Street Photography

molested_cow

TPF Supporters
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2004
Messages
3,714
Reaction score
531
Location
Here N There
Website
img24.photobucket.com
This is an age old question. Street photography is my favorite genre of photography, because it's really hard to get a really good one. It's not just about technical ability, but the eye to see something deeper than just the physical appearance and also, lot's of luck. However street photography can be very controversial. Privacy, dignity, respect for the people who you have photographed. And in today's world of social media, the context of images can be interpreted in any way that is out of the control of the photographer. For me, I've taken many photos that I like a lot, but made the choice not to share them out of respect for the subjects. However finding details that are in plain sight that only you, and not anyone else, sees, and providing a unique presentation of this seemly common event is such a fascinating challenge that keeps me going back to my nifty fifty.

Anyways, here's a video I came across on youtube that I thought made a good point. What do you think?

 
He makes some very good points, particularly about relating to the people you are photographing. I've always struggled with the ethics of street photography. There is a fine line between creating a great image and being an obtrusive ass.
 
A few of mine do make fun of people and their idiosyncrasies. But they did stir something in me that forced me to take the shot. I like a good laugh. But, maybe I shouldn't do those type. On the other hand, people are funny, unusual, crazy, and unconventional. They do weird and interesting things that point out their humanness, warts and all. If we eliminated these pictures from "street" shots, we wouldn't be getting the full picture of who we are. We would be looking at a sanitized view that in itself is tainted and narrow and phony.

What do you think?
 
I don't think refraining from making fun of people we don't know on the street is "sanitizing" anything. Sometimes not taking the shot does a better job of showing humanity - what may be funny and interesting to a photographer might be deeply humiliating to the subject of the image. I personally am not willing to make that decision for another person. If I have ANY doubt about my motives or what I'm seeing, I don't take the shot.

This video basically nails how I feel about street photography. The guy at the start of the video who was getting in people's faces? Yeah, I wanted to punch him in the throat. That's the kind of street photography that I feel has nothing to do with the subject and everything to do with the photographer's ego. He's not trying to capture any sort of common truth or humanity, but just trying to prove his daring.

It's one thing when Robert Capa says "If your pictures aren't good enough, you aren't close enough." He was a friggin' war photojournalist - of course you have to be close to the action to get good pictures of the action! But then street photographers decided that this should be their mantra as well, and so those who took images from a distance with longer focal lengths or shot and cropped wide to show a larger context were often told they were 'cheating.' That's pure and utter shite. You don't have to be right on top of a person to tell a story, which is what every street image should do.

Another photographer similar to Fan Ho was André Kertész. His street photography was about patterns, people in their environment, isolation even in a crowded city. So much more compelling than a Winograd shot.
André Kertész
 
Last edited:
My favorite type of street photography is when people are truly trying to capture a story from a stranger. Unfortunately the "I want to go viral" crowd seems to be growing over the storytellers.
 
I never have to worry about annoying people with my street photography because 99% of the time they look like this.......

Kfv7cA6.jpg
 
Good video, gives some food for thought.
 
I took these in a town and posted them on Facebook of the town no complaints whats so ever but yeah so good judgement and commonsense is good practice.Couple i did recently and the gentleman walking i did from the hip which is not obvious to people when your very close with the camera at the waist side.
P1040622.jpg
P1040621.jpg
 
Gimme a big helping of Winogrand--NOW!
 
I don't think refraining from making fun of people we don't know on the street is "sanitizing" anything. Sometimes not taking the shot does a better job of showing humanity - what may be funny and interesting to a photographer might be deeply humiliating to the subject of the image. I personally am not willing to make that decision for another person. If I have ANY doubt about my motives or what I'm seeing, I don't take the shot.

This video basically nails how I feel about street photography. The guy at the start of the video who was getting in people's faces? Yeah, I wanted to punch him in the throat. That's the kind of street photography that I feel has nothing to do with the subject and everything to do with the photographer's ego. He's not trying to capture any sort of common truth or humanity, but just trying to prove his daring.

It's one thing when Robert Capa says "If your pictures aren't good enough, you aren't close enough." He was a friggin' war photojournalist - of course you have to be close to the action to get good pictures of the action! But then street photographers decided that this should be their mantra as well, and so those who took images from a distance with longer focal lengths or shot and cropped wide to show a larger context were often told they were 'cheating.' That's pure and utter shite. You don't have to be right on top of a person to tell a story, which is what every street image should do.

Another photographer similar to Fan Ho was André Kertész. His street photography was about patterns, people in their environment, isolation even in a crowded city. So much more compelling than a Winograd shot.
André Kertész

But he's Bruce Gilden and we're not. Don't believe he bought his way into Magnum. Not a fan either but he's no voyeur! Winogrand? Think you need to see "All Things Are Photographable."

 
Last edited:
I don't think refraining from making fun of people we don't know on the street is "sanitizing" anything. Sometimes not taking the shot does a better job of showing humanity - what may be funny and interesting to a photographer might be deeply humiliating to the subject of the image. I personally am not willing to make that decision for another person. If I have ANY doubt about my motives or what I'm seeing, I don't take the shot.

This video basically nails how I feel about street photography. The guy at the start of the video who was getting in people's faces? Yeah, I wanted to punch him in the throat. That's the kind of street photography that I feel has nothing to do with the subject and everything to do with the photographer's ego. He's not trying to capture any sort of common truth or humanity, but just trying to prove his daring.

It's one thing when Robert Capa says "If your pictures aren't good enough, you aren't close enough." He was a friggin' war photojournalist - of course you have to be close to the action to get good pictures of the action! But then street photographers decided that this should be their mantra as well, and so those who took images from a distance with longer focal lengths or shot and cropped wide to show a larger context were often told they were 'cheating.' That's pure and utter shite. You don't have to be right on top of a person to tell a story, which is what every street image should do.

Another photographer similar to Fan Ho was André Kertész. His street photography was about patterns, people in their environment, isolation even in a crowded city. So much more compelling than a Winograd shot.
André Kertész

But he's Bruce Gilden and we're not. Don't believe he bought his way into Magnum. Not a fan either but he's no voyeur! Winogrand? Think you need to see "All Things Are Photographable."



And why have you decided that I need to see this?
 
I really enjoy Vivian Maier. I think that street photography is necessary to capture the times that we live in, I love looking back on history. I'm not sure how ethical my street shots are, but I definitely connect and respect everything that I shoot. This video gives me food for thought.
 
...I shoot fast (probably too fast, heh) normally, but when I get in a "street" situation I find I'm slowing down alot! I have no qualms about asking an interesting human subject if I could capture their face, but, since I'm far from a "poser" and relish the candid in us all, those incidents are rare. So, whilst looking for interesting material, my mind wanders to the ethical...and I think that's healthy and, hopefully non-invasive. I gotta admit, though, I like a long lens! ;0)
 
The way I see it, we are journalists and artists. It's our job to tell the story of what's going on in the world in as skillful and beautiful a way as we can. People may not like having their photo taken, but good journalism is essential to a good society, and our efforts have great value. If my product is newsworthy in any sense, then I have no ethical qualms.

That said, if someone asked me to take down a photo of them, I would. And if the photo appears [to me] to be humiliating to the person, I wouldn't post or sell it to begin with.

I like hearing people's thoughts on this because I consider it a lot. Good discussion.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top