Who else doesn't get street photography?

[jsrockit]

No one is going to do that on/in private property without permission, I think. The issue would be about photographing on "The Street" in front of the business. The business owner would likely call and complain. The cops will show up! And the "photographer" will be asked to move. Even if working for a national publication, who may or may not support legal fees if your not a contract photographer; Its best to do as told. My experience. Some are handed back their broken cameras.

The business owner may not care until one or more of his/her customers complain. Then s/he will care.

I guess they could get you on a loitering charge.

 

[jsrockit]

The observation is as I posted above: it appears that street gets praised simply *because it is street.*

I get that... a mythical status. However, I think that seems to be beginners that think this way.

 

[JHutchins]

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.

I think your problem is that you *are* restating the same observation. Or offering it again with a variety of synonyms swapped out. Your original post was a vague, contentless gripe against an ambiguous set of photographs or photographers (and it doesn't matter how many times you say it isn't a beef or criticism or gripe. I can call a penny a dollar but I'll still be 99 cents short at the dollar store). Instead of repeating yourself, try adding depth. Give actual concrete examples of these lionized but meritless photographs so people truly understand where you are coming from and what you're saying. You might then find they agree. Or you might find they disagree but can offer insight into why the photos in question might have meaning to people who aren't you.

 

[Highway 61]

I think your problem is that you *are* restating the same observation. Or offering it again with a variety of synonyms swapped out. Your original post was a vague, contentless gripe against an ambiguous set of photographs or photographers (and it doesn't matter how many times you say it isn't a beef or criticism or gripe. I can call a penny a dollar but I'll still be 99 cents short at the dollar store). Instead of repeating yourself, try adding depth. Give actual concrete examples of these lionized but meritless photographs so people truly understand where you are coming from and what you're saying. You might then find they agree. Or you might find they disagree but can offer insight into why the photos in question might have meaning to people who aren't you.

Absolutely. Thanks for this post.

 

[oldwino]

This excerpt from A.D. Coleman's book, Light Readings, is appropriate here. Maybe our tastes are too museum-quality refined?

Thank you. This is very good.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

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. 🙂 Just want to change the channel...

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?

I'm coming to this thread a day late (as is normally the case), so excuse me if this has been said already.

The original post is something that can be said for all photographic genres. Heck, there's even some boring cat pictures out there! They're hard to find, but they're out there... guaranteed.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

I do not feel similarly to the OP. But that's OK. Different strokes for different folks. Having said that, I'd like to ask the following:

@splitimageview: I am curious -- are you an urban or non-urbnan person? I ask because I grew up in NYC and find well done street photography fascinating. But I also feel like it is teaching me something about my home, even when it is done poorly. It is using the photographic ability to freeze a moment in time to reveal all the relationships, visual and emotional, available in any street scene. I rush to add that my one regret following my wife to a rural setting is that there are no NYC-like opportunities here in my bucolic setting. What is here: landscape, barns, trees, flowers, icicles, frozen ponds, bracken, mud, bugs, birds, clouds, and weathered wood, I have no interest in photographing at all. My sense though was that this was always my failing, rather than any genre's.

I once showed my portfolio to a studio photographer who commented about my street photography that I was not taking enough control through the viewfinder of the shots. Too much "stuff" in the background, too many conflicting elements, too many cliches, not enough level horizons, a sloppy approach to use of focus to isolate a subject, a decided ambivalence about the story I wanted the picture to tell. At the time I thought he was applying the asethetics of studio photography to my pictures. But the older I got, and the more pictures I looked at, the more I agreed with the pro's assessment.

 

[Spanik]

Sturgeon's Law:

Critic, to Theodore Sturgeon: "90% of science fiction is crud".

Sturgeon: "90% of anything is crud".

Sure, there's a lot of bad street photography out there. But then, there's a lot of bad photography, period. Probably more like 99%.

And de gustibus non disputandum: you can't really argue about taste. Do you really not "get" Henri Cartier-Bresson or Willy Ronis?

Cheers,

R.

Probably true. But no, I don't "get" Bresson, his photos don't tell me anything. Apart from the blabla around it they are not different from any other street shot.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

But no, I don't "get" Bresson, his photos don't tell me anything. Apart from the blabla around it they are not different from any other street shot.

They do tell me about country, city and streets I was raised in, grow and mature.

https://pro.magnumphotos.com/Asset/-2S5RYDW428XI.html

Raised in FSU we have grown to be honest then it is safe 🙂 Honestly, his pictures about my mother country are different.

 

[bideford]

Probably true. But no, I don't "get" Bresson, his photos don't tell me anything. Apart from the blabla around it they are not different from any other street shot.

I confess to also being late to this thread and also (alas) to be no photography student (clearly evident by my own photos) but if I recall correctly HCB (I'll use the short form) used to (on occasions) wait for his "decisive moment".

I would (respectfully) suggest that a lot of "street" photography is simply taken with little thought at the time (and often with no thought for the subjects "space") in the hope that an interesting composition is has been captured on later viewing.

Perhaps more prevalent now in the digital era.

Apologies in advance,

James

 

[Addy101]

They stock 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!

Being at MOMA doesn't mean these are good pictures. Being made by a more or less famous photographer doesn't mean these are good pictures. They may have sociological or historical meaning, but good pictures they are not. Sorry.

I seldom see good photography that has homeless people as the subject.

 

[fireblade]

It's easy to be a critic.

Human nature, unfortunately.

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.

I understand where you are coming from. At the end of the day, what we declare as trash is another mans treasure. So i just move along, like a road accident, you slow down to have a look and the police officer says "move along nothing to see here" 🙂
For me i'm more opinionated about the women who on Instagram take selfies in the mirror with big pouting mouths to look sexy and show the world their t!ts and arse....***...hand me the machine gun. 😀 seriously.

Photos of homeless people are the low hanging fruit of street. There is just nothing to be gained from it generally.

There are some exceptions and they do it well, in that they document the lives of the homeless and actually play a part in their lives by supporting them....not too many though.

 

[maggieo]

Two points:

1. Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap.

2. The same arguments could be made for landscape photography. Most of which bores me to tears, because, see point #1.

 

[fdarnell]

To me there is now almost a white noise of street photography. Miscellaneous pics of people walking on the street with little to no story, abstraction or message save the usual political themes.

However, this makes the great ones stand out more. Almost instantly recognizable and I really don't know why. I have supported those photogs with my wallet rather than comments. Better way to get more of the good stuff!

Everyone should keep at it though, it's a tough assignment to get "just right" vs. "white noise".

 

[BlackXList]

Probably true. But no, I don't "get" Bresson, his photos don't tell me anything. Apart from the blabla around it they are not different from any other street shot.

Bresson took me a long time to feel like I had an understanding of, and with my current level of understanding, I'm not especially a rabid fan.

His photos (to me) are about composition above all; repeated shapes, the relationship of items in space, and in some ways the spaces between elements in the shot.

I sometimes feel like the people in his shots are secondary to the compositions, that he would have made some of the shots whether they were people or inanimate objects.

I often don't really feel any direct connection to the subject of his photos, but that the shapes and spatial relationships are what he was more interested in.

It also ties in with the anecdote about him flipping Magnum nominees photos upside down to view the composition in isolation from the subject.

I'm sure someone could point me to photos of his that would clash with my understanding, but that's where I'm up to at the moment.

It's not what I want from Street photography at all, I'm far more interested in the subjects, and I can tolerate some loose composition in deference to the subject.

 

[splitimageview]

I think your problem is that you *are* restating the same observation.

Only in response to replies such as "But I'm still not 100% sure what is your beef here."

Your original post was a vague, contentless gripe against an ambiguous set of photographs or photographers

It actually was about the genre itself, but thanks for playing. 😀

 

[splitimageview]

Two points:

1. Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap.

2. The same arguments could be made for landscape photography. Most of which bores me to tears, because, see point #1.

Yes, as pointed out previously, although the difference here is that crap landscape photography is not routinely hailed as some sort of magic photographic creation as is so much of banal street photography.

 

[maggieo]

I think that because this is Rangefinder Forum and that rangefinders are at the heart of Street Photography, our demographic sees way more Street than most audiences.

If you look at Flickr's Explore, there's a load of landscapes and wildlife photography and almost no street shots.

 

[maggieo]

Yes, as pointed out previously, although the difference here is that crap landscape photography is not routinely hailed as some sort of magic photographic creation as is so much of banal street photography.

Oh, believe me, elsewhere, it is, all the damn time.

 

[splitimageview]

To me there is now almost a white noise of street photography. Miscellaneous pics of people walking on the street with little to no story, abstraction or message save the usual political themes.

However, this makes the great ones stand out more. Almost instantly recognizable and I really don't know why. I have supported those photogs with my wallet rather than comments. Better way to get more of the good stuff!

Exactly!

However there seems to be an unwritten rule that this "white noise" must be celebrated, for some reason, if it's street. "White noise" of other genres, not so much.

Elevating the mediocre diminishes the truly great...