The Undead Street

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
 
OurManInTangier said:
One for Michael.

horse-jumping_zps4365e9d5.jpg
Click to expand...

... I think you had your autofocus set wrong there, or there's something wrong with the camera, it should really have focused on the horse there ...

... Michael well like it though :)
 
Sparrow said:
... I think you had your autofocus set wrong there, or there's something wrong with the camera, it should really have focused on the horse there ...

... Michael well like it though :)
Click to expand...

I would have thought I'd clearly established a deep love for the back of people's heads by now. :p
 
I just liked the "lobby" photos as a journalistic exercise. Sort of documentary. No claim to be great art. But I also think there is far too much of the grainy black and white of some easily shot street performer or crowd of people.

"Capturing an event" is a legitimate purpose of photography. Like Life magazine or the German "Signal" magazine, who pioneered the "photo story".

Lumix said:
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
Click to expand...
 
Lumix said:
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
Click to expand...

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.

I thought I'd made it clear in the OP what it was about ... that being thoughtful, considered or radical street-photography, and excluding the passé and clichéd that clutters the interweb.

It went well at first, then didn't ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom