Arbitrarium
Well-known
I suppose the fact that street photography is almost always a quick, reactive process means that artistic qualities are bound to be less prevalent. If you're trying to shoot something incredible happening within a couple of seconds, you don't have time to fine-tune your composition or adjust your exposure etc.
You're right that shots taken like this are often unduly praised but I think what's happening is that the content is being praised, not the photo. Or the photographer is being praised for being in the right place at the right time and being quick enough to capture something cool.
It's not necessarily a 'like' for excellent photographic merit, but more often a 'like' for "Good job capturing that moment". People like to see the extraordinary moments in the ordinary lives of their fellow sapiens whether it's a 'good photo' or not.
Personally I tend to shoot form and shape in the "street" and people are just a bit of added interest if they happen to be in shot.
You're right that shots taken like this are often unduly praised but I think what's happening is that the content is being praised, not the photo. Or the photographer is being praised for being in the right place at the right time and being quick enough to capture something cool.
It's not necessarily a 'like' for excellent photographic merit, but more often a 'like' for "Good job capturing that moment". People like to see the extraordinary moments in the ordinary lives of their fellow sapiens whether it's a 'good photo' or not.
Personally I tend to shoot form and shape in the "street" and people are just a bit of added interest if they happen to be in shot.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
The solution to this problem is to stay off of the internet. 
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Crap? HHMMM so you are the self appointed, all knowing, all understanding crap police? Interesting because there has always been a lot of bad photographs of everything and anything you can think of. A lot more gets to be seen now but still doesn't make street or whatever you want to call it any more victim of it than landscape or any other area of photography. A lot what Weston called the obvious or nouns as a good friend of mine puts it are out there period. I know folks that say if they have to see one more uncreative water rushing around rocks at a long exposure at sunset they will pull their eyes out. The question is how to get beyond the obvious? How does one move beyond the noun?
I think what always gets missed in forum land and conversation like this is bodies of work and whether the photographs look like the work of a particular photographer. In my opinion that is where the tire really hits the road no matter what type of work one is doing.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
The real problem and what makes street so incredibly hard to do well is how does one see in the moment and have the skills to capture that moment . I read that equipment makes all that easy now. If that's true then why all the crying about so much bad street work out there. The truth is not many have, as Bresson called it , a developed instinct. It takes a lot of practice and getting out there all the time to get really good at it. And as I mentioned before when it's done really well it gets to what photography does better than any other art form.
sjones
Established
sdotkling
Sent through the ether
A friend had lunch with Henri Cartier-Bresson many years ago, with a mutual friend. He said that M. Cartier-Bresson was a very cranky old fellow, complaining bitterly that everyone was ripping him off. The point is that HCB felt like he had invented a new art form, though, of course, he did not. The first guy who pointed a camera out a Paris window did it almost a hundred years before. The problem, for me, with "street photography" is the name itself. It's just photography, the default kind. In my view, if you don't photograph the world around you, you're some kind of OTHER photographer (i.e. a studio photographer, or a specialist like an architectural, industrial, photojournalist, war, what have you). Calling it "street photography" is a needless distinction, like "analog clock," or "pedal bicycle." There is terrible street photography because there is terrible photography. The goal of this kind of default photography is often vague, for it is intended to tickle visual and cognitive neurons by offering a window to usually unseen (or unnoticed) things, ironic juxtapositions, or eye-snaring compositions, among other things, so it's more difficult to identify why a good photograph succeeds. OTHER photography is usually more direct: you know what works at a glance. A food shot should look delicious; a fashion shot should make the clothes look good; a landscape should put you in the scene. That's why you almost never see bad OTHER photos. Someone is paying for them, and rejecting the ones that don't make the grade. You'll never see a bad shot of a bowl of pasta, because the client rejected it.
giganova
Well-known
I'd also add because things are happening so quickly and erratic in from to your camera (beyond your control), its a numbers game. You have to shoot a lot of photos to get one where everything fell into place.
Colin Corneau
Colin Corneau
Right, right...it's the rest of the world that doesn't get it.
Only you get it.
How did we get so lucky to have such insight among us.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
It's also as I said, the ability to see in the moment and then to be able to capture what you saw in a fraction of a second. A developed instinct.
Bresson said something like you have to milk a lot of cows to get a little cheese and Wingrand once said something like art is not a product of industrial efficiency.
Creating some kind of visual order in a totally chaotic environment is why some like working on the street. Going out as a blank slate, no preconceived ideas and letting situations and chance guide you. Making order out of chaos. Turn left and you don't see or take one image. Turn right and the world is alive with visual possibilities. Like real jazz it is alive and constantly changing and forming something new. And the only limitations are within yourself and your ability to see those moments and the skill to capture them on the fly and in fractions of seconds.
Also wanted to add that when you see a particular photographer putting together bodies of consistent work that somehow have a theme and that work looks like a particular photographers work then you have to think that it is more than just chance and that luck was actually the ability to put ones self in a place where chance can happen and then having the abilities to see the chance as it happens and the skill t other capture that moment which in my opinion is what this is about.
There are many schools of thought on all of this. Two in particular are what some refer to the east coast school, Winogrand, Friedlander, Meyrowitz, Davidson which are about going out as a totally blank state and shooting what you see and feel at the moment and then putting it all together after you see the work that has some kind of visual consistency.
Then we can talk about the west coast school, Weston, Adams, Bullock, Minor White, etc that go out also as a blank slate (they all talked about going out without a preconceived idea but bring a pre visual in a technical sense (placing tones by means of exposure into pre visualize zones and then processing the film to give them what they saw when they pushed the shutter) to the process. Not unlike the developed instinct Bresson refers to but on a more slow and deliberate way.
The only way that is right for each individual is the one that works for them. Most including myself are many times a combo of many different schools of thought.
Thank you for this thoughtful reply.
There certainly can be differentiation between the 'moment' and the 'photo.' I will state, however, that most don't stand out in either regard and yet still garner raves.
It's your choice to not read what was actually posted and respond accordingly.
Sure, it takes a lot of practice. No one practiced more than Winogrand, who routinely shot huge numbers of rolls, leaving hundreds of thousands of undeveloped images after his death. But the quantity didn't necessarily equate to quality. There are many articles that have been about him and his prolific nature, and even about the deteriorating quality...
The word 'crap' came from a previous post, not from me. I was referring back to that post (I quoted it, in fact). I'm certainly not claiming to be the ultimate crap arbiter, lol.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Again as he said art is not a product of industrial efficiency and he also created a lot of amazing photographs and some really insightful bodies of work.
Why do we not look at how many sketches a painter makes and how many times he paints over a painting before he get to a finished piece? Because it doesn't matter. What matters is what is finished.
I feel its the same way with photographs. One thing I do know is if you are not out there working on a regular bases you lose the ability to do it well. Like a musician or someone who is at the top of their sports game, they didn't get there without a lot of practice. Why should a photographer be any different. What matters is what a photographers chooses to show.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
I also believe if you spent as much time studying it as trying to say why you don't get it you might find a better understanding of something you do not get.
if not just move on. Lotsa room to move around in the visual arts. Lotsa streets to turn and go down. If you don't get it and don't have any real desire to get it, go down another street. Lotsa avenues in this big world.
if not just move on. Lotsa room to move around in the visual arts. Lotsa streets to turn and go down. If you don't get it and don't have any real desire to get it, go down another street. Lotsa avenues in this big world.
At some risk, I state the premise yet again. It is the common, everyday, uninspiring, street photography that is praised simply because of the genre and not because of any inherent artistic merit. That's what I don't get...why does this seem to be the case in this genre? Several member's responses in these 6 pages of posts agree with this premise. Are there others?
nomadia
Established
brennanphotoguy
Well-known
Where do you see this? Don't say "everywhere" because that doesn't answer the question. If your peer circle shoots with Leicas you're going to see a lot of street photography, if you spend a lot of time on RFF you're going to see a lot of street photography, if you follow blogs who cater to certain markets/social groups/etc you're going to see a lot of street photography, if you follow people on flickr/instagram/facebook who shoot with Leicas or are younger or live in urban areas or any of those in combination you're going to see a lot of street photography. Pretty much what I'm getting at is it's who and what you follow that determines how much of a specific genre you see. Apparently you're following all the wrong people if you think that you're seeing too much of it and too much is praised.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
But there is a lot of street work that isn't what you have described and who cares about the masses on the world wide web and likes and dislike? History is usually always what ultimately decides. All of these things you are so worried about probably wont be in the conversation 50 years from now. What will be are the things that really mattered.
If you don't get something again educate yourself and figure out for yourself what is good or not. Not how many likes something has. That is as fickle and fleeting as a lot of the work is or will be. There is a lot of really good work being created now. You just have to be able to weed through all the stuff. And thats OK.
And then the question becomes uninspiring to who? If you don't get it then how do you know what you are seeing is inspiring? A lot of great work is something that you might not get right away. If you get immediate gratification from something usually it looses it's appeal quickly. You see it you get no need to stay or revisit. I think great work in all art forms is something that keeps you coming back and the more you see (visual arts), read (literature), hear (music), etc the more you find. That is staying power. That is what usually will stand the test of time.
Popular at the time of creation is usually not a good judge. Just like likes on the internet. I remember when Threes Company was the highest rated TV show. History and time usually has a way of weeding out what needs to be weeded.