Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
They stalk the homeless here!
https://www.moma.org/collection/works/52297?locale=en
https://www.moma.org/collection/works/130438?locale=en
Moma must be closed and American Photographs should be burned!
Pentode
Well-known
I can't say whether or not I like street photography. I like good photography - as it is defined by my tastes and preferences - and I like good photography that happens to be shot on the street.
Regardless of what genres people would like to assign to photography (or music or dance or any art, really), the quality of the art is really what counts. Different people can appreciate different aspects of "quality" and define it in different ways if they like, and that's fine. It's a big world and there's room for everybody.
It's also a sliding scale; the best photographer in his or her local photography club may receive praise from the others in that group because their work stands out in that crowd. Maybe it wouldn't if it were held up against a larger pool. Maybe it would. At what point is a piece of work's quality high enough to "rate"? Who's definition is the defining definition? I see lots of photography on line that I perceive as *** but others adore. I'm sure there are also images that I really like that someone else thinks are ***. It's all good.
Roger's example is right on - it's something I've said about music for decades: 90% of everything is crap. But we might not all agree on which 90%, and that's okay, too.
To me, what's harder to tolerate is the need so many people feel to categorize, pigeonhole and "grenre-ize" everything. Street Photography means little to me. I live in NYC. Practically ALL my photography is street photography! So what?
Regardless of what genres people would like to assign to photography (or music or dance or any art, really), the quality of the art is really what counts. Different people can appreciate different aspects of "quality" and define it in different ways if they like, and that's fine. It's a big world and there's room for everybody.
It's also a sliding scale; the best photographer in his or her local photography club may receive praise from the others in that group because their work stands out in that crowd. Maybe it wouldn't if it were held up against a larger pool. Maybe it would. At what point is a piece of work's quality high enough to "rate"? Who's definition is the defining definition? I see lots of photography on line that I perceive as *** but others adore. I'm sure there are also images that I really like that someone else thinks are ***. It's all good.
Roger's example is right on - it's something I've said about music for decades: 90% of everything is crap. But we might not all agree on which 90%, and that's okay, too.
To me, what's harder to tolerate is the need so many people feel to categorize, pigeonhole and "grenre-ize" everything. Street Photography means little to me. I live in NYC. Practically ALL my photography is street photography! So what?
daveleo
what?
Exactly.... it's too narrow of a genre to me and seems to have come to fruition as a term with the internet. Prior to the internet, I didn't hear the term much.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Not really. Much easier to be mindlessly impressed by vacuous work, I think.
The problem with street photography, like most photography is that people just make pictures with no real goal in mind. Many who are technically proficient at using a camera, but haven't a clue what they're really after.
There's nothing inherently wrong with that, taking photos as a hobby, just as something one does purely for their own amusement is fine. But how many wide-angle views of people walking away from the camera can people present as either art or well crafted document, when they haven't given any thought to why it should be art, or even just interesting to anybody else?
One can say the same for portrait photographers and landscape photographers. Most of it is superficial. Most of it is boring. And when it is interesting it is often just the case of the photographer documenting a subject which is interesting in its own right (a pretty sunset, a pretty face, etc.) without using their craft or vision to add anything more to it.
brennanphotoguy
Well-known
Well thanks to the internet that stuff is all available online and that wouldn't make it to the front steps of a court house.
I'm not kidding at all. There are homeless people with cell phones, there are homeless people that do not trust the police, there are homeless people that don't mind being photographed, and there is nothing that a cop can do about you photographing in public. I'm not saying it is a great move to photograph the homeless, but they are people and you cannot predict human behavior based on class, financial situations, or race.
This depends on if you are in a big city or a small town. The cop might show up, but what is he going to do about it?
Sure, they can sue, but will they win? What will they gain? We are not talking about commercial usage here.
Ok, correction... it's easy to be a bad critic.
This isn't a problem with street photography. This is a problem with the street photography you've been looking at no? I see this type of stuff on these forums, but I just ignore it.
People are learning, trying to figure something out. You do this by trying. They are excited. It is not easy to be GREAT at something. No one here is presenting these type of photos as masterpieces. You take this forum photography too seriously. Now, if you go to a good gallery or a museum and you feel the same way... that's a different story.
That's an opinion. I find that a lot of what makes a photograph special is nuances, the small things that come together. If you've photographed a lot you know damn well that when a photograph is done well... it truly looks easy to do. However, it is anything but easy to do. A bad photographer can make a beautiful sunset or face look bad... no doubt about it.
Highway 61
Revisited
Thanks for this post, Ko.
brennanphotoguy
Well-known
PKR
Veteran
My guess would be location.. public parks are where homeless people are most likely found and photographed here. Description of the compliant: If a child isn't involved and there is no injury involved, the cops have other things to do.
Have you worked as a dispatcher? I have a friend who works 911 here. The Comm Center is a very busy place.
If you're on the phone with a dispatcher, you likely have access To a phone..you're talking on one? No?
I guess I should add, the cops may just drive by, look out the window, and keep on going.
No pay phones here for many years.
f16sunshine
Moderator
I'm not replying to you directly rather more so to the comparison of other genres.
It's true. Landscape and Portrait can be boring or superficial but it's still something.
A portrait with wide open focus on the nose or a mountain range with blown highlights and tilted horizon, still contains the subject.
It's often just poor technique or time of day/light that kills these images.
Poor street photography often (usually) contains nothing.
There are so many images of nothing being shared/posted in street photography.
At least a mountain is still a mountain and a portrait is still a person. It's something.
Photography does not always have to be visually striking or art. But it should contain something for the viewer if it is to be presented.
benlees
Well-known
"Hey police! There is someone photographing me and my $200 lunch" Need a link.
Ummm... Unless said person is in their own house, the cops are not going to show up. In fact, they may cite you for wasting their time.
Ummm... Unless said person is in their own house, the cops are not going to show up. In fact, they may cite you for wasting their time.
back alley
IMAGES
fascinating...
.
.
Highway 61
Revisited
Duke Ellington once said : "There are two music categories : the good, and the bad".
"Street photography" did not even exist some times ago. Looks like it came out when some guys like Robert Frank or Garry Winogrand tried to deconstruct the rules according to which a photo was "working". The same rules which made HCB look at photos upside down to see whether they would stand by themselves, or not.
"Street photography" as we can understand it nowadays will disappear sooner or later, because random photos not telling anything (but the vacuum, best case) don't hold up very well over time. Photography is now a plastic art being more than once century old so we can begin to have some ideas thanks to the old work which is still highly regarded now and, on the contrary, thanks to what more or less quickly sank in the History of Art trash bin.
The same with the "mondane" photography or all those very large size color prints of landscapes without perspective and without any storytelling in them, being kinda low-cost copycats of what the Düsseldorf school attempted to set up since the 1970s.
A matter of time.
"Street photography" did not even exist some times ago. Looks like it came out when some guys like Robert Frank or Garry Winogrand tried to deconstruct the rules according to which a photo was "working". The same rules which made HCB look at photos upside down to see whether they would stand by themselves, or not.
"Street photography" as we can understand it nowadays will disappear sooner or later, because random photos not telling anything (but the vacuum, best case) don't hold up very well over time. Photography is now a plastic art being more than once century old so we can begin to have some ideas thanks to the old work which is still highly regarded now and, on the contrary, thanks to what more or less quickly sank in the History of Art trash bin.
The same with the "mondane" photography or all those very large size color prints of landscapes without perspective and without any storytelling in them, being kinda low-cost copycats of what the Düsseldorf school attempted to set up since the 1970s.
A matter of time.
KM-25
Well-known
This actually gives me an idea....thanks!