What exactly is street photography?

[RML]

What exactly is street photography?

I think the term "street photography" means quite little, especially if it includes the crooked, unfocused, unaimed, unwilled "candid" snapshots that are usually presented as street photography.

Besides, for "real" street photography you don't need an rf camera per sé. It can and is done with big black (d)SLRs.

I think it would be quite constructive if someone could come up with a proper explanation of the term street photography. Now sometimes small arguments break out whether such-and-such is or isn't street photography with everyone having different ideas about what street photography is. Would Salgado be a street photog? He himself doesn't call himself that. Brassai? Lange? Who else, and who not?

Or did we have this thread before? If so, what was the conclusion?

 

[peterc]

What exactly is street photography?

I guess the broad definition (IMHO) is photography in public places. From that point, there are probably as many variations as there are photographers.

 

[lubitel]

This is probably as tough as to define what art is.

 

[back alley]

there are books dedicated to this and websites too i bet!

it a silly question begging for a fight.

that being said...my definition of street shooting?
look in my gallery under whyte avenue, that is what i see it as.

ymmv,
joe

 

[bmattock]

I think the term "street photography" means quite little, especially if it includes the crooked, unfocused, unaimed, unwilled "candid" snapshots that are usually presented as street photography.

I don't understand your use of the term 'crooked'. The word has several meanings, and none of them strike me as very useful in a photographic sense:

http://www.dictionary.net/crooked

Crooked \Crook"ed\ (kr??k"?d), a.

1. Characterized by a crook or curve; not straight; turning; bent; twisted; deformed. ``Crooked paths.'' --Locke.

he is deformed, crooked, old, and sere. --Shak.

2. Not straightforward; deviating from rectitude; distorted from the right.

They are a perverse and crooked generation. --Deut. xxxii. 5.

3. False; dishonest; fraudulent; as, crooked dealings.

Since cameras don't see around corners too well, I have to presume you mean either 'not right' as in 'morally or ethically wrong' or you mean 'dishonest'. I would object to either one.

To answer the question would be the same as being asked "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" The question presumes that you *do* beat your wife. To answer yes or no is to acknowledge that you do (or did) beat her. When you describe street photography as 'crooked' to begin with, you ask me to describe it while acknowledging that I am in fact a crook.

Semantics? Perhaps. But words mean things, and I think it is important.

Words like 'crooked' and 'sneaky' presume guilt of some crime, moral or ethical or legal. They are accusations of wrongdoing.

I take photographs on the street, of people. I often take them without them being aware of it - you could call it stealthy. However, my intent is to take the photo that I want to take - not to 'be stealthy'. Stealth is the means, not the goal. And 'candid' is not a dirty word. In fact, it refers to purity and honesty. Look it up.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Socke]

I'm with peterc.

 

[ray_g]

I think "crooked" here was used as "tilted," rather than as a derogatory term. This was popularized by Garry Winogrand, a street photographer.

 

[GeneW]

I wonder if there would be as much cachet to it if it were simply called 'urban candids'. That's what 'street photography' is to me, whatever camera or style.

Gene

 

[kanoot]

I guess the broad definition (IMHO) is photography in public places. From that point, there are probably as many variations as there are photographers.

Yeah, I'll agree with this. I do think the term has taken on a life of its own though. For a while it was shots of homeless people in New York, now it seems to be mostly hip-shot candids of people passing by. I am sure it will become something else given time.

The funniest example of this phenominon is on Flickr someone started a group called "Hardcore Street Photography" because those other "Street Photography" groups were just too wimpy I guess!

 

[bmattock]

I think "crooked" here was used as "tilted," rather than as a derogatory term. This was popularized by Garry Winogrand, a street photographer.

I beg your pardon. Where I come from, picture frames are crooked, photos are tilted. I didn't make the connection.

I'll admit it - if someone says to me "Why do you keep taking those crooked photos," my first reaction is to clench my fists - I've heard too much criticism of 'candid photography' that refers to it as essentially dishonest.

I will try to extract 'tilted' from 'crooked' when applied to photos from now on, and see if that makes a difference in the sentence meaning. Thanks and again, sorry.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[aizan]

portraits of homeless people with a telephoto. oh yeah.

re: hardcore street photography.

i didn't like the vibes i got from one of the moderators, so i started "tough street photography", like from bystander. join! there are only 18 members or something.

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

There's a lot of Street at Lomography, and a most of it is crooked (tilted).

 

[Allen Gilman]

What was it Winogrand said when asked why he tilted his pics so much?

"What tilt?"

 

[rami]

http://www.in-public.com/site/about.php

 

[ray_g]

portraits of homeless people with a telephoto. oh yeah.

re: hardcore street photography.

i didn't like the vibes i got from one of the moderators, so i started "tough street photography", like from bystander. join! there are only 18 members or something.

Where is that, Aizan?

 

[Buttons]

.... no more than a trend I would say, if looking at especially Winogrand and HCB to a certain extent this is overall high quality photography done on "the streets"
Look at some of the bigger fori' galleries and you will find that street photography has now become something every owner of a digital camera does by just standing on a corner, shooting a 2GB card full within 23minutes flat, going home, reformat them in B&W with photoshop, looking for the 5 that come close to something they want to achieve or either have seen in a book, other gallery or website and that is street photography, and this has somewhat become a trend, taking a picture of the eiffel tower doesn't make you an architectural photographer now does it.
Street photography is legitimate, but not every so called street photograph can imo be captured under the heading street photography.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

it a silly question begging for a fight.

Ya think? Nah. What exactly is a "street" anyway?

 

[bmattock]

http://www.in-public.com/site/about.php

I like that very much. Thanks!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

.... no more than a trend I would say, if looking at especially Winogrand and HCB to a certain extent this is overall high quality photography done on "the streets"
Look at some of the bigger fori' galleries and you will find that street photography has now become something every owner of a digital camera does by just standing on a corner, shooting a 2GB card full within 23minutes flat, going home, reformat them in B&W with photoshop, looking for the 5 that come close to something they want to achieve or either have seen in a book, other gallery or website and that is street photography, and this has somewhat become a trend, taking a picture of the eiffel tower doesn't make you an architectural photographer now does it.
Street photography is legitimate, but not every so called street photograph can imo be captured under the heading street photography.

And yet...

Is the result not what matters? Is it the technique? The camera? The 'professionalism' of the photographer? The 'intent'?

I would like to think that I have more talent, more capability, than a guy with a digicam standing on a street corner. Perhaps from frame to frame, I do (I have an ego, after all).

And yet, I must admit that a photograph must stand or fall on its own.

Winogrand took a lot of photographs. Many rolls of film are still undeveloped. Of those, how many are worthy of a place in a gallery - of a spot in a book? How many would or will be appreciated by audiences yet to come? And what if one of the rolls of film were mixed up and were actually taken by a housewife from Hoboken and everyone loved them? Would they become less worthy if the mistake were discovered?

I belong to a photography club - there is a member who shoots with a compact point-n-shoot camera, you'd laugh if you saw it. And yet, she has 'the eye'. She consistantly shows photographs that blow me away. She's not a street photographer, but if she were...

Getting back to Winogrand and your comment about people snapping away until their memory cards are full. Then, as you say, they sort through what they have until they find a few that work.

Is the one different than the other? Winogrand's method different from the neophyte's with a camera-phone? Each takes (took) loads of photos, nearly indiscriminately, and then sorts them into keepers and junk.

I would think that a person with skill, experience, and intention, would have a higher 'hit rate' than a person shooting at random with a phone camera. But theoretically, each should have their winning moments.

I always hesitate to draw lines and say that art is only produced by artists - never by the unwashed masses. So much is lost in this manner.

Let the cellphone snappers take their photos. Celebrate the great shots, few though they may be. Encourage those who seem to 'have the eye' to continue. You never know when the next Winogrand may emerge from behind the lens of a Nokia cell phone.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[peterc]

Is the one different than the other? Winogrand's method different from the neophyte's with a camera-phone?

I'd say there's precious little difference.
But I think that's more individual style. I knew people in the 70s who got the highest speed motor drives they could and just burned film with the expectation that somewhere in all those frames was a good shot. That same mentality is just a little easier to support (financially) with a digital camera. I know people who burn through 4,000 frames a month with a dSLR ... it took me more than a year to reach 4,000 actuations on my dSLR.
I was out with some friends shooting fall colours ... shooting the same scene one of them took 25 shots (chimping each as he went) while I took my time and tripped the shutter once and moved on knowing I had what I wanted.