Street Photography clichés, no no's and taboos.

[Black]

Well we're trying to define good street photography by the negative, that'll always be lengthier than the opposite, but even by doing that we'd go back to laying down "rules" about the genre which is also meaningless because even a photo that adheres to those rules could still be uninteresting to some.

I feel like I'm chasing my own tail 🙄🙄

I (and I'm sure "We") would be open to defining it with any positives, also. We're not laying down rules, because there aren't any. Not really. There isn't with any genre of photography. More, accepted norms.

You're telling us how we're getting this conversation all wrong but aren't offering any alternatives, so from that I can only guess that, for you at least, discussing anything vaguely philosophical (in in the very lightest terms) is redundant. Fair enough.

 

[Monochrom]

Hi,

there is still another great cliché...

Using only the noctilux for shooting hydrants and benches at night @ f1.

Also cliché are comments like :bang::

"Breathtaking"

...or titling a picture with the very action portrayed, like "girl walking"...if the comment is "breathtaking" then it´s the monument of clichès.


A taboo are children, i never take pictures of children.

 

[Lauffray]

It generally just seems entirely aimless, mechanical - as if somehow people feel obliged to take irrelevant pictures just because they have free time they ought to occupy with some sort of repetitive labour. Are they incapable of dealing with free time?

I don't mean to seem angry, I'm not, I just find it a bit strange.

That's just bad photography, only difference is there aren't any HDR landscape or bokeh Christmas workshops yet (thankfully)

 

[fireblade]

Post up whatever image you want that you think is "street"...but then, can you tell the viewer why?

 

[Lauffray]

I (and I'm sure "We") would be open to defining it with any positives, also. We're not laying down rules, because there aren't any. Not really. There isn't with any genre of photography. More, accepted norms.

You're telling us how we're getting this conversation all wrong but aren't offering any alternatives, so from that I can only guess that, for you at least, discussing anything vaguely philosophical (in in the very lightest terms) is redundant. Fair enough.

I didn't say anyone's got it all wrong, I'm just saying there is as little point to this definition of cliche/no-no street photography as there is to defining what makes good street photography, you just said it, there are no rules

 

[Michael Markey]

Well, I do like the 0.1%!

@ Michael Markey: Very true that life is also 99.9% boring, but photography surely must be about editing.

I feel that street has becoming a bit of a fad that has been fed by internet communities, blogs, youtube channels, and probably marketing over the past few years. I don't remember street photography being such a hot topic even just a few years ago, now nearly every time I visit a big city there's class of street photographers on a "street" workshop taking pictures of park benches, close ups of discarded empty coffee cups, and getting up in everyone's grill.

I don't mean to seem angry, I'm not, I just find it a bit strange.

Ah yes ... I agree ....which is why you get these threads.

In my own defense the first photos I ever took were back in 1962 and they were street shots 😀
I still have the camera .

 

[Black]

I didn't say anyone's got it all wrong, I'm just saying there is as little point to this definition of cliche/no-no street photography as there is to defining what makes good street photography, you just said it, there are no rules

If we all thought like that then a photography forum wouldn't get very far. It'd just be a collection of images with no comments. A gallery, if you will.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Well, I do like the 0.1%!

@ Michael Markey: Very true that life is also 99.9% boring, but photography surely must be about editing.

I feel that street has becoming a bit of a fad that has been fed by internet communities, blogs, youtube channels, and probably marketing over the past few years. I don't remember street photography being such a hot topic even just a few years ago, now nearly every time I visit a big city there's class of street photographers on a "street" workshop taking pictures of park benches, close ups of discarded empty coffee cups, and getting up in everyone's grill.

It generally just seems entirely aimless, mechanical - as if somehow people feel obliged to take irrelevant pictures just because they have free time they ought to occupy with some sort of repetitive labour. Are they incapable of dealing with free time?

I don't mean to seem angry, I'm not, I just find it a bit strange.

If everything everybody took was all good then there would be nothing special. I rarely look to self proclaimed places like hard corps street on flicker for good photography. I do look to galleries, museums, books and other such places or some sites. I really like some of the photographers work that post here for instance. The good is a small % in any area. Sports, art, science and most other areas. And the great is even smaller so what should it different with photography?

 

[Black]

Ah yes ... I agree ....which is why you get these threads.

These threads? Whatever do you mean, Mike?

 

[Lauffray]

If we all thought like that then a photography forum wouldn't get very far. It'd just be a collection of images with no comments. A gallery, if you will.

I don't see how that prevents proper critique, we're discussing things here without any supporting images or context, in absolute

 

[Black]

I don't see how that prevents proper critique, we're discussing things here without any supporting images or context, in absolute

That's why its a philosophical (light) post. Its questioning the fundamentals of the genre. You can post an image if you like, but then it will morph into a personal, bitchy critique thread. There are plenty of other threads and opportunities for that.

 

[nongfuspring]

If everything everybody took was all good then there would be nothing special. I rarely look to self proclaimed places like hard corps street on flicker for good photography. I do look to galleries, museums, books and other such places or some sites. I really like some of the photographers work that post here for instance. The good is a small % in any area. Sports, art, science and most other areas. And the great is even smaller so what should it different with photography?

What I'm saying is that the vast majority of street photography seems to be to be thoughtless and without any real intention. You can say that about all photography, but I think it is especially true of the culture that has developed around "street". It seems generally obligatory and insensitive, more a form of self enforced labour than any kind of creative exercise. It's as if the camera is used as a distancing proxy for experiencing the city instead of the photographer actually enjoying/suffering being present. I have to wonder if street photography is a kind of defence mechanism instead of a way of really engaging more with the urban environment and "learning to see" like so many people say it does. Sorry, two of my Ph.D supervisors are psychoanalysts and it rubs off a bit.

I would say that genres like amateur landscape or portraiture are on the whole (even if also not great art) better thought out and show more thought than street photography.

 

[Rikard]

The typcial bad/boring street photography fails to capture gesture. That's basically it.

 

[Bobfrance]

Most street photography = bad reportage without any depth or story.
The rest is merely voyeuristic or cheap visual gags.

What's left after the above has been removed is quite good. 😉

 

[fotographz]

As a practice I do not actively photograph "homeless"...but I have had many come up to me and ask to photographed. Some rules should be "pushed" while others should simply NOT be rules. The bottom line: You see a "shot"...don't think photograph it, get it on film, card to have so you can decide later what you do or don't like. Street Photography is the blank canvas there in front of us at that moment, we then use a camera to finish it.
On "the street" you often don't time to think(photograph it>think later)...so for me I keep my eyes open and that helps keep my mind open.(mostly)

 

[Richard G]

I've enjoyed this. Like the worst words in photography thread, a bit. And in that thread one of the worst words was indeed 'street'. Then you look at Saul Leiter's pictures.

 

[Michael Markey]

Most street photography = bad reportage without any depth or story.

I think Winogrand would have approved of that definition Bob.
He always maintained that a photograph had no narrative ability (non of them) and only showed you what things looked like ... to a camera .🙂

 

[airfrogusmc]

Most street photography = bad reportage without any depth or story.
The rest is merely voyeuristic or cheap visual gags.

What's left after the above has been removed is quite good. 😉

Here's what Winogrand had to say about story telling:
from about 1:26 on...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl4f-QFCUek

 

[airfrogusmc]

As a practice I do not actively photograph "homeless"...but I have had many come up to me and ask to photographed. Some rules should be "pushed" while others should simply NOT be rules. The bottom line: You see a "shot"...don't think photograph it, get it on film, card to have so you can decide later what you do or don't like. Street Photography is the blank canvas there in front of us at that moment, we then use a camera to finish it.
On "the street" you often don't time to think(photograph it>think later)...so for me I keep my eyes open and that helps keep my mind open.(mostly)

Agree....

For me thinking happens before and after not during. What you do and how deep your work is depends on how well you have developed your instincts.

 

[Michael Markey]

Here's what Winogrand had to say about story telling:
from about 1:26 on...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl4f-QFCUek

Yes ...for me ...that sums it all up.
That`s how I feel about it anyway .