'Street Photography'

Roger Hicks said:
First: do we need pictures of anything?

Second: Sturgeon's Law (strictly, "Sturgeon's Revelation"): “Sure, 90% of science fiction is crud. That's because 90% of everything is crud.”

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid street photography is becoming what has happened to landscape photography. A high percentage of camera owners think they're doing something special and original in both areas but in reality they're not doing anything that the other millions of enthusiasts haven't done millions of times. Most are doing pretty lame imagery. I have to say it is a little tiring.

On the other hand it a hobby and what's the harm. Everyone needs something so if you enjoy it go for it. It's also an important historic documentation of the people and places of the time.

Once in a great while someone makes a really outstanding image.
 
x-ray said:
It's also an important historic documentation of the people and places of the time.
Click to expand...

I agree. I believe that, 50 years down the road, the sheer quantity of the images the 'street photographers' create today will uniquely and completely define our time today in virtually every city in the world.

50 years later, Torontonians will remember the city by images of Egyptian, Syrian, Iranian protests, Hindu Hare Khrishna festivals, Korean Choosuk festivals, social uprising against wealthy (G20, Occupy movements), daily lives of people and so on.

Virtually every facet of any city will have been documented and remembered facilitated by the proliferation of 'street photography genre'. Hopefully some street photographers among countless of them are proficient enough to leave more iconic photographs of the cities today than there exists of the 50s,60s, etc.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Are there? I can't say I'd particularly noticed. I'm not saying yiou're wrong: just that I've not really noticed.

And, of course, plenty of photographers just call themselves "photographers". Maybe you're right, that people who want to define their photography in words, rather than taking pictures, are disproportionately fond of calling themselves "street photographers". Or maybe it's an RFF thing...

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

As a (retired) research scientist, I never refer to myself as a "photographer." My profession is physicist, not photographer. But I do sometimes reply, when asked, that that I'm a (serious) amateur photographer. And the kind of photography that I enjoy most is what we call "street" photography.

As for Simon's remarks (post 17), I do have some rules, applicable to all my images: B&W only; I have no interest in color photography. And as someone else noted: it's not a photo until it's printed. As for focal length on the "street", nothing shorter than 35mm, and most often, just 50mm.

These constraints, and a few more, reflect my comfort zone; they are not rules laid down by others. Street photography is fun but challenging; for me, it is an attempt to create an image that relates people to their immediate environment. It is artistically gratifying when I'm successful in creating that kind of image.

And who defines success? I do.

HFL
 
Any kind of photography can be just a repetition, or perhaps something original. What I like about street photography, is that it shows people. Each of us has tried to be the second HCB at least once:

20093234 by mfogiel, on Flickr

Then, maybe you start looking for something that makes you tick in particular, and what may or may not develop into something different:

20113220 by mfogiel, on Flickr

20124425 by mfogiel, on Flickr


20092331 by mfogiel, on Flickr

2012202 by mfogiel, on Flickr
 
Anyone ever see "Little Murders" with Elliot Gould? Elliot plays a photographer who photographs dog****. It's not the point of the story, but every time one of these threads pops up, I think of that movie.

It's a great movie anyway......
 
sjgslack said:
Ok - here goes...
... Of course at its best there is lots of photography of a very high standard that is described as being in this genre, but these photographers usually do not confine themselves to scaring strangers and shooting from the hip....
Click to expand...

Of course no one needs any pictures of anything;).
Not of cats, dogs, cars, old cameras, you name it.

But obviously people like to take pictures and share them to get feedback. If they are lucky some responses indicate that they have captured an interesting scene.

I am not a photographer, as I'm not making any money taking pictures. It's just for my own enjoyment. I like to watch people on the street and try to capture their emotions, mood, reactions to the environment.
I find this interesting. If somebody else doesn't, it's not a problem;).
 
Darthfeeble said:
How about we each take pictures of what interests us and look at the same without dissing the thing?
Click to expand...

because that's what encourages the people who will always suck to keep at it with the delusion they aren't awful and those that have undeveloped potential to fall into complacency.

that's ok though some people just do it for fun.
 
A lot of good points have been brought up, and as with all photography, editing is important. Actually I don't like the term street photography. To me street photography is too restrictive a label and doesn’t fully describe the work of good photographers who can shoot anywhere, indoors or out, get compelling images, tell a story, or make a fine portrait.

I guess if you shoot only in the studio, or architecture, etc. then it might help to use a label when describing what you do.

Elliott Erwitt, HCB, David Seymour, W. Eugene Smith, Bruce Davidson, Mary Ellen Mark (and many others) weren't just "street photographers".

I do enjoy photographing people in candid situations because one has to be observant and anticipate the moment, be aware of the light, and follow one's instincts. I try to be sensitive and respectful towards the subject, and know that luck is often a factor. It is a thrill.

Thanks
Sam
 
x-ray said:
Once in a great while someone makes a really outstanding image.
Click to expand...

There are couple ways of hiding something valuable.
1) You can hide it in most inconspicuous secret place, or
2) You can hide it between very similar objects (of a much lesser value)

It seems to me that you are describing the second way here ;-)

Even monkey can accidentally come up with really outstanding photograph of great historical value, given the right amount of camera clicks. That’s not how "great ones" work though. They work on subject, on idea, on theme. No random shots. Not all are successful, mostly not, but no random.
IMHO, as they say, but I am quite certain in this. ;-)
 
MIkhail said:
There are couple ways of hiding something valuable.
1) You can hide it in most inconspicuous secret place, or
2) You can hide it between very similar objects (of a much lesser value)

It seems to me that you are describing the second way here ;-)

Even monkey can accidentally come up with really outstanding photograph of great historical value, given the right amount of camera clicks. That’s not how "great ones" work though. They work on subject, on idea, on theme. No random shots. Not all are successful, mostly not, but no random.
IMHO, as they say, but I am quite certain in this. ;-)
Click to expand...

... how could you possibly know that?
 
i got kicked out of an online street photography group for commenting that none of the images were street --- it was filled with pix of buildings and city landscapes --- nothing i'd consider street - --- oh, well
 
sjgslack said:
Ok - here goes...

Do we really need endless pictures of surprised people, or tramps, or funny looking people all taken at strange angles on the streets of our cities?
....
Click to expand...

What you describe isn't street photography.

I unfollowed two photogs on Flickr recently.
One was posting a lot of people faces taken on the street. No content, no "street" photography, no real candids.
Like faces of old, suffering or "strange" people.
Another one was mostly posting asian young females pictures on the street taken by long tele. 90% of ladies would be on the mobile phone.

Where are many good candids and street photos, but some people taking it to extreme "street macro" or some are thinking if it is person picture taken on the street it is street photography.
 
Ko.Fe. said:
What you describe isn't street photography.

I unfollowed two photogs on Flickr recently.
One was posting a lot of people faces taken on the street. No content, no "street" photography, no real candids.
Like faces of old, suffering or "strange" people.
Another one was mostly posting asian young females pictures on the street taken by long tele. 90% of ladies would be on the mobile phone.

Where are many good candids and street photos, but some people taking it to extreme "street macro" or some are thinking if it is person picture taken on the street it is street photography.
Click to expand...

I think the problem you see is that there is a flood of **** street photography on the internet. Good street photography is really really good.

I know what you mean, however i feel the same about how people post pictures of flowers, or of their kids and pets.
 
mfogiel said:
Any kind of photography can be just a repetition, or perhaps something original. What I like about street photography, is that it shows people. Each of us has tried to be the second HCB at least once:

20093234 by mfogiel, on Flickr

Then, maybe you start looking for something that makes you tick in particular, and what may or may not develop into something different:

20113220 by mfogiel, on Flickr

20124425 by mfogiel, on Flickr


20092331 by mfogiel, on Flickr

2012202 by mfogiel, on Flickr
Click to expand...

These are great shots. Wish I had made them.

HFL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom