The Undead Street

[SimonSawSunlight]

This is not bad.

then i suppose it's your turn now?

 

[Dirk]

Auilhac by FilmFlamMan, on Flickr

 

[Shirley Creazzo]

And Keith, I love the first picture of the shop window and the girl in the shadow. Both wonderful. You are on a roll.

 

[airfrogusmc]

I suppose I must be thankfull that we are all different!
Reading through this thread I come to the conclusion that I have no idea what 'street' photography is or isn't. I am not alone because it's clear to me nobody else does either.
Nevertheless I think I can see where Boris is 'coming from'.
And I don't think he is looking for the many snaphots that I see in this thread.
Where are the pictures that make you stop, look again, and wish that not only had you taken them but even seen them in the first place? I don't see many here.
And then I'm disappointed when I see the 'Lobby' pictures included here!
I think these are recording an event, and that is all!
What is the justification in their inclusionin this thread? This a non-judgemental question. I would really like to know. I'm trying to understand and learn.
To my eye far to many of the photos in this thread seem to have been taken with a 50mm or equivalent lens. Far too many photos could do with some drastic tight cropping to emphasise the 'interesting'. And far too many lack any sort of colour that I have in my world.
I like the posting by PeterM1!
I wish I had seen this, I wish I had taken this photo, there is so much to look at, it's beautifully presented, and it is sufficiently different from other postings.
To me it looks like 'strret' photography whatever that is.
Perhaps Boris might like to comment on it from his standpoint.
I'll now retire to my cosy shell and contunue to read.

Lumix

I think street photography is just photography. And it does what photography does best, it freezes moments in time. It's where some prefer to work and for many reason. Meyerowitz, in this trailer of an upcoming documentary, states my reason in a far more articulate manor than I am capable of.

http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/everybody-street/trailer

And I really hate labels like "street photography" though I am just as guilty as anyone else at using it.

"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

 

[paulfish4570]

some fine photography on this page ...

 

[airfrogusmc]

some fine photography on this page ...

Agree!!!!!!!

 

[peterm1]

I suppose I must be thankfull that we are all different!
Reading through this thread I come to the conclusion that I have no idea what 'street' photography is or isn't. I am not alone because it's clear to me nobody else does either.
Nevertheless I think I can see where Boris is 'coming from'.
And I don't think he is looking for the many snaphots that I see in this thread.
Where are the pictures that make you stop, look again, and wish that not only had you taken them but even seen them in the first place? I don't see many here.
And then I'm disappointed when I see the 'Lobby' pictures included here!
I think these are recording an event, and that is all!
What is the justification in their inclusionin this thread? This a non-judgemental question. I would really like to know. I'm trying to understand and learn.
To my eye far to many of the photos in this thread seem to have been taken with a 50mm or equivalent lens. Far too many photos could do with some drastic tight cropping to emphasise the 'interesting'. And far too many lack any sort of colour that I have in my world.
I like the posting by PeterM1!
I wish I had seen this, I wish I had taken this photo, there is so much to look at, it's beautifully presented, and it is sufficiently different from other postings.
To me it looks like 'strret' photography whatever that is.
Perhaps Boris might like to comment on it from his standpoint.
I'll now retire to my cosy shell and contunue to read.

Lumix

Lumix, thanks - The photo I posted was shot as a reflection in a large piece of art that is situated in the main CBD shopping mall in Adelaide, my home city. I love making shots of reflections as they take an ordinary everyday image and turn it into something magical. So this is a natural thing to shoot.

The "Balls in the Mall" are also a local place where people in the CBD traditionally arrange to meet up - so its also a good place to people watch and make photos.

Here are a few more conventional photos made at this location. (And maybe one or two more impressionistic ones as well)


Life reflected is a ball by yoyomaoz, on Flickr


Meet by the balls by yoyomaoz, on Flickr


Beside the balls by yoyomaoz, on Flickr


Reflections of a distorted world by yoyomaoz, on Flickr


Impressions 4 by yoyomaoz, on Flickr

 

[Monz]

Hare Krishna by *monz*, on Flickr

 

[Michael Markey]

Love your reflection shots Peter.

 

[MIkhail]

When I started this thread it was to counter the "street is dead" type of thread/post I see around here and other places ... which in many ways is true, in a world where folk seem to think that vomiting up the content of their flicker photo-streams, however irrelevant constitutes some sort of art-work.

So this 15-page stream of snapshots (except of couple, I admit, decent images) supports the idea that street photo alive and well? How is so?

 

[Sparrow]

So this 15-page stream of snapshots (except of couple, I admit, decent images) supports the idea that street photo alive and well? How is so?

... it doesn't ... I was too ambitious

 

[MIkhail]

... it doesn't ... I was too ambitious

In my mind, (as I stated before) the issue is not "how good of a decisive moment picture one can catch", that's really a matter of skill and trained eye. I think SF is dead because it does not reflect life, being that there is really no life on street any more. People don't live there, dont spend time there, they just pass it by on a way to home, mall, movie. At least in most places of US.
Except homelless, that's a different subject entirely.

 

[Harry S.]

Love it or hate it, the one place that is consistently delivering quality modern street photography is HCSP.

 

[Michael Markey]

People don't live there, dont spend time there, they just pass it by on a way to home, mall, movie. At least in most places of US.

That may be the case in the US and indeed its getting to be so in the UK but its not my impression that this is the case in many European and Asian cities.

 

[Monz]

Love it or hate it, the one place that is consistently delivering quality modern street photography is HCSP.

Yep. It's heavily curated... and seems to be biased towards coloured images.

 

[Black]

Love it or hate it, the one place that is consistently delivering quality modern street photography is HCSP.

Not sure that that is true. HCSP, as much as anyone, dabbles in their own clichés. They have a thing for layered images, which, of course, I understand is the new fad for a lot of folks, but I'm dubious about whether such images, in the majority, are a result of skill and patience or Lady Luck and machine gunning.

Other groups, such as Document/Report and Provoke offer refreshing alternatives, although the latter is guilty of having a common theme behind its images. But its far less pretentious.

 

[Sparrow]

In my mind, (as I stated before) the issue is not "how good of a decisive moment picture one can catch", that's really a matter of skill and trained eye. I think SF is dead because it does not reflect life, being that there is really no life on street any more. People don't live there, dont spend time there, they just pass it by on a way to home, mall, movie. At least in most places of US.
Except homelless, that's a different subject entirely.

... no, I don't agree with that at all ... that is true in parts of the US perhaps but not in the rest of the world

 

[DominikDUK]

I think street photography is just photography. And it does what photography does best, it freezes moments in time. It's where some prefer to work and for many reason. Meyerowitz, in this trailer of an upcoming documentary, states my reason in a far more articulate manor than I am capable of.

http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/everybody-street/trailer

And I really hate labels like "street photography" though I am just as guilty as anyone else at using it.

"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

Fully agree in Austria we call it "Kastel Denken" (closet thinking)

 

[airfrogusmc]

In my mind, (as I stated before) the issue is not "how good of a decisive moment picture one can catch", that's really a matter of skill and trained eye. I think SF is dead because it does not reflect life, being that there is really no life on street any more. People don't live there, dont spend time there, they just pass it by on a way to home, mall, movie. At least in most places of US.
Except homelless, that's a different subject entirely.

Thats certainly not true in some big urban areas like Chicago. Man the streets are buzzing in some areas and not with just people passing through to work and home. In some neighborhoods there has been huge growth in young people moving back into the city. They live work and play in the city. Many don't own cars. There are some neighborhoods that are so rich with diversity in terms of race, finance, religion and age. Real melting pots.

The life on these streets is different than it was 30 years ago. Think of Winogrand today. He would be trying to look and capture what was on the street 30 years ago. He didn't look for nostalgic relics when he worked. He captured images that we relevant to his time. I think for this type of work to be alive and well today we have to capture whats there today.

In the US we have the largest separation between the haves and the have nots since 1927. If there was ever a time that his type of work was needed it is now.

 

[bobbyrab]

It would be nice if people explained acronyms when they are first introduced into a thread and not assume we're all in the club.
For those not in the know, HCSP is hard core street photography group on Flickr. I for one was very impressed with quite a number of images on there. I didn't look into how it works but I'm assuming there's some control on what gets posted?