"When Will Street Photography Grow Up?"

[runnah]

And if you want to explore the pinnacle of the genre, the true masters, Alex Webb books is not a bad place to start
Alex Webb Rebecca Norris Webb Photographs

Some really great ones in there that were very well composed. Some not so much. Like this one: Alex Webb Rebecca Norris Webb Photographs (image 5) I see nothing about this that is remarkable. Poor composition, no real subject. blurry people.

I'm surprised that Andre Kertesz doesn't get mentioned more often (and who, incidentally, often shot with a longer lens.)
andre kertesz street photographs - Google Search

10 Lessons Andre Kertesz Has Taught Me About Street Photography
Of course, in this article, Kim chooses some of Kertesz's photographs that aren't street photography at all.

Well see all of those have interesting subjects and compositions.

 

[sashbar]

And if you want to explore the pinnacle of the genre, the true masters, Alex Webb books is not a bad place to start
Alex Webb Rebecca Norris Webb Photographs

Some really great ones in there that were very well composed. Some not so much. Like this one: Alex Webb Rebecca Norris Webb Photographs (image 5) I see nothing about this that is remarkable. Poor composition, no real subject. blurry people.

I like this image, not his very best, but still it is very, very good, otherwise it simply would not be there. His own standarts are very high. Webb is a master of complicated not-so-obvious compositions where he bends the rules and shifts the accents to create certain moods. He has such an eye for a composition, I want to cry. Here he creates some sort of organised dynamic chaos with people moving in various directions at various speeds in their separate spaces that gives you an immediate feel of this aimless life of people locked in their boxes. It is very difficult to pull this shot in a constrained space with so many moving people. And on top of that he gives us a great white/blue/orange colour scheme with diagonals and two pieces of sky. There is lots going on in this image, it has great, great leading lines to a tree on the walls, it has frames inside a frame. It has a great subject in the lower part of the image, that guy in a white hat who is asking us questions... Believe me it is very good. Forget about the rule of thirds, his stuff is on a completely different level.

 

[runnah]

And if you want to explore the pinnacle of the genre, the true masters, Alex Webb books is not a bad place to start
Alex Webb Rebecca Norris Webb Photographs

Some really great ones in there that were very well composed. Some not so much. Like this one: Alex Webb Rebecca Norris Webb Photographs (image 5) I see nothing about this that is remarkable. Poor composition, no real subject. blurry people.

I like this image, not his vwry best, but still it is very, very good, otherwise it simply would not be there. His own standarts are very high. Webb is a master of complicated not-so-obvious compositions where bends the rules and shift the accents to create certain moods. He has such a eye for a composition, I want to cry. Here he creates some sort of organised dynamic chaos with people moving in various directions at various speeds in there separate spaces that gives you an immediate feel of this aimless life of people locked in their boxes. It is very difficult to pull this shot in a constrained space with so many moving people. And on top of that he gives us a great white/blue/orange colour scheme with diagonals and two pieces of sky. There is lots going on in this image, it has great, great leading lines to a tree on the walls, it has frames inside a frame. It has a great subject in the lower part of the image, that guy in a white hat who is asking us questions... Believe me it is very good. Forget about the rule of thirds, his stuff is on completelya different level.

You kind of just proved my point about making a sub-standard shot seem like more than it is by using special pleading.

I am very well versed about alternative forms of composition and still I struggle to find anything remarkable about that shot.

 

[sashbar]

And if you want to explore the pinnacle of the genre, the true masters, Alex Webb books is not a bad place to start
Alex Webb Rebecca Norris Webb Photographs

Some really great ones in there that were very well composed. Some not so much. Like this one: Alex Webb Rebecca Norris Webb Photographs (image 5) I see nothing about this that is remarkable. Poor composition, no real subject. blurry people.

I'm surprised that Andre Kertesz doesn't get mentioned more often (and who, incidentally, often shot with a longer lens.)
andre kertesz street photographs - Google Search

10 Lessons Andre Kertesz Has Taught Me About Street Photography
Of course, in this article, Kim chooses some of Kertesz's photographs that aren't street photography at all.

I do not rate Kim himself, he is a good blogger but as a street photographer he is a mere mortal like soo many with nothing extra special really. As for Kertesz images, and whether it is street photography or not, if you read my definition above, it is. There are no clear borders between genres, it all depends on how you look at the scene. If there are no people in the frame, but feel thier presence in aorse that someone just put on a table it is still "people and the environment they create", it can be a street ptotography to me. Or you can shoot it differently and all od a sudden there is not a trace of human beings and all what is left is still life. It is open to interpretations.

 

[fjrabon]

All I know is the greatest density of pretentious dicks are found in the "street" photography group.

"Oh my shot of a guy siting on a bench drinking coffee is profound art!"

Street photographers are by and large people pointing their cameras at certain types of things and processing their photos in certain types of ways.

Not sure why there is a need to belittle people's character based on what they point their cameras at and what buttons they push in Photoshop.

We've had a few examples here of boring shots that were nothing more than snapshots only to have the photography go on and on about how their photo was a masterpiece and us non "street" people didn't "get" it.

That is what bothers me about the genre.

How is this different from any other genre? I've seen plenty of wannabe commercial photographers do the same, and attack the credentials of anybody who suggests their work isn't perfect.

 

[sashbar]

And if you want to explore the pinnacle of the genre, the true masters, Alex Webb books is not a bad place to start
Alex Webb Rebecca Norris Webb Photographs

Some really great ones in there that were very well composed. Some not so much. Like this one: Alex Webb Rebecca Norris Webb Photographs (image 5) I see nothing about this that is remarkable. Poor composition, no real subject. blurry people.

I like this image, not his vwry best, but still it is very, very good, otherwise it simply would not be there. His own standarts are very high. Webb is a master of complicated not-so-obvious compositions where bends the rules and shift the accents to create certain moods. He has such a eye for a composition, I want to cry. Here he creates some sort of organised dynamic chaos with people moving in various directions at various speeds in there separate spaces that gives you an immediate feel of this aimless life of people locked in their boxes. It is very difficult to pull this shot in a constrained space with so many moving people. And on top of that he gives us a great white/blue/orange colour scheme with diagonals and two pieces of sky. There is lots going on in this image, it has great, great leading lines to a tree on the walls, it has frames inside a frame. It has a great subject in the lower part of the image, that guy in a white hat who is asking us questions... Believe me it is very good. Forget about the rule of thirds, his stuff is on completelya different level.

You kind of just proved my point about making a sub-standard shot seem like more than it is by using special pleading.

I am very well versed about alternative forms of composition and still I struggle to find anything remarkable about that shot.

there is no need for a special pleading for someone to like Alex Webb work If you do not see anything remarkable here, it is not his problem

I really want to buy this image and put it on the wall, but being a real Scrooge just can not part with several hundreds of bucks for a picture
I hope you like this:
Alex Webb Rebecca Norris Webb Photographs

 

[limr33 3]

I do not rate Kim himself, he is a good blogger but as a street photographer he is a mere mortal like soo many with nothing extra special really. As for Kertesz images, whether is is street photography or not, if you read my definition above, it is. There are no clear borders between genres, it all depends on how you look at the scene. If tehre are no people in the frame, but feel thier presence in aorse that someone just put on a table it is still "people and the environment they create", it can be a street ptotography to me. Or you can shoot it differently and all od a sudden there is not a trace of human beings and all what is left is still life. It is open to interpretations.

I never said Kertesz's images weren't street photography. I just thought it funny that someone (anyone - it wasn't a comment on Kim specifically) would write a blog post specifically about street photography but then try to illustrate some of his points with images that were clearly still life, not street. I don't consider the picture of the staircase or the fork to be 'street' but certainly some of the other pictures used in that post were.

If you see my definition above, an indoor scene without any people can absolutely make a commentary, but for me, that's part of the wider genre, not part of the smaller street photography subgenre.

 

[bribrius]

i like weeding them out. IN any genre. Anyone can pull out a visa and buy a camera. And photography is so prevalent now it is full of wannabees. I am a huge bias against much photoshop for example (not all). I have actually gone back and unliked things on multiple websites if i found out the photoshopped a certain photo (mostly in doc type work). IN street, yuppie buys a 5k camera and suddenly thinks between that and photo shop he will go slum it for a day and maybe find some great street shots. Stuff like that, i put right in the mental trash bin. I am totally, biased, in some ways. I will admit that. Just like i favor people that shoot film. I think film "weeded" a lot of them out. NOT that i can't "like "certain things. But just because someone comes up with a certain photo "oh wow, that is neat" doesn't mean it holds any value for me. Yep, okay it is "neat". It is also mostly b.s.. Trashbin. Next. I wanna see something REAL.

 

[sashbar]

I do not rate Kim himself, he is a good blogger but as a street photographer he is a mere mortal like soo many with nothing extra special really. As for Kertesz images, whether is is street photography or not, if you read my definition above, it is. There are no clear borders between genres, it all depends on how you look at the scene. If tehre are no people in the frame, but feel thier presence in aorse that someone just put on a table it is still "people and the environment they create", it can be a street ptotography to me. Or you can shoot it differently and all od a sudden there is not a trace of human beings and all what is left is still life. It is open to interpretations.

I never said Kertesz's images weren't street photography. I just thought it funny that someone (anyone - it wasn't a comment on Kim specifically) would write a blog post specifically about street photography but then try to illustrate some of his points with images that were clearly still life, not street. I don't consider the picture of the staircase or the fork to be 'street' but certainly some of the other pictures used in that post were.

If you see my definition above, an indoor scene without any people can absolutely make a commentary, but for me, that's part of the wider genre, not part of the smaller street photography subgenre.

I think it is very contextual. If you include this photo into a body of his more obvious street work, it will nevertheless look organic. As i said, ther are no strict borders and sometimes we see how a new thriving genre or a particularly ifluential artist "privatises" bordering genres imposing its own aestetic principles. I think this is all very fluid.

 

[sashbar]

i like weeding them out. IN any genre. Anyone can pull out a visa and buy a camera. And photography is so prevalent now it is full of wannabees. I am a huge bias against much photoshop for example (not all). I have actually gone back and unliked things on multiple websites if i found out the photoshopped a certain photo (mostly in doc type work). IN street, yuppie buys a 5k camera and suddenly thinks between that and photo shop he will go slum it for a day and maybe find some great street shots. Stuff like that, i put right in the mental trash bin. I am totally, biased, in some ways. I will admit that. Just like i favor people that shoot film. I think film "weeded" a lot of them out. NOT that i can't "like "certain things. But just because someone comes up with a certain photo "oh wow, that is neat" doesn't mean it holds any value for me. Yep, okay it is "neat". It is also mostly b.s.. Trashbin. Next. I wanna see something REAL.

You are not biased, because what you are describing is a FACT. There are lots and lots of people who have learned to use a camera and can not shoot. Same way there are (fewer) many people who have put a lot of effort and learned how to paint but can not paint. That is not their fault at all, they want to create something but they are just not creative. You can not learn a talent. You can not buy it in a camera shop. And it is perfectly OK, talent is not compulsory. Lots of people do photography, they enjoy it, they do it for themselves first of all, and I think it is great. You do not have to pay for their images and pictures, why worry. Hey, after all it is better to take pictures than do drugs and steal. I think we all need to learn to be more tolerant and positive in this respect. And if you want to see something REAL, what is the problem? There is a lot of real photography on the net.

 

[Write Lighting]

First of all, I logged back in to find 13 notifications that my post was quoted. Yikes, what's going on??

I think basic post processing is fine, but more than that, as fjrabon has been arguing, then brings the photo into the realm of Something Else.

Personally, I consider street photography to be the subgenre, not the genre. I would consider it a subgenre of photojournalism. There are a lot of photographs that capture humans in their environment with an intent of capturing not just an image but some sort of commentary or truth about our existence. When these images are taken in an urban setting, that's when it becomes "street."

It should go without saying that this is just a personal definition that I work with, and don't expect that others need to follow it. It's just how I look at things.

I was thinking this as well. It seems that most people hold street photography to similar standards as photojournalism. It definitely feels like a subgenre of photojournalism at least. The only time I hear street photography not talked about in this way is when someone like the photographer in the article tries to break down the idea of what street is all about.

 

[bribrius]

i like weeding them out. IN any genre. Anyone can pull out a visa and buy a camera. And photography is so prevalent now it is full of wannabees. I am a huge bias against much photoshop for example (not all). I have actually gone back and unliked things on multiple websites if i found out the photoshopped a certain photo (mostly in doc type work). IN street, yuppie buys a 5k camera and suddenly thinks between that and photo shop he will go slum it for a day and maybe find some great street shots. Stuff like that, i put right in the mental trash bin. I am totally, biased, in some ways. I will admit that. Just like i favor people that shoot film. I think film "weeded" a lot of them out. NOT that i can't "like "certain things. But just because someone comes up with a certain photo "oh wow, that is neat" doesn't mean it holds any value for me. Yep, okay it is "neat". It is also mostly b.s.. Trashbin. Next. I wanna see something REAL.

You are not biased, because what you are describing is a FACT. There are lots and lots of people who have learned to use a camera and can not shoot. Same way there are (fewer) many people who have put a lot of effort and learned how to paint but can not paint. That is not their fault at all, they want to create something but they are just not creative. You can not learn a talent. You can not buy it in a camera shop. And it is perfectly OK, talent is not compulsory. Lots of people do photography, they enjoy it, they do it for themselves first of all, and I think it is great. You do not have to pay for their images and pictures, why worry. Hey, after all it is better to take pictures than do drugs and steal. I think we all need to learn to be more tolerant and positive in this respect. And if you want to see something REAL, what is the problem? There is a lot of real photography on the net.

suppose it just annoys me looking through some of them. "this is street". Uhh. I don't think so. Street is doc photography in my mind. Street is for shooters.

 

[AlanKlein85 2]

I thought the photographer the OP referenced to be actually pretty good even though he has less than two years experience. He's got a good eye for street photography. I enjoyed looking at all his photos. I also understood his piece about promoting each photographer's creativity - that we didn't have to copy the past masters "rules" or "styles" although there's nothing wrong with showing them respect. But what he said was to let your creativity soar. I don;t think many of the people who commented here even read it. There's nothing controversial in what he said.

 

[sashbar]

i like weeding them out. IN any genre. Anyone can pull out a visa and buy a camera. And photography is so prevalent now it is full of wannabees. I am a huge bias against much photoshop for example (not all). I have actually gone back and unliked things on multiple websites if i found out the photoshopped a certain photo (mostly in doc type work). IN street, yuppie buys a 5k camera and suddenly thinks between that and photo shop he will go slum it for a day and maybe find some great street shots. Stuff like that, i put right in the mental trash bin. I am totally, biased, in some ways. I will admit that. Just like i favor people that shoot film. I think film "weeded" a lot of them out. NOT that i can't "like "certain things. But just because someone comes up with a certain photo "oh wow, that is neat" doesn't mean it holds any value for me. Yep, okay it is "neat". It is also mostly b.s.. Trashbin. Next. I wanna see something REAL.

You are not biased, because what you are describing is a FACT. There are lots and lots of people who have learned to use a camera and can not shoot. Same way there are (fewer) many people who have put a lot of effort and learned how to paint but can not paint. That is not their fault at all, they want to create something but they are just not creative. You can not learn a talent. You can not buy it in a camera shop. And it is perfectly OK, talent is not compulsory. Lots of people do photography, they enjoy it, they do it for themselves first of all, and I think it is great. You do not have to pay for their images and pictures, why worry. Hey, after all it is better to take pictures than do drugs and steal. I think we all need to learn to be more tolerant and positive in this respect. And if you want to see something REAL, what is the problem? There is a lot of real photography on the net.

suppose it just annoys me looking through some of them. "this is street". Uhh. I don't think so. Street is doc photography in my mind. Street is for shooters.

Half a century ago Henry Cartier Bresson drew a very clear line between street photography and documentary. Documentary is about facts. Facts are boring. Street photography has nothing to do with facts. It has no obligation to explain anything, to tell the truth or to even interpret it. For HCB it was a pure intellectual exercise in creating lines and spaces and movements. I think it is worth to bear in mind even if you do not follow his school of thought.

 

[bribrius]

i like weeding them out. IN any genre. Anyone can pull out a visa and buy a camera. And photography is so prevalent now it is full of wannabees. I am a huge bias against much photoshop for example (not all). I have actually gone back and unliked things on multiple websites if i found out the photoshopped a certain photo (mostly in doc type work). IN street, yuppie buys a 5k camera and suddenly thinks between that and photo shop he will go slum it for a day and maybe find some great street shots. Stuff like that, i put right in the mental trash bin. I am totally, biased, in some ways. I will admit that. Just like i favor people that shoot film. I think film "weeded" a lot of them out. NOT that i can't "like "certain things. But just because someone comes up with a certain photo "oh wow, that is neat" doesn't mean it holds any value for me. Yep, okay it is "neat". It is also mostly b.s.. Trashbin. Next. I wanna see something REAL.

You are not biased, because what you are describing is a FACT. There are lots and lots of people who have learned to use a camera and can not shoot. Same way there are (fewer) many people who have put a lot of effort and learned how to paint but can not paint. That is not their fault at all, they want to create something but they are just not creative. You can not learn a talent. You can not buy it in a camera shop. And it is perfectly OK, talent is not compulsory. Lots of people do photography, they enjoy it, they do it for themselves first of all, and I think it is great. You do not have to pay for their images and pictures, why worry. Hey, after all it is better to take pictures than do drugs and steal. I think we all need to learn to be more tolerant and positive in this respect. And if you want to see something REAL, what is the problem? There is a lot of real photography on the net.

suppose it just annoys me looking through some of them. "this is street". Uhh. I don't think so. Street is doc photography in my mind. Street is for shooters.

Half a century ago Henry Cartier Bresson drew a very clear line between street photography and documentary. Documentary is about facts. Facts are boring. Street photography has nothing to do with facts. It has no obligation to explain anything, to tell the truth or to even interpret it. For HCB it was a pure intellectual exercise in creating lines and spaces and movements. I think it is worth to bear in mind even if you do not follow his school of thought.

i prefer a mix. Otherwise you end up with a greatly composed neat photo that isn't worth much. This is where i believe street photography really started. Just since then we added better composition and more interest. (1800's photo).