"When Will Street Photography Grow Up?"

[fjrabon]

If I see another shot of someone walking in front of some ad, sign or graffiti I am going to go crazy.

I feel the same way about wildlife photography. To me it's just a picture of an eagle. I just take this as me not being into the genre, outside of a few exceptions. I don't repeatedly bombard those threads with "this is trash, you're a dick" statements.

It's just like how I only like a few dub step songs, I could rail against the whole genre, call people names or I could simply enjoy the little I do of the genre, and otherwise leave the genre in peace. Plenty of people enjoy both taking the pictures and viewing them, I don't understand making blanket belittling statements because, in general, you don't enjoy the genre as a whole.

 

[sashbar]

Because for most of the other genres a bad photo is much more apparent and less easily defended. I could go to a crowded city, spin around and shoot at random and make a case for 99.9% of the photo taken being masterful street photography.

Try. You will not fool me

It is fascinating how differently we see street phogography. In my view 99.9% of it is pure, absolute or relative garbage. It is very, very difficult to pull a great street shot, you need time, luck, technical ability and vision. You can not read the book, set the light according to instruction, put a person in the chair and tell him to smile patiently untill you are done, take 100 shots and - voila - here we have a decent portrait. Street photography is a real challenge, and that is why I like it so much. You see the scene and the moment you see it is gone. Forever. You anticipate one and pull the trigger, but someone steps into and ruins. You see a wonderful, beautifully lit character and the moment you raise your camera, he steps into the shadow. You are experienced it over and over again. Some people manage to pull probably one or two great street shots in their lives. But luckily there are so many enthusiasts these days on the street that he have a flow of great images.

 

[runnah]

If I see another shot of someone walking in front of some ad, sign or graffiti I am going to go crazy.

I feel the same way about wildlife photography. To me it's just a picture of an eagle. I just take this as me not being into the genre, outside of a few exceptions. I don't repeatedly bombard those threads with "this is trash, you're a dick" statements.

It's just like how I only like a few dub step songs, I could rail against the whole genre, call people names or I could simply enjoy the little I do of the genre, and otherwise leave the genre in peace. Plenty of people enjoy both taking the pictures and viewing them, I don't understand making blanket belittling statements because, in general, you don't enjoy the genre as a whole.

I never railed against the whole genre just specific tropes. More specifically the "I have to write 6 paragraphs to explain why this photo is good" and the "person walking in front of things". To me its about effort, vision and story telling. Most of which a lot of "street" photos are lacking.

 

[Derrel]

Here's an interesting video with one of the so-called "great" street shooters, Bruce Gilden.

What Makes a Good Street Photograph - Take it or Leave it with Bruce Gilden - YouTube

 

[runnah]

Because for most of the other genres a bad photo is much more apparent and less easily defended. I could go to a crowded city, spin around and shoot at random and make a case for 99.9% of the photo taken being masterful street photography.

Try. You will not fool me

It is fascinating how differently we see street phogography. In my view 99.9% of it is pure, absolute or relative garbage. It is very, very difficult to pull a great street shot, you need time, luck, technical ability and vision. You can not read the book, set the light according to instruction, put a person in the chair and tell him to smile patiently untill you are done, take 100 shots and - voila - here we have a decent portrait. Street photography is a real challenge, and that is why I like it so much. You see the scene and the moment you see it is gone. Forever. You anticipate one and pull the trigger, but someone steps into and ruins. You see a wonderful, beautifully lit character and the moment you raise your camera, he steps into the shadow. You are experienced it over and over again. Some people manage to pull probably one or two great street shots in their lives. But luckily there are so many enthusiasts these days on the street that he have a flow of great images.

Maybe that is part of my reason for rejecting a lot of street, because there is a ton of crap of crap that gets passed off as art. For every alex webb or HCB there are 10,000 people trying to pass off snap shots as gold.

p.s. challenge accepted.

 

[limr]

Ah-ha! That's another thing I was curious about. Wouldn't such heavy contrast or dodging and burning create too unrealistic of a scene if you're losing key elements in the frame in the shadows? Or is what was lost not an important part of documenting the scene so then it wouldn't matter? Then if that's the case, I wouldn't see much of a difference between cloning it out and losing an unimportant aspect of the photo through burning or contrast.

I think it's a fine line between eliminating the unnecessary and "reverse staging" the scene. One could say the same about cropping.

This image started out as a square (I took it with a TLR) and I cropped some of the dead space from the top. I have another version with more cropped. (Edit: And I like it better with more cropped but just don't have access to it right now.) Was I altering too much or only including what was necessary for the image to be complete and eliminating the rest?

It's a very difficult thing to say where that line is. Maybe it's like porn - I'll know it when I see it


Hamlet by limrodrigues, on Flickr

 

[runnah]

I thought the photo runnah referenced to, this shot at the start of a gallery Alex Webb Rebecca Norris Webb Photographs

was VERY much reminiscent of a couple of famous HCB photos...what runnah referred to as "blurry" was motion blur, designed to make the boy appear, well, moving. The scene-as-seen-through-doorways, another famous HCB trope...the figures across the frame, in motion yet stopped due to distance from the camera, simple camera work basics...I thought they lead off with this, specific photo simply because it has sooooooooo much of the HCB ethos in it...it almost feels like an homage. Go to some &hi+hole third-world place, like Haiti, and walk around snapping the locals...when things align, click! The rest of that portfolio is all ultra-traditional street stuff...what I think of as the 28mm school of street that developed in the 1950's among a wide group of street shooters. And in that organic, authentic type of street, there is absolutely no place for compositing things.

Not sure if sarcasm or serious.

Right, but set apart those elements are very strong, all mashed together and it's a bit of a mess.

 

[rexbobcat]

I will also say that I found the original article hella annoying. For a little backstory, this dude became "Flickr Famous" after he did a photo-a-day project back in like 2012 or 2013. I'm not trying to knock his photography, because a lot of is good, but at the same time, it sounds like he didn't get the response he wanted from the club he wants to join, so he's now trying to justify his place in the club by giving a definition that encompasses his photography.

Why do you need your photos to be accepted as street photography? Why does it matter?

There's some truth to the statement that I think many street photographers have inflated views of themselves, however, this article is rather vapid and unhelpful in making a good case for its premise.

 

[bribrius]

Recently there has been somewhat of an uproar because photojournalists are beginning to worry more about making a photo with powerful aesthetics than telling a powerful story.

There is definitely a trend in this direction, even war photographers are trying to shoot aestetically powerful shots these days, and the reason is not street photography, but just a pure competiton, which is increasing. I look at the image and instantly see it is a AFP/Getty reporter, even if i do not know the name. They are a bit ahead in this game. And guess which image I will choose? Pure competiton.

be nice if there was more photos that made you think out there and less trying to entertain. Just sayn. You can put lipstick on a pig but it is still a pig. Suppose you can still think though "wow, what a pretty pig that is!" Suppose it is all how you see it.

 

[sashbar]

I thought the photo runnah referenced to, this shot at the start of a gallery Alex Webb Rebecca Norris Webb Photographs

was VERY much reminiscent of a couple of famous HCB photos...what runnah referred to as "blurry" was motion blur, designed to make the boy appear, well, moving. The scene-as-seen-through-doorways, another famous HCB trope...the figures across the frame, in motion yet stopped due to distance from the camera, simple camera work basics...I thought they lead off with this, specific photo simply because it has sooooooooo much of the HCB ethos in it...it almost feels like an homage. Go to some &hi+hole third-world place, like Haiti, and walk around snapping the locals...when things align, click! The rest of that portfolio is all ultra-traditional street stuff...what I think of as the 28mm school of street that developed in the 1950's among a wide group of street shooters. And in that organic, authentic type of street, there is absolutely no place for compositing things.

They do not lead off with this, they lead with another image.
And yes we see a clear HCB influence and I like it. Webb refers to HCB in his books and often tells how influencial some of his images were, especially that iconic Valencia shot Henry Cartier-Bresson 1933 Knockout
But I do not agree with the "ultra-traditional" argument, as Webb started to use colours as means of expression like noone did in the 50-s even though we can see some of it in Leiter images and others as well. As for compositions - this is exactly what I admire about his work. the strength and complexity of his composition, it gives almost physical pleasure. He does it brilliantly. The organic authentic street is a big challenge for composing things and he does it so well. Most photographers would fail here because they would not even see where to start, because basic rules cannot be applied easily, one has to see though it, so to speak.
BTW I think the blurred figure was not intentional.

 

[sashbar]

Recently there has been somewhat of an uproar because photojournalists are beginning to worry more about making a photo with powerful aesthetics than telling a powerful story.

There is definitely a trend in this direction, even war photographers are trying to shoot aestetically powerful shots these days, and the reason is not street photography, but just a pure competiton, which is increasing. I look at the image and instantly see it is a AFP/Getty reporter, even if i do not know the name. They are a bit ahead in this game. And guess which image I will choose? Pure competiton.

be nice if there was more photos that made you think out there and less trying to entertain. Just sayn. You can put lipstick on a pig but it is still a pig. Suppose you can still think though "wow, what a pretty pig that is!" Suppose it is all how you see it.

I talk about a purely practical situation that I encounter daily at work. I have a choice of normally 12-15 good images from Reuters, AFP/Getty, AP, EPA (and sometime PA, which is a dog, to be honest) for every story. And yes Getty guys put a lipstick on a pig more often than others, and yes I choose it most of the time. You know why? Because public like some makeup on a pig. Or a corpse. As I said, pure competition, nothing personal.

 

[bribrius]

Recently there has been somewhat of an uproar because photojournalists are beginning to worry more about making a photo with powerful aesthetics than telling a powerful story.

There is definitely a trend in this direction, even war photographers are trying to shoot aestetically powerful shots these days, and the reason is not street photography, but just a pure competiton, which is increasing. I look at the image and instantly see it is a AFP/Getty reporter, even if i do not know the name. They are a bit ahead in this game. And guess which image I will choose? Pure competiton.

be nice if there was more photos that made you think out there and less trying to entertain. Just sayn. You can put lipstick on a pig but it is still a pig. Suppose you can still think though "wow, what a pretty pig that is!" Suppose it is all how you see it.

I talk about a purely practical situation that I encounter daily at work. I have a choice of normally 12-15 good images from Reuters, AFP/Getty, AP, EPA (and sometime PA, which is a dog, to be honest) for every story. And yes Getty guys put a lipstick on a pig more often than others, and yes I choose it most of the time. You know why? Because public like some makeup on a pig. Or a corpse. As I said, pure competition, nothing personal.

awwww man.. you are part of the "system".

 

[Overread]

Maybe that is part of my reason for rejecting a lot of street, because there is a ton of crap of crap that gets passed off as art. For every alex webb or HCB there are 10,000 people trying to pass off snap shots as gold.
.

You do realise that there are legions of bad photos in every discipline. This is nothing unique to street photography save that its a more easily accessed and thus slightly more common genre than, say, diving photography.

Heck there are legions of bad zoo, macro, wildlife, aviation, abstract, waterfall, landscape etc... photos out there - each one will have rubbish; niche communities defending lower standards etc...

Honestly I don't worry about it one jot. I think to worry about it is to drive ones self insane. In the end you can't change the world by ranting or raving at it. You can maybe found a school of visual arts and promote better eduction; promote higher standards within your niche communities; travel and do the tours are various photography clubs etc....

 

[runnah]

Maybe that is part of my reason for rejecting a lot of street, because there is a ton of crap of crap that gets passed off as art. For every alex webb or HCB there are 10,000 people trying to pass off snap shots as gold.
.

You do realise that there are legions of bad photos in every discipline. This is nothing unique to street photography save that its a more easily accessed and thus slightly more common genre than, say, diving photography..

Right but I can't take a blurry photo of a bird and still say it'a great wildlife photo. I can't take a photo of a parking lot and say it's a beautiful mountain landscape.

I am not as worked up as people think about it, I frankly don't care that much.

 

[Derrel]

I am not as worked up as people think about it, I frankly don't care that much.

It's just that when you start shooting peoples' sacred cows, they get a bit irate about it...