Who else doesn't get street photography?

[Baby of Macon]

There was a lot of very formulaic me too music around in the baroque era, but history has filtered it for us. It does the same for most art forms. The digital democratisation of photography has created a paradox, however, in that the scale in volume has probably increased the absolute quantum of "good" photography.But identifying the good has become more difficult. Therefore, to the average observer, there is probably more "bad" photography around. The digital democratisation of music production has done exactly the same thing.

 

[bushwick1234]

IMO: Homeless people deserve to be photographed, don't ignore a huge social issue!
You contradict and limit yourself if you argue that photographing homeless people is to take advantage of them because they are vulnerable but you keep taking candid shots of "no" vulnerable (but unaware) people in streets.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffgallery/showphoto.php?photoid=246496

 

[Larry Cloetta]

Art is an explosive force? From when is this article? 1920s? And why are we talking about art? .

We are talking about art and having the likes of Stokeley Carmichael being held up as the arbiter of something or the other because this thread went off the rails a while back and page 4 of a thread is where people normally lose all sense of proportion.

 

[BLKRCAT]

this thread went off the rails a while back and page 4 of a thread is where people normally lose all sense of proportion.

You win at RFF today 😀

 

[one90guy]

Dear David,

wait, does the expression «street birds» exist, meaning a certain erm street profession, or is that just my imagination, or a mirror translation? 😉

I am starting my very own trendy form of photography. But I refer to it as "backstreet birds".

David

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I'm sorry but this image doesn't do anything for me. It's exactly what the op describes. Random snap on the street. Compare the ops initial post to this image.

Apart from how the woman is dressed there is literally NO interest to this image. Even still being that I'm out looking for shots a lot, she isn't that interesting compared to real characters in the street.

Yes, as I was mentioning in OP I'm considering this photo as the document. Not art.

As for who is interesting in the look or not it is so subjective. I took her picture deliberately, because she was very different from predominately white young crowd which was dressed same way. Those are so boring, even if they are covered in tattoo, still empty list. This young lady has a story, for me , for sure. But this story isn't as primitive as

" real characters in the street"

Again, for me, with my life and travel, big city living experience.

Pretending to be a pro by posting less is still fake pro.
Gueorgui Pinkhassov (Magnum member) is posting on Instagram much more often than me on Flickr. https://www.instagram.com/pinkhassov/?hl=en

 

[mlu19]

I'm still waiting for an appropriate answer to OP's question as well. I was born in the 80s so I'm very interested to hear what the photography community before the world wide web was like back then. Did HCB and Magnum play a big part this this role?

Just followed Pinkhassov! Thanks, Ko.Fe. His videos, especially slow motions, are very refreshing to look at.

 

[silverbullet]

Sorry, what scenarios are you referring to? Do you mean the photo's I had chosen?

Would you not consider the early work of Joel Meyerowitz street photography?

What is your definition of street photography?

N.B I'm not disagreeing with you; I'm genuinely interested in your opinion 🙂

as quoted above there should be some 'spice' or paradoxon or similar in a photograph. A lot of members of the group in-public demontrates my idea of a 'real' street pic.
DAvid Gibson and his earlier b&w work is a fine example of the spirit I write abaout:

http://www.gibsonstreet.com

In the seventies I made a lot of street portraits which are not 'street' in my understanding, but some pics demonstrates my 'luck' to get the shots:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/36573929@N00/5159531330/in/dateposted-public/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/36573929@N00/5023647528/in/dateposted-public/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/36573929@N00/169527004/in/dateposted-public/

Hope that I could transfer my point of view about streetphotography...😉

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Just followed Pinkhassov! Thanks, Ko.Fe. His videos, especially slow motions, are very refreshing to look at.

Well, Pinkhassov university diploma and first job was with cinematography 🙂

 

[splitimageview]

Now, howzabout just skipping the many pictures you find nothing interesting in them and try to concentrate on pictures you find many interestng things in them, even if they belong to an unknown genre ?

This is not about what I do, or do not.

It's simply an observation that somehow so-called *street photography* has become an art form where even the most banal examples get undue attention, notoriety and praise, simply because of the genre.

Banal examples in other genres are simply ignored.

Some pros have taken this to a high-level, apparently generating a good income creating nothing but banal images. Their websites are littered with them to the point where I'm curious if they've culled anything at all...

 

[MIkhail]

Interestingly enough in any long discussion there is no point pouring your soul neither in favor nor against the OP. Nobody reads pass first couple posts anyway.

So, with that said, I do agree with OP but for a different reason.
The issue is not a bad execution of photography. The issue in very low overall visual culture of those who take pictures as well as those who praise them. That's the main problem.

I am reading- somebody just discovered Pinkhassov. Imagine what if somebody can discover Pieter Bruegel the Elder and Andrew Wyeth. Breathtaking!

 

[Ko.Fe.]

...
Some pros have taken this to a high-level, apparently generating a good income creating nothing but banal images. Their websites are littered with them to the point where I'm curious if they've culled anything at all...

Most of their "good income" comes not from their photos but from seminars, workshops and private lessons paid by wannabes with good income which comes not from photography.
Garry Winogrand was teaching. Eric Kim is into workshops and not so much into photography by himself (it is wise for him). But I rather pay for John Free workshop. He is teaching for how to avoid something you went on here. But I'm still not 100% sure what is your beef here.

 

[splitimageview]

How many times do I have to restate the observation? 🙂 It's not a *beef.*

You may be correct that the majority of their income comes from other avenues, but the reputation that enables them to even charge for a workshop is ultimately derived from their photos.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

How many times do I have to restate the observation? 🙂 It's not a *beef.*

You may be correct that the majority of their income comes from other avenues, but the reputation that enables them to even charge for a workshop is ultimately derived from their photos.

My sincere apologies to sound jerky, but I'm not so primitive in my observations on who is good at teaching in the street photography.
I don't consider Eric Kim as photographer at all. But he helps to many people to feel good.
I do not find John Free photography to be special very often. But he teach me to important aspects of street photography as nobody else before.
Do you know what in general best teachers are not best achievers?
Sure, they post their pictures, but smart learners never comes and asks - "how I take picture similar to yours". Street Photography teaching is not about it. Most of the time it is not relevant to photos teacher took.

 

[splitimageview]

It doesn't sound jerky, but I'm not sure what your point is. I was not thinking of any of the names you mentioned. The pro I had in mind with the previous post is a member of Magnum.

 

[mlu19]

I am reading- somebody just discovered Pinkhassov. Imagine what if somebody can discover Pieter Bruegel the Elder and Andrew Wyeth. Breathtaking!

Take my breath away :angel:

 

[zuiko85]

Well, this has inspired me to get out and try my hand at street photography. But with my 4x5 pinhole it's been hard to capture the 'decisive two minutes '

 

[Ko.Fe.]

It doesn't sound jerky, but I'm not sure what your point is. I was not thinking of any of the names you mentioned. The pro I had in mind with the previous post is a member of Magnum.

OK! 🙂 Lets think about it. I have zero interest in most of Magnum photographers. Yes, HCB and else initially did it, but it was noting but businesses, it was done not for photography but for money making a.k.a. private profit. HCB escaped from war camps three times, prior to this he made of living by hunting in the jungle. He and others were tough as nails. HCB was able to marsh with Chinese army for months.
But these days choice is much more better than just Magnum. I choose John Free for education. And I choose those who are interesting to me on Flickr. And those are not 99+ likes photographers. To me it is as obvious as for you what in street (and any photography) "likes" represent nothing. Only time will choose who is good without on-line tricks and networking.
Magnum is mostly the archive now, IMO, but it is free world now in terms of much wider choice for new.
Do not get fooled by likes and paid media pushes. At the end of 2015 Pozner asked Chemiakin about Modern Art, if it is real. The answer was - it is a lot of manipulations for money under modern art category. Money laundring. Modern photography, including "street" is not immune to it either. Do not try to judge it as art if it is flooded with "likes". Find what is art for you first, then you will find art and stories for you in the street photography. To me it is often not on famous sites, but in the books with old bw prints...

 

[giganova]

I do get why street photography is so popular, even though I am not a big fan of this genre. When I share my photos with close friends and family, they are immediately drawn to those photos that show other people. They study these photos intensely, stare at them for minutes, talk about them! When they see a perfectly composed landscape photo, they quickly glance at it and move on. Nothing to see there for them.

There are a number of reasons why street photography is so popular:

1) Most people are fascinated by other people's lives and street photography opens a window into other people's lives and conditions, albeit very briefly.

2) Humans like to be in social contact with others and if you are out in the streets among countless others, you may get a (false) sense of belonging. Most other fields of photography don't have this social environment while you take pictures (e.g., landscapes, outdoor, wildlife photography). As a photographer, you take your viewers with you, to the people into the pictures, and all are feeling part of the same.

3) It is so easy to do: you just go out in the streets, snap some pictures, and voila, you are a "photographer"! 🙄 It is one of very few fields of photography with instant gratification. The results are then amplified by social media, which are a perfect platform to share street photography.

None of the above says anything about the quality of the photos, of course, but it might explain the popularity.

 

[jsrockit]

Of course they can. They are likely to have considerable trouble in carrying out the threat, but they can still make it. Or they can just stab you...
.

Yes, that's true too.