I'm struggling now, I'll end up having to say ART through my own ignorance. So, is this a localised (as in RFF) trend or one that is starting to reach across the board?
What say you?
P.S. I apologise for my waffling nature, I tend to get myself tangled up in words.
Sometime in the future, it may be called something else, like "voyeur la vida", instead of street photography, who knows? I don't think what we see on RFF is necessarily a cross-section of the professional photography world. It may be close to the hobbyist world and serves a great purpose for us all in either capacity.
RF cameras have basically invented the kind of photography one sees posted here and those coming from monster DSLR's and such are also finding other uses for a small RF camera with great lenses.
Which direction would YOU like to go? There are many to choose from and I am enjoying a number of paths along my journey, so don't hold back, run with it. After a nice cold beer, that is.
jky
Well-known
...where's that pint of Duvel?
erik
Established
gho
Well-known
"TM"?
I think I get your drift, but can't figure out that bit. I know it's not "text me".
Oh, I mean trade mark.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I've seen pictures taken on the beach or on the train passed as "street" (not a drastic leap, but it's a small one nonetheless), even photos taken inside abandoned buildings. Once "street" started meaning "not studio" it went downhill from there.
They say that breaking the rules make for good artists. But what the wannabe artists forget is that before they broke the rules, they learned the rules. Not applying the rules is pretty much following the rule of not following them. You can't knowingly break something that you don't know you're (supposedly) breaking.
One (or a thousand) monkey(s) typing is not breaking the rules of grammar, it's avoiding them altogether.
They say that breaking the rules make for good artists. But what the wannabe artists forget is that before they broke the rules, they learned the rules. Not applying the rules is pretty much following the rule of not following them. You can't knowingly break something that you don't know you're (supposedly) breaking.
One (or a thousand) monkey(s) typing is not breaking the rules of grammar, it's avoiding them altogether.
cambolt
Green Spotted Nose Turtle
I'm no fan of these snapshots of people "going about their daily activities" such as the man lighting his cigarette. Ok, maybe it is a "humanity at 1/125th" or whatever but it is not presented in any interesting or visually striking way. Kind of like a biography that happened to just be a straight, direct recount of someone's life. This guy's photos are just another addition to the endless collection of photos on Flickr of someone backside as they walk off somewhere. This is not to say that all photos of backsides are bad. Presented in an interesting way they can be very good. Look at the way HCB used geometry in these kinds of shots, it can make for a great photo. Likewise a photo of an interesting situation presented in a dull manner can be just as bad. Like so many of the dull shots that plague our newspapers. Again, I would say that a "good" photographer would arrange certain elements in the composition to make for a visually striking shot with an interesting subject as well.
Maybe I'm generalizing a little but these are just my thoughts
Maybe I'm generalizing a little but these are just my thoughts