paulfish4570
Veteran
99 percent or more of street photos - including those in the gallery here and in the threads here - are BORING, and i GET street photography.
joe, for me, it's not a matter of hating street photography; it's a matter of filtering the good from the bad. my filter has very small holes ...
joe, for me, it's not a matter of hating street photography; it's a matter of filtering the good from the bad. my filter has very small holes ...
JChrome
Street Worker
I only speak for myself here. Not trying to explain the public opinion. I don't categorically "hate" street photos, but 99.9% of what I see *on the internet* is to my eye trashy snapshooting. It seems to me that most internet posters who label themselves "street shooters" : 1) are shotgunning 2) have a very weak editing ethic 3) think that ANYTHING shot on the street is fascinating and worth showing the world 4) think that ANYTHING labeled "street" is categorically wonderful 5) think that one interesting element of an image makes up for the 95% of the image that is crap Good / excellent street work is extremely hard to get right (I tried and gave up). Most internet people take the shortcut of redefining what is good rather than working to actually get it right. Sorry .... once I got started, it was hard to stop
Much of what you say is true. But it's not 100% bad!!
Think of some of the good things it has done.
1) it's brought a lot more attention to street photography and photography in general.
2) a certain portion of those people interested will likely adopt the same perspective as you.
3) an even smaller portion will take amazing street photographs.
4) an even smaller portion will take stunning street photos.
5) some portion of shooters will shoot film and help keep film alive.
I started shooting film 5 years ago and still love it (just starting to shoot large format). I might not have gotten into it had I not been so wrapped up in the naive enthusiasm of street photography in NYC.
So thank you street photography!!
Timmyjoe
Veteran
Because most of what I see labeled as "street photography" is crap. Somebody walking around pointing a camera at things and pushing the shutter. No connection to the subject, very little concern for background and composition, just, "Hey, look, I take pictures on the street, aren't I edgy."
There are great street photographers, like Mary Ellen Mark, Bruce Gilden, Vivian Maier, and I do enjoy looking at their work, but so much of the rest in pretentious crap.
Street photography is one of the easiest forms of photography in terms of cost in time and equipment. Anyone can get a camera, walk out their front door to the street, and start snapping away. Which is why there is so much street photography done, and just like any form of photography, there are few real artists, so the majority of the images are bad street photography. If fashion photography or sports photography or (pick some other form of photography) were as simple to do, you'd see a lot more of it, and just like street photography, most of it would be crap.
There are great street photographers, like Mary Ellen Mark, Bruce Gilden, Vivian Maier, and I do enjoy looking at their work, but so much of the rest in pretentious crap.
Street photography is one of the easiest forms of photography in terms of cost in time and equipment. Anyone can get a camera, walk out their front door to the street, and start snapping away. Which is why there is so much street photography done, and just like any form of photography, there are few real artists, so the majority of the images are bad street photography. If fashion photography or sports photography or (pick some other form of photography) were as simple to do, you'd see a lot more of it, and just like street photography, most of it would be crap.
back alley
IMAGES
i don't think street is popular just because it looks easy.
when i was first starting out in photography 40 some years ago, i looked at all sorts of images and the ones that appealed the most were those by the likes of hcb and other 'street' shooters.
they were my inspiration...
when i was first starting out in photography 40 some years ago, i looked at all sorts of images and the ones that appealed the most were those by the likes of hcb and other 'street' shooters.
they were my inspiration...
f16sunshine
Moderator
Hated ?
That's a polarizing word. It may be misunderstood or under appereciated by the uninitiated but hated? I don't see that at all.
I think the problem with the genre is that there is so much junk represented as extraordinary work.
At least flower and cat photos are being presented as .. well, flowers and cats (or dogs)!
Woof!Woof!
Layne by Adnan W, on Flickr
That's a polarizing word. It may be misunderstood or under appereciated by the uninitiated but hated? I don't see that at all.
I think the problem with the genre is that there is so much junk represented as extraordinary work.
At least flower and cat photos are being presented as .. well, flowers and cats (or dogs)!
Woof!Woof!
Layne by Adnan W, on FlickrSparrow
Veteran
... yes, that is a poor ingredients list I agree
FrankS
Registered User
Personal bias again, but dog pics are way better than cat pics. Dogs have more expressive faces.
f16sunshine
Moderator
I have to second that. Although some cats are real characters as well. (See Maggies images).
nongfuspring
Well-known
Personally I prefer generic pet photography to mediocre street photography. Cat and dog pictures rock.
I think there's a lot of pretense surrounding street photography which gets peoples backs up (like mine), and a lot of bloggers and youtubers that have had no real world accomplishments at all becoming self appointed experts and hyping the genre to cashing in off dopey amateurs. I even think the vagueness of the term street photography is telling, as a term it's so conceptually non-committal it's useless; if someone takes their work seriously and has an actual goal in mind with their work they're better off with being specific with terms like poetic realist, social documentarian, visual ethnographer - terms that actually mean something and define intent. Anyway, I don't meant to hate on street itself, there are plenty of good street photographers, but let's be a bit less lazy when we talk about it.
I think F16sunshine has it right, with vernacular flower, landscape, cat, etc. photography it just is what it is - even at its worst at least it's honest if not endearing.
I think there's a lot of pretense surrounding street photography which gets peoples backs up (like mine), and a lot of bloggers and youtubers that have had no real world accomplishments at all becoming self appointed experts and hyping the genre to cashing in off dopey amateurs. I even think the vagueness of the term street photography is telling, as a term it's so conceptually non-committal it's useless; if someone takes their work seriously and has an actual goal in mind with their work they're better off with being specific with terms like poetic realist, social documentarian, visual ethnographer - terms that actually mean something and define intent. Anyway, I don't meant to hate on street itself, there are plenty of good street photographers, but let's be a bit less lazy when we talk about it.
I think F16sunshine has it right, with vernacular flower, landscape, cat, etc. photography it just is what it is - even at its worst at least it's honest if not endearing.
robert blu
quiet photographer
I agree with airfrogusmc, daveleo, FrankS, RichC and many others.
Too many not interesting photos around. Too many bad composed photos!
Costantin Manos once said "It's easy to make a photo, to make GOOD photo is extremely difficult"
My doubt is what makes interesting a photo? What is interesting for me cannot be interesting for others...a man speaking or reading on the phone in my town has no interest for me, maybe in a NYC street can be more interesting (I am guilty as well having taken such a photo, I admit, sorry) and in a small village in Tibet could be more interesting (just an example). A series of man speaking on the phone in many different cities could become interesting in 10 or 20 years from now (different environment, different garment, different haircut...). Just a free wheel thinking, not so sure about ...
Of course a minimal of technical quality must be respected...
Too many not interesting photos around. Too many bad composed photos!
Costantin Manos once said "It's easy to make a photo, to make GOOD photo is extremely difficult"
My doubt is what makes interesting a photo? What is interesting for me cannot be interesting for others...a man speaking or reading on the phone in my town has no interest for me, maybe in a NYC street can be more interesting (I am guilty as well having taken such a photo, I admit, sorry) and in a small village in Tibet could be more interesting (just an example). A series of man speaking on the phone in many different cities could become interesting in 10 or 20 years from now (different environment, different garment, different haircut...). Just a free wheel thinking, not so sure about ...
Of course a minimal of technical quality must be respected...
Yes, this seems to be the answer. AND some people just find making photos of strangers to be creepy.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Thats why it's good to put try and put your personal feelings aside and judge what you see.Is the intent of the image being met. Is everything in the frame helping the image or what elements are hurting it, etc. There are things out there that I someone might dislike but I can fully understand why they are considered good and can appreciate them for that. Words like boring in my opinion is not a real critique. And what is boring to A if indeed the visuals are there might not be boring to B who maybe looking for those things in the work.
And one really important thing that I forgot to mention again, it's about bodies of work. Something that many that are just getting the hang of it rarely understand.
And one really important thing that I forgot to mention again, it's about bodies of work. Something that many that are just getting the hang of it rarely understand.
back alley
IMAGES
i see as many comments about not liking the photographer as not liking the images...interesting.
so when i post my street shots and get no response can i assume that it's me more than my images that is not liked?
so when i post my street shots and get no response can i assume that it's me more than my images that is not liked?
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Thats why you need to build more into the work and it's those like Bresson. Nathan Lyon, Robert Frank, Winogrand that did just that and are still in the conversation.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
On forums and the world wide web unfortunately it is about just that. Must be good because it got a lot of likes or a really crappy image by a well liked personality get all attention.
I have good friends, and I am kinda in that camp, that if the work is to well liked by everyone then you are playing it safe and the work is appealing to the least common denominator. If they are creating something that is working on many levels and doing something really personal not everyone should be getting it. Got to remember that a lot of great work was hated by the masses when it was created because it didn't look like what was already considered excepted. Kind of gets to this by Martha Graham:
“No artist is ahead of his time. He is the time. It is just that others are behind the time.”― Martha Graham
FrankS
Registered User
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Be more confident, Joe!
Yes I agree...
Sparrow
Veteran
back alley
IMAGES
you misunderstand...i have the confidence to call myself a street shooter, what i produce is what i like to see in an image...i like my work as a whole...however it would be nice to hear back from the world occasionally.
Huss
Veteran
Yeah an awful lot of it out there is definitely creeper material, and the sad thing is I see it getting praised by many on various image posting sites.