Street Photography Deciphered

[FrankS]

Well, the picture of your neighbour brushing his teeth (in his bathroom?) with a long lens is just creepy, IMO. I wouldn't want to be your neighbour.

For me, the definitions work:
no people, street scene, large scale = urban landscape
no people, street scene, small scale = urban still life
street scene with people = street photography

You argue that definitions are too strict, but you can't call a picture with no cat in it, cat photography.

 

[Nikkor AIS]

The neighbour who was brushing his teeth did so on his balcony in plain sight 😕. The image was taken with the Nikkor 800 5.6 IF-ED AIS and TC-301 and cropped. If he chooses to do his personal grooming/maintenance out in public for the world to see, well what can I say. It's not like I'm hiding the fact that I have a camera with a huge lens on my own balcony. I only had it set up to shoot a mini train that I can see from this location.





Nikkor 800 5.6 IF-ED AIS with TC-14C on D3

What is creepy to me are hidden cameras that watch us when we walk down the street, go into stores, and work in businesses.
I take picture of the people, places and things around me. I'm not hiding the fact that I'm a photographer. I'm not being sneaky in taking people's pictures.
I use long lenses to do street shooting because it allows me to fill the frame, and I like the compression sharpness and bokeh that these lenses provide. The ability to clean up distracting backgrounds and isolate the subject makes lugging them around worth the expense and hassle. I reject the notion that there is a purity in shooting with nothing but a 35 mm/50 mm lens on the street.







Nikkor 300 2.0 IF-ED AIS on D3

Not that I don't also go with the Leicas.













As far as the definition of street photography, we can agree to disagree.
For 20 years, I've considered myself to be a "street photographer." You could say that the expression "urban landscaper" just doesn't have the same appeal for me.

 

[FrankS]

No worries!

I like your RF images more. Again, just my opinion.

 

[wgerrard]

The neibor was brushing his teeth was on his balcony in plain sight. 😕... If he chooses to do his personal grooming/maintainence out in public for the world to see, well what can I say.

True, but that doesn't change the photo or anyone's reaction to it.

 

[tstermitz]

People/No People: P/NP?

People/No People: P/NP?

For me, the definitions work:
no people, street scene, large scale = urban landscape
no people, street scene, small scale = urban still life
street scene with people = street photography

You argue that definitions are too strict, but you can't call a picture with no cat in it, cat photography.

I really like the idea of a cat photograph with no cat in it. Traces of a cat, cat toys, cat hair, somebody reacting to a cat, cat shadow. It makes sense in a challenging way.

I agree to split out "no people, street scene, large scale" as urban landscape or architecture or urban industrial or whatever.

A shot of an alley, trashbags like urban tumbleweeds. I'd still lump that with street.

You have clear definitions, but I'm more interested in "feel" and "artistic sensibility" than parsing detailed, correct words.


Tom Stermitz
http://photokinesis.info

 

[tstermitz]

In favor of broader definition

In favor of broader definition

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

I agree with your broader definition; too narrow and you restrict your opportunities and artistic vision. Your frozen bicycle is great. And we shouldn't restrict street photography to urban settings. Suburban photos, like the kids bicycles... why not?

I disagree that your neighbor's teeth brushing is street photography. Candid, yes. Voyeuristic, maybe. Portraiture? But, what would we call it if he was captured in B&W wearing a trenchcoat in a brick-walled alley?

Tom Stermitz
http://photokinesis.info

 

[FrankS]

Like I said before, if there is the odd picture with no people in it amongst a majority of pics with people in it as in the now famous nanny pics, I have no problem calling everything street photography. However, if an entire series/body of work is devoid of people in an urban street setting, there are more accurate descriptors of such work than street photography, IMO. The nanny's picture of a dead pigeon in a trash bin by itself, is more accurately described as an urban still life, rather than street photography, at least in the way that I understand these terms. Was she a street photographer doing street photography? Yes, but some of her pics are best individually described as urban still life or urban landscape.

 

[FrankS]

Sleeping on this idea, my thoughts galvanized on this explanation of types of photography discussed here:

Street photography illustrates the manner in which individuals (or groups) in an urban environment interact (or do not interact) with others and with their environment, and which provides insight into the human condition.

Urban landscape and urban still life (depending on scope and scale) photography illustrate human constructions and artifacts, their arrangement and relationships (either purposeful or coincidental) which provide insights into the human condition.

Substitute urban with suburban or rural when applicable.

Definitions are helpful in understanding and clarifying ideas, but never let them define or restrict you and your photography.

 

[Canyongazer]

"Talking about art is like dancing about architecture." Frank Zappa

 

[porktaco]

greg - i love all of those. and i'm with you 135% about the joy of long lenses for street photography.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Definitions are helpful in understanding and clarifying ideas, but never let them define or restrict you and your photography.

Dear Frank,

Exactly. As soon as you mistake the description for the thing itself, you have a major problem,

Cheers,

R.

 

[yanidel]

My definition of street photography would be :
1) a urban environment
2) a human presence or the feel of it.
3) the two above mixed to convey a message / emotion / feeling

Ps : most pictures fail with #3

 

[wgerrard]

...a rose by any other name would smell as sweet... -- Juliet Capulet

 

[Canyongazer]

Although a glasses wearer, I'm not an intellectual.
Thanks for setting me straight, Brian.

 

[Nikkor AIS]

Thanks tortilla, Like I said i just think it's great that street photography is being discussed.

 

[yanidel]

Hi Gregory, in my terms I would only consider your shots #3 and 4 as street photography. The others belong more to portraits in my opinion. The second to last one being a paparazzi shot 😉

 

[Nikkor AIS]

Well, we're all entitled to our own opinions. For the record, they're all street photography according to me 😛. I will concede that it might be possible to have subheadings, i.e., street photography -- cats. I'm a street photographer. To me, all of the different classifications just seem so unnecessary. And if you start worrying about this kind of stuff, it's akin to putting blinders on.
It's not about worrying about what camera you use. It's just a box and the lens is a window. I use differnt type of boxes and see through differnt windows.
This discusion has made me think that street photography and being a street photographer is state of mind. More than just a label.

Im out.

 

[lawrence]

Hi Gregory, in my terms I would only consider your shots #3 and 4 as street photography. The others belong more to portraits in my opinion. The second to last one being a paparazzi shot 😉

"Neither snapshot, document, landscape, etc. are descriptions of separate photographic aesthetics. There is only still photography with its own unique aesthetic. Still photography is the distinctive term". Garry Winogrand

 

[FrankS]

Still photography would be the umbrella term, but if GW is dismissive of any labelling of the different genres of photography, I'm going to have to disagree with him, talented photographer that he was.

 

[lawrence]

Still photography would be the umbrella term, but if GW is dismissive of any labelling of the different genres of photography, I'm going to have to disagree with him, talented photographer that he was.

Why is it necessary to apply a label? What purpose does it serve?