What is street photography?

C

ccs

Member
Local time
12:43 PM
Joined
Mar 21, 2007
Messages
16
Hi, I'm new here. I've been lurking for a year or so and finally decided to join since this seems to be one of the most informative photo sites I've come across. I'm trying to figure out what people consider street photography and it seems that people with rangefinders tend to do more of it than anyone else, so I thought I would pose the question here. I've been purusing the internet a lot lately, looking for different street photo sites and trying to figure out exactly what it is or what it's supposed to look like or if it even matters. Is it supposed to say something or just be some willy nilly photos that can be in or out of focus of something we recognize or not?
 
Last edited:
Regarding the Wiki entry:
How can the VJ Day Kiss be ultimate street photography? Wasn't that staged? That seems a disqualifier to me.

(Considering the volitility of this sort of subject, I may have to slip on the flame proof underwear.)
 
you'll get as many answers as there are street photogs.
I just got the book "Bystander" and am reading through it's pages currently, a great read if you get a chance.


some people I consider to excel in this genre are here:

http://www.markushartel.com/blog/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/leveckis/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/82395284@N00/

street portraits:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fotowillem/


a member here that shoots "old school" style ;)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/beniliam/

you are welcome to look at my feeble attempts here:
http://apeture.my-expressions.com/Htown.html

welcome to the forum!
Todd
 
Eisenstadt's VJ Day photo was not staged. Doisneau's "Kiss By the Hotel de Ville" was.

dazedgonebye said:
Regarding the Wiki entry:
How can the VJ Day Kiss be ultimate street photography? Wasn't that staged? That seems a disqualifier to me.

(Considering the volitility of this sort of subject, I may have to slip on the flame proof underwear.)
Click to expand...
 
On Flickr, there's a group calling themselves something like "The Hardcore Street Photographers".
If you look at JPG Magazine issue 9, some of their moderators discuss this subject.
Brian
 
Todd.Hanz said:
you'll get as many answers as there are street photogs.
I just got the book "Bystander" and am reading through it's pages currently, a great read if you get a chance.


some people I consider to excel in this genre are here:

http://www.markushartel.com/blog/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/leveckis/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/82395284@N00/

street portraits:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fotowillem/


a member here that shoots "old school" style ;)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/beniliam/

you are welcome to look at my feeble attempts here:
http://apeture.my-expressions.com/Htown.html

welcome to the forum!
Todd
Click to expand...
So what do you consider the old school style? HCB? How would you say that the old school style differs from today?
 
ccs said:
So what do you consider the old school style? HCB? How would you say that the old school style differs from today?
Click to expand...

it seems today is more of an "in your face", shoot from the hip, nevermind composition, exposure or anything you learned in photography class kind of style. It works sometimes but it's been overdone to death (to which I am as guilty as the rest)

"Old school" is more of a tribute to the pioneers I guess, a more thoughtful process...like HCB.

these are only my opinions, flame away if you must ;)

Todd
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ironic most of the photographers that supposedly define "street" photography, pre-date the term. Actually, I have never known them to refer to themselves or their work as "street" photographer/y.
 
ccs said:
I'm trying to figure out what people consider street photography and it seems that people with rangefinders tend to do more of it than anyone else, so I thought I would pose the question here.
Click to expand...

I would say that as a percentage, RF users do more street photography than any other camera type users. Not very many RF users nowadays.

I would categorize street photography as any kind of candid photography that takes place out in the public.
 
That's the way it always is: The name comes later. Look up the book Americans by Robert Frank. Photography is the medium without words. That book has the definition.
 
Interesting read!
Looking through numerous websites, forums & photos from flickr and other photo hosting sites, it seems that street photography is pretty subjective & each person has his or her own take on the whole genre. For example - some believe it must include a human element & others do not. Some believe that asking your subject for permission is OK & others like to keep everything "in the moment".
I haven't studied the genre (I've read Bystander several years ago, but don't remember much from it except for the photos), but there are some photos that just speak to me whether it be sadness, sorrow, joy... but now aren't we tip-toeing onto documentary photog?
 
jky said:
{...} it seems that street photography is pretty subjective & each person has his or her own take on the whole genre {...} but there are some photos that just speak to me whether it be sadness, sorrow, joy... but now aren't we tip-
toeing onto documentary photog?
Click to expand...
It seems to me that what, perhaps, can be called "street photography" overlaps with reportage, documentary, portrait, travel and probably other genres of photography. Given its somewhat nebulous boundaries, and the subjective nature of the decision about "what's in and what's out" (let alone "who gets to decide"), I've pretty much determined that I'll categorise almost none of my photos as being "street". At deviantArt, for example, I'm much more likely to categorise a shot as "spontaneous portrait" or "city life". That's partly defensive...

The trouble with calling something "street photography" is that there will always be someone around (not so much here on RFF, mind you, but around) to say "no it isn't!", usually with the implication that they're a real, cool, with-it, street photographer - whereas other peoples' rubbish is just that. For example, Chris Weeks over at dA, despite other more admirable qualities, seems to positively encourage that approach. For me, that fits under "life is too short to argue with such people". As to whether my photos are any good, well, I'd like to think some are even if many aren't - but I'm hardly the best judge of that.

Still, It might occur to me to think that something like:



looks like a street photo. But someone is likely to point out that this was taken with a nasty, nasty, digital SLR then converted to monochrome (let's leave out technicalities about whether photography, digital or film, really captures anything but monochrome).

Taking these objections into account, I might propose that this, taken with a Leica M3 on black and white film, might look like a street photo:



but someone is bound to object that I used C-41 process film, rather than real black and white.

So, I might propose this, shot on Ilford Delta 400 (and pushed a stop):



but this might fail on two fronts: its indoors (so not "street", even if a public bar is about as public a place as you can get) and I know the guy taking the shot (would it be "street" if I didn't know him?)..

So I might propose this one, on Delta 400, on a footpath, plus I've never seen the people before or since:



Yeah, but that was shot with a Hexar RF, which has motorised film handling and was taken in AE mode. Not very purist, wot?

You can see where this is going. Even if I managed to get over all these objections, someone would note that the moment I captured wasn't "decisive" (in the HCB sense) or not decisive enough. Or something..

This carping seems to become very prevalent when something of value is on offer. This post in another forum, and the rest of the thread, regarding the recent dA street photography contest shows the kind of thing that can happen when people (not the organisers) start trying to "define people out of the running". (Full disclosure: I entered, didn't win, didn't deserve to, and nobody tried to exclude my entry.)

For all these reasons, I find it usually suits me to avoid the claim that anything I do is street photography.

...Mike
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom