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
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