Opinion on different rules of street photography.

lensworker · Oct 13, 2011

Here's one outlook

Shaggysk8 said:
Don't get any other Camera just grow some balls!

Here's Eric Kim's take on it -

If I could define street photography, I would define it as the act of taking photos of people in public urban areas in a candid manner. This means that when it comes to street photography, you don’t ask your subjects to pose for you. Instead of asking people to take their photo, you simply go up to them and take their photo. In addition, street photography integrates the people and their environment. To use an analogy, I think of street photography as a play, with the actors interacting with their stage in an interesting way.

Street photography also relies heavily on capturing “the decisive moment“. This means that the timing of the images is what typically makes it special–whether you got catch a person having a certain expression on their face or having a person doing something uncanny at a certain moment.

When I think of street portraiture, I would say that it is included under the general category of street photography–but it is its own sub-sect. Therefore the two are not mutually exclusive. Furthermore, I would further categorize street portraiture in two sections as well: posed vs candid. Although capturing posed street portraiture can capture strong images (think of The Satorialist), the truly exceptional images are those which are captured candidly (think Thomas Leuthard).

Now what makes capturing candid street portraits inherently better than capturing posed street portraits? Well to start off, it takes guts to take photos of people in public (without asking their permission). Frankly speaking, I think that street photography is 80% having the balls to go out in public and shoot strangers while only 20% is skill.

Link: http://erickimphotography.com/blog/...s-vs-street-photography-whats-the-difference/

I think he's on the right track.

eddie · Oct 13, 2011

lensworker said:
Anyone can make street photos from a "safe" distance - and they will end up with mundane images with no clear subject and no visual impact.

I'd have to disagree with this statement. I'm not a big fan of "street", but think Paul Strand created an amazing image, which certainly isn't mundane, although shot from a "safe" distance:
http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/wall-street-by-paul-strand/

lensworker · Oct 23, 2011

eddie said:
I'd have to disagree with this statement. I'm not a big fan of "street", but think Paul Strand created an amazing image, which certainly isn't mundane, although shot from a "safe" distance:
http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/wall-street-by-paul-strand/

You are right about Strand's Wall Street image - it is a great image with visual impact - and it was indeed made at a "safe" distance, although there is no commentary on the lens used or his distance from the subject matter when he made the image..

This image just goes to show that there are no rules in street photography.

sdotkling · Oct 24, 2011

I think the whole genre is nonsensical. In my mind there is no such thing as 'street photography'. It is simply photography Out In The World, and if you live with people, they will naturally appear in your photographs of your world. Is it 'street' to photograph a farmer on his tractor? Or is it only 'street' when the same farmer goes to the feed store in town? What if the store is in the city? These are all artificial categories where none need exist at all.

CGW · Oct 24, 2011

sdotkling said:
I think the whole genre is nonsensical. In my mind there is no such thing as 'street photography'. It is simply photography Out In The World, and if you live with people, they will naturally appear in your photographs of your world. Is it 'street' to photograph a farmer on his tractor? Or is it only 'street' when the same farmer goes to the feed store in town? What if the store is in the city? These are all artificial categories where none need exist at all.

What would you prefer? "Public?" "Civic?" "Environmental?" "Candid?" "Urban?" Your "out in the world" doesn't exactly bring clarity or specificity to street photography. Not liking it is cool but don't trash it in the process. Try checking out the recently-discovered work of Vivian Maier and see what you think:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWEDOnBfDUI

lensworker · Nov 1, 2011

Just do it

sdotkling said:
I think the whole genre is nonsensical. In my mind there is no such thing as 'street photography'. It is simply photography Out In The World, and if you live with people, they will naturally appear in your photographs of your world. Is it 'street' to photograph a farmer on his tractor? Or is it only 'street' when the same farmer goes to the feed store in town? What if the store is in the city? These are all artificial categories where none need exist at all.

If the photographs are made on a street or sidewalk, it's "street photography."
If the hypothetical farmer is on his tractor on his farm, it's "documentary photography."
If the hypothetical farmer is at the feed store, it's also "documentary photography."
If the hypothetical farmer is driving his tractor down the street, it's "street photography."
That's how I think of it.

The name tag you put on this type of photography is not that important; what is important is that we get out there with our cameras and make those street/documentary/sidewalk/parking lot/city park/farmer's market/county fair/whatever photographs and not sit in front of our computers for hours/days/weeks/months arguing about the name of it
(hence my low post count).

Moral of the story: Call it whatever you want - just get out and do it.

BrianShaw · Nov 1, 2011

Jarter said:
I would like to see what do you guys think of him.

I like two things about his work:

1. He's not taking pictrues of the back of peoples heads like many street photographers seem to do
2. He dares to not use wide-angle and include everything under the sun in his imagery... his images clearly have a subject.

I didn't find too much interesting, however, and gave it a glance but wouldn't go back for more. Most of the images have a totally "detached" and lifeless appearance.

rolleiman · Nov 2, 2011

lensworker said:
If the photographs are made on a street or sidewalk, it's "street photography."
If the hypothetical farmer is on his tractor on his farm, it's "documentary photography."
If the hypothetical farmer is at the feed store, it's also "documentary photography."
If the hypothetical farmer is driving his tractor down the street, it's "street photography."
That's how I think of it.

just get out and do it.

And if the hypothetical farmer driving his tractor down the street knocks someone over.....is it Press photography?

Agree with the general drift, it's a bit silly trying to categorise every form of photography...I'm sure the greatest "street photographer" of them all. HCB, would have slated the term as being nonsensical.

keithwms · Nov 2, 2011

Jarter said:
I am glad to see someone who doesnt adher to specific rule and make photo according to personal technique. I would like to see what do you guys think of him.

As I am sure has already been said somewhere above, the most important rule is that there are no rules.

And the next thing to bear in mind is that if there were rules/formulas then everybody would follow then in an attempt to be successful. The results would then become so predictable that those rules would quickly be replaced by "anti-rules" - people deliberately violating the rules just to stand out.

Carry on, have fun, do what you think pushes your creative limits

benjiboy · Nov 13, 2011

What are the rules for pickpockets ?

keithwms · Nov 13, 2011

benjiboy said:
What are the rules for pickpockets ?

Don't pick an empty pocket.

drumminor2nd · Nov 27, 2011

sdotkling said:
I think the whole genre is nonsensical. In my mind there is no such thing as 'street photography'. It is simply photography Out In The World, and if you live with people, they will naturally appear in your photographs of your world. Is it 'street' to photograph a farmer on his tractor? Or is it only 'street' when the same farmer goes to the feed store in town? What if the store is in the city? These are all artificial categories where none need exist at all.

Street photography is taking pictures of people in public with little or no planning or in-depth story to tell. Documentary photography is taking photos with a set plan for a specific purpose -- to inform. These categories are helpful because the two systems are not the same thing.

What are the rules for pickpockets ?

Don't get caught.

benjiboy · Nov 27, 2011

drumminor2nd said:
Street photography is taking pictures of people in public with little or no planning or in-depth story to tell. Documentary photography is taking photos with a set plan for a specific purpose -- to inform. These categories are helpful because the two systems are not the same thing.

Don't get caught.

Precisely.

derek andrews · Oct 23, 2017

What do all you street photographers do with the pictures besides showing them to other photographers?

faberryman · Oct 23, 2017

JohnRB said:
Not street photography to me. Using a tele is is akin to snooping. 50mm and wider gets one involved.

Using a wide to normal instead of a telephoto doesn't mean your work isn't boring. I'd put most of what passes for street photography - and there is a lot of it being bandied about on the web - as about as interesting as an Instagram of what you had for lunch, and that includes the images linked to in the original post. Good street photographers are rare, just like good photographers of any other genre.

dasBlute · Oct 23, 2017

the antidote: Bruce Gilden

Listen to one of his interviews, or video of him working. A little in your face,
but he succeeds, in my opinion, because he's actually fascinated by people,
he's trying to be alive in-the-moment, and very, very human. Watch how he
interacts when he gets 'caught', it's the wrong word because he doesn't see it
like that...

same with Winogrand, watch video of him working... he walks in peoples path a bit,
he wants a reaction, all this is, IMHO,

-Tim

skorpiius · Oct 24, 2017

jnanian said:
he does nice surveillance work.

That's exactly it, they remind me of crops of the kinds of photos you see in crime movies where the police have snapped surveillance photos of gangsters.

skorpiius · Oct 24, 2017

Lars Daniel said:
.

This is great. The difference here is the beautiful lighting, contrast, the background blurred enough to not be distracting, but clear enough that after you a bit you do wonder what it might be, and of course the snow flakes.

The Struelli photos in general have none of that. Mostly uninteresting headshots with flat lighting.

Kevin Ekstrom · Oct 24, 2017

There are no rules to what size lens you use- PERIOD! A good photo including good street photography can be capture in a hundered different ways.

jtk · Sep 14, 2018

Jarter said:
Hi guys, just discovered the forum. I don't do street photography and I rarely use my old Kodak film camera. Howeve hir, I have been interested in Street/documentary photography for a long time and have been reading tons of biography and photo books at the library.

Recently, I have discovered Beat Struelli website.
http://www.beatstreuli.com/

Suprised that his name wasnt on site such as InPublic.
His photo really intrigues me as he has different mindset from the conventional street photography. He employs telephoto lens to isolate himself from the subject and thus making the viewpoint on the subject itself rather than the enviroment. I would assume that he doesnt intend to include narrative view, but rather to express abstract differences between people based on skin colour, clothing and races. I suspect that there would be alot of eyebrow raised here:rolleyes:.

I am no photography critic though, and I have mixed feeling about his pictures. BUT, I am glad to see someone who doesnt adher to specific rule and make photo according to personal technique. I would like to see what do you guys think of him.

..
Seems to me that Struelli respects people, sees us as individuals....hasn't reduced us to abstractions, unhappiness, or alienation. Therefore it's wrong to see him as "street."

Read the "about".

jtk · Sep 14, 2018

..

.

Ko.Fe. · Sep 14, 2018

I checked and photog in OP link is still active. I don't know how bad he was in 2010, but later work stands out from regular tele on the street dross dumped regularly on Flickr. Where is also super wide street faces dross as well.
I think photog in the OP link has something more in his pictures.
One of the Magnum contributors also used tele in addition to super wide for street photography in Italy, I forgot his name. I used 90mm lens on the street few times, it gives interesting results, but I'm finding it difficult to work with.
I'd rather plow it with 21mm or so.

removed account4 · Sep 14, 2018

i really enjoy his time based images.

slackercrurster · Sep 15, 2018

Sometimes you can't get close. If so, the tele comes to the rescue. No rules set in concrete. Just get the photo!

CMoore · Sep 15, 2018

slackercrurster said:
Sometimes you can't get close. If so, the tele comes to the rescue. No rules set in concrete. Just get the photo!

Wiser words.
You know how, in a "Big City" playing chess, outside, has been pretty popular for quite some time.?
Not all of those Guys/Gals like to have a 24mm in their face. Like with All People.....SOME do not mind at all, others feel like you are bothering them.
You have to TRY to be appropriate and get the frame.
Sometimes i let the shot go, nobody likes an "asshole photographer" butting into their business.

Opinion on different rules of street photography.

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency