taylan
Street Dog
Arjay
Time Traveller
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:
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:
- 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.
- It's not an expected situation: I wholeheartedly agree.
- 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.
- 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.
Last edited:
glchua
Established
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.
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.
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
As soon as a label is affixed to a photo-style, it's doomed to be defined and re-defined by everyone who has an interest in the term, photography, or self-promotion. I shoot what interests me, be it on the streets of DC, on the dirt roads in a small town, in the grasses of meadows, on buses, trains or subways. I try not to call myself any special "type" of photographer. Maybe I'm just not a specialist.
Everybody who tries their hand at spontaneous, candid photography of this type thinks they know what street photography is, and some practitioners even agree with one another. For those that need to know what someone else thinks this term means, the explanation provided at the OP's blog-site is as good or as bad as many others I've seen.
I can't understand why someone would look at a series of photos (as was explained in the original post) and need someone to explain what the grouping meant, what they had in common that allowed this categorical distinction to be used to tie the images all together. The photos should just speak for themselves. That said, we are human, and we need to categorize.
Everybody who tries their hand at spontaneous, candid photography of this type thinks they know what street photography is, and some practitioners even agree with one another. For those that need to know what someone else thinks this term means, the explanation provided at the OP's blog-site is as good or as bad as many others I've seen.
I can't understand why someone would look at a series of photos (as was explained in the original post) and need someone to explain what the grouping meant, what they had in common that allowed this categorical distinction to be used to tie the images all together. The photos should just speak for themselves. That said, we are human, and we need to categorize.
Last edited:
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
got as far as the four-bullet list, each bullet wrong
Same here! Stopped me cold. I can't agree with the first three bullets. Even the "great" HCB staged and waited (expected) for shots. Doisneau staged a lot of his shots as well. And, there is definitely a voyeuristic nature to SP. Defining SP is a slippery slope for sure. It's easy to know SP when you see it, but hard to define outright. Kudos to the OP for the attempt.
However, I agree wtih FrankS. SP without people or animals is Urban Landscape (of which there is a great Flickr group
)./
_mark__
Well-known
Good photography speaks for itself, it does not need a whole lot of words to justify it.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Explaining either a photograph or a style with words is a natural way to inform those who are curious/interested. Not everyone in the world possess such a heightened sense of appreciation for photography as you apparently do.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
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.
However I won't budge about voyeurism. To lump voyeuristic intent into street-photography is to me, cheapening it. But that is my stand.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Wow, I guess some of y'all were born experts, never needing anyone to explain anything to you.
sig
Well-known
'It is clearly unposed, the subjects most likely weren’t even aware of the shot, and it is as far from voyeurism as the east from the west.'
How can you see that a photograph is not posed?
IMO it makes no sense in creating rules that are impossible to verify.
If suddenly street photography was for everyone there are no street photography?
Anyways, on wikipedia it makes much more sense in a much shorter text.
How can you see that a photograph is not posed?
IMO it makes no sense in creating rules that are impossible to verify.
If suddenly street photography was for everyone there are no street photography?
Anyways, on wikipedia it makes much more sense in a much shorter text.
user237428934
User deletion pending
Perhaps my english is not good enough, but the term staged means something completely different to me. Staged is, when you give someone instructions how to behave in your photo (how to stand there, or how to wear a bag, etc.). If you just have a good sense for your surrounding and you see situations coming and wait for that, this is definitely not staged.
As far as I know, HCB did not stage photos.
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
Thanks, shadowfox - I'm sure this was meant good naturedly, but as for me, I was trying to say that a photo, like any work of art or product of man's creativity, should not need to be explained, but should be what it is, for the viewer to decide.Wow, I guess some of y'all were born experts, never needing anyone to explain anything to you.
The extension to this line of thought was that, given a series of images that all had one theme or guiding principle in common, any rationale person (who is interested in the images) should be able to identify that commonality without a lengthy discussion on what that common factor is. Nor should we have to work so hard to establish a definition of what word/term could be affixed to that series. This ability to identify like things is an exercise given to even pre-schoolers - "which one of these things is not like the others?"
So, please, continue this discussion till the cows come home, all you who still find this interesting. I think discussion on artistic principles to be valuable and should be encouraged. But I stand by my point, and while no one that I know thinks me so smart or such an expert that I an in no need of any explanations, I think I can figure out this little conundrum of "street photography" without anyone's help or expert guidance. For those who never heard of it, or want an explanation, there's always "Wikipedia."
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
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.
_mark__
Well-known
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.
Turtle
Veteran
Street Photography to me: The human condition as seen and experienced in public places.
user237428934
User deletion pending
Whatever this is.
porktaco
Well-known
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.
that said, i loved the rest of your writeup.
Last edited:
porktaco
Well-known
I have taken photos like that:
...Mike
lol. i thought he was taking a leak.
also, i think a big challenge is to get the fronts of heads.
wgerrard
Veteran
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.
Unless someone is hamming it up or mugging for the camera, a staged photo using ordinary pedestrians who agreed to cooperate is going to look the same as a photo of those same people caught by random chance. Not staging photos, or even planning to be in the right place to get a shot, may be contrary to some individual rules about how the game is played. But, if those who look at the resulting photos aren't aware of, or cannot notice the impact of, those self-imposed rules, then the photographer's reward comes not from the photo, but from successfully adhering to a discipline he or she has chosen. Nothing wrong with that. Just the opposite, in fact. It doesn't seem appropriate, however, to see that stance as an essential element in a definition of street photography.
For me, then street photography is photography that produces photos of street life. Different ways to get those photos co-exist.
Unless someone is hamming it up or mugging for the camera, a staged photo using ordinary pedestrians who agreed to cooperate is going to look the same as a photo of those same people caught by random chance. Not staging photos, or even planning to be in the right place to get a shot, may be contrary to some individual rules about how the game is played. But, if those who look at the resulting photos aren't aware of, or cannot notice the impact of, those self-imposed rules, then the photographer's reward comes not from the photo, but from successfully adhering to a discipline he or she has chosen. Nothing wrong with that. Just the opposite, in fact. It doesn't seem appropriate, however, to see that stance as an essential element in a definition of street photography.
For me, then street photography is photography that produces photos of street life. Different ways to get those photos co-exist.
Ducky
Well-known
Regarding Voyeurism: There was a short time a while back when most of the 'street' shots posted were just T&A, that was voyeurism. What I am seeing lately is more in line with the classic examples. Helen has it nailed.
I have also seen shots of street-lamp-lit scenes without people that I still call street.
Regarding explainations: I find it very aggrivating to go to a museum and see those little signs next to a painting explaining the details. I don't read them, considering them unnecessary.
Nice writeup, Will, you started a nice discussion which, I assume, was your intention.
I have also seen shots of street-lamp-lit scenes without people that I still call street.
Regarding explainations: I find it very aggrivating to go to a museum and see those little signs next to a painting explaining the details. I don't read them, considering them unnecessary.
Nice writeup, Will, you started a nice discussion which, I assume, was your intention.