Photographers who don't shoot street are missing something. c/c welcome

[Steve5D]

I don't see anything in that photo which tells me I'm missing anything, really. It's a snapshot.

I also don't think it's "street". It looks like it was shot at event somewhere. The woman holding the mirror has a laminated pass around her neck. That suggests to me that it's not something that the photographer just happened to come across while walking downtown which, to me, would be considered "street"...

[Ads]

[sm4him]

I think to be interested in street photography...u have to interested in humans....where I fall short

Yeah, see, this is the real problem for me. People tend to annoy me. The best bday card I ever received was one that said on the cover: "Good news! People are living longer than ever before." and on the inside: "Bad news: We don't get to pick which ones."

When I do try "street photography," it just ends up looking like the same kind of poorly composed, random photos I used to take when I got my first camera as a teenager and shot everything in sight. I've tried it; I really have. I just don't really get into it.

WARNING: HONEST *PERSONAL* CONFESSION about to happen--it seems about 98% of the folks on TPF have ZERO interest in yet another flower or bug photo. Well, that's the way *I* tend to feel about even relatively good street photography. There are occasional exceptions, but mostly they just hold no real interest for me.

I keep TRYING to appreciate street photography, but it just seems like a term we've created for "taking random shots of complete strangers on poorly lit streets."
DISCLAIMER: I GET that, done right, it really can be an art, and tell a powerful story. Well, done right, florals can be captivating. But they just ain't for everyone.

I am TRYING to gain at least an appreciation for good street photography; maybe one day it'll grow on me. Abstracts didn't always do a lot for me either, but now I love them and often "see" them when I go out to shoot. So maybe there's hope.

[The_Traveler]

Am I the only one who thinks the OP's photo does not, strictly speaking, belong to the street photography type? I have a feeling this is a show of some sort, not random people in their everyday life. I don't see HCB shooting anything like this.

Or maybe I'm just ignorant and I don't know what street photography is? :-)

Ciao!

I didn't notice the butt thing either at first lol.

I have to agree with the others though. I don't see how this exhibits the true human condition beyond two Middle-Eastern women putting on makeup at the fair.
They just aren't doing anything...interesting...

And besides, the woman holding the mirror appears to be wearing temporary Midler-Eastern (I don't know?) garb of some sort judging from the fact that the man on the left is holding a a piece of clothe that is very similar to what the woman in the right is wearing, which shatters the illusion of East meets West.

I don't see anything in that photo which tells me I'm missing anything, really. It's a snapshot.

I also don't think it's "street". It looks like it was shot at event somewhere. The woman holding the mirror has a laminated pass around her neck. That suggests to me that it's not something that the photographer just happened to come across while walking downtown which, to me, would be considered "street"...

When I do try "street photography," it just ends up looking like the same kind of poorly composed, random photos I used to take when I got my first camera as a teenager and shot everything in sight. I've tried it; I really have. I just don't really get into it.

WARNING: HONEST *PERSONAL* CONFESSION about to happen--it seems about 98% of the folks on TPF have ZERO interest in yet another flower or bug photo. Well, that's the way *I* tend to feel about even relatively good street photography. There are occasional exceptions, but mostly they just hold no real interest for me.

I keep TRYING to appreciate street photography, but it just seems like a term we've created for "taking random shots of complete strangers on poorly lit streets."
DISCLAIMER: I GET that, done right, it really can be an art, and tell a powerful story. Well, done right, florals can be captivating. But they just ain't for everyone.

Sorry to be so long responding. I had some unexpected minor surgery and painful sequelae kept me foggy from the anti-pain meds.

I don't mind when people don't like my shots. It certainly may be that I have internalized something about the scene so much that doesn't come through in the photo - and that's OK. I post stuff to get this kind of response so I can judge if I am actually communicating or just making myself happy.

I am surprised that people try to disqualify a shot because it doesn't fit some pre-determined category boundaries that they've set up.
I like pictures that show me some aspect into life that I wasn't aware of, that brings something interesting into focus for me. It doesn't have to be big or have great meaning, it just has to be something new to me.

Instead of 'street photography', which seemed handy, I could call it 'what Lew likes to shoot' but then I'd have a hard time finding a place to put it.

I like to shoot life - as minor and trivial as it can be but interesting - to me.

[rant]
And it is certainly more interesting that the thousands of repetitive pictures of flowers, bugs, 'my son/daughter' at 5 months, 6 months, 7 months - who gives a crap?
Or senior shots or artsy photos of someone staring at the camera with their camera face on or glamor shots that objectify woman with pretty faces and large boobs or shots of the poor and homeless that purport to tell us something but that are really as exploitative as shots of girls with big boobs pointed at the camera.
Or buildings at odd angles, or fireworks, or abstracts of mechanical constructs that are formed that way - all of which are so totally damned boring.[/rant]

So I will keep on shooting exactly what I like, whatever category it fits in.
And thanks for looking and commenting.

Lew

Here are two others - taken in the street not 2 minutes nor 30 feet from the first above at the 4th of July parade in Washington, DC - unposed, caught

[SCraig]

[rant]
And it is certainly more interesting that the thousands of repetitive pictures of flowers, bugs, 'my son/daughter' at 5 months, 6 months, 7 months - who gives a crap?
Or senior shots or artsy photos of someone staring at the camera with their camera face on or glamor shots that objectify woman with pretty faces and large boobs or shots of the poor and homeless that purport to tell us something but that are really as exploitative as shots of girls with big boobs pointed at the camera.
Or buildings at odd angles, or fireworks, or abstracts of mechanical constructs that are formed that way - all of which are so totally damned boring.[/rant]

Lew, I think it's wonderful that you enjoy your chosen style of photography. To me the enjoyment of photography is the only reason to pursue it. To provide a glimpse of something to others that they may never have seen is a wonderful thing.

But to be perfectly honest I don't see that a photograph of a woman repairing her makeup is "a moment in time that will not be repeated and that 'means' something". To be honest it will most likely be repeated in a couple of hours, and is just a boring photograph of a woman repairing her makeup. I personally prefer the flowers and fireworks and women and mechanical constructs.

[rexbobcat]

I don't mean to be antagonistic (maybe a little bit?) or anything but...the people in this forum are in a round-about way suggesting that...

Personal/sentimental meaning ≠ Good photography.

There is such thing as technical consideration in photography. Interest in an image is only one part of the equation. Yes, technical prowess isn't everything, but it IS something.

Mini-Rant: Slice-of-life photos are boring as well, because if you've noticed there are a ton of family snapshot type images one here. They're unposed, candid, but a candid of the cutest pinch-his-cheeks kid in a crappy composition, lighting, and background makes a poor photograph.

You see....the LAST photograph you posted is a GOOD photograph in my opinion. I would process it differently but it's still good. It has intrigue, mystery, adorability. What is she looking at? Why does she have that inquisitive look? She's so cute! That's what street photography is in my opinion. It's not "oh wow someone in a hijab! Random snapshot, art!"

The second photograph, for example, could be on anybody's desk at they're home. I have hundred's of documentary type images that are interesting to ME for various reasons, but I don't go around touting them as the epitomy of something spectacular because they don't serve that purpose. They are documentary.

And I don't know if this is just a situation of misinterpreted internet communication, but it sounds to me like you are implying that your vision might be a little superior to others because you notice the small things, and you are so out there compared to all those boring portrait photographers. That's just the vibe I'm getting. I could be wrong, though. At least 70% of meaning is lost over the internet because of lack of paralinguistics.

I'm also not sure why you're announcing that you're going to keep shooting whatever you want. I mean, it's not like our opinions have any bearing on that. Do you want a cookie or something?

[The_Traveler]

But to be perfectly honest I don't see that a photograph of a woman repairing her makeup is "a moment in time that will not be repeated and that 'means' something". To be honest it will most likely be repeated in a couple of hours, and is just a boring photograph of a woman repairing her makeup. I personally prefer the flowers and fireworks and women and mechanical constructs.

OK, no problem.
You see this as boring - as I do virtually all flowers, etc.

I don't mean to be antagonistic (maybe a little bit?) or anything but...the people in this forum are in a round-about way suggesting that...

Personal/sentimental meaning ≠ Good photography.

There is such thing as technical consideration in photography. Interest in an image is only one part of the equation. Yes, technical prowess isn't everything, but it IS something.

Mini-Rant: Slice-of-life photos are boring as well, because if you've noticed there are a ton of family snapshot type images one here. They're unposed, candid, but a candid of the cutest pinch-his-cheeks kid in a crappy composition, lighting, and background makes a poor photograph.

You see....the LAST photograph you posted is a GOOD photograph in my opinion. I would process it differently but it's still good. It has intrigue, mystery, adorability. What is she looking at? Why does she have that inquisitive look? She's so cute! That's what street photography is in my opinion. It's not "oh wow someone in a hijab! Random snapshot, art!"

The second photograph, for example, could be on anybody's desk at they're home. I have hundred's of documentary type images that are interesting to ME for various reasons, but I don't go around touting them as the epitomy of something spectacular because they don't serve that purpose. They are documentary.

And I don't know if this is just a situation of misinterpreted internet communication, but it sounds to me like you are implying that your vision might be a little superior to others because you notice the small things, and you are so out there compared to all those boring portrait photographers. That's just the vibe I'm getting. I could be wrong, though. At least 70% of meaning is lost over the internet because of lack of paralinguistics.

I'm also not sure why you're announcing that you're going to keep shooting whatever you want. I mean, it's not like our opinions have any bearing on that. Do you want a cookie or something?

Yes, a cookie would be nice
Yes, you are wrong about my thinking that the stuff the others do is somehow less, it's just not of interest to me.
I don't do the other stuff because I think it is boring and, in my mind, I am doing something that is more interesting and more challenging to me.

I was responding to the comments that said what I was doing was not 'street' photography or didn't match up to something that CB would have shot.
What I do, no matter what category it falls into or doesn't, is what I want to do and to dismiss it because it doesn't fit some category is .... contrary to the meaning of art.

I have found that there is no better way to rouse other photographers' ire than to say that you don't care for the area of work they do; it's the same as indirectly criticizing their choice of camera.

I have some errands to do and there doesn't seem to be any more to say in this thread.
Thanks again for taking the time

[sm4him]

WARNING: HONEST *PERSONAL* CONFESSION about to happen--it seems about 98% of the folks on TPF have ZERO interest in yet another flower or bug photo. Well, that's the way *I* tend to feel about even relatively good street photography. There are occasional exceptions, but mostly they just hold no real interest for me.
I keep TRYING to appreciate street photography, but it just seems like a term we've created for "taking random shots of complete strangers on poorly lit streets."
DISCLAIMER: I GET that, done right, it really can be an art, and tell a powerful story. Well, done right, florals can be captivating. But they just ain't for everyone.

[rant]
And it is certainly more interesting that the thousands of repetitive pictures of flowers, bugs, 'my son/daughter' at 5 months, 6 months, 7 months - who gives a crap?
Or senior shots or artsy photos of someone staring at the camera with their camera face on or glamor shots that objectify woman with pretty faces and large boobs or shots of the poor and homeless that purport to tell us something but that are really as exploitative as shots of girls with big boobs pointed at the camera.
Or buildings at odd angles, or fireworks, or abstracts of mechanical constructs that are formed that way - all of which are so totally damned boring.[/rant]

So I will keep on shooting exactly what I like, whatever category it fits in.
And thanks for looking and commenting.

Lew

1. Hope you are feeling better.
2. Like that last photo of the little kid!
3. [rant about rant] See, this is why I tried to word mine very carefully as MY personal preference. Because to call ANY broad category of photography totally boring and pointless, and basically suggest that NOBODY gives a rat's behind about THOSE topics, really does strike me as pretty narrow-minded. Personally, I think it ALL has a value and a place, and I think ALL of it, done well, can be quite intriguing, whether it is what truly interests ME, or not. [/rant about rant]

I am surprised that people try to disqualify a shot because it doesn't fit some pre-determined category boundaries that they've set up.
I like pictures that show me some aspect into life that I wasn't aware of, that brings something interesting into focus for me. It doesn't have to be big or have great meaning, it just has to be something new to me.

This statement strikes me as pretty hilarious, given your rant. Because, honestly, it sounds to me like you do exactly that--immediately disqualify any shot that doesn't fit your pre-determined boundaries, which means no portraits, bugs, flowers, abstracts, buildings at odd angles, fireworks, or boobs.

And I don't know if this is just a situation of misinterpreted internet communication, but it sounds to me like you are implying that your vision might be a little superior to others because you notice the small things, and you are so out there compared to all those boring portrait photographers. That's just the vibe I'm getting. I could be wrong, though. At least 70% of meaning is lost over the internet because of lack of paralinguistics.

I'm also not sure why you're announcing that you're going to keep shooting whatever you want. I mean, it's not like our opinions have any bearing on that. Do you want a cookie or something?

^THIS.

Finally: Seriously, I like that last photo!

[o hey tyler]

Hey guys

[cgipson1]

I do like the last shot you posted... THAT is cute, and interesting! Is she bored, frustrated, being coy, or what? The outfit is nice... traditional dress one doesn't see much of normally.

I like almost all types of photography, IF WELL DONE. The photographers that are best known for street... manage to communicate something to a large portion of their audience. Most street shots leave me cold.. some I love! The difference for me is the subject.. what are they doing, what are they thinking? Expressions are paramount, as is location, attire and attitude. They need to POP!

I obviously love macro.. but it has to be well done, or I don't care for it. Same for Landscapes... many are blah.. boring. But some... wow! The plethora of baby shots we see here.. most are Ho-Hum, but a really nicely lit shot, with a photogenic brat... I can appreciate it (but they are rare!)

[rexbobcat]

Dude, you're the one who got all mad because we said we don't care for the area of work that you're clearly interested in (street photography? DWAC? idk)
So don't be telling us about rousing ire lol.

I just don't understand...

WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY do people post something for discussion/critique/whatever on the largest public exchange of ideas IN THE WORLD (the internet), and then complain and cry all passive-aggressively because other people gave their opinions? And then they say that they really don't care...Well obviously you do to some extent otherwise you would not be posting them with pride in an online forum.

All you had to do was say "I don't agree, but thanks for the input." But no, you would rather play the seemingly innocent guy who doesn't care about others' opinions, who just does his own thing and has absolutely NO feelings of condescension towards other photographs, but he's still willing to go get angry or go sob in the corner over it. I'm sorry, but you are not a misunderstood artist.

This isn't directed at you as much as it's directed at human behaviour in general. Posting something on a forum is kind of like asking "what do y'all think?" Then when people answer negatively the OP says "Well, guess what? I don't care." *folds arms, sticks nose in air*

I mean, what do people want from others on forums? Do we need to blow smoke up everyones' asses?

/rant over

[o hey tyler]

Hey guys

What do you want? We're having a soon-to-turn-into-insults discussion over here.

...Well?

Oh, nothing. Just passing through. Figured I'd say hi.

[gsgary]

For me there is too much color ( very distracting)all the greats of street photograpy Garry Winogrand,Joel Myerowicz, Bruce Gilden all shot black and white

[o hey tyler]

Bruce Gilden

LOL

[gsgary]

LOL

There is no LOL about Bruce Gilden

[Jaemie]

#1: I "see" goats.