Street Photography Deciphered

[Roger Hicks]

As a non-street-photographer (my streets are bereft of people), I'd like to ask why trying to define street photography is so important to people who engage in it. A meta-question, as it were.
.

Dear Bill,

Although Frances and I do take 'street' pictures, complete with people, and indeed although there a module on them on the site (http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps street.html) I'd ask exactly the same question.

If a staged street shot is indistinguishable from an unstaged one, how do you tell the difference? And what is 'staged' anyway? If someone reacts to the camera, is that not 'staging' in a sense?

It reminds me of an argument I had 20 or more years ago: what is the difference in practical terms between something that is in theory logically determinable but in reality infinitely complex, and something that is logically indeterminable? Chaos theory comes in to this...

The real question is, why worry? Some pics are going to be more or less universally agreed to be 'street'. Others are going to be more or less universally excluded. In between there's a huge grey area where 'noise' (in the form of the photographer's talent or lack of it) determines whether it's 'street' or not - or indeed, whether it's any good or not.

Edit: if anyone does look at the module, set the window to the proportions of an old-fashioned monitor. It looks horrible filling a wide screen (early module, primitive layout).

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Further thought: a quote from my own site

First, you find a good viewpoint. Second, you wait until everything comes together in the viewfinder. Then you take the picture.

Now read the new Willy Ronis 'Through the Viewfinder' book, where he explains pretty much how he used to do the same thing. With contacts from either side of the chosen image!

Cheers,

R.

 

[shadowfox]

Hmm. This was less good-natured. No reason to get snarky because there is a point with which you don't agree. I think he was stating a commonly held point, with which I happen to agree. You're also free to have a differing point of view.

Jim, I don't think complimenting someone for seemingly having a "heightened sense of appreciation" can be considered as "snarky"

Childish!

My point stems from the saying, 'a picture is worth a thousand words'. Perhaps if you show your work to a group of friends and they don't get it then that work is not as successful as you had imagined? Just another perspective for you to consider.

And calling someone "Childish" is real mature, yes?

Y'know, it's not that my viewers "don't get it," maybe some of them don't, but I'm okay with that. My "work" is successful because it elicit response from the viewers.

They become curious.

About this style of photography that they have never seen before. The fact that they asked (because of curiosity, not boredom) prompted me to write a description.

 

[shadowfox]

The real question is, why worry? Some pics are going to be more or less universally agreed to be 'street'. Others are going to be more or less universally excluded. In between there's a huge grey area where 'noise' (in the form of the photographer's talent or lack of it) determines whether it's 'street' or not - or indeed, whether it's any good or not.

Roger,

Who is worried about anything? I certainly am not.
I am merely trying to put in writing what I think street-photography is. Hoping that it will answer some questions that came up out of curiosity.

I don't think my intention is far different from that of yours when you wrote your modules.

 

[shadowfox]

When somebody asks this question to me, i am giving this answer:
"Street photography is watching the fishes in a river which is running."
By the way, this link can give some idea about what street photographer is.

That's an interesting link. Thank you. When I hear "street dog" and photography together, I'm thinking Daido Moriyama

Thank you for your insightful essay - it indeed touches the essence of what's street photography to me.

Your four bullet points constitute a valid view of the gist of it. I would still like to point out that these points are a personal view, as there still is room for some disagreement:

1. Posing/staging: Wouldn't it be wonderful if all those funny, amusing, or telling scenes had just spontaneously unfolded in front of the photographer's eye. Fact is that most probably they might have happened - I for one often tend to see scenes like this in the corner of my eye, and miss them. So, these scenes give me an idea, and I sometimes tend to lurk around in places like these, waiting until the scene repeats itself. Would you call that staging? I would, but I consider such a modus operandi acceptable.
2. It's not an expected situation: I wholeheartedly agree.
3. It's not voyeurism: Well, I'm not sure. Whatever strikes our eye is always connected to our own, very subjective set of interests. You may like to watch attractive women, or you're interested in social commentary, or you are following some kind of agenda. All of this will determine what strikes your eye subconsciously as you roam the streets. What you see is what you are - you can never expect to be the objective eye. Of course, most people will limit themselves in what they actually shoot by their own, personal ethical rules, and I think that's good this way. But again, what one viewer considers voyeurism may be acceptable to another, and that's the spice of this kind of photography.
4. It's not for everyone. Well, probably, although I experienced some kind of personal development when I started street photography: I was forced to question my concepts of being shy. You see, nobody looks away when he sees something, but only few would be inclined to take up their camera and shoot the scene that they are just seeing. Why? It is indeed an interesting pursuit to explore inhibitions, and to question them. I find this to be a highly interesting journey.

Arjay, thank you for taking the time to write a proper response. I'm still thinking about these points.

Maybe voyeurism is too strong a word.

But I think street photography is a snapshot of someone's moment, and the photograph allow us to peek and stare at it for a longer time.

A lot of art is based on our primal instincts. Observing others is one of them (chimpanzees are especially voyeuristic, in every sense of the word). So we might enjoy looking at street photos or taking street photos because of it.

Sometimes the elements fall in place and we can find reasons to label it as art. But most of the time, the photos are just snapshots, and it is still enjoyable to me looking at them.

To me, curiosity is human nature. But voyeurism is a choice, to act on our natural curiosity beyond some moral boundaries. Problem is, some of us think that moral boundaries are not absolute, in which the word boundary start to lose its intended meaning.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger,

Who is worried about anything? I certainly am not.
I am merely trying to put in writing what I think street-photography is. Hoping that it will answer some questions that came up out of curiosity.

I don't think my intention is far different from that of yours when you wrote your modules.

Dear Will,

Sorry: I meant it as a general observation, and agreement with Bill. Your observations are at least as valuable as mine, and I had no intention of implying otherwise.

Cheers,

R.

 

[shadowfox]

As a non-street-photographer (my streets are bereft of people), I'd like to ask why trying to define street photography is so important to people who engage in it. A meta-question, as it were.

Not define, Bill, explain.

The target audience are those who are not familiar yet they are curious. If you are familiar with street-photography, or if you are not curious, than the writing is not for you.

Goodness, I guess I need to add that to my Disclaimer

 

[Fawley]

While in many instances, I agree with the "whats in a name" viewpoint I think in the instance of stageing one needs to be careful of the slippery slope. The difference may not be as important in street photography done for ones own personal pleasure. But what about photojournalism or combat photography? Todays street photographer may be tomorrow's journalist. I've read somewhere that Walker Evans and others criticised Margaret Bourke-White for stageing some of her Depression era photographs and passing them off as having actually taken place, as shown in the photograph. This doesn't stop me from likeing Bourke-Whites photographs, but I do want to know what actually happened. Some obvious and well known war photos would not have had the impact they did, if the general public knew they were staged. There is a very interesting 1980's ? movie with William Hurt and Helen Hunt that examines this question. William Hurt (playing a TV journalist interviewer) stages a tear that expresses an emotion he felt, but didn't actually shed. His character can't see the problem because he did actually feel the emotion.

A large part of photography is documentary in nature. I like both staged and unstaged photos, but I do like to know which is which. What constitutes stageing? Now that's even more subjective!

 

[_mark__]

And calling someone "Childish" is real mature, yes?

No, Just like for like. Sorry if I offended.

My first comment was not a criticism of your photographs or your writing but an opinion that a good 'street' photograph should have a strong, easily discernible, visual narrative? It has to be interesting in order elevate it above the commonplace. If it has these qualities then surely words are superfluous?

 

[shadowfox]

fwiw, i don't find rff to be stuffy at all. in fact, rather almost exactly the opposite. i haven't found a lot of pixel-peepers (in my brief experience here), i don't see a lot of picture-postcard photos (as i do in some other fora), and the focus seems to be on the moment and the personal rather than on the technical perfection of a photo. not that folks here don't care about the technical perfection, but more that i see that they are not constrained by an adherence to the limitations of the perfect photo.

that said, i loved the rest of your writeup.

I agree with you, I wouldn't have recommended RFF in the writing if I didn't feel good about it.

RFF is 'stuffy' sometimes because from time to time there are those here -- most of whom actually are no longer frequenting this place -- who have their mind made up that they know everything and whatever you say or write is beneath them.

You can see a little (not bad at all) trace of it in one or two of the responses in this very thread. ... just joking!!

 

[RayPA]

At least you told me what bugs you about the bullet points, thanks for that.

What you say make sense and I agree. Waiting for something to happen constitutes planning on the photographer's part. And I think that's okay in street-photography.

So do I.

However I won't budge about voyeurism. To lump voyeuristic intent into street-photography is to me, cheapening it. But that is my stand.

We'll agree to disagree here. Maybe 'voyeurism' is a poor choice of word—from my perspective not yours. I think your intent was perhaps the primary definition of the word, while my intent isn't/wasn't.

I do not believe that most serious street photographers obtain sexual gratification by taking pictures of strangers. THAT would be a "cheapening". However, (and this is probably veering into Sontag territory) there is some level of satisfaction obtained by the street photographer by taking pictures of strangers and looking to use them in arrangements and juxtapositions. While most of us don't watch and look for the sordid, we do watch and look—as does every other person who has ever sat on a park bench and 'people watched' or who has 'rubber-necked' on a freeway. Those tasks are voyeuristic in nature. So from my point of view, SP is voyeuristic in the same sense, but that's not a negative thing. I think it's one of the appeals of SP images.


/

 

[RayPA]

If you just have a good sense for your surrounding and you see situations coming and wait for that, this is definitely not staged.

'Staging' in the sense of composing and waiting for someone/something to move through/into your composition as you design or desire. Staged in the sense of 'Mario's bike' or the shot of the guy jumping over the puddle. I don't believe this takes anything away from the Master himself. It takes talent and skill to stage/arrange and execute shots.


/

 

[tstermitz]

In response to the idea that street photography "must" have people in it, I'd like to submit this portfolio of photographs from Vivian Maier. Most have people; some don't; But, the sensibility is totally "street".

http://www.vivianmaier.blogspot.com/

 

[wgerrard]

It strikes me that much of this discussion is about the motivations and behavior of the photographers, not the photo that results. For example, the issue of what is or is not 'staging". Is waiting for a scenario that you know happens every day at a particular time staging? Is asking someone, "Please move over there" staging. I'd say yes to the latter and no to the former.

But, that's a semantical issue growing out of how someone wants to use the word "staging". However, if we argue that street photography must only be comprised of spontaneous photos, something that precludes waiting for strangers to arrange themselves, spontaneously but predictably, in an interesting tableau, then the intent and the behavior of the photographer become fundamental because our definition or explanation of street photography is keyed to the photographer, not the photos.

 

[FrankS]

In response to the idea that street photography "must" have people in it, I'd like to submit this portfolio of photographs from Vivian Maier. Most have people; some don't; But, the sensibility is totally "street".

http://www.vivianmaier.blogspot.com/

Sure, if there is an odd unpeopled image in a series of street photos (which do contain people) one can say that the series is street photography. but if you selected out all the unpeopled images and presented them, I'd still call those urban still life, not street photography. Just my opinion.

 

[shadowfox]

We'll agree to disagree here. Maybe 'voyeurism' is a poor choice of word—from my perspective not yours. I think your intent was perhaps the primary definition of the word, while my intent isn't/wasn't.

I do not believe that most serious street photographers obtain sexual gratification by taking pictures of strangers. THAT would be a "cheapening".

I'm no linguist (see what I mean ) but I did search for the common meaning of the word 'voyeurism' and all the definitions I can find is similar to this:

"one obtaining sexual gratification from observing unsuspecting individuals who are partly undressed, naked, or engaged in sexual acts;" - Merriam-Webster

There is no decoupling from the connotation of sexual self-gratification in the definition.

I hope this helps to show that you and I really agree on where the boundary is.

However, (and this is probably veering into Sontag territory) there is some level of satisfaction obtained by the street photographer by taking pictures of strangers and looking to use them in arrangements and juxtapositions. While most of us don't watch and look for the sordid, we do watch and look—as does every other person who has ever sat on a park bench and 'people watched' or who has 'rubber-necked' on a freeway. Those tasks are voyeuristic in nature. So from my point of view, SP is voyeuristic in the same sense, but that's not a negative thing. I think it's one of the appeals of SP images.

I completely agree. In my writing, I tried to attribute these motivation to 'curiosity' which as you pointed out, a basic human nature, and a sense of peeking into the unknown, which also appeals another basic human nature: 'adventure'.

Ray, this is a good discussion, thank you so much.

 

[shadowfox]

It strikes me that much of this discussion is about the motivations and behavior of the photographers, not the photo that results.

Indeed. Why? because the two (photographer's behavior and photo-result) are inseparable in the case of street-photography.

This is probably what makes it unique compared to other styles except for probably sports (you don't stage an amazing goal). Even in photo-journalism it is common to *stage* a photograph, not for entertainment value, but for reporting accuracy.

Let me see if you agree with this. If we find out that the bicycle rider in "Mario's Bike" was asked by Mr. Bresson to pass through that alley one more time so that he can take that famous photograph.

Would it still be considered a masterpiece? Maybe, because that doesn't take away from Mr. Bresson's mastery in composition.

But will it still be considered a masterpiece of "street-photography" ?? I suspect that most people would not agree (again, allowing some measure of subjectivity that is rooted from the fact that photography is an art-form).

Again why? Because the fact that Mr. Bresson from where he was (we believe):

1. saw the composition
2. at the same time as the passing bicycle *and*
3. still had the time to record everything in a single frame
4. without having to direct anyone to create the scene

If you take away any of these points, I submit that it's not street-photography anymore.

For example, the issue of what is or is not 'staging". Is waiting for a scenario that you know happens every day at a particular time staging? Is asking someone, "Please move over there" staging. I'd say yes to the latter and no to the former.

I agree completely and I will make that clarification in my writing.

CLARIFICATION NOTE: To "stage" something, you must have a person directing, some people acting, a script to be followed, and there are no time limitation other than the 'showtime'.

In photography, the photographer is the director, the subject is the actor, the script is "Please move over there," and the 'showtime' is when the camera shutter opens and closes.

 

[wgerrard]

Let me see if you agree with this. If we find out that the bicycle rider in "Mario's Bike" was asked by Mr. Bresson to pass through that alley one more time so that he can take that famous photograph.

Would it still be considered a masterpiece? Maybe, because that doesn't take away from Mr. Bresson's mastery in composition.

But will it still be considered a masterpiece of "street-photography" ?? I suspect that most people would not agree (again, allowing some measure of subjectivity that is rooted from the fact that photography is an art-form).

I'm not so sure, or at least not so sure that the distinction between "photography" and "street photography" is a matter of concern for anyone but self-described street photographers. As I understand you, you are saying your opinion of HCB's work would change if you knew that some of his photos were not totally spontaneous.

In other words, you're suggesting that a proper consideration of street photography requires knowledge of a photographer's technique and behavior. I don't agree. We know, or we presume to know, what HCB was doing when he took that photo. But, that knowledge is completely inconsequential to anyone viewing the image. If it was otherwise, no one could really appreciate HCB's work without understanding how he worked, which is a notion I don't accept.

I find it interesting that HCB took so many apparently spontaneous photos of recognized quality. However, my awareness of that doesn't add to my appreciation of his photos. I just assume he was lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time. [EDIT: Prompted by Mike's comments below, i'll add ", or maybe he waited in the right place until the right time." Waiting at a location that strikes you as promising a good photo seems a sensible thing to do, especially compared to ceaselessly walking around hoping to blunder into a spontaneous photo. As for Mario and his bike, I question the chances that HCB, or any other photographer, could have grabbed that shot before the cyclist disappeared unless he was waiting for it.]

LIkewise, I know that those iconic images from Ansel Adams are the opposite of spontaneous, and that he worked long and hard to produce them. That doesn't influence my appreciation of his work. In fact, it should not.

I think that, fundamentally, a photo must stand on its own. If someone has never heard of HCB but likes his photos, the photos will look the same if he finds out how HCB shot.

 

[Mcary]

Again why? Because the fact that Mr. Bresson from where he was (we believe):

1. saw the composition
2. at the same time as the passing bicycle *and*
3. still had the time to record everything in a single frame
4. without having to direct anyone to create the scene

If you take away any of these points, I submit that it's not street-photography anymore.

Question who are we?
During a BBC documentary on photography, Joel Meyerowitz's shared his views on the creative process that Mr Bresson used to create this image and it was, paraphrasing here, his view that Mr Bresson saw the over all scene as a kind of frame and knew that if he waited that a final element, in this case the bicycle, would enter the frame and complete the image.
Now I'm not saying that Mr Meyorwitz is right about what happened and your wrong just saying there's more then one opinion of the issue.

 

[Nikkor AIS]

Good job, Will. It takes guts to put stuff down and hold it up to criticism. And street shooting is a good topic to choose to write about. More needs to be said and written on this type of photography. There have been some interesting discussions in this thread. I'm personally uncomfortable "directing" people on the street. It seems wrong for "me." If others want to, that's fine. On the other hand, many great images are taken without the subject knowing that he/she is being photographed. I'm not above using long lenses like the Nikkor 800 5.6 IF-ED AIS to get those images.

And then other times, the subjects know but are in a kind of shock. For me, it's no big deal taking an image of someone and making it my picture . But it may have never happened to them before.
I'm willing to push the boundaries and experiment with the choice of subject matter and equipment and methods of shooting. For me that's what keeps it fresh. For a couple of years, I got so bummed out by the negative energy from my wife that I quit shooting the street. "Are you making any money doing that?" or "It's weird!"
Not with her any more .

I'm kind of getting the feeling that for some, there is a fine line between taking candids and being creepy. I don't know what to say other than I find human beings infinitely interesting in their behaviour. And it's not just spectacular perfectly lit decisive moments that I find interesting. For me, even how someone shifts their weight or turns their head holds fascination. If that makes me creepy, well what can I say, I can live with it. Near as I can tell, I'm not breaking any laws. Well, except for trespassing which I do all the time.



It's interesting that while many are quick to judge, the final say is still in the hands of the photographer. The future is still unwritten and there are amazing pictures to be had.
It takes guts to be a street photographer. It can be dangerous and your motives can/will be called into question. It goes with the territory.
I only regret the pictures I don't take.

As far as equipment, I really think there is nothing wrong with using long telephotos to do street shooting. Some of my best images over the years have been taken with long glass. Being able to stay back can be a good thing.











I'm not sure if I agree that street shooting must have people in the frame to be street shooting.

For example:



The problem of strict definitions is ... well, they're too strict . Is it street shooting if I'm on my balcony when I shoot my neighbour brushing his teeth? Is it street shooting if I'm in an alley? What about if I'm in a rural area? Or how about right on the fringe between the two?



Or how about if I'm in a parking lot?





Is it street shooting if there is a person in the photo but you can't quite see his/her face or entire body?

Anyways, I like this kind of thread. It makes me think and inspires me to go out and take some pictures.