• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Street photography

NB23

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
4,307
Format
35mm
What’s up with street photography, luring so many people into thinking that they’re good at it?

Owning a Leica suddenly kickstarts a magical-thinking never-ending vertigo?

Looking but not seeing?

Binge drinking at the computer?

Drugs, maybe? Creating a simple philistine amateur into a web blogging self-proclaimed expert...

I’m genuinely curious. What’s up with the abysmal quality street photography that I see 97.3% of the time?

Let’s discuss please.
 
Unlike a portrait, where you need a sitter, or landscape, where you may need to actually go somewhere, it is easy for some to think that by taking pictures in the street (usually an urban setting) is all that qualifies for street photography. And like the vast majority of portraits, landscapes (and still-lifes), it is garbage.
 
I still don’t know why you are not at LUF anymore. I’m not your fan, but your pictures taken with Leica were above.
Honestly I’m frustrated with street photography with Leica. While here are many good photogs with film Leica, I know very few with digital.
I watched some popular YouTube channels with street photogs and they are great talkers, but photography...
Some of them seems to be Gulden wanna be syndrome victims. Like this German guy with Polish last name, he did it well with Monochrom and 35 in S. Korea, but he keeps on posting all the same pictures of close distance photos with Q.

I think it is most democratic type of photography, easy to practice. This is why it is popular.
I get noticed by IE and subscribed after seeing whom they choose.
Most of photogs they pick are not Leica users. And I cannot find anything wrong in pictures.
I like to use Leica because I have taken pictures with FED at beginning and for some time.
In sixties slrs were not this common as wedding gift.
 
Thanks for answering. And no need to be my fan, as I have no fans except my wife (which I suspect she’s just being nice to me). I don’t consider that I’ve shown more than 1% of my best shots to anyone, so the judgement on my work is still out.

LUF? Well, my very bizarre sense of humor could have been taken seriously by some. And then there was this guy that couldn’t accept my harsh criticism of his street work. What could I do, he was so in love with himself and had such a big mouth, and I had so much fun poking him around. I am allowed back at LUF but I’m not a good fit in there.
How can I possibly fit? Look, I own a 50 cron APO, I’ve shot over 400 rolls with it and I havent even enlarged, or scanned more than 3 images, not even tested the lens. I took it out of the box and went on trips. I have no idea if it’s focusing correctly and I probably won’t know for the next 10 years. Just like it took me 5 years to realize that my then brand new 24 Lux had a back focusing issue, a few hundred rolls later. How can I possibly fit in an environment where the poeticism and micro-contrast of any given Leica lens is conversed in such a religious way?



 
Street photography is popular because it's fun. You get a nice walk on a pretty day, you can enjoy looking carefully at your surroundings, maybe walk with photo buddies, and learn something about the creative process while you research techniques and gear after-the-fact as well.

Amateur photographers and pros alike tend to share what they do while they do it. Most will eventually admit that their early years at any creative pursuit only looked good to them at the time, and later make them cringe with embarrassment when they've developed more of a discerning eye. It's part of the growing process and completely normal.

On the net you see all levels of output from all kinds of people. Plenty of pros make work I can't stand and amateurs share wonderfully executed and "seen" photos from the street.
 
When people get bitten by the photo bug they start looking for things to photograph and stepping out the door and taking urban places to photograph are easy. It is easy to take a snapshot, it takes learning and experience to take a photograph.
 
Meh. I go outside. I take a camera with me. Sometimes, I take pictures of stuff....a house on fire, the king of spades...all alone on the ground, leaves, flowers, bugs having sex, people digging half eaten bakery items out of the trash in front of Starbucks, dead cattle, strangers, the clouds, signs, coyote poop, stuff. Mostly it’s all just crap - a waste of film. Is it street photography? I think not but others say it is. I don’t know and I guess I don’t really care either way.


 
Last edited:
I have always been a fan of street photography as you can find an interesting subject anywhere.
 
Brad, have we finally found the dead horse getting the beating? Where is this?

 
NB23 said:
Brad, have we finally found the dead horse getting the beating? Where is this?
Click to expand...
Maybe digital 0xDEADBEEF, not the dead horse as it doesn't seems to be chromatic

Back to the thread, I like snap everywhere. Neither I treat my "work" as photography, nor I think myself as photographer, I just can't hold the button. Walking in the street make me escaping from painful day life a short moment, especially when using film...
 
Last edited:
NB23 said:
Brad, have we finally found the dead horse getting the beating? Where is this?
Click to expand...

The dead calf is in the Las Trampas regional wilderness near Danville, California. The scat is in a housing development that was abandoned shortly after they started in 2007~2008.
 

Well said!
 
BradS said:
The dead calf is in the Las Trampas regional wilderness near Danville, California. The scat is in a housing development that was abandoned shortly after they started in 2007~2008.
Click to expand...

How related to street photography is this? Wilderness and abandonment?
 

Why does Street Photography keep getting picked on in this manner ?

What you describe isn't unique to street, 99.9% of photos taken are crap wether they are landscape, portraits or indeed street.

I could point to the people on youtube who have a large format camera posting mediocre landscape shots for example.

People overshare bad photos because it's easy to do so via the internet.
 

Ko.Fe. said:
How related to street photography is this? Wilderness and abandonment?
Click to expand...

I don't know. You tell me.
As I said in my original post in this thread, I don't know and I do not care.
All that matters to me is that it is authentic and true.
but let's get to the real point of the matter....
Does categorizing a photo (or a photographer) somehow change its intrinsic value? Can it magically turn shit into gold?
I say no, it cannot. Viewers and critics may label or categorize a photo, or a body of work, or a person but a label cannot change the essential essence of the thing or the person.
I think many photographers and viewers mistakenly think otherwise.
 
Actually, I don’t know what the Palestinians have to do with this matter?
I don’t know, maybe it’s a typo or something.
 
Last edited:

Don't read too much into it. Part of the "fun" of photography forums is pointing fingers, dividing people and telling them how much they suck. I don't get it but that's apparently what makes forums run.
 

Snapshots are snapshots and while they financed growth and research forAgfa, Kodak, Ansco and Lumine, snapshots are not serious photography. I stopped taking snapshots by my fourth roll of film. Snapshots are not what APUG, Photrio or street photography are about. That said, a lot of what is posted as so called street photography is really snapshots by newbees and wannabees. Some of thoes newbees and wannabees may become good street photographers some day, but what they are posting on the internet are for the most part not very good.
 
I think it may have something to do with the fact that most of the photos that are published by the renowned masters of street photography are for the most part indistinguishable from crappy, haphazard snapshots. So naturally one thinks, "Oh, look! Here's a photo of a lady walking a poodle past an open doorway, taken by (fill in name of famous street photographer) with a Leica on Tri-X . I can do that and be famous too!"...and so you find a whole bunch of folks who need recognition walking around taking pictures and posting their shit on instagram or where ever. All you have to do is say it is street photography and you can be famous too....right?
 

Yes, exactly one of my points.
 
The problem is that the hypothetical photographer you describe can't tell the difference between a good (street and maybe other genres) photo and an ordinary or even a bad one. Many--probably most--of the well-known street photographers shoot or have shot a ton of crappy pictures. But they can tell the difference and don't show or post those. For The Americans, Robert Frank shot 27,000 frames, printed maybe a thousand, and ended up putting 83 in the book.
 
I’m weird. Or too demanding. That book, to me, is not interesting at all.

 
Last edited:
Sirius Glass said:
Yes, exactly one of my points.
Click to expand...



Yes. Exactly....except that I think we're really talking about the vast majority of people here. That is to say, the vast majority of people, when they look at those 83 photos, cannot see what distinguishes them from their own ordinary, even crappy, snapshots. I certainly cannot.

EDIT: And I'm not limiting this to just Robert Frank's "The Americans". I think the same is true for any of the recognized street photographer...HCB, Winogrand, take your pick, even Walker Evans...so much of it looks like some random crappy snapshots.
 
Last edited:
NB23 said:
What’s up with street photography, luring so many people into thinking that they’re good at it?
...snip...
Click to expand...

I guess you have to look in the mirror.
Why do you think you're good at it?
 


He is NOT talking about Palestinians. This gave me a good chuckle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register