'Street Photography'

Roger Hicks said:
Yes. It was just the "Master Class" bit I objected to. Well, that and the idea that a universal rule can be stated: hence my highlighting of "most" in your post. And, come to think of it, the idea that some of these "greats" weren't working ex post facto. For example, what was the idea or theme behind Cartier-Bresson's Rue Mouffetard? "I think I'll go and look for a small boy carrying two bottles of wine"? Fortune favours the prepared mind, certainly, and as I say, I suspect Mikhail is right: it certainly chimes with most of what I've read. But like Stewart, I found the "I know the answer" approach a little wearing.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I think maybe some things get lost in translation. I think most of the people that work on the streets start from a blank slate but most have a certain way that they see and this of course as Bresson states come from a prepared mind and eye. Everyone develops a way of working and that is usually personal and develops over time but I think we all, and I know the ones I mentioned, tend to work in bodies of work and that may even come in post because we all know that editing is just as important as what we capture. What we choose to show as our final work helps define our vision and us as photographers.
 
pete hogan said:
You can't edit what you haven't gotten. I suspect that what may define the "greats" is great reactions.
Click to expand...

They are both equal and important. You have to be able to see the moment and then you have to be able to put those images together in a visual way in post/editing to create a body of work that has some visual or thematic or both that tie the work together and that also show a little of the creator in the work.

A interesting piece on Robert Franks the Americans and some insight into why he used certain images and why he sequenced them in the way he did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHtRZBDOgag
 
airfrogusmc said:
They are both equal and important. You have to be able to see the moment and then you have to be able to put those images together in a visual way in post/editing to create a body of work that has some visual or thematic or both that tie the work together and that also show a little of the creator in the work.

A interesting piece on Robert Franks the Americans and some insight into why he used certain images and why he sequenced them in the way he did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHtRZBDOgag
Click to expand...

Thanks for the interesting link on this important work.

The picture of Franks' wife in the car says a lot about the process too!
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Stewart,

No, no, no. He KNOWS! It's like religion.

Besides, he's taken [parts of] master classes as well. Be honest. Have you? I haven't. I've taken pictures, been to (and indeed had) exhibitions and read books, but I wouldn't pretend that this is worth anything as compared with taking [parts of] master classes. I'm sure you'd agree.

How many masters are there? How many of them give classes? How many people learn anything from these masters?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

... sorry my bad, no actually other than a degree two certificates a few joint exhibitions and a working lifetime I'm as clueless as the next chap ... oh, and I don't really know what master-class means, or bad for that matter ... 🙂
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Stewart,

Be honest. Have you? I haven't. I've taken pictures, been to (and indeed had) exhibitions and read books, but I wouldn't pretend that this is worth anything as compared with taking [parts of] master classes. I'm sure you'd agree.

How many masters are there? How many of them give classes? How many people learn anything from these masters?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what problem you have with master classes. I was part of one this year, with Magnum photographer Alex Webb and his wife Rebecca Norris Webb. This to me, and others in the workshop, was invaluable experience.
 
OurManInTangier said:
I still have a dislike for syrupy, chocolate box landscapes (perhaps more so) as they seem to have out lasted the fad stage and become the norm - or perhaps this personal dislike is because I'm given a calendar of such images every year by my in-laws as they know I'm a photographer and think this is the kind of stuff I will automatically like 🙂
Click to expand...

sjgslack said:
I certainly agree there (on all you've said). But people seem to define themselves at 'Street' photographer. Whereas they just end up being boring chocolate-box landscape photographers (perhaps by accident or lack of imagination!)
Click to expand...

Now I'm curious, what does this syrupy, boring, chocolate-box landscape look like?
 
shadowfox said:
Now I'm curious, what does this syrupy, boring, chocolate-box landscape look like?
Click to expand...

The following link will show what I perceive to be 'chocolate box' and 'syrupy.' I hope you won't be taking offence at this as its simply an opinion. Plus, this is clearly a hugely popular approach within landscape photography and one which appears to make many photographers a very good living. However, I feel the way about this approach to landscape as Silas appears to about 'street' or perhaps more correctly the 'hip-shot hipster' approach to street photography.

http://www.photosecosse.com/p277626925/h6a908567#h6a908567

I think I'm correct that the best and most polite (or legally correct at least) way to link a photographers work to this site is via a link to the website rather than a copy and paste pic - if I have stepped on toes or screwed up let me know and I'll remove the post.
 
OurManInTangier said:
The following link will show what I perceive to be 'chocolate box' and 'syrupy.' I hope you won't be taking offence at this as its simply an opinion. Plus, this is clearly a hugely popular approach within landscape photography and one which appears to make many photographers a very good living. However, I feel the way about this approach to landscape as Silas appears to about 'street' or perhaps more correctly the 'hip-shot hipster' approach to street photography.

http://www.photosecosse.com/p277626925/h6a908567#h6a908567
Click to expand...

Indeed syrupy and IMO boring, yet there are surely more people who appreciate those colorful images (and even buy them to their living room walls) than my gritty, grainy and blurry b&w. Neither of them is particularly "needed" though, to get back to OP.
 
sjgslack said:
Some fine examples there!
Click to expand...
Sparrow said:
... I don't feel much like eating after looking at that particular box-lid
Click to expand...

I put that up wondering if I may be standing alone on this issue, so I'm relieved in more ways than one to see your reactions 🙂

Andrea Taurisano said:
Indeed syrupy and IMO boring, yet there are surely more people who appreciate those colorful images (and even buy them to their living room walls) than my gritty, grainy and blurry b&w. Neither of them is particularly "needed" though, to get back to OP.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more Andrea. As a freelance photographer (in a tough economic climate) I fully understand the need to be commercial and make some money from your skills. I've undertaken HDR for clients that wanted it, I have a photo library for local and regional businesses with imagery that in no way makes me proud as a photographer but does earn me an income and most of my friends would far rather have "a nice landscape at sunset" than "one of those artsy black and white jobbies with missing heads."*

That's why, when adding the link to my last post, I nearly added a little apology to the photographer but decided that should they ever stumble across my post they'd probably shrug their shoulders and look at how much that image has made them over the years. Neither may necessarily be needed but one is certainly wanted...

* Possibly not exact quotes from my friends but the general consensus over the years.🙄🙂
 
Andrea Taurisano said:
Indeed syrupy and IMO boring, yet there are surely more people who appreciate those colorful images (and even buy them to their living room walls) than my gritty, grainy and blurry b&w. Neither of them is particularly "needed" though, to get back to OP.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I'll take your grainy and gritty b&w but prefer sharp to blurry.

HFL
 
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?

When I was a kid people did skateboarding. It was all about the cool, the kit and the cred. That was ok - we were 14. 'Street Photography' to me is the new skateboarding, but there seem to be a strange number of adults practising it.

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.

Anyway, I don't mean to be (and am not normally) too negative. And far be it from me to insult anyone's work in particular (indeed I don't have a specific culprit in mind). Just wondering if anyone else feels the same way 🙂
Click to expand...

In answer to the original post, we don't need "...endless pictures of surprised people, or tramps, or funny looking people all taken at strange angles on the streets of our cities?" any more than we need pictures of birds or fish or landscapes or whatever.
But who are any of us to tell anyone else what they should be shooting? People shoot what they like and if some are not particularly original or adept at their particular genre, but still derive pleasure from shooting it, then so be it.
I consider myself to be a street shooter, who just likes telling stories with pictures. If people like my stuff, they'll look at it and say so, and if they don't then they needn't bother looking further or commenting. Either way I'll continue to do it because it pleases me, which is why I photograph in the first place.
 
rbsinto said:
But who are any of us to tell anyone else what they should be shooting? People shoot what they like and if some are not particularly original or adept at their particular genre, but still derive pleasure from shooting it, then so be it.
Click to expand...

I agree. Do we expect every jogger to have won marathons?
 
rbsinto said:
In answer to the original post, we don't need "...endless pictures of surprised people, or tramps, or funny looking people all taken at strange angles on the streets of our cities?" any more than we need pictures of birds or fish or landscapes or whatever.
But who are any of us to tell anyone else what they should be shooting? People shoot what they like and if some are not particularly original or adept at their particular genre, but still derive pleasure from shooting it, then so be it.
I consider myself to be a street shooter, who just likes telling stories with pictures. If people like my stuff, they'll look at it and say so, and if they don't then they needn't bother looking further or commenting. Either way I'll continue to do it because it pleases me, which is why I photograph in the first place.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't dream of telling people what they should be shooting, and of course none of it is needed aside from the fact that the practise of photography is perhaps more in need of good work than bad.

All I mean is: there is a lot of it, and lots of it isn't any good.

I've enjoyed reading this thread, and I agree with many above who have pointed out that the problem is less what I stated in the OP, and more to do with lack of editing and arbitrarily strict definitions.

I don't mean to insult anyone who calls themselves a street shooter, and I'm sure your work is good (though I've not seen it).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom