'Street Photography'

[furbs]

I don't see how adding the label of "street photography" to my shots taken on the street adds anything to the photos. The photograph's locale doesn't interest me as much as its subject matter. There are plenty of lazy photos around, whether taken indoors, in natural environments, or on the street. A photo's location doesn't affect its quality hardly as much as I used to think it did.

 

[Sparrow]

Funny analogy, but how does one make "street snapshots" properly?

... obviously one reduces the variables to a minimum and expands gamut to the maximum

 

[airfrogusmc]

The key is to try and and make more than snapshots.

 

[OurManInTangier]

I'm off to buy a hammock.

 

[sjgslack]

Perhaps you meant to say you don't like it?

Are you saying there's no such thing as a good photograph?

 

[Michael Markey]

Are you saying there's no such thing as a good photograph?

I see lots of good photographs .
It doesn`t necessarily mean that I like them.

 

[sjgslack]

... because it's like having intercourse standing up in a hammock ... possible; but not as much fun as doing it properly

I enjoy a challenge and have great balance. 🙂

 

[sjgslack]

I see lots of good photographs .
It doesn`t necessarily mean that I like them.

Exactly my point- there is such a thing, and it is (largely) independent of (most) opinion

 

[rbsinto]

... because it's like having intercourse standing up in a hammock ... possible; but not as much fun as doing it properly

The name of the game ain't schmaltz. It's results.
So who gives a **** how you do it as long as you do it well?
And despite your screwing in a Hammock analogy, I have tons of fun shooting the way I shoot.

 

[sjgslack]

The name of the game ain't schmaltz. It's results.
So who gives a **** how you do it as long as you do it well?
And despite your screwing in a Hammock analogy, I have tons of fun shooting the way I shoot.

Yes
...........(to get to 10 characters)

 

[Roger Hicks]

I'm off to buy a hammock.

Dear Simon,

F*** that!

(Not that I've ever tried in a hammock).

Cheers,

R.

 

[michaelwj]

... obviously one reduces the variables to a minimum and expands gamut to the maximum

This made me laugh, and reminded me of my advanced quantum mechanics professor who used four blackboards and 30 minutes to show something he called "trivial". As in its sounds easy to follow, but leaves you with a sense that you still have no idea what just happened.
I have no idea what you mean, if anything.
Michael

 

[Andrea Taurisano]

The key is to try and and make more than snapshots.

I'd rephrase it: The key is to try and make snapshots that mean something.

I will never understand why the term "snapshot" has to have a negative meaning or implication. HCB did lots of excellently executed snapshots. Snapshots can be wonderful. See this video in case.

 

[OurManInTangier]

I'd rephrase it: The key is to try and make snapshot that mean something.

I will never understand why the term "snapshot" has to have a negative meaning or implication. HCB did lots of excellently executed snapshots. Snapshots can be wonderful. See this video in case.

This used to be the shortest route to winding up my lecturer while at college, he loathed the term, whereas I quite like the honesty and simplicity of it. That people seem to believe that it implies the photographer had no control or input into the output (as it were) appears slightly daft to me. The photographer, should, still have to recognize the potential of a scene, compose (albeit quickly) and have exposure in hand all within a moment or two. Perhaps, if successful, it should be thought of with much higher regard. Snobbery is rife throughout life so why should photography be any different I suppose.

Dear Simon,

F*** that!

(Not that I've ever tried in a hammock).

Cheers,

R.

As it turns out, much the same as my wife's response. S'okay, I kept the receipt:angel:

 

[Sparrow]

This made me laugh, and reminded me of my advanced quantum mechanics professor who used four blackboards and 30 minutes to show something he called "trivial". As in its sounds easy to follow, but leaves you with a sense that you still have no idea what just happened.
I have no idea what you mean, if anything.
Michael

... well it simply means

reduce the variables to a minimum; Measure the ambient light so you can preset the exposure. Zone focus to cover your subject, about 15ft works for me, then don't muck about with it unless the light changes.

expand gamut to the maximum; Use a fast film that will tolerate overexposure so you shoot a couple of stops into the shadows and still have plenty dof to zone focus. My favourite at the moment is xp2 but I've used hp5 and fuji superia to good effect but I expect many print films will work.

PS I don't see snapshot as a derogatory term ... a good snapshot is a good photo, and likely more interesting than any other genre

 

[malcD]

hmm!
which of my pictures are snapshots and which of my snapshots are pictures?

 

[Sparrow]

hmm!
which of my pictures are snapshots and which of my snapshots are pictures?

... some of the former ... and all the latter? 😀

 

[icebear]

Exactly my point- there is such a thing, and it is (largely) independent of (most) opinion

And you wanna set up the "good photo police" ?
Sorry, I don't really see your problem ... if you don't like a lot of the pictures you see, just don't look at them. If you don't like the program, either change the channel or turn the TV off completely. You just can't determine yourself what gets broadcasted.

In today's world of internet access and possibilities to post anything for free, there is very little self editing, completely agreed, point well taken. But you are free to choose what to look at what not. So what's your big issue?

Relax, get out, shoot some good photos acc. to your standards and post them in your gallery here.

 

[sjgslack]

And you wanna set up the "good photo police" ?
Sorry, I don't really see your problem ... if you don't like a lot of the pictures you see, just don't look at them. If you don't like the program, either change the channel or turn the TV off completely. You just can't determine yourself what gets broadcasted.

In today's world of internet access and possibilities to post anything for free, there is very little self editing, completely agreed, point well taken. But you are free to choose what to look at what not. So what's your big issue?

Relax, get out, shoot some good photos acc. to your standards and post them in your gallery here.

Of course I don't have to look at them, but it doesn't stop me having an opinion or seeking the opinion of other people here (and it has been very interesting to get it!)

If there's crap on the TV I don't like of course I turn it off, but it doesn't stop me commenting on the fact that it's there.

I have no 'big issue', I was simply starting a discussion on the subject, which has been very enjoyable.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

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?
...

I finally realise what exactly you were talking about.
Was trying to find some new "to follow" street photogs last night on Flickr.
After looking at these Flickr most popular Street Photography groups yesterday I understood why some are saying - street photography is dead.
Here is no composition, no light and nothing happening.
It is like sea of dead pictures with nothing but:

"surprised people, or tramps, or funny looking people all taken at strange angles on the streets of our cities."