'Street Photography'

sjgslack said:
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...

If they're great photographs, interesting images that have some composition, emotion or something that makes them attractive then yes, yes we do. I couldn't care less if someone calls it street photography or path photography or gutter photography or whatever. Call it what you like, if it's a good image save it, print it and post it. I'm also a sucker for milky long exposures of water with big rocks in the foreground. Has it been done to death? Yes. Are there still amazing photographs being produced every day? Yes. Are there crappy ones? Sure! Filter out what you like and forget the rest, don't get hung up on labels.

In the interests of the genre here's the only picture I've ever taken that I might consider to be a 'street photograph'. Is it great? Honestly I don't know. It was taken at 12 middnight, he's got a funny expression on his face, resignation maybe? With the dregs of a beer in one hand, phone in the other, obviously a wedding goer or somesuch. It made smile and think 'That might make a cool photo'. Does that make it street photography or me a street photographer? I don't think so but if you like it then great!


Guy on phone with beer by Toastno6, on Flickr
 
I'm not really a fan of the term, "Street Photography." Primarily because of all the prats out there going around pointing out what is and isn't street photography. I picked up an old book that featured many of the photographers people reference as classic street photographers and it never mentioned the word once.

Quite frankly I think the best term we have is, "Documentary Photography." And we shouldn't forget that shooting in the street, is simply one environment it takes place.

Also, people get very obsessed about the reasons they shoot documentary photography. I end up shooting in the street most of the time because it's simply the most convenient place to find subjects. I look it as merely practice, too keep my eye in and improve my technique.

I know the chances of photographing anything genuinely interesting is slim, so I put very little emphasis behind the meaning and social good simply snapping away in the street creates.

There are a lot of people out there that think if you buy a Leica and wide angle lens, it automatically adds weight to what you shoot. Look at internet forums and galleries of many people trying to be street photographers and you see a sea of banal crap.

On Elliott Erwitt's web page his street shots are simply labeled, "Snaps." That tells you a lot about what we are really always doing.
 
I read somewhere in a previous post about "path photography" -- that's so funny! But, if you live in the country (as the previous poster said), that's what you got.

My wife and I live in a small town. Our "street photography" looks a bit different than Robert Frank or Gary Winogrand, etc. But, we still enjoy it and so often find ourselves attempting an homage (read: emulate) to those well known street photographers (the inspiration is obvious). As long as we're enjoying ourselves and the images reflect our version of street...is that so bad? I don't mind using the term "street photography" for it.
 
I think that Adams nailed it with these comments.
"Lets hope that categories will be less rigid in the future; there has been too much of placing photography in little niches-commercial. pictorial, documentary, and creative( a dismal term). Definitions of this kind are inessential and stupid; good photography remains good photography no matter what we name it. I would like to think of it as just “photography” ; of each and every photograph containing the best qualities in proper degree to achieve its purpose. We have been slaves to categories, and each has served as a kind of concentration camp for the spirit.”-Ansel Adams

Instead of getting less rigid things seem to have only gotten more rigid, unfortunately.

Check out Winogrand says about it 50 seconds in or so on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RM9KcYEYXs
 
jsrockit said:
There's posers in all activities. I skateboarded for many, many years (contests, etc.) and it was about progression... not about cool, kit, and cred... it was about moving the sport forward, trick wise, if you were really into it. Sounds to me that you think both of these, skateboarding and street photography, are fads? Maybe they were / are the wrong activities for you?

The fact is that you don't have to be good to enjoy yourself and that is why you will always see what you deem to be garbage. Additionally, the internet has allowed us to see everyone's unedited photos. In the past, you would have had to go to the photographers house to see that. If you don't like it, ignore it. If you don't go to flickr, instagram, or tumblr, you won't encounter this type of photography.

What I don't seem to understand is how people can think photography (street or otherwise), which is simply one of the mediums used to document our times, can be dead? It's just another moment in time and it'll be documented just like the 1970s, 1950s, and 1930s were. I think the problem starts when people yearn to make 1950s style photos in 2013. Too bad, but cellphones are a part of our times and will be in the photos from this time period.

If you look at the history of photography, many themes are repeated...many great photographers have photographed the same things.
Click to expand...


You make an excellent point. It's important to document the times. Some of the greatest photographs ever made could be loosely fit into the category of street photography, even though made under the umbrella term of photojournalism, documentary or many other names. Where would we be today if photographers, photojournalist or not, hadn't gone out and documented the world around them? I believe we'd be much poorer as a society. I'm not saying everyone out there practicing "street photography" is making important, amazing images. But you never can tell what will be an important image in 10, 20, 50, 100 years.
 
ABrosig said:
You make an excellent point. It's important to document the times. Some of the greatest photographs ever made could be loosely fit into the category of street photography, even though made under the umbrella term of photojournalism, documentary or many other names. Where would we be today if photographers, photojournalist or not, hadn't gone out and documented the world around them? I believe we'd be much poorer as a society. I'm not saying everyone out there practicing "street photography" is making important, amazing images. But you never can tell what will be an important image in 10, 20, 50, 100 years.
Click to expand...

Time can render even the most mundane scene historically important.
 
sjgslack said:
Time can render even the most mundane scene historically important.
Click to expand...

I agree. Just think of all the images that have been made that weren't necessarily important beyond the people who made them which are now providing snippets of historic life.

I don't know if this one will ever become historically important. I don't even know if it falls under the strictest definition of "street photography." It's a portion of an ongoing project I started not long ago, photographing with my new (to me) FED 3 rangefinder, trying to capture images of people I find interesting. I still don't know where I'm going with this, but it's fun, and this particular scene represents a large part of the culture here in East Texas.

TradeDays_PaulGuitarW.jpg

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