Novelty in street photography

[rexbobcat]

I know these threads have been beaten to death, but I haven't seen one about this so I thought I would open up a discussion thing. And I'm not a scholar on this stuff, so I'm just going by observations. I'm probably getting in over my head but whatevs

From what I have seen, there are three kinds of street photography: compositional, subject, and situational/commentary.

Yes, I know that street photography is so broad and somewhat vague that there aren't just three kinds, but when looking at the general pool of photos on Flickr and 500px, most seem to fit these three categories or they overlap between them.

So like, compositional is when the focus is the lighting and forms within the photo. this is fairly common since geometry is often very easy for photographers to pick up.

Subject is basically like...street portraiture. The peculiarity/uniqueness of the subject is what creates the interest in the photo. This is often the case in photos of the homeless.

And situational, which is more photojournalistic and relies more on the interactions within the photo. I would also put some of those photos that use signs as social commentary into this category.

 

[rexbobcat]

(Cont'd before I lose track of where I am and have a huge block of rambling text)

So basically, what I'm asking is why the the novelty of an unusual human/dog/whatever in the second type kind of...excuses it in many ways. Like with people who emulate Bruce Gilden or photograph the homeless but don't bring anything more than the novelty of the subject to the table.

I'm just curious on others' thoughts, because we always critique portraits on elements such as composition, lighting, and so on, but when it comes to street photography, it seems like a lot is forgiven on the part of the photographer.

And as such, coupled with the vague nature of what street photography (particularly GOOD street photography) is, makes it seem like it's difficult to excel within the genre because it doesn't seem like a lot of people are hesitant to say that a person's centered blown out portrait of an older black man smoking a pipe, isn't very good.

I'm not trying to rag on anyone who does street portraits, because there are those who take them very, very well. But when I take a rather mundane, poorly lit portrait of someone, regardless of how interesting, I always just think

"This is so lacking technically and contextually. I'm not making anyone care about this person, other than the fact that they look interesting.

 

[photoguy99]

I think that's a perfectly fair and reasonable way to chop the big category of modern "street photography" up.

Probably a little more to it, though. There are generally people in the frame, so things like architectural geometry aren't generally street even in the broadest definitions. If there are no people there are indications of people, there are, I dunno, implied people or something. Anyways. People.

There's a lot of street which is about capturing what the people in the frame consider the right moment, the instant of the kiss, the open-mouthed yell, the fist striking the face, the car rounding the corner. There's other street in which the people in the frame are unconscious of the particularity of that particular moment. The first is, perhaps, your idea of "subject" and the second is perhaps "form/composition" or at any rate there's a lot of overlap.

The subject might be conscious of the camera, or not. In street portraiture, the subject is, and the "moment" is one that all the players understand, it's the moment when the camera goes CLICK and the subject does his or her best to look.. interesting, or whatever.

Whether the subject is aware of the camera or not, it's extremely tough to make something interesting here. We've seen it all before, and we've seen it done better. Finding something new to say, something new to show us, is kind of the name of the game here.

Doing formal portraits you spend time, digging, to get something of the sitter into the photo. Or at any rate what you and the sitter agree ought to be revealed. Maybe you use simple props, maybe you spend hours with lights and psychology to get the right, revealing, look. And then you shoot. And if you've done well you have something individual and unique, you have a statement about the sitter.

On the street you've only got a moment, and you don't know this person anyways, and you're not working on anything. So you're making a statement, perhaps, but it's a stock statement drawn from a very small playbook, and as such it's not interesting. If your subject is aware, your subject is certainly going to try to make a statement of their own. Striking a pose, or ostentatiously not, or whatever. But given only a moment, the subject can only make an obvious and simple statement. I Am Pitiful. I Am A Badass. I Am Hot. Whatever. If the subject isn't aware, then it's all on you, and again, there's not a lot you can do.

Something I keep coming back to is repeated actions. There are things which occur over and over. Let's say construction workers catcalling. You could hang out all afternoon shooting that repeated event, and maybe get something pretty good. But now we're starting to verge OFF of pure "subject" stuff into social commentary stuff.

So, pure subject, making a new and interesting statement, all in a moment? I dunno. It's tough.

 

[Designer]

rexbobcat; I think the third category would include "the decisive moment". And I would move "situational" up to the second category and put juxtaposition in there with it. Such as when you see people lined up at a soup kitchen standing in front of a billboard extolling the virtues of living in a wealthy country. So a little more "static" for category 2.

And compositional, category #1 would include line, form, texture, etc. but probably very little of the human element included.

And the reason some critics seem to "forgive" a poorly-executed shot is because it has captured the essence of a moment in time that is not soon to be replicated.

 

[rexbobcat]

rexbobcat; I think the third category would include "the decisive moment". And I would move "situational" up to the second category and put juxtaposition in there with it. Such as when you see people lined up at a soup kitchen standing in front of a billboard extolling the virtues of living in a wealthy country. So a little more "static" for category 2.

And compositional, category #1 would include line, form, texture, etc. but probably very little of the human element included.

And the reason some critics seem to "forgive" a poorly-executed shot is because it has captured the essence of a moment in time that is not soon to be replicated.

Yeah, the reason I added the human element is because street photography generally includes people, even if only in suggestion, otherwise it's just...architectural or abstract photography.

But I know that poor execution is often overlooked because of the impact of the overall photo, but what I'm talking about specifically is the street portraiture type of photography where a person takes a shallow DOF, backlit portrait of a fat lady because she's sooooooo fat just look at her, and it's seen as being acceptable because the subject is interesting enough to carry the photo, even though the photo itself isn't really saying anything other than "lol fat lady."

I began thinking on this because I went to a photographer's website where he had some really great fashion photos. nice complementary colors. Contrasty, well composed black and whites that are cool to look at.

And then I went to his street photography and the first image I noticed was a blurry black and white image of a kid in the subway presumably shot on film that was composed not-so-well.

And then the homeless projects, where a photographer takes super close up photos of homeless people, nothing more - just....pictures of people who look dirty and downtrodden for the sake of novelty and exoticism.

That's what I'm referring to. It might seem like "Well taking a spontaneous, well composed image with an interesting subject is reeeaaallllyyyy hard since I can't completely control the situation/outcome."

And all I can say is, yes, it is really hard. Which is part of the reason why I don't regularly shoot street photography, because it's so difficult that I don't want to have to make excuses for the lack in interest/technical quality of my photos.

 

[Torus34]

I'm inclined to go along with the Wikipedia(r) definition of street photography as photographs taken in public places which include people. I'd also suggest sub-divisions, but along different lines. One big duality would be posed and spontaneous.

There are many types of photographs which can be taken in public spaces which do not contain people. Photos of architectural details form a group, as do photos which rely upon composition for impact. Some can make a statement: consider a shot of a broken watch lying in the gutter.

But if we look at the work of the early titans of the genre the prints are almost without exception images of people. The prints show us all manner of aspects of the human condition. And that -- a mirror held up to ourselves -- is to me what street photography's all about.

Disclaimer: From time to time I can be found wandering about NYC with an old 35mm, my trusty Luna and a pocket full of ASA400 B&W film.

 

[sashbar]

There is a lot of trash in any kind of photography, and street photography is no different. There are zillions of dull, boring landscapes, horrible photographs of kids,animals and family members, pointless micros and lots of other stuff so bad, that the author feels compelled to mention that it was just "the lense test". I do not even want to start talking about pics of food and cats. And there are lots of people, who approach street photography in the exact same way. That is nothing new or surprising.

Granted, for every 1000 good, solid portrait photogs there is probably only one good, solid street portrait photographer. Simply because taking (unpaid) portraits of people who do not really want to be photographed, with the lighting conditions that you do not control, with lot of other unwanted people, cars and bycicles trying to get into the frame and spoil your party, and when on top of all that you have exactly 2 - 4 seconds to do it all, - well, it is technically a little bit more difficult than putting your light according to the book and photographing those who are willing to pose for hours as they were told. Street portraits often have different aestetics, technical criteria are often different, the context is often plays different role etc etc.

But having said all that, it does not mean though that mediocre, dull street portraits should be more acceptable.

I would advice not to look for street photography on flikr or 500x, go to more specialised sites like In-Public or Urban Picnic, or even better check the best. I think it is enugh to browse through Alex Webb and guys of his level photos to undertand what true street photography is these days.

As for trying to define what street photography is is reaaly akin of beating a dead horse. The one that is quite hostile and does not want to be beaten. And you only have 2-4 sec to beat the **** out of it.

Still, I do not quite understand what was the question.

 

[rexbobcat]

There is a lot of trash in any kind of photography, and street photography is no different. There are zillions of dull, boring landscapes, horrible photographs of kids,animals and family members, pointless micros and lots of other stuff so bad, that the author feels compelled to mention that it was just "the lense test". I do not even want to start talking about pics of food and cats. And there are lots of people, who approach street photography in the exact same way. That is nothing new or surprising.

Granted, for every 1000 good, solid portrait photogs there is probably only one good, solid street portrait photographer. Simply because taking (unpaid) portraits of people who do not really want to be photographed, with the lighting conditions that you do not control, with lot of other unwanted people, cars and bycicles trying to get into the frame and spoil your party, and when on top of all that you have exactly 2 - 4 seconds to do it all, - well, it is technically a little bit more difficult than putting your light according to the book and photographing those who are willing to pose for hours as they were told. Street portraits often have different aestetics, technical criteria are often different, the context is often plays different role etc etc.

But having said all that, it does not mean though that mediocre, dull street portraits should be more acceptable.

I would advice not to look for street photography on flikr or 500x, go to more specialised sites like In-Public or Urban Picnic, or even better check the best. I think it is enugh to browse through Alex Webb and guys of his level photos to undertand what true street photography is these days.

As for trying to define what street photography is is reaaly akin of beating a dead horse. That is quite hostile does not want to be beaten. And you only have 2-4 sec to bit the **** out of it.

Still, I do not quite understand what was the question.

I was just asking about a certain type of street photography that has become very popular that seems to promote mediocrity within the artistic aspect of the genre.

Like the example I gave of people who try to replicate Bruce Gilden or those who find "crazy" or "exotic" looking people on the street and pose them for a photo.

Whereas, for social statements, this kind of shooting can be very helpful if given journalistic context like with the MEGA popular Humans of New York, in a fine art sense, I'm struggling to understand where the line is between a random amateur street portrait and a well-shot portrait since street photography, at least today, seems to circumvent a lot of the principles in other types of photography.

 

[rexbobcat]

Let me rephrase that. It's not the actual type of street photography that promotes mediocrity. It appears, to me, to be the community that promotes it within that type. Sorry.

I mean...There has to be some reason why new street photographers flock to Eric Kim (who is heavily inspired by Gilden), while he's loathed by those in other markets.

 

[gsgary]

Ive just subscribed to thjs magazine International Street Photographer | Documentary Photography | Photojournalism | Street Photography Magazine | ISP MAG lots of good stuff in it

 

[photoguy99]

There is a certain amount of acceptance of "novelty" or what is perceived as such, yeah. It's pretty unsavory, to my mind.

Diane Arbus made something of a career of it. Even, to an extent, Paul Strand did it 100 years ago. It made more sense then, because we hadn't actually seen these people. Now we've seen it all, and it all feels like copies of copies. At least, to me, and to people who've seen some photos. If one isn't that experienced with what's been done before, I think a certain sense of newness prevails.

They really haven't seen a homeless woman that fat before, they're never seen a photo anything like it. Mainly because the only photos they've ever looked at are oversaturated landscapes on 500px, and photoshops on deviantart.

But I suppose we should not deny them their pleasure in the novelty? I dunno. Maybe it really is all relative.

 

[sashbar]

Let me rephrase that. It's not the actual type of street photography that promotes mediocrity. It appears, to me, to be the community that promotes it within that type. Sorry.

I think street photography is a bit deceptive in that it looks very democratic and approachable, whereas in fact it is not.

 

[gsgary]

If anyone lives in Miami you have got the Miami street photography festival December 4-7 www.miamistreetphotographyfestival.org

 

[Designer]

I was just asking about a certain type of street photography that has become very popular that seems to promote mediocrity within the artistic aspect of the genre.

In art, as in nearly every other part of life, things are in a constant state of flux. What is hot now is hot mainly because it isn't yesterday's "hot".

And what is hot now won't be hot when something else becomes hot.

As far as being able to tell the difference between a crappy street shot and a very well done street portrait; just "trust the force". You'll know it when you see it.

 

[limr]

Perhaps technical errors are somewhat more forgiven in street photography because more emphasis is placed in the skill of "seeing" and understanding that there is often seconds, if not split seconds, between seeing a picture and taking a picture. Sure, there's a lot of garbage and people trying to excuse their lack of technical proficiency in a certain image, but not everyone can excel at both the seeing and the taking of the picture. Sometimes even great street photographers will get one better than the other.