Tompas
Wannabe Künstler
I think it is (obviously) more difficult than any kind of photography that is 'staged' -- I mean can be repeated. A lot of photographic subjects are of such nature; they are easier simply because you have time to get everything right and can repeat the shot if you screwed up.
In 'street photography' this is by definition not the case.
andersju
Well-known
My intention was not to spit poison or be aggressive; I apologize if my words came across that way. I just replied with my own opinion. I'm just tired of bad, boring street photography from people who I'm sure could do much more interesting work if they turned the camera to something else.
emraphoto
Veteran
you are not the only one.
dave lackey
Veteran
Nice video.
Also, I like his style. His dress/style/manners allow him to do what he does which is take photos of clothing styles. Nice photos, too.
But, it is not the same as "street photography" as we generally see in RFF. Good or bad, I don't know but I don't see any other use for his images than for clothing style documentation.
Having gotten rid of all my Nikon D bodies, I cannot imagine carrying anything larger than the Leica M on the street for anything other than what he is doing, or for architectural work, etc.. Large cameras and lenses like those are just too vulgar and I would hate to be singled out by a photographer on the street carrying a bazooka like that.. But, YMMV and that is okay.
Last edited:
semordnilap
Well-known
The whole discussion makes me think of the video posted this week on the New Yorker, an interview with Mary Ellen Mark from a documentary on street photography. She says that she thinks street photography is the hardest type of photography, to create an order out of it.
I agree with her, and do it as a challenge, really, and *usually* come up short–always if I'm comparing myself to photographers like Philip Jones Griffiths, who Fred mentioned the other day. It's a fun exercise, but not something I'd hitch my wagon to.
Anyway, if the Sartorialsit's photos are interesting, and they're taken on the street, what difference? They're documentary, and all good street photography, I think, falls into the documentary genre, not the other way around.
I agree with her, and do it as a challenge, really, and *usually* come up short–always if I'm comparing myself to photographers like Philip Jones Griffiths, who Fred mentioned the other day. It's a fun exercise, but not something I'd hitch my wagon to.
Anyway, if the Sartorialsit's photos are interesting, and they're taken on the street, what difference? They're documentary, and all good street photography, I think, falls into the documentary genre, not the other way around.
GSNfan
Well-known
That is exactly why its the most difficult form of photography, and hence the highest platform for photographic creativity.
GSNfan
Well-known
What you're saying is that street photography requires no planning, ideas, working with other people and focusing on a specific project. Of course thats complete hogwash and your argument a failure.
Nomad Z
Well-known
It may well be possible to do street photography with planning etc, but those things aren't neccessary to do street photography. I dare say, for a lot of street photographers who go out with no plan or ideas, the sheer unpredictability of it is part of the attraction.
andersju
Well-known
That's not what I meant. English is not my native language; pardon if my thoughts sometimes don't come across as I intend them. What I meant is this: I think that for many a dilettante who aspire to something greater than pictures of cats and brick walls, "street photography" is, among the genres of photography that are perceived as "good"/"pure"/etc., the one with the lowest barriers of entry. It's just you and the camera and the street. Of course it often (but not necessarily) takes planning, focus, working with others, hard work, discpline, vision, etc. to actually be of any worth, and that's where 99% of all street photographers fall short...
GSNfan
Well-known
Shots cannot be planned, but technique, themes, gear, all of that determines to a certain degree the final look of the pictures. Even the decision to shoot color or b&w. Not to mention where to go for taking pictures.
GSNfan
Well-known
Your English is perfectly legible. Its just that you have picked up on street photography for the reasons that you're not completely sure of, hence the confusion in what you're saying. For example:
This is a condescending remark, you're speaking as if you have a complete knowledge of every amateur photographer and their thinking.
Instead of dismissing street photography as a trivial genre of photography for dilettantes, as you like to call other amateurs, I would suggest you really give this issue some thought and then come back at it. For now, you're all over the place and unsure of what really street photography is all about.
gavinlg
Veteran
All factors that also feature in pretty much ALL other different kinds of photography, but you have the extra aspect of having to plan for it, and THAT is where photography gets more difficult. That's where you go from a casual observer and reflective artist to actually creating a picture or a scene or whatever.
Hell, I shoot street for fun and relaxation away from paid work.
Last edited:
GSNfan
Well-known
The only pride in paid work is getting paid.
Sorry, I have no interest in any form of photography that is done for money.
gavinlg
Veteran
There are many photographers who get paid for shooting what they love to shoot, and would be shooting the same thing if they weren't getting paid to do it. Wether it's paid or not has got nothing to do with how pure of heart or intention the images are.
Nomad Z
Well-known
I think you're stretching the notion of 'planned' beyond a credible limit. From this, one would assume that unplanned photography entails picking a random camera, loading it with random film, fitting a random lens, heading outside with a blindfold on, and firing the shutter while waving the camera around in random directions.
The fact that choices have been made regarding equipment and location, does not mean that street photography is planned in the way that many other types of photography are.
Last edited:
easyrider
Photo addict
Thanks for posting the link. I love his work and have often wondered whether he gets permission from the subjects. A lot of people are paranoid about having their pix taken. Also, I wondered whether he uses fill-in flash. He evidently doesn't.
Here is one of mine, not with a rangefinder I am afraid. Sorry!
Here is one of mine, not with a rangefinder I am afraid. Sorry!
Attachments
andersju
Well-known
Please don't put words in my mouth. Read what I wrote again. I have never said that street photography is a trivial genre of photography for dilettantes. I said that I think that for some amateurs (myself included) who aspire to do "serious" work in the grand tradition of Leica-wielding b&w shooters, street photography is the easiest type of "serious" photography to get started doing. I'm not saying street photography itself is trivial - but getting into it is! Just like it's trivial picking up a guitar and strumming a few chords, but mastering it requires those 10 000 hours...GSNfan said:
sig
Well-known
Thanks for the link, I liked it a lot. Lovely photos. Have to say it is very nice to see a photographer asking for permission and thanking afterwards.
Interesting that this have turned into a street or not, street is crap or not etc debate. I could not see any references to 'street photography' at all in the video, other than the fact that he was photographing on the street.
Interesting that this have turned into a street or not, street is crap or not etc debate. I could not see any references to 'street photography' at all in the video, other than the fact that he was photographing on the street.
malcD
Well-known
in the sixty's it wasn't called street --- it was called social documentary photography and it didn't have to be shot on the street
PatrickONeill
Well-known
do landscape photographers debate among themselves if another's work is truly "landscape enough" if the photograher did't shoot the scene with a large format camera or if he/she properly exposed for the zone system?
was it taken with a leica? was the lens between 28-50mm (because 75mm-135 is cheating)? TriX & D76? Did the subjuct notice that their picture was taken? was black gaffers tape involved? does the photographer carry a billingham bag or use an artisan&artist wrapped around the wrist stylishly? has the photographer mastered the esspresso-in-one-hand-leica-in-the-other double fist shooting technique?
"street or not street" being validated by technique and camera over what the photograph says is an asinine discussion.
Scott Schuman's work documents real people, authentically. Without being obtuse. Its beautiful work and a valid form of "street photography." Why anyone is debating "street or not" is beyond me.
was it taken with a leica? was the lens between 28-50mm (because 75mm-135 is cheating)? TriX & D76? Did the subjuct notice that their picture was taken? was black gaffers tape involved? does the photographer carry a billingham bag or use an artisan&artist wrapped around the wrist stylishly? has the photographer mastered the esspresso-in-one-hand-leica-in-the-other double fist shooting technique?
"street or not street" being validated by technique and camera over what the photograph says is an asinine discussion.
Scott Schuman's work documents real people, authentically. Without being obtuse. Its beautiful work and a valid form of "street photography." Why anyone is debating "street or not" is beyond me.