Trying to appreciate the value of street photography

[hoffy]

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.

I agree! I find so much landscape photography that I see online to be nearly a "paint by numbers" kind of thing. I was talking to my boss the other day, who was telling me about the websites that he visits, that tells him the right time, location and place to get the best shots. While I nodded and listened to him politely, a small piece of me was dying inside. While I do copy what others do from time to time, by actually following the instructions by the letter, it kind of takes away the personality of the photography that we produce.

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.

I am currently carrying my camera everywhere at the moment. I have done it all week.

I have taken one frame.

In the past, the photos just flowed out of me like some magical force, but now if I find that I must force myself to take an image. While, in a way, this isn't a bad thing, I also find that its counterproductive in the work that I produce - I force it, so the images look forced.

Sigh, I wish there was an easy answer!

“Street photography”, that is genuine street photography, is probably the most difficult of all of photography. The world must be taken as it is...no posing of subjects, light conditions, weather , etc are given and from this the ability to create a photograph that is strengthened by dymanic composition and subject is not easy.
Since much of my “street photography” takes place in rural areas, musical venues and bars as well as urban places, my definition of street photography is rather broad.
Ko.Fe. Is right on. The streets now have the homogeneous character of malls. Walked across Bleeker St in NYC about two weeks ago. Haven’t been in neighbored for a few years. Every storefront is the same as every other storefront. All are upscale. All seem to sell the same boutique stuff. All very expensive. And boring. But this does explain why millennials with 6 figure salaries still have no savings. The only original store left is John’s Pizza.
Walked across 57th st the other day from Carnegie Hall to Mad ave. All boring sheets of glass. One lonely remnant stone mansion surrounded by ongoing construction and protected by a steel net. Snapped a pic with my ever present Minox.

But, in 50 years time, will the strip mall type photography be any less? Just because a place isn't gritty doesn't mean we shouldn't try and find an angle. The hardest part is the angle to find! My biggest issue with Strip malls (Westfield being the main management company in Australia), is that photography is banned and will get you kicked out! Mind you, they don't care about those snapping away on their human leashes......

Anyone that does not get SP should go out and do some. Get a taste for it, then you will know. Shove you cam into some strangers face at 1 in the morning and see what it is all about!

Its not that easy. I first tried street around 10 years ago. From my own personal assessment, those original images didn't suck. Sure, I got a taste for it, but after a while I started to feel really uneasy about street photography. I am a bit too self conscious to be able to pull it off, especially as a solo person walking around. Not everyone will ever get a taste for it I'm afraid.

For me, though, I still try and take photography on the streets, but as a whole, the images I take are completely free of people - I see that as a little challenge - get that image of those random shapes and scenes within a busy city without people.

 

[Ste_S]

Its not that easy. I first tried street around 10 years ago. From my own personal assessment, those original images didn't suck. Sure, I got a taste for it, but after a while I started to feel really uneasy about street photography. I am a bit too self conscious to be able to pull it off, especially as a solo person walking around. Not everyone will ever get a taste for it I'm afraid.

I think to be street photography you have to properly accept that what you're doing isn't wrong, and once you can do that you loose the unease.
Have empathy and respect for your subjects, and know why you're photographing them.

I think sometimes Street Photography makes you change as a person

 

[hoffy]

I think to be street photography you have to properly accept that what you're doing isn't wrong, and once you can do that you loose the unease.
Have empathy and respect for your subjects, and know why you're photographing them.

I think sometimes Street Photography makes you change as a person

Oh, I know it isn't wrong. But I also don't particularly like confrontation.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

For street photography, it seems to me you need to want the photo: some situation or person you see is important enough to you that you want to make that photo. Maybe you and your subject have some rapport; maybe it's a total stranger. Their reaction may be uncertain - but for some reason you know you want the photo anyway.

I've rarely felt that way about what I've seen among people, so I'm not a street photographer.

 

[slackercrurster]

Without street photography there would probably be a big decline in sales of certain types of cameras.

 

[slackercrurster]

Oh, I know it isn't wrong. But I also don't particularly like confrontation.

Yes, that is true. In the US you are free to shoot as you like. Still, you can get hassles. I am working within the law most times. But sometimes people don't want to allow me to be within my rights. But the goal is to NOT have confrontations. That is done by developing skills. But no matter how skilled...no one is perfect.

I also work inside on private property seamlessly with my street work. I don't care if it is on private property. If I want the photo I take it. Only question is...will it be a keeper. Now if the property owner / subject complains then I will stop. (most of the time)

To do good street work, as I've said before, you have to be a good asshole.

Formula for a good street photog:

1) A good asshole
2) A good eye
3) Good skills at fast candid capture in any light

I don't turn off my street photography just because I step inside a door. Same skills and tools apply. And specifically, I am a social documentary photog, not a street photog. Sometimes the humans are on the outside, sometimes they are inside. Does not matter to me...

 

[slackercrurster]

For street photography, it seems to me you need to want the photo: some situation or person you see is important enough to you that you want to make that photo. Maybe you and your subject have some rapport; maybe it's a total stranger. Their reaction may be uncertain - but for some reason you know you want the photo anyway.

I've rarely felt that way about what I've seen among people, so I'm not a street photographer.

Something has to strike you about the subject matter.

Cartier-Bresson sums it up...

“Yes…Yes…Yes…photography is like that and there’s no maybes. All the maybes go to the trash. There is a tremendous enjoyment in saying yes, even if it is for something you hate. It is an affirmation…Yes!”

Again, Cartier-Bresson...

"I prowled the streets all day feeling very sprung-up and ready to pounce, determined to ‘trap’ life – to preserve life in the act of living.”

Either humanistic photography is in your blood or not. Hard to force things.

'Cigarette caught in mid flight '1973 (Scan of reject work print. Original lost in flood)

Weegee on the subject...

“Sure. I’d like to live regular. Go home to a good looking wife, a hot dinner, and a husky kid. But I guess I got film in my blood.”

Photo by Weegee

Here is some audio from Weegee on how he worked on the street…

https://archive.org/details/WeegeeTellsHow

 

[Lee Rust]

Something has to strike you about the subject matter. ... 'Cigarette caught in mid flight '1973

I'd forgotten about those private group "modeling sessions" that were once so heavily advertised in the back pages of the photo magazines. The culture has definitely shifted. That type of scene is now more likely to happen right out on the street... like this past Sunday on the Champs-Élysées.

At least in the USA & Canada, it's my observation that the attitude of 'street' people has changed just as much as the architecture. In earlier decades there was an unfiltered aspect to people's demeanor and behavior that has been largely displaced by extremes of self-conscious exhibitionism or self-protective paranoia.

As many have already noted, even the most banal street or family photo can have cultural and historical value in the decades or centuries to come... a generous gift to future generations... especially if the images are on archival materials, dated accurately, labelled with plenty of names and places, edited judiciously and stored in an organized and unambiguous manner. Take a look at http://www.shorpy.com and try to imagine yourself as one of the long dead photographers who recorded those far away moments. You were there!

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

...
As many have already noted, even the most banal street or family photo can have cultural and historical value in the decades or centuries to come... a generous gift to future generations... especially if the images are on archival materials, dated accurately, labelled with plenty of names and places, edited judiciously and stored in an organized and unambiguous manner. Take a look at http://www.shorpy.com and try to imagine yourself as one of the long dead photographers who recorded those far away moments. You were there!

So which has historical value? The reverant or the unusual?
Flat Iron Building-NYC

 

[Lee Rust]

Both... especially if the rat balloon picture has a caption or title. The building speaks for itself.

 

[faberryman]

So which has historical value? The reverant or the unusual?

Steichen did a better Flatiron Building. This version is worthless. The rat might garner a like on Facebook, whatever that's worth.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Steichen did a better Flatiron Building. This version is worthless. The rat might garner a like on Facebook, whatever that's worth.

Steichen is dead. He'd wish he could take my picture.

Regarding the second picture, the "rat" is a local union's icon representing people who work to fill in for union workers who are on strike at a nearby business. The strikers are milling around in the picture. That definitely has value to those who want to know what was going on in the street during the period it was captured. You may think it only has value on Facebook. But like most things, it's all in the eyes of the beholder.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Steichen made a better architectural or artistic photo. But the rat version would be valuable in the future to show contemporary society and the people who were actually on the streets of NYC in our present day.

 

[faberryman]

Sorry, I didn't know they were your images. I would have kept my opinions to myself.

 

[NB23]

I always find it funny when people quote famous people to get a point across.

Makes me wonder, if we quoted hcb’s burps and farts, would it sound more serious?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Sorry, I didn't know they were your images. I would have kept my opinions to myself.

That;s okay, Frank, you're entitled to your opinion. But that raises an interesting point. Pictures and paintings from dead people and the past always seem better for some reason. There are many pictures today, and I;m not including my own but some could be, that will have people in the future saying how great they were, how they represented something so special of the times they were taken. Any one of us current unknowns could be the next Van Gogh.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

PS: Those two pictures were taken with a P&S.

 

[faberryman]

That;s okay, Frank, you're entitled to your opinion. But that raises an interesting point. Pictures and paintings from dead people and the past always seem better for some reason. There are many pictures today, and I;m not including my own but some could be, that will have people in the future saying how great they were, how they represented something so special of the times they were taken. Any one of us current unknowns could be the next Van Gogh.

I am under no illusions.

 

[jtk]

Somehow I do;n't seea connection between Van Gogh and amateur photography.

 

[wyofilm]

Somehow I do;n't seea connection between Van Gogh and amateur photography.

True, Van Gogh managed to sell exactly one more piece than every amateur.

 

[Sirius Glass]

That;s okay, Frank, you're entitled to your opinion. But that raises an interesting point. Pictures and paintings from dead people and the past always seem better for some reason. There are many pictures today, and I;m not including my own but some could be, that will have people in the future saying how great they were, how they represented something so special of the times they were taken. Any one of us current unknowns could be the next Van Gogh.

That is hardly a good reason for which to die.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I am under no illusions.

Don't sell yourself short. Van Gogh made it and you still have both ears.

 

[Pieter12]

Think this blurb about a Vivian Maier show sums it up: "spontaneity, wit, empathy, and compositional savvy." That's what makes good street photography.