Why is most street photography black and white?

This where i would disagree. I see lots of these type of "person walks infront of ad" photos. I don't really think they are street as you can just sit there and wait for a man/woman of various ages/race/income and form a story for each one, but it's not a genuine moment.
To me street tells a story that is more than just a chance passing of a billboard.

I lot of iconic Cartier-Bresson's images tell no story whatsoever. This is the fundamental difference between street photography and documentary. Documentary/journalism is dead if there is no story. Street photography is dead if all you think about is a story.
 
Last edited:
This where i would disagree. I see lots of these type of "person walks infront of ad" photos. I don't really think they are street as you can just sit there and wait for a man/woman of various ages/race/income and form a story for each one, but it's not a genuine moment.
To me street tells a story that is more than just a chance passing of a billboard.

I lot of iconic Cartier-Bresson's images tell no story whatsoever. This is the fundamental difference between street photography and documentary. Documentary is dead if there is no story. Street photography is dead if all you think about is a story.

Well and I may not be explaining myself properly. HCB has street photos but they are certainly more artistically pleasing.

I just find the walks in front of stuff photos super lazy and hamfisted attempts at telling a story.
 
The sign thing was always cheap, and now it's wildly overdone. As mentioned, it's easy. You set up and wait for a bit.

There's nothing of the classic 'street' tropes in it except perhaps a mild surrealist joke.
 
runnah, I hear what you are saying. These shots are tempting because it is easy. Referring to the "Hand In Hand" photo by Andreas, I posted "Hand In Hand" one as well, the one that you did not rate at all and so did the guys on Urban Picnic, so you must be right. Probably a meeh stuff and quite kitschy. But.. I like it - just because of the colour. If not the colour, there would have been nothing in it. B&W would have been seriously awful. But I like the colours here and therefore declare it a Street Shot. :allteeth:
Sorry, can not resist posting it again.. it relates to the subject of our discussion.. just turn away..

Man_and_Model_930.jpg
 
street photography. Photo of a street. BRI_8896.JPG
 
I can tell you that when I'm out making my baby steps into street, I like B&W in post because many times I can tweak the color channels in an image, make a red jacket darker, or the yellow ribbons stand out in a girls hair, etc. But aesthetically, I think it isolates the subject, and his environment and removes the distraction of color.
 
runnah, I hear what you are saying. These shots are tempting because it is easy. Referring to the "Hand In Hand" photo by Andreas, I posted "Hand In Hand" one as well, the one that you did not rate at all and so did the guys on Urban Picnic, so you must be right. Probably a meeh stuff and quite kitschy. But.. I like it - just because of the colour. If not the colour, there would have been nothing in it. B&W would have been seriously awful. But I like the colours here and therefore declare it a Street Shot. :allteeth:
Sorry, can not resist posting it again.. it relates to the subject of our discussion.. just turn away..

View attachment 91524
Yup - like it too! Maybe both our photos are a bit cliche, but they are not bad and they are street photography 100%!

And @sashbar: Your's is even in color :) Referring back to my original topic of this threat.
 
runnah, I hear what you are saying. These shots are tempting because it is easy. Referring to the "Hand In Hand" photo by Andreas, I posted "Hand In Hand" one as well, the one that you did not rate at all and so did the guys on Urban Picnic, so you must be right. Probably a meeh stuff and quite kitschy. But.. I like it - just because of the colour. If not the colour, there would have been nothing in it. B&W would have been seriously awful. But I like the colours here and therefore declare it a Street Shot. :allteeth:
Sorry, can not resist posting it again.. it relates to the subject of our discussion.. just turn away..

View attachment 91524
Yup - like it too! Maybe both our photos are a bit cliche, but they are not bad and they are street photography 100%!

And @sashbar: Your's is even in color :) Referring back to my original topic of this threat.
:biggrin:
 
the hard part of street photography is finding new and interesting content.
repeating work is like telling a old joke to the same audience.
It isn't your own work but a copy.

I understand new photographers have to start somewhere but everyone has stark trees against a colorful sky or a beach scene of a brilliant sunset.
Give me a break.
 
If you're shooting a witty gag of a person versus a sign, the one thing it isn't is street.

No matter how generous you are with the definition of street, surely there had to be some sense of depicting some truth, be it a surface truth or a deeper one, of what is actually there, of the event or interactions or life unfolding.

The gag is inherently false, and detracts from any truth you're showing.

Not to say HCB et al didn't shoot some gags. They did.
 
Not to say HCB et al didn't shoot some gags. They did.

So did many great street photographers.
"Surely there should be some depicting of truth.". Really?

Check City of a Hundred Names by Alex Webb. This is a photo book about Istanbul. A masterpiece. Is it depicting any truth about this Turkish city and it's street life?

Istanbul natives react to this book in a rather funny way - they are angry, accuse Webb of disrespect and claim that Webb images do not represent their city. They just do not recognise the place where they were born and lived.

I think it is in fact a great compliment. It is easy to depict reality with a camera. That is what it was made for. That is what every photo journalist can do. But it is so difficult to create reality with a camera. That is what Webb does so beautifully.

But his naive critics just could not tell photo journalism from street photography and did not understand his kind of street photography as a genre. They were looking for the truth or a story, some meaningful interactions, some recognisable characters and places and all that stuff that in HCB eyes was boring dull. Alex Webb did not give a damn about it. So did H. Cartier-Bresson. And that is why their work is timeless.

Of course their vision is way above witty gags. But the sad truth is so many can not see behind witty gags at all.
 
the hard part of street photography is finding new and interesting content.
repeating work is like telling a old joke to the same audience.
It isn't your own work but a copy.

I understand new photographers have to start somewhere but everyone has stark trees against a colorful sky or a beach scene of a brilliant sunset.
Give me a break.

:biggrin: Nothing new under the Sun.
 
William Klein was slatted for his 1956 book on New York because of the way he mad it look but I expect he was telling the truth
 

Most reactions

Back
Top