I may never do street photography

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

I guess part of street photography of any kind- from urban landscape to candid shots of unknowing bystanders runs the risk of angering someone.

as I've mentioned, I almost had the cops called on me trying to take a picture of an abandoned farm structure from a public park.

When I've actually been on city streets, passerbys will either stay out of my view or ask me (out of genuine curiosity and interest) what I'm doing

This past monday I found a power grid to photograph, and there was an old man tending to his gardens that were right next to it. I was there to be seen but he didn't even acknowledge me.

 

[Ste_S]

Arguing that one style is or isn't Street Photography, while another is, kind of feels like arguing whether a Sci-Fi novel is more or less of a novel than a Romance novel while ignoring how radically different a typical sci-fi novel is from a typical romance...

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at it here ?

Street Photography is photos that give the taste and smell of the street, and the best photographers combine multiple approaches - candids, portraits, landscapes etc.

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

So... here's a recreation of the shot I was trying to take when I almost had the cops called on me.
Imagine both the splash pad and playground full of kids, but I'm shooting with an f45.
unethical or not?

 

[Luckless]

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at it here ?

Street Photography is photos that give the taste and smell of the street, and the best photographers combine multiple approaches - candids, portraits, landscapes etc.

Going out with friends and doing portraits in a street does not give the same thing as going out to photograph empty back alleyways when no one is around, and neither give the same result as taking candid shots of people's daily lives without them knowing, which also isn't the same as going up to strangers in the street and asking if they mind if you take their photo...

It is all 'street photography', but none of it is remotely similar on a wide range of levels.

 

[Colin Corneau]

Fred Herzog
Alexander Street

A much broader look at Fred Herzog's works is in order. Streetscapes devoid of people made up a small portion of his photographs.

 

[Pieter12]

I dislike the term "street photography" preferring "candid photography. HCB called himself a street photographer, but I believe that was to distinguish himself from a landscape or studio photographer.

 

[Colin Corneau]

It's such a general term after so many decades that it can be anything anyone wants, really.

I also call it daily life photography. To me it has to show some life or interaction, otherwise it's essentially urban landscape. Cities are people, life is people. Without people, it's a different genre.

 

[ME Super]

The irony is strong. It's terrible for Joshua Rosenthal to take a photograph of someone who isn't a photographer without engaging in a smear campaign, but perfectly OK for someone to take a photograph of him and engage in the smear campaign. Never mind that both are engaged in street photography. SMH.

 

[BradS]

Going out with friends and doing portraits in a street does not give the same thing as going out to photograph empty back alleyways when no one is around, and neither give the same result as taking candid shots of people's daily lives without them knowing, which also isn't the same as going up to strangers in the street and asking if they mind if you take their photo...

It is all 'street photography', but none of it is remotely similar on a wide range of levels.

Only one of the situations is consistent with what I think of as "Street Photography".

 

[Luckless]

Only one of the situations is consistent with what I think of as "Street Photography".

That was kind of my point. Different people embrace different breadths of definition of what is 'Street Photography', but the usefulness of the term begins to become diluted to the point of uselessness after it becomes overly broad.

For what it is worth I would include two of my above examples under what I think of as 'Street Photography' - Empty back alleyways can tell interesting stories of human lives based on what's left behind after the humans have left as much as when the humans are there going about their lives.

But both of those are wildly different in my mind from effectively posted portraits with a street in the background. Taking portraits where people are actively focused on the camera pointed at them becomes a wildly different concept, and projects a different view of the world.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I dislike the term "street photography" preferring "candid photography. HCB called himself a street photographer, but I believe that was to distinguish himself from a landscape or studio photographer.

I doubt he called himself like this. Earlier HCB wanted to call himself as surrealist, but was advised to use journalist. Later HCB called himself as humanist.

 

[Pieter12]

I doubt he called himself like this. Earlier HCB wanted to call himself as surrealist, but was advised to use journalist. Later HCB called himself as humanist.

Page 34, John Leongard's Age of Silver on Henri- Cartier-Bresson: "When I first met him in 1956, he'd tell us tyros hanging out at Magnum Photos in New York City, "I must stay anonymous. I am a street photographer."

 

[BradS]

That was kind of my point. Different people embrace different breadths of definition of what is 'Street Photography', but the usefulness of the term begins to become diluted to the point of uselessness after it becomes overly broad.

For what it is worth I would include two of my above examples under what I think of as 'Street Photography' - Empty back alleyways can tell interesting stories of human lives based on what's left behind after the humans have left as much as when the humans are there going about their lives.

But both of those are wildly different in my mind from effectively posted portraits with a street in the background. Taking portraits where people are actively focused on the camera pointed at them becomes a wildly different concept, and projects a different view of the world.

I totally agree with all of this. I think I must have misunderstood something in your prior posts. Thanks for following up.

 

[BradS]

I feel like a photograph needs to be "intimate" for it to qualify as street photography. Just being a candid taken in the street isn't enough...

For example, these two are not street photography to me because they lack intimacy...

San Francisco, California

Pleasanton, California

 

[Colin Corneau]

That's an interesting point. Those two photographs are not much more than surveillance pictures...if your work can't be distinguished from an automatic timer, well -- you got issues.

 

[BradS]

That's an interesting point. Those two photographs are not much more than surveillance pictures...if your work can't be distinguished from an automatic timer, well -- you got issues.

I guess it depends upon one's goal.

 

[CMoore]

I feel like a photograph needs to be "intimate" for it to qualify as street photography. Just being a candid taken in the street isn't enough...

For example, these two are not street photography to me because they lack intimacy...

San Francisco, California

Pleasanton, California

I guess it depends upon one's goal.

As has already been said, "Street Photography" is a huge label.
So is the word Photography.
But so are a lot of words
Sports
Violence
Politics
Beauty

Anyway....... i think we (can) all appreciate Some Kind of pigeon-holing of terms.
I, mostly, agree with your comment.
Although, look back at Books/Photos by Weegee, William Klein, Berenice Abbott, etc etc etc...... and they did shoot frames like that.
It is the passing of time that makes them Very Enthralling (or at least very interesting) examples of "Street Photography". Especially if they are rather recognizable or "important" areas of a city. Although, just about any frame of a city seems to take on an air of importance, if you can compare it to the same locale 20-30-40 years later.

Whatever..... It is all too easy to get into arguments about what is or is not Street Photography. I suppose if it is a good photo (whatever good means) and has something to do with The Street"...i should welcome it into the genre of Street Photography.

Jesus.
I apologize if the above sounds like a whole lot of nothing

 

[ic-racer]

Nothing has changes. Good photographers know all the tricks, like pretending to take pictures of the parade, or whatever, just like everyone else. The other one I like is to bring some one along and pretend to take pictures of them.

 

[Ste_S]

Although, look back at Books/Photos by Weegee, William Klein, Berenice Abbott, etc etc etc...... and they did shoot frames like that.

Atget and Brassai were the proto 'Street Photographers' and they shot pretty much everything despite being limited by the camera tech at the time.
I much prefer Street Photographers who can mix things up (and know when the right time to take a portrait vs candid) to give all the flavour of the street. Stuff that repeats a single idea leaves me cold.

I like Brassai, Doisneau, Suda, Plossu, Larrain, Maier, Frank, Davidson and Gruyaert. Paris by Night, Valpariso, Americans, Subway and Made In Belgium are all perfect books.

 

[blockend]

For example, these two are not street photography to me because they lack intimacy...

I agree. People know what street photography is when they see it. The word "street" is an approach, not a topographic boundary. A portrait in the street is an environmental portrait, not a street photograph.

 

[jtk]

"street" is a subset of "wanking".

 

[Pieter12]

I agree. People know what street photography is when they see it. The word "street" is an approach, not a topographic boundary. A portrait in the street is an environmental portrait, not a street photograph.

I tend to think of an environmental portrait as a portrait of an individual (or individuals) in their expected environment, such as a street vendor in the street, a shopkeeper in his/her shop. A patron a café, a passenger on a train, would not seem as much an environmental portrait to me.

 

[blockend]

"street" is a subset of "wanking".

HCB, Winogrand, Frank and the rest may have been Onanists, but they were certainly excellent street photographers.

 

[jtk]

HCB, Winogrand, Frank and the rest may have been Onanists, but they were certainly excellent street photographers.

Some of their photographs were "excellent" (as are some in Photrio Media...but they shot massive amounts of fillum to get there and were edited astoundingly aggressively. fwiw

 

[blockend]

Some of their photographs were "excellent" (as are some in Photrio Media...but they shot massive amounts of fillum to get there and were edited astoundingly aggressively. fwiw

If volume of shots was a reliable indicator of quality, digital photography would have heralded a new dawn of artistry. If anything the reverse is true, although digital has encouraged everyone to think they're a street photographer. It's truer to say that photographers have a peak period for which they are remembered, but rarely sustain that quality of output. For a truly astonishing hit rate look no further than Tony Ray-Jones, whose street photography lasted a few short years and who died at 30.