Who else doesn't get street photography?

[fdarnell]

Hard Work

Hard Work

This phenomenon is strictly an offshoot of digital. In analog workflows (which are no longer the old days, thank goodness!), it takes a lot of time, money and effort to make a good print, so photogs cull their images and select what they think are their best to print, print again, print burn & dodge, and finally present. This process refines the work.

In digital, since it has now been revealed that EVERYTHING from EVERY connected device is uploaded, just upload it all and put the work on culling the good from the bad on comment forums. It's actually pretty smart. Make the masses do the work of determining good from bad, then you "download" only those that have survived the vicious internet critique.

The only way to win this, is to NOT play the game.

Thanks to all those who work in analog and all those who cull their digital and post only their best. To me, that's photography.

 

[fdarnell]

Jackson Pollock said: Good painters paint who they are. Or close to that.

Letting the masses do your editing isn't going to help you grow visually.. I think. But, it may increase your "Likes" ?

I think having worked with film has given us a great advantage that many newer photographers will never have.

I'm trying to teach my daughter about Pollack as she just qualified for advanced art training, however I just can't get myself away from the fact that USPS removed the cigarette on the stamp. I still don't get his work, but perhaps I haven't looked at it long enough. Perhaps he was trying to illustrate painting's "white noise".

I also agree with your statement about film's advantage, which may reveal some of the reason many are now turning to it. Perhaps it is their way of rising above the "white noise". I only hope the same aesthetic interpretations don't happen to the new film resurgence. It's NOT a great image just because it was shot on film.

 

[jsrockit]

But a poor editing process, or lack of it, when combined with mass postings of crap photography has given the photo world more bad pictures than ever before. Or, maybe they were always there but we just didn't see them?

Yeah, I think we just didn't see them... you'd only be invited to if someone pulled out the shoe box full of photos or they gave you a slide show. If you were in school, then you saw a lot of bad photography, but then printing them out took time and effort, so it's not of the magnitude we have now.

Editing is very hard. And with digital, editing has never been more important. It's very hard to let go of photos right after you've made them. I'm starting to let things sit for a year or two and then I can make more sense of what I really have. Pros don't have this luxury.

 

[jsrockit]

It's NOT a great image just because it was shot on film.

Yeah, that's the other side of the coin.

 

[nomadia]

In digital, since it has now been revealed that EVERYTHING from EVERY connected device is uploaded, just upload it all and put the work on culling the good from the bad on comment forums.

Can you imagine what painters thought when daguerrotype came about or when film replaced the tintypes? Same complaint re: the mass production of images. Those who compete for gallery space or a place at MOMA have different motivations as those who do photography because they want to simply have fun and document life as it happen.

 

[nikonhswebmaster]

Those who compete for gallery space or a place at MOMA have different motivations as those who do photography because they want to simply have fun and document life as it happen.

Where did that opinion come from?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Where did that opinion come from?

Thin air. Very thin, possibly even a vacuum.

Cheers,

R.

 

[nomadia]

Thin air. Very thin, possibly even a vacuum.

Cheers,

R.

I stretched the hyperbole there too much. Nonetheless, I think a line has to be drawn between hobbyists and those who pursue street photography as an art or else the standards used to judge snapshots/streetshots will be off the mark.

 

[DoctorSLR]

Here's my take on it; there's photography I like and there's photography that I don't like, with plenty of the latter. But, I know what I do and don't like, use that to inspire my own vision and I just keep busy.
No need to worry about it.

Imagine if all photography was the same and met a set criteria to be considered good...

 

[back alley]

no rules for me...no good or bad images...
i ask myself one question when i look at an image...'why did the photographer take/make this image?'
if i can find no answer in the image then i just move on...

 

[nikonhswebmaster]

I stretched the hyperbole there too much. Nonetheless, I think a line has to be drawn between hobbyists and those who pursue street photography as an art or else the standards used to judge snapshots/streetshots will be off the mark.

Maybe, but I could argue that few practice "street" as an art?

The fact that MoMA shows a work does tend to define it, however. But if one uses the IRS definition of "hobby" it casts a new definition on art/hobby.

 

[splitimageview]

no rules for me...no good or bad images...
i ask myself one question when i look at an image...'why did the photographer take/make this image?'
if i can find no answer in the image then i just move on...

Yes, Joe. There is so much street that doesn't answer this question, yet is considered exceptional, for some reason.

Hence my proposition, and this reason this thread exists... 🙂

I think web photo sites have brought this tsunami of bad photos (all categories) upon us. I know I'm not the first to make this observation.

This may be the case, generally speaking.

With regards to street, the kudos/adulation/worship of the genre, for the sake of the genre, goes back to pre-internet days...perhaps to the beginning of the genre?

If it's mediocre why care? It will all work out in the end. Time will show it to be just what it is. In my opinion worry about whether you are creating work that first reflects how you feel about life and the world and if others might be able to see you in your work and worry less about the masses. Clean up your own street before you take on the streets of others and I think it will all work out.

In the context of this thread I'm not sure what this means, exactly.

I think this was a tread created to get like minded people into it to rip on street photography thus the title. I would argue and rightfully so the OP by his own title states his ignorance. Why single out street and not other areas which are just as oversaturated?

Because the proposition is not about oversaturation; the proposition is specifically about street.

I think the OP gets street photography. I think the OP doesn't get the adulation given to mediocre street photography. I agree with him / her...

Thank you.

I think this has obliquely landed on the main point.

Yes, Winogrand shot tens of thousands of shots, or, for the purpose of this thought experiment, let's call them "takes."

The key to "good photography," much like making motion pictures, is editing.

Thank you Maggie.

This is an excellent summary of the Winogrand situation...and perhaps offers corollaries.

 

[DrMcCoy]

^^^ "Gawking"
The next great Genre category?
Maybe I'll start a flickr group just to see what happens.

Photos that are basically "Wow look at this weirdo!"

Freakshow-ish photos.

 

[maggieo]

Photos that are basically "Wow look at this weirdo!"

Freakshow-ish photos.

Hello, Diane Arbus, Danny Lyons and Catherine Opie.

 

[JHutchins]

Maybe it's best to let this thread die, but I think some surprisingly useful things have been said given the uselessness of the question and think maybe there are some more useful things to be said. One of those is that street photography is usually about people and for that reason may have appeal distributions with higher variances. For example, here's a street photograph and not by one of the greats so it's definitely not the sort of thing where you have to think "wow, I don't like this but the photographer's a legend so what's wrong with me" -- it's perfectly reasonable to think there's nothing going on here 'cause the photographer is me:

[/IMG]

I like it, but then I know a little more about the image than you do. I saw the kid jumping around and slashing the air with his sword before he noticed me and went all shy and I took the picture. So I've a little bit of a story behind it and that may well be true for a number of the mediocre street photos you see -- when you ask yourself why the photographer posted the picture realize that the answer may be that he knew more of the story and that knowledge has blinded him a little to the fact that the meaning of the image to him isn't necessarily conveyed in the image.

But why might other people comment and say it's great? Well a lot of the reason I find this picture appealing is that the kind reminds me so strongly of me when I was his age. I had that very same sword and armor set (and the same haircut) and acted the very same way and if a stranger had seen me at the time I would have had precisely the same shy, slightly embarrassed and slightly open look -- ready to go either way depending on whether the stranger seemed ready to laugh at me or to join in the fun. Sentimental, nostalgic, and trite are all valid criticisms of the picture but that doesn't change the fact that it effectively conveys meaning to me and brings bit of a smile to my face. So where do the other people come in? Well it's a grand and mighty world and I'm not really unique in it. Sure, special snowflake and all, but "YES! Me too!!" is, I think, a common enough line in conversation for all of us. So in this respect, maybe other people are enough like me that they have a similar reaction and like the photo while others who aren't much like me (and those definitely exist too) just scratch their heads or think it's a photo of a kid who isn't quite in focus and there's not much going on on the right side and it's maybe also predatory or trophy hunting to boot (for the record, the kid and I exchanged a smile and I think we understood each other though that, too, may be more in my head than in reality).

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . some surprisingly useful things have been said given the uselessness of the question . . . maybe there are some more useful things to be said.

. . . when you ask yourself why the photographer posted the picture realize that the answer may be that he knew more of the story and that knowledge has blinded him a little to the fact that the meaning of the image to him isn't necessarily conveyed in the image. . .

Yes to all your post, but especially to the extracts above.

I find it a little odd that anyone never takes photos in the street, let alone that they make a big deal out of not doing so: I mean, streets are pretty common and therefore a likely place to take pictures. Of course the quality of such pictures varies widely, and most are rubbish: we can see more interesting people, and compositions, and situations, every day (or at least every week) with our own eyes -- though capturing them is a lot more difficult.

But some are good. There is that flash of recognition, of connexion. of a shared past and even present. Yes, it's rare, but who cares? If we shot every photographer who ever took bad pictures -- literally, lined them up against a wall in front of a firing squad -- we'd all be dead. People should perhaps be more selective in what they show, but then, of what genre of photography is that not true?

Cheers,

R.

 

[jsrockit]

Public taste for "good" photography is a small % of the overall viewership.

Very true...

 

[brennanphotoguy]

Yes, Joe. There is so much street that doesn't answer this question, yet is considered exceptional, for some reason.

Hence my proposition, and this reason this thread exists... 🙂

So what you're saying is that *you* don't understand a particular image. That doesn't mean that others don't either. Maybe people can think creatively and find a story in the given image. You've yet to give anyone here an example of a person who is shooting bad stuff that is getting so much praise or a particular image.

Street photography is like an extension of being a people watcher. If you're not a people watcher you might just never get it. I am a people watcher. I find what people do, the expressions they make, etc very interesting. Sometimes it's about framing a location with people in it and waiting for someone to come through the frame and sometimes it's an interesting person and I want to capture their expression or look and don't care about the location. Sometimes I see something ironic and want to capture it.

 

[airfrogusmc]

no rules for me...no good or bad images...
i ask myself one question when i look at an image...'why did the photographer take/make this image?'
if i can find no answer in the image then i just move on...

Yes, Joe. There is so much street that doesn't answer this question, yet is considered exceptional, for some reason.

Hence my proposition, and this reason this thread exists... 🙂

Who is saying it's exceptional? Why care? Did you ever think that there is something more there that you are just not seeing? Bottom line is if you don't like it just move on. What Joe wrote could be said of all photography not just street so why have you decided to single out street? Something you have already said you don't get. Do what Joe said just move on. Why not worry more about what you produce and less about what others are doing? Lotsa room to move around. I'm sure street will work itself out without the self-proclaimed experts and street police.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Hello, Diane Arbus, Danny Lyons and Catherine Opie.

Bruce Gilden.

During my initial stage of growing on "street" photography I was at the same level as whom you replied. It was - what a jerk, Bruce Gilden is, photographing strange people. How dares he take pictures of them, poor, poor people.
And then, just few months ago it was changed after Leica blog posted his Detroit report. It was my first time to look at it closer. And suddenly it opened my mind and my heart. Where are young people in Toronto which are covering them selves by tattoos to the point it looks pointless and strange. I guess it is their choice to feel comfy. And here are Bruce Gilden photographed people. They didn't looks like this because they chose to. It is nature which made them looks like this. In real life I would never dare to look at people as close as Gilden doing it. And his portraits of unusually looking people put very simple conclusion in my mind. Even if people looking as freaks, they have eyes of anyone else. And it set me to be more comfortable with unusual people. Where I came from it was and still problem. Problem of assumption on people by how they looks.

In 2016 I visited AGO show "Outsiders". I was entering it with the idea what outsiders simply means photos of people outside. First it was Winogrand prints and it make my conclusion stronger. Photos of people outside. Next hall was with huge Arbus prints. I passed it first, I didn't wanted to look at the freaks. But exhibition was small and I came back to Arbus prints and forced my self to look and read. It was huge discovery and turning point in my head...

You have to be open by your mind and heart to learn with street photography. I looked at the comment above and it reminded me how I didn't accept picture of homeless taken by airfrogusmc years ago. I was criticizing it for to be to close, too "macro". But the picture was powerful and it set in my mind. So, first it was eyes of the homeless taken by airfrogusmc, later, few years later it was Arbus and finally Gilden. Those "freaky" "street" photographs teaches me of human nature and made me more human like.