Smartphones ruin my photography-not what you think.

[Timmyjoe]

I guess, as a street photographer, you are trying to catch the reality of the street, catch people as they are. And right now, "as they are" is with their faces in their phones. That's the reality of the street at this point in human history. So, not quite sure how that interferes with "street photography".

Best,
-Tim

 

[Coldkennels]

I've always found cars to be the worst thing for photography. Here in the UK it's rare you find a street which isn't cluttered with dozens of the ******* things; it's hard to get a clear shot of anything.

Phones might be changing the way people exist within a space, but at least they're not actively blocking the view.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

One of the few things that ever made “street photography” the least bit interesting was that it captured people interacting with their environment, and the other people in it, that might be in some way telling about their humanity. Capturing a smirk, a smile, a sideways glance, an angry fist fight, a beatific expression, or an expressionless face in a specific social situation. If it was “art” it was art because, if done well, it conveyed to a perceptive viewer some sense of what was going on in the tableau, something that might or might not be universal. The beauty or the ugliness of the underlying humanity at work in a specific instant where the people in the photograph are caught as they interact with their environment and the people in it in ways that betray their.....being. Being isn’t too strong a word.
Friedlander, Helen Levitt, Doisneau, Winogrand, Walker Evans, their “street photos” stand apart from those who just take pictures of people’s backs as they stand in front of store windows..on a street, for that reason. And have value for that reason, they captured something human, that other photographers miss.

A couple sitting across from each other in a restaurant, both looking down at their respective cell phones, phones which at this point contain what they believe are their very lives.....neither of those two people are really there, they are fully engaged somewhere else.
None of the people on the street looking into their phones are in any interesting way engaged with their surroundings, or more importantly, the humans which surround them. They are somewhere else, they are engaged somewhere else. There is no human interaction with their environment that is worth photographing, because they are not having any interactions with their environment. There is nothing there, because they are not there. They are, in the truest sense of the word, alienated, alienated from the world they are actually in. There is no way to make an interesting photograph of that scene, because the people in it have themselves ceased to be interesting.
The first few photos taken of people on the street, in those social situations, gazing into cell phones, were interesting because they conveyed the shock of that alienation. At this point, they are as bad, and as useless, generally, as poverty porn, drunks down and out on the sidewalk. It’s been done. We get it. Or photos of people who can no longer use human expressiveness to engage with those around them, because masks.

It’s possible to capture an interesting scene which involves one or two people on a street, lost in their phones, oblivious to the life happening around them, but only if there are others in the scene who are fully present and engaged in the here and now. Cell phones haven’t made worthwhile “street photography” impossible, but they’ve made it much more difficult to capture anything worth anyone’s time. Winogrand could probably still pull off a few, but he’d be peeved.

 

[retinax]

Phones might be changing the way people exist within a space, but at least they're not actively blocking the view.

Have you been to a rock or pop etc. concert in the last ten years?

 

[olakiril]

That is for our generation. In 50 years will be - oh, those smartphones were so sexy for the street photography, now those [insert new technology] really suck 🙂

Yep, that will be brain implants and generalized blank expressions.

and way less available for spontaneous social interaction with strangers.

I blame the "social" media for that. Much safer space.

They are somewhere else, they are engaged somewhere else.

My wife complains about this whenever I have a camera with me.

What to do?:bang:😱

As long as there is light, we will be safe I think.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

This is a funny thread.

Phil Forrest

 

[Timmyjoe]

One of the few things that ever made “street photography” the least bit interesting was that it captured people interacting with their environment, and the other people in it, that might be in some way telling about their humanity. Capturing a smirk, a smile, a sideways glance, an angry fist fight, a beatific expression, or an expressionless face in a specific social situation. If it was “art” it was art because, if done well, it conveyed to a perceptive viewer some sense of what was going on in the tableau, something that might or might not be universal. The beauty or the ugliness of the underlying humanity at work in a specific instant where the people in the photograph are caught as they interact with their environment and the people in it in ways that betray their.....being. Being isn’t too strong a word.
Friedlander, Helen Levitt, Doisneau, Winogrand, Walker Evans, their “street photos” stand apart from those who just take pictures of people’s backs as they stand in front of store windows..on a street, for that reason. And have value for that reason, they captured something human, that other photographers miss.

A couple sitting across from each other in a restaurant, both looking down at their respective cell phones, phones which at this point contain what they believe are their very lives.....neither of those two people are really there, they are fully engaged somewhere else.
None of the people on the street looking into their phones are in any interesting way engaged with their surroundings, or more importantly, the humans which surround them. They are somewhere else, they are engaged somewhere else. There is no human interaction with their environment that is worth photographing, because they are not having any interactions with their environment. There is nothing there, because they are not there. They are, in the truest sense of the word, alienated, alienated from the world they are actually in. There is no way to make an interesting photograph of that scene, because the people in it have themselves ceased to be interesting.
The first few photos taken of people on the street, in those social situations, gazing into cell phones, were interesting because they conveyed the shock of that alienation. At this point, they are as bad, and as useless, generally, as poverty porn, drunks down and out on the sidewalk. It’s been done. We get it. Or photos of people who can no longer use human expressiveness to engage with those around them, because masks.

It’s possible to capture an interesting scene which involves one or two people on a street, lost in their phones, oblivious to the life happening around them, but only if there are others in the scene who are fully present and engaged in the here and now. Cell phones haven’t made worthwhile “street photography” impossible, but they’ve made it much more difficult to capture anything worth anyone’s time. Winogrand could probably still pull off a few, but he’d be peeved.

Larry, I've got to disagree. Maybe it's because I come at this from the perspective of a photojournalist, but two things stand out to me.

First, street photography is about "what is", not about what we want "what is" to be, or what a photographically pretty "what is" would be. So "what is" right now is people paying much more attention to a computer device they hold in their hand, than at any other time in history. Street photography is about "what is".

And second, you are correct in saying it is hard, or harder, to make a photographically interesting/engaging image when the humans in that image are staring at their cell phones. But making a photographically interesting/engaging image has always been hard, that is why it takes a true artist or genius to pull it off. I think an artist like you listed above, "Friedlander, Helen Levitt, Doisneau, Winogrand, Walker Evans" might be able to pull it off, or other artists that we don't know of yet may pull it off. But just because it is hard, doesn't mean it can't be done. When you look at Winogrand's work, he made it look easy (as all geniuses do), but it was just as hard and took just as much of an artistic talent to pull off what he did in the 1960's as it takes to make photographically interesting/engaging street images now.

We somehow have confused the ease of making images today, with all the whiz bang digital tools available which anyone can pick up and use, with what it takes to make photographically interesting/engaging images. There's a reason only a handful of individuals have risen to the top of the photographic artist ranks. It's because they had incredible talent and the ability to see what most of us miss. And I think, given the opportunity, a talented artist today will see what most of us miss in street photography, even with cell phones.

My 2¢ worth.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Larry, I've got to disagree. Maybe it's because I come at this from the perspective of a photojournalist, but two things stand out to me.

First, street photography is about "what is", not about what we want "what is" to be, or what a photographically pretty "what is" would be. So "what is" right now is people paying much more attention to a computer device they hold in their hand, than at any other time in history. Street photography is about "what is".

And second, you are correct in saying it is hard, or harder, to make a photographically interesting/engaging image when the humans in that image are staring at their cell phones. But making a photographically interesting/engaging image has always been hard, that is why it takes a true artist or genius to pull it off. I think an artist like you listed above, "Friedlander, Helen Levitt, Doisneau, Winogrand, Walker Evans" might be able to pull it off, or other artists that we don't know of yet may pull it off. But just because it is hard, doesn't mean it can't be done. When you look at Winogrand's work, he made it look easy (as all geniuses do), but it was just as hard and took just as much of an artistic talent to pull off what he did in the 1960's as it takes to make photographically interesting/engaging street images now.

We somehow have confused the ease of making images today, with all the whiz bang digital tools available which anyone can pick up and use, with what it takes to make photographically interesting/engaging images. There's a reason only a handful of individuals have risen to the top of the photographic artist ranks. It's because they had incredible talent and the ability to see what most of us miss. And I think, given the opportunity, a talented artist today will see what most of us miss in street photography, even with cell phones.

My 2¢ worth.

Best,
-Tim

Exactly. A bad photo of a person staring at their phone is just as bad as that same person not staring at their phone. The same holds true for good photos.

Phil Forrest

 

[gabrielelopez]

I think that in a documentary way it may even be interesting, since is something defining our society changes, look at what Mermelstein did in his recent book...
The sad point is how isolated everything is and looks, less people simple daydreaming. I agree is not fascinating, so I just pointed to something different.
I deleted every social media and common messaging app, life is easier, too.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

Larry, I've got to disagree. Maybe it's because I come at this from the perspective of a photojournalist, but two things stand out to me.

First, street photography is about "what is", not about what we want "what is" to be, or what a photographically pretty "what is" would be. So "what is" right now is people paying much more attention to a computer device they hold in their hand, than at any other time in history. Street photography is about "what is".

And second, you are correct in saying it is hard, or harder, to make a photographically interesting/engaging image when the humans in that image are staring at their cell phones. But making a photographically interesting/engaging image has always been hard, that is why it takes a true artist or genius to pull it off. I think an artist like you listed above, "Friedlander, Helen Levitt, Doisneau, Winogrand, Walker Evans" might be able to pull it off, or other artists that we don't know of yet may pull it off. But just because it is hard, doesn't mean it can't be done. When you look at Winogrand's work, he made it look easy (as all geniuses do), but it was just as hard and took just as much of an artistic talent to pull off what he did in the 1960's as it takes to make photographically interesting/engaging street images now.

We somehow have confused the ease of making images today, with all the whiz bang digital tools available which anyone can pick up and use, with what it takes to make photographically interesting/engaging images. There's a reason only a handful of individuals have risen to the top of the photographic artist ranks. It's because they had incredible talent and the ability to see what most of us miss. And I think, given the opportunity, a talented artist today will see what most of us miss in street photography, even with cell phones.

My 2¢ worth.

Best,
-Tim

Tim,

This wasn’t unexpected when I threw my comments out there, I wasn’t expecting universal agreement, I was just asking people to think. Especially those who instantly disagreed.
Those photographers I mentioned, their photographs have value, and will have value another 50 years from now, will speak to people in a personal way 50 years from now, not because they documented “what is” about some status quo, but because those photos represented specific human interactions which had nothing to do with the “signs of the times”. They transcended the times. Winogrand, Doisneau, and the rest, were not at heart documentarians, they were essentially humanists, which is the only reason those photos still resonate.

It’s true that the first photo made of a crowd of people looking at cell phones was interesting for the reason I expressed originally, but the subsequent ones which convey the message of the times, the message of “what is”, not so much interesting, if it’s the same “what is”. It’s a documentary that’s been done. No artistic reason to do it again, because, unlike the photos of Winogrand (only using him as an example, there are others) which are all different because the human interactions are all different, and on top of that those reactions speak to humanity itself, additional photos of people alienated from their surroundings and each other, have nothing new to say. They are just documentaries which show nothing more than “what is.” That has value, but only the first time.

Sure, it’s possible to do variations on a theme now, with masked people, or people staring at their phones, somewhere else, somewhere away from the scene, but compare any of those to work done by photographers I mentioned. All I am asking is for people to compare those two things. If people truly think those are, and will be considered in the future, to be of equal human interest to non photographers, photos of people, on a street, again, looking at phones, which actually say something more profoundly human than just a documentary, then that’s fine, we can disagree about that. But, make those honest comparisons first.
Nobody is going to ever care about any of the photos I make on the street, now or going forward, though I can, and have, easily taken photos of “what is”, documenting what is in front of me. On the street.

Winogrand wasn’t good because he documented what was in front of him, per se, anyone can do that, even I. His photos are still capable of sustaining our interest because he did more than that, they are of interest because of the human interactions. Looking at the entire body of work of those photographers I mentioned, I think it is impossible to deny where their value came from, still comes from. It’s not because it’s New York, 1958, I’ve done that.
I’ve taken photos of people ignoring the world to look, self absorbed, at their cell phones. Not going to do any more of those. There’s no point, It’s been done, it’s not interesting, and it’s depressing in the bargain as well. If the human interaction is gone, the higher interest possible in a scene is gone as well, generally. It’s just people looking at their phones. It’s tedious.
I’m not the arbiter of human taste, people should do what they want, and be pleased by what pleases them, this is only what works, and what doesn’t work, won’t ever work, for me.
So, three cheers to the OP from my couch this morning!

 

[Ko.Fe.]

This is exactly what I thought it would be... it's not a new complaint. I've learned to deal with it. It is just part of our times just like newspapers, cigarettes, payphones, etc were (are) in the past. Maybe stop thinking of the person with the phone as the subject and think of the whole photograph as the subject? Maybe go to where people are living life or working on the streets?

I did not find busy streets in downtown cores to be full of mobilombies. I could still see people with books. And downtowns are full of interesting people who are not into the phones.

But I take street full of mobilombies instead of walking smokers at any given day. I'm glad those days are gone.

The only problem is dope in Canada. It stinks more since been legalized.

 

[Vince Lupo]

I'm definitely not a street photographer, so it's not too difficult for me to avoid photographing people looking at/talking on their cell phones (and in general I try to avoid photographing things that speak of 'modernity' anyways). But I do have to say that I really don't find photographs of people on their phones/looking at their phones (when that’s the main subject) all that interesting - so in that regard I'm pretty much in agreement with Larry's sentiments. I wouldn't say that I 'hate' seeing it in photos -- I'm just indifferent to it and they fail to hold my attention for more than a split-second, which for me is the kiss of death when looking at a photo.

Just personal taste I suppose.

 

[agentlossing]

I'm in agreement with the OP; as smartphones have become so ubiquitous, and people become so addicted to them, street photography has become an exercise in finding people who are engaged with the world around them instead of following some separate line of thought on their devices. I am not one of those people who uses "smartphone addiction" as a blanket term very often, because I have noticed in my own life that my smartphone use increases and decreases depending on separate interests which I use my phone to pursue. In other words, let's not be simplistic about it - smartphones are super useful tools, and much of the time we are conducting useful research or informing ourselves of stuff we need to know. On the street, if I'm using my smartphone, I am probably using a map, checking hours for a business, etc.

I think social media addiction is a more important problem, and a real one, which has in large part led to the fever pitch of divisiveness in our culture, since many people spend so much time on platforms which curate to their interests, and feed them more of what they want to see, usually more inflammatory and less longform, reasoned and researched. Social media is not a good alternative to standing on the street people-watching while waiting for a bus. The life flowing past us in real-time is so much more interesting than the curated view of people posing on social media platforms, plus that can be done anytime.

 

[Archlich]

I find photographing people attending certain events equally boring. As long as they all dare into the same thing with lips slightly open.

 

[Bob Michaels]

I think that those who are bothered by too many people using cellphones in their photos have biases based on the past when such did not exist. As several posters have said, we must photograph what is and not what it used to be. Very similar to those who wished the number of cars was only what it used to be or those who find the modern era number of commercial signs in the background to be distracting. Were photographers years ago bothered by so many wearing hats? Or, today's photographers bothered by so few wearing hats? Who knows if years down the road people looking back at today's photographs will find the focus on cellphones to be interesting.

 

[css9450]

It’s possible to capture an interesting scene which involves one or two people on a street, lost in their phones, oblivious to the life happening around them, but only if there are others in the scene who are fully present and engaged in the here and now.

That gives me an idea for a photo: One person standing perfectly still, looking at their phone, while surrounded by a huge crowd moving in all directions. Slow shutter speed, perhaps a second or a couple of seconds, so all the other people are blurred. Might need an ND filter to make this possible.

 

[Timmyjoe]

Tim,

This wasn’t unexpected when I threw my comments out there, I wasn’t expecting universal agreement, I was just asking people to think. Especially those who instantly disagreed.
Those photographers I mentioned, their photographs have value, and will have value another 50 years from now, will speak to people in a personal way 50 years from now, not because they documented “what is” about some status quo, but because those photos represented specific human interactions which had nothing to do with the “signs of the times”. They transcended the times. Winogrand, Doisneau, and the rest, were not at heart documentarians, they were essentially humanists, which is the only reason those photos still resonate.

It’s true that the first photo made of a crowd of people looking at cell phones was interesting for the reason I expressed originally, but the subsequent ones which convey the message of the times, the message of “what is”, not so much interesting, if it’s the same “what is”. It’s a documentary that’s been done. No artistic reason to do it again, because, unlike the photos of Winogrand (only using him as an example, there are others) which are all different because the human interactions are all different, and on top of that those reactions speak to humanity itself, additional photos of people alienated from their surroundings and each other, have nothing new to say. They are just documentaries which show nothing more than “what is.” That has value, but only the first time.

Sure, it’s possible to do variations on a theme now, with masked people, or people staring at their phones, somewhere else, somewhere away from the scene, but compare any of those to work done by photographers I mentioned. All I am asking is for people to compare those two things. If people truly think those are, and will be considered in the future, to be of equal human interest to non photographers, photos of people, on a street, again, looking at phones, which actually say something more profoundly human than just a documentary, then that’s fine, we can disagree about that. But, make those honest comparisons first.
Nobody is going to ever care about any of the photos I make on the street, now or going forward, though I can, and have, easily taken photos of “what is”, documenting what is in front of me. On the street.

Winogrand wasn’t good because he documented what was in front of him, per se, anyone can do that, even I. His photos are still capable of sustaining our interest because he did more than that, they are of interest because of the human interactions. Looking at the entire body of work of those photographers I mentioned, I think it is impossible to deny where their value came from, still comes from. It’s not because it’s New York, 1958, I’ve done that.
I’ve taken photos of people ignoring the world to look, self absorbed, at their cell phones. Not going to do any more of those. There’s no point, It’s been done, it’s not interesting, and it’s depressing in the bargain as well. If the human interaction is gone, the higher interest possible in a scene is gone as well, generally. It’s just people looking at their phones. It’s tedious.
I’m not the arbiter of human taste, people should do what they want, and be pleased by what pleases them, this is only what works, and what doesn’t work, won’t ever work, for me.
So, three cheers to the OP from my couch this morning!

Larry,

Oh, I did think, it's just you and I see it differently. People are people, their interactions are their interactions, what makes a great photograph is a photographer who can find a way of seeing those interactions (even an interaction with a computing device) in an interesting way, a way that most people miss as they go thru life.

Right now there are mountains of boring images of people on their cell phones, and folks can look back nostalgically at Winogrand and others and think, "Wow, those were such great photographs and the times were so much more interesting back then, before cell phones." But that reasoning leaves out the fact that back when Garry was making those photos, the number of people shooting "street photography" was miniscule compared to today. And Garry was a great artist who saw things as others did not. If there were the millions of digital cameras in the hands of the millions of people who have them today, back then, you would have mountains of boring images of people on the street.

Humans are interesting, no matter what they are doing, and a great artist can find a way of capturing them that will hold up to time. Just because 99.9% of people can't, doesn't mean it's too hard, it means as it always has, that 99.9% of people aren't the gifted, talented artists like Garry Winogrand and the others you mentioned were.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Dogman]

Maybe this is why today's "street" photography often consists of someone standing posed, staring at the camera and doing exactly nothing.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

Larry,

Oh, I did think, it's just you and I see it differently. ......

Best,
-Tim

Fair enough.

 

[Guest]

I am primarily a street photog. I walk around, go from street to street to catch humans being humans. But, damn, the last 12 years or so, the damn smartphones have ruined everything street for me. You see I do not find smartphones to be very photogenic. So nowadays every time I see I good shot, damn if the subject more times then not is squinting at his smart phone. Huff!!! What to do?:bang:😱

I personally do not like people in my images, especially black and white film images. But I totally agree about all of these stupid humans walking around with their phones, taking childish images of themselves. When in Venice two years ago it was 1989 when I was last there. Comparing images of both trips is an eye opener. All of the people holding up their phone’s walking by a historical building or overlooking a beautiful view, without even stopping to look and admire it with their own eyes. There was a female on the Rialto bridge pruning herself, took an image, looked at it then straightened or moved a bit of clothing, and then went through the whole process again, I could not help thinking what a childish and shallow person and performance.
But the real ringer for me, ( there for three days ) was I only saw ONE real camera, a Leica M6. I was horrified by the total lack of real cameras amongst thousands of people. And it was the same everywhere else we went, I probably saw only five cameras in three weeks over there. I kept being stopped with my dinosaurs around my neck and shoulders though.
I have an old flip phone, I do not want anything other than a simple phone.