The Myths of Streetshooting - explained and mostly busted

[sashbar]

rexbobcat - I think I recognise the master behind this masterpiece ...

 

[sashbar]

Just to keep the conversation going... actually the idea of influencing the shot is more subtle if you start to think about it. It is not nessessary black and white (not intended). I have a picture here, which is not a 100% illustration of what I mean, but you will have the idea. The scene is basically unchanged: the girl in the middle is communicating with the seller, the other guy is watching his reaction, and the "peace" earring is a great focal point. But the other girl is looking at me. Does this eye contact mean "influencing the shot"? Has it become staged or posed? To a degree yes, I think. Will it look uninfluenced if I cut her out? Probably yes. It just illustrates that there are different degrees of influencing the shot..

 

[The_Traveler]

I think simplifying it add a lot more emphasis to the 'chocolate' sign.

 

[The_Traveler]

I think that good street photographs should show the photographer's intent. Either in the original composition of the re-framing in post, what the photographer is trying to make you look at should become obvious.
If not, then a street photograph becomes not too much more than a random set of things that the viewer must sort out rather than a statement of some sort.
In the original of the picture above, there are three interactions that are unrelated, not really in any hierarchy and aren't at all similar (so they don't work in synchrony to make a coherent point.) So, for me, I don't know what the photographer's point is.

In the crop, I chose to frame around the interaction that seemed the most important.

 

[sashbar]

I think that good street photographs should show the photographer's intent. Either in the original composition of the re-framing in post, what the photographer is trying to make you look at should become obvious.
If not, then a street photograph becomes not too much more than a random set of things that the viewer must sort out rather than a statement of some sort.
In the original of the picture above, there are three interactions that are unrelated, not really in any hierarchy and aren't at all similar (so they don't work in synchrony to make a coherent point.) So, for me, I don't know what the photographer's point is.

In the crop, I chose to frame around the interaction that seemed the most important.

Yes , I hear what you are saying.
I do not think that even really good street photographers are always consciously analysing the scene in order for it to represent their intent in the best possible way. I doubt it is possible in a fast moving environment. I think a lot of it is instinctive or subconscious , and some of us are just lucky to be able to see things more clearly than others. Of course, some styles of street shooting, like the one of Pascal R. allow for more meticulous preparation, framing etc. So yes, probably a lot of it is cropped or corrected in PP.
With the photo above I just saw the girl 'peace' earring lit by the sun and this gesture and just took a shot, there was no time for anything. I was thinking of cropping the other girl out and leaving just the three of them. I feel the other guy is a part of main interaction: the girl is provoking the front guys reaction and the other guy is watching for his reaction. To me the guy on the left is serving as a mirror: we do not see the front guys face, but we see the emotion of the other guy looking at him... It kind of becomes 3-dimentional and not as flat as just the two of them.
But that girl on the right looked like an absolute doll with unbelievable amount of makeup on her face. Let her stay there And the other reason why i would like her to stay is her white dress - it just expands the scale of black and white range of the photo and in my view balances the whole scene. Otherwise the white background spot on the left looks like the odd one out.
As for the "Chocolate" sign, I saw it, but the idea of a relation to the scene never crossed my mind..

 

[usayit]

OK, someone has to disagree or agree - am I talking in an empty room?

Well.....

Anyone who states the "definite", a "must", a "rule", etc .. in photography... is almost always wrong.

Its all about what the final intention and preference of the photographer. I also don't recall a lot of threads stating the "myths" you address... maybe I just missed them.

So as interesting the read is... it almost feels like its simply pointing out the obvious.




I personally like journalistic photos that tell a story.... I find it easier to do with wide and normal focal lengths to bring in the surroundings and atmosphere with a sense of space rather than a tight distant shot that isolates and feels as if the viewer is from afar.



oh yes... I HATE the term Street photography.... but that's a different topic.

 

[usayit]

We used to have a regular poster here on TPF....He lived in a big, western USA city...basically 9 out of 10 of his "street pictures" were of young females on the street, almost always with big, prominent bosoms, and skimpy skirts or shorts. When I mentioned that to him, that almost all of his shots seemed to be,well, basically "Hey, that young girl has some nice t*ts!" type of shots, he got pretty bent out of shape. Said that wasn't what his work was about. And yet...that what it was, over and over and over and over, for months on end...Stalking the streets for young females in short skirts, tight tank tops, or short-shorts, basically random girls and women, who happened to be walking around the city sidewalks when he came by with his camera.

Yes.. I remember that... very creepy. We also had a post or two from a member who turned out to be a cannibalistic killer..... he too claimed good intentions..

 

[sashbar]

OK, someone has to disagree or agree - am I talking in an empty room?

So as interesting the read is... it almost feels like its simply pointing out the obvious.
I personally like journalistic photos that tell a story.... I find it easier to do with wide and normal focal lengths to bring in the surroundings and atmosphere with a sense of space rather than a tight distant shot that isolates and feels as if the viewer is from afar.
oh yes... I HATE the term Street photography.... but that's a different topic.

I hope you are aware that the best street photography and journalistic photos often are completely different genres. I am just saying it because we may hate the term, but street photography definetely merits one. It can not be described as journalism.

 

[usayit]

I hope you are aware that the best street photography and journalistic photos often are completely different genres. I am just saying it because we may hate the term, but street photography definetely merits one. It can not be described as journalism.

Agree to disagree.... there are two sides of that and from years past experience.. it will never be agreed upon. Some of the most well known "street" photos are taken by photographers that always referred to themselves as journalists. V-J Day photo for example. I'm not old and I never heard the term in wide use when I started as a young kid.

 

[sashbar]

I hope you are aware that the best street photography and journalistic photos often are completely different genres. I am just saying it because we may hate the term, but street photography definetely merits one. It can not be described as journalism.

Agree to disagree.... there are two sides of that and from years past experience.. it will never be agreed upon. Some of the most well known "street" photos are taken by photographers that always referred to themselves as journalists. V-J Day photo for example. I'm not old and I never heard the term in wide use when I started as a young kid.

Sure. Simply because it is so broad and diverse we can always find reasons to disagree or agree, depending on what we mean by "Street photography". I am personally with the great man himself here (HCB), who as you know was in love with his street photography, even though he may never heard the term, but had no interest whatsoever in photo journalism. He said he had no interest at all in a real story, the real story is boring. It just struck me when I heard it first time - how true. And I have 30 years of professional journalism behind my back. I have coined the difference for myself: a photo journalism does not GIVE you a story - it presents a story, the story is there and it is not yours, it is set in stone and belongs to the people in the frame. A street photography in HCB mould is presenting you with stories of your own. You can invent your own story, because there is always something uncertain, untold, unfinished, it just opens your imagination. And that's why you would come back to these images again and again, unlike even the best photo journalism. Photo journalism does not allow any space for your imagination, the more definite and complete the story is, the better is a photo journalists image. You may again, disagree, but this is how I personally separate these two genres at their best.

 

[usayit]

"You invent your story" == failure to tell one.

Sorry... couldn't help myself... must move on and avoid a pending debate on an unrelated topic. Been through this debate, nothing you present is new to me. I know what you are saying.. heard it before... but many self claimed "street photographers" would have a different definition which is part of the issue. In the struggle to differentiate from modern photojournlism, the term is unspecific and thus definition vary widely from person to person.

I study HCB quite a bit... I find a lot of inspiration from his work. He never referred to himself as anything than a photojournalist or just plain photographer.

 

[sashbar]

"You invent your story" == failure to tell one.

Yes, that is a perfect journalistic approach. From that point of view Henry Cartier Bresson was an epic failure.

 

[usayit]

Far from epic failure.... just you use of his work to your "coined" definition.

""To me, photography is the simultaneous recognition, in a fraction of a second, of the significance of an event as well as of a precise organization of forms which give that event its proper expression." - HCB

"event its proper expression"... story.


By your definition, André Kertész is a street photographer of sorts. The key here, is that the distinction is so loose that you have to coin your own definition... and pretty much every self proclaimed street photographer finds a need to do the same. What many boil it down to is documenting human behavior versus situational. I'm not convinced that human behavior is not situational.


<< note to self... you already said agree to disagree.... stop.

 

[sashbar]

Far from epic failure.... just you use of his work to your "coined" definition.

""To me, photography is the simultaneous recognition, in a fraction of a second, of the significance of an event as well as of a precise organization of forms which give that event its proper expression." - HCB

"event its proper expression"... story.


By your definition, André Kertész is a street photographer of sorts. The key here, is that the distinction is so loose that you have to coin your own definition... and pretty much every self proclaimed street photographer finds a need to do the same. What many boil it down to is documenting human behavior versus situational. I'm not convinced that human behavior is not situational.


<< note to self... you already said agree to disagree.... stop.

Thanks usayit, yours are very valid points. As for "situational" - I still think it is a bit deeper than that. Yes it is situational, but different people behave differently in similar situations. And this is exactly the reason why they are so interesting.

 

[usayit]

And thank you for probably the most civilized discussion on the topic..... agree to disagree in a very openly minded way.