airfrogusmc
Veteran
Ko well said not just because of the compliment (thank you).
But you hit the nail on the head,
Open mind and open heart is the KEY....
And isn't that all part of the creative process?
But you hit the nail on the head,
Open mind and open heart is the KEY....
And isn't that all part of the creative process?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
OurManInTangier
An Undesirable
Thankfully however, it sounds like not all.
As has been advised in previous posts, change the channel to a programme you enjoy - recommended for everyone from time to time but a challenging watch is needed just as often, just choose the challenge you'd rather have.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...
Isn't that just a case of what we personally hold to be good or bad examples of photography, this example happens to be within street photography but holds equally to all manner of picture making. My personal distaste for samey sunset landscapes makes me think its little more than an excuse for a nice sit down until someone shares the work of someone who has managed to find something seemingly unique from a location.
This is the part where I can come to understand a little more. Our rush to (over)share does mean we can wade through far more than we ever have before. As has been discussed in the previous pages editing is such a powerful tool which many don't seem to care for. However, I don't think it damages our ability to find and discover new and interesting work. The internet and social media is a great way to find or be pointed towards new sources of photography and can help filter out so much of the dross. It seems instead of the photographers doing the editing its now the duty of the viewer and that is far more damaging to the photographer.
Perhaps I'm of that conclusion due to being relayed a story by a couple I'm good friends with who married last Christmas. I was at their wedding and watched as their photographer worked hard throughout the day and evening and felt pleased that I was finally at a wedding I could enjoy as a guest knowing full well that what I was seeing was only the beginning of his work. So I was astonished when we met up recently and they told me of their immense disappointment with their wedding photographs. I asked if something had gone wrong or if he'd simply not provided the kind of thing they'd agreed upon. The answer was "No, well, we don't think its that so much, though at this stage its hard to tell, it's more that he's simply given us a pen drive with all 2500 odd unedited RAW files." Leaving the viewer to do the hard work.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Do you need to have open mind and warm heart to accept HDR landscape or macro shoot of ladybug or firefighter, bikini model on calendar? Do you need open mind to accept picture of animal, flower and still life?
"Street" photography in my opinion is more complicated. It brings questions and art to something which is often passable without attention for years and decades. Or stereotyped, tabooed like homeless and "freaks".
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Might be a nice thing to do to help them edit this down.
OurManInTangier
An Undesirable
Yes I agree, I've made the offer but I think their initial port of call is him and a demand for him to finish the job he started. I don't know if there were any exceptional circumstances in fairness to him but if not, its odd to merrily dilute a reputation you've previously worked hard to build up. Anyway, not wishing to go off topic.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Probably, yeah. Ask the anti-HDR brigade, or people who hate insects, or a certain type of radical feminist... Also, you did say "learn". No-one learns much without an open mind and a warm heart.
Cheers,
R.
Lucas.f/8
Newbie
Control freaks will never "get" street photography. Composition & Chaos captured ,is a beautiful thing, a real moment as art. Yes, be prepared to "waste" a lot of film. Some people play Blackjack while others prefer the One Armed Bandit. Both can make you a millionaire.
maggieo
More Deadly
But both will more likely make you bankrupt.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Speak'n of that a trailer to a good movie and some of the reasons I think many go to the streets. Words by Meyerowitz. Just push the arrow in the middle of where it says no poster.
http://www.traileraddict.com/everybody-street/trailer
giganova
Well-known
Love that film, I've watched it already 5 times!
RichC
Well-known
There's a lot of bad everything: Roger quite rightly drew attention to Sturgeon's law – that 95% of everything is crap! However, the OP asked about bad street photography, so that's what I'll comment on...
To paraphrase the OP:
"The vast majority of so-called 'street' photography does ... 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."
(1) This presupposes that a "good" photograph is the opposite to the above: well framed, in focus, etc.To paraphrase the OP:
"The vast majority of so-called 'street' photography does ... 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."
I get that. A photograph, like a painting or any other picture, needs to follow some kind of aesthetic or it's just a random collection of shapes. Photographers obviously have it easier than painters in this regard because a camera can automatically create a representation of reality without input from the photographer. I'm not going to open the can of worms labelled "composition" – but I will point out that we've developed a visual grammar over the centuries that helps us understand and relate to pictures – just as we have syntax in language. It's knowledge of this grammar that's important, not its slavish application.
It's worth noting that just as grammar in language varies between countries and even communities, so too does visual grammar. That's why Japanese street photographs often look so different from Western ones, with the former tending towards symbolism and the abstract as typified by Daido Moriyama.
Anyway, I'm sure we can broadly agree that a "good" photograph is "well composed" if it uses visual grammar.
(2) The above is true if we consider a photograph only from an artistic viewpointIt's worth noting that just as grammar in language varies between countries and even communities, so too does visual grammar. That's why Japanese street photographs often look so different from Western ones, with the former tending towards symbolism and the abstract as typified by Daido Moriyama.
Anyway, I'm sure we can broadly agree that a "good" photograph is "well composed" if it uses visual grammar.
A lot of photography is taken to meet a Western "pictorial" aesthetic: you can see this approach in nearly every landscape or portrait photo, for example. The Taylor Wessing Portrait Prize gets flak every year because it's looking for a contemporary postmodern take on art rather than the traditional – so you get photographs that people with a preference for pictorial art decry as "boring" or "deadpan" because both the content and visual grammar differ from their expectations.
Anyway, the kind of landscape or portrait photograph that appeals to most people depends mostly on aesthetic qualities borrowed from the look of old European paintings. Usually, its appearance is prized more than what it means or is of. I'm sure we can all picture the kind of thing...
(3) Photographs don't have to be "art" – they can be record shotsAnyway, the kind of landscape or portrait photograph that appeals to most people depends mostly on aesthetic qualities borrowed from the look of old European paintings. Usually, its appearance is prized more than what it means or is of. I'm sure we can all picture the kind of thing...
A purely documentary photograph is only about information. Perhaps it shows a person's appearance on a driving licence or the cake mum made for little Susie's sixth birthday. Aesthetics are of no importance. A snapshot is all about how well it shows us something – whether its composition is "good" or "bad" is immaterial. You may like well-composed photos better than, say, my mum's awful wonky snapshots – but that purely personal preference has no bearing whatsoever on the success or not of my mum's documentary photography!
If anyone is wondering where photojournalism fits in, I consider it akin to street photography, and to rely equally on content and aesthetics.
(4) Which brings us to street photographyIf anyone is wondering where photojournalism fits in, I consider it akin to street photography, and to rely equally on content and aesthetics.
Street photography is exceptionally difficult: way more demanding than, say, a typical landscape photograph. It depends for success on two aspects: documenting information in an aesthetic way. Moreover, what it documents and how are very specific. For exactly why street photography is difficult, see point (5) below.
Anyway, this means that most people are rubbish at street photography. I certainly am! Also, since street photographs are both artistic pictures and social documentary, "bad" street photographs are either all about composition and document very little, or the opposite – they document people or social interaction well but with poor aesthetics. As others in this thread have pointed out, many people are fascinated by what are essentially snapshots taken on the street simply because of the social documentary aspect, so slack is cut for bad street photography because of the subject matter.
I've heard it said too that because street photography can't be controlled like studio photography, "flaws" are acceptable. I don't buy that! I can't imagine Cartier-Bresson or Meyerowitz saying: "But it's an excellent photo of you ignore that annoying arm, and had I been standing a couple of feet over so that bloke didn't have a tree coming out of his head!"
Anyway, I think the reasons for mediocre street photography being praised are because it's so tricky coupled with our affinity for seeing pictures of social interaction.
(5) What is "good" street photography?Anyway, this means that most people are rubbish at street photography. I certainly am! Also, since street photographs are both artistic pictures and social documentary, "bad" street photographs are either all about composition and document very little, or the opposite – they document people or social interaction well but with poor aesthetics. As others in this thread have pointed out, many people are fascinated by what are essentially snapshots taken on the street simply because of the social documentary aspect, so slack is cut for bad street photography because of the subject matter.
I've heard it said too that because street photography can't be controlled like studio photography, "flaws" are acceptable. I don't buy that! I can't imagine Cartier-Bresson or Meyerowitz saying: "But it's an excellent photo of you ignore that annoying arm, and had I been standing a couple of feet over so that bloke didn't have a tree coming out of his head!"
Anyway, I think the reasons for mediocre street photography being praised are because it's so tricky coupled with our affinity for seeing pictures of social interaction.
I'm going with what most people – and Wikipedia – define street photography as: depictions of everyday life in public places made through a specific approach. The aesthetics of street photography owe a lot to Cartier-Bresson and others who pounded the streets during its seminal period from the 1950s to 1970s: Winogrand, Friedlander and Meyerowitz in the US and Ray-Jones and Parr in the UK, among many others. There are variations on this theme: I've already mentioned the abstract symbolism of Japanese street photography as typified by Daida Moriyama. But let's stay with Western street photography.
Cartier-Bresson called his photographs "picture-stories", and said that they were of "the fleeting moment when the apex of the occurring action coincides with the other graphic elements within the frame to create the best possible composition" – his decisive moment. He was very specific about what he meant by "apex". A lot of street photographers are doing street photography wrong! Judging from their photos on the web, many mistakenly think that this apex is the point of maximum "action" – when, say, the girl kisses the boy. A picture has only one frame, so showing an instant other than the "main event" may communicate more clearly what is happening. Let us return to our amorous couple – would a picture of them a moment before the kiss, eyes locked on each other, lips parted, not quite touching, tell us more about their passion than the kiss itself? Or maybe the moment after, longing and desperation apparent as they part, perhaps forever? The street photographer's apex, then, is a moment chosen so that what has already taken place, and what is about to follow, can be most easily understood, and we can see the present, the past and the future.
That's just the "what" – a street photograph also requires perfect aesthetics! Remember, Cartier-Bresson said that the decisive moment was not just the story-telling moment but also the moment when the "best possible composition" occurred. Cartier-Bresson was a painter, so he knew about composition.
This decisive moment may have been a new departure for photography but it has been depicted by painters for centuries. Here's an example: Orpheus and Eurydice by Rubens (about 1636). There is a tale in Greek mythology about the musician Orpheus, who was permitted to take his wife Eurydice back from death and the underworld on one condition: that he walk before her and never look back until reaching the world of the living. But he looked back ... Rubens painted this myth not at the instant when Orpheus turns his head and Eurydice returns to death but before. Rubens’s avoidance of the "obvious" moment imbues the painting with drama and increases the sense of narrative: we see Orpheus and Eurydice leaving Hades and Persephone, but he is grim faced, struggling to keep his eyes off his wife, and we sense things aren't going to end well; in our imagination we embark with him on his journey towards the light, pitying the couple as we anticipate their tragedy.
Painting the decisive moment is one thing, as the artist has full control over what appears on their canvas, photographing it is another: the street photographer not only needs an eye for a picture and technical skill like the painter, they require luck too – to be in the right place at the right time!
Orpheus and Eurydice, Rubens
Cartier-Bresson called his photographs "picture-stories", and said that they were of "the fleeting moment when the apex of the occurring action coincides with the other graphic elements within the frame to create the best possible composition" – his decisive moment. He was very specific about what he meant by "apex". A lot of street photographers are doing street photography wrong! Judging from their photos on the web, many mistakenly think that this apex is the point of maximum "action" – when, say, the girl kisses the boy. A picture has only one frame, so showing an instant other than the "main event" may communicate more clearly what is happening. Let us return to our amorous couple – would a picture of them a moment before the kiss, eyes locked on each other, lips parted, not quite touching, tell us more about their passion than the kiss itself? Or maybe the moment after, longing and desperation apparent as they part, perhaps forever? The street photographer's apex, then, is a moment chosen so that what has already taken place, and what is about to follow, can be most easily understood, and we can see the present, the past and the future.
That's just the "what" – a street photograph also requires perfect aesthetics! Remember, Cartier-Bresson said that the decisive moment was not just the story-telling moment but also the moment when the "best possible composition" occurred. Cartier-Bresson was a painter, so he knew about composition.
This decisive moment may have been a new departure for photography but it has been depicted by painters for centuries. Here's an example: Orpheus and Eurydice by Rubens (about 1636). There is a tale in Greek mythology about the musician Orpheus, who was permitted to take his wife Eurydice back from death and the underworld on one condition: that he walk before her and never look back until reaching the world of the living. But he looked back ... Rubens painted this myth not at the instant when Orpheus turns his head and Eurydice returns to death but before. Rubens’s avoidance of the "obvious" moment imbues the painting with drama and increases the sense of narrative: we see Orpheus and Eurydice leaving Hades and Persephone, but he is grim faced, struggling to keep his eyes off his wife, and we sense things aren't going to end well; in our imagination we embark with him on his journey towards the light, pitying the couple as we anticipate their tragedy.
Painting the decisive moment is one thing, as the artist has full control over what appears on their canvas, photographing it is another: the street photographer not only needs an eye for a picture and technical skill like the painter, they require luck too – to be in the right place at the right time!
Orpheus and Eurydice, Rubens
Thanks for that well-written post, RichC.
PKR
Veteran
Great post Rich. Thanks.
After reading your list of necessary elements for a good photo, the first thing that came to mind was the often heard phrase "It's too hard".
Photography, like many other things today, has been "dumbed down", so the mediocre becomes the norm.
After reading your list of necessary elements for a good photo, the first thing that came to mind was the often heard phrase "It's too hard".
Photography, like many other things today, has been "dumbed down", so the mediocre becomes the norm.
skucera
Well-known
Rich, I think you hit a lot of nails on the head with your post. After that tour de force, I'm reluctant to mention anything except, "Yeah, what he said."
There is another aspect that inspires me. I generally don't do "street photography" in the modern sense because I like to ask permission before I take someone's picture, especially children. Maybe I'm a little old fashioned... maybe I'm a bit of an Oregon liberterian who applies his desire for privacy to others... dunno....
Despite that, I was hugely inspired by Life magazine as a kid. I wonder if folks who do street photography, good or less so, are also inspired by the excellent photojournalism that we saw years ago in large format magazines. I think a lot of people want to see in their own pictures the brilliant images they saw in National Geographic or even just their local newspaper on a Sunday morning. Well, that's my inspiration, and I'm always inspired if I see even a glimmer of that high standard of composition and story telling in my own photos.
Scott
There is another aspect that inspires me. I generally don't do "street photography" in the modern sense because I like to ask permission before I take someone's picture, especially children. Maybe I'm a little old fashioned... maybe I'm a bit of an Oregon liberterian who applies his desire for privacy to others... dunno....
Despite that, I was hugely inspired by Life magazine as a kid. I wonder if folks who do street photography, good or less so, are also inspired by the excellent photojournalism that we saw years ago in large format magazines. I think a lot of people want to see in their own pictures the brilliant images they saw in National Geographic or even just their local newspaper on a Sunday morning. Well, that's my inspiration, and I'm always inspired if I see even a glimmer of that high standard of composition and story telling in my own photos.
Scott
MrFujicaman
Well-known
vladimir
vladimir
On first 10,000 Photos.
On first 10,000 Photos.
On first 10,000 Photos.
Most of these photographers are obvioustly on theirs first 10k photos as HCB said.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.
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?
X
xavyr
Guest
Hah! Bang on!
mdarnton
Well-known
HCB is rolling over in his grave re: this comment.