Trying to appreciate the value of street photography

[ted_smith]

Before I start let me say this : I do not mean to irritate street photography enthusiasts! I am trying to understand the purpose of it so I can consider getting involved in it.

For the last ten years or so my photography has changed as my life circumstances have. Before I had kids, I had dogs, so I did a lot of canine photography. With owning dogs came outdoor adventures, so I did a lot of landscape photography. When kids came and the dogs died, I didn't get out as much so the landscapes went, and due to the dogs dying, so too did the canine photography. Instead I photographed the kids a lot. Now I am looking for something that fits my current lifestyle which is, basically, working +/-50 hours a week and raising two kids who are now 10 and 7. So I have next to no time for myself.

However, I travel a lot with work. I go to different cities. I see different train stations, streets and so on, and thousands of strangers passing by going about their own busy lives. So, it seems like a natural fit to try and get into street photography alongside my work related travels.

However, I cannot for the life me understand the point of it. When I photograph my kids, I enjoy looking at and keeping and printing the pictures because of both:

a) who is in the picture (my kids) and
b) the photographic quality of the picture (the exposure, sharpness, contrast, colour etc).

When I photographed dogs, I enjoyed the pictures because of both

a) what was in the picture (the dogs) and
b) the photographic quality of the picture (the exposure, sharpness, contrast, colour etc).

When I photographed landscapes I enjoyed the pictures because of

a) what was in the picture (the place and the scene which often triggers memories of fun times) and
b) the photographic quality of the picture (the exposure, sharpness, contrast, colour etc).

So in all of the above cases, I have both reasons A and B which lead to my satisfaction of the picture as a photographer.

But with street photography I can only ever anticipate that I will have Reason B - the photographic quality of the picture. The Reason A, the "what" or the "who" I will never have. I couldn't care less that some stranger who I will never see again was walking along through St Pancras Railway station on that day. So why blow an exposure or 3 of expensive film and spend time developing and scanning it? I'll never hang a picture of that person walking along on my wall. I'll never browse through my collection of scans and say "Oh look, there's that guy who was walking through the station that day". Who cares?

But I wish I did get it, because it would certainly enable me to do more of what I love, which is photography. I just don't see the point of SP and I am hoping someone here who does do SP and who perhaps once had the same view of me can tell me what I am missing. There are many people who do it, and are famous for doing it well, so I am obviously missing something.

Thanks for any insight

 

[JohnC]

Hello Ted,
is it the sense of capturing a moment that defines an incident, a slice of life, the humanity ? Is it capturing a story, a record of that once and only ever time when the 50 billion atoms that have assembled to be the being of that person in that situation ? It's real life - not staged. I've sometimes pondered this question. I suspect we'll find the answer in the first issue of that now defunct magazine "Life" which set out the object of the magazine. . . none of which I remember, other than something about ". . to see life.."

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Well, maybe it just doesn't and won't appeal to you. I can appreciate street photography, but I'm a city photographer. I photograph what I see in a city that makes it interesting or unique.

 

[MattKing]

Ted:
Have you ever seen a photograph in a magazine of a subject you know nothing about, where you still think the photograph is interesting and powerful?
This photograph is of a woman selling fish and is sort of "street photography":

I didn't know her before I took the photo, but thought that she and her setting were both interesting and visually compelling. So I engaged her in conversation and took her photo. Not strictly street, but not entirely not street.
If you don't find the image compelling, that is fine. But captured vignettes of real life are found compelling by many.

 

[removed account4]

hi ted

go to flickr and look at the street-stuff by alex hawley, its really good
and look at everything and anything you can find by colin corneau
he's on instagram and HERE !
im always confused by street photography i've never really understood it
but these 2 guys have opened my eyes a lot ...

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Shooting strangers like snapshots are boring for me to. However, if they're doing something interesting or unusual, or the situation jumps out at you, then maybe it's worth a shot.

I don;t know if any of my street shots jump out at you. Some do, some don't for me.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157625796644064

The other thing you could try is to pick a topic that you can do a photo essay about. Maybe you can compare similar things in different cities and show how they play out. Maybe airports. train stations and trains, etc. Maybe the differences in street signs, policemen, street performers, etc. These are things that you can do on the fly as you move around within the different cities.

 

[wyofilm]

Does city architecture and cityscapes hold any interest for you?

Personally, I've never been one for street photography. Images I've seen from others can be compelling and outstanding, but at the end of the day I wouldn't do anything with any street photos I took - even if they were good. Pretty much the same reason you discuss above.

 

[jim10219]

Take the long view. Think of it as documenting the daily lives of the people of our age. A little slice of what it's like to be alive right here, right now. It won't mean much to you today, but in 30 years the places, the fashions, the people, will all be different, and then the photos will have value.

Personally, I don't care for street photography. But I'm not a people person. If I was the kind of person who liked to meet strangers, I bet I'd like it a whole lot more. There would be questions of "who is that person and what are they doing? What is their life like?" But instead I just see it as boring and invasive. Which I do see the irony in, because I really like the work of Alec Soth, which isn't that far removed from street photography. He just has a way of digging deeper into the soul of his subjects, probably by removing them from the common grounds of public life and depicting them in more intimate settings. It's like the difference from meeting a stranger at a bus stop and engaging in small talk and having dinner with a new neighbor and getting lost in a deep conversation. At least that's how I see it. And that's what my introverted mind is compelled by.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Dogs, kids and travel pictures "I was here with my guality camera"?
Nothing special to me. I do it as well. I had astronaut sindrome after extencive travel and my family is strong to support each other.

What OP is missing? The interest about another people life. I was teenager when my cousin told me - "you look at people like you are photographing them".
To me street photography is the way of exploring and documenting human nature. Nothing else, nothing more.
I have seen different cultures, difrent countires. I have seen how they changed. I have seen how cultures were and are getting replaced. It is visible on the street. To me it is worth of documenting. I don't know how streets will looks like in ten years. I'm not sure if I'll be allowed to take street pictures in the future. I take them while I can.
I don't like to where it is changing. For example, here is no custom made doors anymore. And so on. Same ugly buildings. The beauty of individualism is going away from the street in North America. In Canada street culture of neighborhoods is getting destroied more and more. Nothing but Hortons and shoppers drug marts with same banks at same plaza. It is as ugly as USSR I have seen come and go.

But, hey, you are lucky if you are not into it. Enjoy your dog and I was here quality pictures.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I do not care to do street photography, but I do appreciate good street photography done by others. I prefer landscape and architectural photography.

 

[wyofilm]

This thread makes me think of Macfred's quote in his signature:
“…
all photographs are self-portraits.” – Minor White

 

[CMoore]

"I am trying to understand the purpose of it so I can consider getting involved in it."
"However, I cannot for the life me understand the point of it."

- No i do not think you are trying, nor do you have any interest at all. -

"But with street photography I can only ever anticipate that I will have Reason B - the photographic quality of the picture. The Reason A, the "what" or the "who" I will never have. I couldn't care less that some stranger who I will never see again was walking along through St Pancras Railway station on that day. So why blow an exposure or 3 of expensive film and spend time developing and scanning it? I'll never hang a picture of that person walking along on my wall. I'll never browse through my collection of scans and say "Oh look, there's that guy who was walking through the station that day". Who cares?"

Why does anybody choose to do anything.?
You obviously have no interest in Street Photography or any like for it.
A MUCH better question is why are you even bothering with the Bandwidth here.
Circa 2015 i cannot believe this stupid topic is still being discussed.

 

[Pieter12]

It would be difficult to convince you of the appeal of street photography if you don't look at it openly and unbiased. It takes many forms, from Cartier-Bresson to Callahan to Winogrand. Jut like landscape, there is Ansel Adams and Robert Adams. It can be graphic and intriguing or flat and artless. All valid, all to be appreciated even though they take different approaches. And it's fine not to like street photography (I dislike the term, I prefer candid photography). That's up to you.

 

[faberryman]

It would be difficult to convince you of the appeal of street photography if you don't look at it openly and unbiased. It takes many forms, from Cartier-Bresson to Callahan to Winogrand. Jut like landscape, there is Ansel Adams and Robert Adams. It can be graphic and intriguing or flat and artless. All valid, all to be appreciated even though they take different approaches. And it's fine not to like street photography (I dislike the term, I prefer candid photography). That's up to you.

It is helpful if at first you limit yourself at looking at the masters of street photography (Bresson, Frank, Winogrand, etc.) to develop a practiced eye. If not, you quickly become inundated with the dross that passes as street photography on the internet, and end up asking yourself what's the point. With much of it, there isn't a point. There needs to be a point. After a while, you'll be able to identify the gems.

 

[wyofilm]

The problem I have with street photography (at least most of what I see) and one reason I don't engage in it is that most of what I see is people running around with cameras annoying strangers. The second reason is the near requirement that it need be 'gritty' to be serious. The third reason is that to be any good you have to immerse yourself in the world of your subject matter. As Faberryman in post #14 admonished the op to study the masters. Good idea. What I never see in Cartier-Bresson's work is annoyed people. Maybe those images never see the light of day. Compelling must include something more than tired, broken down elderly people struggling to cross the street. Or the homeless guy sleeping on a park bench. You have to be intimate with or of that world to find compelling images. Otherwise it is annoying voyeurism; people I know don't like to be treated like they are in a fish bowl.

Look closely at Cartier-Bresson's work. In addition to beautiful compositions his photos never looked liked they were taken by an outsider. I don't know how he did this so well. Someone above said that street photography should be candid photography. He might be right. You can't take a candid photo if the subject doesn't trust you. He won't trust you enough to let his guard down and be ... candid. Show up uninvited to someone else's world with a camera and you will be treated with suspicion and probably contempt.

 

[NB23]

Meh, who knows.

 

[Ste_S]

I'm not sure why Street Photography continuously gets posts like this when other forms of photography avoid it.

I find the vast majority of landscape photography dull and soulless. There's never anything of the photographer in the photo, there's no emotion, no connection.
Of course Street Photography is similarly plagued. Photos of strangers where the photographer has no connection, no emotion, no story.

The best street photography is full of emotion, and shows the photographer's connection and empathy for the subject. They manage to convey the feeling of those streets to the viewer, even if it's somewhere the viewer has never been before. I get transported to Valpariso when I look at Larrain, Shinjuku when I look at Moriyama, Paris when I look at Brassai.

If you do really want to try street photography (and this isn't a trolling post), start photographing your own tribe, your own area. Have empathy for your subjects and try to convey how you feel about them in your photo. Walk the streets so it seeps into your soul.

 

[Svenedin]

I can understand how you liked photographing your dogs. I liked photographing my dogs too and sadly they have died now. One of my photographs is on the wall in my consulting room so he is still with me in some way.

I am not particularly keen on "street" photography either, whatever is actually meant by it. I prefer landscapes to cities but there is so much opportunity for interesting photographs. Railway stations are often majestic structures (think York Station with the curving track and magnificent roof) and there is always movement of people and trains. Then there is the architecture and in British cities often everything from half-timbered Medieval to modern glass towers. I was out taking photographs in my lunch break today and chanced upon a tame Herring Gull which was happy to pose for some photos at close quarter. Then I found a statue of Scott of the Antarctic and the light was pleasing on the statue. There's always something if you look and it doesn't have to be people.

 

[slackercrurster]

OP, didn't read it all. Read the beginning and end. Too long for me, I got ADD. (Maybe ADD is why I like SP?) But I get the idea.

Ya know, some guys like fat, juicy women and some like anorexics. It is all a matter of taste. If SP does nothing for you, shoot what you like. I hate studio photography, so I try to shoot as little of it as I can. I like social doc photography ( people) on the street or inside. That is my thing.

 

[blockend]

It's easier to say what street photography is not than define the term precisely. It is not environmental portraiture. It is not pictures of streets, even when they happen to have people in. It is not orchestrated, except by the position and choice of lens of the photographer. It is not documentary, at least by intent.

It's generally held to be something the brief exposure of photography alone can offer, the world condensed into balletic, ironic, candid, revealing visual snapshots (in the true sense) of the human condition in its environment. It's one of the toughest photographic genres because even when all the ingredients are available, it's much easier to miss the shot than hit it.

For a street photographer on top of their game, I suggest people search Tony Ray-Jones photography. In his short life he nailed the genre in a way that not only had formal control, but had heart.

 

[slackercrurster]

Photogs need subject matter. Street photography is one of the easiest genre to get into. All the photog has to do is go out their front door. Be that as it may, it is one of the hardest to distinguish oneself in.

 

[slackercrurster]

One photog had said he finds photos of people boring. His thing was landscapes and sunsets. Either you got the bug for shooting people or not. No use trying to force things if you don't have an interest. Better to do what you love. But from the earliest beginnings, photogs have been fascinated with taking photos of others...candid.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I like street photography when a significant amount of time has passed from when the photograph was taken. So photos taken today would be more interesting 50 to 100 years later... but sadly, I won't be around to appreciate them.

 

[Chan Tran]

I don't do much street photography because today society isn't suited for it in my opinion. People don't like it when you taking pictures of them on the street. However, I observe people when I am out on the street. I pay attention to what they do and I found it's interesting and so I love to take pictures of them.

 

[mooseontheloose]

Ted, if you didn't have kids, or dogs, or compelling reasons to be outside and photograph landscapes, what would you photograph? Does all photography have to be individually personal to be meaningful? I ask this because, like you, for many years, I couldn't understand the purpose of photographing strangers - I was never going to frame them or even print them, so why bother? I had this feeling even though I don't have any family, or pets, or close friends, to photograph on a regular basis. Landscapes in Japan are hard without a car. I had this feeling even though I like street photography done by others, and, speaking truthfully, tend to prefer photographs that have people (or elements of people) in them, including my own photographs.

As Matt and others have said, I think street photography can be meaningful because it shows a slice of life, of humanity, of a neighbourhood, at a particular moment in time. When the subject and light is right, the photograph can be really impactful. At the same time, it's like anything else. The more you practice, the more you get out there and shoot, the more winners you'll come away with (and yes, it means a lot of wasted frames on subjects that will never see the light of day, even after being developed). I work with a guy who has a (digital) camera permanently around his neck, and he uses it to (literally) photograph streets and buildings in and around Kyoto, and his photos are fantastic. I've never understood the carrying around a camera all the time mentality, as it never seemed to make any sense on my regular commute to and from work, but it's something I've been re-considering.