Street Photography clichés, no no's and taboos.

[Black]

I was just browsing through Frank's mobile phone inspired thread and the first thing that came to mind (as well as thankfully being surprised by a few of the images in there) was, what is the general consensus on certain trite street photography subjects? You know, the ones we have all been guilty of at some point, but generally have been done to death and rarely offer anything really engaging for the audience?

Examples?

People just walking.
People walling with bags of shopping.
People on mobiles (cell phones)
People walking, using mobiles.
Buskers.
That same street performer who appears to be in every city in the world, no matter where you go.
People selling huge bunches of balloons.
And, arguably, the homeless (perhaps deserving of its own thread at some point?).

This is, of course, by no means a definitive list, but with the absence of any other additional factor, be it lighting, composition or content etc, that may set them apart from being decidedly ordinary or at the very least, subjects that overly saturate the genre, do you still consider these subjects worthy of constant documentation?

I realise there will be no right answer. Like everything else, this will be subjective. The list above, I am guilty of shooting every one of them, but equally, its what I avoid now (though I am mulling the last entry as a possible occasional exception) as I just don't engage with them. Do you? And, if so, why do you, for example, engage with an image of someone simply walking, perhaps in profile, in public?

I'd be interested to read everyone's thoughts 🙂

 

[back alley]

it's all pretty much been done before...the trick is converting your vision/interpretation and catching a new moment/twist on it...

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Common and repetitive discussion, it seems.
I'll repeat with copy/paste from OP first:

"People on mobiles (cell phones)
People walking, using mobiles.
Buskers.
...Street performer...
...the homeless ..."

Plus, "making huge bubbles" snapshots.
Also old folks faces while they suffer, plus "eating food" faces, any faces taken with long tele and nothing else in the frame.
I do not take pictures of people with some problems.
And I'm not into peoples back's, "legs and road" as well.

But if it is interesting light, geometry, motion and such I like to have "people just walking".

 

[Black]

it's all pretty much been done before...the trick is converting your vision/interpretation and catching a new moment/twist on it...

Oh, I agree, Joe - but with these particular subjects, because of the ease of accessibility, being virtually hammered by all and sundry, how does one make a picture of someone just walking down the street interesting?

It can be done, of course, but that would need that extra element or two, I previously mentioned. How many of us, hand on heart, publish images of someone just walking around, that is anything more than ordinary? And by ordinary, I mean, forgetting any technical merit, but is worth more than a passing glance and a polite bit of feed back, as we are generally well mannered?

 

[Sparrow]

I was just browsing through Frank's mobile phone inspired thread and the first thing that came to mind (as well as thankfully being surprised by a few of the images in there) was, what is the general consensus on certain trite street photography subjects? You know, the ones we have all been guilty of at some point, but generally have been done to death and rarely offer anything really engaging for the audience?

Examples?

People just walking.
People walling with bags of shopping.
People on mobiles (cell phones)
People walking, using mobiles.
Buskers.
That same street performer who appears to be in every city in the world, no matter where you go.
People selling huge bunches of balloons.
And, arguably, the homeless (perhaps deserving of its own thread at some point?).

This is, of course, by no means a definitive list, but with the absence of any other additional factor, be it lighting, composition or content etc, that may set them apart from being decidedly ordinary or at the very least, subjects that overly saturate the genre, do you still consider these subjects worthy of constant documentation?

I realise there will be no right answer. Like everything else, this will be subjective. The list above, I am guilty of shooting every one of them, but equally, its what I avoid now (though I am mulling the last entry as a possible occasional exception) as I just don't engage with them. Do you? And, if so, why do you, for example, engage with an image of someone simply walking, perhaps in profile, in public?

I'd be interested to read everyone's thoughts 🙂

... and;

Photos taken from behind the subject
Photos shot through coffee shop windows
Photos that have been over-processed or that have artsy borders
Anything taken from more than 20ft

 

[nightfly]

Backs are the biggest taboo for me personally, mostly because they are uninteresting and are less expressive than fronts. But occasionally I do it.

For me street photography is in the interaction with people and the urban environment, Sometimes they are walking or on their phones. Not sure why that would be taboo.

I'm not into posed portraity street photography but that's me. Lots of people consider this valid. Also not big on the irony between the billboard in the background and the person in foreground, Matt Stuart does a lot of this and it gets tiresome quickly but sometimes it works. Also not big on animals, particularly cute ones. But I love Moriyama's Stray Dog.

Know the rules. Then break them.

 

[rodt16s]

I probably take less photos these days because I'm trying to avoid taking the same shot time after time after time...

 

[BLKRCAT]

Call me weird but for me being someone who shoots only film every shot has value whether the image, or the resources used to take the shot. I don't get that same sense of value from digital. A frame costs fraction of pennies if you want to factor in the battery power and mechanical wear and tear. These frames can be deleted and gone forever. A moment in time when that person could have been at their lowest can be simply discarded like it's nothing.

On film that moment will last there in the physical world. Right on the same roll with other images you shot.

This is just one way that I think. We are all human and I believe that we should show a little sensitivity for people who are down on their luck. Where I live I see homeless and individuals with addiction problems every day. The last thing I would want to do is to try to take advantage of their situation for an image.

Why not tell positive stories with our images instead of negative ones.

 

[FrankS]

"Know the rules. Then break them."

+ 1

Or, the only rule in photography is that there are no rules. (Fight Club reference)


But, because there is so much street photography out there, aided by the phone camera, there has to be something special for another street shot to grab your attention.
Just as there are so many sunset and flower shots.

 

[Sparrow]

Waiting next to a poster and shoot a person walking by.
Shoot a fat person next to an ad about losing weight, and so on. Where's thd merit?

Cars in the background, especially crossing people's bodies and heads. Bad backgrounds.

That's all below photography 101.

... 101 is the room that contained ones' greatest fear as in Orwell's book; whatever the rest of the world thinks ...

... and this is funny whatever you say 😀

 

[f16sunshine]

You're right Chris. Sunbjects can become redundant.

This is where other elements can come to aid the photographer in creating something visually stimulating.

Line
Juxtoposition
Compositional creativity
Exposure creativity
Color (Dare I say it! 😛 )

etc...

This is just another girl walking away.
red by Adnan W, on Flickr

 

[airfrogusmc]

The greats all used the things of their times in their work and why shouldn't you.

What some of the greats had to say about rules:
"Photography is not a sport. It has no rules. Everything must be dared and tried!" - Bill Brandt

"There are no rules and regulations for perfect composition. If there were we would be able to put all the information into a computer and would come out with a masterpiece. We know that's impossible. You have to compose by the seat of your pants." - Arnold Newman

"When subject matter is forced to fit into preconceived patterns, there can be no freshness of vision. Following rules of composition can only lead to a tedious repetition of pictorial cliches." - Edward Weston

"Anything that excites me, for any reason, I will photograph: not searching for unusual subject matter but making the commonplace unusual, nor indulging in extraordinary technique to attract attention. Work only when desire to the point of necessity impels – then do it honestly. Then so called “composition” becomes a personal thing, to be developed along with technique, as a personal way of seeing." - Edward Weston

"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs." - Ansel Adams "

To compose a subject well means no more than to see and present it in the strongest manner possible." - Edward Weston

"And in not learning the rules, I was free. I always say, you're either defined by the medium or you redefine the medium in terms of your needs." - Duane Michals

"What I write here is a description of what I have come to understand about photography, from photographing and from looking at photographs. A work of art is that thing whose form and content are organic to the tools and materials that made it. Still photography is a chemical, mechanical process. Literal description or the illusion of literal description, is what the tools and materials of still photography do better than any other graphic medium. A still photograph is the illusion of a literal description of how a camera saw a piece of time and space. Understanding this, one can postulate the following theorem: Anything and all things are photographable. A photograph can only look like how the camera saw what was photographed. Or, how the camera saw the piece of time and space is responsible for how the photograph looks. Therefore, a photograph can look any way. Or, there's no way a photograph has to look (beyond being an illusion of a literal description). Or, there are no external or abstract or preconceived rules of design that can apply to still photographs. I like to think of photographing as a two-way act of respect. Respect for the medium, by letting it do what it does best, describe. And respect for the subject, by describing as it is. A photograph must be responsible to both." - Garry Winogrand

 

[f16sunshine]

... 101 is the room that contained ones' greatest fear as in Orwell's book; whatever the rest of the world thinks ...

... and this is funny whatever you say 😀

Wonderful catch Stewart!

 

[Sparrow]

The greats all used the things of their times in their work and why shouldn't you.

What some of the greats had to say about rules:
"Photography is not a sport. It has no rules. Everything must be dared and tried!" - Bill Brandt

"There are no rules and regulations for perfect composition. If there were we would be able to put all the information into a computer and would come out with a masterpiece. We know that's impossible. You have to compose by the seat of your pants." - Arnold Newman

"When subject matter is forced to fit into preconceived patterns, there can be no freshness of vision. Following rules of composition can only lead to a tedious repetition of pictorial cliches." - Edward Weston

"Anything that excites me, for any reason, I will photograph: not searching for unusual subject matter but making the commonplace unusual, nor indulging in extraordinary technique to attract attention. Work only when desire to the point of necessity impels – then do it honestly. Then so called “composition” becomes a personal thing, to be developed along with technique, as a personal way of seeing." - Edward Weston

"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs." - Ansel Adams "

To compose a subject well means no more than to see and present it in the strongest manner possible." - Edward Weston

"And in not learning the rules, I was free. I always say, you're either defined by the medium or you redefine the medium in terms of your needs." - Duane Michals

"What I write here is a description of what I have come to understand about photography, from photographing and from looking at photographs. A work of art is that thing whose form and content are organic to the tools and materials that made it. Still photography is a chemical, mechanical process. Literal description or the illusion of literal description, is what the tools and materials of still photography do better than any other graphic medium. A still photograph is the illusion of a literal description of how a camera saw a piece of time and space. Understanding this, one can postulate the following theorem: Anything and all things are photographable. A photograph can only look like how the camera saw what was photographed. Or, how the camera saw the piece of time and space is responsible for how the photograph looks. Therefore, a photograph can look any way. Or, there's no way a photograph has to look (beyond being an illusion of a literal description). Or, there are no external or abstract or preconceived rules of design that can apply to still photographs. I like to think of photographing as a two-way act of respect. Respect for the medium, by letting it do what it does best, describe. And respect for the subject, by describing as it is. A photograph must be responsible to both." - Garry Winogrand

Oh, and anything in quotation marks

 

[Sparrow]

Oh, I agree, Joe - but with these particular subjects, because of the ease of accessibility, being virtually hammered by all and sundry, how does one make a picture of someone just walking down the street interesting?

It can be done, of course, but that would need that extra element or two, I previously mentioned. How many of us, hand on heart, publish images of someone just walking around, that is anything more than ordinary? And by ordinary, I mean, forgetting any technical merit, but is worth more than a passing glance and a polite bit of feed back, as we are generally well mannered?

.... ordinary?

 

[kxl]

Somebody once said that there are only 7 basic stories in fiction. And yet there have been millions and millions of stories ever written. The same is true in photography.

I shoot what I want to shoot; if it turns out to be a cliche, so be it. However, there are personal no-no's that I won't shoot, such as a mother breast-feeding in public or other subjects of that nature.

Also, I won't shoot a person in immediate harm (car accident, fire, etc, ...) -- more important for me to help such a person rather than take a picture.

 

[Black]

.... ordinary?

Yeah. Not in an insulting way, but something other than extraordinary. Again (and I'm very ware that I'm starting to sound like a broken record), personally, a person just walking will always be just that, unless there are other elements that elevate the image. Layering / no cross overs etc.

Layering will be something new to me (and its not necessarily something I subscribe to), as I'm a shallow DOF shooter in the main. Going to give it a punt though, just because it'll stretch me a bit.

... and;

Photos taken from behind the subject
Photos shot through coffee shop windows
Photos that have been over-processed or that have artsy borders
Anything taken from more than 20ft

Ooo, that's contentious. Processing changes the aesthetic, but not really the content. Sometimes it'll add to the overall impact, sometimes it'll detract. My current project involves quite a lot of processing, giving quite harsh look - but its not like the fashionable crushed blacks and high contrast of the Provoke (or GR) aesthetic. Which I also like, but always dependant on content.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Chris, I pretty much agree with your list and with other additions offered by others here. But I'd say that there are all sorts of things that can intervene to make a picture on that list work. At the moment I'm thinking of a lot of Saul Leiter's street images: people just walking, but with an interesting bit of color or a slash of light or the added compositional elements shooting through windows or from under an umbrella.

Street photography is a very complicated endeavor. A photographer working in that genre has to make split-second decisions that can leave him/her with a masterpiece or a boring snapshot. When we look at the contact sheets from someone like Winogrand or Levitt or Maier, we can see that they had to winnow down a LOT of so-so stuff to find the diamonds.

 

[Sparrow]

Somebody once said that there are only 7 basic stories in fiction. And yet there have been millions and millions of stories ever written. The same is true in photography.

I shoot what I want to shoot; if it turns out to be a cliche, so be it. However, there are personal no-no's that I won't shoot, such as a mother breast-feeding in public or other subjects of that nature.

Also, I won't shoot a person in immediate harm (car accident, fire, etc, ...) -- more important for me to help such a person rather than take a picture.

... or women with a moustache, that's just wrong

 

[MIkhail]

.... ordinary?

Confusing the originality/interesting quality of the subject with the originality/interesting qualities of a photograph is a biggest misconception of all to me.
Interesting subject- mediocre picture (will i be banned for this?)