RE: Defining street photography.

S

Stephanie Brim

Mental Experimental.
Local time
8:55 AM
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
2,859
Location
Iowa
View My Gallery
RE: Defining street photography.

I say we don't. I say we let everyone openly interpret it for themselves. I say we make that a part of the book and the gallery. In addition to your gallery, you could provide a short little blurb on what you think street photography is and why you do it. This would make sure that all those who wanted to participate could participate. I DO NOT want RML out or anyone else for that matter.

This okay with everyone?

I think that this way we'd get the broadest range of photos. We'd also hear what everyone has to say on the subject.
 
I think it would be good to have some sort of definition otherwise we will get such a diverse range of interpretations that it'll dilute the "street photography" aspect of this project, and it'll turn into a "general photography" project.

Might I suggest that we consult Colin Westerbeck & Joel Meyerowitz's book "Bystander: A History of Street Photography" - in it's introduction I remember reading a Good, Broad, Vague definition of Street Photography. I have a copy of the book at home (not there at the moment), but can look it up tonight if people are interested.
 
I want to point you to some real man, that is very cursive, but the text is beautiful at some points. Big pdf file. Please read it in its entirety. His friends are introductive and more to the point. I don't have the rights to copy the file, but I think the link will not send me to the jail
Good reading. Take your time

Street photography for the purist by Chris Weeks

Edit: I am sure some of you know this young man and the text
 
Last edited:
Stephanie Brim said:
I say we don't.
Click to expand...
sleepyhead said:
I think it would be good to have some sort of definition
Click to expand...
I'm going to have to go with Stephanie. While I know there is no "grand prize" here, I've seen way too many exercises like this degenerate into disputes about what is, or is not "street photography". Mostly by people trying to define their competition out. Its easier to "win the prize" by playing ducks and drakes with the rules than to actually, well, "win" (however you might define that).

I get the distinct impression (please, Stephanie, correct me if I'm wrong) that the "I say we don't" factor is deliberate, (a) because Stephanie is really seeking a wide interpretation of "street photography"; and (b) she's trying to avoid these kinds of definitional arguements.

...Mike
 
Yep, that would be the reason.

Street photography is a broad subject that has many interpretations. I want people to see as many of those as they can to see why the craft of street photography is really an important one. It isn't really just about taking a snap of something on the street, but about the person behind the camera and the moment they're seeing. Street photography is documentary at its core, and I believe that it has great historical significance. Without these street photographers we wouldn't have some of the very historically important photos we have today.

I think that we should stop trying to define it so much and start doing it.
 
Mike, I can see your argument, and Stephanie's. Personally, I would be happy either way (to define or not to define), I just thought it might be interesting to look at how some respected people have defined Street photography. As I mentioned, I remember their definition leaving a lot of room for interpretation - so perhaps it could be the best of all worlds...
 
lZr said:
I want to point you to some real man, that is very cursive, but the text is beautiful at some points. Big pdf file. Please read it in its entirety. His friends are introductive and more to the point. I don't have the rights to copy the file, but I think the link will not send me to the jail
Good reading. Take your time

Street photography for the purist by Chris Weeks

Edit: I am sure some of you know this young man and the text
Click to expand...

Although I don't agree with what some might view as his surreptitious approach (i.e. hiding his camera under his coat or between his legs when sitting), I like his results, and I'm with Lazar, the link to his recent compilation is here.
http://cweeks.deviantart.com/art/Street-Photography-38038974
 
sleepyhead said:
Mike, I can see your argument, and Stephanie's. Personally, I would be happy either way (to define or not to define), I just thought it might be interesting to look at how some respected people have defined Street photography.
Click to expand...
Fair call - I can see your argument too. However, I have the distinct impression (based on many earlier arguments) that the discussion involved needs to be taken off-line from the practical approach that Stephanie is running with. I'd suggest that any theoretical discussion of street photography, especially the definitional arguments, should be done and run under "philosophy of photography" rather than these more practical threads.

...Mike
 
HERE'S AN OYSTER!

Do people NEED to be in the picture? I'm asking seriously...

1659369711_fb1b3b2040.jpg



(Caption: this picture was taken the day before the Danish people went to the polls to vote on their new Government, Sept. 2007)
 
Last edited:
Perhaps the definition will come out in the judging?

My biggest pet peeve in Street Photography is the portrait that happens to have been taken on the street where the location and circumstances add nothing to the photo.

There is something about the serendipity of the confluence of circumstances that couldn't have happened anywhere else that defines street photography for me. To me a tightly cropped portrait on the street doesn't convey this.

Will the contest require an RFF gallery or will there be a separate place for submissions?
 
Jeff, you saw the last page. I know you know thw text. Also, I don't like his pose with the camera hidding, but he does good job.
 
Dont define it.
However it would be interesting to have people post their photo for the contest and describe why they think their photo is street...
at the end of the project once a winner is chosen (and the arguments start why that was a terrible choice) we can define what is street...maybe 🙂
 
As I said in another thread. Doisneau's photos were posed. Capa's arguably were. As were HCB's. And they took photos of friends, outdoors and inside the house. Was Brassaï a street photog? IMO yes, and he took tons of shots indoors of friends, and tons outdoors with little or no people in them.

I'm with Stephanie on this. Yes to a free definition of street photography!
 
Ok you Leica weinies, time to step up!

Ok you Leica weinies, time to step up!

To a real MANs RF camera LOL. This is my Wee Gee Cam. I've hit the street a couple of time with this rig and it works real nice. A bit heavy but what the heck it's good exercise :bang:

weegee_cam1.jpg
 
People are very positive about it. I have had no problem poking it in peoples faces. It's been a load of fun and the shots are great. Sure has that old Speed look to them. I'm using a 135mm lens as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom