The vast majority of so-called 'street' photography does nothing for me.
Most simply do not exhibit any degree of photographic merit, often they don't have a subject and look like a haphazard, random snap. Poorly framed, out of focus, people looking down at the ground, it's kinda like watching a sitcom that's just not funny.
Just want to change the channel...
Very rarely there are those photos that *do* hold interest, instantly grabbing the viewer's attention and having photographic merit, but the only thing that the latter have in common with the former is that they were, well, taken on some street somewhere.
It appears that most such photographs are posted/shared just *because* they are street, regardless (in spite?) of whether they have photographic merit.
Does anyone else feel similarly?
Most simply do not exhibit any degree of photographic merit, often they don't have a subject and look like a haphazard, random snap. Poorly framed, out of focus, people looking down at the ground, it's kinda like watching a sitcom that's just not funny.
Just want to change the channel...Very rarely there are those photos that *do* hold interest, instantly grabbing the viewer's attention and having photographic merit, but the only thing that the latter have in common with the former is that they were, well, taken on some street somewhere.
It appears that most such photographs are posted/shared just *because* they are street, regardless (in spite?) of whether they have photographic merit.
Does anyone else feel similarly?
Brian Atherton
Well-known
I take your point.
One can make the same criticism about other genres of photography – landscape, portrait, still life etc.
Poorly executed images with little or no artistic merit in the eye of the beholder are poorly executed images.
In this respect street photography is no different.
One can make the same criticism about other genres of photography – landscape, portrait, still life etc.
Poorly executed images with little or no artistic merit in the eye of the beholder are poorly executed images.
In this respect street photography is no different.
A not-unexpected reply, and true, although it appears to me that mediocre (valueless?) street photography is often highly praised, whereas mediocre photography of other varieties typically aren't shared in the first place.
finguanzo
Well-known
Praised by who.?
For some reason street photography was become extremely popular, leading to everybody and their mother posting photos to wherever they can. I'm sure if landscape photography got as popular with the masses, there would be loads of crap on the internet. Very few are praised by non Internet forums, or mediocre competitions.
For some reason street photography was become extremely popular, leading to everybody and their mother posting photos to wherever they can. I'm sure if landscape photography got as popular with the masses, there would be loads of crap on the internet. Very few are praised by non Internet forums, or mediocre competitions.
aizan
Veteran
i get incredibly bored with most landscape and portrait photography. they seem to get a lot of undue praise on flickr, too.
brennanphotoguy
Well-known
The same can apply to many genres.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Sturgeon's Law:
Critic, to Theodore Sturgeon: "90% of science fiction is crud".
Sturgeon: "90% of anything is crud".
Sure, there's a lot of bad street photography out there. But then, there's a lot of bad photography, period. Probably more like 99%.
And de gustibus non disputandum: you can't really argue about taste. Do you really not "get" Henri Cartier-Bresson or Willy Ronis?
Cheers,
R.
Critic, to Theodore Sturgeon: "90% of science fiction is crud".
Sturgeon: "90% of anything is crud".
Sure, there's a lot of bad street photography out there. But then, there's a lot of bad photography, period. Probably more like 99%.
And de gustibus non disputandum: you can't really argue about taste. Do you really not "get" Henri Cartier-Bresson or Willy Ronis?
Cheers,
R.
benmacphoto
Well-known
Now this is interesting and something I have noticed.
Which could be why street photography as a genre gets negative attention, such as the title of this thread.
And the same could be said about many other genres of photography as well as many other subjects outside of photography.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
OP went nothing new route on flaming at beaten to the dust topic about bad street photography. What OP did is nothing new, either. Blaming others for something OP is incapable to see/understand and find/learn is nothing new.
Meanwhile, yesterday, I ordered "About Russia" by Henri Cartier-Bresson and "Soviet Union" by Emil Schulthess street photography books. And couple of weeks ago I paid big money (in CAD) for Viktor Kolar Canadian street photography book.
Meanwhile, yesterday, I ordered "About Russia" by Henri Cartier-Bresson and "Soviet Union" by Emil Schulthess street photography books. And couple of weeks ago I paid big money (in CAD) for Viktor Kolar Canadian street photography book.
mpaniagua
Newby photographer
What is «street photography» after all?
I would sincerely expect «candid» photographs of beggars with missing limbs, drunk whores, drug users, and so on, but certainly not some un-authentic yuppies in front of a shopping mall …
I suppose it would be "Anything goes"? Scenics with people, scenics with no people, pets, cars, dramatic images, boring images, funny images,etc.
Regards
Marceo
zuiko85
Veteran
Spot on Roger. Only a few excel at any art form. Even then, how many negatives out of a days shooting wind up printed? I sometimes wonder what HCB's 'hit rate' was.
back alley
IMAGES
there's a lot of bad wine out there...lots of bad paintings and sketch work...poorly cooked food and funny looking dogs...whiny cats...cheap cars...bad religion and worse politics...
anyone else feel this way?
anyone else feel this way?
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Almost same way. But all dogs and cats are beautiful.
back alley
IMAGES
'But all dogs and cats are beautiful'...very true...no insult meant to our animal brothers...
lukitas
second hand noob
It isn't hard to find high praise of mediocre landscapes, portraits, nudes and still lives.
And it has never been easier to make technically competent photos of boring subjects. So it has become harder to make excellent photos.
Moreover, tastes differ. Recently, and acquaintance in a helpful mood sent me a file of 'More than Photography' photos. Soldiers kissing babies, handicapped people braving hardship with a smile, children in war-torne rubble, a beggar with weepy eyes, sweet grannies and heart-breaking youngsters. Sentimental crap, in my opinion.
On the other hand, I am well aware that I am angling for the same sort of emotional response. I try to swim the gap between the cliffs of Boredom and Kitsch, but it is a very narrow channel, and more often than not, I'm scraping one or the other, if not both.
And often, excellent is nothing special. I'm working at portraiture, honing skills, working on focus, framing, light, trying to gage the mood of my subject. Compared to older work some of my portraits could be called excellent, yet they are but marginally interesting footnotes to the history of portraiture, just another portrait of an unknown nobody, who cares?
As making good photos has become easier, making outstanding ones has become harder. A world with one Cartier Bresson had a few outstanding photographers. A world with two million Cartier Bressons produces a lot of sameness.
And it has never been easier to make technically competent photos of boring subjects. So it has become harder to make excellent photos.
Moreover, tastes differ. Recently, and acquaintance in a helpful mood sent me a file of 'More than Photography' photos. Soldiers kissing babies, handicapped people braving hardship with a smile, children in war-torne rubble, a beggar with weepy eyes, sweet grannies and heart-breaking youngsters. Sentimental crap, in my opinion.
On the other hand, I am well aware that I am angling for the same sort of emotional response. I try to swim the gap between the cliffs of Boredom and Kitsch, but it is a very narrow channel, and more often than not, I'm scraping one or the other, if not both.
And often, excellent is nothing special. I'm working at portraiture, honing skills, working on focus, framing, light, trying to gage the mood of my subject. Compared to older work some of my portraits could be called excellent, yet they are but marginally interesting footnotes to the history of portraiture, just another portrait of an unknown nobody, who cares?
As making good photos has become easier, making outstanding ones has become harder. A world with one Cartier Bresson had a few outstanding photographers. A world with two million Cartier Bressons produces a lot of sameness.
zuiko85
Veteran
I'm a sucker for cat photos. Also I like cats, and they seem to know it and use it to every advantage.
X
xavyr
Guest
As an aside, thank you, Roger, for citing Willy Ronis. Asking myself how, in a lifetime of interest, did I ever manage to miss this man's work entirely?
nikonhswebmaster
reluctant moderator
When magazines paid me for photographs taken on the street, I liked it.
Otherwise I don't think about it much.:angel:
Scapevision
Well-known
I don't get the **** photography that people mostly call street. They simply aren't good photographers, regardless if they use 3 leicas
If you cannot find the good stuff, you are looking in the wrong places.