Who else doesn't get street photography?

That's probably true of 99% of the photography out there these days irregardless of the genre. You really have to do it yourself, or go to a good gallery/museum to see any good street work, and all of it will be from past photographers (dead). It's not an easy discipline, and you either have the eye for it, or you don't. It also means taking lots and lots of pics that need to be edited down to only a few stellar keepers.

Very few people are capable of good street work, and there's a darned good reason why people like Vivian Maier, Walker Evans, Eugene Smith (to name just a few) were the best of the best. Here's a look at some good work, and there is a lot out there from that time period, but the current era that we live in is one of the worst for this form of photography. The whole art world of today pretty much sucks. Seriously, it is almost impossible to find any contemporary photography or painting that is worth looking at. I haven't seen anything as good as the shots on this link in a long, long time, especially that shot of the blind accordion player on the subway that Walker Evans took w/ his hidden camera scheme. Keep in mind that he had to manually pre set the focus on it and have the exposure guesstimated to pull this off. Who has the eye and the skills to do this today?

http://www.phototraces.com/photography-tips/famous-street-photographers/
 
Worst thing about it is people encourage each other on these forums to think their ****ty pics are good, even when they aren't. This kills the critical thinking and culling power of a photographer. Even worse is, nobody gives a flying f. :)
 
How many of the biggest critics in this thread are in the same boat as those that they hate?
 
I agree with you Robert.

Much of "Street photography" is the equivalent of a 5 year old strumming a guitar to fake cords they make up... it makes a sound but no music is to be heard.
With the photographs,... there might be an image but there is nothing to see.
 
I love to watch people in life, so I love to look at pictures of people too.
Street photography is overwhelmingly pictures of people, so generally I like it, but I must admit there is some boring street photography posted.
A good picture has to tell a story, even if I have to make it up myself.
 
I like looking at street photography photos on the web, but I wouldn't necessary want to acquire finished prints and hang them up on my wall at home to admire. I can only speak the opposite for landscape photography.
 
I would add that, due to the huge amount of photography done till today, we are over saturated with photography. There is hardly anything left to photograph that havent been photographed already, which make it harder for us to be "impressed" by todays street (or any other genre) photography.

Also, current society relies on "instant results". We (as a whole) have lost the patience and time to get the skills to create great photography; such skills only come with practice and time. Digital photography is not helping either, because it gives instans gratification. Because its so easy to take techinically great photography with current equipments, the camera robs us from our mistakes :). When we miss a shoot because we arent ready, when one potentially great photography is ruined by not focosing right, when that great light play is lost to us due to a bad exposure, we learn from those mistakes, and learn to be ready for next time, so we can create a great shoot, because our brain learns to be ready, based on past experience and mistakes.

So yeah, I dont really get "something" from most of street photograpy, or most genre
today. I do, from time to time, get great pleasure from great photography, so I guess the magic it still with us, just a bit harder to find.

Just my coffee break rant.

Regards.

Marcelo
 
splitimageview said:
The vast majority of so-called 'street' photography does nothing for me...
Click to expand...

So are you criticizing street photographer as a genre itself (however one defines the inherently ambiguous term), or is your complaint against the amount of horrible but nevertheless praised photos that street photography attracts?

I get Henri Cartier-Bresson, I get Garry Winogrand, I get Robert Frank, I get William Eggleston, I get Lee Freidlander, I get Daido Moriyama, and I get numerous other street photographers, past and present.

if no one else does, then that’s their personal choice, and fortunately, there’s lots of choice from which to choose.

Still, I’m glad I can appreciate their work, because it comprises some of the best that photography has to offer, at least as far as I’m concerned, and that’s what ultimately matters. Others are free to disagree.

And as others have correctly noted on this thread, I reckon all genres suffer similar issues of substandard quality and questionable applaud. And while zuiko85 beat me to the point, I suggest that you see the number of “likes” that someone’s cat snapshot draws on Facebook, or any photo of any sunset ever.

Good photography, or even more so, exceptional photography, is, by definition, going to be limited, above the norm.
 
benlees said:
............http://in-public.com/............
Click to expand...

"Street photography" could be substituted with "emperor's new clothes" looking at that website. There is a reason why you don't see much if any street photography at museums or galleries. Older street photography is more about nostalgia these days. The decisive moment was a technical challenge back when it emerged, which is why it was a big deal. Now, not so much. Just like everything else in life, the first time someone does something it is interesting, the millionth, not so much. That isn't to say that there are no good street photographs, but they sure are rare.
 
davidnewtonguitars said:
I love to watch people in life, so I love to look at pictures of people too.
Street photography is overwhelmingly pictures of people, so generally I like it, but I must admit there is some boring street photography posted.
A good picture has to tell a story, even if I have to make it up myself.
Click to expand...

That's the root reason people like street photography. We have 35,000 years of evolution that makes us aware of and interested in other people. City streets have lots more people than, say, a Nebraska cornfield, so it's easy to capture all those people doing interesting things: eating, scratching, stepping over a puddle, things like that. It's very seldom anything unique, novel, or artistic. Yet people are instinctively pulled into looking at street photography. Hey, at least it's more popular than Food Pictures or Duck Pout Girls in Bars pictures, the next two leading genres.
 
I like good street photography. Which is any street photography that I like. I'm somewhat able to analyze a photograph "objectively" in terms of tonality or composition, etc, but this all follows a gut reaction that I either like or don't like it. I like people-watching, too, so that probably leads me to like street photography (when well done) as a genre.

I wonder how many people who don't get street photography would also not call themselves avid people-watchers.

(and now that I posted this I see similar things were said above!)
 
Street photography works when there is an overarching social message that can be read though a single or multi-image set. Street photography is no different from a sunset photo when it's just 'decisive moment' hunting.

I personally find street photography these days pretty boring, but that's because it just seems like decisive moment hunting and various magnum photo style copiers. But, I woulnd't tell anyone not to practice it, I'd just say what I always say, which is never stop asking yourself what you're trying to do, and why you're trying to do it. Even if you do that well after the fact.
 
sjones said:
So are you criticizing street photographer as a genre itself (however one defines the inherently ambiguous term), or is your complaint against the amount of horrible but nevertheless praised photos that street photography attracts?
Click to expand...

I'm not criticizing anything, it's just an observation.

Sure, there are all sorts of genres with mediocre photography. Only a very small percentage of photography of any genre has true merit and is extraordinary, but it appears that street photography is routinely praised as extraordinary regardless of whether it is extraordinary, poor, mediocre, or just plain ordinary.

Just curious if anyone else has the same opinion.

Won't be able to reply again for a few hours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom