What Makes a Good Street Photography Scene?

[JChrome]

Just got back from a trip across the seas to Asia. I wandered around a bazaar called "Thieves Market". A fellow street-photographer suggested it so I knew it would be good. It really had a lot for me to work with (photos to come, once they are developed).

So I started thinking about an interesting question - what are the characteristics which make a place interesting to you photographically (specifically for street photography)? What do you look for? Please list some of your favorite places to shoot street near your home and if there is a discernible thread amongst those places what is it?

Thinking about my favorite places to shoot, I made a list of some of the items I enjoy most (in no order).

- Hustle and Bustle
I enjoy lots of action and people in the streets. I think this maximizes my chances of finding some sort of "ah-hah" moment. Qualification - I don't like touristy spots. Perhaps its because Times Square has been photographed way too much. But also because I like locals, which brings me to...

- Authenticity
Its hard to describe but you know it when you see it. I think photographing folks who are working and who live in the area gives a more "authentic feel" to the scene.

- Novelty
I seek novelty. The place has to hold my attention. While some may criticize this, I'm ADD and therefore switched attention to something aside from their criticism 🙂.

- A certain degree of safety
It's interesting because some of those places which are dangerous undoubtedly should be photographed more and so theres an attraction there. But feeling like you'll be mugged is a pretty crappy one. A friend was actually just mugged by a gang of 16 year olds in an area I wouldn't think twice about shooting (off the Lorimer M Train stop in Brooklyn if you wanna know). This won't stop me from going out to shoot, but it does put things into perspective.

- Grittiness
Maybe this is the same as "authenticity". Many of the places I like to shoot are gritty and dirty. I bet there can be great photographs made in the Mall of America. But I won't be the guy taking those photos. Maybe this is just an aversion to suburbia in general though. Even though, Eggleston did great work 😛.

Disclaimer - You could enjoy things completely different than I. There is no right or wrong answer here.

Some of my favorite places in New York:
China Town, Coney Island, The Iron Triangle, The Diamond District, South Williamsburg.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

It is one simple rule for me. Something has to be unusual. Not in the place, but in the picture.

 

[Harry S.]

Chaos composed in a visually pleasing manner.

 

[emraphoto]

good geometry is a start

 

[JChrome]

Perhaps I am being too general. Going back to edit the original post to be more specific. I'm also interested in where you guys are from and your favorite spots near your home for street photography 🙂.

 

[lynnb]

I like photos that show the human condition, our unguarded emotions and feelings mostly when we are unaware we are being observed, in conditions of interesting light and environment. In Sydney, outdoor cafes and plazas such as around Sydney Town Hall are a good location.

 

[JoeV]

I like an area with vibrant culture, an economic melting pot, plentiful mass transit with foot traffic, and a destination for shoppers and cafe-goers. In Albuquerque, this means the Central Avenue corridor, especially Nob Hill, the UNM area and downtown. Elsewhere in town, it's just grids of streets, car traffic and suburbs - not very photogenic, IMO.

~Joe

 

[MCTuomey]

I have no idea but I know it when I see or shoot it.

 

[sleepyhead]

I was in town last week (Copenhagen) and of course had my camera with me. I find Copenhagen both an easy, and a difficult, place to practice street photography. It's easy in the sense that it is generally very safe, it is relatively uncluttered with cars (which I consider eyesores), and it can have interesting light/reflections off wet pavement, etc. But it is difficult in the sense that not a lot of interesting things happen on the street (sorry Danes, but being from the NYC area, I assure you that comparatively not a lot is happening on the streets of Copenhagen...).

Anyway, when I spotted this man running down the street, I swung my camera in his direction and took one shot. Luckily, the focus turned out about right. Running down the street isn't anything I would call "exciting" or "interesting" but I like the way the composition turned out with the people on bicycles (luck again). It's not that usual to see people running; here it is associated with panic, and is discouraged.

 

[bonatto]

Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYYwqo8HKbw

 

[Sparrow]

Its all about the ...




... timing

 

[OurManInTangier]

Yeah, where and when you put things in the frame.🙂 As for 'interest,' that would always appear to depend on the audience.:angel:

 

[jsrockit]

There isn't a formula.

 

[kbg32]

There isn't a formula.

Exactly...

 

[Sparrow]

... but if there was a formula would have C in it somewhere

 

[Pherdinand]

"What Makes a Good Street Photography Scene?"
i don't know... Merkel on holiday slipping on a banana skin on Santorini?

 

[DominikDUK]

"What Makes a Good Street Photography Scene?"
i don't know... Merkel on holiday slipping on a banana skin on Santorini?

Wouldn't that fall under wishful thinking 🙂

 

[Pherdinand]

Wouldn't that fall under wishful thinking 🙂

A fall is a fall.

 

[willie_901]

I embrace Wingrand's thoughts about solving a photographic problem... dealing with the balance struggle, or competition between content and form.

Here is some of the transcript from a 1970 interview with G.W.

What about the reoccurrence of, say, oh, monkeys which goes back—

GW: Listen, it’s interesting;but it’s interesting for photographic reasons, really.

What are photographic reasons?

GW: Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form. And, you know, in terms of content, you can make a problem for yourself, I mean, make the contest difficult, let’s say, with certain subject matter that is inherently dramatic. An injury could be, a dwarf can be, a monkey—if you run into a monkey in some idiot context, automatically you’ve got a very real problem taking place in the photograph. I mean, how do you beat it?

Are you saying then that your primary concern is a kind of formal one?

GW: Of course.

 

[airfrogusmc]

"What I write here is a description of what I have come to understand about photography, from photographing and from looking at photographs. A work of art is that thing whose form and content are organic to the tools and materials that made it. Still photography is a chemical, mechanical process. Literal description or the illusion of literal description, is what the tools and materials of still photography do better than any other graphic medium. A still photograph is the illusion of a literal description of how a camera saw a piece of time and space. Understanding this, one can postulate the following theorem: Anything and all things are photographable. A photograph can only look like how the camera saw what was photographed. Or, how the camera saw the piece of time and space is responsible for how the photograph looks. Therefore, a photograph can look any way. Or, there's no way a photograph has to look (beyond being an illusion of a literal description). Or, there are no external or abstract or preconceived rules of design that can apply to still photographs. I like to think of photographing as a two-way act of respect. Respect for the medium, by letting it do what it does best, describe. And respect for the subject, by describing as it is. A photograph must be responsible to both." - Garry Winogrand