Street photography

Pieter12 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Regarding street photography many photos which are popular on Flickr in this category are nothing special to me.
Photographer is huge credit word. Many of those who post photos on-line aren't. Many if not most of those who are even paid for their photos aren't either.
Weeding process you described is common among those who are trying to achieve something in photography. Would it be amateurs or paid photographers.

To me it is very hard to describe why some are famous and others not. I think it is not just quality pictures, but establishing right connections and been lucky.

BradS said:

It doesn't ? Lots of people seem to think that is exactly the definition of street photography.
But if that's not it then what is? What makes something street photography?

Does this qualify?

View attachment 243561

or this?

View attachment 243563

How about this one?

View attachment 243564

Click to expand...

First has nothing to do with street photography. Even if it is taken on the street. IMO. Second is very common for street photography. Third one also, but it is closer to architecture.

To me street is something not static and closely related to humans. It could be great documentary, architecture or portrait. But not street photography.
To me street photography is showing me something I walk by everyday (street with people) but on photo it looks interesting, unusual, not ordinary. Something OP does provide.
Card on grass? It is something special? I get this photo with crabs and building is cool.

Ko.Fe. said:

--- snip ---
To me it is very hard to describe why some are famous and others not. I think it is not just quality pictures, but establishing right connections and been lucky.

Click to expand...

In addition to these things you mention, the thing that characterizes successful photographers, is hard work and persistence.

Ko.Fe. said:

First has nothing to do with street photography. Even if it is taken on the street. IMO. Second is very common for street photography. Third one also, but it is closer to architecture.

To me street is something not static and closely related to humans. It could be great documentary, architecture or portrait. But not street photography.
To me street photography is showing me something I walk by everyday (street with people) but on photo it looks interesting, unusual, not ordinary. Something OP does provide.
Card on grass? It is something special? I get this photo with crabs and building is cool.

Click to expand...

Thanks. Your insight on this matter is interesting and valuable.
...and keep up the good work.

I like the Wikipedia definition of street photography, especially the mention of the purpose, for art or enquiry:

Street photography, also sometimes called candid photography, is photography conducted for art or enquiry that features unmediated chance encounters and random incidents within public places...Street photography does not necessitate the presence of a street or even the urban environment. Though people usually feature directly, street photography might be absent of people and can be of an object or environment where the image projects a decidedly human character in facsimile or aesthetic.

I also wonder why people who seem to have no interest or appreciation of good street photography bother reading and commenting to this post.

Pieter12 said:

I like the Wikipedia definition of street photography, especially the mention of the purpose, for art or enquiry:

Street photography, also sometimes called candid photography, is photography conducted for art or enquiry that features unmediated chance encounters and random incidents within public places...Street photography does not necessitate the presence of a street or even the urban environment. Though people usually feature directly, street photography might be absent of people and can be of an object or environment where the image projects a decidedly human character in facsimile or aesthetic.

I also wonder why people who seem to have no interest or appreciation of good street photography bother reading and commenting to this post.

Click to expand...

90% of street photography is just nonsense.
How do you want me to appreciate nonsense and dementia.
I think that if you see stools next to the road, you will have a nauseous fit.
- It is not logical for someone to come and ask you (Why do you have nausea)?
There are some examples of the Egyptian street photographers in the annexes.
- I want to know what the creative value is when someone is photographing an empty pack of cigarettes lying on the sidewalk.?

The examples you show certainly may not what I would call good street photography, but it does exist, even for those of us without dementia. Once again, if you don't like the genre, don't look. I don't like and
choose not to listen to top 40 pop music, but that doesn't give me the authority to deride it.

Pieter12 said:

The examples you show certainly may not what I would call good street photography, but it does exist, even for those of us without dementia. Once again, if you don't like the genre, don't look. I don't like and
choose not to listen to top 40 pop music, but that doesn't give me the authority to deride it.

Click to expand...

Well my colleague. your wish is my command.
But I hold onto my right to show my anger when I see dirt.
- I am not trying to see those trivial pictures, those pictures chase me wherever I go, these young men fill the world vocal day and night.
- Those pictures that I attached to the previous post, they came to my hands, the young men want to photograph the street and come to me until I develop their films, and after I inhale acids in order to develop their films, I am surprised that I am tired and inhale acids and the result is just nonsense and shit worthless .! Oh my God .
I told them that I will never develop this nonsense again.

Regardless of the gendre, street or other, the vast majority of all photos taken by everyone are "junk". IMO, it is simply that difficult to take good photographs. I have been a hobby photographer for over 40 years. I have produced very few photographs that I am truly proud of.

Pieter12 said:

The examples you show certainly may not what I would call good street photography, but it does exist, even for those of us without dementia. Once again, if you don't like the genre, don't look. I don't like and
choose not to listen to top 40 pop music, but that doesn't give me the authority to deride it.

Click to expand...

Very true and well written. Everyone has the right to question a picture and to have an opinion (I like / I don't like), not to disparage. Once you understand that, life is much easier.

Ste_S said:

Which again completely misses the point I was making. Bad photos are bad photos, why does street get singled out in this way ?

Click to expand...

I guess street photography is being singled out in this thread because the OP is interested in that kind of photography.

Ste_S said:

I suspect street still confuses a lot of the old timers on here.

Click to expand...

Maybe so. Please explain it to us. Speak real slow and use simple vocabulary so that we can understand.

Dave Ludwig said:

I agree with the OP and others, what I largely see are snapshots that are given a post justification, or rationale, for taking the shot. For this old timer it means you immersed yourself in a city area, you become noticed by the locals, and make friends. Because believe me at some point you are going to need a friend in the area. Today some “street photographers” walk around afraid to approach people, taking what I call "safe shots", inanimate objects, people with pets, HEY! I'm a street photographer. I believe what makes a credible street photographer is the amount of risk, personal risk you are willing to accept to get the shots. How far are you prepared to go down the rabbit hole, farther you go the better it gets. Street photography is to show how people live, eat, pray, work, exist, raise children, and yes die. It’s up close and personal, your photos should connect and say something, that's why you pick an area within a city to focus. Otherwise you are just a peeping-tom passing by. Do I shoot in public, yes, I shoot city scape's, the juxtaposition of elements found in a metropolitan area.

Click to expand...

I have enough people to know close in addition to become close with someone on the street just because of some assumptions you have made I*m very social animal who took Carnegie (if I spell it right) books and use it. My photos aren’t mastered, but I”m recognized, published, interviewed and won some contests. Within street, candid photography.
Street photography doesn’t have to be social documentary of troubled spots as you described it.
Sure you better to have some friends before taking pictures in the slam. But is this the only street photography? Absolutely not. To me and many, including masters, street is taking it as is. Just as we walk on it every day and see something interesting. It is actually weird to try to talk to people if you photograph street life as is. I get enough talks with people who are asking me about cameras anyway.
The problem is not within span shot technique. It just way too many giftless with primitive taste.