If you don't shoot street photography why not?

[The_Traveler]

Runnah and Rexbobcat,

I apologize, I was wrong to take offense.

I think that successful street photography is so hard and failure is so almost certain that it distorts the judgement of the photographer. He/she really wants so much that the photograph to be meaningful, to express what he sees that there is sometimes a lack of a really critical eye, a failure of judgement. So where the slightest nuance reminds him/her of some deeply felt idea, that same little hint is completely unseen by most eyes.
We see that here in pictures of a photographer's spouse or children; the photographer sees them as the most beautiful faces in the world and, for the most part, we indulge them in their delusion because each of us understands what causes that lack of ability to be objective.
So, when you see street photography that is a miss or goes flat or seems pretentious, give the maker a break. He/she may not be purposefully pretentious or pompous but may be really unable to see that, what to him/her is an important message, is to everyone else only an arrangement of tones in a frame.

Speaking as someone who fails to get a good shot 999 times out of a 1000, I know exactly how that desire to say something feels, and how painful it is either to fail in the execution or the critical judgement of my own shots.

So, again, I apologize.

 

[mmaria]

I logged in just to click on like

 

[Designer]

This thread has got me to thinking about street photography more than I had ever thought before. As a result, I have been logging some information to remind me of what makes it successful.

Thanks for the spur, Lew.

 

[AlanKlein]

Lew: Getting a great, even good, shot once out of a 100 is not restricted to street photography. It's the same with landscape photography as well. Trust me. I looked at your street photos and they are good. It would be helpful for all of us to hear what you do and what you look for that makes a street picture stand out. I think everyone here would appreciate learning from you.

 

[gsgary]

Street is probably 50% of what i shoot, i never ask people if i can shoot them, dogs and owners are a popular subject for me and i cant believe 35% of the poll are nervous about shooting street

 

[runnah]

So does asking to take a photo of someone change the dynamic of a "street" photo?

 

[limr]

So does asking to take a photo of someone change the dynamic of a "street" photo?

Absolutely. "Is it okay if I take your photograph? Yes? Thank you. Now could you please continue to act naturally and do the same things you would have done before you became aware of my presence so that I could capture a spontaneous slice of life image? Please don't be self-conscious or pay any attention to my camera."

Of course, some people do want the kind of shot that requires interaction - eye contact with the camera, for example. That shot isn't possible without making the person aware of the camera. But that too changes the dynamic of the photo, just in an intended or desired way.

 

[pgriz]

In my photo club we have some very good street photographers. By no coincidence they are also very good photographers, period. As I have noted in other posts, I was quite surprised at how much preparation they undergo to get the images they do get. At least the ones I know take the time to get to know their "subjects" to the point that the camera ends up fading away. It's no longer "hit-and-run", or "sneak-a-shot", but a record of a person in their native environment, usually quite aware of the photograph being taken, but not being affected by that. Personally, I don't have the patience to do this well. I also do not have the skills to determine the correct focus placement, and the correct framing without looking through the viewfinder. And finally, I have a personal dislike of taking pictures of people who don't want to have their picture taken. Even if I may have a legal right to do so, it doesn't square with my personal ethics. I won't tell you that you are a bad person if that aspect doesn't bother you, but it does bother me, and I therefore won't do it. Other people will have to make their own decisions about what they are comfortable doing.

 

[rexbobcat]

Runnah and Rexbobcat,

I apologize, I was wrong to take offense.

I think that successful street photography is so hard and failure is so almost certain that it distorts the judgement of the photographer. He/she really wants so much that the photograph to be meaningful, to express what he sees that there is sometimes a lack of real critical eye a failure of judgement. So where the slightest nuance reminds him/her of some deeply felt idea, that same little hint is completely unseen by most eyes.
We see that here in pictures of a photographer's spouse or children; the photographer sees them as the most beautiful faces in the world and, for the most part, we indulge them in their delusion because each of us understands what causes that lack of ability to be objective.
So, when you see street photography that is a miss or goes flat or seems pretentious, give the maker a break. He/she may not be purposefully pretentious or pompous but may be really unable to see that, what to him/her is an important message, is to everyone else only an arrangement of tones in a frame.

Speaking as someone who fails to get a good shot 999 times out of a 1000, I know exactly how that desire to say something feels, and how painful it is either to fail in the execution or the critical judgement of my own shots.

So, again, I apologize.

It's fine. I understand where you're coming from saying that sometimes we, the viewers, don't always take into consideration the perspective of the photographer. Sometimes our own experiences while taking the picture, and our connection to the subject matter, makes us see an image one way, while others might view it differently.

I was not trying to put anyone in particular down, because I don't think anyone on this forum produces the kinds of images I'm referring to. I view some street photos in the same way that I view fine art, especially if the photographer is well known or popular (*cough* Eric Kim *cough*). It's kind of a "THAT is considered good?" view. While I understand that there are reasons why it is considered a relevant or nice photo in its respective area, much of it does not appeal to me. I can't relate to a lot of it, because I see aesthetics in a different way.

HOWEVER, there are also street photographs that I can really appreciate the beauty, because they appeal both to my taste and to my emotions. It's kind of enigmatic...It's hard to explain.

This is the kind of street photography I like. Man on Earth

I think part of it comes from my opinion that documentation and street photography are two different things. I like to view street photography in an "art among the chaos" sort of way as opposed to a "go out and take pictures of odd people and situations" way, which is the approach that I think some people take...

 

[sashbar]

I have a great respect for good street photography because it can not hide behind Photoshop, a carefully read textbook or meticulously executed skill. I think any good street shooter will say that out of 1000 of his shots 999 failed. One needs to either be a pure genius, get unbelievably lucky or really lower his standarts to claim otherwice. I do not remember who said that four good street shots in a year was a great return, but it was a big name.
The only reason why I do not do street stuff is because I have no time. It is time consuming like no other genre I know. Well, probably wild life takes more, never tried outside some deer in the park.

 

[sashbar]

Runnah and Rexbobcat,

I apologize, I was wrong to take offense.

I think that successful street photography is so hard and failure is so almost certain that it distorts the judgement of the photographer. He/she really wants so much that the photograph to be meaningful, to express what he sees that there is sometimes a lack of real critical eye a failure of judgement. So where the slightest nuance reminds him/her of some deeply felt idea, that same little hint is completely unseen by most eyes.
We see that here in pictures of a photographer's spouse or children; the photographer sees them as the most beautiful faces in the world and, for the most part, we indulge them in their delusion because each of us understands what causes that lack of ability to be objective.
So, when you see street photography that is a miss or goes flat or seems pretentious, give the maker a break. He/she may not be purposefully pretentious or pompous but may be really unable to see that, what to him/her is an important message, is to everyone else only an arrangement of tones in a frame.

Speaking as someone who fails to get a good shot 999 times out of a 1000, I know exactly how that desire to say something feels, and how painful it is either to fail in the execution or the critical judgement of my own shots.

So, again, I apologize.

It's fine. I understand where you're coming from saying that sometimes we, the viewers, don't always take into consideration the perspective of the photographer. Sometimes our own experiences while taking the picture, and our connection to the subject matter, makes us see an image one way, while others might view it differently.

I was not trying to put anyone in particular down, because I don't think anyone on this forum produces the kinds of images I'm referring to. I view some street photos in the same way that I view fine art, especially if the photographer is well known or popular (*cough* Eric Kim *cough*). It's kind of a "THAT is considered good?" view. While I understand that there are reasons why it is considered a relevant or nice photo in its respective area, much of it does not appeal to me. I can't relate to a lot of it, because I see aesthetics in a different way.

HOWEVER, there are also street photographs that I can really appreciate the beauty, because they appeal both to my taste and to my emotions. It's kind of enigmatic...It's hard to explain.

This is the kind of street photography I like. Man on Earth

I think part of it comes from my opinion that documentation and street photography are two different things. I like to view street photography in an "art among the chaos" sort of way as opposed to a "go out and take pictures of odd people and situations" way, which is the approach that I think some people take...

You will probably like this street artist:

MissCoolpics - Joanna Lemanska, photographer

 

[shaylou]

I don't because I feel awkward. When I use to have a 70-200 on a DX body I did a few times since I was able to get more at a distance without them knowing. Even then I felt like I was violating someones privacy. I know that if you are out on a street wondering around you don't have any rights when it comes to getting your picture taken. I guess thats why paparazzi can do what they do. I also enjoying seeing it and think still would like to eventually like to give it a go again. There is something about capturing life as it is that is fascinating to look at. Some people do a real good job at capturing the moment. The moment of pain and happiness. I really like those old people shots that I see people taking in other countries in the slums.

You should give a go again. I love it. I recently went to Bangkok and Cambodia. Wow there was a place called the floating village in Cambodia that was a neighborhood on the water. Their streets were water and I have never been so excited to shoot. I also go to San Francisco one a year to street shoot. There are so many great place to shoot there. I always use a long lens and I go to places where there are a lot of people. That way it is easier to blend end. To me it has to be candid. Anyway you should give it a go.

 

[The_Traveler]

There were a couple of things brought up and I got 2 PMs with questions that I thought I would try and wrap it all up here.
Since this is all only my opinion, feel free to ignore.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
I think that all street photography can be described as falling into 1 of 4 general categories.

Patterns: the structures within the image are pleasing and enjoyable, whether black or white there is one or more patterns or a subject fits within a pattern and that structure is the subject. Think of doors, windows, etc. This is clearly the easiest kind of street work to do. Easy to see, easy to do, eventually boring. Like cotton candy, quick flash of enjoyment and then easily forgotten.
There is often not the pressure of time to get the work done and most of the time, you can come back to shoot again.

example:

Then of course there is People
Just a reasonably well-exposed images of people, not necessarily doing anything substantive or memorable but generally caught as a candid.
More difficult to find and catch - and of course it is shooting people.
Often times, lots of mood but generally the meaning is supplied by emotional response to the image.
More difficult because there may be time pressure to get the shot before it dissolves.

Photograhers will often think that just getting decently exposed or focused shots of people is enough.
Then turn it into B&W (beat the crap out of it to make it look interesting) and voila it is a good street shot.
It isn't, not more than dumping ingredients at random into a bowl and heating it makes a good cake.

There must be construction, with elements placed well - enough that the viewer can get into the shot easily.
The meaning or emotion may be ambiguous but it must engage the viewer so that they want to form an opinion or feel some resonance with the shot.

And there is the hardest category Polemic or Perspective where the photographer is trying to make a point or even to rant about it.
Not only are people and time but the meaning comes from the content; there is a definite point posed.
Clearly the most difficult because the photographer has to see the situation, then decide on a point and make it - all before the instant dissolves.

or

or

(There is one last category,Puzzles, where this impact is supposedly composed with many images, where each image may not be so important but the overall impact of the aggregate of work goes to form a style or meaning; I am very leery of strings of images constructs like that.
Too often, weak images individually are undeservedly given credit just because they form part of a body of work that has some supposed 'meaning.' Almost every renowned street photographer has work falls into this category.
Even Peter Turnley, in his book 'French Kiss' which is as lovely a set of pictures as I've ever seen has many images that are just spacers between the good ones.
Every time I've tried this, to work on a 'project', I end up dropping it because the pictures vary in quality or tone so much that the sense of unity disappears.)


For me, going out to shoot pictures is like trying to illustrate a story but a story I must make up from what I see as I go along.
Many times I put myself in situations where I have some sense of what the story might be, as the three above, but if I am just wandering around the streets, as I see things that engage me, I try and unite what I into some coherent idea and then shoot that idea before it disappears.

That's when luck happens - and the more attentive I am, the luckier I get. For me, shooting in a group, even just with another person is a waste of time because my concentration is gone.
It's like trying to play a video game and read a newspaper at the same time.

Sometimes the pictures I get are obvious and sometimes ambiguous, but the important thing is that the information be accessible, that the viewer sees what I am looking at.
I do everything I can in composition and post-processing to make that happen.
I emphasize the important things, put them where they will do the most good and minimize the impact of any elements that distract.

or

And while the actual final processing isn't nailed down, on my better shots, I generally know how I want to treat them - what is important and what must be made unimportant.

Often I would rather convert to B&W than deal with the colors affecting the viewer's perception, that is, if the colors aren't important to make the point or pull the viewer's eye.

To me, no focal length or sensor size or any technical issue is important unless it harms the viewer's experience.

I have taken out many people in small group work shots to shoot - and the results have been disappointing.
Not one of the people I've taken has really progressed into a good street shooter.
Many of them produce mechanically OK pictures but they seem to be missing the ability to recognize and capture really good shots.

I have come to think that without that tiny extra bit of innate ability, no amount of learning the mechanical skills and experience will suffice.
The great street photographers have it, and us not nearly as good ones can only be satisfied with what we have.

However, there is no feeling as satisfying as getting that great shot, that instant of meaning that hadn't disappeared because you've caught it.
Compared to that, not much else is as interesting or involving.

 

[limr]

This seems like a good place to share this link: London Underground in the 1970s/80s - Telegraph

 

[apaflo]

There were a couple of things brought up and I got 2 PMs with questions that I thought I would try and wrap it all up here.
Since this is all only my opinion, feel free to ignore.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
I think that all street photography can be described as falling into 1 of 4 general categories.

Lew I very much enjoy your webpage, and have read about half of your blog (right down to where you defined "Street Photography", and I also enjoy the way you write (nice attitude!). In particular, I like the great Street Photography in you're post.

However, your definitions of "Street" are not defining Street. You are defining specific styles of Street, but missing the specific definition of Street itself. In your blog you wander all around it, and never do nail it.

I don't think that is uncommon, and I do think that because so many people do the same thing it causes those who look at Street, and maybe try it, to be vastly confused about it.

Here is a definition from the London Festival of Photography which I think does nail it better than any other. I'll note that if you dig deep enough into "Bystander: A History of Street Photography" by Colin Westerbeck and Joel Meyerowitz they actually see it as almost exactly the same (but Meyerowitz is as guilty as anyone of describing his personal style when asked what Street Photography is).

"[...] un-posed, un-staged photography which captures, explores or questions contemporary society and the relationships between individuals and their surroundings." (Emphasis added.)

They go on to give added discussion:

"Street Photography does not need to include people although it usually does. [...] the key elements of spontaneity, careful observation and an open mind ready to capture whatever appears in the viewfinder are essential." Fotoura | London Festival of Photography - Fotoura

To that I would add that "Street Photography" is a misnomer because it need not be on an urban street, and need not even be on any street! It can be indoors or outside. There need not be shop windows, need not be some ironic conection between a window display and a person. The people pictured can be well aware of the photographer, with or without permission. It isn't people that are the subject, and it isn't their surroundings. Absent an image that effectively demonstrates the relationship between them, it just isn't Street.

All of these extra conditions might be the style of any given Street photog, but they need not be and they should never be ascribed to the definition of Street itself.

In your blog you state:

"I believe that a street photographer is there to capture the scene, as much as possible, without affecting it or being part of it. The practice of confronting people, ambushing them, startling them to get an image is wrong, I think, and certainly not useful. Photographers who do that aren't photographing a scene, capturing an instant, they are inventing it and their work is as false as if it were staged."

That is a terrific description of one style of Street Photography. But it doesn't define Street, as many very successful Street Photographers break one or more of those rules with regularity. Cartier-Bresson typically ambushed people with a staged circumstance set up before hand. Meyerowitz interacted as much as possible with many subjects. You and I perhaps don't do that, but it's hard to argue that doing so isn't ever useful!

The simplest and shortest and most accurate definition of Street Photography is that the subject of the photgraph is the relationship between people and their environment. And when the significance of that definition becomes clear, then any given person's style will be easier to encompass and more productive in practice.